Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Gene Siskel cause of death

1,024 views
Skip to first unread message

PSierut

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
This was an exchange between Larry King and Roger Ebert on last Monday's Larry
King Live:

KING: In all the questions being asked today, we haven't heard any of why? What
did he -- how did -- Why did he -- how did he die?

EBERT: Well, Gene wanted that to remain private, because he was protecting his
family, I think, from publicity. He didn't want a lot of articles in the
tabloids, and I respected that. Now that he's dead, we do know why he died and
how he died, but I feel that in respect to his wishes, I don't want to share
that.

KING: Even after death?

EBERT: I'll leave it up to his family to do that.

KING: All right. It was obviously, though, connected with the brain surgery,
correct?

EBERT: Yes, it was. Yes.

So...has anyone heard the "official" cause of his death? The original reports
about his surgery in May 1997 said he had a growth removed from his brain so
I've been assuming it was a brain tumor...but Ebert won't even admit to that.
I give him credit for being a class act and following the family's wishes --
but I still want to know!


Terrymelin

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
What is strange about this exchange is what is it about brain cancer (if that
was the cause) that could cause one to want that level of privacy? Why would
there be tabloid articles about it? What is the deep dark secret of brain
cancer? This is all really strange.

Terry Ellsworth

PSierut

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
The only thing I can think is that he didn't want to have tabloid articles
focusing on his health while he was still living (i.e. "Four months after
brain cancer surgery, Gene Siskel's friends are concerned about his behavior.
'We hope the cancer hasn't recurred,' states an upset pal, 'but his
forgetfulness and difficulty in speaking have us worried.'") Maybe he was
afraid his illness would turn into a celebrity death-watch. But that doesn't
explain why the family hasn't released the info since his death. If the
obituary had said, "Gene Siskel, 53, died of brain cancer yesterday..." no one
would have questioned it at all. Ebert said the death was related to his brain
surgery, so why turn it into a mystery?

As a side note, I incorrectly typed the date of his surgery. Should have said
May 1998, not 1997.

gjw

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
I have no way of knowing, but it's possible that the family thinks that
there was medical malpractice involved in his death, since it was
reported as being a result of the operation. If so, they may be
planning a lawsuit and might not want to discuss it out of court.


Zachariah Love

unread,
Mar 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/1/99
to
Well, there is certainly some kind of funny business going on, and I
think it's up to the group to get on the horn, or whatever, and do some
digging and find out, for God's sake! We MUST KNOW HOW HE DIED!!!

Zachariah Love, Commissioner
The Lee Atwater Invitational Dead Pool
http://stiffs.com
"I really couldn't care less."

Antidisestablishmentarianism

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/2/99
to
> "I really couldn't care less.".
If someone lives in the county where he passed away, it ought to be a
matter of public record. All deaths anywhere have to be attributable to
some cause even when a family doctor signs a death certificate, the
certificate eventually becomes a matter of public record somewhere.
From the sound of his illness it sounds a bit like glioblastoma, one of
the most severe forms of brain cancer that is around and always terminal
Ray

PSierut

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/2/99
to
I was watching the tribute to Gene on this week's Siskel and Ebert and they
showed a clip from an award ceremony that was taped BEFORE his initial brain
surgery. In his speech he told his two teenage daughters about the importance
of finding a career that you truly love. Then he added something like, "And I
hope someday you'll tell your younger brother what I said." At the time, I'm
sure no one thought twice about his words, but in retrospect they are almost
chilling...and make one wonder if he knew a long time ago that he didn't have
long to live.

Some of the articles in this week's newsmagazines noted that Gene lost both his
parents before the age of ten. Maybe that's one of the reasons he tried to
keep his illness lowkey; he knew what it was like to suffer the loss of a
parent and didn't want his kids to have to read articles that talked about
"Dying Gene Siskel," etc. (Of course that still doesn't explain why his cause
of death wasn't mentioned in his obituary or afterwards.)

bethany dick

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/2/99
to
In article <36DBE6...@bellsouth.net>,

>If someone lives in the county where he passed away, it ought to be a
>matter of public record. All deaths anywhere have to be attributable to
>some cause even when a family doctor signs a death certificate, the
>certificate eventually becomes a matter of public record somewhere.
>From the sound of his illness it sounds a bit like glioblastoma, one of
>the most severe forms of brain cancer that is around and always terminal
>Ray

Although it is true that death certificates ultimately become
public record, the time required for that varies drastically from
county to county. I dabble in genealogy, and I have requested death
certificates from a number of Illinois counties. For some of the
counties, they didn't care my relation to the person, nor when he or
she died. In another, I was unable to get the cert. because the person
had died fewer than 50 years previously, and was not a direct ancestor
of mine.
I guess I'm not interested enough in Gene Siskel's cause of
death to go through the procedure of calling the county courthouse
or paying the $7.00 to get a copy of the cert.

Beth

b...@mcs.com

0 new messages