Hot Dogs
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2008
- Messages
- 1,780
- Reaction score
- 1
As I understand it, rats ( and other small predatory animals, just using rat as example) have no compunction about what they devour.
Rats (nor any rodent) are not really predators per se. They are opportunistic omnivores and are primarily herbivorous. They will occasionally kill and eat small or baby animals. They are scavengers to a certain extent, and might feed on a human corpse under certain circumstances.
I think the circumstances of this particular incident would all but rule out the scenario of rodents feeding on a drugged corpse and then getting eaten by a snake which consequently dies from whatever drug.
Could it be:
Rat eats decomp. or ingests other CS toxin--> has chloroform or other toxins in system, is still mobile ---> snake eats moving and live rat before rat dies from poisoning ---->
Snake then dies from poisoning through secondary ingestion ( via rat).
We are talking about a body that had been dead for about 2 months. Rodents should have no interest in whatever is left of the decomposed flesh (if any) at that time. There is a fairly short length of time after death in which mammals and birds will feed on a corpse. Vultures are one of the very few animals that can and will feed on rotten flesh. Toxins are produced by bacteria and maggots, and scavenging animals will strictly avoid this. After the bones have dessicated (dried out), they may be gnawed on by rodents.
Kronk and his crew found the dead rattler on Aug 11. The photo shows a very recently dead snake. According to him, at that time, what he thought was the skull and bag (remains) were submerged in swamp water. A body submerged in swamp water is not a typical situation for mammals to be feeding on it - let alone one that has been dead for 2 months. Of course parts could have been scattered to areas that were not underwater.
It's my educated opinion that the snake did not die because it fed on an animal that was "poisoned" by previously feeding on any part of Caylee's body.
If LE is concerned with the snake, it's for a REASON. IMO.
Well, yes. They could have taken it because it is a piece of evidence found very near the body. It also supports the story told by Kronk. LE may have casually theorized that the snake could reveal linking forensic evidence 9as others have here). But that doesn't mean the idea is fully reasonable. I doubt anyone at OCSO who specifically ordered the taking of the snake has advanced knowledge of herpetology. I'm not saying it was wrong or stupid to take the snake. I just don't think it would produce any functional forensic evidence related to Caylee.