A Marion County jury watched impassively Tuesday afternoon as the attorney defending Joan Annette Mobley sparred verbally with the detective who arrested her on dozens of counts of aggravated animal cruelty.

Sheriff’s Detective Gene Hargis was dogged but polite as defense attorney Jes Beard accused him of mishandling the investigation and doctoring evidence in the Mobley case.

Ms. Mobley, 48, was arrested in 2005 after investigators found almost 150 dead, sick and/or neglected animals at the Perry Link shelter, which she operated, and at her home.

She was originally charged with 147 counts of aggravated animal cruelty, but a judge later dismissed some of the charges on the grounds that officers did not have a warrant to search her home. The judge also reduced her bond from $65,000 to $25,000.

Wednesday, Detective Hargis agreed that he did not secure the scene at Perry Link Memorial Humane Animal Society and prevent rescuers and reporters from viewing the mistreated animals there.

Further, he acknowledged that he has never questioned either Ms. Mobley or her daughter Krista about day-to-day operations at the shelter and who was responsible for what.

Unlike a homicide scene which would be secured so nobody could enter or leave the area, in order to preserve evidence that could help lead to a killer, Detective Hargis said his primary concern at Perry Ellis was to find help for the animals there.

“I wanted help from anywhere I could get it,” he said, adding that he believed publicizing the conditions in which the animals were living would attract people who wanted to adopt them and give them better lives.

He did not question Ms. Mobley, he said, because when he arrested her she immediately turned to her daughter and told her to “call the attorney and get the harassment suit started.” Attempting to question her after she had indicated she wanted an attorney would have violated the law, Detective Hargis said.

He said he has tried repeatedly to question Ms. Mobley’s daughter, who went into hiding after arrest warrants were issued for her. “She has been very hard to find,” he explained.

The exchange between the attorney and the detective grew heated when Mr. Beard asked Detective Hargis to examine three different photos of the same dead, decaying dog.

One of the photos, Mr. Beard noted, showed far more maggots on the dog’s body than were visible in the other two.

How did the detective explain that, he demanded, his voice dripping with sarcasm. Did somebody add more maggots to the dog’s body to make the photo more sensational?

Detective Hargis said he only took one of the three photos; the other two were taken a day later by an employee of the Humane Educational Society of Chattanooga. He could not explain the extra maggots, he said, because the photo that appeared to show them was taken by the HES worker.

Mr. Beard pounced. Demanding that the detective examine the backs of the three photos in question, the attorney noted that they had identical backstamps which indicated they had all been developed at the same time by Wolf Camera.

If the photos were taken at different times by different people, Mr. Beard asked, then why were they all developed at the same time?

Detective Hargis didn’t have an answer.

“I took mine to Wal-Mart to be developed,” he said.

But prosecutor Julia Sanders could and did explain.

After sorting through numerous photos taken by a variety of individuals, she said, she selected the ones she wanted to use as exhibits in the Mosley trial. Then she took the batch of selected photos to Wolf Camera and had a copy made of each one, and gave the copies to Mr. Beard.