One of the first reported mutilations in the country to receive widespread publicity was the now-famous case of "Snippy" the horse. On Saturday, September 9, 1967, at Alamosa, Colorado, an appaloosa horse named "Snippy" was found dead and mysteriously "mutilated." Numerous UFO sightings were reported in the area, which, according to the owner, were somehow involved with the animal's untimely demise.
Some residents of this area, including the three-year-old appaloosa's owner, claimed Snippy was a victim of a flying saucer after his carcass was found with flesh stripped from the head and back (New Mexican, Oct. 14, 1967).
The incident assumed even more bizarre proportions after a necropsy was performed on the animal. As a UPI (1967) story states:
The mystery surrounding the death of the appaloosa from Alamosa deepened Monday with the disclosure that a Denver pathologist took a belated autopsy on the horse and found the brain and stomach cavities to be empty. Ms. Lewis said the doctor sawed into the brain cavity and found 'absolutely nothing' and opened the stomach expecting to find remains of digestive organs, but found only a 'little powdery residue.'
Interest in and speculation about the Snippy case has continued up to the present. In the January 1980 issue of OMNI Magazine, this incident is rehashed again in an article entitled "Death on the Range -- UFO Update".
Subsequent examination by a Denver pathologist revealed that the flesh had been cut with such precision as to preclude the use of a knife. The examination also excluded the possibility that predators had been responsible for the animal's death (Lebelson 1980: 28).
My interest in this incident became aroused when, after reading numerous articles stressing the bizarre nature of Snippy's death, I came across an article by Pearl M. Nicholas (1972), which appeared in the Valley Courier. The article stated that two .22 caliber bullets had been found in Snippy's body by Dr. Wallace Leary. Realizing that if this were true it would cast a different light on Snippy's death, I tried to locate Dr. Leary. After considerable effort, I finally discovered that he was now employed as a staff officer with the United States Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C.
Dr. Leary told me that although he was contacted by the owner the day Snippy died, he did not examine the horse until more than A month later when he was given the carcass for use as a teaching specimen. Upon cleaning the skeleton, he said he, discovered what appeared to be two bullet holes. When I asked how he made this determination, he said he recognized what was clearly an entry and exit-type wound in the pelvic bone.
Although he found no bullets in the animal, Dr. Leary said he believed Snippy had been shot, -- perhaps by youths driving along a nearby highway. He said he thought it possible that Snippy, after being shot, "ran himself to death" through one of the many broken-down barbed wire fences that dotted his pasture. According to Dr. Leary, such an event would explain the wounds that were described to him the morning Snippy was found.
I asked him if any veterinarian had performed a necropsy on Snippy. He told me that about a month after Snippy died, a necropsy was performed by Dr. Robert O. Adams, now deceased, of the College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Science at Colorado State University. Dr. Leary stated that as far as he can recall, the necropsy revealed nothing unusual.
A more detailed account of the results of this necropsy was reported in the October 14, 1967 issue of the New Mexican (1967). The article also states that Dr. Adams' investigation of the carcass revealed nothing that could not be explained in natural terms., The following observations made by Dr. Adams are interesting, especially in view of the fact that Snippy's owner reportedly "declined to release the name of the pathologist because he requested secrecy" (UPI 1967).
"Bacteria, birds and coyotes were responsible for the absence of organs in the abdominal cavity, Dr. Adams said. Predators had eaten away part of the horse's rump, exposing the cavity, he added. It was normal under the circumstances that the brain cavity was devoid of fluid, he said. Because all tissue was gone from the skull, the opening in the back was exposed to the air. Since the brain, after death, liquefied in hours, the fluid evaporated quickly in the warm prairie air he said. It was at least 30 days after Snippy's death before anyone examined the carcass, and the longest the fluid could have remained would have been two weeks, Dr. Adams said.
'I know it's going to pop the bubble.' Dr. Adams said, 'but the horse was not killed by a flying saucer. Dr. Adams said his findings at this point are speculative, but 'there was some evidence that severe infection had been present in the right flank area. That can kill a horse in a short time.' Dr. Adams also said there was evidence that the skin in front of the shoulder had been incised. This could mean, he said, that someone found Snippy down and suffering and cut his throat to end the pain. Dr. Adams said the incision could have attracted birds and other predators which stripped away the flesh from the neck and head" (New Mexican 1967).
In short, the information provided by these two veterinarians completely discredits the bizarre stories that have been circulating for the past 13 years about Snippy. Nevertheless, such rumors continue to persist. In fact, Snippy's skeleton -- originally prepared for a teaching specimen is apparently now on display in Alamosa as "the horse that got zapped by a UFO."
The case of "Snippy the horse" was merely a prelude of what was later to become a major phenomenon in the state of Colorado. During the decade that followed, hundreds of live-stock mutilations were reported by area ranchers. The problem was considered so serious that a reward of $25,000 was offered by several Colorado agencies for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for mutilating livestock.
The phenomenon seemed to peak in 1975, for between the months of April and December of that year, 203 reports were investigated by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Thirty-five suspected mutilations were examined by Colorado State University, 19 of which were found suitable for tests.
Of these 19 animals, the university determined that 11 died of natural causes. In the remaining eight cases, the cause of death could not be determined. Five cases were confirmed as predator attacks and nine as willful mutilations. Three incidents were thought to involve a possible combination of the two. The university also determined that in all mutilations involving the use of sharp instruments, the cuts were made following the animal's death.
In a letter to the New Mexico State Police dated July 10, 1978, the CBI describes their investigations more explicitly:
"During our investigation of the cattle mutilation problem in Colorado, the CBI laboratory examined approximately 40 hide samples. of these, two were found to have been cut with a sharp instrument. In a six-month period, our agents spent 1,557 man-hours on this investigation, which included undercover operations. We were never able to identify any person or persons as being responsible for these, so-called, mutilations. The scientifically based evidence obtained points to cattle which died of natural causes being attacked by predators."
Reporters had a field day with livestock mutilations. in fact, in 1975, this topic was voted the top news story in
the state by the Colorado Associated Press. The 1975 cases also provided the basis for one of the first books on
livestock mutilations -- a small volume by Frederick W. Smith (1976) entitled "Cattle Mutilation: The Unthinkable
Truth".
One of the many writers and reporters to develop a special interest in this phenomenon was a man by
the name of Dane Edwards. Edwards was the editor of a small weekly newspaper in Brush until he "mysteriously"
disappeared. According to Thompson (1979), Edwards had developed an uncanny familiarity with livestock mutilations.
Then one day, he mysteriously disappeared. His wife filed a missing person's report. Eventually Edwards was traced to
a motel in Denver, where he apparently left unpaid bills, but there the trail ended. Thompson (1979c) notes that
before his disappearance, the newsman had hinted that his life was being threatened.
What ever happened to Dane Edwards? Was he "silenced" because he was getting too close to the truth, or was his disappearance deliberately engineered by the government for whom he allegedly worked as a secret agent? Speculation ran wild. But regardless of which theory one advocated, most people concerned about Edwards agreed on one thing -- that his disappearance had something to do with livestock mutilations (Smith 1976: 40-42).
Since the Edwards story was frequently being cited as evidence by those who claimed that there was something sinister behind the livestock mutilation phenomenon, I decided it worthwhile to investigate this incident further. On August 31, 1979, a reliable source informed me that Edwards had actually been fired by his newspaper and had reportedly moved to Texas to write a book on cattle mutilations. I later contacted Drusylla Georgeson, current publisher and owner of The Banner newspaper in Brush., In a letter dated December 31, 1979, she informed me that Edwards had been employed by The Banner from May through October 1975, when he was terminated because of poor business practices. She said that this was one of the reasons why Edwards left the area. In fact, she stated that she personally saw him leave a few days later with his children.
George C. Erianne, a friend of Edwards, informed me that Edwards had left Brush "owing money to everyone." In addition, I learned from the assistant district attorney in Denver that there is an outstanding warrant, -- filed March 1916 -- against Dane Edwards for defrauding the Denver Travel Lodge in November 1975.
Despite these rather revealing facts, stories began to circulate about Edwards' mysterious disappearance. According to an article which was published in the Brush Banner on December 10, 1975, Mrs. Edwards claimed that her husband was still missing and that she had filed a missing persons report in Colorado Springs and in Euless, Texas. The article goes on to make the following observation, which casts serious doubts on her statements:
"The Banner telephoned the Euless and Arlington, Texas Police Departments on Monday to verify the missing person report, and were told that no reports were on file. The Colorado Springs, Colorado Police Department stated that a report had been filed, and was canceled on Saturday afternoon, December 8th" (Brush Banner 1975).
In short, on the basis of the evidence just cited, there is good reason to believe that Edwards rather than being spirited away because of involvement with the mutilation phenomena probably left Colorado because of unpaid debts and an outstanding arrest warrant.
Another piece of evidence which has frequently been cited as proof that the Colorado mutilations are conducted by some highly sophisticated group is the necropsy report submitted by a Colorado veterinarian, September 1, 1978, following an examination of a six-month-old Hereford steer that was reported mutilated. This necropsy, which was performed at the request of the sheriff's department was subsequently written up in two reports,-- a necropsy record and a necropsy report, in which the veterinarian offers his opinions of the incident based on data furnished in the necropsy record.
This veterinarian's report, which is taken as the gospel truth by a number of independent investigators, has many of the earmarks of the "classic mutilation" -- the animal drained of blood by some mysterious force prior to death, the removal of certain organs with a "sharp cutting instrument," and the lack of blood at the scene. To better understand the role which this veterinarian has played in promoting the mutilation phenomenon, his necropsy report is reproduced below:
Necropsy Report
(1) The entire animal was clean; appearing as though recently washed and brushed. No dirt or mud was present on, or between the claws of the hooves, and no blood was present at puncture or excision sites. No marks of physical restraint were evident.
(2) No evidence of terminal struggle was present, the animal being found in right lateral recumbency amid several. small Aspen trees in a normal postmortem position, head slightly downhill.
(3) The animal's left eye, anus, distal prepuse and penis were cleanly severed with a sharp cutting instrument in a practiced fashion. The distal 1/3 of the tongue and the lips on the left side were also removed with a sharp cutting instrument however; (a) multiple strokes were employed to remove the lips, inconsistent with the precision of the other excisions, and (b) in an anesethetized or freshly killed animal, the tongue can be readily grasped and extended beyond the point where it was severed, without removal of the lips necessary to gain access.
Based on examination findings, it is my opinion that the animal was captured and restrained by a chemical agent (injected behind the right elbow) which did not cause him to lie down nor fall. once under restraint, the following sequence appears evident:
(A) The animal was completely washed and dried.
(B) Removal of the animal's blood was begun via a 12-14 gauge needle inserted into the left jugular vein.
In the anesethetized or heavily sedated animal, the animal's own heart will continue to function and act as a pump until nearly all its blood has been drained.
The necropsy findings of subcutaneous and intramuscular hemorrhage and emphysema in the cervical and brisket regions indicate that at some point during this process, the needle became dislodged from the vein. These lesions are seen following death of an animal which has recently been treated by the administration of intravenous medication and caused the needle to become dislodged by struggling. This may coincide in this case with the administration of additional chemical restraint agent in the muscles of the back (wound and muscle lesion with emphysema in mid-theracic area).
(C) A second veinapuncture was accomplished in the left jugular, and removal of the animal's blood continued until nearly complete. Total exsanguination by this method is not possible.
(D) The eye, prepuce and penis, anus, lip, and tongue were then excised. With the majority of the animal's blood removed, bleeding from these peripheral sites would be almost nonexistent.
(E) The animal was then abandoned, still standing, and he moved to the point of discovery under his own power, collapsing and dying from cerebral anoxia. Muscle stores of energy not dependent upon available oxygen are present which would allow the animal to move a short distance.
To accomplish this process I believe would require; a minimum of two individuals; a period of 1-2 hours (primarily for cleaning the animal, as the exsanguination and excision of organs could be accomplished in 15-20 minutes or less); a capture gun, blowgun, or specially designed arrow; one or more sharp knives and/or scissors; hypodermic needles; and some knowledge of bovine anatomy and treatment procedures (but not in excess of that possessed by many ranchers who have observed and treated their own animals.
The method of utilizing the animals own heart as a. pump to accomplish exsanguination is only practiced, to my knowledge, in such places which seek to replace the blood with a preservative chemical in order to more adequately preserve the entire carcass or to replace the blood with colored latex for identification of the vessels for the teaching of anatomy.
To help determine whether or not the opinions and conclusions advocated in the necropsy report are supported by the facts contained in the necropsy record, a copy of this record is reproduced as follows:
Necropsy Record
HISTORY: Found dead @ 48 hrs. after previous observation, at which time no abnormalities were noted. Only moderate postmortem change and bloating evident at time of examination.
CLINICIAN'S DIAGNOSIS: Fatal anoxia from near total exsanguination.
INTEGUMENT & SUBCUTIS: In good flesh - haircoat clean and w/o signs of extensive trauma or contusions - two puncture wounds over left jugular vein at mid-cervical region - puncture wound on mid-thoracic dlorsum (see remarks).
CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM: (Pericardium, epicardium, niyocardium, coronary vessels, valves, arteries, veins, blood): Right ventricle slightly enlarged - coagulated blood in both ventricles - great vessels contained only small amounts of coagulated blood (@1/4 normal). Remaining cardiovascular system unremarkable.
LYMPHOHEMOPOIETIC SYSTEM: (Spleen, lymph nodes, lymphatics, tonsils, bone marrow, thymus): Spleen - not enlarged - necrotic, hemorrhagic, lacking in structural character. Remaining lymphohemopoietic system - unremarkable.
DIGESTIVE SYSTEM: (Lips, teeth, tongue, pharnyx, salivary glands, esophagus, stomach, intestine, cecum, rectum, anus, liver, gall bladder, pancreas, peritoneum): Lips - right side, normal - left side, freely mobile portions excised to expose buccal cavity.
Rumen - @ 1/3 full of coarse roughage ingesta w/moderate fluid and gas distention no gross lesions.
Anus - anus and rectal sphincter excised
Liver - pale yellow in color, no gross abnormalities
Gall Bladder - distended w/ yellow/gold fluid - mucosa stained yellow/gold. Remaining digestive system - no gross lesions
MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM: (Musculature, skull, skeleton, ligaments, joints, tendons, bursae): No skeletal lesions noted. Area of muscular hemorrhage and necrosis 5x7cm, caudal to right radiohumeral articulation involving the lat. dorsi and triceps muscles to a depth of 3-4cm. 1-1/2x7cm area of hemorrhage in longissimus system at mid-thoracic region. No other gross lesions of skeletal muscle.
RESPIRATORY SYSTEM: (Nostrils, nasal passages, turbinates, sinuses, larnyx, trachea, bronchi, lungs, mediastinum, pleura): No gross lesions - hypostatic congestion of right lung.
UROGENITAL SYSTEM: (Kidney, ureters, bladder, urethara, gonads, accessory glands, genitalia, mammary glands):
Kidney - moderate perirenal edema - capsule indistinguishable - extremely hemorrhagic w/entensive necrosis of cortex of both kidneys
Urinary bladder - empty - unremarkable
Gonads - early castrate male (elastic band) - no scrotum nor testicular tissue present
Genitalia - distal prepuce and distal 3-4 in. of penis severed at body wall.
ENDOCRINE SYSTEM: (Thyroid, parathyroids, adrenals pituitary, pineal body): Not examined.
NERVOUS SYSTEM & SPECIAL SENSORY ORGANS: (Brain, spinal cord, meninges, nerves, ganglia, eyes, ears):
CNS - not evaluated.
Ears - tagged and ear notched - no gross lesions to external ear canal.
Eyes - right, unremarkable - left, excised w/o damage to palpebral tissues optic nerve severed at base of orbit.
INTEGUMENT CONT: @ 2dm right of midline - puncture wound caudal to right radio-humeral articulation - mobile portion of labia (maxillary and mandibular) on left side of jaw excised anus and rectal sphincter excised - distal prepuce and penis severed at body wall. Significant subcutaneous emphysema and hemorrhage into fascia and between muscle planes of ventral cervical region and brisket, and on dorsum, from mid-thoracic region to tailhead - Significant subcutaneous emphysema in dependent regions of all four legs.
REMARKS: Tissue samples taken: lung, kidney, liver, gall bladder, urinary bladder, spleen, and cardiac muscle. Rumen contents were also taken.
To evaluate these necropsy reports, I contacted seven very experienced veterinarians. Of these seven veterinarians, five were board certified pathologists. Four of them had had extensive experience in diagnostic work.
Six of them stated that the opinions as set forth by the veterinarian in the necropsy report were not supported by the data. Their comments ranged from "honorable and sincere, but misguided," to "a bunch of malarkey." One stated that the "conclusions drawn were ridiculous" while another commented "I laughed myself silly" reading this material.
One of the seven veterinarians declined to comment on this material, but he did offer an opinion on cattle mutilations in general. He stated that in all the examinations made by his laboratory in regard to cattle mutilations, no human involvement was over established. Rather, the animals died of natural causes and were subsequently mutilated by scavengers.
After having reviewed the comments from these veterinarians, I then wrote a letter to the Colorado veterinarian who had written these reports and requested him to answer 16 questions, which had been furnished to me by some of the veterinarians just cited. He eventually agreed to do so. The questions and his answers are as follows:
1. Was the enclosed necropsy record and necropsy report prepared by you?
ANSWER: Yes
2. Are they complete the way they are enclosed or are there additional documents concerning this examination which are missing?
ANSWER: Documents detailing the results of laboratory testing are not included.
3. If the record and report were prepared by you, has any additional information come to your attention in regards to this examination that would alter your conclusions?
ANSWER: None, although the postmortem removal of parts and organs should be considered as well as ante-mortem.
4. It is noted that the necropsy record contains a notation that tissue samples were taken in regards to the lung, kidney, liver, gallbladder, urinary bladder, spleen, and cardiac muscle. The report states that rumen contents were also taken. Were any examinations conducted in regards to these samples and if so, were the results of any significance to your observation?
ANSWER: Samples taken were submitted to State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory for toxological and histological analysis. Results were not significant to necropsy observations.
5. Would not one normally expect the loss of an eye, tongue, lips, anus and rectum from the predation of scavengers and carnivores if a dead animal should be left thirty-six hours in the field?
ANSWER: No. An eye or the tongue, perhaps, but the other parts missing in this case are not scavenger target organs and would only have been torn or removed to gain access to the intestines. The abdominal cavity was intact.
6. Is it not a rule rather than the exception for these animals to do a neat job and not leave either blood or a mess at the site of the carcass?
ANSWER: The neatness qualities inherent in beak or tooth are significantly different from those arising from a knife edge cut.
7. Would it not be normal to expect animals that are in confinement or in a feedlot to be dirty and those out on the range to have a clean, brushed hair coat and not have mud or dirt between their hooves?
ANSWER: No, it would not.
8. Was the possibility of tetanus considered inasmuch as the animal had been castrated with an elastic band?
ANSWER: No. The castration site had been completely healed for several months and no evidence of infection existed at this area.
9. Necrosis of the cortex of the kidney and necrosis of the spleen were reported on gross examination of the organs. Would it have been of interest to have had these lesions examined histologically?
ANSWER: It might have, but it wasn't. Both histopathological studies and cultures were requested, were performed, and were not informative.
10. If one assumed that the necrosis of the kidney and spleen was caused by the drug injection and exsanguination, is it not true that the necrosis would not be developed adequately to be observed on gross inspection in as short a time interval as several hours?
ANSWER: Thirty-six hours is more than adequate time for the development of grossly observable necrosis, especially in a ruminant.
11. Would not the distended gallbladder and the rumen that was only one-third full suggest that the animal was off feed and ill for several days?
ANSWER: These conditions suggest only a limited feed intake, not the reasons for it, and the absence of any other intestinal pathology (which usually accompanies such illness) does not support a supposition of this nature.
12. In an animal that has been dead for thirty-eight hours, would there not have been considerable diffusion of blood and fluid from vessels into tissue or gravitation of blood, thus causing changes resembling exsanguination?
ANSWER: Blood does not diffuse. Loss of the fluid component of the blood through diffusion is possible to a limited degree, but that which remains, as well as the cellular component does not leave the vessels. Gravitation results in relocation within the vasculature of certain organs, such as the lungs, but the blood is still in the vessels.
13. Do you feel, knowing how rapidly blood clots, that it would be possible to bleed an animal to death with just two twelve to fourteen gauge needles in the jugular veins or would not repeated venipunctures as well as vacuum be necessary to remove appreciable amounts of blood?
ANSWER: This would be entirely possible, as originally stated.
14. Could not the clean removal of the eye suggest bird scavengers?
ANSWER: Not when the optic nerve has been severed by a single stroke of a sharp instrument leaving all nerve fibers cut in a single plane.
15. Although the puncture wounds of side and back could be from a dart gun, could they have not also been traumas that could have allowed entry of bacteria as clostridium septicum or bacillus?
ANSWER: Possible, but these were the only lesions noted, and their locations are extremely unlikely places for traumatic wounds.
16. Would it not be true that if the animal could still move, it would still bleed and evidence of blood should have been on the face, tail, and perineal hair if the anus or tongue had been excised before death?
ANSWER: Not necessarily. Muscle performance is dependent upon energy which is produced and stored in the cell itself, not blood. The blood "restocks" the cell, but does not provide directly useable energy to it. Thus, a certain amount of muscle function is possible without the presence of blood at all. These circumstances, however are rarely ever encountered except in situations of this sort.
I also questioned the veterinarian about his professional qualifications. He replied that his "experience with the field of veterinary medicine spans six years." However, on March 5, 1980, I learned from the Colorado Board of Veterinary Medicine that the only veterinarian in the state with his name had been licensed to practice medicine only two years. More specifically, the information furnished by the board indicates that this person graduated from veterinary school on May 13, 1978. On May 25, 1978 this person was licensed to practice medicine. The 1980 Directory of the American Veterinarian Medical Association also states that this individual graduated from veterinarian school in 1978.
In short, it appears that this veterinarian performed the necropsy on the alleged mutilation victim less than four months after he graudated from veterinarian school. It would thus appear from his answer that he is including, as part of his experience with veterinary medicine, the time he spent as a student, which I suggest is an unusual inclusion.
In summary, many of his interpretations can be questioned. In fact, six veterinarians, as previously noted, totally discredit the general thesis he sets out in his necropsy report. Many of his conclusions are suspect such as his statement that the two puncture marks in the vicinity of the animal's left jugular vein is an injection site. For as Dr. Howard J. Sherrod of the Valverde Animal Clinic in Corrales points out, there are several plausible explanations for such marks. According to him, after a cow dies and begins to bloat, the skin becomes taut and in some places, thinner and more tender. When this happens carrion birds such as buzzards sometimes puncture holes through the carcass attempting to get at the blood vessel.
Dr. Sherrod also points out that such marks could also indicate a snake bite. Such bites, according to him, are usually found in the head or neck regions. However, he notes that these bite holes would be relatively close together and would be hard to find after a short period of time.
Although the veterinarian claims the cuts on the animal were made with a sharp instrument, he does not specify how he arrived at this conclusion. Interestingly, it is the exposed organs -- in this case the left ear and left lip -- that are missing in the steer. Also consistent with scavenger activity is the type of organs removed -- eye, lips, anus, penis, and part of the tongue. The veterinarian also argues that the lack of blood and mess at the site indicates that the mutilation was executed by a sophisticated operation. However, as I have noted in Chapter Three, it seems to be the rule rather than the exception for scavengers to do a neat job.