A dead fox on a road seems rather straight forward but this incident contained enough troubling features that only the more gullible or the more complicit would have accepted it on face value.

But accept it they did. And more troubling the media covering this story took what was offered hook, line and sinker! 

But the question is who were responsible for manufacturing the media deception?

The fox was not warm, nor was it freshly dead and it certainly had not been killed that morning.

As for the DPIW press release issued on 3 August that adamantly stated that an anonymous person had come forward claiming he had hit the fox crossing the road around 8.30 am that morning — total fabrication. A careful examination of the fox’s body has shown that claim had no credibility whatsoever.

And what of the claims made by ‘Basil Brush’ who went on talkback radio on the afternoon of 1 August claiming he was the discoverer of this fox carcass. How credible are his version of events? Nothing more than an afternoon of light comic relief.

This fox was dead for well over 24 hours — it was decomposing and it was not in rigor mortis. I told the government months ago that the forensic pathology did not fit with the media propaganda.

In my view — as a pathologist — this fox was not killed on that road and it had been dead for far longer than 24 hours. A completely different conclusion than DPIW had come to and far too inconvenient to consider.

Yet there were far too many inconsistencies in the official version of this incident for the story to be taken seriously.

So what is the motivation of those who deceptively stage-managed another sensational fox incident?




David Obendorf

THE sensational media that originated after a dead fox was discovered on Glen Esk Road (1 August 2006) was pure propaganda.