Death Comes in Threes

Erik Bates | June 29, 2009
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | June 29, 2009
is ed mcman chopped liver?

Steve Dunn | June 29, 2009
I was wondering about David Carradine.

Lori Lancaster | June 29, 2009
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | June 29, 2009
Gale Storm died! Fred Travalina died! I'm convinced that CNN producers are out there killing semi-forgotten B-list celebrities, having become addicted to reporting on their deaths.

Amy Austin | June 30, 2009
I was totally coming here to comment that I hadn't heard about Ed McMahon *or* David Carradine... but what's even more amazing are the details of Carradine's death -- anyone else know what a kinkmeister he apparently was???

Steve West | June 30, 2009
I, myself, am waiting on the Fred Travalena retrospective. I loved that guy back in the day (very early '70's if I recall correctly).

Scott Hardie | June 30, 2009
Anybody else think the Grim Reaper screwed up and gave David Carradine and Michael Jackson each other's deaths by mistake?

Tony Peters | June 30, 2009
that's awesome scott

Scott Hardie | July 2, 2009
IM today: "who's karl malden? cause he died"

That's what I wondered after Billy Mays. I thought people were talking about Willie Mays.

Amy Austin | July 2, 2009
Ditto. And to answer your previous question, I think I should just go ahead and admit that my opinion of MJ = your opinion of OJ.

Scott Hardie | July 3, 2009
I'm skeptical on MJ too. Like with OJ, I believed MJ's guilt for a long time because it just seemed so likely, and the scuzzier elements of the story are the ones that stuck in my mind. (Descriptions of Jackson's genitalia from the boy giving deposition are the kinds of details you can never un-learn.) But now, years later, I read the details of the investigation and trial, and I'm just not seeing it. I don't know the truth any better than anybody else, but I know what I choose to believe.

Samir Mehta | July 4, 2009
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | July 4, 2009
See if this discussion answers your questions...

Jackie Mason | July 5, 2009
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | July 5, 2009
Although MJ was never a particular favorite of mine, I tend to agree on the psychology of not wanting to believe. However... the same could be said of OJ, and I had greater inclination to believe in his guilt than in MJ's. Perhaps I'm deluded in thinking this, but I'm just inclined to believe that MJ was a kinder/gentler... "man" (for lack of a better choice here... person, spirit, soul... I don't know) who was also very eccentric and yes, also very much a psychological mess. But I think it was more of a Peter Pan complex than anything else... and I also think that even friends and those who've ever been truly close to him do not believe these accusations. Of course, this is a reaction had by many whenever disgusting revelations involve an idol or loved one... but I do also very much believe that there was gold digging involved and that MJ was surrounded by plenty of hidden agendas/motivations and that he was a prime and easy target for exploitation. Only the accusers know the truth, and as with OJ, we may never really know unless someone at some time in the future decides to recant... and, as with OJ, why would they? Seems to me that only a guilty conscience or incontrovertible evidence could bring about such a thing (or perhaps the possibility of monetary reward), and when someone gets away with murder... or child abuse/molestation... or falsely accusing someone of such things... then none of those situations is very likely.

Jackie Mason | July 5, 2009
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | July 5, 2009
Lol...

Yeah, I think 60/40 is a fair ratio for how I feel about it, too. I can also understand reluctance on the part of a "victim" to testify about something embarrassing that one may somehow feel a certain degree of complicity with... even if someone else's inappropriate behavior was in no way their fault -- making it even more despicable if the accusers are liars. People are definitely not inclined to impeach the testimony of such a "witness" (nor should they be!) and those who would take advantage (if that is what they did -- I really do not know) are especially of corrupt morality, since not only do they completely ruin a person's reputation (innocent or guilty, that is an unshakable accusation that will follow someone for life)... and possibly finances, if the accused is not rich like MJ... but they cast that shadow of doubt over the testimony of all the innocent and violated, which is every bit as shameful (and pathetic) as being the violator. People who lie about such things should be punished severely if caught in their lies.

Samir Mehta | July 6, 2009
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | July 6, 2009
Yes, this is the only way I can see it, too... only I reserve judgment on not being able to know for sure. If it did, though, this is how I see it to have happened as well.

Samir Mehta | July 6, 2009
[hidden by request]

Steve Dunn | July 6, 2009
My greatest regret is that OJ's current stretch in the pokey will prevent him from hunting down the culprits who stole his shoes, butchered two people, and then planted blood all over his car and house.

Amy Austin | July 6, 2009
Ha!