Virginia Rappe V. Rosckel Case
In the 1920s, American stardom was on the rise. With the birth of the movie “star”, the public was more focused than ever on Hollywood. The crowds rejoiced when actors and actresses made blockbuster movies, but came down with harsh criticism if this perfect image was shattered. This is evident in the case of Virginia Rappe, a popular silent film actress who died in the days following a party with the biggest star at the time, Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle. The case was based on the assumption that her death, caused by a ruptured bladder, was due to being raped by Arbuckle. This case was filled with many conflicting testimonies along with the influence of the press making the persecution of Arbuckle impossible. The police investigation of this case was met with many difficulties. The incident did not become a matter of police business until 4 days after the party occurred when Rappe passed away. Due to these circumstances, there was not a chance for a proper investigation to be done. The police did conduct finger print analysis on the room where the alleged rape took place, though these finger prints were found inconclusive during trial. Authorities also did follow proper procedure and ordered an autopsy to be performed. The results of this autopsy “… showed a ruptured bladder, the rupture being due to natural causes.
…show more content…
This included Maude Delmont, a prominent figure in the case. According to Delmont, Rappe was certainly raped by Arbuckle. She claimed she heard Rappe screaming out in pain behind the locked bedroom door belonging to Arbuckle. Her eyewitness account however would not be heard in trial because of her lengthy criminal record. Her testimony was not the only one that was not credible. Many of the party goers reported one story to police, but then told a whole new story in the court room. These contradictory statements proved to be a major flaw in the case against Mr.
This included Maude Delmont, a prominent figure in the case. According to Delmont, Rappe was certainly raped by Arbuckle. She claimed she heard Rappe screaming out in pain behind the locked bedroom door belonging to Arbuckle. Her eyewitness account however would not be heard in trial because of her lengthy criminal record. Her testimony was not the only one that was not credible. Many of the party goers reported one story to police, but then told a whole new story in the court room. These contradictory statements proved to be a major flaw in the case against Mr.