An earlier article by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, dated Feb. 7th, stated that the three youths denied having tortured or mutilated the cat, but admitted parading its body around the PetSmart store.

Which story was correct? Did the kids change their story in midstream when they saw the outrage over the "mutilation"?

This question was the hardest to define. The necropsy report stated that this was a most horrible case of animal abuse and that the cat had the "appearance of being skewed." A witness in the store said the cat was "skewered in the store". The police report written the day after the incident mentioned trauma to the head and body of the cat, with no mention of skewering. Earlier media reports referred to the eyes having been removed and the tongue severed.

After discussing these matters at length with Pat Head, District Attorney of Cobb County, where the PetSmart incidents took place, it becomes apparent that the skewering of the cat has approached Urban Legend proportions. The veterinarian who performed the necropsy did not, in fact, observe any rod, but theorized that a rod had been used, due to the internal injuries of the cat. By the same token the "popping out of eyes" and severance of tongue are both consistent with the force of being hit by a vehicle.

In justice to the veterinarian who performed the necropsy examination, he was told when the cat was handed him that it had been a victim of criminal abuse. This had the understandable effect of influencing his interpretation of his findings. Had he been told, "This cat was hit by a car," those same findings would more than likely have been different.

1. Why was the body of the cat warm to the touch in the PetSmart store?
2. Why was there no evidence of rigor mortis? Most witnesses, including the responding animal control officer said the cat was "limp". One witness stated, "the cat was definitely dead and it appeared rigor mortis had begun to set in." Could it be that rigor mortis was on its way out, and that's why other witnesses did not observe it?
3. Why did the cat not stink? (Although the young men made a great deal of drama about the smell of the cat, this could well have been for benefit of their video). Witnesses in the store state vehemently that the cat didn't smell.
4. Why were there no insects or maggots?

The question of the apparent body temperature of the cat has not been fully explained yet. However, when I questioned D.A. Head, his comments were, "If the kids had skewered and/or tortured the cat before bringing it into the store, where was the blood? There was no blood on the shopping cart and no evidence the cat was dripping blood." This fact is more consistent with the scenario of the cat dying the day before in a car accident. The blood would have poured out onto the highway and the ditch where the cat was later placed, and any remaining blood would have coagulated by the time the cat was taken into the store.