Posted on 12/29/2007 11:14:40 AM PST by Mr. Brightside
First zoo worker to report victims' tiger claim didn't believe him
By Kim Vo and Mike Swift
Mercury News
Article Launched: 12/28/2007 04:45:20 PM PST
Zoo officials initially thought a San Jose man was "making something up" when he told them a tiger was on the loose and had bitten him, according to a transcript of police dispatch report released Friday afternoon.
***
According to the new documents, the 911 call came at 5:08 p.m. Tuesday: "A very agitated male is claiming he was bitten by an animal," the dispatcher said, relaying a call from a cafe worker. "They do not see any animal missing// Male is bleeding from the head."
Two minutes later, the dispatcher reported: "Zoo dispatch now say there are 2 males who the zoo thinks they are 800 (crazy) and making something up // but one is in fact bleeding from the back of the head."
Ten seconds later, the zoo confirmed the men were right. "Now they are saying they have a tiger out."
*****
"Zoo security not letting Police Department in. Zoo personnel have the tiger in sight and are dealing with it," a police officer said at 5:17 p.m.
*****
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
They interviewed a retired zoo worker who had pictures of Mike, the Bengal Tiger.
One day to their surprise there was Mike walking along the top of the mote wall, but behind the short fence. This was the same mote/enclosure that Tatiana was in.
They yelled to him to get back down and he soon jumped into his enclosure again. Their solution was to put water in the mote. And the water remained until Mike (400 lbs) was no longer in the exhibit.
Then the water was drained!
http://pod01.prospero.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=24550.53&nav=messages&webtag=mn-comments
Then the water was drained!
Another lie exposed of the zoo manager, claimed that the mote had never had water in it.I’m not sure who disgusts me more: the incompetent bureaucrats running the zoo or the two clowns who refuse to tell the police what happened.
moat
I agree with your post. People make things up as they go along just to get exposure.
Unless the zoo has footage of the victims taunting the tiger, they will have absolutely no defense.
They had a tiger on display with a documented history of unprovoked violence (unless they are going to argue that their own keeper who was attacked was taunting the animal).
They had an inadequate enclosure, and lied about the physical dimensions of that enclosure.
They had a water barrier in place previously, but lied about the existence of the water barrier.
Zoo employees not only failed to inform police and emergency services promptly, they deliberately discouraged and impeded the response of the police and emergency services.
All of this is a matter of unimpeachable public record.
If it turns out to be verified that the dead man indeed died while trying to save his friends from an unprovoked attack, no one involved with this will have a job and the city of SF will out maybe more than $100M.
If Gavin Newsom has a sober moment of clarity in between getting stoned and seducing the wives of his employees, he will settle as quickly as he can.
Even if the zoo has footage of the teens taunting the tiger, they STILL have no defense.
The wall was too low. The protective water moat, was dry. Employees knew for at least ten years that tigers were nearly getting out. They locked out the police and emergency responders.
They wouldn’t have a legal defense, but a civil juror might be emotionally swayed if there were proof that the animal had been harassed.
Now it's being reported that the story about the shoe being on the other side of the fence is untrue since all the victims had their shoes. So what needs to be said? The cat cleared the fence.
Personally I’d leave it all up to my lawyer and say nothing because the bureaucrats are going to continue dumping the blame on them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.