To think that the idea that the Croydon Cat killer is actually a Fox is a load of b*ll**cks

[mumof2andsurviving]

^^just that really. I'm not buying this fox theory. Mutilated cats left on owners doorsteps...don't think even the most intelligent foxes could manage that.

AIBU to feel that either a) the police no longer have resources to spend on this or b) it is a tactic used to try and lull the perpetrator into a false sense of security?

There's a gang of really guilty foxes somewhere saying 'shit, our cover is blown ' we almost got away with it'

Maybe the foxes were driving the cars though?

@MicroManaged that fox does have a slightly menacing look in his eye tbh.

I'm with you alpen that was my first thought

As to why the sudden spike in Croydon, if indeed there is one and not just people seeing patterns where they're looking for them, then I'd be looking at food waste disposal policy locally. Did the council introduce a composting scheme? Did local fast food joints clean up their act on waste disposal? Either might explain a change in eating habits among the local urban fox population.

It’s when your looking for it. Before we brought X car we never noticed them but now we have one we see them everywhere. In my love city there are tons of found a dead cat posts on a daily basis nobody thinks there is someone murdering them though.

What do the experts know though eh? People in this country have apparently had enough of experts.

@5bobaweek

My understanding was that there were no dedicated police officers on this case. Does 15 mean the total of police who were involved at one point eg one interview?

There is no way the police have those resources. Not a judgement, just an observation. Where did the "15" thing come from?

Detective Sergeant Andy Collin led the investigation from 2015 which was called 'Operation Takehe' and run with Scotland Yard. 1 Detective Sergeant, 4 Detective Constables and 10 Police officers worked on the case. Thousands of pounds and thousands of man hours.

Obviously it wasn't the only case they worked on, it's usual that officers and detectives have several cases running at once.

Cars are killing the cats. Then foxes are predating the dead/dying cats. That’s what the police are saying. They are not saying foxes killed the cats. This also fits with SNARL saying that the cats were killed by blunt force trauma and mutilated after death. They were, it’s just that the blunt force trauma was traffic and the mutilation was a fox.
It doesn't quite fit with the consistent clean removal of a small and precise area of the body though. That's a very specific part of SNARL's evidence in favour of human intervention. While not blaming the police in the slightest for stopping their investigations (as far as they went), I find SNARL's arguments more persuasive simply because the police have offered no counter explanation to that specific detail.

I don't find 2 obsessed people (that's the entirety of SNARL) more persuasive than The Met Police, Scotland Yard and the Royal Veterinary College.

It's such a let down. I mean we've got the tabloid friendly title and we've not had a good serial killer for a while now. If only he'd just get on with it and start carving people up and then we could all be scaaaaared and people could be on the news saying "I saw him at the shops in 1997, it could have been me!". If only he'd graduate to being the Croydon Carver then all these friendly frolicking foxes could be proven innocent.

Batshit.

consistent clean removal of a small and precise area of the body

where is your evidence that this is happening? I'm afraid I'm going to need more than SNARL's word for it.

It doesn't quite fit with the consistent clean removal of a small and precise area of the body though.

Yes, that does make it seem more like deliberate mutilation. I suppose it depends on which area is removed though. If it's (apologies for gruesomeness) soft tissue like tongue or eyes then carrion eaters will usually go for those first.

And on the reliability of police profilers, well, ask COlin Stagg what he thinks of that.

It doesn't quite fit with the consistent clean removal of a small and precise area of the body though.

But if it's foxes, there may be a specific body part that they find irresistible to eat.

@FlyingElbows your post has just brightened up my day.

It doesn't quite fit with the consistent clean removal of a small and precise area of the body though.

But if it's foxes, there may be a specific body part that they find irresistible to eat.

I totally agree!, and that's exactly why I say I think the police aren't putting up a very good counter-argument - surely if that were the case, then they could include that in their statement, and thus nullify SNARL's argument? It's the fact that they aren't doing that, and they are being quite woolly in countering SNARL's evidence, that makes me mistrust their position.

I don't find 2 obsessed people (that's the entirety of SNARL) more persuasive than The Met Police, Scotland Yard and the Royal Veterinary College.

Totally understand that position, and I do wonder about the two people who formed SNARL. But from what I understand SNARL have worked with quite a few experts of their own so I don't think it is just two obsessives, really. Also, more compellingly, I very much doubt that the police would have formed a task force and devoted, what, 18 months? to investigating this if there were not a fairly significant weight of evidence that it's not just two obsessives. Surely there must have been good reason to think that this could present a genuine threat or there's a really intense cat lover at a very high level in the police force

They thought a human/s could be involved so they investigated extensively. Concluded that it wasn't a human/s.

Job done.

I totally agree!, and that's exactly why I say I think the police aren't putting up a very good counter-argument - surely if that were the case, then they could include that in their statement, and thus nullify SNARL's argument? It's the fact that they aren't doing that, and they are being quite woolly in countering SNARL's evidence, that makes me mistrust their position.

It’s not the police’s job to counter every possible accusation made by every conspiracy theorist, obsessive or nutter out there. Five minutes on any conspiracy website will show you there’s nothing at all that will prove to some people that their theory is unfounded.

I actually think it’s quite revealing that SNARL say they were not informed about the Met’s statement ahead of time. To me that implies that the Met doesn’t rate them very highly, and/or that the relationship with them broke down some time ago, presumably because the Met knows (but can’t say) that they’re a pair of obsessives who aren’t going to be talked round no matter what is tried.

It’s not the police’s job to counter every possible accusation made by every conspiracy theorist, obsessive or nutter out there I do understand your point - I'm only suggesting that a long-ish investigation that had a reasonably high profile suggests that they (SNARL) did have a fairly compelling case initially. I do think your comment about the relationship breaking down is probably absolutely bang on.

FWIW, I'm not really a mad SNARL believer, I just don't find it all that incredible either, IYSWIM, and I do think it's plausible that an investigation would be ended on a pretext because of budget cuts.

Foxes - like cats- will only kill animals that they can get hold of safely. Cats have claws, so foxes will generally avoid attacking them to avoid injury.

Perhaps a fox figured out a way to catch cats without the risk of getting scratched and has passed that knowledge on to her cubs?

Sigh. Or perhaps, for the umpteenth time on this thread, the police’s theory is not that foxes are attaching and killing healthy cats, but that they are scavenging on dead or dying cats who’ve been hit by cars.