suicide or murder?

Not Suicide ...

1. Wallet was missing (150$)
2. cut was found by his neck


QUESTION IS : WHY won't the Police re-open this case?

besides the bullet (the original bullet that they didnt find but the parents found was inches ion the ground)

The mother was threatened at the funeral saying don't look into this case any further :(

I HOPE THE BASTARDS GET WHAT THEY DISERVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT WAS NOT SUICIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT couldn't be

that was a bit harsh I just wish this case would be solved the right way :)

I just hope its in this lifetime :(

suicide or murder?

First of all, my opinion is not based on the accounts of any threats directed at the Ladner family or their personal feelings. My opinion is based strictly on the evidence.

I believed Norman was murdered, based on the physical evidence found by the police. Sometimes they just get lazy and may say suicide or accident for certain cases just to wrap it up and not look at it further.

The segment just doesn't provide enough information for me to determine what really happened. For instance, there is no information provided about Norman's state of mind which may or may not indicate that he was contemplating suicide.

The only people interviewed are Norman's parents and the police both of whom would have their own motives for the results of this case turning out definitively to be one way or the other.

I will say that the fact that Norman's father found evidence of what could have been drug related paraphernalia on his property leads me to think that narcotics trafficking could have played a role in this case. In addition as someone else has already brought up, the fact that Norman's wallet was missing is also troubling.

Thid is completely out of the blue.... BUT, WHAT IF.... the father was involved in the drugs that supposedly were getting dropped on his land (The control and parachute device found in the tree) what if the drug guys saw his son (accidently killed him or what if his father killed him, because he was too close?)

AGAIN THIS IS just 1 of the theories I have

Thid is completely out of the blue.... BUT, WHAT IF.... the father was involved in the drugs that supposedly were getting dropped on his land (The control and parachute device found in the tree) what if the drug guys saw his son (accidently killed him or what if his father killed him, because he was too close?)

AGAIN THIS IS just 1 of the theories I have

What evidence is this based on?

If the father was involved, why did he appear on Unsolved Mysteries in an effort to get the case re-investigated?

Not Suicide ...

1. Wallet was missing (150$)
2. cut was found by his neck


QUESTION IS : WHY won't the Police re-open this case?

besides the bullet (the original bullet that they didnt find but the parents found was inches ion the ground)

The mother was threatened at the funeral saying don't look into this case any further :(

I HOPE THE BASTARDS GET WHAT THEY DISERVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT WAS NOT SUICIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT couldn't be
Yes. Everyone with a brain knows it wasn't suicide. The police are hiding something and being stupid. This is why I'm always skeptical about law enforcement in general (at least in this country). Norman probably ran into some drug smugglers. I just hope he went down fighting and shot one of those bastards with his rifle.

Some kind of drug seize or something. No way in this world was it suicide.

Some kind of drug seize or something. No way in this world was it suicide.

I agree. I think Norman stumbled upon something he wasn't supposed to see and was killed. Probably a drug drop or drug deal going down.

I agree. I think Norman stumbled upon something he wasn't supposed to see and was killed. Probably a drug drop or drug deal going down.



Than why are thre no investigations on this case just like the boys on the tracks case they both seem like they have things about one another that match both mysterious deaths

I don't know if both cases were connnected or not, but I do believe all three boys stumbled upon high level drug deals going on in remote areas and were killed to be silenced.

Was the "device" found in the woods examined by LE to determine what type of frequencies, signals, etc. it sent/recieved to see if it was in fact used by drug runners? Also, did the mother question other ppl in the funeral home to see if anyone could id the mysterious stranger?

Was the "device" found in the woods examined by LE to determine what type of frequencies, signals, etc. it sent/recieved to see if it was in fact used by drug runners? Also, did the mother question other ppl in the funeral home to see if anyone could id the mysterious stranger?

Remember what happened to the bullet they found after they gave it to the police? They said it was inconclusive and gave them a different bullet back.

I highly doubt the Ladners would have ever gotten that device back had they given it to the authorities. Norman's dad said he met with an ex-DEA agent who confirmed it was a device to coordinate drug drops. That's more than enough info imo to know that Norman stumbled upon something he shouldn't have.

The story aired again tonight.

Something that really upset me about this case besides all the injustice surrounding it is how the cop who UM interviewed said that "there was no way" that the bullet Norman's dad found could have been the one that killed him.

Its like, ****. They're not even trying to hide the fact that they're lazily covering it up. So what, the Ladners found a bullet right where Norman was found dead (and a bloody bullet at that), among his brain fragments and skull tissue, and you literally want me to believe that it wasn't the bullet that killed him?

I saw this segment last night. Just want to clarify a few details.

Mrs. Ladner was confronted by the mystery man not at the funeral home, but at the coroner's office when she and her husband were there to see about getting the case reopened. She was pulled aside and told to leave it alone.

The cut on the Ladner boy's body was on the top of his head, not his neck.

I think the biggest thing for me indicating it was not suicide was the manner of death. Putting a rifle to the side of one's head and holding it steady while pulling the trigger is unnatural. If someone is going to commit suicide, it would be far easier to just put the barrel in one's mouth or under the chin. I was surprised it wasn't brought up in the segment since in cases like this where the rifle was claimed to be the method of death, it's usually pointed out how unwieldy a rifle is unless used in a certain way.

I saw this segment last night. Just want to clarify a few details.

Mrs. Ladner was confronted by the mystery man not at the funeral home, but at the coroner's office when she and her husband were there to see about getting the case reopened. She was pulled aside and told to leave it alone.

The cut on the Ladner boy's body was on the top of his head, not his neck.

I think the biggest thing for me indicating it was not suicide was the manner of death. Putting a rifle to the side of one's head and holding it steady while pulling the trigger is unnatural. If someone is going to commit suicide, it would be far easier to just put the barrel in one's mouth or under the chin. I was surprised it wasn't brought up in the segment since in cases like this where the rifle was claimed to be the method of death, it's usually pointed out how unwieldy a rifle is unless used in a certain way.

I agree. The police could have also examined the bullet entry wound on Norman's temple to determine whether he was shot at point-blank range or if the barrel of the gun that shot him was at a certain distance away from him.

Something that no one has mentioned in this thread yet is about Norman's driver's license. It's been mentioned in other threads on here that Norman's driver's license was found in New York not too long after this story originally aired. How did it get there? It didn't just walk there.

I find it odd that the Farina redux of this episode never made mention of this. It's a very important piece of information in my opinion.

Something that no one has mentioned in this thread yet is about Norman's driver's license. It's been mentioned in other threads on here that Norman's driver's license was found in New York not too long after this story originally aired. How did it get there? It didn't just walk there.

I find it odd that the Farina redux of this episode never made mention of this. It's a very important piece of information in my opinion.



I honestly think this case is related to the boys on the train tracks case.... there's so many similarities its ridiculous.... I really pray to God these 2 cases get solved....

what popular golden boy commits suicide... Norman a goodlookling, popular, good student, great family(from the looks of it)... perfect life.. there's no way he was suicidal....

There is some speculation that the Ives/Henry cases and Norman Ladner are connected. I won't go quite as far as to say both are tied to Mena...but the similarities are interesting.

I've always wondered why the police initally thought Norman's death was an accident. IMHO, that's certainly more believable than a suicide. Who shoots themselves in the side of the head with a rifle? I think the accident theory of Norman falling out of the tree and his gun misfiring would have been virtually accepted by everyone. IIRC, his family did indeed accept the "accident" theory and it was only when the case was changed to "suicide" that they wanted it reopened.

EDIT: In the past I've stated that I thought Norman was murdered, but I think if there was evidence that he was up in the tree and fell out this case could easily have been an accidental death. I'd just love to know what brought LE to their initial conclusion. If this indeed were an accidental death, the missing wallet could be explained by an over zealous paramedic or investigator who swiped it before anyone noticed. It wouldn't be the first time something like that happened.

Something that no one has mentioned in this thread yet is about Norman's driver's license. It's been mentioned in other threads on here that Norman's driver's license was found in New York not too long after this story originally aired. How did it get there? It didn't just walk there.

I find it odd that the Farina redux of this episode never made mention of this. It's a very important piece of information in my opinion.

Did they mention his license ending up in New York in the original segment?

that was a bit harsh I just wish this case would be solved the right way :)

I just hope its in this lifetime :(


And sadly, Norman's father is now deceased.:(

I think the biggest problem with this case, as with many of the suicide vs. murder cases, is lack of information.

It would be helpful to know, for instance, if there was GSR on Norman's hands, or stippling in the entrance wound which would indicate a shot fired from close range.

Unfortunately, UM tends to leave out this type of information. Probably so the case seems more "mysterious".

I do think it's kind of interesting/telling that the sheriff said if the ruling was changed to "accidental" the parents would probably let the matter go. Norman's parents made some similar comments earlier in the segment alluding to the fact that they initially didn't suspect murder, but an accidental shooting. It just makes me wonder if they couldn't cope with the suicide ruling, so they perpetuated the murder scenario.

I think the biggest problem with this case, as with many of the suicide vs. murder cases, is lack of information.

It would be helpful to know, for instance, if there was GSR on Norman's hands, or stippling in the entrance wound which would indicate a shot fired from close range.

Unfortunately, UM tends to leave out this type of information. Probably so the case seems more "mysterious".

I do think it's kind of interesting/telling that the sheriff said if the ruling was changed to "accidental" the parents would probably let the matter go. Norman's parents made some similar comments earlier in the segment alluding to the fact that they initially didn't suspect murder, but an accidental shooting. It just makes me wonder if they couldn't cope with the suicide ruling, so they perpetuated the murder scenario.

I have always wondered if there was a GSR test done on Norman's hands. There sure should have been, but given how this case was handled, it wouldn't surprise me if a GSR test was not done.

It's awkward to hold a gun that long to your head. I wish this would be solved :(

It's awkward to hold a gun that long to your head. I wish this would be solved :(


I bleive they found his wallet in city on side of road some months later. Leading others to bleive it had something to do with drug operation.

I bleive they found his wallet in city on side of road some months later. Leading others to bleive it had something to do with drug operation.
This just strengthens my conviction that this was a murder.

This just strengthens my conviction that this was a murder.

It all depends how the wallet got were it got as to weather it had anything to do with Norman's murder.

Re-watched this segment last night.

I'm not sure how the suicide theory wasn't challenged in a manner similar to that which was presented in the Rae Ann Mossor segment. I have a difficult time envisioning a young man putting the muzzle of a rifle to his temple, reaching over to engage the trigger, and being able to hold the weapon steadily all at the same time. And as a previous poster mentioned, if you choose to take your life utilizing such a firearm, placing the muzzle under the chin or in the mouth is more, well, comfortable and natural (as absolutely awful as that sounds). I know we don't have much information about the firearm, however.

For those of you who think this may have been an accident, how do you suppose that it happened? Does anyone have any other thoughts on this case?

I always thought it was pretty obvious that he was murdered based on what was presented in the segment.

I think this is clearly a murder but a lot of mystery and unanswered questions associated with it. I haven't seen the case in a while but from what I remember I didn't buy the suicide part at all. He didn't seem to have any reason to. An accident is always possible but the evidence points to foul play from what I remember.

Re-watched this segment last night.

I'm not sure how the suicide theory wasn't challenged in a manner similar to that which was presented in the Rae Ann Mossor segment. I have a difficult time envisioning a young man putting the muzzle of a rifle to his temple, reaching over to engage the trigger, and being able to hold the weapon steadily all at the same time. And as a previous poster mentioned, if you choose to take your life utilizing such a firearm, placing the muzzle under the chin or in the mouth is more, well, comfortable and natural (as absolutely awful as that sounds). I know we don't have much information about the firearm, however.

For those of you who think this may have been an accident, how do you suppose that it happened? Does anyone have any other thoughts on this case?

I wonder if LE made any attempt to figure out the trajectory of the bullet that killed Norman. I think it would answer a lot of crucial questions. Consider...

1. The re-enactment of the suicide scenario shows Norman standing. He holds the gun muzzle up to the side of his head (I'm assuming point blank range here), horizontally, and squeezes off. If this was the case, the bullet could have veered off in to the woods and been unrecoverable, I'm guessing.

2. This was not re-enacted, but given the fact that the bullet which allegedly killed Norman (the one found by his parents) was found buried in the ground below where his body ended up, the only way it conceivably could have gotten there is if he was laying on the ground when the shot was fired and the shooter was standing over him.

This suggests a downward trajectory. Also, while it doesn't negate the possibility of a point blank shot to the head, it opens the door to another possibility - that there was some distance between the muzzle and Norman's head (i.e., the shot was NOT fired at point blank range).

My point is that we're talking about two VASTLY different scenarios here in terms of the mechanics of the shooting. Either would have resulted in very different trajectories, very different spatter patterns, different stippling and gun powder burns, and different destinations for the bullet. Not to mention the use of a different gun for the murder because the family asserts that Norman's rifle could not have fired the slug they found.

Did LE look at this? If so, it wasn't mentioned in the segment. However, I would imagine that any competent investigator would be able to pick up on these differences.

Also - for those who think this was a murder - do you think the killers intentionally "staged" this to look like a suicide?

For those of you who think this may have been an accident, how do you suppose that it happened? Does anyone have any other thoughts on this case?

UM did a segment once on a hunter who had accidentally shot himself and nearly bled to death. IIRC, he fell out of a tree stand. I could see something similar happening here. Norman going up in a tree and falling out of it, the gun shoots him in the process. Wasn't the gun also broke in half? That might tie into an accident.

I need to watch this one again though.

Here is some first hand information from the other Ladner thread on the forums where a poster named rovinggambler sheds some light as to the Ladner case:

Hi. Lorance Lumpkin was the Pearl River County sherriff back during the time of Norman's death. I was only 15 at the time but my buddy who was at the UM filming with me told me that he felt Lorance was hiding something. I don't remember ever discussing what his reasons for saying that was but I wish now we had talked about it. Our paths don't cross much anymore...it's been 2 years since I've seen him. I need to get back in touch with him and hopefully we can discuss Norman. He and Norman was very good friends as well. We would walk to the little store very often and hang out with Norman back behind the store on the property his family owned and where he was killed. We could walk from our houses to the store in about 10 minutes. Norman would take us to an area where he had a target set up and we would shoot Norman's bow and arrow back there. He was alot of fun to hang around with...always a joker too. He would come to school with fake vomit and gross the girls out with it. Up until his death, we never saw any reason for him to be depressed about anything. Norman's father was right...he loved life and would never have had a reason to commit suicide. As far as the radio device goes...I never saw it but we heard the family talking about it at the store. I did see the bullet that came back (the one that was switched). His dad had it at the store and let me see it. Something that I forgot to mention in my last post was that his mom and dad divorced sometime in the mid-90's. It's a shame that I never really kept in touch with any of them after his death and only learned about the divorce years after they signed the papers. They were a really great family and I was shocked to hear about it. I can only assume that Norman's death contributed to the split. It has become a cold case and frankly, I've heard no talk about it in a very long time. One thing I do remember my friend saying to me was that he had seen a low flying plane...a small, crop dusting type plane...flying in the area of their land around the time of Norman's death. My personal feelings are basically what was laid out in the UM episode. Norman walked upon a drug deal and was taken out. I guess my friend felt that sherriff Lorance Lumpkin knew of the drug deal and did what he could to make it look like a suicide. I wish I knew more and maybe I will if I could make contact with an old buddy of mine. Later.

Something that I don't remember being a part of the Norman Ladner episode was the fact that his driver's liscense was found along a roadside in New York months after his death. This was something that his father told me personally. Everyone can draw their own conclusions but I knew this family. Norman knew how to handle a gun as most teenage boys in this area do. It's a part of life here...to be in the outdoors, hunting and fishing with your buddies, etc. I've shot arrows with him at his archery targets back on his property. Norman was a great person to hang around with. He enjoyed his quite time to himself as we all do but he also loved being around his friends. Suicide? No. Accident? Not likely. My idea on what happened? I believe he was in an altercation on his property in which his gun was wrestled away from him. His gun was probably swung at him hitting him across the top of his head causing the laceration. Norman, lying on the ground, was then shot through his temples (not with his broken gun) causing the bullet and particles of blood and brain matter to be embedded under his head into the ground. This would explain why the bullet that was found by his parents did not match Norman's gun. This bullet had a peculiar nick on it and was not returned to the Ladner's after a ballistics examination. Instead, a different bullet was sent to them. This knowledge, along with the missing wallet, the driver's liscense found in NY, the stranger's message to Mrs. Charlotte at the funeral home to not pursue this case, the radio device that was found, and the investigator's lack of properly processing the scene...all of this leads me to believe he was murdered. The other two options just do not fit with these circumstances.

The radio device in the woods was not discovered until after Norman's death. There's really no good way of determining how long it had been there beforehand. I don't recall him ever mentioning anything out of the ordinary being found on his property before his death.

Murder seems the most probable with all the facts present. An accident? Possible but very slim chance in my opinion. Suicide? From what it sounds like not a chance. I think he stumbled upon some shady people on the property and things went bad really fast.

Here is some first hand information from the other Ladner thread on the forums where a poster named rovinggambler sheds some light as to the Ladner case:

Hi. Lorance Lumpkin was the Pearl River County sherriff back during the time of Norman's death. I was only 15 at the time but my buddy who was at the UM filming with me told me that he felt Lorance was hiding something. I don't remember ever discussing what his reasons for saying that was but I wish now we had talked about it. Our paths don't cross much anymore...it's been 2 years since I've seen him. I need to get back in touch with him and hopefully we can discuss Norman. He and Norman was very good friends as well. We would walk to the little store very often and hang out with Norman back behind the store on the property his family owned and where he was killed. We could walk from our houses to the store in about 10 minutes. Norman would take us to an area where he had a target set up and we would shoot Norman's bow and arrow back there. He was alot of fun to hang around with...always a joker too. He would come to school with fake vomit and gross the girls out with it. Up until his death, we never saw any reason for him to be depressed about anything. Norman's father was right...he loved life and would never have had a reason to commit suicide. As far as the radio device goes...I never saw it but we heard the family talking about it at the store. I did see the bullet that came back (the one that was switched). His dad had it at the store and let me see it. Something that I forgot to mention in my last post was that his mom and dad divorced sometime in the mid-90's. It's a shame that I never really kept in touch with any of them after his death and only learned about the divorce years after they signed the papers. They were a really great family and I was shocked to hear about it. I can only assume that Norman's death contributed to the split. It has become a cold case and frankly, I've heard no talk about it in a very long time. One thing I do remember my friend saying to me was that he had seen a low flying plane...a small, crop dusting type plane...flying in the area of their land around the time of Norman's death. My personal feelings are basically what was laid out in the UM episode. Norman walked upon a drug deal and was taken out. I guess my friend felt that sherriff Lorance Lumpkin knew of the drug deal and did what he could to make it look like a suicide. I wish I knew more and maybe I will if I could make contact with an old buddy of mine. Later.

Something that I don't remember being a part of the Norman Ladner episode was the fact that his driver's liscense was found along a roadside in New York months after his death. This was something that his father told me personally. Everyone can draw their own conclusions but I knew this family. Norman knew how to handle a gun as most teenage boys in this area do. It's a part of life here...to be in the outdoors, hunting and fishing with your buddies, etc. I've shot arrows with him at his archery targets back on his property. Norman was a great person to hang around with. He enjoyed his quite time to himself as we all do but he also loved being around his friends. Suicide? No. Accident? Not likely. My idea on what happened? I believe he was in an altercation on his property in which his gun was wrestled away from him. His gun was probably swung at him hitting him across the top of his head causing the laceration. Norman, lying on the ground, was then shot through his temples (not with his broken gun) causing the bullet and particles of blood and brain matter to be embedded under his head into the ground. This would explain why the bullet that was found by his parents did not match Norman's gun. This bullet had a peculiar nick on it and was not returned to the Ladner's after a ballistics examination. Instead, a different bullet was sent to them. This knowledge, along with the missing wallet, the driver's liscense found in NY, the stranger's message to Mrs. Charlotte at the funeral home to not pursue this case, the radio device that was found, and the investigator's lack of properly processing the scene...all of this leads me to believe he was murdered. The other two options just do not fit with these circumstances.

The radio device in the woods was not discovered until after Norman's death. There's really no good way of determining how long it had been there beforehand. I don't recall him ever mentioning anything out of the ordinary being found on his property before his death.
Thanks. I hadn't read this information before. I agree with him 100%. Something went down and Norman was just unfortunately in the wrong place at the wrong time. I hope those people burn in hell for what they did.

I know parallels have been drawn between the Ladner case and Ives/Henry. In the latter, however, there seems to be clearly connected dots in a network of conspiracy (however complex it may be) within the state of Arkansas and spilling over nationally involving the war on drugs and protecting high-value informants (i.e., Barry Seal). We don't see such a highly detailed analysis/theory with the Ladner case.

For those of you who think the two cases are related a la the "permitted" drug running angle, why do you suppose it seems the Ladner case hasn't received near the level of public attention the Ives/Henry case has in this regard?

I know parallels have been drawn between the Ladner case and Ives/Henry. In the latter, however, there seems to be clearly connected dots in a network of conspiracy (however complex it may be) within the state of Arkansas and spilling over nationally involving the war on drugs and protecting high-value informants (i.e., Barry Seal). We don't see such a highly detailed analysis/theory with the Ladner case.

For those of you who think the two cases are related a la the "permitted" drug running angle, why do you suppose it seems the Ladner case hasn't received near the level of public attention the Ives/Henry case has in this regard?

Not to sound glib but Ives & Henry got run over by a train. Sort of an eye opener in enough of itself if you know what I mean.

I never knew his drivers license was found in New York just a couple months after his death. That's a loooooong way from southern Mississippi.

I know parallels have been drawn between the Ladner case and Ives/Henry. In the latter, however, there seems to be clearly connected dots in a network of conspiracy (however complex it may be) within the state of Arkansas and spilling over nationally involving the war on drugs and protecting high-value informants (i.e., Barry Seal). We don't see such a highly detailed analysis/theory with the Ladner case.

For those of you who think the two cases are related a la the "permitted" drug running angle, why do you suppose it seems the Ladner case hasn't received near the level of public attention the Ives/Henry case has in this regard?
Unfortunately that is how it is with America. Certain cases get picked up by the media and other cases are ignored. Remember the Scott Peterson case 10 years ago? Or the George Zimmerman trial? Two examples of incidents that were put in the spotlight, yet weren't all that different from other disappearances or murders that are never really profiled. There are tons of cases that aren't necessarily different from dozens of other crimes and/or murders, but get picked up by the media and other media outlets start following the story looking to also capitalize. Sad, but true. USA news media picks which stories rise to prominence like a person selecting a video to rent in Blockbuster.

Anything's possible but I've never felt the two cases were related.

Not to sound glib but Ives & Henry got run over by a train. Sort of an eye opener in enough of itself if you know what I mean.

Sure, and I think that's a point worth making.

The FBI eventually became involved with Ives/Henry (largely due to Linda Ives pushing all those years to get a proper investigation into the case) after YEARS of state and local information gathering, so perhaps that's why we have a much more complete picture and clear connection to this particular angle than we do with Ladner, even though there was discussion about Ladner being murdered for nearly precisely the same reason Ives/Henry allegedly (certainly, in my estimation) were.

Curiously, despite the reports of low-flying aircraft dropping drugs and the discovery of an alleged signaling device in the middle of the woods, it seems the Ladner case is hardly ever brought up in discussions about Ives/Henry and/or activities such as what went on in Mena in the context of the War on Drugs. I suppose I don't understand why.

Anything's possible but I've never felt the two cases were related.

Why do you feel this, if I may ask? I'm not sold on the notion that they're related just yet myself.

Sure, and I think that's a point worth making.

The FBI eventually became involved with Ives/Henry (largely due to Linda Ives pushing all those years to get a proper investigation into the case) after YEARS of state and local information gathering, so perhaps that's why we have a much more complete picture and clear connection to this particular angle than we do with Ladner, even though there was discussion about Ladner being murdered for nearly precisely the same reason Ives/Henry allegedly (certainly, in my estimation) were.

Curiously, despite the reports of low-flying aircraft dropping drugs and the discovery of an alleged signaling device in the middle of the woods, it seems the Ladner case is hardly ever brought up in discussions about Ives/Henry and/or activities such as what went on in Mena in the context of the War on Drugs. I suppose I don't understand why.

For what it's worth from the first time I saw the Ladner case (years after I saw the Ives & Henry case) I always thought the two were somehow related although not necessarily part of the same drug drop/operation deal. I think all three boys wandered upon something that they weren't supposed to see and were murdered as a result.

The suicide theory with Norman Ladner never resonated in any way with me. If anything it was an accident which obviously remains a possibility given Norman's relative young age, although as it has been pointed out, youths in Norman's area of the United States are far more experienced handling guns than perhaps we would believe at first blush.

Heck I remember it being reported that the deaths of Ives/Henry were first going to be reported as suicides but it was decided to list their death as accidental due to intoxication because it was felt that the local public would not accept a ruling of suicide in the case of those two boys.

Needless to say I don't see suicide as being much of a possibility in either of these cases.

For what it's worth from the first time I saw the Ladner case (years after I saw the Ives & Henry case) I always thought the two were somehow related although not necessarily part of the same drug drop/operation deal. I think all three boys wandered upon something that they weren't supposed to see and were murdered as a result.

The suicide theory with Norman Ladner never resonated in any way with me. If anything it was an accident which obviously remains a possibility given Norman's relative young age, although as it has been pointed out, youths in Norman's area of the United States are far more experienced handling guns than perhaps we would believe at first blush.

Heck I remember it being reported that the deaths of Ives/Henry were first going to be reported as suicides but it was decided to list their death as accidental due to intoxication because it was felt that the local public would not accept a ruling of suicide in the case of those two boys.

Needless to say I don't see suicide as being much of a possibility in either of these cases.

I currently lean toward your theory--the boys were all murdered for the same reason, but the operations were different. While the activity in the Ives/Henry case was known and protected by LE, I'm not sure this was necessarily the case with Norman Ladner. I think the protection and coverup in the latter came AFTER the fact, as opposed to LE having an eye on it from the very beginning. Every single thing I have read on the case in discussions and theories between Pearl River Co locals points directly to Sheriff Lumpkin perpetrating a coverup, allegedly to protect either himself (apparently he was involved in illegal activities himself, having participated in a ****-fighting ring. It appears he also impeded a murder investigation just over the river in Slidell, LA for unknown reasons) or someone he knew. Lumpkin died in 2007.

There is also frequent mention of the so-called Dixie Mafia being involved. Both Mississippi and Louisiana are traditional DM hotbeds, so I suppose it's a viable possibility.

ETA, OT: This is the second time on the board I have attempted to use the word c*ck in a non-vulgar sense and it hasn't made the censorship cut. :p

I just watched this case yet again and I've finally made up my mind. He was murdered. I had thought accident was a possibility (I never believed suicide), but there are just too many things to point to murder:

-the wallet with $140 missing.
-the gun was broken
-the mysterious man who approached Charlette and told her not to investigate.
-the location of the bullet
-the radio device
-the sloppy investigation (bullet returned to Charles and Charlette wasn't the right one, corrupt sheriff)

Points 2 and 4 could also point to accident, but taking everything into account I think this was murder.

The segment offered up a viable solution to the laceration on Norman's head: there was a root sticking out of the ground with blood on it. Have to wonder if Norman's killer slammed his head on it. :(

I don't believe the killing went down the way it was depicted in the segment though, with someone coming up secretly from behind on Norman. Those woods must have been covered with branches and leaves and it would be nigh impossible to not make any sound walking.

This may be a bit of a wild theory, but do you think it's possible Norman was killed solely for his money and drugs weren't a factor at all? $140 seems like a lot of money for a kid to be carrying around. There are always high school kids that have jobs, but they're mostly minimum wage ones and the minimum wage back then was a paltry $3.35 an hour. And of course, there are always kids with rich parents, but I didn't really get that vibe here. I wonder if it was common for Norman to carry that much cash with him and if it was a known fact around school/town. Maybe a strange theory, but people have been killed for less.

This may be a bit of a wild theory, but do you think it's possible Norman was killed solely for his money and drugs weren't a factor at all? $140 seems like a lot of money for a kid to be carrying around. There are always high school kids that have jobs, but they're mostly minimum wage ones and the minimum wage back then was a paltry $3.35 an hour. And of course, there are always kids with rich parents, but I didn't really get that vibe here. I wonder if it was common for Norman to carry that much cash with him and if it was a known fact around school/town. Maybe a strange theory, but people have been killed for less.

For what it's worth, from my perspective Norman Ladner didn't seem to be particularly well off. Therefore he wouldn't necessarily be a prime target for someone looking to make a quick score on in terms of robbery. As you mentioned they would've had to have known that Ladner had a habit of carrying likely all of his money in his wallet with him at all times. At the very least they would've had to have known that Ladner had x amount of dollars in the wallet at the time they encountered him in the woods and murdered him for robbery to be a potential motive in my mind.

I still find it strange that his drivers license turned up in New York. That sort of creeps me out that missing property of Norman's traveled so far north after his death.

Fair enough. Just seems weird though for someone to take that much money into the woods. There's nothing to buy there. I suppose he needed his wallet as his hunting license was in there, but he could have just slipped that out.

But anyways. The wallet being found in New York indicates to me the drug supplier was from there, or at least had connections there. I'm guessing it was probably a pretty big shipment. I wonder how much they investigated the drug scene in Picayune and surrounding areas.

Coincidentally, I happened to catch the tail end of a documentary on the Dixie Mafia on TV yesterday afternoon. It described a huge takedown in Mississippi sometime during the '80s (as part of a description on how the DM was eventually "brought down" in that decade) which involved FBI agents converging upon a plane drop site in the middle of the woods. Thought that was kind of interesting.

For what it's worth from the first time I saw the Ladner case (years after I saw the Ives & Henry case) I always thought the two were somehow related although not necessarily part of the same drug drop/operation deal. I think all three boys wandered upon something that they weren't supposed to see and were murdered as a result.

The suicide theory with Norman Ladner never resonated in any way with me. If anything it was an accident which obviously remains a possibility given Norman's relative young age, although as it has been pointed out, youths in Norman's area of the United States are far more experienced handling guns than perhaps we would believe at first blush.

Heck I remember it being reported that the deaths of Ives/Henry were first going to be reported as suicides but it was decided to list their death as accidental due to intoxication because it was felt that the local public would not accept a ruling of suicide in the case of those two boys.

Needless to say I don't see suicide as being much of a possibility in either of these cases.

I agree. Also, the sheriff or lead investigator (whoever he was) that was interviewed, ranks up there as one of the more smug people from law enforcement to be interviewed on Unsolved Mysteries.

100% murder. The only question is was there a police cover up.

the wallet being found in New York is not mentioned in the segment on Amazon. Is the segment edited?

This case was without a shadow of a doubt a murder and coverup. Its not even up for discussion when looking at the evidence. Poor Norman and his poor parents. Makes me incredibly angry how segments of society can get away with this behavior. Backwater redneck cops in Mississippi litterally getting away with drug dealing and murder

the wallet being found in New York is not mentioned in the segment on Amazon. Is the segment edited?

As far as I know, there never was an update. Even the Farina version never mentioned the found wallet/license.

I've never been able to confirm the source of the information about Norman's driver's license being found in New York. I've seen a blog here or there mention it, but I've never known where that information actually came from. I'm not saying it's necessarily erroneous, but it seems to be another one of those board curiosities with unclear origins.

I've never been able to confirm the source of the information about Norman's driver's license being found in New York. I've seen a blog here or there mention it, but I've never known where that information actually came from. I'm not saying it's necessarily erroneous, but it seems to be another one of those board curiosities with unclear origins.

I believe it came from a one post wonder type named rovinggambler who claimed to have been a friend of Norman.

This one definitely appears to be foul play to me. Possibly an accident but suicide I don't think was an option. Anythings possible but nothing gave indication suicide was a factor

I have a new theory. I do not know if anyone else has suggested this but maybe Norman Ladner was going to buy drugs. Why else would he have that much money with him? I think that is most likely what happened. Norman went to buy drugs for himself and the seller double crossed him robbed and killed him. That is the most likely explanation in my opinion.

I have a new theory. I do not know if anyone else has suggested this but maybe Norman Ladner was going to buy drugs. Why else would he have that much money with him? I think that is most likely what happened. Norman went to buy drugs for himself and the seller double crossed him robbed and killed him. That is the most likely explanation in my opinion.

There has been no evidence to suggest Norman was into drugs. Did you ever stop & think that just maybe Norman was the type of person who saved his money??? Not every teenager squanders there money. The way you make it sound is because he was carrying that much cash, oh he had to be going to buy drugs. Norman could of been the type that wherever he went he always carried his wallet & always kept his money in his wallet.

I think some are making way too much out of Norman having that much cash on him.

Unless other evidence comes forth, I still believe Norman stumbled upon something he should not have, (more then likely involving drugs) & was murdered to shut him up.

I'm on the fence on this one.

The wallet being missing - it could have been stolen by a paramedic or someone at the coroner's office with sticky fingers.

The laceration on the head - the police indicated that they found a root at the scene spattered with blood. His head could have struck the root after he fell.

The "signaling" device in the woods - real hard to tell exactly what this is. The family claims they had it looked at by someone who was retired DEA that said it was a device used to guide low flying planes dropping shipments of drugs. Okay. Did they get a second opinion? Also, there is no way to say how long it was there, what its purpose actually was, and so on.

The bullet the family found - it was in the ground several inches below where they claim Norman was. The police claim he was in a standing position when the shot was fired. Not to be graphic, but this should have been relatively easy to figure out based on blood spatter patterning. If he was standing, it doesn't make much sense for the bullet they found to be related to his death.

He "wouldn't commit suicide" - I hate to be crass, but who can really say this? We don't know what was going through his mind, and sometimes people who contemplate killing themselves don't reach out or say anything, or potential behaviors and waning signs that they do manifest are missed by those closest to them.

Overall, it is pretty ambiguous. I'd probably lean more toward suicide lacking more credible evidence of murder.

I'm on the fence on this one.

The wallet being missing - it could have been stolen by a paramedic or someone at the coroner's office with sticky fingers.

The laceration on the head - the police indicated that they found a root at the scene spattered with blood. His head could have struck the root after he fell.

The "signaling" device in the woods - real hard to tell exactly what this is. The family claims they had it looked at by someone who was retired DEA that said it was a device used to guide low flying planes dropping shipments of drugs. Okay. Did they get a second opinion? Also, there is no way to say how long it was there, what its purpose actually was, and so on.

The bullet the family found - it was in the ground several inches below where they claim Norman was. The police claim he was in a standing position when the shot was fired. Not to be graphic, but this should have been relatively easy to figure out based on blood spatter patterning. If he was standing, it doesn't make much sense for the bullet they found to be related to his death.

He "wouldn't commit suicide" - I hate to be crass, but who can really say this? We don't know what was going through his mind, and sometimes people who contemplate killing themselves don't reach out or say anything, or potential behaviors and waning signs that they do manifest are missed by those closest to them.

Overall, it is pretty ambiguous. I'd probably lean more toward suicide lacking more credible evidence of murder.

Wasn't he carrying a rifle, though? I forget the pattern of injury, but I thought it was through his head, transversing the temples horizontally. And I seem to remember something about a wound "on the peak of his head", to use Mr. Ladner's words, but I don't seem to recall it as a gunshot wound.

Overall, it is pretty ambiguous. I'd probably lean more toward suicide lacking more credible evidence of murder.

Yes that's what I'm leaning towards as well. He loved those woods and knew them well so that could be a reason why if he did commit suicide he went there. It just seems more likely than he happened to stumble upon something he wasn't supposed to and was murdered.

There has been no evidence to suggest Norman was into drugs. Did you ever stop & think that just maybe Norman was the type of person who saved his money??? Not every teenager squanders there money. The way you make it sound is because he was carrying that much cash, oh he had to be going to buy drugs. Norman could of been the type that wherever he went he always carried his wallet & always kept his money in his wallet.

I think some are making way too much out of Norman having that much cash on him.

Unless other evidence comes forth, I still believe Norman stumbled upon something he should not have, (more then likely involving drugs) & was murdered to shut him up.

He very well could have just happened to have that kind of money and was not going to buy drugs but you definitely got to look at it as a strong possibility if you are considering it a murder.

He very well could have just happened to have that kind of money and was not going to buy drugs but you definitely got to look at it as a strong possibility if you are considering it a murder.

To piggy back off of what you said about Norman buying drugs, perhaps he was a drug mule for someone? I thought it was weird for him to have large amounts of money openly given the fact that his family didn't seem that wealthy.

I wonder if a cop/possibly his father had Norman buying/selling drugs, and he was got by a dealer who robbed him? He could've been buying for himself, but given the fact that he had large sums, I wonder if a crooked cop paid Norman to be his mule? Maybe his father had shady dealings he had Norman do?

I tend to lean towards the drug deal, and stumbling upon it. The Dixie Mafia was still relatively big. Kirksey Nix had just ordered the murder of Judge Sherry and his wife 2 years earlier. The mayor of Biloxi, who was the ex law partner of Judge Sherry, had yet to be arrested and convicted of racketeering and conspiracy in The Sherry murder. Jeffery Carter was imprisoned at Angola, but he was a prodigy of Barry Seal, the Mena AR plane flyer himself. There's just too many co- incidences ( said in my best Danny Wheeler voice)

Now that I think of it, it would be hard to murder Norman Ladner if he was carrying a rifle. He could use it to protect himself.

Now that I think of it, it would be hard to murder Norman Ladner if he was carrying a rifle. He could use it to protect himself.

Not if you attacked quietly from the back.

Not if you attacked quietly from the back.
The leaves probably would make noise when walking on them. It would probably be 2 or more people involved if it is murder.

Now that I think of it, it would be hard to murder Norman Ladner if he was carrying a rifle. He could use it to protect himself.

Nah. I think there tends to exist an idea that a firearm is universally protective. It's not. It's the person carrying the firearm that determines how protective that weapon is in such a situation. A rifle does no good if you freeze up and allow the weapon to be yanked out of your hands, or if you fire a rounds into the ground in front of your assailant because you're afraid.

The leaves probably would make noise when walking on them. It would probably be 2 or more people involved if it is murder.

Keep in mind that Norman could've been attacked from a distance. Also he could've been blindsided. But I agree with MegtheEgg86 that just because he had a gun doesn't mean he had the courage to use it, or the knowledge. Also, it's possible that he didn't want to hurt anyone, so he chose not to shoot.

Are there are any pictures of the tree that Norman was found near? I'm curious as to if it was possible to climb that tree, or any of the surrounding trees.

My scenario goes like this -> Norman goes out hunting. Maybe he climbs into the tree to sit and wait for animals, or maybe he climbs up into the tree to get a better view of what's occurring in the clearing, or possibly to avoid detection by those in the clearing.

At some point, the person(s) from the clearing come walking into the woods, perhaps to use the electronic device that Norman's father later found. They might not have even known that Norman was in the tree, but as they are traversing through the forest, they discover him.

At this point, things could go a number of ways:

1) They shoot Norman out of the tree. He falls and hits the rock, thus producing lacerations on his head. This would also explain the somewhat uncommon location of where he was shot (relative to other suicides/type of gun used).

2) They force Norman to come down out of the tree at gun point, at which time they kill him. He falls and hits the rock on the ground, or maybe they roughed him before they killed him.

3) Norman confronts these people, whether in the tree or after descending, and quickly learns that their purpose for being there is nefarious.

You can understand Norman's reluctance to shoot these people. He didn't know exactly what they were doing there. He probably thought he would go undetected and could later return safely to his home. If he shoots and kills these people and it turns out they were doing something legitimate then he's just committed murder. If he shoots and misses then he's blown his cover, and if he's outnumbered then he's in big trouble. He's in a tree so it's not like he has many exit options.

In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter which scenario occurred as both lead to the same outcome of murder. There's too much here that goes against the theory of suicide. I think it's simply a case of a young man goes out to hunt and finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Are there are any pictures of the tree that Norman was found near? I'm curious as to if it was possible to climb that tree, or any of the surrounding trees.

My scenario goes like this -> Norman goes out hunting. Maybe he climbs into the tree to sit and wait for animals, or maybe he climbs up into the tree to get a better view of what's occurring in the clearing, or possibly to avoid detection by those in the clearing.

At some point, the person(s) from the clearing come walking into the woods, perhaps to use the electronic device that Norman's father later found. They might not have even known that Norman was in the tree, but as they are traversing through the forest, they discover him.

At this point, things could go a number of ways:

1) They shoot Norman out of the tree. He falls and hits the rock, thus producing lacerations on his head. This would also explain the somewhat uncommon location of where he was shot (relative to other suicides/type of gun used

2) They force Norman to come down out of the tree at gun point, at which time they kill him. He falls and hits the rock on the ground, or maybe they roughed him before they killed him.

3) Norman confronts these people, whether in the tree or after descending, and quickly learns that their purpose for being there is nefarious.

You can understand Norman's reluctance to shoot these people. He didn't know exactly what they were doing there. He probably thought he would go undetected and could later return safely to his home. If he shoots and kills these people and it turns out they were doing something legitimate then he's just committed murder. If he shoots and misses then he's blown his cover, and if he's outnumbered then he's in big trouble. He's in a tree so it's not like he has many exit options.

In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter which scenario occurred as both lead to the same outcome of murder. There's too much here that goes against the theory of suicide. I think it's simply a case of a young man goes out to hunt and finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You are correct sir. I couldn't agree more. Whoever believes this was a suicide has probably blown their entire paycheck playing three card monte on more than one occasion.

Nah. I think there tends to exist an idea that a firearm is universally protective. It's not. It's the person carrying the firearm that determines how protective that weapon is in such a situation. A rifle does no good if you freeze up and allow the weapon to be yanked out of your hands, or if you fire a rounds into the ground in front of your assailant because you're afraid.

Or if they were at close range. I don't see how a rifle can protect you if the person is literally in your face...

I believe it was either murder or an accident, leaning towards murder.

It seems very unlikely for it to be suicide (even if the parents didn't really know what/how Norman's state of mind was at the time). There seemed to be too many other findings for it to be a suicide. The prime example is why would some stranger pull Norman's mother aside at the funeral service and basically tell her (paraphrasing) "don't try to figure out what happened to your son" if Norman killed himself?

I believe what happened to him was probably similar to the drug operation scenario shown in the reenactment (he stumbled upon it that day when it was already in full swing and then something along the lines of a lookout or two cornered and killed him) or that he was in a tree hunting but fell and the rifle discharged.

Also, why was that lead detective (interviewed in the segment) so staunch on ruling it a suicide? It makes him look either very stubborn or somewhat suspicious.

I've seen this case many times over, and watching the parents interview is one of the saddest of the series. His mom is calm and well spoken, with obvious heartbreak. His father explains the facts calmly and speaks of his son with obvious joy.

It must have been hard for the family to watch a reenactment of their son's "suicide".

I believe it was either murder or an accident, leaning towards murder.

It seems very unlikely for it to be suicide (even if the parents didn't really know what/how Norman's state of mind was at the time). There seemed to be too many other findings for it to be a suicide. The prime example is why would some stranger pull Norman's mother aside at the funeral service and basically tell her (paraphrasing) "don't try to figure out what happened to your son" if Norman killed himself?

I believe what happened to him was probably similar to the drug operation scenario shown in the reenactment (he stumbled upon it that day when it was already in full swing and then something along the lines of a lookout or two cornered and killed him) or that he was in a tree hunting but fell and the rifle discharged.

Also, why was that lead detective (interviewed in the segment) so staunch on ruling it a suicide? It makes him look either very stubborn or somewhat suspicious.

That particular cop might've had something to hide (as mentioned earlier in this thread)

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=4916343&postcount=46

This seems the classic case where the parents can't accept a suicide no matter what. They basically said so during the interview where they accepted an accident but as soon suicide came in they started investigating.

Suicide or an accident seems the very likely scenario to me. Murder involves introducing drug cartels, crooked police departments which seems unnecessary to me.

Years ago, so many people were saying this was an obvious murder. Now it just seems like everyone is saying it was a suicide.

I think he was murdered because I think this would have been a bizarre (albeit not impossible) suicide. But we don't have near enough information.

One thing with regards to suicide: Everyone who knew him and says "He seemed happy" as a reason for him not to kill himself are just fooling themselves. Often times people give no clues that they are suicidal or family and friends miss the signs. The lack of despondent behavior doesn't mean they weren't suicidal. But I digress...

To me, this would be a weird way for a kid to kill himself. To hold a long gun up to your temple is not natural, easy (depending on the gun), and may not work, especially if the gun is a .22 which is what I think he had. Why not stick the gun in your mouth in front of you? It is a lot easier and more stable. (I don't mean to sound insensitive but we have to look at the facts.)

The biggest WTF items for me are: was his gun recently fired, and was the size of the bullet hole consistent with his gun? If someone knows, please chime in. I feel like this wasn't mentioned in the story though. It seems like that piece of this would be easy to figure out, so either LE messed this up or something is off.

I highly discount the found bullet being relevant. If that area was used for hunting often, it wouldn't be that odd to find a stray bullet. If he was shot in the head through-and-through, the bullet likely would have landed a long ways away from where he was. Unless he was laying down, it which case it was 100% murder.

This is one of those cases (like Rae Ann Mosser) that I feel should have been really easy to determine if the physical evidence was processed properly. I don't know that LE was involved, but it sure seems like they didn't work very hard to get to the facts of the case.

MURDER.

I like it, succinct and to the point.

Still think it was an accident. Don Hamilton (https://unsolvedmysteries.fandom.com/wiki/Don_Hamilton) is a prime example of someone who shot himself after his gun fell and misfired. I think a very similar scenario happened with Norman.

I say he was murdered.

If it was an accident or suicide, why would some stranger approach his mother at the coroner's office and warn her not to investigate any further? Why would someone like that even care?

I think he was murdered because I think this would have been a bizarre (albeit not impossible) suicide. But we don't have near enough information.

One thing with regards to suicide: Everyone who knew him and says "He seemed happy" as a reason for him not to kill himself are just fooling themselves. Often times people give no clues that they are suicidal or family and friends miss the signs. The lack of despondent behavior doesn't mean they weren't suicidal. But I digress...

To me, this would be a weird way for a kid to kill himself. To hold a long gun up to your temple is not natural, easy (depending on the gun), and may not work, especially if the gun is a .22 which is what I think he had. Why not stick the gun in your mouth in front of you? It is a lot easier and more stable. (I don't mean to sound insensitive but we have to look at the facts.)

The biggest WTF items for me are: was his gun recently fired, and was the size of the bullet hole consistent with his gun? If someone knows, please chime in. I feel like this wasn't mentioned in the story though. It seems like that piece of this would be easy to figure out, so either LE messed this up or something is off.

I highly discount the found bullet being relevant. If that area was used for hunting often, it wouldn't be that odd to find a stray bullet. If he was shot in the head through-and-through, the bullet likely would have landed a long ways away from where he was. Unless he was laying down, it which case it was 100% murder.

This is one of those cases (like Rae Ann Mosser) that I feel should have been really easy to determine if the physical evidence was processed properly. I don't know that LE was involved, but it sure seems like they didn't work very hard to get to the facts of the case.

All this.

If the pattern of injury indicates the round transversed his head horizontally, I find it really, really hard to believe that this could have been an accident involving his own weapon or a suicide.

I don't know exactly what kind of .22 rifle Norman was carrying that day either, but unless it was over 100 years old it likely had a drop safety mechanism. I'm not saying they don't fail, but what happened with Don Hamilton's weapon was pretty rare and the round struck him in a manner consistent with the gun being dropped butt first out of a tree. I can't readily see how Norman could've been shot the specific way he was by dropping his rifle.

I just saw this for the first time, on Amazon. I am leaning toward the accident or suicide. As for his state of mind, he's a teenager, they can do things on a whim. My cousin committed suicide when he was 18. He was a really good looking, super popular all star hockey player on his way to college. Went out with some friends one night and after they dropped him off he pretended to go in the house but left it and killed himself. Anyone will tell you he loved life and had everything going for him. Kids do dumb, impulsive things. I never tried to convince anyone this had to be an accident (even though that's what I was told at first since I was only 14 at the time) but at the same time it's still unbelievable to me that he committed suicide.

As for the other stuff? I agree they had to have looked at blood splatter when they determined he was standing. I guess they could be covering it up, but I don't know. I think it is a coincidence that they found a bullet there in the ground but in a hunting area it's probably not completely unheard of. As for the cut on his head, his dad refers to it as the "crown" but as far as I know that can include the top part of the back of the head, so that would be possible from just falling after a standing gun shot. I'd have to see the autopsy report.

Seems like the cops switched from accident to suicide because of 2 things:

Foul play is the first thing that I normally address in the course of an investigation. I ruled it out in this instance because I saw nothing there to indicate that. At first I thought it might’ve been an accident. It looked as though he might have been in a tree nearby and subsequently fallen out of the tree and the gun discharged.

And:

We don’t have any reason to believe that it was the bullet that was fired that caused the boy’s death, mainly because we feel that the boy was standing at the time that the gun was fired. And if that being the case, it would not have been in the ground underneath his head.

The segment says he died from a "close contact wound" that "entered his right temple and exited his left". Maybe he did kill himself. No mention of the type of bullet used or the type of weapon the police suspected was used, nor the mention of the type of caliber weapon that Norman owned all make me think this also factored into their decision.

The parents talked about how drugs would be dropped from low flying aircraft into the wooded area. There is no doubt this was happening at that time. Many times the local law enforcemt was involved too