He wasn't guilty…nor innocent
-
Chrissie — 14 years ago(February 26, 2012 05:28 AM)
If you find any of those interviews online could you post links here?
As for those who are taking the "Well, they accused him and went to the trouble of a trial, so he must have done SOMETHING to deserve it," look at the evidence.
What I've read indicates that even though Roscoe played rather lecherous characters, in real life he was very shy about his body and was a virgin when he first married. "The most chaste man in Hollywood." It was his pal Buster Keaton who was the ladies' man. It's as if each of them played the opposite of what he was in real life (wish fulfilment?).
So everything that has been preserved about Roscoe's character is that he wasn't violent, wan't known for chasing women, and was very physically modest.
Everything we know about Virginia Rappe and the circumstances surrounding her death point to the botched abortion scenario. Whoever removed her to a hospital didn't take her to a regular hospital, but to Wakefield Sanitorium, a maternity hospital known for performing quasi-legal abortions. Testimony at the trial (not to slam Virgina, but to point out the most likely cause of her death) was that she had availed herself of Wakefield five times in the past, once to give birth and four times for abortions. One more abortion for a woman who had already had four seems far more likely than a man who was shy and chaste suddenly deciding to become a rapist with scores of witnesses right in the next room.
Although Virginia's ruptured bladder was produced as evidence in the trial, her reproductive organs had vanished after the autopsy which had been performed illegally on site at Wakefield Sanitorium, without consulting the b68coroner's office. One of the doctors overseeing the autopsy, Dr. Melville Rumswell, was reputed to be an abortionist. Blunt-force trauma would have made a strong case against Arbuckle. But sharp instrument trauma would have cleared Arbuckle and pointed the finger at whoever performed a final, eventually fatal, abortion on Virginia Rappe.
Then there's the matter of Roscoe's accuser, Maude Delmont, aka "Madame Black." Delmont ran a blackmail scam, in which she'd provide young women to entertain men at Hollywood parties. A 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.
Then consider what would have happened to the guilty parties if a fatal abortion had been uncovered. Everybody involve would have been prosecuted for murder. Everybody the person who performed it, any assistants, anybody who helped to arrange it, and even, as accessory after the fact, anybody who failed to get her proper medical care (which would have included telling the hospital about the abortion). That's a SERIOUS motive to point the finger elsewhere.
The real mystery is why the cops and the prosecutor ignored the obvious and instead went after Arbuckle. Given the state of affairs at the time, there may well hae been people in high places who were on the take paid to turn a blind eye to the goings-on at Wakefield. A threat to expose them would be a powerful motive to just go after Arbuckle.
And what of the people at the party who testified things that made Roscoe seem guilty? First of all, memory is very unrelible. This was a party that went on for days, and people were plastered. They would have very foggy memories to start with. Add to it suggestins that Arbuckle had raped or otherwise assaulted Virginia. It would take very little to make people misattribute faint memories. Add to that one othe factor: If any of the party-goes had been, like Virginia, customers at Wakefield, a few words to threaten to expose them would have been enough to convince them to slant their stories.
Clearly the evidence was soldly in Roscoe's favor. For crying out loud, the jury itself called for an appology:
"Acquittal is not enough for Roscoe Arbuckle. We feel that a great injustice has been done him. We feel also that it was our only plain duty to give him this exoneration. There was not the slightest proof adduced to connect him in any way with the commission of a crime. He was manly throughout the case and told a straightforward story which we all believe. The happening at the hotel was an unfortunate affair for which Arbuckle, so the evidence shows, was in no way responsible. We wish him success and hope that the American people will take the judgement of fourteen men and women w5b4ho have sat listening for 31 days to the evidence that Roscoe Arbuckle is entirely innocent and free from all blame." -
-
Chrissie — 14 years ago(March 02, 2012 10:11 AM)
There is often a tendency to assume that the prosecutor wouldn't go whole-hog and hold three trials to railroad an innocent man. To me, the apology issued by the third jury should have been, of itelf, enough to drive a stake through the heart of the case. Knowing even more exposes it to direct sunlight, cuts its head off, and stuffs its mouth with garlic.
-
digitaldiva — 14 years ago(March 08, 2012 11:35 AM)
Indeed it was a sad case for Roscoe and Rappe. It is unfortunate that by the third trial, Roscoe's team was forced to show Ms. Rappe in a bad light and start the salacious rumors that dog her reputation even today. Rappe apparently died of a ruptured bladder a condition the British Medical Journal (BMJ) has connected with alcohol misuse. I'm sure consuming too much bootlegged gin was the real culprit.
-
novastar_6 — 14 years ago(March 09, 2012 08:53 PM)
I asked my mother how a bladder could be ruptured and she said it could be very easy, like if you got kicked or something like that. But the drinking part, I'm not sure if it's true but if it is, it would be possible I suppose because in Buster Keaton's autobiography, and he never speaks badly about anybody really, he said it was funny how a 5'7 135 pound woman (big for that time I'm guessing) 'who was prone to getting drunk and taking her clothes off at parties' was suddenly the poor little victim of this big brute or whatever.
-
digitaldiva — 14 years ago(March 09, 2012 09:51 PM)
Hi novastar,
I found the information in the British Medical Journal and found it interesting. There have been several issues with ruptured bladders among young women who binge drink in Great Britain. Poor Virginia certainly sounded like someone who overindulged in drinking gin bootlegged gin. -
metalman091 — 12 years ago(September 03, 2013 12:06 AM)
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 was2000 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 stimulate 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 sadly, it was Arbuckle.
HE WAS INNOCENT!! -
catlady1412 — 17 years ago(March 18, 2009 10:28 PM)
David Yallop's hard-to-find book, The Day the Laughter Stopped, definitively covers the evidence and trial, as well as the reputations of the people involved. He interviewed all 3 of Roscoe's wives, who were still living at the time the book was written, and many of the people Roscoe worked with. It was very, very well researched and presents enough evidence to show that Roscoe did not do anything to cause Virginia's death. In fact, medicine was not sophisticated enough at the time to save her as antibiotics were not available to combat peritonitis at the time. Same reason Valentino died, really. I highly recommend the book, but it is tough to find!
-
metalman091 — 14 years ago(June 18, 2011 06:34 AM)
The whole thing was a shambles. There were those who were looking for a Hollywood scapegoat, and Arbuckle was it. He was a victim of yellow journalism, a nasty and evil woman (Maude Delmont) and the studios who were not willing to have their stars involved, so they ordered them to refuse to speak about Arbuckle.
-
metalman091 — 13 years ago(September 12, 2012 05:40 PM)
The series HOLLYWOOD narrated by James Mason gives a great account of the farce that was the trial of Arbuckle. He was clearly a victim of small minded, and ignorant people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc346ihvScI&feature=related