Unfortunately we are still totally dependent on what some reporter wants you to hear about what he thinks a cop, of indeterminant rank, wanted you to hear.
Took three days to get a good drawing of the enclosure out to show us what the tiger had to do to get out.
I spent half an hour last evening reviewing news stories against an overhead map of the zoo. Much of what has been said about who went where, found what, or bit off is inconsistent to one degree or the other with what could or could not be done given the layout.
That includes even the initial estimate that the tiger tracked these guys 300 yards (just under a quarter of a mile).
The tiger wasn't on visuals here, but smelled her way to her targets. There's too much ground clutter in a tigers way to have seen from the enclosure area to the cafe.
These things will have to be worked out in hearings, tapemeasures, and blood samples.
Since it appears to be the case that it was relatively easy for this tiger to get out and go hunting, seems to me she wouldn't have been the first. The plaintiff's lawyer doing his 20 questions for the first deposition might want to keep it in mind that someone could know of earlier escapes.
I go by news reports just like everyone else. I don't speculate like you've done on what "could have" "should have" happened. While I can appreciate your skepticism of the matter, the fact that it's been reported twice of who got mauled first and where is pretty evident.
I'm sure Mark Gregaros (the lawyer the 2 survivors hooked up with) will clear it all up for us. Ya right.