- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Report: Folk hero Buford Pusser was actually his wife's murderer
Posted on 9/1/25 at 2:00 pm to Chuck Barris
Posted on 9/1/25 at 2:00 pm to Chuck Barris
quote:
Blood spatter on the hood outside the car contradicted Buford Pusser’s statements
quote:
Bloodstain pattern analysis is subjective, and “the opinions of bloodstain pattern analysts are more subjective than scientific” (page 178 [1]).
Several pioneering studies published in 2016 documented the distorting effects of confirmation bias and contextual influences on BPA analysts [13], [17], [39]. In the first of those studies the researchers concluded that “our findings clearly demonstrate that contextual information can influence decision-making…” and that, “the bloodstain interpretation process is vulnerable to contextual bias”
In a study that used more than 400 bloodstain patterns to examine the impact of cognitive bias in BPA ([17] more details are provided further below), it was found that when experts in BPA were exposed to contextual information, that information could bias examiners to make an incorrect analysis about the actual evidence. When provided with misleading contextual information, the “analysts were more likely to make an incorrect classification than when the context was neutral, with the overall error rate increasing to 20 %”
2
Posted on 9/1/25 at 2:05 pm to Jake88
Bit they made 2 movies about it. 1 with him white and the other with him being black
Posted on 9/1/25 at 2:06 pm to SOLA
I thought there were 3. A sequel in the 1970s.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 2:19 pm to Lou Loomis
quote:
That conclusion is complete speculation. 58 years later there is no way to prove that definitively, yet they choose to rewrite history. This is nothing more than a case of confirmation bias.
I agree. If Pusser were alive and this is what they had to prosecute him with, I doubt it would get close to enough to convict.
The vibe I get seems to be, people in law enforcement probably always had suspicions about Pusser and his story. For all I know they were justified. It does seem pretty odd, all the way around, if you think about it.
But it's a long way from "this story doesn't add up and I think the legend of St. Pusser is hot air" to "we have so much evidence that if he were alive we could convict him." Suuure they could.
Because cops never screw up or overplay their hand (remember the guy in St. Tammany who they booked on vehicular homicide of that little kid, with seemingly nothing to back it up).
Posted on 9/1/25 at 2:56 pm to Lou Loomis
Spot on. Buford is not here to defend himself.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 3:00 pm to Arbengal
Pusser was a total scumbag, and his ambush story is totally laughable to anyone with common sense that actually looks at it. You don't even have to look very hard.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 3:09 pm to Ham Solo
It may have not gone on like he said, but he did get his jaw blown off. Someone with that kind of head trauma may not be entirely clear on details. Would like to see a separate, independent review. The guy investigating it is try to make a buck. Bufford killed his wife sells better than "shite went down like he said".
If he did kill her, blowing his own jaw off is pretty damn ballsy. That's how you sell your story and not with some bullshite flesh wound.
If he did kill her, blowing his own jaw off is pretty damn ballsy. That's how you sell your story and not with some bullshite flesh wound.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 3:14 pm to SmackoverHawg
quote:
The guy investigating it is try to make a buck
The guy investigating has spent 10 times more investigating than any money he's made. He started this investigation as a Pusser fan hoping to identify the men that ambushed Pusser.
He just went where the facts lead.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 3:20 pm to Ham Solo
Then we’d have to believe he shot himself in the face. More than once. With a pretty strong round. That’s the part that loses me. If it was a mouse gun graze to the cheek, ok. But no man is shooting his own jaw off.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 3:24 pm to biglego
quote:
Then we’d have to believe he shot himself in the face. More than once
He was shot once, Wait for the report. Supposedly they have evidence that's exactly what happened. That dude was crazy enough to do it.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 3:25 pm to Ham Solo
As I posted above, forensic evidence is often a matter of opinion, not fact. And reviewing photos from 58 years ago along with old notes seems somewhat specious.
From the few threads the last week or so, you seem to have an ax to grind. Why is that?
From the few threads the last week or so, you seem to have an ax to grind. Why is that?
Posted on 9/1/25 at 3:26 pm to biglego
quote:
Then we’d have to believe he shot himself in the face. More than once. With a pretty strong round. That’s the part that loses me. If it was a mouse gun graze to the cheek, ok. But no man is shooting his own jaw off.
I've seen sources saying it was once and others saying twice. Either way, it damn near killed him. I guess if he murdered his wife in a fit of rage or whatever, not wanting to go to jail for murder could motivate you a little more to sell the story. If once? Possible that he screwed up and did it too good. Twice? Doubt it.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 3:44 pm to SmackoverHawg
Maybe he regretted it in the moment and tried to commit suicide
Posted on 9/1/25 at 4:04 pm to SidewalkTiger
Keep "maybeing" and he'll be guilty soon enough.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 4:05 pm to Jake88
What did she do to provoke him?
Posted on 9/1/25 at 4:33 pm to biglego
Even back then it was common knowledge a shot at close range causes more trauma than one fired from a distance. Years later even if there’s only a skull the size of the holes could determine that. Shooting twice into the same general vicinity could make it a bit more believable I suppose. Maybe that’s why she was shot twice in the head. If photos are available modern post mortem could likely tell the difference.
It may be suggested he shot her at home and needed to figure out a way to make it look like other perpetrators. Maybe there was an altercation and she shot him first and he either wrestled the gun from her or she had a different weapon but he returned with a headshot. You’d think if it happened that way he could have just explained it that way.
Maybe the reason there is confusion as to whether he was shot twice is because he stated he was when in actuality it was only one shot at close range. If he shot himself that way it would prevent him from having to answer too many questions right away which could benefit him in that situation. As to what brought him to do it? Maybe he was semi suicidal after killing his wife and he decided to make the type of wound that could go either way.
Crazy shite happens in domestic disturbances.
It may be suggested he shot her at home and needed to figure out a way to make it look like other perpetrators. Maybe there was an altercation and she shot him first and he either wrestled the gun from her or she had a different weapon but he returned with a headshot. You’d think if it happened that way he could have just explained it that way.
Maybe the reason there is confusion as to whether he was shot twice is because he stated he was when in actuality it was only one shot at close range. If he shot himself that way it would prevent him from having to answer too many questions right away which could benefit him in that situation. As to what brought him to do it? Maybe he was semi suicidal after killing his wife and he decided to make the type of wound that could go either way.
Crazy shite happens in domestic disturbances.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 5:37 pm to Chuck Barris
frick Dwayne Johnson
Posted on 9/1/25 at 5:39 pm to Zendog
Neal McDonough was good as always as the villain
Posted on 9/1/25 at 6:24 pm to Chuck Barris
Somebody tell Joe Don he has to refilm the ending.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 6:49 pm to Ham Solo
I have no idea what kind of person he was and you may be absolutely spot on. I just know he does not have the ability to defend himself. This is obviously an important issue to you, and is a very interesting story that is captivating to say the least. What I have learned, ceom many years of experience, is that I am rarely surprised by ANY news these days.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News