Fatty Arbuckle–not guilty?
-
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.
-
metalman091 — 12 years ago(October 03, 2013 11:00 AM)
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.
WHAT????
Anyway, the evidence is presented below.
It's very clear Arbuckle was innocent of any crime. Any intelligent person can just read the facts as they are and not come to any other conclusion.It became known as "The Arbuckle Party", but in truth, Arbuckle was a guest. Arbuckle was just one of many at the St. Francis that day.
Virginia Rappe was already a sick woman before going to San Francisco. She suffered from chronic cystitis, a condition that flared up dramatically whenever she drank. She was known for tearing off her clothes after drinking because of the terrible pain. She was also said to have had a few abortions which were probably very poorly done.
The troublemaking Maude Delmont told doctors that Arbuckle had raped Virginia, but doctors found no evidence of this.
Arbuckle was accused of using a piece of ice to simulate sex. The piece of ice later became a Coca-Cola bottle and then a champagne bottle. They couldn't keep their accusations straight.
Actors were warned not to defend Arbuckle. Buster Keaton was one of the few. William S. Hart, said to be a dull and humorless man and who had never met or worked with Arbuckle made some statements that presumed he was guilty.
Maude Delmont had a long criminal record with convictions for racketeering, bigamy, fraud, and extortion, and allegedly was making a living by luring men into compromising positions and capturing them in photographs, to be used as evidence in divorce proceedings. Would you take the word of someone like this?
Betty Campbell, a model at the party, claimed she saw Arbuckle with a smile on his face hours after the alleged rape. The accusation of rape occurred at the hospital. Campbell would have to have heard about the accusation and link it to Arbuckle's smile. Maybe he was smiling at a joke. In any case, Campbell revealed that she had been threatened by Matthew Brady the prosecutor in the Arbuckle case with perjury if she did not testify against Arbuckle.
One doctor, Edward Heinrich claimed that he had found Arbuckle's fingerprints smeared with the blood of Virginia Rappe on the bathroom door of room 219. However, Arbuckle's defense attorney's produced a maid who claimed that she had cleaned the room before the investigation and she had not seen any blood. Heinrich would later take back his testimony, and would say that the fingerprint evidence was likely faked.
Matthew Brady was an intense and aggressive man who wanted to be governor. He probably had a thing against movie stars and really wanted to make an example of Arbuckle.
One of these women who admitted that Brady had forced her to lie was Zey Prevon. Another man told the court that Arbuckle had bribed him not to tell anyone about harming Virginia Rappe turned out to be an ex-con charged with who was currently being charged with the sexual assault of an eight year old girl. The ex-con was hoping that Brady would reduce his sentence.
Helen Hubbard, a lady on the jury, told jurors [in the first trial] that she would vote guilty until "hell freezes over." Hubbard refused to look at the evidence or the court transcripts. She had already made up her mind in the courtroom. Her husband was a lawyer who worked for the D.A. It's surprising that she was not even challenged when being selected for the jury. She sounds like she was a sexist and bitter woman.
It's very clear. The bastards had a field day with Arbuckle. There is always someone to act as a scapegoat, and sab68dly, it was Arbuckle.
HE WAS INNOCENT!!