January 2, 2008
Smell Test: FAILED
I'm enjoying following the story of that San Franciso tiger attack. The more I hear about it, the more insane little pieces fall into place. Here are a few things that make you go "hmm":
Three 17, 18 and 23-year-old guys were in the zoo just after closing (some reports say closing was at 5, some say 6) near the tiger grotto. I can imagine a seven-year-old's cries, "Mommy, I just want to see the tiger one more time before we goooooo!" But two older teenagers and a 23-year-old, alone, after closing time?
A shoe print was found on the enclosure wall. It's tied to no one yet, but this could yield a clue.
After the incident, zoo workers also "noticed an empty bottle of vodka sitting on the front seat of the car driven by one of the victims. The workers notified police and the car was towed pending the completion of the investigation." Now this doesn't necessarily indicate that the teens were drinking at the time of the incident, but it does say that they were likely to be drinking alcohol in their car at some point. Think of the journey of a typical vodka bottle. You buy bottle at liquor store, put it in car, bring it home, drink it, throw out the bottle. At no point does the open bottle need to go back into your car, unless you are drinking it there.
There are unsubstantiated reports of the teens carrying slingshots, but that doesn't quite jive with the police's statement that "there was no indication the tiger was provoked." We'll leave that off the table for now, because there are plenty of other interesting things to note about this story. Though one of the boys' fathers said on a broadcast news report that, "they could have been throwing rocks and the animal shouldn't have been able to get out." Curious statement. Got rocks on the brain?
The teens have refused to speak to police about the incident:
"The brothers, who remained in hospital after surgery on their wounds, were initially hostile to police, refusing even to give their names or that of their dead friend."
They would not even give their names?! Is that the behavior of an innocent victim or someone feeling the panic of guilt?
While they stonewall the police investigation, the teens have quickly employed the services of a notorious defense attorney who refuses to divulge details of the attach, but is quick to say that the zoo was at fault. One of his claims is that the tiger escaped much earlier than the post-5:00pm closing time. The boys apparently were able to evade a 350-pound tiger for 45 minutes as it chased them. *cough*
The three attacked boys were purportedly friends; however, "the Dhaliwal family has reportedly refused to return repeated calls by the dead man's parents since the attack." You were with your friend when he died, you say you tried to save him and became injured yourself, but now you refuse to hear the thanks of his grateful father. Nothing like going into lockdown mode, eh?
Whatever happens, expect that the zoo will be held liable for the attack. "San Francisco attorney Matt Davis said California law holds the owner of a wild animal 'strictly liable' for any injury it causes to a person. 'The zoo would be liable even if some vandals were responsible for freeing the tiger from its grotto,' he said."
Comments
Hi Tara. I really like your blog! I stumbled across it looking for fat actress commentary, loved yours!
I am from the bay area.. and I agree with you.I believe too, that there is some degree of guilt when a friend dies, especially if you were present when it happened! Clearly, the fact that the boys were there, after closing, with vodka, well, pretty evident to me they were tantalizing a dangerous and captive tiger. TIGER! whew. It doesn't get "stoopider" than that, does it? Bless the families of the lost boys, bless the tiger. Thimble