You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Lurid Crime Tales-
Hiker finds beheaded ducks, rooster along Griswold, CT trail
2012-04-08
Take that, monkey wrench. :-)
State environmental police are investigating the dumping of decapitated fowl alongside a trail at Pachaug State Forest this week.
You just know there's gotta be more to it than that ....
Donna Fenter, of Griswold, said she came upon the pile of 11 decapitated ducks and one rooster Thursday while hiking the blue trail near the Pachaug boat launch between Pachaug State Forest and Hopeville Pond State Park. On top of the animals were used condoms and torn condom wrappers, she said.
Urp. OK, now you've got my attention.
"It was gruesome," she said. "Who would ever think of something like that?"
Can't be too careful these days.
Since she encountered the grisly scene, she said neighbors and friends have come up with their own theory theories.

"One suggested it could be some sort of ritual," she said. "But I don't know. I can't even think like that."
Neither can I. Of course.
Dennis Schain, a spokesman for the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, which is investigating the incident, said the fowl were domesticated, not wild.
So they were bred for foul play...
The site has since been cleaned up by park maintenance, and the investigation is ongoing.
Maybe we can get some investigative guidance from Obean.
In the meantime, Fenter said the discovery has shaken her sense of safety in the town where she has lived for 11 years.
You have nothing to fear, Donna. You're not a duck.
But is she also not a rooster?
"I figured, it's Griswold. It's a small town. Of course it's safe," she said. "When I made the discovery on my way back (to the car), I sat in my car and just sobbed thinking that it really isn't so safe. There are very terrible, horrible people out there. I'm just thankful that a child -- mine or someone else's -- didn't have to see that."
See that? Hopefully they weren't part of that.
But Fenter also said she plans to keep going out on the trails with her Labrador retriever, Cooper.
Better keep that retriever on a short leash, Donna, or you might have to teach that dog how to gargle with Listerine.
Pretty cruel, Donna. Naming your dog Cooper. What were you thinking?
Griswold First Selectman Philip Anthony, too, said he was shocked by the discovery. Such a thing has never happened in town, he said.
Have there been any liberal events in the area lately?
In the unincorporated areas, but never in town...
"I'm a bit alarmed. I was born and brought up here, so I'm fairly confident it is not a local resident," he said.
No, no, certainly not!
"No local resident I know -- and I know most of our residents -- would do that sort of thing."
At least you thought you did.
Posted by:gorb

#20  RandomJD, I need to show this thread to Mr. Wife, who just inquired if I am about to choke to death in front of him. You military types lead much more interesting lives than I ever imagined.
Posted by: trailing wife   2012-04-08 23:59  

#19  TW: no no, Sanchez was charged under UCMJ Article 134, a general article covering conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or which discredits the Armed Forces, that is not specifically addressed by other articles (rape, murder, larceny, etc.). Among many other minor offenses, Art. 134 covers sexually indecent acts.

Courts have addressed whether a conviction for indecent acts requires victimizing a woman (no) or even another person (no - the victim may also be, e.g., a chicken or a corpse). So it's the perps' own creativity, assisted by their hapless lawyers and some undoubtedly amused judges, that have defined the scope of "indecent acts" with such specificity.

That said, it has long been a mystery to prosecutors how, precisely, one commits an indecent act with a chicken. Typically the (alcohol-fueled) debate centers on whether or not one would sustain beak and/or claw injuries; and where one would, ahem, stick it. I've yet to hear a plausible account - and perhaps it's better that way!
Posted by: RandomJD   2012-04-08 22:57  

#18  The Chicken Protection League is a strong but largely under-the-radar group but with a strong litigious rep. Most of the Google hits are based on rumors and third-party anecdotes
Posted by: Frank G   2012-04-08 19:47  

#17  There are specific ordinances involving indecencies with chickens? Our lawmakers have too much time on their hands.
Posted by: trailing wife   2012-04-08 19:36  

#16  ;-)
Posted by: Frank G   2012-04-08 19:29  

#15  well, if Sanchez was doing it right, the chicken...
Posted by: Frank G   2012-04-08 19:28  

#14  Y'all live in a dream world, If for one second that the used Condoms were coincidental. You know damn well what happened there.

No, I have absolutely no idea what happened there. Condoms are to prevent pregnancy and/or STDs, so the purpose they would have served here is . . . ? Please explain.

And please note, I am familiar with United States v. Sanchez 29 C.M.R. 32 (C.M.A. 1960) (conviction for indecent acts with a chicken), affirming the conviction without resolving the question: which came first, the chicken or Sanchez?
Posted by: RandomJD   2012-04-08 19:14  

#13  By perversion I assumed they were following the Weimer Republic approved (rumor at least) beastiality combined with beheading the chicken. If that is not defined as perversion the word perversion has no meaning any longer.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2012-04-08 16:34  

#12  Go to your room, BP.
Posted by: Barbara   2012-04-08 15:11  

#11  I suspect fowl play.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2012-04-08 14:19  

#10  Somebody too lazy to pluck & cook?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2012-04-08 13:41  

#9  You raise poultry, two-time your SO, and he/she decides to set you up. Cute.
Posted by: KBK   2012-04-08 13:28  

#8  #7 I find it had to believe this story is real. The clues indicate perversion and if they were smart enough to hide the evidence

Yes Richard, a feather or two...ok, kinky. But entire birds? Perversion!
Posted by: Besoeker   2012-04-08 12:01  

#7  I find it had to believe this story is real. The clues indicate perversion and if they were smart enough to hide the evidence out i the wild they'd be smart enough to bury it as well. Especially with DNA evidence likely in what might be an animal cruelty crime.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2012-04-08 11:52  

#6  But is she also not a rooster?

Donna is a girl's name, and a rooster is a boy. So she's safe. Unless her parent's had some strange ideas about gender or something. Hmm.

Run, Donna. Run ....
Posted by: gorb   2012-04-08 11:48  

#5  at least it wasn't a chicken
Posted by: Frank G   2012-04-08 10:31  

#4  
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2012-04-08 09:32  

#3  It's in Connecticut.

It's all the typical antistructuralist, marginal behavior typically found in the BosWash corridor, if you ask me. And naturally it's weakening the fabric of reality in the area.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2012-04-08 09:31  

#2  Y'all live in a dream world, If for one second thst the used Condoms were coincidental.

You know damn well what happened there.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2012-04-08 08:48  

#1  Obviously they haven't been to Miami. Sounds like Santeria to me.
Ain't freedom of religion grand.
"In 1993, the issue of animal sacrifice was taken to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. The court ruled that animal cruelty laws targeted specifically at Yoruba were unconstitutional.[25] The Yoruba practice of animal sacrifice has seen no significant legal challenges since then."
Posted by: Choluse Graling8806   2012-04-08 07:23  

00:00