Found Deceased OH - Joey LaBute, 26, Columbus, 4 March 2016 #2

[Maroon10]

Correlation of events does not imply causation. Two events occurring in close proximity or commonality to each other does not imply that one caused the other. It is called Affirming the Consequent. It is common & tempting when faced with the unknowns to attribute events to a conspiracy or some runaway serial killer.

100% Agree

 

[Mountaingazer]

Hey guys there is a thread completely devoted to the smiley face killers here on websleuths. I know a mod asked us earlier to keep that discussion there previously. I am using Tapatalk so I can't do a link right now, but if no one else has I will post a link later when I am at my computer.

 

[Maroon10]

Hey guys there is a thread completely devoted to the smiley face killers here on websleuths. I know a mod asked us earlier to keep that discussion there previously. I am using Tapatalk so I can't do a link right now, but if no one else has I will post a link later when I am at my computer.

Thank you, This is appreciated, we can discuss what actually may have happened to Joey.

 

[Cantgooutside]

Gotcha! I respect that

<see Modnote as reason for edit>

 

[Margo/Mom]

I'm not trying to be an *******, really but it just seems off to me to not at least be open to the possibility that these cases aren't related in some way. Maybe I'm off, truly I'm open to that but the cases have so very many things in common it's just hard for me to think otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that the discovery in a body of water is a particularly weak link. Since Joey was pulled out, there have been two more bodies removed--totally unrelated, different circumstances. In some ways linking killings based on disposal in a river is akin to linking killings because the bodies were buried. Dumping a body into a moving body of water is simply an easy and convenient means of disposal--and likely to put some distance between the killer and any possible discovery.

If you want to make a theory based on river discovery, I suggest looking first at the whole population of dead bodies in rivers and categorize based on demographics, and then look at any that were actually resolved to see if patterns emerge. Odds are that while it is possible to isolate a population of unsolved murders fitting the so-called "profile" (young college male, etc), that larger data pool could be sliced and diced a good many ways with emergent "theories" about each. But what I would suggest to y'all smiley face sleuthers is to look at your database for solved deaths of river-bodies in your chosen (and I do think it is chosen rather than emergent) demographic grouping and see if any patterns actually emerge. Odds are some probably ARE accidental drownings--and unless there is evidence to the contrary (as in the absence of water in the lungs), they should be eliminated from your base.

Personally I don't think you are likely to come up with much to actually hang all these together, or more importantly, to distinguish them from the larger body of unsolved deaths related to bodies found in rivers.

 

[Valiant]

I think that the discovery in a body of water is a particularly weak link. Since Joey was pulled out, there have been two more bodies removed--totally unrelated, different circumstances. In some ways linking killings based on disposal in a river is akin to linking killings because the bodies were buried. Dumping a body into a moving body of water is simply an easy and convenient means of disposal--and likely to put some distance between the killer and any possible discovery.

And disposal in the water has the added benefit to a killer of often removing any DNA evidence that might exist.

 

[OccamsRazor]

The other problem with this "smiley face killer" theory that makes this theory highly implausible is that the killings being attributed to this alleged serial killer cover an expansive area spanning multiple states. There are very few people who have the resources and time to travel around the country and kill people. It would be a time-consuming job and the killer would have to be fairly wealthy. In addition, the fact that hundreds of unsolved crimes where bodies are being found in rivers are being attributed to this killer makes the theory even more unlikely.

 

[bighairdontcare]

I'm going to put my two cents in:
My dad passed on 2/6/16. He was a chronic alcoholic and also had diabetes, leading to a deadly combination. I found him. There was evidence he had been drinking (obviously) and was positioned in a way that looked like he "passed out." The chronic alcoholism and diabetes caused a lot of health issues, which ultimately caused his death. The autopsy was held two days after his passing- there was no cause of death. The medical examiner told us that his heart was enlarged and he had heart disease. We JUST received toxicology report results. Because I've done research, I knew that the alcohol would not be present in his system..... Even though he drank a bottle that night. What do you know, nothing was found in the toxicology report- no alcohol. Alcohol levels metabolize after death and a proper calculation of BAC is impossible to determine , not to mention he had been deceased for two days before my horrible discovery.
What is disturbing from the most recent article, is that the coroner is now saying that JL had high levels of "alcohol" in his system. She didn't say "ethanol." Do the research. Bodies found in water do not accurately give BAC calculations due to many factors. Joey was deceased for weeks prior to this report. Weeks! My dads autopsy was completed two days prior to the autopsy and NO alcohol was found in his system. I'm so very confused by this.
Also, it took every bit of 8-12 weeks ( as I was told by the medical examiner) to complete the toxicology report. So how is this information being shared now? I do not believe they would have the toxicology results back from JL autopsy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16782292/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[eric136]

I'm going to put my two cents in:
My dad passed on 2/6/16. He was a chronic alcoholic and also had diabetes, leading to a deadly combination. I found him. There was evidence he had been drinking (obviously) and was positioned in a way that looked like he "passed out." The chronic alcoholism and diabetes caused a lot of health issues, which ultimately caused his death. The autopsy was held two days after his passing- there was no cause of death. The medical examiner told us that his heart was enlarged and he had heart disease. We JUST received toxicology report results. Because I've done research, I knew that the alcohol would not be present in his system..... Even though he drank a bottle that night. What do you know, nothing was found in the toxicology report- no alcohol. Alcohol levels metabolize after death and a proper calculation of BAC is impossible to determine , not to mention he had been deceased for two days before my horrible discovery.
What is disturbing from the most recent article, is that the coroner is now saying that JL had high levels of "alcohol" in his system. She didn't say "ethanol." Do the research. Bodies found in water do not accurately give BAC calculations due to many factors. Joey was deceased for weeks prior to this report. Weeks! My dads autopsy was completed two days prior to the autopsy and NO alcohol was found in his system. I'm so very confused by this.
Also, it took every bit of 8-12 weeks ( as I was told by the medical examiner) to complete the toxicology report. So how is this information being shared now? I do not believe they would have the toxicology results back from JL autopsy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16782292/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

""the coroner is now saying that JL had high levels of "alcohol" in his system. She didn't say "ethanol.""

Did the coroner come out with an updated newer report ? If they did, i haven't heard about this.

The 10TV and Dayton Daily News websites both say the word 'Alcohol." The Channel 6 website says the word "ethanol."

Could this be a distinction without a difference?

I had a friend who died from a motor vehicle accident. He had been drinking, was drunk, and over the legal limit by 3X. On the autopsy report, the coroner but his BAC under the category Ethanol.

http://abc6onyourside.com/news/loca...joey-labute-was-likely-dead-when-put-in-water

 

[eric136]

I'm going to put my two cents in:
My dad passed on 2/6/16. He was a chronic alcoholic and also had diabetes, leading to a deadly combination. I found him. There was evidence he had been drinking (obviously) and was positioned in a way that looked like he "passed out." The chronic alcoholism and diabetes caused a lot of health issues, which ultimately caused his death. The autopsy was held two days after his passing- there was no cause of death. The medical examiner told us that his heart was enlarged and he had heart disease. We JUST received toxicology report results. Because I've done research, I knew that the alcohol would not be present in his system..... Even though he drank a bottle that night. What do you know, nothing was found in the toxicology report- no alcohol. Alcohol levels metabolize after death and a proper calculation of BAC is impossible to determine , not to mention he had been deceased for two days before my horrible discovery.
What is disturbing from the most recent article, is that the coroner is now saying that JL had high levels of "alcohol" in his system. She didn't say "ethanol." Do the research. Bodies found in water do not accurately give BAC calculations due to many factors. Joey was deceased for weeks prior to this report. Weeks! My dads autopsy was completed two days prior to the autopsy and NO alcohol was found in his system. I'm so very confused by this.
Also, it took every bit of 8-12 weeks ( as I was told by the medical examiner) to complete the toxicology report. So how is this information being shared now? I do not believe they would have the toxicology results back from JL autopsy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16782292/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"""had high levels of "alcohol" in his system. She didn't say "ethanol.""

Ethanol is the ingredient found in alcoholic beverages. This ingredient has other uses as well (in the manufacture of perfumes, paints, lacquers, and explosives)

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ethanol

 

[bighairdontcare]

""the coroner is now saying that JL had high levels of "alcohol" in his system. She didn't say "ethanol.""

Did the coroner come out with an updated newer report ? If they did, i haven't heard about this.

The 10TV and Dayton Daily News websites both say the word 'Alcohol." The Channel 6 website says the word "ethanol."

Could this be a distinction without a difference?

I had a friend who died from a motor vehicle accident. He had been drinking, was drunk, and over the legal limit by 3X. On the autopsy report, the coroner but his BAC under the category Ethanol.

http://abc6onyourside.com/news/loca...joey-labute-was-likely-dead-when-put-in-water

That's interesting. There was no mention of ethanol being in my fathers system.
It just seems so very odd to me that the coroner notes " high levels of alcohol" in his system, when he had been deceased for a good three weeks and was submerged in water.
That article I copied on my last thread notes that body's found in water are particularly hard to determine BAC because of dilution of bodily fluids , decomposition and enhanced rates of microbial synthesis of ethanol.
That's why what came out in the latest article bothers me!!!!! I do not personally think it is accurate to publicly say that.
"Bodies immersed in water for a period of time further add to the dilemma of establishing accurate BAC levels in corpses because immersion can cause major spikes in blood/alcohol concentrations. "

 

[MerryB]

My understanding is that the high levels of ethanol were most likely due to the advanced decomposition rather than anything he ingested. Ethanol is a product of decomposition & according to the ME, he was severely decomposed from being in the water so long.

 

[eric136]

That's interesting. There was no mention of ethanol being in my fathers system.
It just seems so very odd to me that the coroner notes " high levels of alcohol" in his system, when he had been deceased for a good three weeks and was submerged in water.
That article I copied on my last thread notes that body's found in water are particularly hard to determine BAC because of dilution of bodily fluids , decomposition and enhanced rates of microbial synthesis of ethanol.
That's why what came out in the latest article bothers me!!!!! I do not personally think it is accurate to publicly say that.
"Bodies immersed in water for a period of time further add to the dilemma of establishing accurate BAC levels in corpses because immersion can cause major spikes in blood/alcohol concentrations. "

Correct. Ethanol is what the body produces during the decomposition process. Ethanol is also one of the ingredients that is used to make/found in drinking alcohol.
I would think that over the period of three weeks the level of 'alcohol' would have dropped, and the 'Ethanol' level would have risen.

The link about Ethanol is found in posting # 650.

 

[janewall]

My condolences on the loss of your father, BigHair.

 

[bflocket]

Correct. Ethanol is what the body produces during the decomposition process. Ethanol is also one of the ingredients that is used to make/found in drinking alcohol.
I would think that over the period of three weeks the level of 'alcohol' would have dropped, and the 'Ethanol' level would have risen.

The link about Ethanol is found in posting # 650.

Ethanol is the type of alcohol that can be consumed. It's what the "proof" (the number is double the percentage of ethanol) is when you get liquor. The rest is water and other things. A 100-proof bourbon is labeled such because 50% of it is actually ethanol.

Methanol, another type of "alcohol," is basically very chemically similar yet poisonous to humans. As I recall, it's basically one group of molecules (either a couple Hydrogen's or a couple Oxygen's) added to or removed from Ethanol. Since it's poisonous, it's not taxed anywhere near as much as pure ethanol (the drunk-making type of alcohol people would really want) is. A friend of mine was the "teacher's assistant" of a chemistry teacher back when I was in school. One of the things she'd do would be to mix in "just enough" methanol into the ethanol to make it poisonous for somebody to drink, but still "ethanol-enough" to work in any experiment's students would do in chemistry class that need Ethanol there for them to work.

During Prohibition, many bootleggers would add Methanol to liquor to stretch it out more. If you've heard of somebody going blind because they drank moonshine, it's the methanol somebody put in it that made them go blind.

Alcohol is one of the products of decomposition. So a dead body is basically functioning like the wheat/corn/etc does in a distillery. But after so long, any consumed alcohol would likely be gone and I don't see how they could say that somebody had drunk "x" much since your body would be creating it after death and it wouldn't be like the BAC you'd consider with a DUI or something.

 

[Cantgooutside]

That makes sense. Yeah I don't think they know. I don't think they have any clues or theories at all. In the episode of True Crime Garage about this case, they said the police are probably keeping any leads quiet. But I don't believe they have any leads at all. I trust they are capable and doing all they can, but there are just no leads.

 

[eric136]

Ethanol is the type of alcohol that can be consumed. It's what the "proof" (the number is double the percentage of ethanol) is when you get liquor. The rest is water and other things. A 100-proof bourbon is labeled such because 50% of it is actually ethanol.

Methanol, another type of "alcohol," is basically very chemically similar yet poisonous to humans. As I recall, it's basically one group of molecules (either a couple Hydrogen's or a couple Oxygen's) added to or removed from Ethanol. Since it's poisonous, it's not taxed anywhere near as much as pure ethanol (the drunk-making type of alcohol people would really want) is. A friend of mine was the "teacher's assistant" of a chemistry teacher back when I was in school. One of the things she'd do would be to mix in "just enough" methanol into the ethanol to make it poisonous for somebody to drink, but still "ethanol-enough" to work in any experiment's students would do in chemistry class that need Ethanol there for them to work.

During Prohibition, many bootleggers would add Methanol to liquor to stretch it out more. If you've heard of somebody going blind because they drank moonshine, it's the methanol somebody put in it that made them go blind.

Alcohol is one of the products of decomposition. So a dead body is basically functioning like the wheat/corn/etc does in a distillery. But after so long, any consumed alcohol would likely be gone and I don't see I how they could say that somebody had drunk "x" much since your body would be creating it after death and it wouldn't be like the BAC you'd consider with a DUI or something.

I would think that there is difference in the chemical/molecular nature of the alcohol the deceased body produces versus the alcohol one drinks. So, i would think the coroner can get a pretty good fix on the amount of alcohol that came from strickly drinking. Of course, JL was not found for 3 weeks. So, the alcohol from drinking probably dropped while the alcohol from decomposition increased.

 

[CARIIS]

I would think that there is difference in the chemical/molecular nature of the alcohol the deceased body produces versus the alcohol one drinks. So, i would think the coroner can get a pretty good fix on the amount of alcohol that came from strickly drinking. Of course, JL was not found for 3 weeks. So, the alcohol from drinking probably dropped while the alcohol from decomposition increased.

We would have to know if they ran tests from the eyeball. That is the best area to see if it was after death alcohol production.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1966150-overview#a3

Has anyone heard "high" levels - usually they give the reading .

I think BS!

LaBute's blood-alcohol level was .15 percent might be misleading because an elevated ethanol level "can be indicative of the decomposition process," the coroner reported.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/05/02/Alcohol-found-in-autopsy.html


I did not remember this stuff

His parking spot is about a quarter-mile east of the Olentangy River, which feeds into the Scioto about a mile downstream. From the confluence of the two rivers, it is about 2 miles to the spot where LaBute's body was found.

 

[bighairdontcare]

My condolences on the loss of your father, BigHair.

Thank you so much .

 

[Valiant]

But yet we don't think it's a conspiracy when that same group of people overindulge and run their car into a tree.