IL - Lt. Charles 'Joe' Gliniewicz, 52, found dead, Fox Lake, 1 Sep 2015 - #2

[vestigare]

I'm probably just not able to visualize it, but if the shot arched and fell to where the entry wound is, wouldn't it have to have been shot from a great distance, and not good aim.? I'm just clueless about weapons and capacity, but I think that I understand trajectory enough for a luddite...lol. JMO

Yes,enough of a distance that if the bullet can be proven to have come from his gun it means the person got his gun, ran shot at him, ran back and dropped the gun. Silly I know.

Unless they can't prove the bullet that killed him came from his gun. But then the testing wouldn't matter on another gun.

So I really am interested what this camera is going to test that they need it to help with other evidence they should have.

 

[vestigare]

You raise some interesting points but I doubt it's as black and white (pardon the pun) as it seems. It's very possible he had the majority of the encounter already planned. But that wouldn't mean that every detail was planned or has a political or nefarious reason. That also would not prevent him from spontaneously deviating for his original plans.

Very true. I just think that if this comes to be a fabrication there is going to be some blow back. I even have LE friends who have grumbled this is going to give BLM ammunition so he didn't do them a favor.

It just how people perceive it.

 

[Cubby]

Yes,enough of a distance that if the bullet can be proven to have come from his gun it means the person got his gun, ran shot at him, ran back and dropped the gun. Silly I know.

Unless they can't prove the bullet that killed him came from his gun. But then the testing wouldn't matter on another gun.

So I really am interested what this camera is going to test that they need it to help with other evidence they should have.

Wait a minute....... your post just made me think of something. If they have to test the bullet to determine the distance from which he was shot wouldn't that then mean the bullet which killed LT. CG came from his own gun?

Because he clearly wouldn't have killed himself with someone else's gun. If the bullet came from a gun other than his own there wouldn't be any need for this specialized testing to determine the distance of the gun when he was shot..... They could just determine he did not shoot himself. Right? I know so little about guns......

I need more caffiene.


Ya, I know you said that...... but it really hadn't occurred to me until you pointed it out, vestigare.

 

[Cubby]

Very true. I just think that if this comes to be a fabrication there is going to be some blow back. I even have LE friends who have grumbled this is going to give BLM ammunition so he didn't do them a favor.

It just how people perceive it.

But since they found 3 people matching the suspects/subjects description on video which they later cleared wouldn't that rule out the likelihood of fabrication tied to the blm.

I am assuming the 3 people they cleared were one black and two white males. It's a remote area, he probably didn't think he would see anyone but that he did was just a last minute coincidence which led to his including that description. If he didn't see anyone, he could have still radioed in and made something up.

I think the description one black two white was included because he just happened to see the three who were cleared shortly before this happened.

 

[vestigare]

Wait a minute....... your post just made me think of something. If they have to test the bullet to determine the distance from which he was shot wouldn't that then mean the bullet which killed LT. CG came from his own gun?

Because he clearly wouldn't have killed himself with someone else's gun. If the bullet came from a gun other than his own there wouldn't be any need for this specialized testing to determine the distance of the gun when he was shot..... They could just determine he did not shoot himself. Right? I know so little about guns......

I need more caffiene.

Yes, exactly. They can't test a gun they do not have so either have another gun or they are testing his and if they are testing his then they think that a bullet from that gun is the bullet that killed him. And I can't figure how a camera is needed for trajectory in that case. Computer models would compute this.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Can you put 1 exploding bullet in the same clip with regular bullets? Maybe he shot himself with a exploding bullet that shreds on impact so they wouldn't match to the rest of the basic bullets that remains in his gun clip. Idk

 

[vestigare]

They also can not always determine a bullet came from a specific gun because there isn't much left of the bullet.

But in that case trajectory doesn't mean much from another gun if they don't even know what gun shot the bullet.

I am sure there is a logical reason for the test but I can't figure it out from what they should already know.

 

[Cubby]

Yes, exactly. They can't test a gun they do not have so either have another gun or they are testing his and if they are testing his then they think that a bullet from that gun is the bullet that killed him. And I can't figure how a camera is needed for trajectory in that case. Computer models would compute this.

Using your post as a springboard. I hope they are bringing the experts in to do the testing on this special camera... I'm still confused on why they would need to move this special equipment rather than just bring the bullet to the special camera equipment.

or better said, why can't they just bring the bullet to the better equipment? The logic in moving the equipment is odd.... kind of like let's bring your pool to my backyard to swim rather than bringing myself to your backyard pool. This is one circus of a case.

 

[vestigare]

Can you put 1 exploding bullet in the same clip with regular bullets? Maybe he shot himself with a exploding bullet that shreds on impact so they wouldn't match to the rest of the basic bullets that remains in his gun clip. Idk

They test against shooting other bullets through the gun so don't need remaining bullets in mag. They would test against the same make, jacket, grain etc.

Yes, a bullet will sometimes not be able to be compared because it fragmented.

 

[cady]

Yes, exactly. They can't test a gun they do not have so either have another gun or they are testing his and if they are testing his then they think that a bullet from that gun is the bullet that killed him. And I can't figure how a camera is needed for trajectory in that case. Computer models would compute this.

Well I thought that a gun chamber (?) and the bullet that is shot from it always have matching patterns, just because in its manufacture, every gun is unique....like fingerprints of a person. That isn't a hi tech test! Match the bullet to his gun or not! JMO It must have been his gun and it does match, so they are trying to see how another person could have shot it, and the distance and position they and he would have to be in,respectively, to accomplish that acrobatic feat. also, the resolution of the residue question on his hand and clothing.

 

[vestigare]

Using your post as a springboard. I hope they are bringing the experts in to do the testing on this special camera... I'm still confused on why they would need to move this special equipment rather than just bring the bullet to the special camera equipment.

or better said, why can't they just bring the bullet to the better equipment? The logic in moving the equipment is odd.... kind of like let's bring your pool to my backyard to swim rather than bringing myself to your backyard pool. This is one circus of a case.

I think at this point they are being very protective of their evidence and don't trust another lab.

 

[vestigare]

Well I thought that a gun chamber (?) and the bullet that is shot from it always have matching patterns, just because in its manufacture, every gun is unique....like fingerprints of a person. That isn't a hi tech test! Match the bullet to his gun or not! JMO It must have been his gun and it does match, do they are trying to see how another person could have shot it, and the distance and position they and he would have to be in,respectively, to accomplish that acrobatic feat.

Exactly. Each gun leaves marks on bullet and his statement about trajectory is confusing in conjuction with a camera.

 

[cady]

Exactly. Each gun leaves marks on bullet and his statement about trajectory is confusing in conjuction with a camera.

They want to set up a dummy to watch the bullet in action from different distances and angles and then see it in slow motion? JMO They would need a hi speed cam for that.

 

[cady]

OT The JFK ballistics stuff was really fascinating, to me.....they jumped through all sorts of hoops! JMO

 

[vestigare]

OT The JFK ballistics stuff was really fascinating, to me.....they jumped through all sorts of hoops! JMO

That it what I am wondering here. Do they think he accidentally shot himself when the bullet ricocheted in some fantastical manner ? And if so then cameras won't help because you will never be able to duplicate that. That is where computer models would be used.

 

[sonjay]

Wasn't there a report that the bullet hit his phone that was clipped on his vest? A bullet deflecting off his phone, or going through his phone, would complicate normal trajectory analysis. The angle of the bullet wound wouldn't necessarily reflect the angle at which the bullet approached his body.

If that report was correct about the bullet hitting his phone, that could explain the need for the high-tech special camera for trajectory testing.

 

[cady]

That it what I am wondering here. Do they think he accidentally shot himself when the bullet ricocheted in some fantastical manner ? And if so then cameras won't help because you will never be able to duplicate that. That is where computer models would be used.

My thought is that they are trying to completely rule in or rule out a shooter other than CG. To see if there is any remotely possible way that someone else shot him. But, as you said, we are operating on virtually no knowledge of the evidence that they DO have. JMO

 

[cady]

Wasn't there a report that the bullet hit his phone that was clipped on his vest? A bullet deflecting off his phone, or going through his phone, would complicate normal trajectory analysis. The angle of the bullet wound wouldn't necessarily reflect the angle at which the bullet approached his body.

If that report was correct about the bullet hitting his phone, that could explain the need for the high-tech special camera for trajectory testing.

Maybe, but I have always imagined the vest shot, deflected off the vest may have disturbed the cell.....not the kill shot. But yeah, they would need a hi speed cam to try to recreate that shot, too. JMO

 

[cady]

Any photos out there that show him in his vest with the cell attached? JMO I have seen one where his radio is attached to his left shoulder, on the vest......is that what they meant by phone? No where near the "abdomen"..........

 

[vestigare]

Wasn't there a report that the bullet hit his phone that was clipped on his vest? A bullet deflecting off his phone, or going through his phone, would complicate normal trajectory analysis. The angle of the bullet wound wouldn't necessarily reflect the angle at which the bullet approached his body.

If that report was correct about the bullet hitting his phone, that could explain the need for the high-tech special camera for trajectory testing.

Well no, no because they would never be able to replicate the exact shot so what would the camera be recording?

Besides where does the second casing come in?

He wouldn't have accidentally shot himself, moved and accidentally done it again.