IL - Lt. Charles 'Joe' Gliniewicz, 52, found dead, Fox Lake, 1 Sep 2015 - #4

[Woe.be.gone]

Coroner Rudd stated he needs more information in order to make an official determination.
Is there a reason people believe he is leaning towards suicide versus homicide?
Rudd made a statement about not having enough information to make a determination and, for reasons unknown, some people conclude he thinks it is a suicide.
What if he's neutral and, just as he stated, needs more evidence before he makes a determination beyond a reasonable doubt.

When a medical test to determine cancer spread is conducted, a specimen is placed into a petri dish. After about five days, the doctor will be able to determine if the lymph node is infected or not. This takes time. It's not as if he's trying to determine the right or wrong answer knowing the patient wants very badly to hear the right answer.
At this point in this case, Rudd is in a similar position as the doctor.
If he can't obtain results from whatever it is that represents his petri dish, how can he make an honest determination?

 

[khaki]

What are your thoughts on this being a case where the Lt was not actually trying to go that far? Suppose he was only trying to stage it to look like he was involved in a scuffle and he only meant to shoot his vest a couple of times and then make it look they got away. . .

And then, somehow, he missed his vest on his 2nd shot and accidentally killed himself?

I do not think he was trying to make it look like he was involved in a struggle but accidentally killed himself.

 

[tcer114]

Can you tell me specifically what those signs were?

Or during his intentional or accidental suicide.

True.



I respectfully disagree with that.

If they truly believe that their fellow officer was actually murdered and that they have ANY hard evidence to support that belief - they would not be obligated to keep suicide on the table (and to pro-long his family from receiving his benefits) in any way.



Not if they have any hard evidence of an actual encounter with an assailant / murderer - they aren't. The lack of that evidence is the ONLY reason that suicide is still being considered in this case.

I believe because Rudd is an elected official and made the statement he did, the police are obligated to keep it on the table. An elected coroner in the state of Illinois has the same power as the Sheriff.

 

[Chuz Life]

I do not think he was trying to make it look like he was involved in a struggle but accidentally killed himself.

May I ask, "why not?"

 

[Chuz Life]

I believe because Rudd is an elected official and made the statement he did, the police are obligated to keep it on the table. An elected coroner in the state of Illinois has the same power as the Sheriff.

May I ask what it is that you feel obligates law enforcement to do that?

 

[tcer114]

I can acknowledge how that would be indicative of the belief that this was a homicide. However, it could indicate that they know it was a suicide as well and have nothing to loose by raising the amount of a reward that they know will never have to be paid out.

It would interesting to know where/ from whom the increase in the reward amount was originated from.

I mentioned it only because it was said, IIRC, that because the reward was never increased it was another factor pointing to suicide.

 

[Montjoy]

I do not think he was trying to make it look like he was involved in a struggle but accidentally killed himself.

Part of me would love for this to be an accident. Suicide is awful, and IMO, murder is worse. But for the life of me I can't wrap my head around how he would shoot himself twice accidentally. Moreover, I don't know how he would have accidentally shot himself in a gap in his vest coverage. It just seems too fishy -- even without all of the other fishiness around this incident.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

We have his word on the radio call, the 9 types of foreign DNA, the scent trail, signs of a struggle, being shot twice and ?

left to be determined?
If the DNA was collected from under his fingernails and is determined to belong to a stranger, it would be strong evidence someone else is involved.

Commenting on the glasses - I swear I did not hear the word "intact" during the press conference. I recall LE wouldn't say if the glasses were on or off Lt. G, but the word "intact" didn't register.
Did everyone else who listened hear that detail stated?
If the glasses were knocked off his face, maybe foreign DNA was left on them. It would be hard to explain why someone's DNA is on another person's glasses.

Another thought - what if one of the young men in the Explorer program had a beef with the Lt. and did this to him?
A young suspect may explain the silence, why LE doesn't think the general public is in danger and the person might be a minor.

 

[Chuz Life]

You used the word 'you' six times when asking me for my personal theory. And it seemed accusatory, to me, because you have already expressed your 'exasperation' with those who do not agree with your theories.

Originally Posted by Chuz Life
Would you mind chronologically detailing the events as you believe they unfolded? It's fine if you want to make it clear that it's only speculation. I would like to read your thoughts and specifically how you think things took place and how you believe the evidence we have supports that possible conclusion.

How you take a request for you to speculate on something as a personal attack is beyond amazing.

Please do not respond to any more of my comments in the future. I'll do the same for yours.

 

[DexterMorgan]

You used the word 'you' six times when asking me for my personal theory. And it seemed accusatory, to me, because you have already expressed your 'exasperation' with those who do not agree with your theories.

Originally Posted by Chuz Life
Would you mind chronologically detailing the events as you believe they unfolded? It's fine if you want to make it clear that it's only speculation. I would like to read your thoughts and specifically how you think things took place and how you believe the evidence we have supports that possible conclusion.

The bolded 6 " You's" made me chuckle.

(Happy Saturday Emoji )

 

[Chuz Life]

Part of me would love for this to be an accident. Suicide is awful, and IMO, murder is worse. But for the life of me I can't wrap my head around how he would shoot himself twice accidentally.

If I may explain, the shots would not be accidental in that scenario. The shots would be intentional with the intent that they would just bounce off the vest. This is especially survivable if the shots are fired at an angle rather than straight on.

The thought is that in an attempt to hit the vest at an odd angle, the LT. may have "accidentally" missed his vest.

It is only in that way that it "might" be called an accident.

I hope that helps.

Moreover, I don't know how he would have accidentally shot himself in a gap in his vest coverage. It just seems too fishy -- even without all of the other fishiness around this incident.

I would like to know your thoughts on my explanation.

 

[Chuz Life]

The bolded 6 " You's" made me chuckle.

(Happy Saturday Emoji )

Me too.

 

[Montjoy]

I would like to know your thoughts on my explanation.

Even if he was trying to stage a situation in which he appeared to have been shot by someone else, I have to think that a seasoned LEO and military vet would be exceedingly careful about how he fired a 40 cal at himself from close range. But perhaps I'm just not imaginative enough.

As well, if his intent was not to kill himself, but to make it seem like he was shot in the line of duty, why bother shooting himself twice? Surely once would be enough to demonstrate heroism.

eta -- I recognize that those shots would not be accidental. An accidental shooting would be someone walking around, admiring his gun, tripping, and shooting himself. But even then, I don't see how one could be shot twice. (FWIW, I don't think I'm disagreeing with you in any of this here.)

 

[Chuz Life]

Even if he was trying to stage a situation in which he appeared to have been shot by someone else, I have to think that a seasoned LEO and military vet would be exceedingly careful about how he fired a 40 cal at himself from close range. But perhaps I'm just not imaginative enough.

I'm sure that you can imagine someone shooting themself in an area where they are protected by a bullet proof vest. So, I'm not clear on what you might have problems with imagining beyond that. All it would take for things to go horribly wrong is a slight distraction, muscle flinch or some kind of deflection.

As well, if his intent was not to kill himself, but to make it seem like he was shot in the line of duty, why bother shooting himself twice? Surely once would be enough to demonstrate heroism.

That might depend on how heroic he was trying to make himself seem. Another explanation might be that the first shot was to essentially fake his assault and after maybe having a second thought, he might have decided to make the 2nd shot a fatal one.

Who knows what his thoughts might have been at that moment.

eta -- I recognize that those shots would not be accidental. An accidental shooting would be someone walking around, admiring his gun, tripping, and shooting himself. But even then, I don't see how one could be shot twice. (FWIW, I don't think I'm disagreeing with you in any of this here.)

Thanks for any consideration and the chance for me to expound on the theory again.

 

[Cubby]

Mi

I don't know if it's different with a tablet but in the lower right hand corner of each post, there is a set of quotation marks and a plus sign on my pc. To use multi quote, I simply click on the plus signs of the posts that I want to quote and then click on the "reply with quote" button. Then the editing begins to edit out the unwanted portions and to keep in the part that I want to respond to. It gets easier with practice.



True.



Man, that's a lot of bodies to be able to just vanish like that all at once.



Yes and no.

I think there were enough other officers on the scene who might dismiss a dog alerting on a fellow officer once or in the beginning. . . . but as the investigation developed, I doubt they would ignore it completely - given they have so little else and so few other leads to follow up on.

Thank you! I will definitely try the multiquoting when I am back on a regular computer.

As for so many bodies to hide, not really. 3 found on surveillance, interviewed and cleared. A 1 guilty person on the scene, accounted for but dismissed early on in the investigation. Imo, no bodies hidden.E

Eta. If they have since decided to go back and start from square one they aren't going to publicly announce they are now considering one of the first responders. They would continue to play it off like they really have no solid evidence.

I still think it is less likely than suicide, but possible.

 

[Chuz Life]

. . . A 1 guilty person on the scene, accounted for but dismissed early on in the investigation.

Wait.

What?

 

[tcer114]

May I ask what it is that you feel obligates law enforcement to do that?

The coroner carries a lot of weight in Illinois. He made a statement that until he has difinitive proof one way or the other, he can't rule MOD. He didn't say it was a suicide and he didn't say it was a homicide. The task force and the coroner have their issues but, regardless of their power struggles, they were told to play nice. They met and the statement stands that they are investigating as a homicide but have not ruled out other possibilities. Rudd had his say and isn't going to be refuted. This drama has played out between Rudd and the task force many times before.

 

[khaki]

Part of me would love for this to be an accident. Suicide is awful, and IMO, murder is worse. But for the life of me I can't wrap my head around how he would shoot himself twice accidentally. Moreover, I don't know how he would have accidentally shot himself in a gap in his vest coverage. It just seems too fishy -- even without all of the other fishiness around this incident.

Hi Monjoy.....I'm so sorry for the wording of my post that you're commenting on. I did not mean to convey that I think Lt G accidentally killed himself, because I do not think he accidentally killed himself. I was responding to a question from Chuz Life when asked if I thought Lt G meant to stage a struggle and ended up accidentally killing himself in doing so. Hope I cleared this up. So sorry for confusion.

 

[Chuz Life]

The coroner carries a lot of weight in Illinois. He made a statement that until he has difinitive proof one way or the other, he can't rule MOD. He didn't say it was a suicide and he didn't say it was a homicide. The task force and the coroner have their issues but, regardless of their power struggles, they were told to play nice. They met and the statement stands that they are investigating as a homicide but have not ruled out other possibilities. Rudd had his say and isn't going to be refuted. This drama has played out between Rudd and the task force many times before.

I understand their want to play nice.

But the coroner's comment does not make it an obligation on LE's part.

If LE absolutely had any real evidence and they believed that a cop killer or killers were on the loose, they would have no obligation nor expectation of keeping the possibility of this being a suicide on the table. Let alone by making that part of a public announcement.

 

[Boo Radley]

Coroner Rudd stated he needs more information in order to make an official determination.
Is there a reason people believe he is leaning towards suicide versus homicide?
Rudd made a statement about not having enough information to make a determination and, for reasons unknown, some people conclude he thinks it is a suicide.
What if he's neutral and, just as he stated, needs more evidence before he makes a determination beyond a reasonable doubt.

When a medical test to determine cancer spread is conducted, a specimen is placed into a petri dish. After about five days, the doctor will be able to determine if the lymph node is infected or not. This takes time. It's not as if he's trying to determine the right or wrong answer knowing the patient wants very badly to hear the right answer.
At this point in this case, Rudd is in a similar position as the doctor.
If he can't obtain results from whatever it is that represents his petri dish, how can he make an honest determination?

BBM

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20150909/news/150908761/


"I can't determine any manner of death without the law enforcement report," Rudd said.
"It was "highly unlikely" Gliniewicz died from an accident, Rudd said, and he added he is "leaning toward homicide." However, if he had to rule on the case with the evidence he knows now, he said he would rule the manner of death undetermined.

Talking to the Patch news service, Rudd questijoned whether a killer could get close enough to attack Gliniewicz, who was a soldier as well as a longtime police officer.
"This is an Army man," Rudd told Patch.com. "He's 52, (but) he's got the body of a 25-year-old. When you're in the armed forces, obviously, you're trained how to kill."

And if Gliniewicz was in a fatal struggle, "he's going to rip out the guy's eyes or his throat," he said.

"This whole thing is getting a little sticky as far as the cause and manner of death," the coroner told Patch.com. "... This is a tough case. Emotions play a lot in this."

Rudd stated that he is leaning towards homocide but his other comments seem to infer that physical evidence of a life & death struggle by involving this fit, trained, and experienced police officer & military veteran, were absent.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...pute-in-Fox-Lake-Investigation-327949911.html

“The difficult position is this – we don’t have a perpetrator that we know of right now,” he said. “It’s very difficult to label this a homicide.”
That possibility is upsetting for the 30-year veteran’s family.

Rudd said he doesn’t envy task force officers who may soon be forced to task the Gliniewicz family some very difficult questions.

It appears that Rudd is trying to officially remain neutral until he has all the evidence but his comments seem to reveal his concerns and suspicions.