S.F. Zoo mauling investigation winding down (No evidence of taunting)

The police investigation into the tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo will soon be reclassified as "inactive" after a search failed to turn up evidence that the victims taunted the animal or committed other crimes, authorities said Friday.

Sources close to the case said the investigation into the Christmas Day attack could be shelved as soon as next week and will not be reopened unless new information comes to light. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak for the department.

On Wednesday, police investigators searched the car and the cell phones belonging to the two brothers who survived the attack that killed 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr. of San Jose. They recovered no direct evidence to support a theory that either Paul Dhaliwal, 19, or Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23, of San Jose had taunted the Siberian tiger before it attacked.

Also, the zoo's operations director, Jesse Vargas, blocked police from talking to zoo authorities after initial interviews, citing attorneys' advice, police said in their search warrant affidavit.

A spokesman has said the zoo simply wants attorneys present when zoo officials are questioned.

January 18, 2008, 11:42 am
Taunting Evidence Intensifies the Tiger Case
By Mike Nizza

Was the tiger taunted? The San Francisco police’s first answer was found in a court document 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,” [Inspector Valerie Matthews, the lead investigator in the case] wrote in the affidavit. Police believe that “this factor contributed to the tiger escaping from its enclosure and attacking its victims,” she said.
“… This behavior may be consistent with a tiger that has been agitated and/or taunted.”
The evidence apparently includes statements made by Paul Dhaliwal, one of the three young men attacked by the tiger at the zoo on Christmas Day, to the effect that the trio — Paul and his brother Kulbir and a friend, Carlos Sousa Jr. — were “standing on the railing” and “waving their hands and yelling at the tiger” before the attack. The brothers suffered head wounds; Mr. Sousa was killed.
One part of that story was backed up by a shoe print found on the railing, according to the police report.

But the statements were not made by Paul Dhaliwal to the police. Rather, the Mr. Sousa’s father evidently told police that Paul made the statements in a conversation after the attack. Carlos Sousa Sr. also said that Paul denied other allegations, including claims that limbs were dangled over the railing, or that rocks or sticks were thrown at the tiger.
Marijuana and alcohol apparently were involved as well. According to the police account, Kulbir Dhaliwal told investigators that the three men smoked pot and drank vodka earlier that day; both substances were retrieved from the car and identified in toxicology tests.
While the lawyers representing the two young men wounded in the Christmas Day rampage have flatly denied wrongdoing of any sort on the men’s part, San Francisco Zoo officials have insisted that “something prompted our tiger to leap over the exhibit.”
Last week, the investigation was described as “inactive,” and the week before, the worst-case scenario for the young men was said to be a misdemeanor charge. But the court documents specified that the police now suspect that an unspecified felony was committed.
Shepard Kopp, one of the lawyers hired by the Dhaliwals, said that he couldn’t “conceive of any possible felony that anyone would suspect these brothers of having committed,” according to The San Jose Mercury News.
As the heat intensified, Mark Geragos, the more colorful of the lawyers representing the brothers, seemed to drop into the background, for the first time since taking the case. Though he appeared constantly as a vocal defender of the men in earlier news accounts about the case, the Chronicle wrote today that Mr. Geragos had not returned its call seeking comment

This end quote from the story is kind of a side issue, but I just have to throw this in anyway:

Police said all three young men had been drinking and smoked marijuana before going to the zoo. Cardoza, however, ridiculed the idea that their condition had anything to do with the attack.

"Come on, how many people go out there to the zoo a little stoned?" he said. "This is ridiculous. Is that a reason to dirty the kids up?"

Can't say I've EVER gone to the zoo stoned. Never occurred to me. Anyone else here?

Taunting, under the influence, or just agitating the tiger doesn’t matter. I think there is a reasonable expectation to assume the tiger will remain in the cage. I’m not condoning their actions, but look at other zoo-aquarium goers . . . they all “taunt”, make faces, waive their hands, toss coins on the alligators, tap the glass at the shark tank, yell at the bulls behind the fence at the rodeo, etc! But none would expect the animals to get out of their "safe" enclosures and attack them.

It’s not right to taunt animal's, but I don’t see that (or the sobriety) to be relevant. It may be the “reason” the tiger was mad . . .but still, it was able to jump the enclosure! I honestly think the enclosure is the main issue here.

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.