The New Mexico State Police informed me that a mutilation had been reported in the Truchas area on July 21. According to the report, at approximately 7 a.m. that morning, while walking the fence line on his property, a man discovered a dead cow. Upon closer inspection, the animal appeared to have been mutilated, for its udder, anus, and tongue were missing. Not knowing who owned the animal, the resident reported the incident to the police and also alerted several neighbors as well as his wife and son, who later photographed the carcass.
I conducted two on-the-scene investigations -- one on July 24, accompanied by the owner of the property and his wife, and the other on July 25, accompanied by Henry J. Guillen, New Mexico Livestock Board inspector, and Cipriano Padilla, district attorney investigator. During these two investigations, I collected a considerable amount of evidence all of which indicated the animal had died of natural causes and had subsequently been damaged by scavengers.
Investigation at the scene clearly showed that the animal had been afflicted with severe diarrhea prior to its death. In fact, the victim had left a trail of hoof prints and diarrhea, which ran for approximately 100 yards along a barbed wire fence into another pasture where oak brush, lupine, and larkspur were growing. All three plants are very poisonous to cattle. This evidence together with information revealed in interviews strongly suggests that the animal had been seriously ill. The evidence also indicates that the cow then laid down and died, its carcass subsequently being damaged by scavengers.
In fact, when the Truchas resident first discovered the carcass, he reported seeing animals at the carcass which appeared to be wolves. He said he did not think wolves were common to the area, but later changed his mind after discussing the possibility with several other residents. During my own investigation I also uncovered evidence of canine activity. On a barbed wire fence near the carcass, I found a gray hair, which was sent to Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory for analysis. The lab reported that the hair was from either a dog or wolf. The latter was thought unlikely since there have been no confirmed wolf sightings in New Mexico for over 50 years. Nevertheless, I sent the specimen to the Wyoming State Department of Game and Fish, which has one of the most extensive hair collections in the country. This agency determined that the hair was from a dog. This interpretation seemed highly probable, especially since an eyewitness at the scene reported seeing a dog eating the rear end of the carcass on July 22.
Dogs, however, were not the only scavengers responsible for the damage. During my second investigation on July 25, I saw numerous crow feathers near the carcass, as well as bird defecation. I also observed that additional damage had been done to the rear end of the carcass, which was now in an advanced state of decomposition. In short, there was abundant evidence of scavenger activity.
What makes this case so interesting, however, is the news coverage that resulted. Of particular note is the fact that the reporter who covered the story believed that I had not investigated this case. Consider these interest-grabbing headlines -- "They Held a Mutilation and Nobody came," followed two weeks later by another article captioned, "Two Convinced of Mutilation" (Olson 1979d, 1979e). These stories which are classics in themselves, set the stage for a very interesting and revealing situation that goes to the very heart of the controversy surrounding the mutilation phenomenon.
The first of these articles contains the typical descriptions that are how such an integral part of the lore concerning cattle mutilations -- the animal found "within five hours of the kill" (a determination even a trained forensic pathologist would have difficulty making); barking dogs that "go to the boundary of the fence and turn back" (mysterious carcass theory); "orange lights in the sky that night, some flying over the Truchas Cemetery" (UFO theory); the removal of "the rectal area, the udder, and the ears... with surgical precision" (master surgery theory); and the belief in a "cover-up by district attorney and state police" (governmental conspiracy theory) (Olson 1979d).
The second and more interesting article, "Two Convinced of Mutilation", states that "two serious investigators of cattle mutilations have verified that the cow found in Truchas recently is a victim of the mysterious phenomenon." One of these individuals is quoted as saying, "It is hard to tell from the pictures, but his break in the leg convinces me."
The article then points out that a number of mutilated animals have had leg breaks like the one noted in the pictures of the Truchas cow, thus linking this incident with the theory that animals are being carted away by sophisticated aircraft, subsequently mutilated with surgical precision and then returned to their original pasture. The article states that the photographs are "clear and explicit" (Olson 1979e).
Since my own investigation revealed no broken legs, I was interested in seeing these photographs. According to the article, the pictures were taken by Neil Bockman, an amateur investigator, who I subsequently contacted on July 30. In a letter dated August 7, Bockman sent me a copy of his investigative report and three photographs, one of which is reproduced here. Although his report indicated that the animal's left rear leg was possibly broken, this was not evident in the photographs.
On the following day I wrote to Bockman again, specifically requesting pictures of the broken leg, for I was certain he would have photographed such a unique discovery. However, in a letter dated September 11, Bockman claimed his photographs showed nothing unusual about the rear left leg. He also said he did not believe there was much to be gained by further study of this case. As he stated in his letter: "Accordingly, I am inclined to label this case an undeterminant mutilation whether predator-caused or whatever."
On August 20, I was contacted by Howard Burgess, who is cited in the article as one of the authorities verifying the mutilation. He told me he had recently learned of the contents of the article, "Two Convinced of Mutilation," and wanted me to know he had been misquoted. Burgess further stated that he had argued with the author, who had become upset because he would not confirm the incident as a mutilation. On February 2, 1980, Officer Gabe Valdez, a member of the New Mexico State Police, told me that he, too, had been misquoted in that article, He further stated that he did not think this incident was a bona fide cattle mutilation.
On January 1, 1980, I interviewed Gail Olson, the author of the article. She claimed that the quotes and information she had attributed to Valdez, Burgess, and Bockman were accurate at the time the article was printed. Olson further stated that she has since heard that both Valdez and Burgess had changed their minds concerning the mutilation.
This case is important for several reasons. First, I have no doubt that without my investigation, this incident would have gone down in history as another "classic mutilation" for the state of New Mexico. Second, it makes one question the credibility of other articles that have been written about cattle mutilations. During this project I have reviewed numerous media stories. This article is by no means exceptional.
Unfortunately, so many of the opinions which people have about cattle mutilations are based on information largely derived from the media. Only a small percentage of interested people have ever had the opportunity to visit the scene of a suspected mutilation. I believe that the use of the term surgical precision" contributes to the hysteria that surrounds the mutilation phenomenon. By using this term, the media automatically transcends the normal activities of scavengers and takes us into the realm of the bizarre where anything is possible.
Figures No. 13, 13A and 14 show the news coverage of this incident.
Figure No. 15 was taken by Neil Bockman on July 22. This clearly shows the ear, which according to the news account, was removed with "surgical precision."
Figure No. 16 was taken on July 21, the day the animal was found. One could hardly describe the damaged anus portrayed in this picture as an example of "surgical precision."
Figure No. 17 also taken the day the animal was found, focuses on the udder area. The jaggedness and tearing of the wound is quite obvious.
Figure No. 18 is one I took on July 24. Notice that the ear and surrounding area have now been removed by scavengers.
Figure No. 19 was also taken by me on July 24 and shows additional damage to the rectum area by scavengers.
Figure No. 20 also taken on July 24, reveals the full carcass with the legs in a normal position.
Figure No. 21 was taken on August 20, less than a month later. It shows what remains of the carcass.
In conclusion, the incident, itself, was nothing out of the ordinary. It is a typical example of a seriously ill cow which probably died from consuming poisonous plants, which were growing in abundance in the area. The damage later inflicted on the carcass follows the same scavenger pattern observed in previous investigations.
In this particular case, however, the news accounts that followed dramatize one of the major objectives of this project -- to distill the facts from the rumors and sensationalized accounts of mutilations, which too often constitute the only source of information readily available to the public.