George Reeves: "Superman" may have been murdered (June 16, 1959)
News
George's head wound. No powder burns were found on his hands. The spent
shell was found underneath his body... the gun on the floor between his
feet... the bullet in the ceiling.
Other bullet holes were found in the bedroom floor, and the bullets were
recovered from the living room below. Were all the shots fired at the same
time, or were the other bullets fired days... perhaps weeks earlier?
We do know Lenore Lemmon and the other guests had been drinking. Indeed,
Reeves' blood alcohol level was .27, well above the point of being
intoxicated.
The police were not called for about thirty to forty-five minutes after
Reeves' death, but Lemmon never explained why she waited so long to notify
the authorities..."
--Jim Nolt, George Reeves' expert
http://www.tvparty.com/super.html
"Who killed TV's Superman?"
by Billy Ingram
Almost every kid who grew up in the 1960s heard a story of how George Reeves
died. Depending on which version you heard, TV's Superman, thinking he was
the character he portrayed (or despondent over being typecast), jumped off a
building to see if he really could fly (or put a gun to his head and shot
himself).
The coroner's report officially ruled the death a suicide, stating that the
star was killed by a single gunshot to the head in the early morning hours
of June 16, 1959.
Truth is, we may never know the whole story; intrigue and confusion cloud
the issue to this day. Many people who have taken a hard look at the case
agree that murder, not suicide, was a much more likely scenario.
George Reeves was a moderately successful film actor in 1951 when he
accepted the role of Superman in the feature film Superman and the Mole Men.
A television series underwritten by Kellogg's for first-run syndication was
put into production with the same cast just a few days after filming on the
feature concluded.
When The Adventures of Superman debuted in late 1952, it was a big hit, by
far the most imaginative and exciting adventure series the medium had ever
seen.
Even though there were no color televisions available to the public, in 1954
The Adventures of Superman became only the second TV series to be filmed in
color (Cisco Kid was the first). This was a prescient move undertaken to
make the show more commercially viable in the future.
When the series ceased production after six successful seasons, George
Reeves found himself typecast as the Man of Steel and good roles became
scarce. Despite a couple of lean years, things began to turn around in 1959.
The producers of The Adventures of Superman decided to film another season's
worth of shows in 1960 and Reeves agreed to return, signing on with a hefty
raise. He was scheduled to shoot a film in Spain, and was to be married to
his fiancee Lenore Lemmon on June 19, 1959 - just three days after his
supposed suicide.
There was another side to George Reeves that went unreported in the press -
this was a guy who liked to party. Late night booze fests were common at his
home on Benedict Canyon. Reeves enjoyed the LA nightlife as well, and he ran
into some shady characters along the way.
He engaged in a seven-year affair with Toni Mannix, the wife of Eddie
Mannix, an extremely well-known, powerful MGM executive with reported mob
ties. Mannix was in poor health at the time and was aware of their
relationship. People who knew the couple assumed that George and Toni would
marry after Eddie was no longer around.
Toni Mannix was devastated when their relationship came to a halt in 1958.
Reeves' new love, Lenore Lemmon, stated that the jilted lover was calling
Reeves repeatedly at all hours of the day and night, harassing the actor for
months before his death. So much so that Reeves retained an attorney to try
to convince the disturbed woman to stop the calls that were coming up to
twenty times a day, calls that were sometimes nothing more than annoying
hang-ups.
The attorney wasn't persuasive, according to Lemmon, and the harassment
continued unabated. On the night of June 15, 1959, Lemmon, Reeves, and two
guests were partying at the actor's home. At about 1:15 the next morning,
George Reeves went upstairs to bed. He had been drinking heavily and was
under the influence of painkillers prescribed for injuries he sustained in a
car accident.
Moments later, a shot rang out upstairs and the actor was found dead,
sprawled out on his bed, naked, with a bullet hole in his right temple. When
police arrived, the death was treated as a suicide since all of the
houseguests agreed there could be no other explanation.
There was no sign of forced entry and the high alcohol content in the
actor's blood, in combination with narcotics, made suicide a strong
possibility. Was there another explanation? Police at the scene wondered
about two fresh bullet holes found in the bedroom walls. Lenore Lemmon
explained that she had accidentally fired the gun earlier when she was just
fooling around with it.
There were no powder marks from the gun's discharge on the actor's wound, so
the weapon would have to have been held several inches from the head before
firing, most unusual in a suicide. There were reportedly no fingerprints on
the pistol and the actor's hands were not tested for gunpowder residue.
Many who knew Reeves at the time agreed that the actor was happier than he
had been in years, looking forward to his upcoming marriage, and eager to
begin another season of his still-popular television series. Money wasn't a
problem either-he wasn't super-rich, but the actor was still being paid
residuals every time Superman was rerun in major markets.
Still in mourning over her fiancee's death, Lenore Lemmon suffered another
indignity when the will was read-Reeves' entire estate was willed to Toni
Mannix, who said the actor must have meant the money and the house on
Benedict Canyon to help the charities that they both worked with.
"Toni got a house for charity and I got a broken heart," was Lemmon's
dramatic statement to the press.
Leading the charge for more concrete answers about what happened that
fateful night was George Reeves' mother, who held up cremation of the body
for three years while noted Hollywood investigator Jerry Geisler looked into
unanswered questions surrounding the highly suspicious death.
Coincidentally, both Geisler and Reeves' mother died of natural causes
before they could prove foul play was involved.
Had someone entered the house, someone with a gun and a ruthless reputation,
murdered the television star and warned everyone in the home to stay silent
about what happened?
Superman producer Tommy Carr thought so, and said so for years in
interviews. Co-stars Noel Neill (Lois Lane) and Jack Larson (Jimmy Olsen)
generated publicity for the case in the late '80s, maintaining in press and
TV interviews that foul play was indeed the cause of death. After thirty
years, they were trying to keep the case alive by asking for a more thorough
inquiry into the troubling circumstances surrounding the "suicide" of their
old friend.
Oddly, in a 1998 edition of USA Today, Larson reversed himself and stated
emphatically that he believed Reeves did commit suicide and that Larson's
longtime friend Toni Mannix (recently deceased) definitely had nothing to do
with it. He didn't want her memory sullied by unfounded accusations.
Another theory has it that Reeves and Lemmon argued that night and Lemmon
shot her lover in the heat of the moment. But why would her guests-witnesses
to a crime-risk their reputations and freedom to cover for her? Perhaps
someone will provide new clues to this puzzling mystery-but with the passage
of time, that becomes more and more unlikely.
Because the facts here are so murky, I asked George Reeves expert Jim Nolt
what his thoughts on the case were. Jim was an on-camera consultant when the
television show Unsolved Mysteries did a segment on this baffling story.
Here are his comments: "Almost from the moment the fatal shot was fired,
friends of George Reeves have been questioning what happened in the early
morning hours of June 16, 1959.
"Lenore Lemmon said George killed himself because he could find no work
after Superman, but many who knew George remain skeptical to this day. No
one is even sure who was in the house that night, and we have only Lenore
Lemmon's word for the happenings.
"According to Lemmon, the only people in the house that night, in addition
to George and herself, were Carol Von Ronkle, William Bliss, and writer
Robert Condon. Lemmon says George Reeves committed suicide.
"However, no fingerprints were found on the gun, no powder burns were on
George's head wound. No powder burns were found on his hands. The spent
shell was found underneath his body... the gun on the floor between his
feet... the bullet in the ceiling.
"Other bullet holes were found in the bedroom floor, and the bullets were
recovered from the living room below. Were all the shots fired at the same
time, or were the other bullets fired days... perhaps weeks earlier?
"We do know Lenore Lemmon and the other guests had been drinking. Indeed,
Reeves' blood alcohol level was .27, well above the point of being
intoxicated.
"The police were not called for about thirty to forty-five minutes after
Reeves' death, but Lemmon never explained why she waited so long to notify
the authorities.
"There is no doubt Lenore Lemmon and George Reeves had a volatile
relationship. They were seen arguing in public earlier in the evening. Could
that argument have continued back at 1579 Benedict Canyon Drive? I believe
it's quite likely and that George's death was the result of that argument.
"If Lenore did shoot George, it would have simply been easier for her to say
it was suicide. It would save much time and energy on her part explaining
how it all happened. None of the other guests ever gave public testimony
regarding the events of that night, and Lenore left California the next
day... never to return."
We also heard from expert Michael J. Hayde on the subject, also an on-camera
consultant for the Unsolved Mysteries segment on Reeves' death: "There is so
much more to the story than can be told here, and even the book Hollywood
Kryptonite didn't do as thorough a job as it should have (spending more time
on a sensationalized and exaggerated account of Reeves' night life and
attitude toward Superman). Even to say that the police botched the
investigation is simplistic. The day after the autopsy, when Chief Parker
announced that he "was satisfied with the verdict" of suicide, there were
two LAPD detectives in Reeves' bedroom pulling up a carpet to discover the
other bullet holes. Why, if the case had just been closed? By then, Lemmon
had left town for good, and there was no evidence to link Eddie Mannix or
his wife to the crime. Without witnesses or a credible confession, there was
just an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence, which implicated no
one."
I can't help but think about the final two lines of dialogue from the last
episode of The Adventures of Superman broadcast in 1958. Jimmy Olsen fawns,
"Golly, Mr. Kent, you'll never know how wonderful it is to be like
Superman."
George Reeves (as Clark Kent) replies, "No, Jimmy, I guess I never will,"
gives a wink to the camera, and fades into electronic oblivion.
Mark
Who the fuck cares? A waste of bandwith.
Loony Roy
Is that why you reposted 100+ lines of fucking text to give such a short
response? Fuck off, asswipe.
Bermuda999
> "...However, no fingerprints were found on the gun, no powder burns were on
I profess little familiarity with the intricate details of this case,
but from the article I would comment:
It is my understanding that while powder burns may occur when a barrel
is placed against or near a head and fired, one would not normally
expect powder burns on hands. Powder residue would be likely, and yet
the article goes on to observe "the actor's hands were not tested for
gunpowder residue."
Under those specific circumstances, it seems a little disingenuous to
try to use the sentence "No powder burns were found on his hands" to
rule out suicide.
Those with greater knowledge of Reeves' death and/or ballistics are
invited to chime in.
Kris Baker
"Bermuda999" <bermu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:267fe159-cc52-418f...@g9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
------------------------------
His career was in the toilet, because he was typecast as Superman.
He'd expressed that complaint to many people....and it was in the
news.
And always remember: there's money to be made, from
promoting conspiracies. There really was little motive to kill
the guy; he went to the bedroom alone, and did himself in.
Kris
Loki
You are of course correct Kris, but in the future perhaps you would be
well advised not to respond to anything roytard posts... You will
thank me for that advice.
Loki
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"Kris Baker" <paralle...@ggmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9cpmjm...@mid.individual.net...
> You know that for sure, 100%, no doubt about it?
> I presume you know *all* the evidence ever uncovered (and some
>evidence and questions that hasn't been answered for 52 years), and have it
>all memorized?
> So, why did two L.A.P.D. detectives search the house *after*
>Chief Parker said the case was solved as a suicide???
> Hmmmmmm?
> Nothing fits with the verdict of 'suicide' with these facts:
>Reeves was happy on his upcoming marriage, no money problems, another year
>of Superman scheduled--and he started to direct some of them, which could
>have led to a director's (or producer's) career after Superman ended.
>
> "There were no powder marks from the gun's discharge on the
>actor's wound, so
>the weapon would have to have been held several inches from the head before
>firing, most unusual in a suicide. There were reportedly no fingerprints on
>the pistol and the actor's hands were not tested for gunpowder residue.
>
> Many who knew Reeves at the time agreed that the actor was
>happier than he
>had been in years, looking forward to his upcoming marriage, and eager to
>begin another season of his still-popular television series. Money wasn't a
>problem either-he wasn't super-rich, but the actor was still being paid
>residuals every time Superman was rerun in major markets."
>
> "We also heard from expert Michael J. Hayde on the subject,
>also an on-camera
>consultant for the Unsolved Mysteries segment on Reeves' death: "There is so
>much more to the story than can be told here, and even the book Hollywood
>Kryptonite didn't do as thorough a job as it should have (spending more time
>on a sensationalized and exaggerated account of Reeves' night life and
>attitude toward Superman). Even to say that the police botched the
>investigation is simplistic. The day after the autopsy, when Chief Parker
>announced that he "was satisfied with the verdict" of suicide, there were
>two LAPD detectives in Reeves' bedroom pulling up a carpet to discover the
>other bullet holes. Why, if the case had just been closed?"
Hey roytard... Do you have PROOF that George Burns died of old age and
it wasn't a conspiracy by the people in the black helicopters? Were
you there?
Kris Baker
"Loki" <cubby...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:skcf679hnb9hb9tcu...@4ax.com...
seven different aliases who talk to each other now?
Kris
Sanford Manley
>
> Hey roytard... Do you have PROOF that George Burns died of old age and
> it wasn't a conspiracy by the people in the black helicopters? Were
> you there?
Gracie was waiting for him.
--
Sanford
Trying to be right all the time is a very subtle way of being wrong.
Travoltron
ago and got to see Jim Beaver himself convincingly explain some of the
anomalies like the powder burns and the location of the spent shell.
Jim Beaver
"Travoltron" <travo...@defender.uni> wrote in message
news:j48t2s$8p8$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>I rented some Unsolved Mysteries "Strange Legends" DVD set a few weeks ago
>and got to see Jim Beaver himself convincingly explain some of the
>anomalies like the powder burns and the location of the spent shell.
Thanks. Not much has changed in my opinion of the case. Here's what I
wrote in response to a request from Cecil Adams's "The Straight Dope" a few
years ago. You can read the entire article here:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1556/was-em-superman-em-star-george-reeves-a-suicide-or-murder-victim
There will always be speculation regarding the true circumstances of George
Reeves's death, and there are very interesting questions supporting the
various theories. I have been researching a full-scale biography of Reeves
for many, many years (while simultaneously starring in the odd TV series
here and there), and while I began my research with a presumption of foul
play, I long ago came to a thus far unshaken conviction that Reeves did in
fact commit suicide.
A few pertinent facts: A 2002 study reported in The Lancet showed that a
person with a family history of even one suicide is 250% more likely to die
by his or her own hand than someone with no family history of suicide at
all. George Reeves had at least two suicides in his family (including the
aunt from whom he got his middle name), and he had two prior unsuccessful
attempts at suicide himself.
An inebriated person (Reeves's blood-alcohol content the night of his death
was 2.5 times the legal limit) is ten times more likely to commit suicide
than a sober person. A person with depression indicators is 30-to-90 times
more likely to commit suicide than a non-depressive. An inebriated person
with depression indicators is 300-to-900 times more likely to commit suicide
than a sober person without depression indicators. (Source: National
Institutes of Mental Health.). Reeves fit the 300-to-900 category.
Much of what has been purported as fact in this case is actually not fact,
and that which is factual has quite often been misinterpreted by lay persons
who rely on "common knowledge" instead of actual forensic fact. I'll try to
lay out some of the evidence and convey the scientific interpretation in
contrast to the lay presumption.
Multiple bullet holes in the room: True, two holes were found in the floor,
in addition to the death slug lodged in the ceiling. According to Dr. Edwin
Schneidman, one of the world's leading authorities on suicide (whom I
interviewed), some forty percent of gunshot suicides are preceded days or
even weeks ahead by what he terms "practice shots," in which the suicidal
person attempts to work himself up to the act. Add to this the occasional
(but not consistent) testimony by Reeves' girlfriend that SHE fired the
shots several days before, and you cannot build a compelling case FOR
suicide from this evidence. Reasonable doubt, yes, but a strong case, no.
No gunshot residue on Reeves' hand: Nowhere in the police or coroner's files
is there any evidence that Reeves did not have gunshot residue on his hand.
He was not tested for gunshot residue (a common omission in clear-cut
suicides in 1959). Therefore no one knows whether such residue was there or
not. You cannot build a case for or against suicide with gunshot residue
evidence here, because there is no such evidence, one way or the other.
No powder burns on the skin: Popular belief has it that an absence of powder
burns MUST mean a weapon was fired from some distance away. It means nothing
of the kind. One homicide detective actually told me "When I see powder
burns in an apparent suicide, I start thinking murder." In a contact wound,
where the muzzle of a pistol is pressed against the skin, all or virtually
all of the gunpowder is projected INTO the wound track and leaves little or
no stippling on the external body. A pistol would have had to have been
either in direct contact with the skin OR twenty or more feet away in order
not to leave any evidence on the skin of burning powder. There is no point
in Reeves's bedroom that is more than eight feet from a wall.
Location of the gun: The gun was found on the floor between Reeves' feet,
where it might easily have fallen, since he was shot while seated on the
edge of the bed. Forensic pathologist Dr. Linda Norton (well known for doing
the Lee Harvey Oswald re-autopsy) told me that due to reflex action, suicide
guns are found all over the place and little credence is given to where a
gun lands. She went on to state that between the feet of a (formerly) seated
victim is a most natural spot for a gun to land. The empty shell casing WAS
found under the body, a most natural circumstance, since the most natural
position for holding a pistol to one's temple is with the gun nearly
upside-down. If you have doubts try this test: Without thinking about it,
quickly point at your temple. If you're like most people, your little finger
will be toward your front and your index finger will be toward your back. If
you imagine that your hand is holding a pistol, you will see that the top of
the imaginary pistol is facing behind you rather than toward the ceiling.
Such a position would eject the cartridge down and to the rear of the
victim, hitting the bed much more quickly than the body could fall. Again,
according to Dr. Norton and dozens of criminalists I've interviewed, there's
nothing unusual about finding a spent cartridge under a (formerly) seated
victim.
The bullet was found in the ceiling: Continue with the imaginary gun pointed
at your head. If you sit up straight, head erect, a bullet from that gun
would pass through the temple and lodge most likely in the wall on the other
side of you. However, imagine yourself so drunk you can barely sit upright
(.27 blood/alcohol content, remember). Tilt your head to the right a little,
"gun" still pointed at your temple. In this highly possible, perhaps highly
likely position, a bullet traversing your temple would very likely lodge in
the ceiling above your left side - precisely where the bullet that killed
George Reeves was found.
No fingerprints found on the gun: The police report indicated that the gun
was freshly oiled. Despite "common knowledge" to the contrary, a freshly
oiled gun will NOT hold fingerprints. Fingerprints in even a thin coat of
oil will dissipate just as they will in any other liquid. Prints are usually
found when oil FROM THE FINGERS is deposited on a NON-oily surface. A wide
variety of police officers and criminalists have been unanimous in providing
this interpretation of the lack of fingerprints. (However, one detective DID
suggest to me that sometimes a report indicating that no prints were found
on a weapon was really a cover for the fact that a rookie patrolman had
picked up the gun improperly and ruined whatever prints MIGHT have been
there. There is nothing to suggest that this is what happened in the Reeves
case. But either way, the lack of prints provides no meaningful evidence
whatsoever as to who held the gun at the time of firing.) [Interpolation of
information since this article: Detective Bill Clark of the NYPD (a lead
detective in the Son of Sam case among others) told me that in his
twenty-five-year career in homicide investigation, he had found fingerprints
on a weapon only once, out of thousands of weapons. He said worrying about
fingerprints on a weapon in a death investigation was a waste of time. You
check, but you don't worry if they aren't there.]
Reeves supposedly was not depressed at the time: Well, who ya gonna believe?
I've got scores of interviews with friends of Reeves who will tell you that
he was depressed as hell. I've got a good number of interviews with friends
who state that he was not depressed. But most of the "not depressed"
statements come from friends who hadn't seen him in a long time. Most of the
"depressed" statements come from friends who saw a lot of him in the last
weeks. He even gave interviews in the last month of his life that strongly
suggest depression.
He had just signed a new contract to do Superman again: According to an
interview I had with Jack Larson, "Anyone who thinks another season of
Superman wouldn't depress George didn't know George." Make of that what you
will. I have no ax to grind, other than a dedication to the truth of the
case. As I said, I began my work convinced that murder had happened. Cold,
hard facts have prevented me from maintaining that belief.
Jim Beaver
Travoltron
Unsolved Mysteries episode pretty weak. A man had Reeves killed because
Reeves STOPPED having an affair with his wife? It made no sense to me.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Jim Beaver <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
> An inebriated person (Reeves's blood-alcohol content the night of
Huh. Just what, exactly, is the "legal limit" for alcohol content
in one's bloodstream?
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
c...@hewkawi.com
murder.
R H Draney
>
>
>In the previous article, Jim Beaver <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
>> An inebriated person (Reeves's blood-alcohol content the night of
>> his death was 2.5 times the legal limit) [...]
>
>Huh. Just what, exactly, is the "legal limit" for alcohol content
>in one's bloodstream?
Fifty percent...beyond that it becomes the blood content of one's alcohol
stream....
(See also "Amy Winehouse")....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Jim Beaver
> J.D. Baldwin filted:
>>
>>
>>In the previous article, Jim Beaver <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
>>> An inebriated person (Reeves's blood-alcohol content the night of
>>> his death was 2.5 times the legal limit) [...]
>>
>>Huh. Just what, exactly, is the "legal limit" for alcohol content
>>in one's bloodstream?
It's shorthand for the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle.
California's limit is currently .08, which under today's regulations would
have put Reeves at almost four times the legal limit (for operating a motor
vehicle).
Nothing about this case involved operating a motor vehicle, but that's how
comparisons are made for the purpose of understanding the level of
intoxication. A lot of strapping young men can't sit upright in a chair at
.16. A BAC of .27 (Reeves's) indicates someone is pretty goddamned drunk.
Jim Beaver
Kris Baker
"Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote in message
news:j492v4$3om$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> He had just signed a new contract to do Superman again: According to an
> interview I had with Jack Larson, "Anyone who thinks another season of
> Superman wouldn't depress George didn't know George." Make of that what
> you will. I have no ax to grind, other than a dedication to the truth of
> the case. As I said, I began my work convinced that murder had happened.
> Cold, hard facts have prevented me from maintaining that belief.
>
> Jim Beaver
Thank you, Jim.
Your reasoning and logic is admirable.
Kris
BobF
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 04:20:02 -0500, "News" <m...@sb.net> shouted from the
highest rooftop:
>I can't help but think about the final two lines of self-induced fantasy from the last
>episode of "The Adventures of Lieberboy" broadcast on 7 September 2001.
>Jimmy Olsen fawns, "Golly, Mr. Royburger, you'll never know how wonderful
>it is to be like someone whose balls have never dropped."
>Albert Royburger (as Lieberboy) replies, "No, Jimmy, I guess you never will,"
>gives a wink to the camera, and fades into total oblivion.
We live in hope
* * * * * * *
Some of the more common characteristics of Royburger's syndrome include:
* Has narrow field of interests and experience
* Tends to live vicariously through those interests,
such as television characters
* Tends to relate better with television characters
than real people
Bermuda999
> "Loki" <cubby77...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:skcf679hnb9hb9tcu...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:05:57 -0600, "Kris Baker"
>
> >>"Bermuda999" <bermuda...@aol.com> wrote in message
for responding directly to Roy...before he responded directly to Roy
Loki
pissing on a wall.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Jim Beaver <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
> It's shorthand for the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle.
wise-ass remark.
> Nothing about this case involved operating a motor vehicle, but
> that's how comparisons are made for the purpose of understanding the
> level of intoxication. A lot of strapping young men can't sit
> upright in a chair at .16. A BAC of .27 (Reeves's) indicates
> someone is pretty goddamned drunk.
*who drink infrequently* can't sit upright in a chair at 0.16. I bet
they're damned rare. (As an aside, few people are really very
seriously impaired at 0.08.)
0.27 for most people is pretty seriously intoxicated, but a heavy,
regular drinker might be merely "stumbling drunk" as opposed to
"falling-down drunk." A raging alcoholic who rarely lets his BAC dip
below 0.15[1] might barely feel 0.27. I don't have any idea whether
Reeves was a heavy drinker, or a really heavy drinker, or what. I'll
take your word on that point (which isn't all that important to the
murder-vs.-suicide question).
[1] I had a grandfather like that.
If Reeves was an "ordinary" social drinker, 0.27 would have him fairly
wiped out but not to the point that he couldn't form the will and
muster the physical dexterity to snuff himself with a pistol. I'm
certainly not disputing your basic story about Reeves -- I find your
other details highly convincing, especially your points about powder
limit" for how drunk one is allowed to get while sitting inside one's
own home.
Brian
<jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
>It's shorthand for the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle.
>California's limit is currently .08, which under today's regulations would
>have put Reeves at almost four times the legal limit (for operating a motor
>vehicle).
>
>Nothing about this case involved operating a motor vehicle, but that's how
>comparisons are made for the purpose of understanding the level of
>intoxication. A lot of strapping young men can't sit upright in a chair at
>.16. A BAC of .27 (Reeves's) indicates someone is pretty goddamned drunk.
>
>Jim Beaver
>
license in CT in the mid 60's, it was .15.
Brad Ferguson
California. In New York state, though, the legal limit in 1963 was
.20; perhaps that was in line with the limit in other states.
Seems high, in every sense.
Jim Beaver
"News" <m...@sb.net> wrote in message
news:esmdnXDHof0wwPTT...@earthlink.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> "Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote in message
> news:j492v4$3om$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> news:j48t2s$8p8$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>I rented some Unsolved Mysteries "Strange Legends" DVD set a few weeks
>>>ago and got to see Jim Beaver himself convincingly explain some of the
>>>anomalies like the powder burns and the location of the spent shell.
>>
>> Thanks. Not much has changed in my opinion of the case. Here's what I
>> wrote in response to a request from Cecil Adams's "The Straight Dope" a
>> few years ago. You can read the entire article here:
>> http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1556/was-em-superman-em-star-george-reeves-a-suicide-or-murder-victim
>>
>>
>> There will always be speculation regarding the true circumstances of
>> George Reeves's death, and there are very interesting questions
>> supporting the various theories. I have been researching a full-scale
>> biography of Reeves for many, many years (while simultaneously starring
>> in the odd TV series here and there), and while I began my research with
>> a presumption of foul play, I long ago came to a thus far unshaken
>> conviction that Reeves did in fact commit suicide.
>>
>> A few pertinent facts: A 2002 study reported in The Lancet showed that a
>> person with a family history of even one suicide is 250% more likely to
>> die by his or her own hand than someone with no family history of suicide
>> at all. George Reeves had at least two suicides in his family (including
>> the aunt from whom he got his middle name), and he had two prior
>> unsuccessful attempts at suicide himself.
>
> Did he try it with a gun, or some other method? If you happen to know
> that about him, Jim.
> I'll bet others would also like to know the facts behind his two
> previous tries.
He tried once with a shotgun as a teenager. He tried once with a gun a few
months before his death. In both cases, he did so in the presence of
friends who prevented him. In both cases, he was drunk. In both cases, the
person who prevented him was the person who told me about it. Different
people, though, in separate interviews.
>
>> An inebriated person (Reeves's blood-alcohol content the night of his
>> death was 2.5 times the legal limit) is ten times more likely to commit
>> suicide than a sober person. A person with depression indicators is
>> 30-to-90 times more likely to commit suicide than a non-depressive. An
>> inebriated person with depression indicators is 300-to-900 times more
>> likely to commit suicide than a sober person without depression
>> indicators. (Source: National Institutes of Mental Health.). Reeves fit
>> the 300-to-900 category.
>
> cases overall doesn't prove anything one way or the other about George
> Reeves' case.
As you'll note from my first quoted sentence, there will always be
speculation. I didn't say any of this proves anything. I'm piling up
evidence, one way or the other. The other articles quoted did a pretty fair
(if uninformed) job of promoting the "not suicide" evidence. What I've
presented here is some of the opposing evidence. I don't know what
happened. I know what I believe happened. Statistics are meaningless
except in context, and in the context of a lot of other evidence, it seems
reasonable to provide these statistics.
> it be right-side-up when holding it with one hand pointing it at the
> person's temple?
Do you really believe that the only way, the easiest way, the most
casual-and-not-thought-out way of bringing a pistol up to one's head, is to
do so with the pistol perfectly upright (barrel, sight, and hammer on the
upper plane, butt pointed down)? It could have been held any way, but the
way I've depicted is both extremely easy, natural, and answers the
non-existent "puzzle" about why the empty cartridge was found behind the
victim.
>
>> If you have doubts try this test: Without thinking about it, quickly
>> point at your temple. If you're like most people, your little finger will
>> be toward your front and your index finger will be toward your back.
>
> your temple, it isn't toward your back.
> It's directly TOWARD YOUR TEMPLE either pointed left-to-right or
> right-to-left depending on which hand you use.
> The little finger is meaningless where it is.
You've misinterpreted my description, or I've been less than clear. Put
your hand in the position of holding a pistol, with the index finger
slightly extended as if crooked around a trigger. Your thumb will occupy
roughly the space occupied on a gun by the hammer. Most people, I think,
raising that hand to their temple in imitation of a man pointing a pistol at
the temple will have the thumb ("hammer") pointed toward their own rear
direction. It is not nearly as comfortable or natural a position to have
that thumb ("hammer") pointed up toward the sky. While Reeves might have
held the pistol in a hammer-up position, in his drunken state it is not
unreasonable to presume that he might even more easily have held it in the
more comfortable, easy, and natural position with the hammer side pointed
down and to his rear. Such a position would have ejected the spent casing
onto the bed behind him, where he could quite easily have fallen on it.
It's not that I insist that this is IN FACT what happened, it's that this is
an easy, rational, and unsurprising explanation of how this so-called
"mystery" could have occurred.
>
>>If you imagine that your hand is holding a pistol, you will see that the
>>top of the imaginary pistol is facing behind you rather than toward the
>>ceiling.
>
> straight. If your head is pointed slightly down, then the angle will be
> correspondingly at that same angle or close to it before pulling the
> trigger.
See above. I did not mean the BARREL of the pistol would be pointed
anywhere other than at the temple, but that the top plane of the weapon, in
this position, would be facing toward your rear direction.
> BTW, do you know what caliber pistol (or revolver) it was? I don't
> recall seeing the caliber mentioned, and if it was a pistol or a revolver.
It was a 9 mm. Luger. A revolver would not have ejected a shell.
>
>> Such a position would eject the cartridge down and to the rear of the
>> victim, hitting the bed much more quickly than the body could fall.
>> Again, according to Dr. Norton and dozens of criminalists I've
>> interviewed, there's nothing unusual about finding a spent cartridge
>> under a (formerly) seated victim.
>>
>> The bullet was found in the ceiling: Continue with the imaginary gun
>> pointed at your head. If you sit up straight, head erect, a bullet from
>> that gun would pass through the temple and lodge most likely in the wall
>> on the other side of you.
>
> about the bullet traveling into the ceiling.
> If your head was hanging down slightly and your angle toward the
> temple is also lowered, the gun would have to be angled up so strongly
> that the bullet hits very close to the ceiling or high up on the opposite
> wall. Either way, it doesn't hit the ceiling itself unless deflected in
> hitting some other object beforehand, or you point the gun below your chin
> pointed almost straight up towards your skull.
The bullet did not hit the ceiling directly over his head. It hit the
ceiling (actually an exposed ceiling beam) several feet across the room, at
an angle quite consistent with a slight upward-pointing direction of the gun
barrel through a slightly-tilted pair of temples. In addition, the ceiling
in the room (I've been there several times) is quite low due to the beams,
and has those slanted angles at the walls (I don't know what they're called)
where instead of the ceiling hitting the wall at a 90 degree angle, the
ceiling suddenly slants 40 degrees or so, then joins the wall another foot
or so down at 55 degrees or so.
____________
/ x \
/ \
| |
| R | R = Reeves x=bullet lodged in
ceiling beam (slanted parts of ceiling much less vertical than typing
allows)
>
>> However, imagine yourself so drunk you can barely sit upright (.27
>> blood/alcohol content, remember). Tilt your head to the right a little,
>> "gun" still pointed at your temple. In this highly possible, perhaps
>> highly likely position, a bullet traversing your temple would very likely
>> lodge in the ceiling above your left side - precisely where the bullet
>> that killed George Reeves was found.
>
> Ok, I'm sitting on the edge of my bed (very drunk, in his case) with
> my head and upper body slightly lowered or hanging down at a stronger
> angle, I have the gun in my right hand (presumably he was a righty, but
> either handed it's the same), I point the gun at my right (or left)
> temple, and pull the trigger. The bullet still goes left-to-right (or
> right-to-left), exiting the other temple side, and lodges high up on the
> other side's wall--but *not* in the ceiling almost directly above me
> (him)! It might possibly hit the ceiling if he had his head at a very
> crooked angle, so that he might have gotten a crick in his neck, but that
> seems unlikely to be the position he was in for the bullet to have a good
> chance to hit the ceiling at all.
See above.
>
>
>> No fingerprints found on the gun: The police report indicated that the
>> gun was freshly oiled. Despite "common knowledge" to the contrary, a
>> freshly oiled gun will NOT hold fingerprints. Fingerprints in even a thin
>> coat of oil will dissipate just as they will in any other liquid. Prints
>> are usually found when oil FROM THE FINGERS is deposited on a NON-oily
>> surface. A wide variety of police officers and criminalists have been
>> unanimous in providing this interpretation of the lack of fingerprints.
>> (However, one detective DID suggest to me that sometimes a report
>> indicating that no prints were found on a weapon was really a cover for
>> the fact that a rookie patrolman had picked up the gun improperly and
>> ruined whatever prints MIGHT have been there. There is nothing to suggest
>> that this is what happened in the Reeves case. But either way, the lack
>> of prints provides no meaningful evidence whatsoever as to who held the
>> gun at the time of firing.) [Interpolation of information since this
>> article: Detective Bill Clark of the NYPD (a lead detective in the Son of
>> Sam case among others) told me that in his twenty-five-year career in
>> homicide investigation, he had found fingerprints on a weapon only once,
>> out of thousands of weapons. He said worrying about fingerprints on a
>> weapon in a death investigation was a waste of time. You check, but you
>> don't worry if they aren't there.]
>>
>> Reeves supposedly was not depressed at the time: Well, who ya gonna
>> believe?
>
> his getting married in three days?
I can't count the accounts from people who said he was very depressed. As
noted, most of the "happy-go-lucky, nothing-got-him-down" reports were from
people who hadn't seen him in a long time. Almost everyone I talked to,
including his best friend, who saw him the day of his death, said he was
more down than they'd ever seen him. (His best friend, by the way, told me
he believed it was murder or an accident, but admitted Reeves was utterly
distraught during his last few weeks.)
> I didn't know that until reading the article I found and
> posted.
>> I've got scores of interviews with friends of Reeves who will tell you
>> that he was depressed as hell. I've got a good number of interviews with
>> friends who state that he was not depressed. But most of the "not
>> depressed" statements come from friends who hadn't seen him in a long
>> time. Most of the "depressed" statements come from friends who saw a lot
>> of him in the last weeks.
>
>>He even gave interviews in the last month of his life that strongly
>>suggest depression.
>
> true, it still doesn't prove he committed suicide.
Of course it's speculation. Anything anyone tells you about this case is
speculation, because no one alive knows the truth. I reiterate, I'm not
proving anything or claiming to. I'm showing the evidence and stating that
I think the preponderance, by a large margin, points in fact toward suicide.
Believe it or don't.
> At most it is a possibility, but not any real proof even from the
> lower standard of preponderance of the evidence (in civil suits) compared
> to criminal trials.
>> He had just signed a new contract to do Superman again: According to an
>> interview I had with Jack Larson, "Anyone who thinks another season of
>> Superman wouldn't depress George didn't know George." Make of that what
>> you will. I have no ax to grind, other than a dedication to the truth of
>> the case. As I said, I began my work convinced that murder had happened.
>> Cold, hard facts have prevented me from maintaining that belief.
>
> of lack of powder burns or residue, but there still could be a strong case
> made he did *not* commit suicide. Especially your point on the angle of
> the gun with the bullet lodging in the ceiling instead of on the opposite
> wall. That's a very big point that you posit, but would appear to be very
> unlikely--if George was sitting up in the bed, either straight or hunched
> over in his inebriated state.
> I was deliberately trying to 'smoke you out', Jim, because you
> have put off your book about him for so long--I thought it might stimulate
> you to finally finish it--before something happens to prevent you from
> writing your points on why you believe it was suicide and not something
> more sinister.
Well, you don't need to stimulate me to finish the book. I suppose if you
wanted to arrange somehow for me not to be employed, not required to travel
for extended periods outside my home country for my work, and not to be a
single father, that would give me the freedom to finish the book faster, but
I have not given up on it nor in any way deliberately put it off, except as
necessary. I certainly plan to have it finished "before something happens
to prevent" it. :-)
> Thanks for your thoughtful replies on the various points the
> article mentioned as questions that seemed to be more indicative of foul
> play than mere suicide.
You're welcome. Thanks for the chance to make myself, I hope, a little
clearer.
Jim Beaver
Jim Beaver
> Reeves' supposedly had 0.27%, but it probably was higher since
> I'm sure there was a noticeable time lag by the time the L.A.P.D. measured
> his dead body's BAC. Lenore Lemmon didn't call-in to report his death for
> at least 25 min. after he (supposedly) did it, and they certainly didn't
> get out to his house and measure it for at least another 35+ min. after
> leaving the station or wherever they were on the first ones to arrive.
> That is one hour where his body would have detoxed some of the alcohol.
Incidental to this, a lot of people have pointed to the delay in calling the
police by Leonore (not Lenore) Lemmon and the three other people at the
house as somehow indicative of foul play. One of the first things noted in
the police report is that the witnesses stated clearly that they had not
called the police for some time after the shot. If the delay were sinister,
they would not have admitted it and certainly wouldn't have been the ones to
bring it up. Lemmon's lawyer said that she called him in drunken hysterics
and that he talked her down and then told her to hang up and call the
police. Which she did.
Jim Beaver
Jim Beaver
"Brad Ferguson" <thir...@frXOXed.net> wrote in message
news:080920112318039272%thir...@frXOXed.net...
> In article <qlni67dtmu5ish4p8...@4ax.com>, Brian
> <drmorri...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 20:33:58 -0700, "Jim Beaver"
>> <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >It's shorthand for the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle.
>> >California's limit is currently .08, which under today's regulations
>> >would
>> >have put Reeves at almost four times the legal limit (for operating a
>> >motor
>> >vehicle).
>> >
>> >Nothing about this case involved operating a motor vehicle, but that's
>> >how
>> >comparisons are made for the purpose of understanding the level of
>> >intoxication. A lot of strapping young men can't sit upright in a chair
>> >at
>> >.16. A BAC of .27 (Reeves's) indicates someone is pretty goddamned
>> >drunk.
>> >
>> >Jim Beaver
>> >
>>
>> What was the legal limit in CA at the time? When I first got my
>> license in CT in the mid 60's, it was .15.
>
>
> Interesting question. I looked around but couldn't find a cite for
> California.
I'm away from home and can't dig through my records for the source of the
information, but I did discover that in 1959, it was .10 in California,
which is why my
reply to the Straight Dope alluded to Reeves's BAC as being more than 2.5
times the legal limit. At the current .08, it would be nearly 3.5 times the
limit (not nearly 4, as I apparently drunkenly wrote yesterday).
Jim Beaver
Chris 'Sampo' Cornell
"News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:
> and that's why many States
> lowered the legal limit for drunk driving from 0.10% to 0.08%.
...along with political pressure from neo-prohibitionist groups like
MADD and the desire of local officials to rake in cash from fines....
Sampo (just sayin')
Jim Beaver
>
> "Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote in message
> the police?
> Did the LAPD ask them WHY the delay?
> How much time elapsed according to the LAPD report? Was it
> around a half-hour or longer?
> It certainly seems suspicious that they were hiding some material
> fact, instead of calling-in immediately after finding him dead.
> Were they *all* (besides Leonore) also so [legally at 0.10+%]
> drunk and/or hysterical they lost all sense of reason?
>
>
My presumption is that they all delayed because Lemmon was on the *only*
telephone freaking out with her lawyer. The LAPD was told that LL was on
the phone to her lawyer (who was also her former lover and still close
friend, if that adds context).
The elapsed time was between 20-45 minutes, depending on who said it and
when they said it (that night or in press interviews days, weeks, or years
later). The LAPD said that everyone in the house was too drunk to give very
coherent statements.
Jim Beaver
Jim Beaver
>
> "Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote in message
>> It was a 9 mm. Luger. A revolver would not have ejected a shell.
>
> used.
> And yes, I should have realized it had to be a pistol with the
> ejection of the shell.
> Did he own it himself? IOW, was it registered in his name, or
> was it another person's gun?
It was his own gun. He owned many guns. This one had been a gift from Toni
Mannix, his former girlfriend. It was registered to him.
>
> Is it possible it could have been an accident, with Reeves
> playing around with the gun?
Yes, it's possible. Reeves had a well-known history among his friends of
playing with guns.
> For some reason, I never thought of that possibility
> before,
> as either a suicide or murder.
> Could it have just been an unfortunate accident?
It could have. But the forensics strongly suggest a contact wound, and the
wound path is perfectly consistent with a deliberate shot to the temple,
so....
> Did his best friend (can you tell us his name?) know why
> Reeves was so distraught?
> It might shed more light on what was bothering him so much
> he either was playing with the gun, and it accidentally discharged, or it
> was a suicide.
> What time of day was the last time his best friend saw him,
> and how much time before his death later that night?
> The article said:
>
> "According to Lemmon, the only people in the house that
> night, in addition
> to George and herself, were Carol Von Ronkle, William Bliss, and writer
> Robert Condon. Lemmon says George Reeves committed suicide."
>
> Was his best friend any of those people, besides Lemmon
> herself?
His best friend since boyhood, Natividad Vacio, was not present at the time
of the shooting. Vacio had been there about 7 hours previous. He said that
Reeves had been sullen and depressed for weeks about his inability to get
work and the lingering headaches from an auto accident several weeks prior.
>
> According to the article I posted:
>
> "He was scheduled to shoot a film in Spain, and was to
> be married to his fiancee Lenore Lemmon on June 19, 1959 - just three days
> after his
> supposed suicide."
>
> This implies he had *another* role outside of "Superman,"
> (and get married, also in just 3 days), so why would he be distraught
> about being typecast
> when the film in Spain was obviously not his "Superman" typing?
> Was he secretly distraught about his upcoming marriage to
> Lenore
> Lemmon somehow and wanted to get out of it?
> The more answers we get on some things, the more questions
> arise on other points of his life not generallhy known!
His mother said he was going to Spain to shoot a film and gave that as a
reason he "couldn't" have killed himself. But there was no film in Spain or
anywhere else. He had a project he hoped to direct, but couldn't get any
financing for it--a very cheap science-fiction film. There was talk of
going to Spain on a honeymoon, and Reeves had *borrowed* money from his
mother for the trip, but it was not for work.
I don't doubt that he was ambivalent about the upcoming marriage. But I'm
not sure he was so ambivalent as to be depressed about it. He and Lemmon
were reportedly having a tiff that evening. Who knows?
> Would you be able to name George's best friend, who you said saw him
> the day he died?
> What was the time of his death, approximately, taking into account
> the delay that Lemmon took to report it and the time the LAPD arrived?
Sometime between 12:30 and 1 a.m.
> I forgot to mention in my first reply, I thought he was getting
> into directing "Superman" episodes, so he was more than just an actor.
> If true, wouldn't that have possibly led to him becoming a
> full-time director in other television shows or in films, and as I
> mentioned
> above on a new film in Spain? Presuming that is the truth.
See above for the non-existent Spain film.
Almost every TV show allows its star to direct a few episodes. Only a tiny
fraction of those ever make it as directors outside their own show. He may
have been hopeful for that, but two years after having directed several
episodes of Superman, no one else had hired him to direct. It seems to me,
from what I've learned talking to people then and from my own knowledge of
the TV industry, that he could have directed a few Supermans if the series
had gone on, but there was no magic career salvation coming from that
direction. And nothing about Superman paid well, not even for the
directors.
> Have you talked to Jim Nolt, the "George Reeves expert" as
> mentioned in that article, and compared notes and impressions on the
> suicide vs. murder (or possibly a pure accident)?
Jim Nolt and I are old friends. We've spent decades talking about this
together!
By the way, the author of the article originally quoted wrote me to tell me
that it was many years old and had been resurrected intact despite newer
information of the sort I've provided. He's now appending what I posted
here onto the article, he says.
Jim Beaver
Brian Watson
> on
> shell was found underneath his body... the gun on the floor between his
> feet... the bullet in the ceiling.
It's always puzzled me why the bullets didn't bounce off him.
--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
www.imagebus.co.uk/shop
Brian
<jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
>I'm away from home and can't dig through my records for the source of the
>information, but I did discover that in 1959, it was .10 in California,
>which is why my
>reply to the Straight Dope alluded to Reeves's BAC as being more than 2.5
>times the legal limit. At the current .08, it would be nearly 3.5 times the
>limit (not nearly 4, as I apparently drunkenly wrote yesterday).
>
>Jim Beaver
>
states. .10 and .20 are radically different.
Brian
> Has anybody lived for longer than a brief time with a BAC of
>merely 0.50%, much less 50% (100x greater)???
>I'm sure there was a noticeable time lag by the time the L.A.P.D. measured
>his dead body's BAC. Lenore Lemmon didn't call-in to report his death for
>at least 25 min. after he (supposedly) did it, and they certainly didn't get
>out to his house and measure it for at least another 35+ min. after leaving
>the station or wherever they were on the first ones to arrive. That is one
>hour where his body would have detoxed some of the alcohol.
I'm not sure how much the BAC goes down after death since it isn't
being metabolized anymore.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Brian <drmorri...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I'm not sure how much the BAC goes down after death since it isn't
> being metabolized anymore.
ferment.
BobF
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 15:54:07 -0700, "Jim Beaver"
<jumb...@prodigy.spam> shouted from the highest rooftop:
>
>His best friend since boyhood, Natividad Vacio, was not present at the time
>of the shooting. Vacio had been there about 7 hours previous. He said that
>Reeves had been sullen and depressed for weeks about his inability to get
>work and the lingering headaches from an auto accident several weeks prior.
It's not clear whether or not Reeves' suffered a head injury in the
accident, but the partner of an extended family member suffered a head
injury in a car accident a few weeks before he committed suicide. The
injury was bad enough for him to be airlifted down to Auckland and
spent several days in hospital before being transferred back to
Whangarei Hospital where his concussion kept him in hospital for
several more days.
When he was released he was given a small leaflet that explained the
possible after effects of a brain injury - headaches, mood swings,
deep depression and memory loss being mentioned.
Memory loss? The idiots at the hospital gave a leaflet to someone who
might forget to read it? Or forget he had it? Or forget where he put
it? Or forget what he read?
Anyway, no one at the hospital bothered to explain any of this to his
mother or partner, both of whom would have recognized the symptoms he
was presenting after he returned home and got him help. Instead, the
guy was confused, upset, thought he was going mad and drove to a
secluded beach where he watched the sunset as he gassed himself.
Compared to today, little was known about the after effects of brain
injuries in 1959. What a shame that information isn't made clear to
the victims and their support people as a major priority.
--
"It's not that I'm afraid to die. I just don't want to be there when it happens." - Woody Allen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Beaver
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 15:54:07 -0700, "Jim Beaver"
>
>
> >His best friend since boyhood, Natividad Vacio, was not present at the time
> >of the shooting. Vacio had been there about 7 hours previous. He said that
> >Reeves had been sullen and depressed for weeks about his inability to get
> >work and the lingering headaches from an auto accident several weeks prior.
>
> It's not clear whether or not Reeves' suffered a head injury in the
> accident,
serious gash across the forehead that required numerous stitches and
several days of hospitalization, and he was for the next two months
(until his death) taking strong painkillers prescribed for his
headaches.
Jim Beaver
BobF
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:46:38 -0700 (PDT), Jim Beaver
<jumbl...@gmail.com> shouted from the highest rooftop:
whether or not he'd suffered a head injury.
Now that you've clarified that question, I'd venture to speculate that
- like the young man I described earlier - Reeve's head injury could
very well have caused him to be depressed enough to consider suicide
as his only option.