LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,974
- Reaction score
- 25,352
Farther back than that on the fencing, the zoo is 80 years old.
Tiger kills man at San Francisco Zoo (Part 3)
- Thread starter CW
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Farther back than that on the fencing, the zoo is 80 years old.
Btw Buzz, do you know how many attacks from animals, this zoo had in the past 80 years?
txsvicki
Active Member
Is showing the animals videos of The Lion King a joke? Why on earth would they do something like that? Seems more like torture to me even though it's a cute movie for human children.
Buzz Mills
New Member
I only know of the one a year, or so, ago, Pharlap.
southcitymom
Well-Known Member
I think they haven't filed suits because they are trying to settle first. That's often what happens in cases like this. It won't matter if their clients taunted the tiger - the zoo is going to pay their clients a lot of money. The type of clients they are and their actions will mitigate the amount of damages the zoo will pay, but the zoo is still going to pay big bucks!
kgeaux
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2003
- Messages
- 7,598
- Reaction score
- 31
Thanks, Buzz, for all the updates! It't too bad the zoo director and zoo spokesperson didn't take their cue from the chairman of the zoological society, who said the following:
"Under no circumstances is it OK for an animal to escape its enclosure," said Nick Podell, chairman of the San Francisco Zoological Society, the nonprofit that manages the zoo in partnership with the city. "I want to deliver a mea culpa for the zoo. There is no excuse." It's a day late and a dollar short, but at least SOMEONE connected with the zoo has finally been able to spit these words out.
Oh, I think the zoo handed a sign over to the police. Apparently the police weren't too impressed with it, since it's not mentioned in any documents as being "potential evidence." I think the zoo spokesperson has been incredibly crafty with the wording of his statements, and he worded that particular statement in such a way to make the public believe the police were quite interested in the sign. And that does not seem to be true.
And do I think the zoo director and spokesman both lie? All the time! From day one.......remember, the wall was the recommended height (Oh, wait a minute, maybe not so much.) a shoe was in the moat (oh, oh, maybe it was just a shoeprint on the wall) the tiger couldn't have gotten out without "help" from the boys (oh, gee whiz, it appears she climbed or leapt out unaided.) They say whatever covers their azz momentarily, and correct it only when confronted. And yes, it IS stupid.
I don't think a lawsuit will be necessary. I think the zoo is going to have to settle. They did not contain their animal, and no matter if the animal was taunted or not, the animal escaped and killed a visitor and mauled two others.
"Under no circumstances is it OK for an animal to escape its enclosure," said Nick Podell, chairman of the San Francisco Zoological Society, the nonprofit that manages the zoo in partnership with the city. "I want to deliver a mea culpa for the zoo. There is no excuse." It's a day late and a dollar short, but at least SOMEONE connected with the zoo has finally been able to spit these words out.
Oh, I think the zoo handed a sign over to the police. Apparently the police weren't too impressed with it, since it's not mentioned in any documents as being "potential evidence." I think the zoo spokesperson has been incredibly crafty with the wording of his statements, and he worded that particular statement in such a way to make the public believe the police were quite interested in the sign. And that does not seem to be true.
And do I think the zoo director and spokesman both lie? All the time! From day one.......remember, the wall was the recommended height (Oh, wait a minute, maybe not so much.) a shoe was in the moat (oh, oh, maybe it was just a shoeprint on the wall) the tiger couldn't have gotten out without "help" from the boys (oh, gee whiz, it appears she climbed or leapt out unaided.) They say whatever covers their azz momentarily, and correct it only when confronted. And yes, it IS stupid.
I don't think a lawsuit will be necessary. I think the zoo is going to have to settle. They did not contain their animal, and no matter if the animal was taunted or not, the animal escaped and killed a visitor and mauled two others.
mister happy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,309
- Reaction score
- 2,237
Of course we can only speculate. I did go back and read a few news articles regarding this. The zoo said the police took the sign themselves. It wasn't handed over to them, per se. I don't know why the blood wasn't mentioned in the search warrant/affidavit. Perhaps it's because the blood was still being tested for a match. Since the police had already matched the shoeprint, they decided to go with that and put it in the affidavit. I suppose we'll find out more of the story eventually. Lots of people are curious.
I don't know if all of what you mentioned was outright lies or mistaken info, especially regarding the wall. Geragos also puts his foot in his mouth, and he's supposed to be media savvy. Then there's client Paul who changed his story (perhaps after the shoeprint matched?) and admitted to at least some taunting.
My guess is no settlement right away. Not with these attorneys. They're in it for the attention and press; you don't get much of that without filing a lawsuit, giving interviews about the lawsuit, etc. If I was the zoo I wouldn't settle right away. Obviously there are a lot of bad feelings towards the taunters which leads to a higher level of comparative negligence on their part.
kgeaux
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2003
- Messages
- 7,598
- Reaction score
- 31
Good morning, mister Happy! The search warrents mentioned mutiple items the police were NOT sure about.....remember, they mentioned the steel washer and wanted to search the car to see if they could match the washer to anything in the car; the documents mentioned the cell phones as possible evidence. Since all other "possible evidence" was mentioned, I am still wondering why they wouldn't mention the sign.
Regarding the misinformation/misspeaking that has gone on: I expect ALL lawyers to carefully couch their words to the benefit of their clients. I expect ALL small time hoods to deny ALL suspicious behavior. I had expected the zoo director and spokesman to carefully choose their words since it would be foolish to do otherwise. But they have gone furthur than that. If the wall was a mistake, and it could have been, the "shoe in the moat" was not.
Did anyone happen to be listening/watching late on Christmas Day when this was first breaking? As I recall, the Zoo was extremely concerned that all the tigers might have been out, but fortunately, this was not so. Based upon the apparent false claims that the Zoo has made on and off from the beginning, I continue to wonder if the tiger enclosure was insecure, and if the worker who checked the door-gate-whatever- just shut the door and never fessed up.
And another thing that I have wondered about- maybe the tiger was already out, waiting there in the grass, when the boys arrived. Their account- for what it's worth- said the tiger just suddenly jumped out at them. It's hard to believe that they wouldn't have seen or heard the leaping, scratching, struggling tiger if they were standing there- and wouldn't they have run if they had heard the struggle? It was dark, and getting darker- the big cat's vision would have been much better than that of visitors to the zoo. The police seem to believe that whatever the boys were doing, it wasn't a crime, not even a misdemeanor. And if it wasn't even a misdemeanor, then they couldn't have provoked the attack.
Last night, I was lying on the floor in my dining room
and as I looked up at the beamed ceiling, it occurred to me that the beam was about 12 1/2 feet from me- the same distance that a tiger at the zoo would be from an onlooker. A 12 1/2 foot wall is not tall at all- not when a tiger is on the other side.
And another thing that I have wondered about- maybe the tiger was already out, waiting there in the grass, when the boys arrived. Their account- for what it's worth- said the tiger just suddenly jumped out at them. It's hard to believe that they wouldn't have seen or heard the leaping, scratching, struggling tiger if they were standing there- and wouldn't they have run if they had heard the struggle? It was dark, and getting darker- the big cat's vision would have been much better than that of visitors to the zoo. The police seem to believe that whatever the boys were doing, it wasn't a crime, not even a misdemeanor. And if it wasn't even a misdemeanor, then they couldn't have provoked the attack.
Last night, I was lying on the floor in my dining room
and as I looked up at the beamed ceiling, it occurred to me that the beam was about 12 1/2 feet from me- the same distance that a tiger at the zoo would be from an onlooker. A 12 1/2 foot wall is not tall at all- not when a tiger is on the other side.
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,974
- Reaction score
- 25,352
The police seem to believe that whatever the boys were doing, it wasn't a crime, not even a misdemeanor. And if it wasn't even a misdemeanor, then they couldn't have provoked the attack.
Last night, I was lying on the floor in my dining room
Morag, it has been proven to be at least a misdemeanor for Paul, because his shoe print matched the one on the railing, so he was standing on the 31/2 foot fence. It has also been shown that he was drunk/stoned and had roared at the lions. It's not a far leap of the imagination to think he did something to provoke the tiger. Also, unless a blood spatter expert proves otherwise, their blood was found at least 11/2 feet inside the enclosure on the sign. Therefore, I don't believe the tiger was already out of her enclosure, besides she had just eaten her dinner, she wasn't hungry and her claws wouldn't have shown the wear and tear if she was only prowling.
I do agree with you about the 121/2 feet, I never felt safe walking by the tiger enclosure at the SF Zoo, I never stayed long in front of it.
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,974
- Reaction score
- 25,352
No, I don't think so. I think maybe 2 are outside at one time. The others must be kept inside. Most of the time the tigers were sleeping, not very exciting. I was more scared actually of the lions in the inside enclosure around the corner. It's just a cage, but you can get very close up. The large male lion was very ferocious, and his daughter? I think was pretty intimidating too.
southcitymom
Well-Known Member
Yes - I hear you. But I think if I were the zoo - just knowing the facts I know now - I wouldn't want it to go to court. But the zoo's not knocking on my door for legal advice!
kgeaux
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2003
- Messages
- 7,598
- Reaction score
- 31
I'm having a little trouble following your thoughts about the sign. Unless a blood spatter expert proves otherwise, their blood was found at least one and one half foot---18 inches---inside the grassy area? First of all, we don't even know if the substance on the sign was blood. Secondly, IF it is blood, we don't know if it is human blood. Thirdly, if it IS human blood, we don't know if it matches Carlos or Paul. Fourthly, If it is THEIR blood, 18 inches isn't very far for blood to spurt if your throat has been slashed by a tiger, as Carlos's throat was. Carlos was over 6 feet tall, his body was found just outside the wall, the wall is less than 4 feet tall; that young man's blood would have spurted out with great force if his carotid artery were slashed, and it seems as though it was. Heck, his blood SHOULD be all over that area! (Now if it turns out the blood belongs to Paul, that would be slightly more in line with proving he was inside the enclosure when attacked---but if that sign was really just 18 inches beyond the wall, Paul was initially attacked right outside the enclosure also, and 18 inches is not far for blood to spatter, especially if the bleeding person is jumping around and agitated.
Also, neither Paul nor his brother have been charged with anything, not even a misdemeanor. The latest statement from police is that they don't have anything to charge either of them with! Now, just maybe something is going on behind the scenes that we aren't aware of. Maybe the cops were just putting out a little diversionary statement of their own when they said the investigation was about to close.....I wouldn't blame them if they did! But with what we know today, no crime, no charges, no misdemeanor.
I do agree with your statement that it doesn't take a far leap of imagination to suppose that something extraordinary was done to upset Tatiana. But it is still a leap of the imagination at this point.
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,974
- Reaction score
- 25,352
The police have stated I believe that it was human blood. I'm thinking it's possible Paul fell into the enclosure off of the fence.
kgeaux
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2003
- Messages
- 7,598
- Reaction score
- 31
Can you point me to that info? I've read the zoo spokeman's statement saying it was possibly blood, and that police had the sign. I've not heard another word since then, and as I've said in other posts, police never mentioned the sign in any of the documents filed with the court.
kgeaux
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2003
- Messages
- 7,598
- Reaction score
- 31
I've been scouring news articles and haven't found one mentioning that the blood on the sign has been identified as human--haven't even found one that mentions that the substance on the sign WAS blood, but I did find this really neat picture. It shows the little fence, the sign, the grassy area and the wall of the moat...very interesting!
http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...,140614.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california
The following is the only information I've been able to find about the sign: (it is from a previously linked article from Mercury News, January 18th)
In another revelation Thursday, zoo officials said police removed a bloodied sign and post from the tiger exhibit as potential evidence in their investigation the day after the attack.
Sam Singer, spokesman for the zoo, told the Mercury News that the sign had been about 18 inches in from the middle of the railing around the tiger exhibit, in an area "where the public is prohibited to go." The location is also near the area outside the railing where the body of 17-year-old Carlos was found.
A San Francisco police spokesman would say only that "the police department has not released that information" about the bloody sign. But Singer said finding a sign with blood on it - inside the exhibit - on the night of the mauling "would suggest that one or more of the young men was on that side of the railing."
He said he does not know if tests have determined whose blood was on the sign.
This confirms that the sign was a mere foot and a half inside the fence. Paul's footprint was on the fence, Carlos and at least one of the brothers were mauled right outside of the fence. How surprising is it if blood is on the sign? IMO, it won't be incriminating at all......the sign is just too close to the area where the young men were mauled for there to be any evidenciary value to any of their blood being found on it.
That Singer, he's an excellent PR guy. It would "suggest that one or more of the young men was on that side of the railing" because the sign had blood! The fence is an iron fence, the rails appear to be three or four inches apart, the sign is practically sitting on top of the fence, Carlos had his throat slashed by the tiger right on the other side of that fence, and he wants us to believe a spot of blood on that sign means what HE wants it to mean!
http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...,140614.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california
The following is the only information I've been able to find about the sign: (it is from a previously linked article from Mercury News, January 18th)
In another revelation Thursday, zoo officials said police removed a bloodied sign and post from the tiger exhibit as potential evidence in their investigation the day after the attack.
Sam Singer, spokesman for the zoo, told the Mercury News that the sign had been about 18 inches in from the middle of the railing around the tiger exhibit, in an area "where the public is prohibited to go." The location is also near the area outside the railing where the body of 17-year-old Carlos was found.
A San Francisco police spokesman would say only that "the police department has not released that information" about the bloody sign. But Singer said finding a sign with blood on it - inside the exhibit - on the night of the mauling "would suggest that one or more of the young men was on that side of the railing."
He said he does not know if tests have determined whose blood was on the sign.
This confirms that the sign was a mere foot and a half inside the fence. Paul's footprint was on the fence, Carlos and at least one of the brothers were mauled right outside of the fence. How surprising is it if blood is on the sign? IMO, it won't be incriminating at all......the sign is just too close to the area where the young men were mauled for there to be any evidenciary value to any of their blood being found on it.
That Singer, he's an excellent PR guy. It would "suggest that one or more of the young men was on that side of the railing" because the sign had blood! The fence is an iron fence, the rails appear to be three or four inches apart, the sign is practically sitting on top of the fence, Carlos had his throat slashed by the tiger right on the other side of that fence, and he wants us to believe a spot of blood on that sign means what HE wants it to mean!
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,974
- Reaction score
- 25,352
I'll have to scour the articles myself, which I don't have time to do now. Thank you for this link, finally a good graphic which shows exactly the distances. My husband thinks she scaled the side walls of the "grotto" as they call it.
kgeaux, thanks for finding the pictures. Looking at the one with the ladder in it- it looks as though the moat is not even close to 33 feet wide (assuming that the grassy area was where the tigers would hang out). And the other graphic ("Tiger Grotto") showing 12.4 feet and 33 feet and 56 feet also look like the 33 feet estimate is not correct. As I continue to look at the graphic, it seems as though the back wall of the moat was about 10 feet high, and the moat itself was about 25 or so. I don't believe it was 33 feet wide. I think they are adding the height of the moat to the width of the bottom of the moat and coming up with 33 feet.
Does anyone know of any other pictures which might shed more light on this?
Incidentally, I have come across some information that Bengal tigers can jump 10 meters (33 feet approx), but have not found the information for the Siberian tiger.
ETA: Here's something from Wiki news- interesting, even considering the source:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Tiger_t...ncisco_Zoo_may_have_%27climbed'_over_wall
The tigers at the zoo are held captive by the combination of a 20ft (6m) tall wall and a 15ft (4.5m) wide moat. Zoo officials say that there are no cameras around the enclosure, and the incident was not caught on any security cameras.
Does anyone know of any other pictures which might shed more light on this?
Incidentally, I have come across some information that Bengal tigers can jump 10 meters (33 feet approx), but have not found the information for the Siberian tiger.
ETA: Here's something from Wiki news- interesting, even considering the source:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Tiger_t...ncisco_Zoo_may_have_%27climbed'_over_wall
The tigers at the zoo are held captive by the combination of a 20ft (6m) tall wall and a 15ft (4.5m) wide moat. Zoo officials say that there are no cameras around the enclosure, and the incident was not caught on any security cameras.