The Genii Forum

This story was referenced in USAToday this morning:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/featu ... =hvper.com

Never thought I would see what seems to be the truth finally come out.

The USDA report mentioned in the article.

This happened in 2003 - 16 years ago. How this is somehow "news" is bizarre ... and more specifically, what this animal handler stands to gain after all this time besides the salacious allure of a "cover-up" ...

No one conclusively knows what caused the tiger to go off script. And no one ever will know.

S&R claimed the tiger attempted to rescue Roy. Detractors claim the tiger knew exactly what it was doing.

Welcome to Hollywood. Choose which ever narrative you wish to believe but to claim that Roy is to blame for what was an unfortunate incident involving, what forever will be, a wild animal is distasteful ;-(

The stroke story was absurd from the beginning - not even deserving of the description "cover up." This news (?) shouldn't come as a shock to anyone, though the source is mildly intriguing.

There is nothing "salacious" about this. Grow up.

Nor "distasteful".

I enjoyed reading this. I knew there was a difference between the actual events and what we were told. And I always thought it odd those cats were allowed to be on stage. I thought that was nuts. I feel a circle has been completed. Thank you erdnasephile for posting.

No Richard, the allure of the imaginary cover-up certainly has the press excited. It's a non-event.

@Leo - "Siegfried & Roy trainer blames showman for tiger attack: 'Roy’s not the only one that suffers'" is distasteful. 16 years post fact you run the TV show circuit and attempt to garner sympathy for your lingering PTSD over the paralysis & permanent brain impairment of the tiger maul victim? I find that somewhat disagreeable.

It's not disagreeable, and there has never been any creditable account of what actually happened. This is the first one.

I remember from the video Roy tapping the uncooperative animal on the nose with his microphone to get its attention. That was when it lashed out.

The full USDA report - which contains multiple eye-witness and staff accounts - was extensively covered in 2005:

https://www.today.com/news/why-did-tige ... 2D80555372
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roy-horn-t ... se-closed/

There is very little difference between this "new" report and what was previously covered.

To claim 'handling error' on the basis of Roy not following a particular circular pattern - or claiming a 'lack of relationship with his animals' is pure conjecture ... and not corroborated by anything or anyone.

If Mr. Lawrence actually worked with the animals, on the show in general, and was present at the performance in which the incident occurred his statements would not be "pure conjecture". While his motivations can be questioned, his statements are an informed opinion.

They are more observation rather than opinion.

What happened was inevitable. When they were performing all of those shows, my concern was with the audience. I always wondered what would stop any of the tigers from running out into the audience and attacking them. Were any precautions taken to protect the audience?

It’s unnatural to have tigers running around a stage. Let’s remember that they are wild and very dangerous unpredictable animals. You can train them all you want but if they are in a mood for whatever reason, anything can happen and did.

All of this discussion is after the fact that their show contained the potential for great danger and that day, the danger took place. Does it really matter what actually happened and why? Eventually, something would have gone wrong if you consider the odds.

I.M. Magician wrote: Does it really matter what actually happened and why?

Perhaps as much as what happened to Chung Ling Soo and the identity of Erdnase.

Q. Kumber wrote:

I.M. Magician wrote: Does it really matter what actually happened and why?

Perhaps as much as what happened to Chung Ling Soo and the identity of Erdnase.

David Alexander addressed this question in his "New Light on Erdnase" article:

The question naturally arises, "Why should we care who Erdnase was?" This was answered by Ross MacDonald's hard boiled but occasionally sentimental detective Lew Archer. When he was asked why anyone should care about history MacDonald has Archer respond that someone ought to be interested in finding out the truth about things, for the truth ought to matter.

The truth matters to detectives and historians for that is their business. They use the same methods in their work. They both collect data, examine it, and then interpret and explain their findings. They follow the evidence where it leads. Sometimes it's easy. Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the truth is good. Sometimes no one is happy with the result. The satisfaction comes from the doing of the job, the finding of the truth, for the truth does matter.

Be that as it may, I try to keep Gustave Flaubert's quote in mind: "There is no truth. There is only perception"

"Be that as it may, I try to keep Gustave Flaubert's quote in mind: "There is no truth. There is only perception"

Or, as Hamlet observes to Rosencrantz, "for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

For me, there is a difference between wanting to know who wrote a book and why a tiger was in a bad mood.

Being curious about who Erdnase was is quite different than why a tiger decided to act in a certain way. The later can be explained by experts about tiger behavior. Finding out who wrote something is more difficult to determine if no one knows and anyone who did know is no longer alive and therefore cannot be contacted to ask the burning question. Two completely different things actually.

If what I read about Roy’s diminishing interaction/bonding with the tiger is true, it should not be surprising that the tiger was ticked off. That would mean that Roy neglected to perform some extremely important actions used to keep a bond between them active. Agreed?

I have a cat and although he does not pose the same level of danger, I nurture him on a daily basis without exception not only to assure him that I love him but because I feel a responsibility (and look forward) to nurture him so he gets what he needs in addition to food, water, and so on. If I am ever late with any of the above mentioned things, I see a difference in his behavior. Imagine that with an 8 foot tiger!

So...perception is not as relevant as predictable behavior of tigers. In essence, what took place can be clearly and accurately explained by an expert on tiger behavior.

The single absolute truth is that we don't know.

But we do the best we can.

I read the article with great pain. First, Siegfried is a dear friend and both are people I have always admired. I would agree that the question with cats is never if but when. I was mauled in Reno in 1992, on stage, and I will never forget the horror of the moment or the PTSD that followed for years afterward. They're so fast, humans have no conception. When the cat moved from my leg to my arm, I didn't even see it. The trainer has his "truths" of the incident and he relates them. I feel empathy that is clouded by the "truth" of what we do. Stuntman or cat trainer, you don't get into that job without knowing there is danger and, yes, sometimes the danger can be minimized, made manageable. But, always it is there, lurking, ready to strike when you drop your guard for a second. This is a surprise to no one in the business of danger.

Regardless of whom you believe, so many things go into such an attack that no one knows exactly what happened, except the cat.

I never saw the point of the whole magic with big cats thing until I saw the S and R show. When they walked that animal in front of me, you FELT something - a feeling unlike any other.

Years later I was at what was called a tiger rescue center in thailand. They allowed you to take photos with the animals. I saw behind a tiger and placed my hands on him for the photo. He has a thick chain around his neck.

It didn’t matter.

If that animal wanted me, there was NOTHING and I mean NOTHING that anyone could have done to stop him.

It was a perfect killing machine.

In retrospect I have serious concerns about that place and left with doubts about the treatment of the animals who were there. But that’s a much larger issue for a thread I’m sure would get locked very quickly.

But I’m not sure if many people really understand what they are reading and discussing when they discuss the use of wild animals like tigers in a show.

I’m not proclaiming to know anything, either - except for what I undeniably know. These are amazing animals and until you’ve had one stand within feet of you without glass you cannot possibly understand what’s really going on.

Who would ever give insurance in a situation where there is no barrier between the audience and the cats? It sounds crazy to me.

A trainer brought an old lion to the Tannen Jubilee one year and they were walking around the lobby so people could take photos with it. Gave me the willies and I stayed away.

They did the same thing when the IBM came to Kansas City. I took a hard pass.

Brad Henderson wrote:I never saw the point of the whole magic with big cats thing until I saw the S and R show. When they walked that animal in front of me, you FELT something - a feeling unlike any other.

From Red Dragon, by Thomas Harris. The psychopath Dolarhyde has taken his blind girlfriend, Reba, to see an anesthetized tiger.

She gripped the edge of the table and reached out tentatively until her fingers touched tips of fur, warm from the lights, a cooler layer and then a deep steady warmth from below. She flattened her hand on the thick coat and moved it gently, feeling the fur slide across her palm, with and against the lay, felt the hide slide over the wide ribs as they rose and fell.

She gripped the pelt and fur sprang between her fingers. In the very presence of the tiger her face grew pink and she lapsed into blindisms, inappropriate facial movements she had schooled herself against. . . .

Warfield lifted a great paw and put it in her hand. She felt the roughness of the pads and smelled faintly the cage floor. He pressed a toe to make the claw slide out. The heavy, supple muscles of the shoulders filled her hands.

She felt the tiger’s ears, the width of its head and, carefully, the veterinarian guiding her, touched the roughness of its tongue. Hot breath stirred the hair on her forearms.

Last, Dr. Warfield put the stethoscope in her ears. Her hands on the rhythmic chest, her face upturned, she was filled with the tiger heart’s bright thunder.

Bill, that's a creepy sexual thing with the tiger. Ick.

I remember that scene from both the book and the two movies. It’s intense. But still fails to convey the feeling of being right next to a killing machine. A beautiful killing machine. But a killing machine none the less.

This latest news on Roy's accident seems to have stirred (at least among magicians) a number of varying responses.
If anything, it seems only to indicate that the original "official" explanation(s) as to the cause of the accident were (and still are) somewhat unpalatable, if not completely unbelievable.

Chris Lawrence was onstage, and witnessed the entire incident. In his capacity working with S&R, it seems fair to give him the credit of an "expert" when speaking of the events which occurred that day.
His breakdown of those events has the strongest ring of truth to date IMO, and certainly contains many, many more specific details than any of the official explanations has ever offered.

Roger M. wrote:This latest news on Roy's accident seems to have stirred (at least among magicians) a number of varying responses.
If anything, it seems only to indicate that the original "official" explanation(s) as to the cause of the accident were (and still are) somewhat unpalatable, if not completely unbelievable.

Chris Lawrence was onstage, and witnessed the entire incident. In his capacity working with S&R, it seems fair to give him the credit of an "expert" when speaking of the events which occurred that day.
His breakdown of those events has the strongest ring of truth to date IMO, and certainly contains many, many more specific details than any of the official explanations has ever offered.

YES.

For specific details, take a look at the document Bill posted. Lots of testimony from lots of people.

Jack Shalom wrote:For specific details, take a look at the document Bill posted. Lots of testimony from lots of people.

The eyewitness testimony in the document corroborates what I remember from the video when it was broadcast on the news shortly after the incident. Roy tapped the uncooperative animal on the nose with his microphone to get its attention before it attacked him. The report repeatedly states there were no barriers between the tigers and the viewing audience. Things could have turned out worse.

Pretty gruesome reading. I'm sure that there were a lot of people in the audience near the stage when it happened who have been having nightmares ever since.

Did the tall lady with the beehive hairdo really exist? Was she the one sitting near the stage who distracted the tiger? Did the animal catch a whiff of her hairspray?

Leonard Hevia wrote:Did the tall lady with the beehive hairdo really exist? Was she the one sitting near the stage who distracted the tiger? Did the animal catch a whiff of her hairspray?

The USDA report says there was no evidence that any of those things happened.

No hairspray, no beehive hairdo, no tall lady, no laser. Just an angry cat and Roy misjudged that. This might not happen today because most performers are wearing earpieces with audio fed in. If the stagehand saw that the cat was not behaving normally, the information could have been relayed to Roy instantly.

So I am thinking two things (Great, I am thinking again!)...

First, after all the previous interaction between Roy and that tiger, Roy needed someone to tell him that the tiger wasn’t behaving normally? Oy! His empirical experience should have told him that!

Second, I think it’s extremely safe to assume that it is NEVER a good idea to tap a tiger on the nose with a microphone unless the tiger requests that you do so of course.

It is sounding to me like Roy became much too relaxed around that tiger and disregarded protocol.

When onstage there is a lot to process. It’s easy to miss something. In Roy’s defense here, he could have been totally engaged and observant and still miss something that might be quite obvious to someone not in the thick of the action.

If you read all of the witness statements that Mullins linked to, you see one where it was stated that tapping the tiger on the nose was standard practice, and something the tigers were trained to respond to.

We will NEVER know the exact reason Mantecore flipped out.

I knew a cat trainer. Mike Clark from McKinney, TX. He rescued mostly trouble cats from roadside zoos and people who had them as pets and were attacked - then he trained them and put together an act.

He told me that a lion - if you get it young, and it's friendly and lets you pet it and play with it - will be that way its entire life. A tiger, on the other hand, even a tiger cub small enough to stand all four paws on the palm of your hand, you can tell he's looking up at you thinking, "I could eat that."