ChuckMaureen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,851
- Reaction score
- 13,070
Jumping to and stating conclusions as if they were official facts is not helpful. It confuses what is fact and what is speculation. Anything concluded as "fact" beyond what LE states as fact is considered as speculation.
snipped and bbm
"accidental death" is just as viable a possibility as other possibilities.
"no water in the lungs" does not clearly indicate "foul play". All it indicates is JL was not breathing / deceased when his body entered the water. COD and MOD have not yet been determined.
"accidental murder" (this would be considered "manslaughter") or "murder"... there is no evidence of either. If JL had passed due to a drug overdose or heart attack (just examples) and someone placed his body in the river the acting person would likely be charged with "abuse of a corpse" unless that person had something to do with his passing and it is proven.
The ME stated it is likely, although the ME does not state this as 100% determined, that JL entered in to the river after he was deceased. It is possible JL may have been in a boat or standing on the bank or on a bridge and suffered an event and fell. It is not likely, but still a possibility. No facts yet on this element.
Things like this have been going on for years. It just turns out we now have 24/7 news cycles that need to be filled with content. Years ago, "news" was relegated to one hour or less broadcasts in the morning, afternoon and evening and carried only what editors deemed as broadly relevant. Print news took up the slack.
"homicide" has not been proved in JL's case.
I'm just trying to keep the thread aligned on fact. Speculation is all well and good in sleuthing, but it should never be presented as definitives nor fact.
snipped and bbm
That is funny!!
We will see what has bothered me the most is this "accidental death " nonsense.
Joey having no water in his lungs clearly indicate foul play. They still leave it undetermined.
IMO they need to change it too accidental murder or murder.
It is insulting , when clear forensic stuff says he was thrown in
35 years ago none of this nonsense would have happened
unsolved homicide.
...
only mo
"accidental death" is just as viable a possibility as other possibilities.
"no water in the lungs" does not clearly indicate "foul play". All it indicates is JL was not breathing / deceased when his body entered the water. COD and MOD have not yet been determined.
"accidental murder" (this would be considered "manslaughter") or "murder"... there is no evidence of either. If JL had passed due to a drug overdose or heart attack (just examples) and someone placed his body in the river the acting person would likely be charged with "abuse of a corpse" unless that person had something to do with his passing and it is proven.
The ME stated it is likely, although the ME does not state this as 100% determined, that JL entered in to the river after he was deceased. It is possible JL may have been in a boat or standing on the bank or on a bridge and suffered an event and fell. It is not likely, but still a possibility. No facts yet on this element.
Things like this have been going on for years. It just turns out we now have 24/7 news cycles that need to be filled with content. Years ago, "news" was relegated to one hour or less broadcasts in the morning, afternoon and evening and carried only what editors deemed as broadly relevant. Print news took up the slack.
"homicide" has not been proved in JL's case.
I'm just trying to keep the thread aligned on fact. Speculation is all well and good in sleuthing, but it should never be presented as definitives nor fact.