Pennsylvania Game News - July 2010 - 17

to testify. An attorney, however, would offer that John could have obtained a heart from a deer he had killed or that he had shot the heart with a gun. Fortunately, we have ways to defend both those accusations. We made our way to quickly take photos and measurements of the kill location and get tissue samples at the gut pile. Back at the cabin, we bagged the butchered remains of the buck, and the antlers, and loaded everything into my vehicle. What we were really looking for was the cut out pieces of the hide, but in the dwindling daylight, we didn’t find them. We both agreed, though, that while they certainly would help the case, they were not critical pieces of evidence. We really wanted to build a case based on the evidence, not witness testimony. While John certainly helped with the case, as a witness he could be a problem, and removing problems in the courtroom is always a wise decision. The following Monday I spoke with Dr. Jane Huffman of the East Stroudsburg University Northeast Wildlife Forensics DNA Laboratory. Jane couldn’t have been more willing to help, and asked what tests I needed. When filling out the paperwork for the lab I never include details of the case. The lab is not there to prove someone guilty or not, just to use science to provide answers to questions such as: Did the heart contain any lead fragments? If so, did the lead match the lead from the suspect’s bullets? Did the heart tissue match the samples taken from the gut pile, the processed meat and the cabin area, and the blood on the arrow? Are all the samples from the same deer? Lastly, had the arrow been shot through an animal that was dead or alive? I expected the work to take a few weeks, so I couldn’t submit any citations until then, but Jane did call later that afternoon; she had found lead fragments in the heart, which meant Fibber was going to get some paperwork. But, I wanted all the information before proceeding.
JULY 2010

What did bother me was that Innocent was going to be charged with aiding in the unlawful killing, just as if she had shot the buck herself. In addition, she would be charged with unlawfully transporting the deer. I decided to speak to her directly and arranged to meet in person. Speaking with her revealed that she was an innocent bystander asked to help with what she believed to be a legally taken deer. She explained the story Fibber told her, and I looked her in the eye and said, “He is lying to you.” Two weeks later I got a call. The timid voice on the other end of the line was no longer confident, “Officer Rosa, I did kill that buck with a muzzleloader. I was stupid and I’m sorry.” “Why did you continue with the lies, even after I gave you the chance to come clean?” I asked. Caught Up in the Lie Fibber explained that he had gotten caught up in the lie and that while he was not worried about what would happen to him, he was worried about what would happen to Innocent. I told him if he had told the truth right away, the only way she would have found out is if he’d told her. Fibber was advised of the charges that he would face, along with the license revocation he would receive, and the added costs of the lab fees. Fibber seemed relieved that this was finally over. A week later I got the lab results: Everything matched and the arrow had not been shot through a live deer. Fibber paid all his fines and will not be purchasing a hunting license in Pennsylvania for the next few years. I pass the site of the violation several times a week and still wonder why some people, when given the opportunity to keep their integrity, sometimes throw it away.
17

Pennsylvania Game News - July 2010

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Pennsylvania Game News - July 2010