Fatty Arbuckle–not guilty?
-
lkjandersen — 16 years ago(October 17, 2009 11:14 AM)
Read up on the case. There never was any proof against him. Heck, the doctors that examined Miss Rappe said that there probably wasn't even a crime, at least not a rape. I think I remember reading that Rappe herself denied Arbuckle having done anything.
The one who accused Arbuckle of raping her to death wasn't even there. And she never managed to tell the same story twice.
www.risingabovetheradar.blogspot.com
www.madmanoz.blogspot.com -
digitaldiva — 16 years ago(October 25, 2009 05:10 PM)
There is a great deal of misinformation about the party. It was a daytime soiree during the Labor Day weekend not an orgy. Arbuckle was a guest, not the host and went to relax after a very hectic shooting schedule. Though there was alcohol, the party was catered and was a luncheon. Arbuckle was in pajamas because he was caught off guard when people invaded his room and didnt have time to change. I've been to the St. Francis and visited that beautiful suite -quite spacious and lovely, perfect for an afternoon party.
Matthew Brady, the aggressive District Attorney of San Francisco, wanted to paint himself as a moral crusader. Brady railroaded Arbuckle. Bambina Maude Delmont is always portrayed as the villain of the piece and she had a very shady past. Brady pushed her to testify against Arbuckle by threatening her with persecution for past deeds.
The hotel doctor was called at the time, examined the victim, Virginia Rappe and gave her morphine, a legal drug at the time. Rappe died of peritonitis, a very common death in the days before antibiotics. She never claimed Arbuckle touched her. It was a tragedy for all concerned but there was no cover-up except by the authorities in San Francisco. The Hearst newspapers made a mint because of the trial and prigs all over America used it as another example of Hollywood decadence of course they ignored the lynchings, the rampant anti-Semitism and mistreatment of the workers by big business that was rampant in America at the time.
Since Arbuckle worked in the silent era, much of his work is lost. The real irony was that the day before Arbuckle died, he had signed a contract to make a talkie for Warner Brothers. -
Chrissie — 16 years ago(November 08, 2009 06:55 AM)
The most likely situation is that Rappe had originally been sent to the party as part of a blackmail scheme. Arbuckle was fingered for murder by one Maude Delmont, aka "Madame Black." Delmont ran a scam, in which she'd provide young women to entertain men at Hollywood parties. The girl would claim that she was raped by some prominent man, who would then pay off Delmont to keep quiet. Delmont's story was so outrageous as was her character the prosecutors never called her as a witness in any of Arbuckle's three trials.
Arbuckle called a doctor for Rappe at some point. It's unclear who made the decision to take her to a hospital, but even that call is an odd one. She taken not to a regular hospital, but to Wakefield Sanitorium, a maternity hospital known for performing quasi-legal abortions. Rappe had availed herself of Wakefield's services five times perviously once to give birth and four times for abortions. The autopsy was performed at Wakefield, and whoever did it disposed of Rappe's reproductive organs as well as her bladder.
In short, all the evidence points to a botched abortion, which would have meant prison for all the involved parties, likely including Maude Delmont. Fingering Arbuckle created such an uproar that it diverted all attention away from the abortion angle and let those likely responsible off scott-free. -
Movielover-67 — 16 years ago(January 03, 2010 03:14 AM)
I agree with you. The recent hoopla around Polanski's case make me doubt Mr. Arbuckle's alleged innocence, too. Of course he could be innocent, but he could be guilty, too. In the case of Polanski, I have no doubt that he raped the girl and he himself even admitted of having had sexual intercourse with a thirteen years old girl who was under the influence of drugs to boot (he has a real history of sleeping with minors under the age of sixteen when he himself was already way over thirty) so that makes him a 16d0very, very questionable man in any case and yet Hollywood people (and also film people all around Europe) rush to his defense like mad. As a grown up man you simply do not sleep with a thirteen years old girl. Period. If a friend of mine did that, I would certainly not rush to his defense publicly. But these people are all intertwined with each other professionally and have a lot to lose financially. I know it from my own job, that a lot of dirt gets covered up if you know the right people and people who have power all stick together and cover up for each other when being in the same profession. Since I know all this from first hand experience I know all is possible-also that Arbuckel raped that woman to death and went off scot free.
-
trux-3 — 15 years ago(April 09, 2010 08:44 AM)
"Arbuckle raped that woman and went off scot-free" WHAT? This incident ruined both his professional career as well as his personal life, and you say he went off scot-free? Besides, Virginia Rappe was 26 years old, not 13. To compare Arbuckle to Polanski is just ignorant and malicious.
-
MissMellieY — 15 years ago(April 18, 2010 09:11 PM)
There is just too much evidence to indicate his INNOCENCE. To compare him to other actors who did horrible things or were suspected of it, is unfair to him. That is like saying someone is obviously guilty because some other man committed the same type crime and WAS guilty. That is just plain stupid.
This is not to say that famous people haven't gotten off scot-free. OJ is prime exampleso is Polanskialthough there is still hope that he will pay for his crimes.
But Roscoe Arbuckle was railroaded and all the evidence points that way.
"A man's kiss is his signature" Mae West -
ContinentalOp — 15 years ago(November 17, 2010 04:30 AM)
"(he has a real history of sleeping with minors under the age of sixteen when he himself was already way over thirty)"
Well, most European countries have the age of consent at 14 or 15, including Roman Polanski's home country (but not country of birth, as that is Poland) France. And there is no real evidence that he raped the 13 year old, but he did have intercourse with her (still, she was a young adult and thus sexually active and you cannot deny that). Anyway that has no bearing on the Arbuckle case.
There was no evidence that Roscoe Arbuckle raped and murdered Rappe. The main person who said he did was not there and she was a scam artist who did this type of thing as a living. And his career was almost completely ruined after the scandal.
"Namu-myoho-renge-kyo" -
MydnightRose — 15 years ago(November 20, 2010 02:19 PM)
The Roman Polanski situation is disgusting; but his guilt has nothing to do with Arbuckle's innocence. You can't try to paint him with the same brush as Roman simply because they both work in Hollywood.
RingRing hooka RingRing -
lulu_bu — 14 years ago(June 10, 2011 01:23 PM)
"I know all is possible-also that Arbuckel raped that woman to death and went off scot free."
Raping a woman to death is quite an achievment particularly in a situation where there was people close by in adjoining rooms.
From what I have read even if (and I repeat 'even if') Arbuckle did rape this young lady, to suggest he got off scot free is not entirely correct. His career was destroyed and the stress of the situation no doubt contributed to his early death. The evidence seems to suggest that he did not do it and was the victim of a witch hunt by the media and the intolerent of America of the time who were determind to bring down Hollywood by any means they could (the same organisations who had brought about prohibition). -
ZildjianDFW — 14 years ago(May 07, 2011 04:36 PM)
The serious flaw in your logic is that you're asking, "If these guys were let off the hook, then anyone in Hollywood who is found not guilty might actually be guilty." Now, obviously anyone found not guilty could, in theory, actually be guilty - the legal system isn't perfect. But the thing is, sometimes people DON'T actually do the crimes people accuse them of. The difference between Arbuckle and the guys you mentioned is that, for them, there is strong evidence that they were, in fact, guilty. Whereas in Arbuckle's case, there is no real evidence at all. Just trumped up charges, railroading from a power-hungry politician, and a sensationalistic press salivating for dirt. It's not fair to Arbuckle to make that comparison.
-
CharteredStreets — 14 years ago(June 04, 2011 04:46 AM)
Those comparisons just aren't fair. There is NO evidence or suggestion, despite what Kenneth Anger might make you think, that Arbuckle was involved in a cover-up, Hollywood didn't protect 'one its own'; it cast him out despite the fact he had been found not guilty. As far as I know there is no good reason even to cast doubt on it.
If I have to tell you again, we're gonna take it outside and I'm gonna show you what it's like! -
tbilski82 — 14 years ago(August 08, 2011 09:23 AM)
Arbuckle's case was definitely NOT one of Hollywood 'protecting one of its own'. Unless I'm mistaken, studio heads expressly forbade Fatty's colleagues from publicly speaking out in his defense; one can assume that the studios threatened to sack anyone who did. You have to remember that during this era it was the industry norm for actors to work exclusively for a single studio, usually under contract for several years. So if you wanted to keep working in the business, you'd do your best not to piss off the person who signed your paycheck.
-
CharteredStreets — 14 years ago(August 12, 2011 07:11 AM)
Exactly. Why would Hollywood have covered it up to protect Fatty only to cast him out and ruin his career?
If I have to tell you again, we're gonna take it outside and I'm gonna show you what it's like! -
jtyroler — 14 years ago(November 23, 2011 10:26 PM)
I think one factor that could have led people at the time to think Roscoe was guilty - in many of his films, he plays a man with a roving eye, flirting with women when the wife is right there or nearby. Also, in quite a few films, he played a drunk. I could see how some jurors and the public would confuse the character of "Fatty" Arbuckle with Roscoe Arbuckle.
-
SnorrSm1989 — 14 years ago(November 27, 2011 06:32 AM)
QUOTE: I think one factor that could have led people at the time to think Roscoe was guilty - in many of his films, he plays a man with a roving eye, flirting with women when the wife is right there or nearby. Also, in quite a few films, he played a drunk. I could see how some jurors and the public would confuse the character of "Fatty" Arbuckle with Roscoe Arbuckle.
Maybe, but such characters were very common in early silent comedies. Arbuckle also portrayed his character as more sympathetic and lovable in several films, such as FATTY AND MABEL ADRIFT and LOVE. -
novastar_6 — 14 years ago(January 19, 2012 04:08 PM)
Rudolph Valentino played a man who raped his wife in one film, and he was the hero! Nobody ever seemed to have a bad word to say about him and you can be sure if he ever came up on a murder charge everybody would've said he was innocent because he seemed like so great a gentleman or some crap.