My 90 degrees comment was based on my understanding that the bullet took an approximately 90 degree turn after hitting Charlie.
If it came from the front, and then went down into his body, that’s about a 90 degree change in trajectory.
It could be there’s something I’m missing.
Also: if the bullet was in fact fired from a 30.06, from the front, at a distance of less than 150 yards, the probability that it would enter the neck, then hit a large bone and stay in Charlie’s body is very small. You can say it could happen, and you are right. But all extremely rare events are, technically, possibilities.
My conclusion is that the reported behavior of the bullet is just another strange and unusual event. There are multiple unusual or unexpected events surrounding this case. Statistical analysis can be applied to determine likelihood of something being real vs fabricated. The proper method to apply statistics in a case like this is to estimate the probability of each event being true (such as the bullet trajectory, the explanations given for the behaviors of people on the scene and following the shooting, the explanations given for the post facto statements of involved individuals, etc.) and then to multiply all the individual probabilities with each other.
I believe there is a low chance that funny business was not involved in this case.
If it came from the front, and then went down into his body, that’s about a 90 degree change in trajectory.
It could be there’s something I’m missing.
The answer to all the trajectory and bullet questions are in the autopsy.
The person who witnessed the autopsy said the bullet fragmented on Charlie’s spine.
I would like to see the autopsy. For whatever reasons, perhaps because of legal constraints (autopsies are often not released until during a trial), the autopsy has not been released.
Rare events often occur when a number of unlikely things happen to line up.