Tiger kills man at San Francisco Zoo (Part 3)

[mister happy]

Hey Ziggy, do you know what day and time Christine's show was on? KGO has an audio archive on their website, so I may be able to find it. I'd like to listen.

Edit - It's cool, I found the show. Thanks for the post!

 

[sissy's mom]

I am an animal lover, this is no big secret.
Any human who would urinate on a tiger deserves whatever punishment that said tiger is capable of dishing out. RIP Tatiana, you deserved so much better than being taunted by the inhuman garbage that was present on Christmas Day 2007.
I wholly agree with 's sentiment........way too many young punks and far too few Siberian tigers in this world!

At this point I agree,.. something is wrong with their story...

 

[cinsbythesea]

Hey Ziggy, do you know what day and time Christine's show was on? KGO has an audio archive on their website, so I may be able to find it. I'd like to listen.

Edit - It's cool, I found the show. Thanks for the post!

She was on Sunday morning - 1/20.

 

[kgeaux]

I was listening to local talk radio this weekend and surprising, the very liberal Christine Craft (sp?) on KGO was ranting against the young men.

Interesting things I hadn't heard before and, sorry, haven't been able to keep up with the whole thread but...
They possibly urinated on the tiger which allowed her to track them?

They were able to delete cell phone evidence

There was a 4th young man, (there is another "DaliWali" brother) according to witnesses and he may have been able to get rid of evidence.

Regardless, the public is very against these men.

Should the brothers be held liable for wrongful death? Did they push Carlos in front of the tiger and then run like babies and abondon him?

Interesting thoughts.

ziggy, the urination thing is a RUMOR. It was mentioned as a "possibility" by an animal expert who was throwing out ideas for what could have pissed Tatiana off enough to make her scale the wall. This belongs in the same catagory as the plank across the moat........it's just something somebody who was not there said, and now people are starting to repeat it and it is gaining a life of its own. Urinating on Tatiana has NEVER been mentioned by police officers or even by zoo officials. Tatiana was able to track the young men because Paul was bleeding from a head wound, dripping blood as he ran.

Did Christine mention how the brothers were able to delete evidence from their cell phones? Because the phones have been in police custody from day one, and I doubt officers let them visit the phones to erase content.

And what evidence did the fourth brother get rid of? Did she mention? I mean, did he run around the zoo picking up pine cones and returning them to the area where the pine trees grow?

Christine, like the public who is so angry at the brothers because they are "not good people," has fallen under the spell of the zoo's smoke screen. Think about this: It is ONLY because these "boys" have a past record and nasty dispositions that people are believing every "possibilty" the zoo and their experts are throwing out.

The TRUTH is that this zoo has had numerous problems in the past. The director has had MANY problems. His back is against the wall, and he is desperately trying (and with more success than I ever would have dreamed) to deflect attention away from the zoo and onto the victims. Just pretend for one moment that the victims were three kindergarteners. Would we be finding fault with them for throwing a pine cone? For yelling and acting stupid? No, we would not. We would all be up in arms because the zoo failed to contain Tatiana. If we could all divorce our emotions about the brothers from our analysis, we'd all come to the same bottom line.

I'm not sure if your comment about the brothers pushing Carlos into Tatiana's path came from you or Christine, but all evidence supports the fact that Paul and Carlos were extremely close friends, like brothers according to Carlos's momma. Brothers help one another. Much like how Paul has described: Carlos jumping in to try to save Paul when Tatiana first attacked. Close friends, brothers, do not push one another into a tiger's mouth; heck, even when Paul was being mauled, his older brother was near him, screaming for help. He didn't run away. NOTHING that has been said should lead anyone to believe these young men pushed Carlos into danger.

 

[Morag]

I don't believe the urination rumor, which seems to have begun in someone's imagination---but, my golly gosh, what a range and what an aim would have been required to do such a thing! Perhaps some gentleman will chime in and inform us as to whether such a thing is even remotely possible...

 

[LinasK]

The TRUTH is that this zoo has had numerous problems in the past. The director has had MANY problems. His back is against the wall, and he is desperately trying (and with more success than I ever would have dreamed) to deflect attention away from the zoo and onto the victims. Just pretend for one moment that the victims were three kindergarteners. Would we be finding fault with them for throwing a pine cone? For yelling and acting stupid? No, we would not. We would all be up in arms because the zoo failed to contain Tatiana. If we could all divorce our emotions about the brothers from our analysis, we'd all come to the same bottom line.

I'm not sure if your comment about the brothers pushing Carlos into Tatiana's path came from you or Christine, but all evidence supports the fact that Paul and Carlos were extremely close friends, like brothers according to Carlos's momma. Brothers help one another. Much like how Paul has described: Carlos jumping in to try to save Paul when Tatiana first attacked. Close friends, brothers, do not push one another into a tiger's mouth; heck, even when Paul was being mauled, his older brother was near him, screaming for help. He didn't run away. NOTHING that has been said should lead anyone to believe these young men pushed Carlos into danger.

I agree with you that the zoo director needs to be fired. However, 3 kidnergartners throwing pine cones would NOT have been enough to provoke Tatiana to escape, according to several animal experts.
I don't believe Paul was a good friend to Carlos or he wouldn't have lied to his dad, when his dad called and asked where he was, AND he would he provided SFPD with the victim's name!

 

[kgeaux]

I agree with you that the zoo director needs to be fired. However, 3 kidnergartners throwing pine cones would NOT have been enough to provoke Tatiana to escape, according to several animal experts.
I don't believe Paul was a good friend to Carlos or he wouldn't have lied to his dad, when his dad called and asked where he was, AND he would he provided SFPD with the victim's name!

I quoted Carlos's mother's beliefs and thoughts about Carlos's friendship with Paul. I guess you could take it up with her!

The animal experts have been wrong very often, Linas. In fact, they've been wrong almost everytime they opened their mouths! No board was needed for Tatiana to cross the moat. Experts said Tatiana could not have scaled the wall of the moat without a "leg up." That was false, too. They have repeatedly said the tiger would have to have been pissed off or provoked in order to make her escape, but the truth is that wild animals do unpredictable things every single day. (The leopard was trying to escape, and he wasn't provoked!) What was found in the moat was a pinecone, a small branch, two small stones, and a steel washer. None of that can be narrowed down to entering the moat on Christmas day, because the zoo refused to cooperate with LE investigation. So IF Tatiana was provoked, it doesn't seem to have taken much. The LE chief of police herself said nothing the brothers and Carlos did seems to have risen beyond what any group of kindergarteners do on any given day!

I do not find it implausible that Tatiana had repeatedly been trying to scale that wall, and on Christmas she made it. Her paws were bruised up, her claws were splintered. We have nobody's word that all that damage happened shortly before her death.

 

[SJP]

I have been following along and have seen photos of the tiger
house but I still have 2 questions. If the tiger jumped across
the moat would she have landed on the grassy area by the
viewers fence. If she didn't jump it does she have acess to
the moat or would she jump down there and then up.

 

[kgeaux]

I have been following along and have seen photos of the tiger
house but I still have 2 questions. If the tiger jumped across
the moat would she have landed on the grassy area by the
viewers fence. If she didn't jump it does she have acess to
the moat or would she jump down there and then up.

Hi, SJP! Welcome to the discussion.

The moat was empty of water, and the tigers do have access to it...in fact, I think Tatiana was walking IN the moat earlier in the day, according to one of the witnesses. I've read the moat measured 35 feet across, so I feel it is safe to say she didn't jump across the moat. She must have jumped UP from the floor of the moat onto the grassy area.

Nobody seems to have witnessed Tatiana's escape, except for the brothers and Carlos----and if the brothers' statements to Carlos's father are to be believed, then they didn't actually see Tatiana jump from the moat to the grassy area. Paul says she came out from behind a bush and attacked him. (Please note I said IF their statements are to be believed. They've got credibility problems.)

 

[Maybe So]

It is the zoo's responsibility to make sure that the Tiger can't get out and that zoo visitors can't get in. Period.

Yelling and waving at a tiger should not make it attack anyone. Good gosh I bet small children stand at the railing and yell and wave at the animals all the time.

A tiger shouldn't care if it is being verbally taunted...it doesn't understand english.

Even if a Zoo animal is provoked it should have no way of escaping it's enclosure and harming people.

If they were throwing things at the tiger then they would have deserved to be thrown out of the zoo or even charged with cruelty to animals. They did not however deserve to be attacked and mauled.

It is also too bad for the tiger but any animal that kills a person should be put down.

MHO

 

[LinasK]

Hi, SJP! Welcome to the discussion.

The moat was empty of water, and the tigers do have access to it...in fact, I think Tatiana was walking IN the moat earlier in the day, according to one of the witnesses. I've read the moat measured 35 feet across, so I feel it is safe to say she didn't jump across the moat. She must have jumped UP from the floor of the moat onto the grassy area.

Kgeaux, I believe the 35 feet is the width across of the moat, not the distance from the area where the tigers hang out to the pedestrian fence area.

 

[kgeaux]

Kgeaux, I believe the 35 feet is the width across of the moat, not the distance from the area where the tigers hang out to the pedestrian fence area.

Thanks, LinasK! I thought that's what I said, but sometimes my thoughts get muddled between my brain and my fingers!

 

[SJP]

Kgeaux, That was what I understood you to say When the tiger
came up out of the moat she was on the grassy area, right? Is there
a grassy area and then some bushes and then the viewer fence?
All the views seem a little different.

 

[txsvicki]

I was also wondering just how wide the grassy area is behind the fence before the moat begins? I've been thinking about the talk of the guys urinating on the tiger and don't see how that could happen. The moat would be too wide for anyone to urinate across and surely if Tatiana were down in the moat the guys wouldn't have been climbing over the fence and pulling out their penises with a tiger near.

 

[FlowerChild]

I quoted Carlos's mother's beliefs and thoughts about Carlos's friendship with Paul. I guess you could take it up with her!

The animal experts have been wrong very often, Linas. In fact, they've been wrong almost everytime they opened their mouths! No board was needed for Tatiana to cross the moat. Experts said Tatiana could not have scaled the wall of the moat without a "leg up." That was false, too. They have repeatedly said the tiger would have to have been pissed off or provoked in order to make her escape, but the truth is that wild animals do unpredictable things every single day. (The leopard was trying to escape, and he wasn't provoked!) What was found in the moat was a pinecone, a small branch, two small stones, and a steel washer. None of that can be narrowed down to entering the moat on Christmas day, because the zoo refused to cooperate with LE investigation. So IF Tatiana was provoked, it doesn't seem to have taken much. The LE chief of police herself said nothing the brothers and Carlos did seems to have risen beyond what any group of kindergarteners do on any given day!

I do not find it implausible that Tatiana had repeatedly been trying to scale that wall, and on Christmas she made it. Her paws were bruised up, her claws were splintered. We have nobody's word that all that damage happened shortly before her death.

Actually we have her keeper's word and the word of the vet. I can assure you that Tatiana was checked over from head to toe daily and she did not have bruised, bleeding scraped raw paw pads and splintered toenails in the morning when she was checked. Zoo animals are checked AT LEAST daily and we know Tatiana had just been fed when she attacked - feeding is a time when the animals can be checked out close up and Tatiana did not have any injuries when she was fed. She died with a stomach full of undigested meat.

Tatiana wanted out of the enclosure THAT BAD - and with a stomach full of meat. She should have been asleep - or resting. Those men did SOMETHING more than yell, run or act the fool.

My Opinion

 

[kgeaux]

Actually we have her keeper's word and the word of the vet. I can assure you that Tatiana was checked over from head to toe daily and she did not have bruised, bleeding scraped raw paw pads and splintered toenails in the morning when she was checked. Zoo animals are checked AT LEAST daily and we know Tatiana had just been fed when she attacked - feeding is a time when the animals can be checked out close up and Tatiana did not have any injuries when she was fed. She died with a stomach full of undigested meat.

Tatiana wanted out of the enclosure THAT BAD - and with a stomach full of meat. She should have been asleep - or resting. Those men did SOMETHING more than yell, run or act the fool.

My Opinion

I read what the keeper said, Flower. I don't recall reading any statements from the vet regarding "pre-escape" paw/claw inspection, but I'm fallible! IIRC, the zoo's press release about this was worded in a way that left open the possibility that not all the wear on the claws occured during the escape. I know I came away from the article thinking how finely crafted the wording was! I do agree that bleeding paws would be noticed when the animal was checked out, I do not know how much attention a keeper could be expected to give the bottom of the tiger's paws during feeding. The bottom of the paws wouldn't be visible at all! So bruising could have escaped attention. I also think the keeper would not notice gradual wear on the claws---the extreme wear and splintering seen after the escape was obvious, of course. But would gradual wear have been as obvious?

Although I concur that the three (or four?) young men were acting the fool, I do not necessarily believe that a wild animal needs an excuse to try to escape, and once escaped I KNOW it doesn't need an excuse to attack! I think no matter what these idiots did, she should not have been able to get out of her enclosure. That's the bottom line for me.

 

[FlowerChild]

I read what the keeper said, Flower. I don't recall reading any statements from the vet regarding "pre-escape" paw/claw inspection, but I'm fallible! IIRC, the zoo's press release about this was worded in a way that left open the possibility that not all the wear on the claws occured during the escape. I know I came away from the article thinking how finely crafted the wording was! I do agree that bleeding paws would be noticed when the animal was checked out, I do not know how much attention a keeper could be expected to give the bottom of the tiger's paws during feeding. The bottom of the paws wouldn't be visible at all! So bruising could have escaped attention. I also think the keeper would not notice gradual wear on the claws---the extreme wear and splintering seen after the escape was obvious, of course. But would gradual wear have been as obvious?

Although I concur that the three (or four?) young men were acting the fool, I do not necessarily believe that a wild animal needs an excuse to try to escape, and once escaped I KNOW it doesn't need an excuse to attack! I think no matter what these idiots did, she should not have been able to get out of her enclosure. That's the bottom line for me.

I have been "back-of-house" with large cats at a zoo and when they are fed, or moved from one area to another the keeper has them do certain trained behaviors that allow him or her to see the ENTIRE animal - including their teeth, mouth and the bottom of the feet. Tatiana was born in captivity and was trained this way from birth - it's a part of her daily routine. All zoo animals are trained in such behaviors - it means no more tranquilizers just to monitor the health of all zoo animals daily. They perform their behaviors, they get fed. It's also the time when they get any shots, vacines, meds etc. I have personally SEEN Lowland Gorillas taking their own meds on request - and giving meds to their babies during their daily "check". Tatiana was in captivity so she either had to use materials in the enclosure to "maintain" her claws or they had to be trimmed by her keeper or the vet . Tiger claws are just like cat claws, they GROW and must be maintained, the excess sheathing pulled off, the ends trimmed (and blunted) etc - if they are not - the claws curve under and grow into the animal's FOOT. This is how I know that Tatiana was NOT trying to get out before that day - her feet would NOT have been in that condition without the keeper knowing.

I agree that the zoo was negligent in not providing a secure habitat for Tatiana - but it was not easy for Tatiana to get out - and she had grown up on display with hoards of people of all shapes, sizes and behaviors looking at her every day - without incident. Tatiana did not work as hard as she did to get out because she was teased - I believe there was MORE to the story we have not heard and may never hear. And Tatiana made a LOT of noise getting out - she did not "fly" to the top of that wall on wings. The story about her just "appearing" out of the bushes doesn't fly - literally.

If Zoos were negligent we would certainly have more than one or two fatal VISITOR attacks in 70 years. Zoos do their best on limited funds and often with old facilities. The zoos owe it to their ANIMALS to keep them safe from the visitors AS WELL as keeping the PEOPLE safe from the animals. If we are going to keep animals in captivity for the viewing pleasure of people, it has to be a beneficial and safe arrangement for both parties. My hope is that this incident will change both zoos and their visitors for the better. It's EVERYONE's responsibility to work to keep zoos safe for the animals and the people....we should NOT allow zoos to keep animals in improper, substandard, undersized , outdated habitats and we should NOT sit back in silence when visitors act like fools, endangering and tormenting the captive animals by their azzinine behaviors.

It's a dual responsibility - something we should ALL take seriously!

My Opinion

 

[Seeker]

I read what the keeper said, Flower. I don't recall reading any statements from the vet regarding "pre-escape" paw/claw inspection, but I'm fallible! IIRC, the zoo's press release about this was worded in a way that left open the possibility that not all the wear on the claws occured during the escape. I know I came away from the article thinking how finely crafted the wording was! I do agree that bleeding paws would be noticed when the animal was checked out, I do not know how much attention a keeper could be expected to give the bottom of the tiger's paws during feeding. The bottom of the paws wouldn't be visible at all! So bruising could have escaped attention. I also think the keeper would not notice gradual wear on the claws---the extreme wear and splintering seen after the escape was obvious, of course. But would gradual wear have been as obvious?

Although I concur that the three (or four?) young men were acting the fool, I do not necessarily believe that a wild animal needs an excuse to try to escape, and once escaped I KNOW it doesn't need an excuse to attack! I think no matter what these idiots did, she should not have been able to get out of her enclosure. That's the bottom line for me.

Endangered species animals are given complete check ups on a regular basis. Usually every couple of months for females (to check reproductive problems) and once every 6 months for the males. They are tranqualized and brought into the clinic area. Weighed, measured, teeth checked for dental problems, ears checked, eyes, skin, coat, claws, pads, even their anal glands and reproductive area swabs are taken.

With how heavy Tatiana was it is completely possible that a one time climb could and IMO probably did result in the injuries to her claws and paw pads. Remember these are the largest of all cats in the world and they do not like to climb. Plus the moat was not made of dirt...it looks to be made of cement.
So whatever set her off had to be extreme for her to climb, basically, a cement wall. She was either protecting herself, her mate, or her territory. It sounds to me like the guys were by the outside of the moat area which to a tiger who instinctively needs miles of territory could have felt threatend. Who knows for sure if these guys threw anything at her or not or urinated near the moat on the grass? To Tatiana all of that area was her territory...the guys were wrong. They crossed a fence that they knew was there to keep them out, harassed Tatiana to the point she felt threatened (animal behavior 101) and needed to protect herself.

Now the zoo is being blamed because of the height of the wall? This beautiful tiger had been in there for several years without incident and now it's because of the wall? Not the a-holes who were harassing her?
The a-holes break the law and it's ok because it's the zoo's fault? Hello? They admitted to having POT (illegal substance) and DRINKING before even entering the zoo (open container in the car is also illegal as is drinking and driving) but it's the zoo's fault for not having a high enough wall, a wall that was apparentyl high enough for many, many years before?

No excuses for these guys. Simple logic says you don't aggravate an assault and then call foul when you are attacked.
Or how about becareful what you ask for?

Animals do not have the same reasoning skills as people do, so it's not fair to blame the tiger for simply acting on her instincts and protecting herself and her area.

 

[Rum Tum Tugger]

FlowerChild & Seeker ..

Each of you eloquently stated my thoughts & feelings exactly - so I will not repeat the same sentiments over again. A heartfelt "thank you". :blowkiss:

Excellent posts - and kudos to both of you!

Rum Tum Tugger

 

[kgeaux]

Now the zoo is being blamed because of the height of the wall? This beautiful tiger had been in there for several years without incident and now it's because of the wall? Not the a-holes who were harassing her?
The a-holes break the law and it's ok because it's the zoo's fault? Hello? They admitted to having POT (illegal substance) and DRINKING before even entering the zoo (open container in the car is also illegal as is drinking and driving) but it's the zoo's fault for not having a high enough wall, a wall that was apparentyl high enough for many, many years before?

No excuses for these guys. Simple logic says you don't aggravate an assault and then call foul when you are attacked.
Or how about becareful what you ask for?

Animals do not have the same reasoning skills as people do, so it's not fair to blame the tiger for simply acting on her instincts and protecting herself and her area.

I have never blamed the tiger. No wild animal can be held accountable for being a wild animal, and I believe I've made myself clear on that in previous posts. I HAVE blamed the zoo for the inadequate height of the wall, and will continue to do so. Who else should be blamed for a wall that falls short of what is needed? This same zoo had a near miss with a leopard one week after Tatiana's escape. Does this show a pattern of being a little lax in containing their animals? It might. Google the director's name (or just read some of the links on this thread!) to read about the repeated problems and shortcuts this man has taken. This director and this zoo have been caught being sloppy in the past, and the fact that the director stood and lied on day one about the height of the wall tells me all I need to know about his knowledge of the wall's inadequecy. I do not believe that the fact that these guys smoked pot and drank vodka (and two of them drank very little) had any effect on the height of the wall or the ability of Tatiana to scale it. Every zoo knows that one in four people are stupid enough to taunt the animals, so every zoo better damn well make sure they can contain even highly pissed off animals. To do less is negligent.

I don't believe I've ever said it's ok for the guys to have broken the law. I have said the fact that they are lawbreakers makes some treat what happened to them very differently from how it would be treated if their backgrounds were more innocent. I refuse to do that. If that tiger could jump out of that moat and tear up an "a-hole" as you call them, then she could have jumped out and torn up a five year old who was screaming or roaring at her.

The evidence at this time seems to be contained to a single footprint of Paul's( no evidence that Carlos or the other brother ever stood on the railing.) on the railing.....one pinecone......one small branch.....two small smooth stones which were unobserved by the police but reported by zoo officials the next day.....one steel washer, also unobserved by police, also reported by zoo officials the next day. I don't know why "urination" keeps being mentioned, as it is nothing more than a possibility thrown out by someone who was no where near Tatiana's enclosure when this happened. It has as much credibility as reports that the brothers had placed a big old plank across the moat to help Tatiana get out! The REALLY TRUE evidence is so slim that even law enforcement officers are saying there doesn't seem to be enough to charge these brothers with ANY crime. The evidence does not rise above the level of what any kindergartener might do on any given day.

I do not "like" the Dawhali brothers. I suspect they ARE "a-holes." I KNOW they are small time criminals. I know they roared at the lions and moved about erratically. I know a grandmother saw these guys making some sort of motions with their hands at the tiger exhibit. I know Paul stood on the railing. I know a couple of small objects were found in the moat. I know the wall was too short. None of that exonerates the zoo. Nothing that any zoo visitor does, short of entering an area accessible to an animal, makes an attack the visitors fault.