I hadn't seen an extensive thread on this case in awhile, it remains intriguing and unsolved to this day so I felt even if there was a thread on it from way back, I felt the case was well worth revisiting and a new thread.

I'm on the fence, lean towards the idea he was murdered.

But what struck me about this segment, is that no one really tried to establish or discuss a possible motive for suicide. If teenagers commit suicide, the primary reasons are usually bullying at school or a breakup with a girl or boy. In Norman's case, his social life or school life were never discussed, so we don't really know if there was a strong motive there or if either applied to him. In fact little about Norman's personality or life was discussed at all, except that he loved the outdoors which is not much to go on.

Though I have always leaned towards him being murdered, I find it somewhat strange the parents never tried to make the argument that he was not depressed or anything, leading me to think that there might have been something there they didn't want to discuss. Despite loving the outdoors, Norman didn't look like an overly masculine or jock type, leading me to believe there may have been bullying at school. I would have also been interested to know if there was a breakup with a girl. I'd have to say at least 80% of teenage suicides are because of one of the two. And it should have been a fairly simple matter to talk with Norman's friends at school and see if he had a girlfriend who broke up with him or a love interest who had rejected him, but this was never even addressed, which is unusual for murder or suicide segments.

The segment focused mostly on the physical evidence, and the possible drug dealer angle. And even that was rather vague.

I do think the sheriff in the episode was extremely unlikeable though. As far as I can tell he never even entertained the possibility of murder, and his arguments were weak.

Of course, its impossible to say for sure. But as someone who owns rifles, I can say that accidents with them are not very common as people not familiar with guns seem to think. They simply don't fire that easily. Nor are they the ideal weapon for suicide. And then there is the allegation that the bullets were tampered with. But i would have to say the odds of a bullet being in the ground in the exact spot where Norman died not involved with the crime seems like a million to one shot.

I have other thoughts too, but I will leave room for counterpoints and conversation, what is the board consensus on this one?

I hadn't seen an extensive thread on this case in awhile, it remains intriguing and unsolved to this day so I felt even if there was a thread on it from way back, I felt the case was well worth revisiting and a new thread.

I'm on the fence, lean towards the idea he was murdered.

But what struck me about this segment, is that no one really tried to establish or discuss a possible motive for suicide. If teenagers commit suicide, the primary reasons are usually bullying at school or a breakup with a girl or boy. In Norman's case, his social life or school life were never discussed, so we don't really know if there was a strong motive there or if either applied to him. In fact little about Norman's personality or life was discussed at all, except that he loved the outdoors which is not much to go on.

Though I have always leaned towards him being murdered, I find it somewhat strange the parents never tried to make the argument that he was not depressed or anything, leading me to think that there might have been something there they didn't want to discuss. Despite loving the outdoors, Norman didn't look like an overly masculine or jock type, leading me to believe there may have been bullying at school. I would have also been interested to know if there was a breakup with a girl. I'd have to say at least 80% of teenage suicides are because of one of the two. And it should have been a fairly simple matter to talk with Norman's friends at school and see if he had a girlfriend who broke up with him or a love interest who had rejected him, but this was never even addressed, which is unusual for murder or suicide segments.

The segment focused mostly on the physical evidence, and the possible drug dealer angle. And even that was rather vague.

I do think the sheriff in the episode was extremely unlikeable though. As far as I can tell he never even entertained the possibility of murder, and his arguments were weak.

Of course, its impossible to say for sure. But as someone who owns rifles, I can say that accidents with them are not very common as people not familiar with guns seem to think. They simply don't fire that easily. Nor are they the ideal weapon for suicide. And then there is the allegation that the bullets were tampered with. But i would have to say the odds of a bullet being in the ground in the exact spot where Norman died not involved with the crime seems like a million to one shot.

I have other thoughts too, but I will leave room for counterpoints and conversation, what is the board consensus on this one?

I’m kind of on the fence too and I can’t really lean one way or the other. But I always found it interesting that Norman’s mother said that she and her husband initially accepted the ruling of an accident. It was when the ruling was changed to suicide that they began finding all this evidence of murder.

And I’m not convinced that the exchange between the mother and the mysterious man where a veiled threat was made actually took place.

.

I’m kind of on the fence too and I can’t really lean one way or the other. But I always found it interesting that Norman’s mother said that she and her husband initially accepted the ruling of an accident. It was when the ruling was changed to suicide that they began finding all this evidence of murder.

And I’m not convinced that the exchange between the mother and the mysterious man where a veiled threat was made actually took place.

I don't doubt that an exchange took place between some mysterious man (possibly connected to law enforcement) and Mrs. Ladner. However, I do believe she possibly misread the exchange. Emotions were high so anything said could be interpreted in a different manner than intended. I know people who act like every conversation that isn't 100% joyful is in some way a threat (or they suspect everybody has some type of bad motive).

All in all, I feel Ladner was murdered and it had something to do with drugs (not him dealing...but Norman stumbling across a drug transaction of some sort).

I hadn't seen an extensive thread on this case in awhile, it remains intriguing and unsolved to this day so I felt even if there was a thread on it from way back, I felt the case was well worth revisiting and a new thread.

I'm on the fence, lean towards the idea he was murdered.

But what struck me about this segment, is that no one really tried to establish or discuss a possible motive for suicide. If teenagers commit suicide, the primary reasons are usually bullying at school or a breakup with a girl or boy. In Norman's case, his social life or school life were never discussed, so we don't really know if there was a strong motive there or if either applied to him. In fact little about Norman's personality or life was discussed at all, except that he loved the outdoors which is not much to go on.

Though I have always leaned towards him being murdered, I find it somewhat strange the parents never tried to make the argument that he was not depressed or anything, leading me to think that there might have been something there they didn't want to discuss. Despite loving the outdoors, Norman didn't look like an overly masculine or jock type, leading me to believe there may have been bullying at school. I would have also been interested to know if there was a breakup with a girl. I'd have to say at least 80% of teenage suicides are because of one of the two. And it should have been a fairly simple matter to talk with Norman's friends at school and see if he had a girlfriend who broke up with him or a love interest who had rejected him, but this was never even addressed, which is unusual for murder or suicide segments.

The segment focused mostly on the physical evidence, and the possible drug dealer angle. And even that was rather vague.

I do think the sheriff in the episode was extremely unlikeable though. As far as I can tell he never even entertained the possibility of murder, and his arguments were weak.

Of course, its impossible to say for sure. But as someone who owns rifles, I can say that accidents with them are not very common as people not familiar with guns seem to think. They simply don't fire that easily. Nor are they the ideal weapon for suicide. And then there is the allegation that the bullets were tampered with. But i would have to say the odds of a bullet being in the ground in the exact spot where Norman died not involved with the crime seems like a million to one shot.

I have other thoughts too, but I will leave room for counterpoints and conversation, what is the board consensus on this one?

I think that Norman Ladner committed suicide.

The motive is a mystery. However, as you alluded, we are told next to nothing about Norman as a person. Pretty much just that he liked the woods and that he was in high school. So, it's hard to determine exactly what was going on in his life at that point that may have been a stressor. Moreover, when we think of people who commit suicide, sometimes there are identifiable stressors and triggers, but sometimes there are not. Suicide is a very personal act. So, it's entirely plausible that Norman may have been struggling with some demons that nobody, or very few people, knew about. Either way, I don't see the lack of a motive for suicide as evidence of murder.

The unusual bullet - we don't know where it came from. We don't what that land was used for. It's entirely possible that other people used the land to hunt. The bullet could be from an old kill of an animal. Maybe Norman himself killed at animal at that precise spot with a different weapon (maybe that precise location had some significance to him). We just don't know. But I don't see it as obvious evidence of murder.

The man at the funeral home - I think this conversation likely did take place, but I don't find the comments indicative of a murder or coverup conspiracy. First, assuming that there was a coverup, what are the odds that this guy who had knowledge of it would just happen to be at the funeral home to relay this message? Was he just there for another matter, saw Mrs. Ladner by chance, and delivered this message? Was he sent to deliver this message? It's just too strange. I think it's entirely possible that the guy overheard some of the Ladners’ conversations with the funeral home folks and was either trying to console Mrs. Ladner and she took it the wrong way (you have other kids, you need to worry about them) or he was just a kook.

The radio - like the bullet, we don't know enough here. I've read a newspaper article that suggested a police theory that the radio was some kind of device used for weather observation and tracking. Still pretty vague. But I would still argue we don't know if other people used that land for other purposes, we don't know how long this device had been there, and so on.

The drug angle - I see the evidence for this as pretty thin. And honestly, it's a common UM scapegoat. How many other people were killed by drug dealers they just happened upon? Scott Johnson, Jeffrey Digmin, and Cindy Anderson come to mind. What are the odds that drug dealers would be using this plot of land for their business and that Norman would stumble upon it? There was no evidence of anyone else being there aside from the radio device, the purpose of which is unknown.

I think Occam's Razor applies so easily in this case, and I think it points us to the correct conclusion. The known facts suggest suicide. The rest is just speculation that ultimately involve too many other parties and variables that it's just not very likely.

But what struck me about this segment, is that no one really tried to establish or discuss a possible motive for suicide.

That does not shock me at all. It's essential UM. Leave out important details, and present the family member's perspective and version of events as objective fact. Make law enforcement, if interviewed, seem as cold as possible and suspicious when possible. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

I have never thought that Norman Ladner was murdered. Nor have I ever believed that his mother was approached by someone at the funeral home who told her something to the effect of, "your son is dead, move on." True Crime shows, like UM, have done a massive disservice (and continue to do so) for their downplaying of mental illness and/or complete ignoring of it. We know that Norman liked the outdoors and that his father found some radio equipment and a bullet in the woods. Then the segment heavily implies that he was murdered after stumbling on a drug deal, of which no evidence was presented.

I lean towards an accident, but would not rule out suicide. There's just not enough information to say 100% certainty either way. But I do not believe he was murdered.

His mother says that Norman would come home between 7-7:30 p.m., but that she began to become worried about him when he wasn't home by 7. That's always been an interesting remark to me.

That does not shock me at all. It's essential UM. Leave out important details, and present the family member's perspective and version of events as objective fact. Make law enforcement, if interviewed, seem as cold as possible and suspicious when possible. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Agreed. It's even more questionable in cases like Ladner's where there is virtually no information about the case outside of the segment itself.


I lean towards an accident, but would not rule out suicide. There's just not enough information to say 100% certainty either way. But I do not believe he was murdered.

I understand and appreciate what you're saying, but I doubt it was an accident. I thought the coroner determined that Norman was standing when the shot was fired. If that's true, it's just really hard for me to envision a scenario in which he would accidentally discharge that bulky awkward weapon and get a clean and fatal shot through the temple like he did. Granted, I'm not a ballistics expert, and yes, accidents happen, but he would have to be pretty damn unlucky.

Also, I would imagine that his hands were checked for gunshot residue (GSR). Usually this is indicative that he fired the gun himself. We aren't told whether this was done. However, if it was, it was what probably tipped the scale toward suicide.

My best guess is that the police initially thought this was an accident upon inspecting the scene. But, when the autopsy was done, the coroner ruled suicide due to the nature of the wound, the fact that he was standing, and the (likely) presence of GSR.

His mother says that Norman would come home between 7-7:30 p.m., but that she began to become worried about him when he wasn't home by 7. That's always been an interesting remark to me.

His father said Norman was punctual and you could almost set a clock by him.

Personally, I always found the statements by the parents about their initial acceptance of an accident as telling. It's like they were "okay" with it until suicide was suggested. The sheriff said this as well.

I think that Norman Ladner committed suicide.

The motive is a mystery. However, as you alluded, we are told next to nothing about Norman as a person. Pretty much just that he liked the woods and that he was in high school. So, it's hard to determine exactly what was going on in his life at that point that may have been a stressor. Moreover, when we think of people who commit suicide, sometimes there are identifiable stressors and triggers, but sometimes there are not. Suicide is a very personal act. So, it's entirely plausible that Norman may have been struggling with some demons that nobody, or very few people, knew about. Either way, I don't see the lack of a motive for suicide as evidence of murder.

The unusual bullet - we don't know where it came from. We don't what that land was used for. It's entirely possible that other people used the land to hunt. The bullet could be from an old kill of an animal. Maybe Norman himself killed at animal at that precise spot with a different weapon (maybe that precise location had some significance to him). We just don't know. But I don't see it as obvious evidence of murder.

The man at the funeral home - I think this conversation likely did take place, but I don't find the comments indicative of a murder or coverup conspiracy. First, assuming that there was a coverup, what are the odds that this guy who had knowledge of it would just happen to be at the funeral home to relay this message? Was he just there for another matter, saw Mrs. Ladner by chance, and delivered this message? Was he sent to deliver this message? It's just too strange. I think it's entirely possible that the guy overheard some of the Ladners’ conversations with the funeral home folks and was either trying to console Mrs. Ladner and she took it the wrong way (you have other kids, you need to worry about them) or he was just a kook.

The radio - like the bullet, we don't know enough here. I've read a newspaper article that suggested a police theory that the radio was some kind of device used for weather observation and tracking. Still pretty vague. But I would still argue we don't know if other people used that land for other purposes, we don't know how long this device had been there, and so on.

The drug angle - I see the evidence for this as pretty thin. And honestly, it's a common UM scapegoat. How many other people were killed by drug dealers they just happened upon? Scott Johnson, Jeffrey Digmin, and Cindy Anderson come to mind. What are the odds that drug dealers would be using this plot of land for their business and that Norman would stumble upon it? There was no evidence of anyone else being there aside from the radio device, the purpose of which is unknown.

I think Occam's Razor applies so easily in this case, and I think it points us to the correct conclusion. The known facts suggest suicide. The rest is just speculation that ultimately involve too many other parties and variables that it's just not very likely.

How do you explain the bullet found at the scene that didn't match his rifle?

Although I don't discount suicide, I simply don't think there is enough information to prove it either.

As for the encounter at the coroner's office, you just about have to call Norman's mother a straight up liar to really not believe it. I don't see how she could have misinterpreted what he said either. But even so, we still don't know exactly what was said.

Teenagers don't just commit suicide for no reason. Without more info, it just seems to me like its just speculation.

I understand and appreciate what you're saying, but I doubt it was an accident. I thought the coroner determined that Norman was standing when the shot was fired. If that's true, it's just really hard for me to envision a scenario in which he would accidentally discharge that bulky awkward weapon and get a clean and fatal shot through the temple like he did. Granted, I'm not a ballistics expert, and yes, accidents happen, but he would have to be pretty damn unlucky.

I didn't believe the accident until I saw the Don Hamilton segment for the first time. Granted, Hamilton was shot in the leg and Norman in the head, but there was also a 1" cut that was found on the crown of Norman's head. Also, the investigators initially believed that he had fallen out of the tree and the gun discharged. I would imagine that the gun being found some distance away from his body is what made them believe this. If Norman was standing and shot himself in the temple, he would have fallen forward or backwards. IMO, it seems more likely that if he was in a tree and dropped the gun which shot him, his fall from the tree would correspond with the cut on the crown of his head.

Also, I would imagine that his hands were checked for gunshot residue (GSR). Usually this is indicative that he fired the gun himself. We aren't told whether this was done. However, if it was, it was what probably tipped the scale toward suicide.

Accident, suicide, or murder, GSR being found on his hands is inconclusive. Because if it was an accident or murder, he took his rifle with him that day. He could have gone target practicing or hunting prior to his death.

Personally, I always found the statements by the parents about their initial acceptance of an accident as telling. It's like they were "okay" with it until suicide was suggested. The sheriff said this as well.

I have no doubt that if this case was featured on the revamped UM, that there would be a lot more information that would come to light about this case (just like what is happening with Rey Rivera right now) and we could have a much clearer picture of what happened.

All in all, I feel Ladner was murdered and it had something to do with drugs (not him dealing...but Norman stumbling across a drug transaction of some sort).

I’m inclined to agree with this scenario🤓

On another thread I recall Alcazar (seehttps://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?p=4793280#post4793280) sleuthing out with success a couple of news articles on a similar case Unsolved Mysteries referenced in its profile of the unexplained deaths of Don Henry and Kevin Ives of the nearly identical deaths of Billy Don Hainline and Dennis Decker in Hodgen, OK, in 1984 (seehttps://oklahoman.com/article/2115432/officials-to-reopen-investigation-in-deaths-of-2-men-run-over-by-train and https://oklahoman.com/article/2226905/death-probe-resurrects-1984-case).

It’s noted in the articles Sheriff Hurley’s belief was the bodies of both boys’ were deliberately placed on the railway tracks and their deaths were connected to drug cartels: “A month after the bodies of Hainline and Decker were discovered, a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory was discovered 1 1/2 miles north of the tracks. ‘That place is a haven for marijuana growers and crank labs,’ Hurley said.” Even DA Edelstein alluded similarly stating: “It is not uncommon in the drug industry for the people that don't play ball to be eliminated.”

So, in my opinion, it wouldn't surprise me if the unexplained deaths in 1984, OK of Haineline and Decker; and then in 1987 AR of Henry and Ives; and then in 1989 MS of Ladner, were all drug related. And it's definitely possible, even probable, by all accounts that drug cartels were operating heavily at the time in all of these neighboring states of OK, AR, MS.

Incidentally browsing the comments on https://unsolved.com/gallery/norman-ladner/ there’s some obscure references to the Ladner’s business being deliberately destroyed possibly by a bomb planted under Charlette Ladner’s car, unless they’re two different events; and I read elsewhere online Norman’s missing drivers license was allegedly discovered in New York a few years after his death, which raises suspicions again🤨

Personally, I always found the statements by the parents about their initial acceptance of an accident as telling. It's like they were "okay" with it until suicide was suggested. The sheriff said this as well.

Their response to either possibility doesn't raise eyebrows for me since an accidental death is totally different to suicide🤔 The former verdict doesn't impute motive or blame to the victim whereas the latter does. And reports from both family and friends the there was no solid reason to suspect suicide.

Suicide, conditionally.

https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=147839&page=8

Post #113. Blood splatter was found on Norman's left hand. The round traveled right to left through his head, and left powder burns around the entrance wound (evidence that the end of the barrel was held at extremely close range--inches or less). Provided that he was right-handed, his left hand almost certainly steadied the barrel of the rifle. Admittedly, I don't know what his handedness actually was, but given that right-handedness is more common I'm comfortable presuming that's what Norman had until I have evidence to the contrary.

Also, the wound on the vertex of the head is simply described as "recent." It could have happened several days before his death, for all we know.

I don't doubt that an exchange took place between some mysterious man (possibly connected to law enforcement) and Mrs. Ladner. However, I do believe she possibly misread the exchange. Emotions were high so anything said could be interpreted in a different manner than intended.

Same. I think it happened. Perhaps the man was attempting to be helpful in a let's-reorient-to-reality sort of way, and Mrs. Ladner misinterpreted his meaning.

And finally, on rifles "not being an ideal weapon for suicide"--I used to think that myself. Then I started work at a Level I trauma center. People attempt suicide with rifles quite frequently. They'll use just about any firearm available to them.

And finally, on rifles "not being an ideal weapon for suicide"--I used to think that myself. Then I started work at a Level I trauma center. People attempt suicide with rifles quite frequently. They'll use just about any firearm available to them.

I don't think that's the case with Norman. It seemed as though he likely would have had access to several different types of guns. Did they say the type of rifle he carried?

A gun shot through the temple via accidental discharge (especially if he fell out of a tree) would be EXTREMELY unlikely under any circumstance.

I don't think that's the case with Norman. It seemed as though he likely would have had access to several different types of guns. Did they say the type of rifle he carried?

I'm not sure if the make, model, or even the caliber was specified.

What makes you think it wasn't the case with Norman? As a boy who hunted I presume he learned from a father who also hunted and likely owned guns of his own, but I don't see why that precludes Norman from committing suicide with his own rifle.

A gun shot through the temple via accidental discharge (especially if he fell out of a tree) would be EXTREMELY unlikely under any circumstance.

I agree with this. I think the pattern of injury is far more consistent with a suicide or homicide.

Suicide, conditionally.

https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=147839&page=8

Post #113. Blood splatter was found on Norman's left hand. The round traveled right to left through his head, and left powder burns around the entrance wound (evidence that the end of the barrel was held at extremely close range--inches or less). Provided that he was right-handed, his left hand almost certainly steadied the barrel of the rifle. Admittedly, I don't know what his handedness actually was, but given that right-handedness is more common I'm comfortable presuming that's what Norman had until I have evidence to the contrary.

Also, the wound on the vertex of the head is simply described as "recent." It could have happened several days before his death, for all we know.

Okay, I had forgot about the coroner's report which not only noted the powder burns by his temple, but also blood spatter found on his left hand. Definitely suicide.

Okay, I had forgot about the coroner's report which not only noted the powder burns by his temple, but also blood spatter found on his left hand. Definitely suicide.

Not necessarily. The bullet entered his right temple. It's possible he lifted his left hand in an attempt to thwart off attackers (his right arm may have been temporarily incapacitated). This could also account for blood spatter on his left hand.

The Ladners stated the bullet they found was a larger caliber than Ladner's gun would hold. It is very possible other bullet casings and bullets themselves (obviously mangled) would be in the ground nearby as the Ladner's hunted on the land and very likely used it for target practice as well.

The Ladners also stated the bullet that was returned to them was not the bullet they found. At the very least, there was sheer incompetence on the part of LE. Anybody who has spent considerable time around fire arms and knows gun calibers can identify the caliber of a bullet casing by looking at it. The incorrect casing returned to the Ladners was either the result of lost evidence (the correct casing was misplaced) or an inability to identify a correct casing (inexcusable). At the most sinister, the action is the result of a cover up.

Not necessarily. The bullet entered his right temple. It's possible he lifted his left hand in an attempt to thwart off attackers (his right arm may have been temporarily incapacitated). This could also account for blood spatter on his left hand.

There was no evidence found at the scene to indicate anyone other than Norman being there.

The Ladners stated the bullet they found was a larger caliber than Ladner's gun would hold. It is very possible other bullet casings and bullets themselves (obviously mangled) would be in the ground nearby as the Ladner's hunted on the land and very likely used it for target practice as well.

They found a bullet in an area where Norman liked to target practice. Something tells me that people other than Norman would have done the same.

The Ladners also stated the bullet that was returned to them was not the bullet they found. At the very least, there was sheer incompetence on the part of LE. Anybody who has spent considerable time around fire arms and knows gun calibers can identify the caliber of a bullet casing by looking at it. The incorrect casing returned to the Ladners was either the result of lost evidence (the correct casing was misplaced) or an inability to identify a correct casing (inexcusable). At the most sinister, the action is the result of a cover up.

Or...maybe...the Ladner's were mistaken and it was in fact the bullet that they discovered? The Ladner's gave the bullet to a ballistics expert, were they also involved in this "sinister cover up" as well? This same ballistics expert who could not rule out Norman's gun as the originator of said bullet?
The police did not handle the bullet discovered by the Ladner's. And it was found partially buried in the ground.

Parents have, understandably, trouble accepting the suicide of their children.

There was no evidence found at the scene to indicate anyone other than Norman being there.



What evidence would there be? Other than footprints which you wouldn't see if it was hard packed soil, or else the perp dropping something.

You can think what you want, but the truth is none of us were there so no one knows for sure, and the arguments for suicide are far from flawless.

What evidence would there be? Other than footprints which you wouldn't see if it was hard packed soil, or else the perp dropping something.

Footprints, absence of blood spatter, shell casings, etc.

One thing I always thought was interesting, especially with the suicide theory, was watching the re-enactment of the crime scene. The gun is broken (quite weirdly too, it almost looks disassembled) and the other officer at the scene says "it looks like it's been broken and repaired before". Of course, UM wasn't always consistent with its re-enactments being super close to everything that happened, but how could the gun have been broken in this manner if he committed suicide? The only think I could think of would it be it falling from his hand and breaking from the fall or recoil, but this would produce a very different break than what was seen in the episode.

So I'm willing to discount the presence of the break as shown (perhaps artistic license), but could the gun have had enough recoil to break from Norman firing it?

One thing I always thought was interesting, especially with the suicide theory, was watching the re-enactment of the crime scene. The gun is broken (quite weirdly too, it almost looks disassembled) and the other officer at the scene says "it looks like it's been broken and repaired before". Of course, UM wasn't always consistent with its re-enactments being super close to everything that happened, but how could the gun have been broken in this manner if he committed suicide? The only think I could think of would it be it falling from his hand and breaking from the fall or recoil, but this would produce a very different break than what was seen in the episode.

So I'm willing to discount the presence of the break as shown (perhaps artistic license), but could the gun have had enough recoil to break from Norman firing it?


VERY highly unlikely the gun would break from firing it unless it was very shoddily put back together.

Footprints, absence of blood spatter, shell casings, etc.

There would only be shell casings if a shotgun was used. Norman was killed either by a handgun or a rifle.

Besides, who knows what was there? I think the board puts way to much faith in law enforcement in to many instances. a lot of it is incompetent or corrupt.

Its just not a common things for 17 year old kids to commit suicide without a clear motive. Nothing came to the surface in Norman's case.

I think the board puts way to much faith in law enforcement in to many instances. a lot of it is incompetent or corrupt.

For years the board put way too much faith in UM, who has shown time and time again to slant segments towards a certain conclusion while leaving out many pertinent details.

For years the board put way too much faith in UM, who has shown time and time again to slant segments towards a certain conclusion while leaving out many pertinent details.

Yuuuup.

There are cases that have been featured on UM in which there's a very strong case for law enforcement corruption (Michael Rosenblum, Jay Given) or incompetence (Harold and Thelma Swain) being at the heart of the mystery, but I can't count the Norman Ladner case among them.

There would only be shell casings if a shotgun was used.

This is untrue.

Handgun and rifle cartridges consist, basically, of a projectile and a casing. Upon pulling the trigger on such a weapon as a modern handgun or rifle, the firing pin contacts the primer of that cartridge, which then ignites the propellant within and sends the projectile forward out of the casing. The projectile is what contacts the target. The casing itself simply falls to the ground. Trust me, I've "policed" enough 5.56 rifle and 9 mm handgun "brass" on enough fire ant-infested ranges in my day to be sure.

And perhaps you're well aware and I've inadvertently insulted your knowledge base (apologies if that's the case--no pun intended), and the argument comes largely down to the semantics of shell as I suppose there are some who insist the term is proper for only shotgun shells rather than rifle and pistol casings. However, I've always heard and used the terms interchangeably. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

VERY highly unlikely the gun would break from firing it unless it was very shoddily put back together.

I agree. If the rifle was found in such a condition, that certainly raises additional questions.

I agree. If the rifle was found in such a condition, that certainly raises additional questions.

This might be a reason why they initially suspected an accident.

But what sort of accident could break the gun like that, leave him with a bullet hole in the temple, and a wound on the top of his head?

But what sort of accident could break the gun like that, leave him with a bullet hole in the temple, and a wound on the top of his head?

I mean it's a small possibility that he could have climbed a tree, accidentally discharged the weapon, and the resulting fall broke the rifle and the wound on the crown of Norman's head. I think the suicide ruling was done based off of the medical examiner's report.

I mean it's a small possibility that he could have climbed a tree, accidentally discharged the weapon, and the resulting fall broke the rifle and the wound on the crown of Norman's head. I think the suicide ruling was done based off of the medical examiner's report.

In the accident scenario, how does he discharge the rifle and get a bullet wound in his temple? I can buy the discharge, but how badly is the gun made that the bullet is going in his temple? I would think falling from a tree would produce worse results to your head than just a wound to the crown, or in some cases, not at all (falling on his side, back, etc). He would have to fall straight down and hit something exactly on his crown for that to happen.

If you're assuming he's in the tree and shoots himself then I can buy the gun falling and breaking. But if he's not in the tree, then how does the gun break?

In the accident scenario, how does he discharge the rifle and get a bullet wound in his temple? I can buy the discharge, but how badly is the gun made that the bullet is going in his temple? I would think falling from a tree would produce worse results to your head than just a wound to the crown, or in some cases, not at all (falling on his side, back, etc). He would have to fall straight down and hit something exactly on his crown for that to happen.

If you're assuming he's in the tree and shoots himself then I can buy the gun falling and breaking. But if he's not in the tree, then how does the gun break?

The accident scenario relies entirely on coincidences - Norman falling out of a tree, dropping the gun and having it accidentally discharge and strike him in the temple just so before breaking apart as it did on the ground. That was the prevailing theory here for a long time (at least until Cars brought up the Coroner's report that mentioned the blood spatter on his hand - pointing to suicide)

The accident scenario relies entirely on coincidences - Norman falling out of a tree, dropping the gun and having it accidentally discharge and strike him in the temple just so before breaking apart as it did on the ground. That was the prevailing theory here for a long time (at least until Cars brought up the Coroner's report that mentioned the blood spatter on his hand - pointing to suicide)

That makes sense to me, but then how do we explain the broken gun on a suicide? Is he in the tree for that as well?

I hate to be a broken record on this, but the broken gun is confusing to me. It would mean he has to be in the tree for the suicide as well, unless there's some other way it could have broken that I'm missing.

That makes sense to me, but then how do we explain the broken gun on a suicide? Is he in the tree for that as well?

I hate to be a broken record on this, but the broken gun is confusing to me. It would mean he has to be in the tree for the suicide as well, unless there's some other way it could have broken that I'm missing.

If Norman climbed up the tree to shoot himself, the fall from the tree could have broken the gun and resulted with the wound to his head.

My dad had about 6 acres of land when I was a kid and I would always wander around out there in nature. I heard noises that sounded like humans arguing. I hid in the brush and something told me to stay quiet and I hid as two men who did not belong on our property were walking around with rifles. I was terrified and spent 2 hours behind that bush after I couldn't see or hear them anymore.

God only knows what would have happened to me if they saw me. I told my dad and he and my uncles went out on their four wheelers with their pistols looking for the guys and they were no where to be found.

I think Norman came in contact with some shady people but they saw him before he saw them and they got the drop on him sadly.

If Norman climbed up the tree to shoot himself, the fall from the tree could have broken the gun and resulted with the wound to his head.


Unless the rifle was not good quality, extremely old and worn, or very shoddily put back together after being disassembled (possibly for cleaning), it is very unlikely it will break. It is possible the wooden stock could crack but not likely for the entire gun to break in half. Most ground in wooded areas is not concrete-like. Natural ground generally has some give. Guns are very sturdy as they are designed to handle recoil from the explosion of a hammer striking a primer and causing an explosion designed to fire a lead projectile over 1000 yards (and more, depending on the caliber). The UM segment did not specify how the gun broke (if there was heavy barrel obstruction, the compression can cause a barrel to explode.

My dad had about 6 acres of land when I was a kid and I would always wander around out there in nature. I heard noises that sounded like humans arguing. I hid in the brush and something told me to stay quiet and I hid as two men who did not belong on our property were walking around with rifles. I was terrified and spent 2 hours behind that bush after I couldn't see or hear them anymore.

God only knows what would have happened to me if they saw me. I told my dad and he and my uncles went out on their four wheelers with their pistols looking for the guys and they were no where to be found.

I think Norman came in contact with some shady people but they saw him before he saw them and they got the drop on him sadly.


That's exactly what I believe happened as well. Using a rifle to commit suicide is odd to begin with. Also, several people who knew Norman state he did not exhibit any signs of being suicidal. There is also the strange case involving his wallet. There were also heavy concerns of county corruption (possibly involving narcotics) in the area (based on comment posters in the UM page involving this case).

A comment left on the youtube video:

"I am from Picayune, Ms. My mother went to school with Norman. You can ask every body in my town that knows about Norman's death and the only people that will say it was suicide is anyone that was on good terms with Sheriff Lumpkin. Everyone else has no doubt it was a murder, and to this day so many have no doubt that Sheriff Lumpkin, knew more than he let on. They only kind of sheriff that would refuse to do an investigate to bring justice to an innocent person.....is a sheriff that is hiding something.

Also this: Norman's wallet was empty when they found his body but...

Not long after Norman's death his ID was found in New York.

It wasn't suicide, plain and simple."

That does not shock me at all. It's essential UM. Leave out important details, and present the family member's perspective and version of events as objective fact. Make law enforcement, if interviewed, seem as cold as possible and suspicious when possible. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

I have never thought that Norman Ladner was murdered. Nor have I ever believed that his mother was approached by someone at the funeral home who told her something to the effect of, "your son is dead, move on." True Crime shows, like UM, have done a massive disservice (and continue to do so) for their downplaying of mental illness and/or complete ignoring of it. We know that Norman liked the outdoors and that his father found some radio equipment and a bullet in the woods. Then the segment heavily implies that he was murdered after stumbling on a drug deal, of which no evidence was presented.

I lean towards an accident, but would not rule out suicide. There's just not enough information to say 100% certainty either way. But I do not believe he was murdered.

His mother says that Norman would come home between 7-7:30 p.m., but that she began to become worried about him when he wasn't home by 7. That's always been an interesting remark to me.

I've always leaned towards accident. I live in Michigan and accidents do happen. The parents accepted this conclusion but once suicide got thrown in, it seems like things went haywire.

Yeah, there was a radio in the woods, but that could be anything. Mom could have misinterpreted the conversation she had at the funeral home. I can't see murders being that brazen in a small town. I don't see murder here at all.

To me, accident is the most plausible. However, if new evidence comes along to point in a different direction, I'll read it with an open mind.

Just saw the Norman Ladner UM segment. This is especially tragic, given that this kid was so young & had his whole life ahead of him.

As always, great discussion in this thread re: this case.

When I initially started watching the segment, I was thinking he may have been the victim of a hunting accident - i.e., that another hunter a distance away accidentally fired in his direction & killed him (maybe thinking he was an animal, etc.) I know people get killed in hunting accidents in this way. However, it seems that is completely ruled out due to them being able to prove that he was shot at very close range.

Re: the possibility that he committed suicide - it's plausible. Just because his parents didn't think he was depressed, etc. doesn't mean he wasn't having issues. Also, many teenagers go through difficult times. So, I definitely this is a possibility.

However, for some reason I tend to agree more with the murder theory. The farmland that Norman was hunting in was very desolate & isolated. I can easily see him coming upon a situation where he inadvertently witnessed a criminal act (drugs, etc.) and the criminals killed him - so he wouldn't tell the authorities what they were doing.

And, if he was murdered - I don't think it was by anyone who knew him beforehand. I just think he may have stumbled upon something nefarious, and was unfortunately eliminated as a result.

I kind of discount the conversation the mother had with the stranger in the funeral home. Based on what she said, it did sound like she was being "warned off" from investigating her son's death further. However:

1) She may have misinterpreted/misunderstood what she was told.
2) The stranger may have been some mentally ill weirdo, or some sick person who just wanted to screw with her - unfortunately, people out there do exist.

Was watching this segment again yesterday and for some reason, a detail on the autopsy report jumped out at me, although I'd seen it before: Fatty change of the liver.

Although seventeen year-old boys certainly can develop fatty livers, they're typically overweight or obese. Although I'm nearly certain the portrait of Norman shown in the segment wasn't a recent one, he doesn't appear to fit either of those descriptors. People without excess weight problems can and do develop fatty liver, although they're usually "metabolically obese" and have a host of other problems, noteably excess visceral (around organs) fat which may not be apparent from an outward assessment. One would think if this was the case with Norman, that would be noted at autopsy as that is an abnormal finding.

This leaves genetic susceptibility and excessive alcohol consumption.

We know absolutely little about Norman himself except that he was 17 years old, came from a family of seven, enjoyed hunting, fishing, and spending time outdoors, and crafting in his barn workshop. That he was reportedly a punctual kid, and would always show up to help clean up the family store at closing. And that's it! Almost nothing!

I would love to know more about Norman's health history and whether he may have had a known or suspected alcohol use problem. By all accounts this doesn't seem to be the case, but all of our accounts are critically limited. If Norman ever (and I am not implying that he absolutely did) have a problem with drinking, that might seal the deal for me on a suicide ruling.

However, I have been considering lately that this could have been something else entirely.

I turned over the theory that Norman could've been shot accidentally by a trespasser illegally hunting deer, perhaps, on the Ladner property. Then I remembered: there were powder burns around the entrance wound, so it had to have been close contact.

I then considered whether a trespasser could've unintentionally chanced upon Norman in the woods and shot him simply because they weren't up to anything good, perhaps theft or some other kind of rather petty misdeed, and because they saw Norman was carrying a firearm himself. Not wanting to be dusted themselves, they shot Norman before he could fire first, and gave themselves an opportunity to flee the area.

But the fact still remains that the entrance wound showed clear characteristics of a close contact injury, two feet away or less. If one is attempting to mitigate a threat from a firearm, why would they come within such a short distance of the person holding the gun?

I concede that it's unusual that Norman's wallet apparently wasn't cataloged among the items recovered from the scene, but the kid was basically at home on his family's property. Would he have carried the wallet on him under those circumstances? And what happened to it?

Was watching this segment again yesterday and for some reason, a detail on the autopsy report jumped out at me, although I'd seen it before: Fatty change of the liver.

Although seventeen year-old boys certainly can develop fatty livers, they're typically overweight or obese. Although I'm nearly certain the portrait of Norman shown in the segment wasn't a recent one, he doesn't appear to fit either of those descriptors. People without excess weight problems can and do develop fatty liver, although they're usually "metabolically obese" and have a host of other problems, noteably excess visceral (around organs) fat which may not be apparent from an outward assessment. One would think if this was the case with Norman, that would be noted at autopsy as that is an abnormal finding.

This leaves genetic susceptibility and excessive alcohol consumption.

We know absolutely little about Norman himself except that he was 17 years old, came from a family of seven, enjoyed hunting, fishing, and spending time outdoors, and crafting in his barn workshop. That he was reportedly a punctual kid, and would always show up to help clean up the family store at closing. And that's it! Almost nothing!

I would love to know more about Norman's health history and whether he may have had a known or suspected alcohol use problem. By all accounts this doesn't seem to be the case, but all of our accounts are critically limited. If Norman ever (and I am not implying that he absolutely did) have a problem with drinking, that might seal the deal for me on a suicide ruling.

However, I have been considering lately that this could have been something else entirely.

I turned over the theory that Norman could've been shot accidentally by a trespasser illegally hunting deer, perhaps, on the Ladner property. Then I remembered: there were powder burns around the entrance wound, so it had to have been close contact.

I then considered whether a trespasser could've unintentionally chanced upon Norman in the woods and shot him simply because they weren't up to anything good, perhaps theft or some other kind of rather petty misdeed, and because they saw Norman was carrying a firearm himself. Not wanting to be dusted themselves, they shot Norman before he could fire first, and gave themselves an opportunity to flee the area.

But the fact still remains that the entrance wound showed clear characteristics of a close contact injury, two feet away or less. If one is attempting to mitigate a threat from a firearm, why would they come within such a short distance of the person holding the gun?

I concede that it's unusual that Norman's wallet apparently wasn't cataloged among the items recovered from the scene, but the kid was basically at home on his family's property. Would he have carried the wallet on him under those circumstances? And what happened to it?

I love your medical analysis! You're obviously a health care professional and I'm obviously not, but everything I know about fatty liver stuff is right on the nose with what you said. (The Husband leans towards having one. He's not a big drinker, nor is he obese. He's been hit with the genetic stick and we asked a lot of questions to the doctor about it.)

Anyway, I digress. You're right that we know very little about Norman as a person, other than he was a "good kid." I would also like to know if he was a heavy drinker... because The Husband, who is in pretty good shape and not a drinker, was not given the "fatty liver" diagnosis until he was in his late 30's.

Meg, in your experience, do you typically see 17 year old kids with this diagnosis? Because I'm with you. If he was a heavy drinker, I absolutely would lean towards suicide or accident.

Good eye on the autopsy report!

The ID being found in New York eliminates the chance of accident for me.

Just curious: has it ever been proven his ID was found in New York? From what I recall several years back someone from the area mentioned that. Do we know this to be truth?

Just curious: has it ever been proven his ID was found in New York? From what I recall several years back someone from the area mentioned that. Do we know this to be truth?

Nope. Much like the "mysterious perfect cylindrical hole found drilled into Don Kemp's head", this tidbit about the ID being found in New York has not been found on any credible source to my knowledge. It sounds like an internet rumor that people have ran with as a fact. His wallet, with $140, was missing. But I always think back to the Jeffrey MacDonald case. An ambulance driver stole his wallet from the crime scene. Something similar could have happened with Norman and it would have nothing to do with foul play.

I was watching this case yesterday.

This is a very sad case and I feel for the parents.

I do note that they seemingly initially believed it was an accident and that it was only after the coroner returned a suicide ruling that they really started to take a second look at the case.

As other posters have mentioned, UM doesn't go into the circumstances of Norman Ladner's life at the time and give any motive for a suicide. But, if it was a suicide, perhaps he kept whatever problems he had to himself. It's not unusual for people to bottle up the problems they are going through and not tell anyone, even their closest family members. There are a variety of reasons this could be the case -shame, not knowing how their family will react, just not being able to express what's wrong in words, not wanting to talk about the issue and so on. Perhaps that's what happened here.

Having said that, I do have a feeling that this death was probably accidental. I'm not sure how it could have happened, I am neither a firearms or forensic expert. But, even given that UM may not have given us all the details on this case, I just find it seems much more likely than either a suicide or a murder.

I have no doubt that the conversation between the mother and the stranger took place. However, I do think she may have misinterpreted what the guy was saying. People can be incredibly insensitive and say the most inappropriate things when talking to people who have just lost loved ones (believe me, I've been there), sometimes out of nervousness or trying to find the right thing to say and sometimes because of the nature of their personality and their approach to grief and death. Particularly when someone is going through the stages of such raw grief and emotion, it may be easy to misconstrue these types of comments as having some deeper meaning which wasn't intended.

His wallet turning up in New York, if true, isn't necessarily an indication of foul play. Sometimes things get pinched at crime scenes or in the mortuary/coroner's office or wherever else and end up being passed around or being discarded for some reason later in time.

I didn't think the UM segment was unduly biased in favour of the murder theory. If anything, I came away from it thinking it more likely to be the suicide or accident theory than any other scenario

His wallet turning up in New York, if true, isn't necessarily an indication of foul play. Sometimes things get pinched at crime scenes or in the mortuary/coroner's office or wherever else and end up being passed around or being discarded for some reason later in time.


I don't doubt things get taken at crime scenes or in a morgue, but if the license indeed did end up in New York that's quite a trip from Mississippi!

I love your medical analysis! You're obviously a health care professional and I'm obviously not, but everything I know about fatty liver stuff is right on the nose with what you said. (The Husband leans towards having one. He's not a big drinker, nor is he obese. He's been hit with the genetic stick and we asked a lot of questions to the doctor about it.)

Anyway, I digress. You're right that we know very little about Norman as a person, other than he was a "good kid." I would also like to know if he was a heavy drinker... because The Husband, who is in pretty good shape and not a drinker, was not given the "fatty liver" diagnosis until he was in his late 30's.

Meg, in your experience, do you typically see 17 year old kids with this diagnosis? Because I'm with you. If he was a heavy drinker, I absolutely would lean towards suicide or accident.

Good eye on the autopsy report!

I've worked in the medical field for over 20 years and I've never seen a diagnosis of fatty liver in a child that young...yes, he was still a child.

I still lean towards accident, however, this autopsy seems a bit incomplete.

I've worked in the medical field for over 20 years and I've never seen a diagnosis of fatty liver in a child that young...yes, he was still a child.

I still lean towards accident, however, this autopsy seems a bit incomplete.

I don't know if you can trust anything on this autopsy report. Lets face it, the behavior of authorities is often disgusting. They could very well have tried to portray this kid as a drunk who shot himself to either not investigate a murder or cover something else. Everyone I've ever talked to from Mississippi says it has some of the most corrupt law enforcement in the country. See Andre Jones. And something about that sheriff who was interviewed on the segment made my skin crawl.

I even have to go back on something I said earlier, I made the point that the parents didn't try to argue Norman wasn't depressed. His father actually did try to make the argument.

It just seems like law enforcement officers often adopt this philosophy that if there is no proof of murder, then it must be suicide. When in fact it is really supposed to be the other way around. All deaths are supposed to be treated as homicides until proven otherwise, and I don't think this one was proven to be anything.

It's been quite a while since I've seen the Ladner segment, but cases like this one always bother me. It always seems to me that the vague, shadowy "drug dealers/interrupted drug deal" is a favorite go to theory in cases like this...not unlike the "satanic panic" that seems to make an appearance every now and again. While I'm definitely aware that drugs are a dangerous business and that many people have lost their lives in connection to it, I'm just not convinced it's what happened in this case.

I'm also always bothered by cases like this that involve a possible murder of someone who was carrying a firearm. I know that it can and does happen, as proven in the Henry/Ives case, but there's always a part of me that has trouble reconciling the possible murder with the firearm (if that makes any sense).

Okay, so I just went back and watched the Ladner segment again. I have to agree with the posters up thread that this segment was particularly light on evidence, either for or against suicide. Part of me feels that had the coroner simply issued an undetermined or accidental ruling, that his parents would have accepted it in time and moved on with their lives. That said however, I can understand and sympathize with any family that has difficulty accepting the possible suicide of a loved one. Having had the experience in my own family recently, I can certainly relate, but that experience has also taught me that sometimes a loved one really does take their own life and finding the answers isn't always possible.

ETA: I would like to hear some of your theories about Ladner's broken gun. While it didn't seem to be mentioned in the UM segment, other sources have stated that Ladner's rifle was found at the scene either "broken in half" or "disassembled". So what...Ladner killed himself and THEN disassembled his rifle?? Or he shot himself with a rifle that had already been disassembled? I'm certainly not a firearms expert, but neither of those possibilities seem very likely to me. Hopefully someone who is better informed can offer an explanation.

Just a couple more points I'd like to add. First, I realize my questions above about Ladner's rifle are based on the assumption that he was killed with that specific firearm in the first place. The reason I made that assumption was because there weren't any reports of a second firearm found at the scene.

Which brings me right into my second point. If LE was never able to recover the bullet that killed Ladner, how on Earth could they (LE) have positively concluded his death was a suicide?? I understand that the autopsy report cited a "close contact" or "point blank" GSW, but that fact by itself seems far too inconclusive to base a definitive ruling of suicide on IMO.

Just a couple more points I'd like to add. First, I realize my questions above about Ladner's rifle are based on the assumption that he was killed with that specific firearm in the first place. The reason I made that assumption was because there weren't any reports of a second firearm found at the scene.

Which brings me right into my second point. If LE was never able to recover the bullet that killed Ladner, how on Earth could they (LE) have positively concluded his death was a suicide?? I understand that the autopsy report cited a "close contact" or "point blank" GSW, but that fact by itself seems far too inconclusive to base a definitive ruling of suicide on IMO.

This pretty much sums up why many rational people don't believe it was suicide. And the bullet the Ladners found later was allegedly right at the spot where the body was found. If that's not the bullet that killed him, that would be an amazing coincidence if a bullet was in the same spot and it just got there innocently somehow. Unless the Ladners are lying about where it came from. All you really have to do to prove it couldn't have been suicide in this case is to prove the bullet that killed Norman didn't come from his rifle, then case closed its murder. But it was never proven one way or another.

As for the rifle breaking, as someone who is familiar with rifles I can tell you they don't break easily. They certainly could not break falling onto soft ground, even falling onto concrete or pavement they would have to fall from a pretty good distance, and this was dirt in the woods.

The thing is, if Norman was killed by his own rifle, it would have to have been in tact obviously when he did so. meaning if it was the gun that killed him, it couldn't have been broken until after Norman died. So how did it get broken? If Norman committed suicide, the only possible way I could think of it getting broken is if it fell from the tree after he shot himself. And I can't see how the rifle could have broke falling onto dirt covered ground. Given this happened in a warm climate, I would imagine the soil was relatively soft. I don't know how tall the tree was, but it would have to have been a long fall for me to think the rifle was broken that way.

And furthermore, why would Norman climb up in the tree to commit suicide anyway? I could buy the idea that if Norman wanted to kill himself he might go back in the woods where he felt comfortable. But why bother climbing up in the tree? Unless he wanted people to think it was a deer hunting accident. But that seems far fetched too.

The more I think about this, the more I doubt it was suicide. I honestly don't believe people realize just how many corrupt pit vipers have been in our police departments. And the sheriff interviewed on the segment made my skin crawl.

This pretty much sums up why many rational people don't believe it was suicide. And the bullet the Ladners found later was allegedly right at the spot where the body was found. If that's not the bullet that killed him, that would be an amazing coincidence if a bullet was in the same spot and it just got there innocently somehow. Unless the Ladners are lying about where it came from. All you really have to do to prove it couldn't have been suicide in this case is to prove the bullet that killed Norman didn't come from his rifle, then case closed its murder. But it was never proven one way or another.

As for the rifle breaking, as someone who is familiar with rifles I can tell you they don't break easily. They certainly could not break falling onto soft ground, even falling onto concrete or pavement they would have to fall from a pretty good distance, and this was dirt in the woods.

The thing is, if Norman was killed by his own rifle, it would have to have been in tact obviously when he did so. meaning if it was the gun that killed him, it couldn't have been broken until after Norman died. So how did it get broken? If Norman committed suicide, the only possible way I could think of it getting broken is if it fell from the tree after he shot himself. And I can't see how the rifle could have broke falling onto dirt covered ground. Given this happened in a warm climate, I would imagine the soil was relatively soft. I don't know how tall the tree was, but it would have to have been a long fall for me to think the rifle was broken that way.

And furthermore, why would Norman climb up in the tree to commit suicide anyway? I could buy the idea that if Norman wanted to kill himself he might go back in the woods where he felt comfortable. But why bother climbing up in the tree? Unless he wanted people to think it was a deer hunting accident. But that seems far fetched too.

The more I think about this, the more I doubt it was suicide. I honestly don't believe people realize just how many corrupt pit vipers have been in our police departments. And the sheriff interviewed on the segment made my skin crawl.

Yeah...got to say XC, that of all the troubling questions surrounding this case, the rifle issue is probably what bothers me the most. I don't really go in for any variation of the "tree theory", because the GSW was just too perfect IMO. I don't know if Ladner committed suicide or not...there just isn't enough information IMO to support ANY investigative finding.

What I DO know however, is that regardless of LE's official findings, there are still some serious and disturbing questions about this case that need to be answered. I kind of got the impression that LE was completely disinterested in this case right from the start. In fact one of the podcasts I listened to regarding the Ladner case made a point of stating that while the sheriff heading up the investigation was a real prince of a guy on paper, but if someone were to ask the town's residents, they'd paint an entirely different picture. Things that make you go "hmmm" I guess.

Yeah...got to say XC, that of all the troubling questions surrounding this case, the rifle issue is probably what bothers me the most. I don't really go in for any variation of the "tree theory", because the GSW was just too perfect IMO. I don't know if Ladner committed suicide or not...there just isn't enough information IMO to support ANY investigative finding.

What I DO know however, is that regardless of LE's official findings, there are still some serious and disturbing questions about this case that need to be answered. I kind of got the impression that LE was completely disinterested in this case right from the start. In fact one of the podcasts I listened to regarding the Ladner case made a point of stating that while the sheriff heading up the investigation was a real prince of a guy on paper, but if someone were to ask the town's residents, they'd paint an entirely different picture. Things that make you go "hmmm" I guess.

I just re-watched the segment. I had to kind of force myself to listen to Sheriff Lumpkin again even though his whole attitude disgusted me.

It seems to me his main argument for suicide is the idea Norman was standing when the shot was fired. If that's the case then he obviously could not have been in the tree. How was he standing in the damn tree? So that begs the question again how the hell did the rifle break if it did not fall out of the tree? The rifle had to be in tact when Norman was shot regardless of who did it, that's basically indisputable. The only way it could have got broken other than falling from a decent height is if someone broke it by hitting it against something. Which means someone else had to be there, Norman obviously didn't break the thing after he was dead.

And second, its the proclamation there was no evidence anyone else was there besides Norman. Unless the killer dropped something, the only other sign someone would have been there that I can think of is footprints. I used to work in the woods all the time and worked a lot of places where I never left footprints. Usually if you leave footprints in the woods its because of muddy soil often found after a heavy rain. I didn't hear the segment say one way or another. So it begs the question, did they even find Norman's footprints around the scene? If they didn't, it renders the whole no evidence anyone else was there argument moot.

To be fair though, if Norman's footprints were there and no one else's, then I admit its pretty hard to argue for murder. And that's really the only thing I can think of in this case where LE should have even come close to ruling out murder. And i can't help but think Sheriff Lumpkin would have shouted that from the rooftops if that was the case. I'm betting it was grassy hard packed ground and there were no footprints at all.

The accident theory also never made sense to me. The idea Norman fell out of a tree and managed to shoot himself in the head, I honestly can't even see how that would have happened. Guns simply don't discharge as easy as many people think, and even if they do, I'd have to say the likelihood of Norman accidentally aligning this rifle with his head in the midst of a fall is pretty unlikely. If you fell from a tree with a rifle in your hands, you'd instinctively point the rifle away. Not towards you.

The more I think about it, the more I think Lumpkin and his cohorts abandoned the accident theory because they realized how absurd it was and adopted the suicide theory because even though it had holes it made more sense.

And with regards to the bullet that was found, again you have to consider two possibilities if this is not the bullet that killed Norman: The bullet got to the exact spot of Norman's death in some innocent way, or the Ladners are flat out lying about where they got it. Given that they were known to hunt on their land, I suppose its possible that this might be a stray bullet fired at a deer or a squirrel at some point. But on a 122 acre property and that it was found in the exact spot, again I'd have to say unlikely. As for the Ladners lying, I think the grief of losing a child could cause some uncharacteristic behavior in people. But to suggest they would be so determined to punish someone for Norman's death that they would fabricate evidence? Possible, but I'd hardly say likely.

I realize the drug angle is a pretty popular scapegoat for people who want to make a death more sinister than it is, so I don't really want to focus on that though anyone's thoughts are welcome. The devices Mr Ladner found may or may not have been significant, that's perhaps a discussion for another day I haven't given it much thought.

But the bottom line is, Sheriff Lumpkin's obvious determination to rule out foul play with no more arguments than he made for doing so should raise red flags with any reasonable person. Can't say definitively Norman did not commit suicide, but the facts in this case fall way short of what is necessary to call it a foregone conclusion IMHO. I'd have to say there is a 60-40 chance he did not.

I believe this was a suicide.

I've worked in the medical field for over 20 years and I've never seen a diagnosis of fatty liver in a child that young...yes, he was still a child.

I've only seen it a couple of times in teenagers and in both of those instances they were morbidly obese, which doesn't fit Norman's bill at all.

I believe this was a suicide.

Very profound there Tolstoy.

Very profound there Tolstoy.

Why, aren't you all sunshine and rainbows...

You asked "murder, accident or suicide?" You didn't ask us to write a thesis on the subject. I've got nothing to add to those who support the suicide theory. You want me to just repeat what they said?

Why, aren't you all sunshine and rainbows...

You asked "murder, accident or suicide?" You didn't ask us to write a thesis on the subject. I've got nothing to add to those who support the suicide theory. You want me to just repeat what they said?

You have to excuse XCalibur. They aren't the sharpest tool in the shed, but like to talk down and bark at people but have the logic of a potato.

XCalibur is like one of those little dogs constantly barking at one of the big dogs.

Why, aren't you all sunshine and rainbows...

You asked "murder, accident or suicide?" You didn't ask us to write a thesis on the subject. I've got nothing to add to those who support the suicide theory. You want me to just repeat what they said?

First off, welcome to the board Stratego! :wave:

You might be right about the suicide theory. I just wish that LE had been able to clear up the discrepancy regarding the rifle found at the scene. Because until someone can offer a logical explanation as to how Ladner either shot himself with an already "disassembled" firearm, or how he could have shot himself and THEN "disassembled" the firearm, I just can't get on board with suicide.

To be honest, this is one of those cases that makes me wonder if LE has additional info that they simply haven't made public. As I stated up thread, I just don't understand how LE could have reached any conclusion without at least having the bullet that killed Ladner. Quite frankly, considering the serious lack of evidence in this case, I'm not at all surprised that the Ladners were unable to accept the "official ruling". This is all JMO however, and I respect your opinion just as much.

You have to excuse XCalibur. They aren't the sharpest tool in the shed, but like to talk down and bark at people but have the logic of a potato.

XCalibur is like one of those little dogs constantly barking at one of the big dogs.


Honestly, that came out of left field. Is it that much trouble to simply ask for an elaboration?:confused:

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's just a little grumpy today.;)

Thanks for the welcome, Blue Galexy! I've actually been a lurker here for many years spying on you guys.:)

The "disassembled" rifle is strange indeed, but it's difficult to speculate about that if we don't know exactly what this means. Do they mean the rifle was broken or a part fell off? I think that could happen if he shot himself in the tree and it fell down. But I have to admit I know nothing about firearms, so I find it difficult to speculate about this aspect regardless.

What makes me believe this was suicide is the coroner's report, especially the bloodied hand and the close contact wound in the right temple.

It could be that LE has more info than we are aware of, but I sort of got the impression they were just kind of sloppy in this case. I think they could've tried a little harder to look for that bullet.

Thanks for the welcome, Blue Galexy! I've actually been a lurker here for many years spying on you guys.:)

The "disassembled" rifle is strange indeed, but it's difficult to speculate about that if we don't know exactly what this means. Do they mean the rifle was broken or a part fell off? I think that could happen if he shot himself in the tree and it fell down. But I have to admit I know nothing about firearms, so I find it difficult to speculate about this aspect regardless.

What makes me believe this was suicide is the coroner's report, especially the bloodied hand and the close contact wound in the right temple.

It could be that LE has more info than we are aware of, but I sort of got the impression they were just kind of sloppy in this case. I think they could've tried a little harder to look for that bullet.

On this point Stratego, you and I completely agree, lol. And you're absolutely right about the fact that the "broken" rifle is only half of the equation...for me at least. Until LE can recover the bullet that killed Ladner, and examine the ballistics evidence, I can't really come to any definitive conclusion here.

I will say however, that as sloppy as LE was during the Ladner case, I've actually seen worse...if you can believe it, lol. You ought to check out the Theresa Bier case on The Charley Project. The "Bigfoot did it" defense just doesn't fly IMO. Even more absurd than that however, is the fact that LE just seemed to roll with it. :rolleyes: Go figure...

You have to excuse XCalibur. They aren't the sharpest tool in the shed, but like to talk down and bark at people but have the logic of a potato.

XCalibur is like one of those little dogs constantly barking at one of the big dogs.

I suspect a lot of this stems from the fact that I simply don't buy into some of the arguments you made for the Rob definitely did it crowd in the Angela Hammond thread. I'm hardly alone in that respect. I explained at length why I disagreed, and you did little to refute anything I said except arbitrarily say I have the logic of a potato.

Honestly, that came out of left field. Is it that much trouble to simply ask for an elaboration?:confused:

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's just a little grumpy today.;)

Not really. Its just I've noticed on here lately that its become the cool thing to take a crap on parents' who lost children to a gunshot wound and entrench the suicide theory, while all the while making them all about to be liars. which in this case the Ladners would just about have to be. Both about the shady piece of dung who showed up at the coroner's office telling her to forget about the case, and the bullet they found. I'm not saying you did that, but many people who write this off to suicide have.

On some other sites I've seen a number of posts from people in Norman's town who lived there at the time. And pretty much all of them say Lumpkin is about as crooked as a three dollar bill and Norman was likely murdered by the Dixie Mafia. of course that doesn't prove Norman was murdered, but there are other reasons I think so, and I discussed them at length above.

If I came off as nasty, I apologize. I admit the recent it had to be suicide trend on the board has annoyed me and made me a little crabby. I loathe corruption of any sort.

I suspect a lot of this stems from the fact that I simply don't buy into some of the arguments you made for the Rob definitely did it crowd in the Angela Hammond thread. I'm hardly alone in that respect. I explained at length why I disagreed, and you did little to refute anything I said except arbitrarily say I have the logic of a potato.

Nah you're cool XC. I was goofin'. But that was harsh. People on this board have to realize that people have theories different from theirs.

Not everyone is going to agree with one theory on a unsolved case.

I'm certainly not trying to make them out to be liars. I simply don't know what happened at the funeral. I think the strange guy might either be a looney who gets off on that kind of stuff or it's an honest misunderstanding. I've seen it happen, people misinterpreting other people's words or intentions because they're emotional. Even in the case of murder, I don't think they'd send someone to threaten the mother. I think an anonymous letter or phone call would make more sense.

I don't know if the sheriff is corrupt. I think more often than not it's just sheer incompetence rather than corruption. I do find it mindboggling the family had to search for the bullet that killed their son.

I think the coroner's report supports the suicide theory and I just haven't seen anything that contradicts that conclusion. The broken rifle is strange, but I don't think it points to murder rather than suicide.

Anyway, just MHO.

The sheriff could have been corrupt. The Ladner's could have been grasping at straws to try and prove a murder that didn't happen. Norman could have committed suicide.

All three of these things can be true at the same time.

To address the issue of the man who allegedly showed up at the coroner's office and apparently warned Mrs. Ladner not open up the case, I definitely think this is one of the strangest aspects of the case, for a number of reasons.

But I don't see how she could have misinterpreted this. Its pretty straight forward. So in my view either she has to be making the story up, or it really did happen exactly the way she said.

No point in discussing the possibility she made it up, that's pretty clear cut either you believe her or you don't.

But for the sake of argument, lets say it did happen. I think then that whoever this guy was, he either was somehow involved in Norman's death, or he had some kind of knowledge of what happened to him or who WAS involved. No random concerned stranger with no involvement or knowledge of the case would just walk up to a woman he didn't even know and warn her to drop a case for her own good, and that she would never find the person who killed her son. That's just ludicrous who in the world would say that to somebody unless they know something? Assuming this guy existed and he said this, he almost had to be connected to it in some way, or have some kind of knowledge of what happened to Norman.

I'd have to think it was probably the latter. Because if this guy was somehow involved in Norman's death, it seems odd he would call attention to himself and basically admit to her that he wasn't in fact murdered, but she would never find out who did it. I just wonder if she ever tried to found out who he was. If that could be revealed it might tell a lot. I think its entirely possibly he could have been someone who was genuinely concerned, but if he was, he knew something. Possibly that investigating the case my put her and the rest of her family's life in danger. But there is no way he was just some random stranger telling her what he did without some kind of knowledge of what happened to Norman. That makes zero sense.

Like I said, I don't know what happened, so I'm not comfortable to straight out call her a liar. But if we're speculating, then I believe it's a possibility, at least that she embellished the encounter to support her own suspicions. Even more so now I realize it didn't take place at the funeral but the coroner's office. How did this stranger know they were even there, let alone to voice their objections to the ruling? Why would he take the risk of showing his face to them? His words also sounded more threatening than helpful. In that case, I don't know why the conspirators would send this guy. Why wouldn't the coroner just tell them it would be better to drop the case? I mean, this guy did the supposed murderers no favours by admitting he was murdered. Yes, I do find this story very suspicious. I think desperate parents can resort to anything, so I do believe it's possible she's intentionally not being truthful.

I don't know about the rest of y'all, but I'm starting to wonder if this isn't just standard operating procedure for UM. If you think about it, how many UM segments have included the dark, mysterious stranger who approached the grieving loved ones out of the blue, only to issue creepy, incriminating "warnings" about their loved one's death/disappearance/whatever? I can think of a few just off the top of my head.

Please don't misunderstand...I'm absolutely NOT accusing Mr. or Mrs. Ladner of any dishonesty here. The encounter with the creepy stranger may have happened exactly as described. I simply think it's interesting how many UM cases end up featuring just such an occurrence.

Ok, I only read the current page on this thread, and maybe this has been said before. Regarding the encounter with the threatening stranger at the funeral: I believe her completely and think the entire conversation really happened. I don't think the stranger had any association with the killer(s). (I am not saying I believe Norman was murdered, because I am still very uncertain about what happened to him). Mrs. Ladner seemed like a poised and strong person in her UM interview and I think she was very publicly putting pressure on the police, even before the funeral. The man who threatened her likely had some association with the police and took issue with her.

Ok, I only read the current page on this thread, and maybe this has been said before. Regarding the encounter with the threatening stranger at the funeral: I believe her completely and think the entire conversation really happened. I don't think the stranger had any association with the killer(s). (I am not saying I believe Norman was murdered, because I am still very uncertain about what happened to him). Mrs. Ladner seemed like a poised and strong person in her UM interview and I think she was very publicly putting pressure on the police, even before the funeral. The man who threatened her likely had some association with the police and took issue with her.

This is a really good point Jon. It absolutely wouldn't surprise me if an encounter that seemed so sinister to Mrs. Ladner was in reality just a lazy, corrupt LEO who was trying to keep her quiet and cover his own a$$. Obviously, that's JMO of course.

I've always fallen on the side of Norman being murdered. No reason for suicide as far as I know. Nothing that pops up. I doubt he shoots himself by accident as he seemed to know how to work a gun. My guess would be he stumbled on the wrong thing. The police didn't seem honest to me, and I wouldn't put it by them to get rid of a kid that could incriminate them. Or whoever it was that he saw doing the wrong thing I think there is a major cover up to this.

Norman's mother was so sweet in the interview. Seemed like such a gentle and caring mother.

That stranger warning her is strange and telling too.

The sheriff could have been corrupt. The Ladner's could have been grasping at straws to try and prove a murder that didn't happen. Norman could have committed suicide.

All three of these things can be true at the same time.

Sure they could. But the fact is, once the credibility of the primary investigating officer who was the biggest cheerleader for the suicide theory is sullied which it clearly is with Lumpkin, the arguments for suicide in this case become extremely weak at best, and his always were dubious anyway even before he was exposed as a crook.

I mean when you have a death by gunshot, I would think the minimum bar for proving a suicide would be to at least prove the bullet came from the victim's own weapon, which Lumpkin never did. Couple that with the fact no firm motive for suicide was ever established, if you don't at least question this you simply aren't being honest.

I've said many times, this would have been a great case for Dr Cyril Wecht who was featured in later seasons of the show to take a look at. I'm betting he would have destroyed the suicide and accident theories both. Unfortunately he is in his 90's now and likely long retired. But someone should definitely take another look at this case regardless of the time that has passed. The more you look at it objectively, the less suicide or accident either one makes sense.

I've always fallen on the side of Norman being murdered. No reason for suicide as far as I know. Nothing that pops up. I doubt he shoots himself by accident as he seemed to know how to work a gun. My guess would be he stumbled on the wrong thing. The police didn't seem honest to me, and I wouldn't put it by them to get rid of a kid that could incriminate them. Or whoever it was that he saw doing the wrong thing I think there is a major cover up to this.

Norman's mother was so sweet in the interview. Seemed like such a gentle and caring mother.

That stranger warning her is strange and telling too.

Agreed. In most suicides, generally a motive surfaces. People come forward and admit victim was depressed, that there was a breakup, financial problems, ect.

In Norman's case there was absolutely nothing.

Granted, you don't necessarily need a motive to prove suicide, but there are other problems I have with it besides what was outlined above.

I think to any objective person the case for suicide in this instance was extremely dubious at best. At worst, a borderline bust.

Agreed. In most suicides, generally a motive surfaces. People come forward and admit victim was depressed, that there was a breakup, financial problems, ect.

In Norman's case there was absolutely nothing.

Granted, you don't necessarily need a motive to prove suicide, but there are other problems I have with it besides what was outlined above.

I think to any objective person the case for suicide in this instance was extremely dubious at best. At worst, a borderline bust.

With zero evidence or motive pointing towards murder or suicide, I'd lean accident.

With zero evidence or motive pointing towards murder or suicide, I'd lean accident.

In all honesty, I find accident even harder to believe than suicide. Accidental shootings are not as easy as people think, most of them are caused by people who are straight up unfamiliar and inexperienced with firearms and do just flat out stupid things. By all accounts, Norman had enough experience to where I think its unlikely.

truthfully, I think Lumpkin and his cohorts abandoned the accident narrative because even they realized it was ridiculous and miscalculated that the Ladners would accept suicide. First off, there was no clear scenario on how it happened. Supposedly it happened when Norman fell out of a tree stand. But if he shot himself on accident by falling out of the tree, two things would have to happened: he would somehow have had to pull the trigger as he fell, and then the gun would have to aligned perfectly with his head during the fall. Anyone with any experience with firearms at all would in all likelihood instinctively direct the gun away from their head as they fell, even if they somehow manage to pull the trigger accidentally or if the gun somehow went off when it hit the ground. I can't even envision how that could happen frankly. and it was never even explained how the gun got broke, but it could not have fired in the state it was found. So assuming it was the weapon that killed Norman, it had to have been broken after the fatal shot was fired, and how would that have happened if no one else was there?

Also, addressing the idea that there was no evidence of murder. First off, I think you have to specify what exactly you would call evidence for murder, probably signs someone else was at the scene. You can't assume first off that a killer is going to drop something or leave a calling card at a scene. Especially if they are trying to make it look like a suicide or cover it up. Only serial killers playing games with law enforcement generally leave calling cards at scenes because they are sick sociopaths and want credit for murders. People killing for other reasons generally don't unless by accident. Because obviously other than sociopathic serial killers who want attention, most murderers don't want to get caught.

So assuming the killer didn't drop anything as anyone who executes a murder with any degree of proficiency or caution would not, what other evidence would there be that someone else was there? Footprints is about it. And that's really kind of an unknown for us because the segment didn't say one way or another whether they found any. So it begs the question how tightly packed was the ground Norman was found on? Had it rained recently? Were even Norman's footprints there? And if there so were any extra sets even looked for? And even if there were, obviously Norman's dad found his body, so his would have been there as well. so could the killer's prints have even been blotted out? We don't know.

Now to be sure, if say Norman's footprints were at the scene, but no one else's were, then you probably have to concede its more than likely either a suicide or an accident. I might at that point. But since the segment doesn't mention it either way, I'm betting the soil was tightly packed and there weren't any. If Norman's footprints were the only ones there, Sheriff Lumpkin I imagine would have shouted that from the rooftops because that would be the closest thing you could get to a slam dunk suicide proof. But Lumpkin's only argument for suicide as far as I can tell was that Norman was in a standing position when he was shot, something that wouldn't even prove suicide if it was true.

But like I said, without these little details, its hard to know for sure.

But I stand by my position that the case for both suicide and accident are very weak at best given the information we have.

Sure they could. But the fact is, once the credibility of the primary investigating officer who was the biggest cheerleader for the suicide theory is sullied which it clearly is with Lumpkin, the arguments for suicide in this case become extremely weak at best, and his always were dubious anyway even before he was exposed as a crook.

The coroner ruled Norman's death a suicide. Lumpkin initially believed it was an accident. Probably changed his mind with the coroner's ruling.

I mean when you have a death by gunshot, I would think the minimum bar for proving a suicide would be to at least prove the bullet came from the victim's own weapon, which Lumpkin never did. Couple that with the fact no firm motive for suicide was ever established, if you don't at least question this you simply aren't being honest.

They never found the fatal bullet and the one they did find could not conclusively rule out Norman's gun as having fired it. Here is what we know:

-Norman tells his parents he's going to go hunting on the family property and that he was expected to be back between 7-7:30 that evening.

-Norman never arrives so his father goes to search and finds him dead.

-Authorities arrive on the scene and initially think it was an accident and that he may have fallen out of the tree.

-The coroner performs an autopsy and discovers that the round entered from the right of Norman's head and exited the left. Blood spatter was found on his left hand. Powder burns were discovered on the right side of Norman's head.

-The autopsy also noted a cut on Norman's head. A bloody tree stump in the area was believed to have caused this when Norman fell.

^ With that information, how can you not conclude suicide? We have no idea of a possible motive, but that's because UM loved to do the "my loved one would never..." routine in these murder/suicide segments. It made for good television. Norman was right handed. The left hand having blood spatter as well as his temple on his right side having powder burns tells me that he held the weapon to his head and steadied the rifle with his left hand. There is no logical scenario in which this plays out if he was murdered.

The more you look at it objectively, the less suicide or accident either one makes sense.

This just doesn't square with me. If you look at this case objectively, those two theories are the most logical. The murder theory is a complete fantasy. Here is the "evidence" in favor of a murder:

-Norman's parents said he was happy and that he never would commit suicide.

-Norman's wallet was "missing".

-The Ladner's found a bullet where Norman's body was found and took it to a ballistics expert and he could not rule out that the bullet was fired from Norman's gun. The Ladner's claim that this expert gave them back a completely different bullet than the one they gave him to examine.

-Norman's mother was approached by a man at a coroner's office who told her that she'll "never find the the person that killed your son" and abruptly left.

-Norman's father found a radio on his property.

^ That is all you have in favor of the murder. There is no suspect or suspects. There is no evidence of drug dealing on the Ladner property. Norman's wallet is mentioned as "missing" in the segment and is never mentioned again. Did he have it with him when he left to go hunting? Did he always carry it with him? We'll never know because UM doesn't mention any of those things. And we are to believe that the corrupt sheriff, who initially believed Norman's death was an accident, suddenly had the power to influence not only the coroner's office, but also the state ballistics expert? How many people are involved in this grand conspiracy? And we are to believe that the State had an interest in covering up a murder committed on the Ladner's property after Norman "discovered a drug deal"? Norman, armed and on his family's property, finds these evil drug dealers who, instead of going to a hotel or truck stop, decide to use this strangers farm for said drug deal, and they somehow get his gun away from him, shoot him on the right side of his head just at the moment he uses his left hand to try and deflect the rifle away from him. And then they steal his wallet but leave behind one of their radios which could presumably be tied back to them. But they are lucky enough to have a corrupt law enforcement agency, the coroner's office, and the ballistics expert lazily declare the case a suicide.

Every single piece of "evidence" brought up in the segment that implied a murder was discovered by the Ladner's, who are not exactly impartial. If you actually looked at the case with an objective eye, there is no way you can reach the conclusion of murder. Shady drug dealers roaming around the woods was a favorite on UM. But they also loved the Satanic Panic angle and that has thoroughly been debunked.

The father finding Norman shortly after 7:00 as well as his mother's comment about Norman coming always coming home between 7-7:30 and then becoming instantly worried by 7 o'clock has always been telling to me.

The coroner ruled Norman's death a suicide. Lumpkin initially believed it was an accident. Probably changed his mind with the coroner's ruling.



They never found the fatal bullet and the one they did find could not conclusively rule out Norman's gun as having fired it. Here is what we know:

-Norman tells his parents he's going to go hunting on the family property and that he was expected to be back between 7-7:30 that evening.

-Norman never arrives so his father goes to search and finds him dead.

-Authorities arrive on the scene and initially think it was an accident and that he may have fallen out of the tree.

-The coroner performs an autopsy and discovers that the round entered from the right of Norman's head and exited the left. Blood spatter was found on his left hand. Powder burns were discovered on the right side of Norman's head.

-The autopsy also noted a cut on Norman's head. A bloody tree stump in the area was believed to have caused this when Norman fell.

^ With that information, how can you not conclude suicide? We have no idea of a possible motive, but that's because UM loved to do the "my loved one would never..." routine in these murder/suicide segments. It made for good television. Norman was right handed. The left hand having blood spatter as well as his temple on his right side having powder burns tells me that he held the weapon to his head and steadied the rifle with his left hand. There is no logical scenario in which this plays out if he was murdered.



This just doesn't square with me. If you look at this case objectively, those two theories are the most logical. The murder theory is a complete fantasy. Here is the "evidence" in favor of a murder:

-Norman's parents said he was happy and that he never would commit suicide.

-Norman's wallet was "missing".

-The Ladner's found a bullet where Norman's body was found and took it to a ballistics expert and he could not rule out that the bullet was fired from Norman's gun. The Ladner's claim that this expert gave them back a completely different bullet than the one they gave him to examine.

-Norman's mother was approached by a man at a coroner's office who told her that she'll "never find the the person that killed your son" and abruptly left.

-Norman's father found a radio on his property.

^ That is all you have in favor of the murder. There is no suspect or suspects. There is no evidence of drug dealing on the Ladner property. Norman's wallet is mentioned as "missing" in the segment and is never mentioned again. Did he have it with him when he left to go hunting? Did he always carry it with him? We'll never know because UM doesn't mention any of those things. And we are to believe that the corrupt sheriff, who initially believed Norman's death was an accident, suddenly had the power to influence not only the coroner's office, but also the state ballistics expert? How many people are involved in this grand conspiracy? And we are to believe that the State had an interest in covering up a murder committed on the Ladner's property after Norman "discovered a drug deal"? Norman, armed and on his family's property, finds these evil drug dealers who, instead of going to a hotel or truck stop, decide to use this strangers farm for said drug deal, and they somehow get his gun away from him, shoot him on the right side of his head just at the moment he uses his left hand to try and deflect the rifle away from him. And then they steal his wallet but leave behind one of their radios which could presumably be tied back to them. But they are lucky enough to have a corrupt law enforcement agency, the coroner's office, and the ballistics expert lazily declare the case a suicide.

Every single piece of "evidence" brought up in the segment that implied a murder was discovered by the Ladner's, who are not exactly impartial. If you actually looked at the case with an objective eye, there is no way you can reach the conclusion of murder. Shady drug dealers roaming around the woods was a favorite on UM. But they also loved the Satanic Panic angle and that has thoroughly been debunked.

The father finding Norman shortly after 7:00 as well as his mother's comment about Norman coming always coming home between 7-7:30 and then becoming instantly worried by 7 o'clock has always been telling to me.


Hmmmm. So a few points on this:

1. I don't claim to be a blood splatter expert. But I do know in the case of gunshot wounds, if the bullet goes all the way through then the exit wound tends to be larger. If a bullet penetrates into someone's head seems it would push brain tissue and matter ahead of it is well as causing instant internal bleeding in the brain. Given that, I would think that if there was blood splatter it would have likely come from the exit wound rather than the entrance wound. We know no bullet was found in Norman's head, so there had to be an exit wound, and since it entered his right temple the exit wound would more than likely be in his left temple. So that would mean if it came from the exit wound, Norman's left hand was on the left side of his body at the moment he was shot. And if it was, bingo it can't be suicide because as you pointed out, he would have needed to steady the rifle with his left hand if he shot himself. But I concede that isn't proof because I can't prove the blood splattered from the exit wound so we will put that aside for a moment.

2. Lets just say for the sake of argument, the blood splatter came from the entrance wound on the right side of Norman's temple. Then obviously his left hand would have been positioned on the right side of his body. I don't dispute that that is a logical position for suicide. However where I don't agree is that automatically means it was suicide. You said you could think of no scenario where that happens if it is murder. I can, if Norman was laying on the ground and someone was standing over him or on top of him holding him down, and if he was laying on his left side, it stands to reason to me he would be instinctively raising his hands in self defense. So that scenario also would have placed his left hand on the right side of his body and thus the blood splatter.

3. Powder burns on his head or on his hands don't really prove anything. It was established that Norman was hunting that day, so he could have been taking target practice or shooting at an animal that would explain his hands. And the burns on his head, the gun could have been put to his head by someone else just as easily as it could him.

4. Also the wound on his head indicates he may have fallen from the tree which is another thing. I can buy if Norman was going to commit suicide he'd go back to a place he felt comfortable. However I can't think of a logical reason why Norman would bother to climb up in the tree to commit suicide, except perhaps if he was trying to make it look like an accident thinking it might be easier on his parents. But that seems far fetched. So what if he wasn't up in the tree at all? What if he was thrown to the ground? But say he was up in the tree. If you want a murder scenario, what if he was out there and overheard some people talking nearby but couldn't tell where they were. He climbs up in the tree perhaps to get a better look, and being nervous falls out of the tree. The noise he makes alerts someone and they come jump on top of him and finish him off obviously due to being up to something nefarious.

5. No one has ever explained how the gun got broken. But it obviously could not have fired the fatal shot in that state. If you are going to argue the gun got broken from the fall, then you have to go back to the accident theory. So that's just an example of how all over the place the proof of either accident or suicide really is. There is no logical reason he would bother climbing up in the tree to commit suicide, and no logical reason the gun should have been broken with no fall and no one else there.

6. I've largely stayed away from the drug dealers in the woods theory, for the simple reason that I've mostly focused on trying to point out how it may have been murder without getting into motives because that is mostly speculation. and I do know it is a favorite conspiracy theory but its asinine to believe these things never happen. the radios do make you wonder though. Assuming they did not belong to the Ladners then what were they doing there on their property? and what were they for if not for signaling drug aircraft? If someone was on their land with radios without their permission, there is a pretty good chance it was for some nefarious purpose. Of course, there is always the possibility they fabricated the whole thing but again you have to call them bold face liars to suggest that and there is really no proof of that either. Especially when you have a primary investigator on a case in Lumpkin who was later proven to be a crook and a cretin.

7. The bullet that was found. Again, assuming the Ladners are not bold faced liars, they found a bullet in the exact spot of the murder. On a 122 acre property, I'd have to say the likelihood of the bullet being in the exact spot where Norman was found that was fired for some legit purpose like hunting is pretty low. But if it is the bullet that killed Norman, then it would pretty well prove he was lying down when shot otherwise the bullet would have lodged in a tree or somewhere further from the spot and likely would not have been found. Again though, it is always possible they fabricated that as well but there is again no proof.

8. The wallet being missing may or may not be significant. He could have misplaced it before his death so that probably doesn't prove anything one way or another so i won't go to much into that.

9. You pointed out how there was no known motive for murder or suspects. Yet you reject there being no known motive for suicide being an argument against it. You can't have it both ways, if it is not a legit argument against one it can't be the other either. So if we are being objective it shouldn't be used for either scenario.

I doubt any of this will change your mind as I've observed you rarely do. That is not a pot shot or a criticism mind you, just an observation. :rolleyes:'

And i know since suicide is not technically a crime for obvious reasons, you don't have to prove reasonable doubt. But ask yourself this question say suicide was a crime, do you really think there is enough here to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he committed suicide? I don't. I cannot definitively say Norman was murdered, but I merely don't believe suicide was proven for the reasons I've stated. And have always felt the cause should have been at the very least turned to undetermined.

...

The father finding Norman shortly after 7:00 as well as his mother's comment about Norman coming always coming home between 7-7:30 and then becoming instantly worried by 7 o'clock has always been telling to me.

Telling of what? That she was overprotective?
I think his mother especially has taken a lot of unnecessary criticism in the Ladner-related threads over the years. If my niece or nephew or anyone else I cared about died under mysterious circumstances, I would do everything I could to get answers.

Telling of what? That she was overprotective?
I think his mother especially has taken a lot of unnecessary criticism in the Ladner-related threads over the years. If my niece or nephew or anyone else I cared about died under mysterious circumstances, I would do everything I could to get answers.

Very true. Given what we now know about Lumpkin, I would say the Ladners probably have more credibility than he does. And everything they produced as far as evidence to not deem it as significant at least to some degree you have to make them out to be pure liars.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that suicides are hard to accept. Most people get that without Lumpkin and other detractors of the Ladners never getting tired of pointing it out.

But would it drive them to the point where they are going to fabricate evidence and try to get someone unjustly blamed for murder? If indeed Norman committed suicide, that is obviously not going to change what happened or bring their son back so is the motivation to go to that trouble to fabricate evidence or flat out lie going to be that powerful? Its always possible, but I am far from convinced it is probable

I don't claim to be a blood splatter expert. But I do know in the case of gunshot wounds, if the bullet goes all the way through then the exit wound tends to be larger. If a bullet penetrates into someone's head seems it would push brain tissue and matter ahead of it is well as causing instant internal bleeding in the brain. Given that, I would think that if there was blood splatter it would have likely come from the exit wound rather than the entrance wound. We know no bullet was found in Norman's head, so there had to be an exit wound, and since it entered his right temple the exit wound would more than likely be in his left temple. So that would mean if it came from the exit wound, Norman's left hand was on the left side of his body at the moment he was shot. And if it was, bingo it can't be suicide because as you pointed out, he would have needed to steady the rifle with his left hand if he shot himself. But I concede that isn't proof because I can't prove the blood splattered from the exit wound so we will put that aside for a moment.

There is going to be more blood spatter from the exit wound, but there's still going to be some from the entry wound as well. Norman's left hand was either steadying the weapon or trying to deflect it at the exact moment it was fired, or he bizarrely held his left hand up to the left side of his head as someone was pointing a gun at his right temple.

2. Lets just say for the sake of argument, the blood splatter came from the entrance wound on the right side of Norman's temple. Then obviously his left hand would have been positioned on the right side of his body. I don't dispute that that is a logical position for suicide. However where I don't agree is that automatically means it was suicide. You said you could think of no scenario where that happens if it is murder. I can, if Norman was laying on the ground and someone was standing over him or on top of him holding him down, and if he was laying on his left side, it stands to reason to me he would be instinctively raising his hands in self defense. So that scenario also would have placed his left hand on the right side of his body and thus the blood splatter.

Norman's lying on the ground on his left side and he's able to raise his left hand but not his right? There was no blood spatter found on his right hand.

3. Powder burns on his head or on his hands don't really prove anything. It was established that Norman was hunting that day, so he could have been taking target practice or shooting at an animal that would explain his hands. And the burns on his head, the gun could have been put to his head by someone else just as easily as it could him.

Well someone could have held the weapon up to his temple, but that really wouldn't explain the other forensic evidence found at the scene.

4. Also the wound on his head indicates he may have fallen from the tree which is another thing. I can buy if Norman was going to commit suicide he'd go back to a place he felt comfortable. However I can't think of a logical reason why Norman would bother to climb up in the tree to commit suicide, except perhaps if he was trying to make it look like an accident thinking it might be easier on his parents. But that seems far fetched. So what if he wasn't up in the tree at all? What if he was thrown to the ground? But say he was up in the tree. If you want a murder scenario, what if he was out there and overheard some people talking nearby but couldn't tell where they were. He climbs up in the tree perhaps to get a better look, and being nervous falls out of the tree. The noise he makes alerts someone and they come jump on top of him and finish him off obviously due to being up to something nefarious.

What are the odds that these guys see a 17 year old kill falling from a tree and their instinct is to instantly murder him? I'd say him falling out of the tree because of an accidental discharge would be much more likely.

5. No one has ever explained how the gun got broken. But it obviously could not have fired the fatal shot in that state. If you are going to argue the gun got broken from the fall, then you have to go back to the accident theory. So that's just an example of how all over the place the proof of either accident or suicide really is. There is no logical reason he would bother climbing up in the tree to commit suicide, and no logical reason the gun should have been broken with no fall and no one else there.

If he shot himself in the tree, this could be how the gun broke.

6. I've largely stayed away from the drug dealers in the woods theory, for the simple reason that I've mostly focused on trying to point out how it may have been murder without getting into motives because that is mostly speculation. and I do know it is a favorite conspiracy theory but its asinine to believe these things never happen. the radios do make you wonder though. Assuming they did not belong to the Ladners then what were they doing there on their property? and what were they for if not for signaling drug aircraft? If someone was on their land with radios without their permission, there is a pretty good chance it was for some nefarious purpose. Of course, there is always the possibility they fabricated the whole thing but again you have to call them bold face liars to suggest that and there is really no proof of that either. Especially when you have a primary investigator on a case in Lumpkin who was later proven to be a crook and a cretin.

They found what they believe to have been a hand made radio. It could have gotten there in any number of ways and none of them would have to have had something nefarious involved.

7. The bullet that was found. Again, assuming the Ladners are not bold faced liars, they found a bullet in the exact spot of the murder. On a 122 acre property, I'd have to say the likelihood of the bullet being in the exact spot where Norman was found that was fired for some legit purpose like hunting is pretty low. But if it is the bullet that killed Norman, then it would pretty well prove he was lying down when shot otherwise the bullet would have lodged in a tree or somewhere further from the spot and likely would not have been found. Again though, it is always possible they fabricated that as well but there is again no proof.

The bullet that they found could not be ruled out as having been fired from Norman's gun. The fact that they found a bullet near where he was killed, especially when you factor in the fact that he was hunting that day, is not really evidence of anything.

9. You pointed out how there was no known motive for murder or suspects. Yet you reject there being no known motive for suicide being an argument against it. You can't have it both ways, if it is not a legit argument against one it can't be the other either. So if we are being objective it shouldn't be used for either scenario.

I'm being reasonably objective when it comes to UM's presentation of murder/suicide segments. Because they will leave out legitimate reasons as to why this person could potentially commit suicide to make a more interesting television show. When they start to sway the viewers in the direction they want, in this case murder, and then have nothing with regards to any plausible living human being who would want this kid dead...then yeah, the motive for suicide becomes less meaningless. People, seemingly happy, kill themselves all the time. Their family will be blindsided. But murder? You'll need something more than a radio to convince me that there was someone who wanted Norman dead that day.

I doubt any of this will change your mind as I've observed you rarely do. That is not a pot shot or a criticism mind you, just an observation. :rolleyes:'

I have changed my mind multiple times over the years. I have said...repeatedly...that Norman's death could have been an accident.

But ask yourself this question say suicide was a crime, do you really think there is enough here to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he committed suicide? I don't. I cannot definitively say Norman was murdered, but I merely don't believe suicide was proven for the reasons I've stated. And have always felt the cause should have been at the very least turned to undetermined.

Based off of the 14 minute UM segment? No. Do I think they left plenty of details out of the segment that could clear a lot of this up? Absolutely 100%. For example, I'd love to know why a 17 year old kid had "fatty change of the liver", as noted in his autopsy. Did he have diabetes? Or was he drinking excessively? With more pieces of information (that UM left out), we would know for sure.

Telling of what? That she was overprotective?

That she sensed something was up that day.

But would it drive them to the point where they are going to fabricate evidence and try to get someone unjustly blamed for murder? If indeed Norman committed suicide, that is obviously not going to change what happened or bring their son back so is the motivation to go to that trouble to fabricate evidence or flat out lie going to be that powerful? Its always possible, but I am far from convinced it is probable.

Let me ask you this: did the State ballistics expert that they themselves took the bullet to give them the wrong bullet back on purpose or by mistake, and did the Ladner's ever bring that to his attention?

Very true. Given what we now know about Lumpkin, I would say the Ladners probably have more credibility than he does. And everything they produced as far as evidence to not deem it as significant at least to some degree you have to make them out to be pure liars.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that suicides are hard to accept. Most people get that without Lumpkin and other detractors of the Ladners never getting tired of pointing it out.

But would it drive them to the point where they are going to fabricate evidence and try to get someone unjustly blamed for murder? If indeed Norman committed suicide, that is obviously not going to change what happened or bring their son back so is the motivation to go to that trouble to fabricate evidence or flat out lie going to be that powerful? Its always possible, but I am far from convinced it is probable

I too understand how hard suicides are to accept and try my best to remain open minded regarding these types of cases, but ultimately I just can't help where I've arrived in the Ladner case. Which quite simply is this: I'll be happy to accept a suicide or accident ruling...just as soon as LE can produce the bullet that killed Ladner and forensically match it to a firearm that was on scene. Of course it would also help if LE could offer a CREDIBLE explanation to the "broken gun" conundrum. I'll admit again that I know next to nothing about firearms...I've never even had occasion to touch one. Is it possible that Ladner could have shot himself and then broken his rifle? Could he have shot himself with a rifle that had already been broken? Until these issues can be resolved to my satisfaction, I just can't consider suicide or accident as viable possibilities here.

There is going to be more blood spatter from the exit wound, but there's still going to be some from the entry wound as well. Norman's left hand was either steadying the weapon or trying to deflect it at the exact moment it was fired, or he bizarrely held his left hand up to the left side of his head as someone was pointing a gun at his right temple.



Norman's lying on the ground on his left side and he's able to raise his left hand but not his right? There was no blood spatter found on his right hand.



Well someone could have held the weapon up to his temple, but that really wouldn't explain the other forensic evidence found at the scene.



What are the odds that these guys see a 17 year old kill falling from a tree and their instinct is to instantly murder him? I'd say him falling out of the tree because of an accidental discharge would be much more likely.



If he shot himself in the tree, this could be how the gun broke.



They found what they believe to have been a hand made radio. It could have gotten there in any number of ways and none of them would have to have had something nefarious involved.



The bullet that they found could not be ruled out as having been fired from Norman's gun. The fact that they found a bullet near where he was killed, especially when you factor in the fact that he was hunting that day, is not really evidence of anything.



I'm being reasonably objective when it comes to UM's presentation of murder/suicide segments. Because they will leave out legitimate reasons as to why this person could potentially commit suicide to make a more interesting television show. When they start to sway the viewers in the direction they want, in this case murder, and then have nothing with regards to any plausible living human being who would want this kid dead...then yeah, the motive for suicide becomes less meaningless. People, seemingly happy, kill themselves all the time. Their family will be blindsided. But murder? You'll need something more than a radio to convince me that there was someone who wanted Norman dead that day.



I have changed my mind multiple times over the years. I have said...repeatedly...that Norman's death could have been an accident.



Based off of the 14 minute UM segment? No. Do I think they left plenty of details out of the segment that could clear a lot of this up? Absolutely 100%. For example, I'd love to know why a 17 year old kid had "fatty change of the liver", as noted in his autopsy. Did he have diabetes? Or was he drinking excessively? With more pieces of information (that UM left out), we would know for sure.



That she sensed something was up that day.



Let me ask you this: did the State ballistics expert that they themselves took the bullet to give them the wrong bullet back on purpose or by mistake, and did the Ladner's ever bring that to his attention?


I had to smile at this, because I think you actually helped make the case for murder without realizing it. You admitted blood splatter was more likely to come from an exit wound rather than an entrance wound. And blood being on Norman's left hand from the exit wound would have placed his left hand on the left side of his body, which would all but rule out suicide.

But again, we will just assume for the sake of argument it came from the entrance wound. You wondered why no splatter was on his right hand. If Norman was lying on the ground on his left side, and holding up both hands in self defense that would place his right shoulder in the air and his left shoulder on the ground. So naturally, his right hand would be higher up in the air and thus further away from the point of contact, so it actually would be very conceivable blood would be on his left hand rather than his right.

You also say that you can't imagine them murdering Norman right away if he fell out of the tree. Why not? If they felt he was a potential witness to a criminal operation netting substantial amounts of money I could definitely see it. But who said he was? Maybe they didn't murder him right away, maybe they threatened him first and tried to scare him off. Maybe he resisted just enough to where they panicked thinking he might be a strong witness and decided to kill him. Or Norman could have even tried to run someone off. Although he didn't sound like the aggressive type, remember this was on his family's land and he was carrying a weapon so he might have felt confident enough to try to run someone off he caught trespassing whether they were there for drugs or whatever purpose, but underestimated how dangerous they were and wound up murdered after they got the drop on him. Who knows? Maybe he got the wound on his head not from falling from the tree but from being thrown to the ground.

As for the radios, they didn't just assume that they were the type used for signaling aircraft for drug drops, they took them to a former narcotics agent familiar with such things who confirmed this. And why else would they be on the Ladners' property?

No one has ever came up with a logical reason he would bother to climb up in the tree to commit suicide either. And him being in the tree is also the basis for the accident theory.

As for the bullet, again you have to assume the Ladners are lying about a different bullet being given back to them than the one they said was bored to large for Norman's gun. And about the spot where it was found. The chances of it being in the exact spot where Norman was found are pretty slim even if hunting was done in the land. If Norman was shot in a standing position, clearly the bullet would not be in the ground under where his body was but likely lodged in a tree somewhere or in the ground a distance away from the body.

Furthermore, I think people sometimes have to much faith in coroners. They are often overworked, lethargic, or just plain corrupt. A second opinion from someone like Cyril Wecht was definitely warranted in this case.

I maintain with all of this, the case for suicide is extremely weak and this case should have at the very least been changed to an undetermined cause of death.

I had to smile at this, because I think you actually helped make the case for murder without realizing it. You admitted blood splatter was more likely to come from an exit wound rather than an entrance wound. And blood being on Norman's left hand from the exit wound would have placed his left hand on the left side of his body, which would all but rule out suicide.

No, it wouldn't rule out suicide because the blood splatter could have come from the entrance wound.

But again, we will just assume for the sake of argument it came from the entrance wound. You wondered why no splatter was on his right hand. If Norman was lying on the ground on his left side, and holding up both hands in self defense that would place his right shoulder in the air and his left shoulder on the ground. So naturally, his right hand would be higher up in the air and thus further away from the point of contact, so it actually would be very conceivable blood would be on his left hand rather than his right.

Who was pointing the gun at Norman in this scenario? Where was his gun? What was the motive for these people to murder Norman? Where was the evidence that showed there were other people present at the actual crime scene?

You also say that you can't imagine them murdering Norman right away if he fell out of the tree. Why not? If they felt he was a potential witness to a criminal operation netting substantial amounts of money I could definitely see it. But who said he was? Maybe they didn't murder him right away, maybe they threatened him first and tried to scare him off. Maybe he resisted just enough to where they panicked thinking he might be a strong witness and decided to kill him. Or Norman could have even tried to run someone off. Although he didn't sound like the aggressive type, remember this was on his family's land and he was carrying a weapon so he might have felt confident enough to try to run someone off he caught trespassing whether they were there for drugs or whatever purpose, but underestimated how dangerous they were and wound up murdered after they got the drop on him. Who knows? Maybe he got the wound on his head not from falling from the tree but from being thrown to the ground.

So these nefarious folks were wandering around on Norman's property presumably up to no good, Norman finds them, and they want to kill him because he's a potential witness. We're assuming, because of the radios, that they are there for a "drug drop". So Norman stumbles on to them whilel they are waiting for this drug drop, they kill him, and then continue to wait around for said drugs? Does this make any sense at all?

As for the radios, they didn't just assume that they were the type used for signaling aircraft for drug drops, they took them to a former narcotics agent familiar with such things who confirmed this. And why else would they be on the Ladners' property?

Why didn't the residents of Pearl River ever report seeing low flying aircraft in the area?

No one has ever came up with a logical reason he would bother to climb up in the tree to commit suicide either. And him being in the tree is also the basis for the accident theory.

He was hunting. Him being in the tree was logical.

As for the bullet, again you have to assume the Ladners are lying about a different bullet being given back to them than the one they said was bored to large for Norman's gun. And about the spot where it was found. The chances of it being in the exact spot where Norman was found are pretty slim even if hunting was done in the land. If Norman was shot in a standing position, clearly the bullet would not be in the ground under where his body was but likely lodged in a tree somewhere or in the ground a distance away from the body.

Either they are lying or the ballistics expert that they themselves sought out is lying.

Furthermore, I think people sometimes have to much faith in coroners. They are often overworked, lethargic, or just plain corrupt. A second opinion from someone like Cyril Wecht was definitely warranted in this case.


Conversely, I think people put too much faith in loved ones who insist that their family members or friends would "never" commit suicide.

https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?institutionId=0&user=0&id=278179601&clippingId=31689252&width=557&height=935&crop=1421_470_591_1011&rotation=0

Had no idea he was Mormon or had that many siblings. I also think his family farm was off of this (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eugene+E+Ladner+Rd,+Mississippi+39573/@30.5834742,-89.4617561,2568m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x889db43797136d29:0xfec5997e64f39073!8m2!3d30.5832348!4d-89.4554667!16s%2Fg%2F1tfntsvn) road. I found his brothers on Facebook...it's really weird to see what Norman would have looked like grown up.

Sure they could. But the fact is, once the credibility of the primary investigating officer who was the biggest cheerleader for the suicide theory is sullied which it clearly is with Lumpkin, the arguments for suicide in this case become extremely weak at best, and his always were dubious anyway even before he was exposed as a crook.

I mean when you have a death by gunshot, I would think the minimum bar for proving a suicide would be to at least prove the bullet came from the victim's own weapon, which Lumpkin never did. Couple that with the fact no firm motive for suicide was ever established, if you don't at least question this you simply aren't being honest.

I've said many times, this would have been a great case for Dr Cyril Wecht who was featured in later seasons of the show to take a look at. I'm betting he would have destroyed the suicide and accident theories both. Unfortunately he is in his 90's now and likely long retired. But someone should definitely take another look at this case regardless of the time that has passed. The more you look at it objectively, the less suicide or accident either one makes sense.


Cyril Wecht has been a regular on and off since the beginning...I believe his first appearance was the Kurt Sova case in season one...I remember him using some cheesy Sherlock Holmes quote lol.

edit nvm

This case has fascinated me for years. I think in part, because it seems like it could be solved if any amount of effort was put into investigating. I have to laugh a little watching the segment, when they reenact the scene when Norman is found and it’s the middle of the night ! I surely hope, that isn’t how they processed the scene in the dark. It seems like and I also hope that at some point there is some sort of update . It feels like there should be a way to know rule out suicide if that isn’t what happened through the study of the weapon and ballistics etc. but I’ve never seen any sort of update or even read that there is a push for further investigation. Really sad.

Norman's death seemed like a hit to me. Like someone paid attention to his habits and caught him at his most vulnerable state and killed him.

I think I remember something about that dad being cornered by someone and asked to allow them to drop off drugs on his property and he refused. This could have been retaliation for refusing.

Norman was murdered the evidence is clear as day.

If this was drug related, I can't help but wonder....why? Unless it had something to do with Norman being an user himself (not terribly likely, but not out of the question either) and he was killed over a debt he owed. But, if it had to do with something he witnessed, why would drug runners kill a kid? In that scenario, they are using the land as a drop off/pickup spot. If they murder someone on that property, especially a kid, and especially a kid who lived on said property, would that not screw up their operation? Unless Norman was right there next to them and got a clear look at everybody involved, any testimony he could have given would be vague at best. He would have most likely seen them from a distance. His descriptions (from a distance) wouldn't be the best. But let's just say that he did get close enough to give a good description. He has no real proof. There sure weren't smartphones in 1989 and even still, he had no camera or anything to get actual proof of what they were doing.

But to circle back, why kill a kid and pretty much end their operation and bring a ton of heat on themselves? If Norman got right up on them and saw all kinds of activity, they would have either put a Benjamin Franklin (or two or three) in his hand, ask him what he saw and let him know that they know where to find him and how to get to him if he feels compelled to talk, or, just skipped the bribe and let him know that he best be cool. But, it seems like someone (on the drug smuggling side) would have acted as a lookout and given a signal if they saw or heard someone approaching. Plus, how much could Norman have really witnessed? The drugs would have been packaged, so it's not like Norman would have put eyes on actual cocaine or heroin. From his vantage point, all he could have seen was packages. He could speculate, sure, but at the end of the day, if Norman decided to take the "if you see something, say something" route and report it, it would really just be his word vs theirs.

Normans wallet was found off a high way with all the money gone from it. just his id in it.

If this was drug related, I can't help but wonder....why? Unless it had something to do with Norman being an user himself (not terribly likely, but not out of the question either) and he was killed over a debt he owed. But, if it had to do with something he witnessed, why would drug runners kill a kid? In that scenario, they are using the land as a drop off/pickup spot. If they murder someone on that property, especially a kid, and especially a kid who lived on said property, would that not screw up their operation? Unless Norman was right there next to them and got a clear look at everybody involved, any testimony he could have given would be vague at best. He would have most likely seen them from a distance. His descriptions (from a distance) wouldn't be the best. But let's just say that he did get close enough to give a good description. He has no real proof. There sure weren't smartphones in 1989 and even still, he had no camera or anything to get actual proof of what they were doing.

But to circle back, why kill a kid and pretty much end their operation and bring a ton of heat on themselves? If Norman got right up on them and saw all kinds of activity, they would have either put a Benjamin Franklin (or two or three) in his hand, ask him what he saw and let him know that they know where to find him and how to get to him if he feels compelled to talk, or, just skipped the bribe and let him know that he best be cool. But, it seems like someone (on the drug smuggling side) would have acted as a lookout and given a signal if they saw or heard someone approaching. Plus, how much could Norman have really witnessed? The drugs would have been packaged, so it's not like Norman would have put eyes on actual cocaine or heroin. From his vantage point, all he could have seen was packages. He could speculate, sure, but at the end of the day, if Norman decided to take the "if you see something, say something" route and report it, it would really just be his word vs theirs.

You're definitely not wrong here IMO baloony, and these are all legitimate points that deserve every consideration. In fact, these are some of the very reasons why I've always disliked the "interrupted drug deal" theory not just in the Ladner case, but in many of the cases UM tried it out on.
That said however, I also believe that your reasoning is logical and sound...two attributes that can't always be found in criminal behavior. Unfortunately, I find myself with the same problems I've had all along in this case. I can't say for sure that Ladner was murdered, I'm still unwilling to get onboard with the suicide finding (for all the reasons stated in my previous posts), and the accident theory seems unlikely to me for reasons all it's own. At the end of the day, the Ladner case is still one of the most frustrating ever featured IMO.

If this was drug related, I can't help but wonder....why? Unless it had something to do with Norman being an user himself (not terribly likely, but not out of the question either) and he was killed over a debt he owed. But, if it had to do with something he witnessed, why would drug runners kill a kid? In that scenario, they are using the land as a drop off/pickup spot. If they murder someone on that property, especially a kid, and especially a kid who lived on said property, would that not screw up their operation? Unless Norman was right there next to them and got a clear look at everybody involved, any testimony he could have given would be vague at best. He would have most likely seen them from a distance. His descriptions (from a distance) wouldn't be the best. But let's just say that he did get close enough to give a good description. He has no real proof. There sure weren't smartphones in 1989 and even still, he had no camera or anything to get actual proof of what they were doing.

But to circle back, why kill a kid and pretty much end their operation and bring a ton of heat on themselves? If Norman got right up on them and saw all kinds of activity, they would have either put a Benjamin Franklin (or two or three) in his hand, ask him what he saw and let him know that they know where to find him and how to get to him if he feels compelled to talk, or, just skipped the bribe and let him know that he best be cool. But, it seems like someone (on the drug smuggling side) would have acted as a lookout and given a signal if they saw or heard someone approaching. Plus, how much could Norman have really witnessed? The drugs would have been packaged, so it's not like Norman would have put eyes on actual cocaine or heroin. From his vantage point, all he could have seen was packages. He could speculate, sure, but at the end of the day, if Norman decided to take the "if you see something, say something" route and report it, it would really just be his word vs theirs.

The drug angle is conspiracy theory nonsense, IMO. No well ran criminal organization is going to use someone else's property for their alleged drug drop location. And, as you have said, why murder the kid? That opens the door for more scrutiny to be placed on the area. But the conspiracy theorists have another reason as to why: law enforcement (including the State's ballistics expert that the Ladner's brought the shell casing to) are in on the coverup of the murder because they get a cut from this random drug gang that drops drugs on rural property owner's without their knowledge or evidence for years.

If this was drug related, I can't help but wonder....why? Unless it had something to do with Norman being an user himself (not terribly likely, but not out of the question either) and he was killed over a debt he owed. But, if it had to do with something he witnessed, why would drug runners kill a kid? In that scenario, they are using the land as a drop off/pickup spot. If they murder someone on that property, especially a kid, and especially a kid who lived on said property, would that not screw up their operation? Unless Norman was right there next to them and got a clear look at everybody involved, any testimony he could have given would be vague at best. He would have most likely seen them from a distance. His descriptions (from a distance) wouldn't be the best. But let's just say that he did get close enough to give a good description. He has no real proof. There sure weren't smartphones in 1989 and even still, he had no camera or anything to get actual proof of what they were doing.

But to circle back, why kill a kid and pretty much end their operation and bring a ton of heat on themselves? If Norman got right up on them and saw all kinds of activity, they would have either put a Benjamin Franklin (or two or three) in his hand, ask him what he saw and let him know that they know where to find him and how to get to him if he feels compelled to talk, or, just skipped the bribe and let him know that he best be cool. But, it seems like someone (on the drug smuggling side) would have acted as a lookout and given a signal if they saw or heard someone approaching. Plus, how much could Norman have really witnessed? The drugs would have been packaged, so it's not like Norman would have put eyes on actual cocaine or heroin. From his vantage point, all he could have seen was packages. He could speculate, sure, but at the end of the day, if Norman decided to take the "if you see something, say something" route and report it, it would really just be his word vs theirs.

These are fair points. Personally I never pushed the drug theory that much, because I honestly feel if you believe Norman was murdered, the motive is sheer speculation. My contention is that I think murder was most likely simply because the arguments for suicide and accident are simply to weak. At least the ones I've read. And fundamentally all deaths are supposed to be treated as homicide until proven otherwise, and in this case I don't think either scenario was even close to proven nor was that philosophy observed.

While I think your points are sound I think they really only apply to a limited number of scenarios for the drug angle. The truth is we simply don't know who Norman might have encountered out there and what he may have seen.

But in general, Norman was on his family's property. I think that is significant in that while he did not sound like the aggressive type he would have been more likely to be protective of it and more likely to challenge anyone he found on there, especially being armed himself. So I think its entirely possible he may have more likely to push the issue with anyone he found out there doing anything nefarious and they might have been forced to kill him when they otherwise might not have bothered. And that Norman might have simply encountered a situation out there he underestimated the danger of. We simply don't know.

The main reasons I believe this was murder:

1. The bullet that killed him was never recovered and Lumpkin could not even prove the bullet came from his own gun, which I think its the least you can ask for when it comes to proof of an accident or suicide.

2. The Ladners found a bullet at the spot of his death, and it was bored to large for his rifle. The odds of it being in that exact spot and not being the bullet that killed him are slim regardless of what Lumpkin said. And then they said when they gave it to the coroner he gave them back a different one indicating deception. Unless you believe the Ladners are flat out lying about that. Which is possible, but given what we have learned about Lumpkin I'd say they probably have more credibility than he does.

3. The gun was broken at the scene, how was never explained. It could not have killed Norman in that condition. So it had to have been broken after the shooting. Yes it could have been broken falling out of the tree, but then you have to go back to the accident theory which we know Norman was experienced with firearms. I can't picture how that could have happened frankly.

4. I could buy that if Norman were going to commit suicide he'd go back into a place he felt comfortable. But it makes little sense to me he would bother climb up into the tree stand for any reason other than hunting. Unless he wanted his parents and others to believe it was an accident which seems far fetched.

5. No firm motive for suicide was ever established.

6. Everyone you talk to from that area says Lumpkin was crooked as a three dollar bill, and given some of what happened later its pretty easy to believe.

7. The radios found on their land if they did not belong to the Ladners what were they doing there? Remember that they did not just assume these were the kind of things used for signaling aircraft for drug drops, they took it to a former narcotics agent who confirmed this. So if these radios did not belong to the Ladners it obviously means someone else was on their land doing something. No there is no proof this had any connection to Norman's death but it should at least raise doubts in the mind of any reasonable person.

To be sure, none of these things prove murder. I acknowledge that. But when you combine all of them together I simply don't think they pass the smell test for suicide or accident. And if you are going to dismiss the radios and the bullet found by the Ladners, you have to make them out to be bold faced liars which I at this point am not willing to do.

These are fair points. Personally I never pushed the drug theory that much, because I honestly feel if you believe Norman was murdered, the motive is sheer speculation. My contention is that I think murder was most likely simply because the arguments for suicide and accident are simply to weak. At least the ones I've read. And fundamentally all deaths are supposed to be treated as homicide until proven otherwise, and in this case I don't think either scenario was even close to proven nor was that philosophy observed.

While I think your points are sound I think they really only apply to a limited number of scenarios for the drug angle. The truth is we simply don't know who Norman might have encountered out there and what he may have seen.

But in general, Norman was on his family's property. I think that is significant in that while he did not sound like the aggressive type he would have been more likely to be protective of it and more likely to challenge anyone he found on there, especially being armed himself. So I think its entirely possible he may have more likely to push the issue with anyone he found out there doing anything nefarious and they might have been forced to kill him when they otherwise might not have bothered. And that Norman might have simply encountered a situation out there he underestimated the danger of. We simply don't know.

The main reasons I believe this was murder:

1. The bullet that killed him was never recovered and Lumpkin could not even prove the bullet came from his own gun, which I think its the least you can ask for when it comes to proof of an accident or suicide.

2. The Ladners found a bullet at the spot of his death, and it was bored to large for his rifle. The odds of it being in that exact spot and not being the bullet that killed him are slim regardless of what Lumpkin said. And then they said when they gave it to the coroner he gave them back a different one indicating deception. Unless you believe the Ladners are flat out lying about that. Which is possible, but given what we have learned about Lumpkin I'd say they probably have more credibility than he does.

3. The gun was broken at the scene, how was never explained. It could not have killed Norman in that condition. So it had to have been broken after the shooting. Yes it could have been broken falling out of the tree, but then you have to go back to the accident theory which we know Norman was experienced with firearms. I can't picture how that could have happened frankly.

4. I could buy that if Norman were going to commit suicide he'd go back into a place he felt comfortable. But it makes little sense to me he would bother climb up into the tree stand for any reason other than hunting. Unless he wanted his parents and others to believe it was an accident which seems far fetched.

5. No firm motive for suicide was ever established.

6. Everyone you talk to from that area says Lumpkin was crooked as a three dollar bill, and given some of what happened later its pretty easy to believe.

7. The radios found on their land if they did not belong to the Ladners what were they doing there? Remember that they did not just assume these were the kind of things used for signaling aircraft for drug drops, they took it to a former narcotics agent who confirmed this. So if these radios did not belong to the Ladners it obviously means someone else was on their land doing something. No there is no proof this had any connection to Norman's death but it should at least raise doubts in the mind of any reasonable person.

To be sure, none of these things prove murder. I acknowledge that. But when you combine all of them together I simply don't think they pass the smell test for suicide or accident. And if you are going to dismiss the radios and the bullet found by the Ladners, you have to make them out to be bold faced liars which I at this point am not willing to do.

You know XC, your post has actually brought another possibility to mind that I'm surprised I haven't considered before now. Years ago Law & Order did an episode about some hunters who ran afoul of a poacher. The encounter sadly escalated to murder. Now I realize that this is simply a fictional program made for entertainment, but is it possible that something similar may have occurred in the Ladner case? Could Ladner have run into a fellow hunter who wasn't supposed to be there, resulting in some sort of confrontation? Or for that matter, is it possible that Ladner's death was the result of a tragic accident involving a shot fired by a fellow hunter? Admittedly, I have zero hunting experience, so I can understand if my ideas are patently absurd, lol. I would argue however that they're no more absurd than a teenager who either took his own life with a "broken" rifle, or took his own life and THEN broke his rifle.

You know XC, your post has actually brought another possibility to mind that I'm surprised I haven't considered before now. Years ago Law & Order did an episode about some hunters who ran afoul of a poacher. The encounter sadly escalated to murder. Now I realize that this is simply a fictional program made for entertainment, but is it possible that something similar may have occurred in the Ladner case? Could Ladner have run into a fellow hunter who wasn't supposed to be there, resulting in some sort of confrontation? Or for that matter, is it possible that Ladner's death was the result of a tragic accident involving a shot fired by a fellow hunter? Admittedly, I have zero hunting experience, so I can understand if my ideas are patently absurd, lol. I would argue however that they're no more absurd than a teenager who either took his own life with a "broken" rifle, or took his own life and THEN broke his rifle.

Norman getting shot accidentally or deliberately by another hunter is definitely an interesting theory and probably makes more sense than suicide or an accident with his own weapon. I hadn't thought of that myself but it definitely merits discussion.

The only problem I see with it is if you believe the Ladners, they found the bullet in the ground under where he was lying which they contended meant that he was in a prone position when shot meaning from above, so that would make this theory unlikely. But again, we don't know for certain the exact spot it was in. If the bullet was found right underneath where Norman's body was laid out, that's to big a coincidence for me I think it almost had to be the bullet that killed him. And at that point it is a matter again if you believe the Ladners or don't.

I think you and I both agree though, Lumpkin at best ran a shoddy investigation and at worse a crooked one. And he simply did not prove suicide or accident in the eyes of any reasonable person. You got to at the very least prove his own gun killed him, if you can't do that the cause of death has to be changed to undetermined at the very least. Period.

^^^^And you've just touched on one more point of frustration for me in this case XC. We're in complete agreement regarding Lumpkin. Whether he's downright corrupt or simply lazy and incompetent I can't say for sure, but sadly the end result remains the same IMO...the lack of any meaningful investigation into Ladner's death. Further complicating matters IMO is that while I absolutely do not doubt the Ladners' credibility, I DO wonder about their perceptions and recollections. Speaking from personal experience, I know that trauma and grief can have an impact on both.
For example, when Mrs. Ladner is describing the creepy stranger who essentially warned her away from looking into her son's death, I find myself wondering if her interpretation was correct, or it was simply of a case of someone meaning well but saying all the wrong things. When the Ladners discuss the mystery bullet, I can't help but wonder if they truly found the bullet that killed their son, or if said bullet was actually unrelated but took on a chilling significance as a result of the circumstances they were in at the time. Unfortunately the waters are only further muddied IMO by UM's creative editing practices.

^^^^And you've just touched on one more point of frustration for me in this case XC. We're in complete agreement regarding Lumpkin. Whether he's downright corrupt or simply lazy and incompetent I can't say for sure, but sadly the end result remains the same IMO...the lack of any meaningful investigation into Ladner's death. Further complicating matters IMO is that while I absolutely do not doubt the Ladners' credibility, I DO wonder about their perceptions and recollections. Speaking from personal experience, I know that trauma and grief can have an impact on both.
For example, when Mrs. Ladner is describing the creepy stranger who essentially warned her away from looking into her son's death, I find myself wondering if her interpretation was correct, or it was simply of a case of someone meaning well but saying all the wrong things. When the Ladners discuss the mystery bullet, I can't help but wonder if they truly found the bullet that killed their son, or if said bullet was actually unrelated but took on a chilling significance as a result of the circumstances they were in at the time. Unfortunately the waters are only further muddied IMO by UM's creative editing practices.

Again, this still comes down to whether or not you believe the Ladners, either they found the bullet in the spot where Norman died, or they didn't. And even Lumpkin acknowledged that the bullet existed. Grief can have bad effects on people, but to the point where they are fabricating evidence and outright lying just to try to blame somebody? Yes its possible but even grief should not drive any honest person to that point. So this still comes down to their integrity. Either you believe it or you don't.

But for the sake of argument, IF they found the bullet in the spot where Norman died then I think that's to big a coincidence. What are the odds it would be in the same spot? Especially when there was no bullet found in the initial investigation.

As for the stranger at the coroner's office, same thing. You either believe her or you don't. I don't see how she could misinterpret that. Either she is outright lying about the encounter or what was said, or it happened just this way.

But say again for the sake of argument, the encounter happened. No random person who was just a concerned citizen would walk up to a mother and tell her that. That makes zero sense and just would not happen. If this did happen, then this guy was somehow connected to the case or at least had some kind of inside knowledge of what happened to Norman. So at the very least this guy may have had enough decency to try and warn the Ladners away from an investigation that might put the rest of the family in danger, but still basically a piece of **** and a coward trying to warn someone away from seeking justice for their child. And worst, he was involved in his death somehow.

But if it did happen, whoever he was the sickening truth is the stranger was right. If indeed Norman was murdered his killer to date has never been found and law enforcement won't even acknowledge the murder happened. By making a dubious at best case for suicide and closing the matter.

I honestly can't understand why so many normally reasonable people on here are convinced this was suicide when you can't even prove the victim was killed by his own weapon. The whole thing is pretty disgusting honestly.

Norman was killed.

I stumbled upon a reddit on him and decided to go watch the case over again.

I believe Norman stumbled across something he wasn't supposed to see.

He was hit over the head and knocked unconscious and shot in the head.

I don't think this is a case of the parents being in denial.

The strange radio-like device is very telling.

The wallet being found elsewhere is very telling.

The sheriff in that town had a history of being corrupt as well.

I honestly can't understand why so many normally reasonable people on here are convinced this was suicide when you can't even prove the victim was killed by his own weapon. The whole thing is pretty disgusting honestly.


This sometimes happens when people who have no understanding of firearms (calibers, what a gun is designed to do, etc ) come up with theories when a gun is involved. Norman's father said the bullet casing they found was the wrong caliber for Norman's gun. It could not have been fired from Norman's gun. End of story.

Also, some have suggested it is common for firearms to break. Guns are designed to handle explosions (literally-- a bullet discharge is an explosion). A simple drop will not break a rifle. I am curious about the size of an exit wound. That would go a long way to determine what caliber was used to shoot Norman. I haven't watched the segment recently, but I think Norman was carrying a .22-- enough to kill a person for sure, but it's a caliber suited for small game. Agree wholeheartedly this whole case reeks of foul play.

Watched the original Stack segment recently and in the first two minutes, Norman's father is describing the property where Norman's body was found, and he says, "Norman knew our property very well. It's fenced in on all four sides." I am not saying that having a fenced in property means that it is 100% secure, but it sure would not be an ideal place for someone to have drugs dropped. The property was large, but what would have happened if Norman and a bunch of friends were out there hunting that day?

Watched the original Stack segment recently and in the first two minutes, Norman's father is describing the property where Norman's body was found, and he says, "Norman knew our property very well. It's fenced in on all four sides." I am not saying that having a fenced in property means that it is 100% secure, but it sure would not be an ideal place for someone to have drugs dropped. The property was large, but what would have happened if Norman and a bunch of friends were out there hunting that day?

Anyone could have cut a hole in the fence. My father had 3 acres of fenced in land and we found beer bottles and fires all the time where people were trespassing. We always suspected some kids were out there drinking in the late hours of the night.

Anyone could have cut a hole in the fence. My father had 3 acres of fenced in land and we found beer bottles and fires all the time where people were trespassing. We always suspected some kids were out there drinking in the late hours of the night.

The parents would have pointed this out as further evidence that Norman was murdered by trespassers on their property.

I missed this segment, but the dissection is fascinating.

I think that there definitely are cases where loved ones refuse to accept a suicide. That said, if the sheriff is corrupt, if there's a broken rifle, if Norman shot himself in a tree by accident or intent (I've never heard of such a thing), and if they can't find the original bullet, that raises reasonable doubt on the verdict of suicide. Not to mention that I don't know firearms well enough to state what is or is not possible, but I do know one thing:

Hunters respect their guns like musicians respect their instruments. I doubt Norman, even at seventeen, kept the rifle in shoddy condition so that it broke. Whoever wrote that has no understanding of hunters or the hunting mindset. Guns just do not break randomly because they are designed to withstand explosions.

The fatty liver angle is interesting. I'm no doctor, but i looked this of and there is NAFLD--nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Causes of fatty liver:

obesity
type 2 diabetes
insulin resistance
high levels of fat, especially triglycerides, in the blood
metabolic syndrome

Other potential causes of fatty liver include:

pregnancy
side effects from some types of medications
some types of infections, such as hepatitis C

But honestly, if the autopsy was as shoddy as the rest of the police work, is the fatty liver even real? Or could it be one MEs opinion? Doctors can give you all kinds of conflicting medical information as anyone who has ever had a loved one in a hospital knows. YEs make mistakes too.
certain rare genetic conditions

I missed this segment, but the dissection is fascinating.

I think that there definitely are cases where loved ones refuse to accept a suicide. That said, if the sheriff is corrupt, if there's a broken rifle, if Norman shot himself in a tree by accident or intent (I've never heard of such a thing), and if they can't find the original bullet, that raises reasonable doubt on the verdict of suicide. Not to mention that I don't know firearms well enough to state what is or is not possible, but I do know one thing:

Hunters respect their guns like musicians respect their instruments. I doubt Norman, even at seventeen, kept the rifle in shoddy condition so that it broke. Whoever wrote that has no understanding of hunters or the hunting mindset. Guns just do not break randomly because they are designed to withstand explosions.

The fatty liver angle is interesting. I'm no doctor, but i looked this of and there is NAFLD--nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Causes of fatty liver:

obesity
type 2 diabetes
insulin resistance
high levels of fat, especially triglycerides, in the blood
metabolic syndrome

Other potential causes of fatty liver include:

pregnancy
side effects from some types of medications
some types of infections, such as hepatitis C

But honestly, if the autopsy was as shoddy as the rest of the police work, is the fatty liver even real? Or could it be one MEs opinion? Doctors can give you all kinds of conflicting medical information as anyone who has ever had a loved one in a hospital knows. YEs make mistakes too.
certain rare genetic conditions

I honestly don't even know what the fatty liver has to do with anything even if it was real, unless people are trying to develop this is a motive for suicide saying he was a teenage alcoholic or something. it is somewhat disturbing how it has become sexy sometimes to take a crap on the victim in anyway you can because some people are reluctant to accept murder as a possibility. I've never truly understood that.

But in this instance fatty liver wouldn't prove suicide even if it was true.

For me, I've always found it telling that the Ladners were initially willing to accept Norman's death as an accident. It was only after it was ruled a suicide that they began to contest the investigative findings. That's the grain of salt with which I take this segment's presentation.

The Ladners are utterly sympathetic people and Norman's death is a deep tragedy no matter how you slice it. But I don't think it's disingenuous to subscribe to that conclusion and to also be skeptical about any shade of a murder theory for the numerous well-considered reasons outlined in this thread by multiple posters.

For me, I've always found it telling that the Ladners were initially willing to accept Norman's death as an accident. It was only after it was ruled a suicide that they began to contest the investigative findings. That's the grain of salt with which I take this segment's presentation.

The Ladners are utterly sympathetic people and Norman's death is a deep tragedy no matter how you slice it. But I don't think it's disingenuous to subscribe to that conclusion and to also be skeptical about any shade of a murder theory for the numerous well-considered reasons outlined in this thread by multiple posters.

I'm not sure how 'telling' that is. I honestly believe that most people have an inherent desire to trust law enforcement and authority and often it is their first instinct to do so, especially in a society like ours. of course nowadays I think trust for our institutions is at an all time low, but back then it was a little different. Most of our movies, TV shows, stories, and society generally glorified law enforcement then, and to some degree still do. of course there were exceptions but in general most people do want to trust those in authority.

So for the Ladners to initially trust the ruling then change their mind after thinking things over is not in my mind that hard to believe. Whose to say they wouldn't have even if it hadn't been changed to suicide?

As Captain Obvious Lumpkin never got tired of pointing out, yes suicides are hard to accept. Anyone knows that. But is it going to drive people to the point where they are fabricating evidence to try and keep cases going? That is very debatable.

I just don't care for the way they were treated and the threats against them either. I cannot say definitively it was murder, but I merely don't believe suicide was proven.

I just don't care for the way they were treated and the threats against them either. I cannot say definitively it was murder, but I merely don't believe suicide was proven.

That's fair. In light of what we know, I tend to agree.

Cyril Wecht has been a regular on and off since the beginning...I believe his first appearance was the Kurt Sova case in season one...I remember him using some cheesy Sherlock Holmes quote lol.

That was not Cyril Wecht.

All of the discussion going on over the broken gun...wasn't it explained in the episode?

The father says "if you notice...its been broken and repaired before" when he and the sheriff are talking about it.

It was likely a bubba'd gun that was in a fragile state...it could have gotten broken again from a small drop to the ground from a few feet up.

That was not Cyril Wecht.


Yes it absolutely was.

All of the discussion going on over the broken gun...wasn't it explained in the episode?

The father says "if you notice...its been broken and repaired before" when he and the sheriff are talking about it.

It was likely a bubba'd gun that was in a fragile state...it could have gotten broken again from a small drop to the ground from a few feet up.

In all of the times I've watched this segment I have never noticed that exchange. That is an excellent point about the gun. A suicide is more probable if the gun was in a condition where it would be broken even if dropped from a short distance.

The main reasons I believe this was murder:


3. The gun was broken at the scene, how was never explained. It could not have killed Norman in that condition. So it had to have been broken after the shooting. Yes it could have been broken falling out of the tree, but then you have to go back to the accident theory which we know Norman was experienced with firearms. I can't picture how that could have happened frankly.


7. The radios found on their land if they did not belong to the Ladners what were they doing there? Remember that they did not just assume these were the kind of things used for signaling aircraft for drug drops, they took it to a former narcotics agent who confirmed this. So if these radios did not belong to the Ladners it obviously means someone else was on their land doing something. No there is no proof this had any connection to Norman's death but it should at least raise doubts in the mind of any reasonable person.




The broken gun was basically explained. The father said it had been previously broken and repaired. It was a crappy, "bubba'd" gun in an already delicate state. It could have easily been broken again from a small drop.

The radio proves nothing...if you walk through ANY stretch of acreage you'll find all kinds of random stuff. The ex narcotics officer didn't "confirm" anything....he said it MIGHT have been similar to something used in drug drops. It could also just very well be some hillbillies homemade radio, etc.

Yes it absolutely was.

The guy in the Kurt Sova segment who quoted Sherlock Holmes? That was Lester Adelson, the deputy coroner.

From unsolved.com:

However, Chief Deputy Coroner Dr. Lester Adelson couldn’t determine the exact cause of death:

“The manner of death in this particular case was signed out as probably accidental. He hadn’t been beaten in any way. He hadn’t been traumatized in any way. He didn’t have enough alcohol to end his life. He had no pre-existing natural disease. And as Sherlock Holmes said, ‘You eliminate all other possibilities and that which remains is the truth.’ This was a diagnosis by exclusion.”

The broken gun was basically explained. The father said it had been previously broken and repaired. It was a crappy, "bubba'd" gun in an already delicate state. It could have easily been broken again from a small drop.

The radio proves nothing...if you walk through ANY stretch of acreage you'll find all kinds of random stuff. The ex narcotics officer didn't "confirm" anything....he said it MIGHT have been similar to something used in drug drops. It could also just very well be some hillbillies homemade radio, etc.

I doubt this. No one experienced with firearms as Norman and his dad apparently were fools around with a half rear end repaired rifle if you are experienced with firearms that's much to dangerous. At least one repaired poorly enough to where its going to break just by hitting the ground from a four foot drop onto dirt. And no gun repair expert will repair one that poorly either you are risking getting sued out the wazoo if someone gets hurt. Unless they did some kind of makeshift unprofessional job on it which again is dubious for someone experienced with firearms.

And if you think Norman fell from a tree stand, I still can't think of a valid reason he'd climb up into a tree stand just to commit suicide either. Makes zero sense.

As for the radios, again never heard anyone come up with any logical explanation why someone would be on the Ladners land which was private property with radios. I'm not saying it proves murder, but its not something that can be legitimately dismissed either.

The guy in the Kurt Sova segment who quoted Sherlock Holmes? That was Lester Adelson, the deputy coroner.

From unsolved.com:

Yep you're right I just rewatched it for first time in years....was there another young guy that died in a strange manner where he was on the segment that I was thinking of maybe?

Yep you're right I just rewatched it for first time in years....was there another young guy that died in a strange manner where he was on the segment that I was thinking of maybe?

Jack Davis Jr. perhaps? He was also found dead after being last seen at a party.

I doubt this. No one experienced with firearms as Norman and his dad apparently were fools around with a half rear end repaired rifle if you are experienced with firearms that's much to dangerous. At least one repaired poorly enough to where its going to break just by hitting the ground from a four foot drop onto dirt. And no gun repair expert will repair one that poorly either you are risking getting sued out the wazoo if someone gets hurt. Unless they did some kind of makeshift unprofessional job on it which again is dubious for someone experienced with firearms.

And if you think Norman fell from a tree stand, I still can't think of a valid reason he'd climb up into a tree stand just to commit suicide either. Makes zero sense.

As for the radios, again never heard anyone come up with any logical explanation why someone would be on the Ladners land which was private property with radios. I'm not saying it proves murder, but its not something that can be legitimately dismissed either.


Just because theyre around guns or have a lot of them does not make them experts imo. People in those areas are famous for shoddy/bubba work and quick fixing. Lawsuits? Come on lol.

Either way, the broken gun was mentioned for a reason...otherwise why bother? It tells us that the gun was not in new/excellent condition and quite possibly not structurally sound.

You have to explain Norman's wallet showing up elsewhere if it's a suicide

You have to explain Norman's wallet showing up elsewhere if it's a suicide

Need a credible source saying that his wallet was found somewhere other than his house or the scene of his death.

Need a credible source saying that his wallet was found somewhere other than his house or the scene of his death.

I'm curious what the source is for this too. I've never heard the wallet thing mentioned outside of this thread.

I'm curious what the source is for this too. I've never heard the wallet thing mentioned outside of this thread.

Only thing I find via google is a reddit post that says his ID was found in a pawn shop in NY

Only thing I find via google is a reddit post that says his ID was found in a pawn shop in NY

Was it this reddit post? (https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueCrimeDiscussion/comments/1hiv26g/my_towns_biggest_mystery/) Because when asked about it further down the thread, the OP said this:

The id find I found out was a statement made by someone but after doing more research its seems to be most likely a rumor that mixed in with a strange case and was seen as believable. There has never been proof that it’s true and i added that out of ignorance.

The wallet thing has never been mentioned in an article or in the UM segment...and if his wallet did in fact turn up out of state, UM almost certainly would have brought that up as more evidence of foul play.

The wallet thing has never been mentioned in an article or in the UM segment...and if his wallet did in fact turn up out of state, UM almost certainly would have brought that up as more evidence of foul play.

Agreed. Even if it was a more recent development that FilmRise just hasn't got around to adding into the segment yet, you'd certainly think a Google search would yield more than one Reddit thread where the person who made the claim admitted it was just a rumour they heard.