Posted on 01/18/2008 4:43:05 PM PST by indcons
One of the three victims of San Francisco Zoo tiger attack was intoxicated and admitted to yelling and waving at the animal while standing atop the railing of the big cat enclosure, police said in court documents filed Thursday.
Paul Dhaliwal, 19, told the father of Carlos Sousa Jr., 17, who was killed, that the three yelled and waved at the tiger but insisted they never threw anything into its pen to provoke the cat, according to a search warrant affidavit obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle.
"As a result of this investigation, (police believe) that the tiger may have been taunted/agitated by its eventual victims," according to Inspector Valerie Matthews, who prepared the affidavit. Police believe that "this factor contributed to the tiger escaping from its enclosure and attacking its victims," she said.
Sousa's father, Carlos Sousa Sr., said Dhaliwal told him the three stood on a 3-foot-tall metal railing a few feet from the edge of the tiger moat. "When they got down they heard a noise in the bushes, and the tiger was jumping out of the bushes on him (Paul Dhaliwal)," the documents said.
Police found a partial shoe print that matched Paul Dhaliwal's on top of the railing, Matthews said in the documents.
The papers said Paul Dhaliwal told Sousa that no one was dangling his legs over the enclosure. Authorities believe the tiger leaped or climbed out of the enclosure, which had a wall 4 feet shorter than the recommended minimum.
The affidavit also cites multiple reports of a group of young men taunting animals at the zoo, the Chronicle reported.
Mark Geragos, an attorney for the Dhaliwal brothers, did not immediately return a call late Thursday by The Associated Press for comment. He has repeatedly said they did not taunt the tiger.
Calls to Sousa and Michael Cardoza, an attorney for the Sousa family, also weren't returned.
Toxicology results for Dhaliwal showed that his blood alcohol level was 0.16 — twice the legal limit for driving, according to the affidavit. His 24-year-old brother, Kulbir, and Sousa also had alcohol in their blood but within the legal limit, Matthews wrote.
All three also had marijuana in their systems, Matthews said. Kulbir Dhaliwal told police that the three had smoked pot and each had "a couple shots of vodka" before leaving San Jose for the zoo on Christmas Day, the affidavit said.
Police found a small amount of marijuana in Kulbir Dhaliwal's 2002 BMW, which the victims rode to the zoo, as well as a partially filled bottle of vodka, according to court documents.
Investigators also recovered messages and images from the cell phones, but apparently nothing incriminating in connection with the tiger attack, the Chronicle reported.
Zoo spokesman Sam Singer said he had not seen the documents but believed the victims did taunt the animal, even though they claim they hadn't.
"Those brothers painted a completely different picture to the public and the press," Singer said. "Now it's starting to come out that what they said is not true."
Exactly. If you are driving a semi-truck that jumps the curb and runs over three people, does it really matter if the victims were drunk?
The truck should have stayed on the road and the tiger should have stayed in the cage.
And the zoo spokesman is Sam Singer, a spin-meister for many influential democrat politicians.
Nonsense. The fact is that the tiger DID get out, and should not have been able to do so. The zoo is at fault for that.
The blood was found on a sign 18 inches inside the fence. Wasn't Carlos Sousa's throat slashed in the same vacinity?
Could it be a splatter or spurt from his neck after getting mauled by the tiger?
The state did not inspect the zoo. California exempts zoos from state inspection if they are being inspected by the AZA.
You keep pointing that out but fail to post about Mark Geragos who supports many influential democrat politicians as well. If you’re going to slam one, please don’t leave the other out.
‘California’s Division of Occupation Safety and Health determined the zoo was at fault because of hazardous conditions in the Lion House and lack of specialized safety training for employees. The zoo made changes that the state safety division ordered.’
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/26/tiger.attack/
Not exactly. Zoo employees have reported for decades that this enclosure was inadequate. There have been many reports of tigers jumping the moat and nearly escaping.
Just ten years ago a woman and her 4 year old son had a tiger jump up in front of them. The tiger got one arm on top of the wall and onto the grass five feet in front of them. When she told a zoo employee about it, he said, "Yeah. He always does that to me. He hates me."
Unless there was spatter and spurts in other areas such as the rail, walkway, etc. then it matters. I don't recall reading anything about "spray" of blood being found. But there was mention of a smear of blood on the sign and some on a few leaves.
Another article today stated that one in five zoo visitors "taunt" animals by making noises and waiving hands.
Yelling, making noises and waiving hands is no excuse for the wall being too low.
First of all that’s hearsay. There is no record of her reporting anything. Secondly, it’s not an escape **if** the tiger got one arm on top of the wall and onto the grass five feet in front of them.
Be careful. Anyone says anything on FR bad about an animal, might get blasted with insults like I’VE BEEN GETTING ever since I suggested the same thing as you are — that the cat should never have been able to get out of that pen at all, no matter WHAT kind of taunting or drinking was going on.
Be careful. Free speech isn’t thought much of on “Free Republic” anymore.
Both Geragos and Singer are slimy untrustworthy people.
How’s that?
Which tells any thinking person that the Dillyweeds did something more to get that tiger out of it's enclosure.
That’s great! When you want to point out that Singer is a slimy spinmeister democrat supporter, please be sure to include the other. It’s only fair.
__________________________________________________
Hearsay: Evidence based on what the witness has heard someone else say, rather than what the witness has personally experienced or observed.
www.court.state.nd.us/court/glossary.htm
The poster claimed there were “no incidents.”
I reported a “near escape.”
Are you having a hard time reading today?
It actually tells any thinking person that the zoo needs a new excuse for allowing their cat to escape.
“In California, state law also governs the keeping of wild animals. However, the state exempts from its oversight zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a non-profit organization based in Maryland.”
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_7842811
So why did the zoo make changes that the state safety division ordered ?
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.