Question For All Skeptics/non-Believers To Answer

[Guest Knuck]

No I'm not a skeptic, but from my experience, following normal "legal" procedure and LE training would be for the reporting/investigating officer to take a statement from the witness. VERBATUM We don't know that it is a true statement yet. Not until thorough investigation of the scene and body are performed, and obtained evidence corroberates the witness's statement. If evidence points elsewhere, that's where the investigation would go. What statement that gets released to the public, is up to the hierarchy, and what thier statement would include or omit. To a professional LEO/PD, "monster" would not be a word used to describe animal(s) unknown. It's just not done. -Least not here in the US.

-Knuck

[Guest]

You asked the question. I'm just supporting his response and now you want derail your own thread! Go find someone else to argue with I've got better things to do!

Huh....derail thread...

I thought you were participating, not trying to antagonize you...

[Guest]

No I'm not a skeptic, but from my experience, following normal "legal" procedure and LE training would be for the reporting/investigating officer to take a statement from the witness. VERBATUM We don't know that it is a true statement yet. Not until thorough investigation of the scene and body are performed, and obtained evidence corroberates the witness's statement. If evidence points elsewhere, that's where the investigation would go. What statement that gets released to the public, is up to the hierarchy, and what thier statement would include or omit. To a professional LEO/PD, "monster" would not be a word used to describe animal(s) unknown. It's just not done. -Least not here in the US.

-Knuck

Thank you! Especially the part about "statement that gets released to the public".

[Guest]

Lets reduce the wiggle room...

Lets amend the scenario to where the survivor states her husband was killed by a BF, not a monster.

Denialist and skeptics wanting evidence feel free to squirm...

[southernyahoo]

I could see the investigating officer telling the lady witness that he couldn't put BF or monster down in the report. He would advise her that it was either another human that killed her husband or it was a wildlife attack. Since bigfoot are not proven he would have to put something else in the report despite what she believed. "Unknown wildlife attack" would probably be the cause of death on the certificate and the lady would probably be advised to leave it at that, unless ofcoarse there were perfect huge tracks there. The investigation might then turn towards her as a perpetrator of muder and hoax. It could turn very messy for her, though I think Logic would rule her out as potentially being able to rip her husband limb from limb.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

I would draw no conclusions at this point. If I was filling out the report, the scenario remains as stated by others. I would say that the witness claims that a bf did it and report her statement. I would note my observations of the body. Not touch a thing until forensics arrives. What follows would be up to their findings.

I'm not in law enforcement so it's probably better left to someone who is as far as procedure. I would guess that it still comes down to proof.

[Guest]

I could see the investigating officer telling the lady witness that he couldn't put BF or monster down in the report. He would advise her that it was either another human that killed her husband or it was a wildlife attack. Since bigfoot are not proven he would have to put something else in the report despite what she believed. "Unknown wildlife attack" would probably be the cause of death on the certificate and the lady would probably be advised to leave it at that, unless ofcoarse there were perfect huge tracks there. The investigation might then turn towards her as a perpetrator of muder and hoax. It could turn very messy for her, though I think Logic would rule her out as potentially being able to rip her husband limb from limb.

Thank you for this!

I did this exercise for the benefit of persons who constantly yell, "where's the evidence" or "show me the police report". Point being, even if we are given the evidence, where would it go from there?

As I ascertain from this thread due to the lack of replies, many who request evidence do so in vain and know it.

Lets take this even further. Lets say a BF is struck and killed on I-95. You're the LEO arriving on the scene what do you do??? Not going the conspiracy route, lets say some people have their cellphones and photograph the corpse, can't stop that. But as the officer how would the case be handled? Do you call in ambulatory services or animal removal? Do you place in your report "BF struck and killed" or do you put "large animal/bear" struck and killed? Where does the body wind up, the same place where animals are disposed of or in the morgue?

What agency or department will be willing to accept the responsibility and challenge?

[Guest]

I'd say that you would have to begin this case as any other case, a possible homicide. After moving past that point, at least after excluding the guys wife, you would look for signs/evidence of perhaps other perps. Perhaps a guy dressed in a monster suit.

Here's a crucial fork in the road and where the ball may get dropped alot. The LEA now has to decide rather to go with murder or animal attack. The problem is the route taken will depend upon the individual officers and their chain.

If they have half a brain, they can see large inhuman tracks and look at the corpse. Will they actually want to hear what the county coroner will say? The coroner may actually be ANOTHER escape route, because being well versed in science, they will probably ignore the obvious signs of limbs being snapped off instead of chewed off. Will the coroner state the attack was by a bear or "a really strong person"?

Lets amend the scenario to where the survivor states her husband was killed by a BF, not a monster.

______________________________________________________

Delta Zu;

In the hypothertical situation that's outlined, to continue to tighten up the original scenerio to "force" the outcome of it has to be a BF/Monster is pointless. It chokes off dialogue. Obviously you want the outcome to be BF. Everyone "got that". However that is only one small portion of the OP.

For example just because a witness can tell you in her opinion it wasn't a bear, how many other critters isn't she familiar with?

Large footprints show nothing definative initially as bear prints can & have been misidentified as BF.

Humans have been misidentified as BF's before. In Alaska it is not out of the realm of possibility for a sealskin/fur trimmed aboriginal outfit to be close (annorak & boots) to be potentially misindentified. Take into consideration the varieties of them and it's more than possible.

Ultimately you asked for unput into your inquiry. Not liking the answers is no reason to continue to change the question midstream. Please stick with the original post or this thread will be closed.

Thank You,

Grayjay

[Guest]

I would draw no conclusions at this point. If I was filling out the report, the scenario remains as stated by others. I would say that the witness claims that a bf did it and report her statement. I would note my observations of the body. Not touch a thing until forensics arrives. What follows would be up to their findings.

I'm not in law enforcement so it's probably better left to someone who is as far as procedure. I would guess that it still comes down to proof.

You would be willing to turn that report in to your supervisors stating "bigfoot" as the perp?

Can you imagine (I can) what a superior officer will say to you when he screams for you to get into his/her office? Can you imagine what your peers will be saying in the lunch room?

Anyone who has any experience in such a environment please imagine this. I imagine what my Commanding Officer in the Army would have said to me if I reported to him that a BF crossed the street in front of me. I do remember what my peers said and how I quickly let the story die!

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

No, I would not claim bigfoot did anything. I would say the witness claims she saw bigfoot do it. I would only report on what is there. I repeat what I said before...... that I would not draw conclusions until there is proof.

Another scenario, remove Alaska as the location and insert Manhattan. Do you think the witness statement is still valid?

[Guest]

No, I would not claim bigfoot did anything. I would say the witness claims she saw bigfoot do it. I would only report on what is there. I repeat what I said before...... that I would not draw conclusions until there is proof.

Another scenario, remove Alaska as the location and insert Manhattan. Do you think the witness statement is still valid?

I guess what I'm getting at is, would my superior officer even ALLOW me to include in my report that the WITNESS lists BF as the attacker. Going back to my Army days (though not an accurate comparison perhaps) my COC would call me in their office and ask me "WTF" is that word doing on my report.

If the incident took place in Manhattan the witness statement would probably get her locked up.

[Guest]

Now let me ask all you this and see if you're serious or simply being incorrigible. This will require some imagination and acting:

Imagine you are a supervisor in the Division of Forestry (Alaska) and you're called out to an incident. You get there and you find a body that has been torn to pieces. There is one witness being questioned, but the person is very shaken and almost in shock. The account the survivor gives is that a large, hairy, monster walked out of the woods and tore her husband limb from limb because he shot at it.

Lets pause here for a moment----Would you then assume that the woman actually means a bear attacked her husband and killed him? Would you be arrogant enough to believe that this woman doesn't know what a "bear" looks like?

So you and your officers half inform and half suggest that it was a "bear" and not a monster. The woman looks at you and says it wasn't a bear, it looked more like a giant gorilla. Do you still use arrogance and insist the woman must be mistaken?

You now look at the body, and indeed the guy was torn to pieces. Arms ripped off and tossed, legs broken, head removed from trunk. Would you keep it to yourself that there aren't any claw marks? There isn't the typical sign of bear attacks which are bites to the face and head. Instead the head is ripped off. You look at the wounds and see the body wasn't cut or bitten...but the damage suggests the limbs were actually RIPPED off.

What would your report look like? Would it say what the young woman said, that the perp was a monster? Or would you say the attack was the work of a bear....though your experience says otherwise? Will you force yourself to not see the large human looking footprints, maybe even scratch them out?

I ask...how would you handle this situation, keeping in mind you have a career you're attempting to retire from and you have superiors you have to give your report to.

In closing: Will your report state that the victim was killed by a BF/monster or a bear?

Lets pause here for a moment----Would you then assume that the woman actually means a bear attacked her husband and killed him? Would you be arrogant enough to believe that this woman doesn't know what a "bear" looks like?

What the woman did not initially say is that a large, hairy, bigfoot walked out of the woods and tore her husband limb from limb.

Your hypothetical occurs in the woods of Alaska where the recognized apex predator would be some kind of a brown bear. As you also point out, the woman is shaken and almost in shock. Initially assuming that the woman meant "bear" is not arrogant, but rather logical, and does not imply that she does not know what a bear looks like.

Your hypothetical is way too prejudiced against skeptics and non-believers to be taken seriously, imo.

[Guest rockinkt]

I have investigated human fatalities caused by both cougar and bear in BC, Canada. Some people who know me from the old board know my background.

I cannot believe the stuff that gets thrown around here by people who obviously do not have a clue about what happens in the real world.

Just because you do not know something - does not give you the right to go to your own fevered imagination for a completely far-fetched scenario of "what would happen".

FACT: The unnatural death of a HUMAN BEING in both Canada and the United States is a really big deal.

In Canada - and I strongly expect the US - the investigation is not done by some Dudley Do-Right Dimwit - but by a trained Peace officer or multiple LEOs. There are procedures that CANNOT be deviated from. Period.

CSI (RCMP nomenclature is Ident) is always part of the deal - even if they have to be flown in and then transported by dogsled. There is ALWAYS a complete and thorough examination of the scene and the body - even if it is known that it was a "normal" wild animal that did the damage. Evidence must be collected such as tracks, wound characteristics (teeth patterns, claw patterns) hair, blood, saliva. All appropriate samples are subjected to DNA analysis. (If not to identify the animal - to establish whether one or more was involved). All efforts are made to identify and dispatch the animal(s) responsible asap.

Samples, photos/video, copious notes, Medical examination and autopsy are all done to establish the exact cause of death.

The entire scene (including as far as you can extend the tracks of the critter and the victim back) are examined and anything that can be used is bagged and tagged.

Any witnesses are interviewed separately by both LE and Conservation Officers.

Reports will be written by the appropriate agencies - LE and Conservation Officer (aka Game Warden) - and forwarded along normal channels via separate agencies.

NOBODY gets to alter the file! To do so is a serious criminal offense.

The originals stay - any correction is added to the file with the appropriate reference.

Any boss of mine that would have dared tell me to change what I wrote would have been keel-hauled by his/her superior officers. Period. Like I said before - the unnatural death of a human being is a very serious occurrence and is not to be trifled with. "Obstruction of Justice" will get you 14 years in Canada.

BTW - The witness statement is the witness statement. Period. If the witness stated that BF dressed in drag came down on a magic carpet and tore apart her husband for singing Rap music - that is EXACTLY what goes into the file. Subsequent investigation may or may not corroborate her statement - but it stays on the file.

[Incorrigible1]

I guess what I'm getting at is, would my superior officer even ALLOW me to include in my report that the WITNESS lists BF as the attacker. Going back to my Army days (though not an accurate comparison perhaps) my COC would call me in their office and ask me "WTF" is that word doing on my report.

If the incident took place in Manhattan the witness statement would probably get her locked up.

You continue to turn the screws of you scenario desperately trying to make for a preordained outcome. And you consider skeptics close minded?

[Guest BuzzardEater]

I think in the real world the LEO would play by the book. The report would just be left in the "open investigation" file so the agencies wouldn't be able to comment on it. There are many examples of that.