Law & Disorder - The Latest Book is Now Available! Click to Purchase
Terry Wayne Davis

Terry Wayne Davis

Through the twisted legal logic that often accompanies strange cases, 44-year-old Terry Wayne Davis has been declared “not sexually dangerous” by an Illinois court-appointed psychologist and is therefore considered fit to stand trial. If he were found sexually dangerous, he would not be fit to stand trial, would be eligible for psychological treatment and could only be tried in a civil proceeding. On the other hand, if he were sexually dangerous, he could be held in a civil commitment until psychiatrists or psychologists deemed him no longer dangerous.

The charge: Three counts of sexual misconduct with a neighbor’s five-month-old female Rottweiler puppy.

The court needs to hear from one more psychologist before making a final ruling on Mr. Davis’s sexual dangerousness. We don’t know him and therefore don’t presume to evaluate him, but there are several issues of which those who are tasked with that evaluation should be mindful.

And by the way: having sex with a dog is not funny.

Believe it or not, cases like this come up with some frequency in law enforcement circles, and the police often laugh them off. “Yeah, but was she good-looking?” is a frequent refrain when cops get together to talk about them. They are often classified as “nuisance offenses.”

But bestiality, as it is commonly known, generally has some very serious implications if you bother to search beyond the obvious.

One case that was brought to the FBI’s Investigative Support Unit in Quantico involved a police officer cruising a dark “lovers’ lane” one night just outside the city. He came across a young man and woman “enjoying” each other in the back seat of their parked car. He shined his flashlight through the window, scaring the bejeezus out of the necking couple. “Hey, you kids! Knock it off!” he demanded.

The boy and girl were indignant at the interruption. “We’re not hurting anyone,” the boy answered back. “Instead of bothering us, you should go after the guy down the road. He’s having sex with a chicken!”

The young people gave the cop a description of the car and he went to check it out. Sure enough, down the road he came upon the car in question, and sure enough, the guy was having sex with a chicken. Not only that, he was videotaping it! We can omit the specific anatomical details.

Now, if the officer had left the situation at that, possibly cited the guy for loitering or even indecent exposure and simple had a great story for the station house, the case would have ended there and everyone would have had a good laugh. But the police decided to check this guy out, and the video camera gave them probably cause. They obtained a search warrant for his house and came upon a cache of videos. In them, he is surrounded by the dead and decomposing carcasses of animals with whom he has copulated. Meanwhile, he is describing violent and sadistic sexual acts he wants to perform – not on animals, but women.

So was this chicken-screwer “sexually dangerous”? Were these videos a predictor of future violence? You bet your life.

The most important single investigative consideration of any case of human sex with animals is that it is the equivalent of rape or child abuse. And again, we are not being funny. What we mean is that this is sexual abuse perpetrated on a defenseless creature. We have seen cases of sexual abuse of dogs, cats, chickens and horses. We have never seen a case of sexual abuse of panther, mountain lion or wolf. Why? Because those animals have a “choice” in the matter and don’t have to put up with it.

Getting back to Mr. Davis in Illinois, it was not even a full-grown Rottweiler he allegedly abused; it was a puppy named Lucy. The neighbor came home to find Davis allegedly lying on a sofa and having sex with the dog. And there is an additional fact we learned about him: Davis is already listed on the Illinois Sex Offender Registry for sexual assault on a 16-year-old girl in 2003.

That should be the Bingo! moment for any investigator. We’d want to know exactly what he did to her and exactly what he said while he was doing it. We’d want to know if he has talked about the incident to any authority since then and what his attitude and affect were.

Oh, and one more thing: The puppy started displaying marked aggressive behavior after the abuse and ultimately had to be euthanized. What does that tell you?

8 Responses to Who Is the Real Beast Here?

  1. Shayla9906 says:

    This is just unreal and makes me sick just to think about it. These perverts should be taken into custody right away once they are busted. Which we know gives the LEO all the evidence and motive to carry out a search warrant. I believe that if you work on this right away. Many perverts can be put away. I also understand that many departments put thee cases on the back burner. They think he or she is just being sick and a nuisance, perverts. Yet many departments push it off and just let it eventually get worse or until some young person gets hurt really bad. The. The cases get tougher and is eventually get turned over to the FBI to solve because the department who first discovered it just let it go and now many people are in the loop of self destruction. That is my two cents worth.

  2. seesthru says:

    In my mind, bestiality is on an even keel with pedophilia with regards to the level of depravity the perpetrator has. Someone who chooses victims who are unable to speak, unable to tell, chooses them for that very reason.

    This guy you write about, is a good example. He picks animals who cannot tell, but yes, in my opinion he will harm women who cannot tell, because they are dead. Any evidence of necrophilia in his history?

  3. Tom Mininger says:

    I’m sorry for this interruption. I just wanted to let everyone know that the Sudanese woman Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, the subject of a previous article here a few pages back, who was sentenced to death for her religious beliefs, has been released and allowed to leave the country with her child. Good news for a change.

  4. Sandy Mutter says:

    This angers me to no end! .
    One that comes to mind that happened in the County I live in is a woman kept going to her Dr. with an infection that wasn’t responding to any of the antibiotics that he prescribed. After extensive testing he told her she had an infection that could only come from animals and by law he would have to report it. She broke down and admitted her freak of a husband had made her have sex with their doberman and he had also. How she did, I don’t know and DON’T want to know. He spent six months in jail. She protected him & told her family & friends he got in trouble by fighting with a neighbor.
    I was working for Social Services and we had suspected their two daughters was being abused. The children was removed from the home, the Mother went through parenting classes. By this time he was released and the children still couldn’t be placed back in the home until he moved out. He did..he bought a mobile home and put it not 100 yards from the house. The judge ruled that the Children could be placed back in the Mother’s home.
    The Doberman had to be euthanized,
    This still haunts me!
    Sorry for ranting

  5. Sandy Mutter says:

    This angers me so much! These cases are rarely reported. One case here in the County I live in that comes to mind is this woman kept going to her Dr. with an infection that wasn’t responding to any of the antibiotics he prescribed. After extensive testing he told her she had an infection that could only come from animals and by law he would have to report it. She broke down and admitted her fread of a husband made her have sex with their doberman and that he had also. How she did, I don’t know and DON’T want to know. He spent 6 months in jail. She told her family and friend that he had fought with the neighbors and had to go to jail.
    Social Services had been called in several times suspecting

  6. Cornerstone says:

    Nothing disgusts me as much as cruelty to animals. I can’t even stand to hear about it because it will ruin my whole day.

    Taylor, one thing conspicuously absent in the laws in the US is anyone willing to lock up someone for violence they haven’t committed yet. They’re reluctant enough to prosecute domestic violence that has already happened or to jail young murderers. Even though there is clear evidence that certain behavior is an indicator of future behavior, we appear to be nowhere near a point of preventing via incarceration or monitoring potential violent offenders. Nowhere is it more obvious than in the stalking laws being mostly ignored in 48 states.

    The only successful example I can think of where people are routinely punished for possibly one day hurting someone are the drunk-driving laws, but that’s mostly owing to the huge moral-agenda religious-based groups who originally lobbied for it when they weren’t texting and driving. And they’ve gone all the way with it. If you were a drunk pedestrian and a car hit you, the accident could be classified as alcohol-related, thereby padding the statistics, and could be blamed on the drunk pedestrian. But you can have sex with chickens and puppies until they die and everyone wants to think they can rehabilitate you or you’ll just grow out of it.

  7. TaylorUK14 says:

    This point comes up often in my Crim classes. Is there a better/feasible way to do something about offenders who are going to be more dangerous in the future? I know it isn’t an exact science, but I know you have listed numerous examples in your books of two people committing similar crimes, but one of those crimes is a much more serious predictor of future violence. Is it a matter of educating investigators and members of the legal system how to spot the difference? Or will there need to be a fundamental shift in the judicial process (sentencing in particular)?
    I would imagine that even if an investigator recognised the signs of future sexual crimes, for example, he wouldn’t have the time or resources to do much about it, other than considering that offender if they are looking for an UNSUB in a future case.
    It seems to me that maybe the best reform in this area may be to revamp the probation system. I know PO’s have way to many parolees and not nearly enough time or resources to deal with them all in depth so maybe this is where the prioritisation of offenders based on high-risk elements of past crimes would make the most sense. Do you think that would be beneficial or even attainable?

Leave a Reply

Mindhunters

The Latest

  • Words of Wisdom
    From a poem by anti-Nazi theologian Pastor Martin Niemoller: First they came for […]

More

© 2016 Mindhunters, Inc.