Page 37 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 37 of 234 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
31
Harvey fifteen hundred dollars, seeking to analyze the can and the mouse. When Mr. Harvey did not receive the monetary amount requested, he promptly went to the press reporting to a local television station of Coors error and his alarm.
When Mr. Harvey would not turn over the mouse and can to the Coors Company for testing, the company sued Mr. Harvey to retrieve the can and mouse for testing. The judge ordered the mouse and can be returned to Coors for testing and further ordered that an autopsy be performed on the mouse. An x-ray examination of the can revealed no deficiencies and the date stamp proved that the beer had been sealed in Colorado seventy-seven days before the beer was opened and the mouse found. Examination of the mouse found that the animal had only been dead approximately one week prior to examination and that the animal had abrasions on its sides.93 Therefore, Coors proved that the animal was not in the can of beer at the time of packaging, but was placed there later. Mr. Harvey’s attorney and pathologist initially claimed that the alcohol in the beer had preserved the mouse, and that Mr. Harvey’s claim was not erroneous.
In an effort to stave off impending losses, Coors placed an advertisement in the local Jacksonville, Florida newspapers defending its bottling and canning procedures. The advertisement stated:
A mouse can and will enter a can or bottle of beer once it has been opened by a consumer and left unattended….This has been scientifically documented. We don’t believe we caused the problem, we have spent millions of dollars to ensure that our facility offers the most exacting sanitary and sterile conditions in the brewing industry. Every can is turned upside down and rinsed with a
93 The abrasions were considered further proof of tampering in that they indicated that the mouse had been forcibly shoved into the beer can.
Object Description
| Title | An argument for the criminal hoax |
| Author | Pellegrini, Laura A. |
| Author email | user1963@yahoo.com; teachpolsci@yahoo.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Political Science |
| School | College of Letters, Arts and Sciences |
| Date defended/completed | 2008-08-20 |
| Date submitted | 2008 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2008-10-13 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Renteln, Alison Dundes |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Wong, Janelle S. Newland, Chester A. |
| Abstract | Hoaxes are part of the fabric of history. While many provide humor and lighthearted joy, the criminal hoax does not. To date, researchers have included aspects of the criminal hoax in larger academic works. This is an original typology that sets forth the criminal hoax as a distinct part of the larger field of law and public policy. This work provides newly created definitions including four distinct categories of hoaxes: the monetary hoax, the attention getter hoax, the hate crime hoax and the racial hoax. It further illustrates these types with actual detailed accounts of hoaxes and provides insights to each one. It makes policy recommendations concerning the four categories of needs: 1. legislative action, 2. a nationwide statistical database of hoax events, 3. media involvement, and 4. law enforcement training and action to deal with criminal hoaxes. Finally, it recommends further research to identify the causes and motivations of vipers. The ultimate goal of this project is to find ways to eliminate criminal hoaxes. |
| Keyword | criminal hoax; hoax categories |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m1659 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Pellegrini, Laura A. |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Pellegrini-2397 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume26/etd-Pellegrini-2397.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 37 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 31 Harvey fifteen hundred dollars, seeking to analyze the can and the mouse. When Mr. Harvey did not receive the monetary amount requested, he promptly went to the press reporting to a local television station of Coors error and his alarm. When Mr. Harvey would not turn over the mouse and can to the Coors Company for testing, the company sued Mr. Harvey to retrieve the can and mouse for testing. The judge ordered the mouse and can be returned to Coors for testing and further ordered that an autopsy be performed on the mouse. An x-ray examination of the can revealed no deficiencies and the date stamp proved that the beer had been sealed in Colorado seventy-seven days before the beer was opened and the mouse found. Examination of the mouse found that the animal had only been dead approximately one week prior to examination and that the animal had abrasions on its sides.93 Therefore, Coors proved that the animal was not in the can of beer at the time of packaging, but was placed there later. Mr. Harvey’s attorney and pathologist initially claimed that the alcohol in the beer had preserved the mouse, and that Mr. Harvey’s claim was not erroneous. In an effort to stave off impending losses, Coors placed an advertisement in the local Jacksonville, Florida newspapers defending its bottling and canning procedures. The advertisement stated: A mouse can and will enter a can or bottle of beer once it has been opened by a consumer and left unattended….This has been scientifically documented. We don’t believe we caused the problem, we have spent millions of dollars to ensure that our facility offers the most exacting sanitary and sterile conditions in the brewing industry. Every can is turned upside down and rinsed with a 93 The abrasions were considered further proof of tampering in that they indicated that the mouse had been forcibly shoved into the beer can. |
