Someone sold a photo of Whitney in her casket.

[Roberta75]

Shame on the Inquirer for printing this.

Warning: DO NOT OPEN THIS LINK IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE MISS HOUSTON IN HER CASKET.

http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.c...in-poor-taste/

[abfan]

Shameful.The media should be held to some type of standards. and fined or put of of buisness. but as u know they r desperate and competing with the internet.I wonder what low life family member sold that picture.btw thanks for the Warning I did not view..I wouldnt have been able to sleep

[Roberta75]

Shameful.The media should be held to some type of standards. and fined or put of of buisness. but as u know they r desperate and competing with the internet.I wonder what low life family member sold that picture.btw thanks for the Warning I did not view..I wouldnt have been able to sleep

Well I thought it best to warn everyone about opening the link abfan. Unfortunately I did open the link and while Miss Houston looked lovely and at peace, the photo really shook me up. I had to go to the ladies room to compose myself.

The National Inquirer ought to be forced to name the family member or the funeral home staff member who sold the photo. It's simply reprehensible.

Roberta

[marv2]

She looks beautiful. It is a bit interesting though. Several that attended the viewing said that she was dress in all white...........

[selinasian]

She looks beautiful. It is a bit interesting though. Several that attended the viewing said that she was dress in all white...........

Trust you, as a 'straight' man, to be concerned about the state of dress.

[marv2]

Trust you, as a 'straight' man, to be concerned about the state of dress.

What is this fool talking about ?

[abfan]

[QUOTE][/What is this fool talking aboutQUOTE]

LOL.... I didnt get that either

[selinasian]

[QUOTE=abfan;94980]

[/What is this fool talking aboutQUOTE]

LOL.... I didnt get that either

LOL....I doubt you get much, dear!

[marv2]

[QUOTE=selinasian;94981]

LOL....I doubt you get much, dear!

Selinasian are you trying to bait us to try to get us to say something that could be viewed as offensive to gay people?

[marv2]

[QUOTE=abfan;94980]

[/What is this fool talking aboutQUOTE]

LOL.... I didnt get that either

Whatever he is talking about has nothing to do with this thread as far as I can understand.

[juicefree20]

I haven't passed any news stands just yet. But I find it interesting that while this picture is said to be from the front page of the latest Enquirer, this picture appears nowhere on their website.

It just makes me wonder why they would pass up all of those hits & opportunity to use their own website to trumpet their 'exclusive', potentially helping fuel more sales of their errr...'paper'? They've never missed an opportunity to do so & I wonder why this happens to be the case now?

Beyond that, THE PEOPLE of our country [[USA) really needs to step up & demand that laws be set in place which will protect the rights of every individual in situations such as these. It's obvious that Cissy wanted this to be a private ceremony & private means just that. The fact that some sneaky jerk with a camera snaps an UNAUTHORIZED PICTURE, then sells it SHOULD NOT supercede the will of the family.

A law should be created which will ensure the privacy of all whom desires it. Unless we're speaking about criminal cases or the breaking of laws, people simply should be able to choose privacy for themselves & their families. This nonsense about helicopters flying above private ceremonies just so that they can capture a scoop of private moments so that it can be pimped against the will of the subject needs to be met with swift & immediate punishment.

Just because we WANT to know people's business doesn't mean that we NEED to or SHOULD know it, simply because we WANT to know it. Nor is there any law which states that we, nor anyone else has the right to intrude of the privacy of others.

The day that people believe & accept that THEIR/OUR right to know supercedes the privacy of those who don't want the attention, only hastens the day in which privacy FOR ALL becomes extinct. Today, it's Whitney or another celebrity, tomorrow, it could be you, your child & nothing will be sacred.

And they we'll become apoplectic because our privacy was breached.

I blame not so much the press, but rather the people because as the internet, gossip magazines [[Enquirer, Star, etc. have been popular for DECADES!) & ratings for shows such as "The Wendy Williams Show" & these stupid "reality" shows prove, that people are nosy as hell & love knowing about other peoples business & the ratings & sales indicate the jucier & more horiffic, the better.

To prove the phenomenon, simply look at the number of any negative thread here vs. that of the positive ones. The ones with the drama tend to triple or quadruple the number of views of the more positive or sedate threads.

That seems to be the way that the world is wired these days...they've conditioned many to accept B.S. & drama under the guise of 'informing' & 'entertaining' us.

[jillfoster]

I feel if people want privacy, then they should not endeavor to be famous. I've seen many a body lying in state in my time, so to me, it's not THAT big of a deal.

[marv2]

I feel if people want privacy, then they should not endeavor to be famous. I've seen many a body lying in state in my time, so to me, it's not THAT big of a deal.

I agree. It did not excite me or do anything to me seeing that photo. I also would have never thought to go look for it either.

I also agree with Juice in that society has been conditioned to look for scandal, controversy, gossip or just general unpleasant news first! That is fed to us 24/7 through cable news outlets and these papers like the Enquirer. The wishes of the family for privacy should have been honored, but money and greed trumps decency and honor everytime in this sick World.

This reminds me of a few years ago when a cousin of mine wanted permission to bring a video camera into church during my father's funeral services. I told her no! She did not like it, but she complied and all was well.

Since it would be most difficult to change the habits or appetite of many in the general public for these types of stories, pictures, etc. I think working to have laws implemented to prevent this type of thing from happening again is the way to go.

[juicefree20]

Jill,

That may well be true for some, but I somehow believe that it just might prove to be a big deal to Cissy & Bobbi Kristina, whom have just lost a daughter & a mother. They're already dealing with a nightmare, why should they have to revisit that nightmare just so some magazine can profit from their loss?

In this instance, it's not only the privacy of Whitney that's been breached. Although she's not here to see it, her mother, daughter & family are still here & they requested privacy. I believe that their right to privacy trumps the desire of some jerk to sneak a picture in order to attempt to sneak it to the highest bidder. I also believe that their right to privacy trumps the right of fans to see a picture of Whitney in repose simply because they want to see it. Thats simply not for them to determine what the family wants to share with them & somehow [[although I already know that it doesn't), respect should count for something.

I guess that eventually, it'll have to come to the point where if people are invited to the funeral or wedding of a famous person, they'll be required to sign a paper which will prevent them from leaking or selling any pictures of a private event to anyone.

[juicefree20]

Marv,

Heres a case in point. Over the years, I've shot more than a few funerals of some of our icons. With that said, its always been with the blessing of the families & I've always respected their wishes as regards what was posted. On the other hand, when Al Goodman passed, the family didnt want any pictures taken by anyone. I was cool with Al, Al let me tape shows & trusted that I wouldn't take advantage of him & the group. I got along well with the family & many of my pictures were in the slideshow that they presented & on his progam as well. Despite that, for me its simply a matter of respect. "No" means "NO", private means ''private" & trust is trust. I simply can't understand why anyone would violate someone whom has extended them an invitation, then repay them by taking a picture of a PRIVATE ceremony, then selling them out for profit.

It's a violation of trust, plain & simple.

You just don't sell out your family & friends & karma can be a real b#%$!

[Jerry Oz]

This sort of "journalism" sinks to new lows every year. If I were a star, I'd hire my own photographer to take my photo whenever paparrazi was present. I'd give the photos to every possible outlet for free so the market would be worthless to the asshole that jumped out of a bush to surprise me.

That being said, few would conceive of someone profiting from the photo of someone in a casket.

[marv2]

Marv,

Heres a case in point. Over the years, I've shot more than a few funerals of some of our icons. With that said, its always been with the blessing of the families & I've always respected their wishes as regards what was posted. On the other hand, when Al Goodman passed, the family didnt want any pictures taken by anyone. I was cool with Al, Al let me tape shows & trusted that I wouldn't take advantage of him & the group. I got along well with the family & many of my pictures were in the slideshow that they presented & on his progam as well. Despite that, for me its simply a matter of respect. "No" means "NO", private means ''private" & trust is trust. I simply can't understand why anyone would violate someone whom has extended them an invitation, then repay them by taking a picture of a PRIVATE ceremony, then selling them out for profit.

It's a violation of trust, plain & simple.

You just don't sell out your family & friends & karma can be a real b#%$!

BINGO! Exactly! Here's another case in point. You and I were both at Levi Stubb's funeral remember? I remember the great photo tribute you did and share it with us here. Well I was at the funeral home the day before also. I went for the viewing. I had my camera with me, but I would not have dared even think about taking pictures of Levi lying in state, in repose. Even though I know the Swanson's and there was no one there to directly stop me from doing so, I have to much love and respect for Levi and the Stubbs family to go off taking pictures everywhere. I took a few near the entrance of the arrangements and tributes, but stopped at that point. What I am saying is that an individual should use their own personal judgement, integrity and just plain common manners in situation like that. Now, since we know that not everyone out there has compassion in their hearts for the grieving family, then, laws may need to be put in place giving a little jail time and a BIG fine for the breaching of privacy in these situations.

Whoever did this will see the true fruits of their "labor" later on in life. I have no doubt in that.

[jillfoster]

Jill,

That may well be true for some, but I somehow believe that it just might prove to be a big deal to Cissy & Bobbi Kristina, whom have just lost a daughter & a mother. They're already dealing with a nightmare, why should they have to revisit that nightmare just so some magazine can profit from their loss?

In this instance, it's not only the privacy of Whitney that's been breached. Although she's not here to see it, her mother, daughter & family are still here & they requested privacy. I believe that their right to privacy trumps the desire of some jerk to sneak a picture in order to attempt to sneak it to the highest bidder. I also believe that their right to privacy trumps the right of fans to see a picture of Whitney in repose simply because they want to see it. Thats simply not for them to determine what the family wants to share with them & somehow [[although I already know that it doesn't), respect should count for something.

I guess that eventually, it'll have to come to the point where if people are invited to the funeral or wedding of a famous person, they'll be required to sign a paper which will prevent them from leaking or selling any pictures of a private event to anyone.

Juice, I seriously doubt that it was a guest that took this picture. It was probably a florist delivery person, or someone who worked for the funeral home.

[luke]

ALthough I agree with the Houstons right to privacy I think it is impt to remember that Whitney was extremely famous and these kind of pics have happened for many years not just recently. Fame does have a down side and in life the entertainers are awarded handsomely and given perks way out of proportion. But again I think privacy shold have been respected.

[marv2]

This sort of "journalism" sinks to new lows every year. If I were a star, I'd hire my own photographer to take my photo whenever paparrazi was present. I'd give the photos to every possible outlet for free so the market would be worthless to the asshole that jumped out of a bush to surprise me.

That being said, few would conceive of someone profiting from the photo of someone in a casket.

Jerry that sounds like a good idea, but that will not stop those bastards. Case in point, Princess Diana. After being chased into that tunnel and after the crash and she lay dead in the mangled car, one of the photographers got close enough to get pictures of Diana's mortally wounded and disfigured body still lying in the car! Those pictures have even shown up on the internet! They will stop at anything if there is someone or some organization willing to pay for the pictures.

[marv2]

Juice, I seriously doubt that it was a guest that took this picture. It was probably a florist delivery person, or someone who worked for the funeral home.

Jill you are right. Looks like an inside job to me. There are no people present in the room. Whoever took the picture must have had knowledge that the family had not planned on having Whitney reposed at the funeral service.

[juicefree20]

Jill,

More than likely, you're correct. I would imagine that someone was minding the store, so to speak. I'm sure that the delivery person wouldn't be allowed to stay around unescorted, which raises more questions than I'd ant to begin to ask.

Either way [[as I haven't seen this issue on a news stand), if I owned the funeral home, there'd be hell to pay, as I would be looking for some answers. If if were a delivery person, I doubt seriously that any florist would risk the potential backlash from potential customers whom find not merely the picture, but the violation distasteful.

If it were a delivery person responsible, I sure hope that the payday made it worthwhile in this economy because if discovered, I believe that the next flower that they deliver will be for the passing of their employment.

Which when you think about it is a little ironic.

[marv2]

ALthough I agree with the Houstons right to privacy I think it is impt to remember that Whitney was extremely famous and these kind of pics have happened for many years not just recently. Fame does have a down side and in life the entertainers are awarded handsomely and given perks way out of proportion. But again I think privacy shold have been respected.

Luke, years ago, Jet Magazine would run pictures of just about any prominent person in their open casket. They even went so far one time in publishing a picture of the late Otis Redding, body frozen and still strapped into is seat as they pulled his body from a lake where he had died in a plane crash!

[juicefree20]

Marv,

At the funeral for the great Levi Stubbs, there were but 2 official photographers, myself & the photographer for Swansons. And as memory serves me, there were no pictures displayed anywhere with a photo of Levi in the casket. The attendants for Swansons werent playing that & fortunately, people were respectful enough of the family & to the memory of Levi to respect the wishes of the family.

We may be fans, but sometimes I believe that far too many fans believe that such occasions are more about them & less about the loved ones whom have lost their loved one.

I always thought that it was THEIR wishes that were paramount.

[marv2]

Marv,

At the funeral for the great Levi Stubbs, there were but 2 official photographers, myself & the photographer for Swansons. And as memory serves me, there were no pictures displayed anywhere with a photo of Levi in the casket. The attendants for Swansons werent playing that & fortunately, people were respectful enough of the family & to the memory of Levi to respect the wishes of the family.

We may be fans, but sometimes I believe that far too many fans believe that such occasions are more about them & less about the loved ones whom have lost their loved one.

I always thought that it was THEIR wishes that were paramount.

That is how it is supposed to be! I mean why even show up if you really don't care? I am not talking about the news media, but even they should care enough to respected the deceased and the family. It now makes me wonder what was Jet's deal back in the day?

[juicefree20]

Luke,

Fame is indeed a two-headed monster which giveth & sometimes taketh. Indeed the privacy of the family should've been respected.

The fans have seen thousands, if not millions of pictures & video depictions of Whitney while she was living. I also wonder exactly how many people were clamoring to see pictures of Whitney 2 months or even 3 weeks ago? I dont really know exactly what, if anything anyone would have been expecting to see in such a picture. And the way that I see it is that if I were a fan of an individual, the last thing that I would want to see is them lying lifeless. Why would I want that to be the last way that I saw them when I have so many more pleasant images to remember them by?

I admit that I've just never understood that. Personally, I just don't want to remember someone whom I love or care about who was warm & full of life lying there like that, full of anything but life. It's bad enough when it's a family member or friend & I wouldn't want to do it then.

I'd simply rather remember the person as I knew them...alive.

[juicefree20]

Back then I believe that Jet wasn't looking at it from that perspective. I believe that they were looking at it from the standpoint that they were simply dealing in journalism. That & the fact that if they didn't run the pictures, most likely someone else would've & we might have bought the other magazines whom ran those pictures.

To be honest, I was thinking about the potential of something like this the other day, but more along the lines of much more distasteful pictures leaking out. I once played softball with a guy who worked for EMS & this guy used to carry around an album that had pictures of him posing with dead people & some of those pictures were gruesome. This was he early 90s when dealers wereshooting people left & right. Eventually, his superiors got wind of his photo 'gallery' & he was fired. I believe 'violation' was one of the charges against him.

I wondered if there would've been anyone so low as to attempt to do something in this situation & that was something that I hoped WOULD NOT happen. Fortunately, that hasn't been the case. Ironically, if this photo is real then the tabloid whom ran a story of doom & gloom about her the day before she passed, has actually posted a picture depicts her in a manner in which their story of nearly 2 weeks ago certainly didn't...

Peaceful.

[Roberta75]

Luke,

Fame is indeed a two-headed monster which giveth & sometimes taketh. Indeed the privacy of the family should've been respected.

The fans have seen thousands, if not millions of pictures & video depictions of Whitney while she was living. I also wonder exactly how many people were clamoring to see pictures of Whitney 2 months or even 3 weeks ago? I dont really know exactly what, if anything anyone would have been expecting to see in such a picture. And the way that I see it is that if I were a fan of an individual, the last thing that I would want to see is them lying lifeless. Why would I want that to be the last way that I saw them when I have so many more pleasant images to remember them by?

I admit that I've just never understood that. Personally, I just don't want to remember someone whom I love or care about who was warm & full of life lying there like that, full of anything but life. It's bad enough when it's a family member or friend & I wouldn't want to do it then.

I'd simply rather remember the person as I knew them...alive.

Well I think it's grave robbing and thievery at its worst. Whoever took that photo of Miss Houston in her casket wants horse whipping and should be prosecuted. The family had a private-invitation only viewing for a reason.

My neighbor Anita thinks it was a famous family member who owes money to the IRS that sold the photo. I told her she ought to be ashamed of saying such a thing and that the family member she's talking about loved Whitney.

I think it was a security guard or a person who work for the funeral home that sold that photo. It's simply disgusting.

The entire thing has me sick to my stomach and I am going to write the national Inquirer and my local Congressman.

Roberta

[luke]

Juice--when my sister died my Dad insisted on having a picture of her that was taken by the funeral home as part of their procedures I guess. Im sure it had something to do with working through the loss for him. They were very close. People used to die at home with their loved ones and it wasnt as sanitized as it has often become today.

[marv2]

Juice--when my sister died my Dad insisted on having a picture of her that was taken by the funeral home as part of their procedures I guess. Im sure it had something to do with working through the loss for him. They were very close. People used to die at home with their loved ones and it wasnt as sanitized as it has often become today.

Luke, first of all I am very sorry to hear of your loss. I have had family members that had taken pictures of relatives at the funeral home too. I have some of my Grandad but they have been sealed up in a Bible since he passed 16 years ago. I'll never look at them.

[Roberta75]

The Christian Post condemns the national Inquirer.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/wh...-coffin-70065/

Good for the Christian Post for taking a stand.

Roberta

[marv2]

Back then I believe that Jet wasn't looking at it from that perspective. I believe that they were looking at it from the standpoint that they were simply dealing in journalism. That & the fact that if they didn't run the pictures, most likely someone else would've & we might have bought the other magazines whom ran those pictures.

To be honest, I was thinking about the potential of something like this the other day, but more along the lines of much more distasteful pictures leaking out. I once played softball with a guy who worked for EMS & this guy used to carry around an album that had pictures of him posing with dead people & some of those pictures were gruesome. This was he early 90s when dealers wereshooting people left & right. Eventually, his superiors got wind of his photo 'gallery' & he was fired. I believe 'violation' was one of the charges against him.

I wondered if there would've been anyone so low as to attempt to do something in this situation & that was something that I hoped WOULD NOT happen. Fortunately, that hasn't been the case. Ironically, if this photo is real then the tabloid whom ran a story of doom & gloom about her the day before she passed, has actually posted a picture depicts her in a manner in which their story of nearly 2 weeks ago certainly didn't...

Peaceful.

Also with Jet, I think it was just catering to what was accepted then in the community. I know they ran the open casket pictures of Emmitt Till at the request of Mrs Mamie Till, but other pictures of like Sam Cooke, Malcolm, MLK and many other notables were published for those who could not attend the services in person. I don't know, I am just trying to rationalize it now. I grew up reading Jet and during those times it did not seem strange or even something that would raise a fuss. I am sure that they had permission to run the photos. This case of the Houston Family is entirely different and the publication running them are doing so purely for sensational reasons. This is what angers me most about it.

[juicefree20]

Luke,

I'm sorry for your loss & I understand what you're saying.

My mother, other family members & just about everyone I know does the same thing. To be honest, I've asked my mother the same thing, Why would you want to look at a picture of a loved one lying lifeless when we have so many other pictures which depict them in happier times?"

I never got an answer that made a lot of sense to me, that is other than the fact that she wanted it, I guess for her own ways of dealing with it. So, when her husband died, I took the picture for her & when my youngest sister died, I did likewise. However, I drew the line when my wife died & didn't take any pictures of her. Anyone who wanted one was going to have to take that picture themselves.

If I was going to look at any pictures, then I would choose one of her holding my son when he was a baby or even one of our wedding pictures. But a picture of her lying in a coffin was simply unthinkable to me, as I simply don't believe that any such picture displays anyone at their best.

I know that I'm definitely in the minority regarding this, but, so be it.

[juicefree20]

Roberta,

Usually, a publication requires a release before printing a picture for publication.

I have been required to sign releases for submitting certain pictures & required to sign releases limiting what I could do with certain pictures or video.

With that said, I believe that in cases such as this when it is public knowledge that something such as this is a private event that the publication publishing the picture should be legally forced to give up the person who submitted the picture in order to determine their right to have sold said picture.

The family should know who is responsible for the breach, because it has the effect of making people whom may be innocent, suspects.

For example, how would it feel to be the director of that funeral home after that picture hit the newstands, the internet & from what I was told, on the news? How about any worker who did any business inside of that funeral home...delivery person, ushers, attendants, or even a family member?

Why should anyone have to be viewed with suspicion for a breach such as this? it would be far simpler were the law to allow for the identification of anyone in a situation such as this, if only so that the innocent aren't viewed as suspect.

Contrary to what many believe, just because you BELIEVE that you have the right to do something doesnt necessarily mean that you HAVE that right.

Just as so many of us have become accustomed to the theft of programs, music, pictures & stories, which many of us believe are ''fair game'', today's internet mentality has somehow made people believe that they have the the "right" to things which aren't theirs, never was & worst of all, they simply don't seem to respect that fact.

That it, until it happens to them.

[juicefree20]

Marv,

No!

They are doing it for circulation, which adds up to dollars & cents for that 'exclusive'.

So, it's nothing more than the latestpimping & profiteering at the expense of a woman whom can no longer speak for herself.

To be fair, more despicable are those so-called friends' whom while citing their 'love' for Whitney, wasted about 17minutes to spill their guts in interviews, for a few shekels & perhaps 4 1/2 minutes of attention. And as usually is the case...

we aint seen nothing yet.

[juicefree20]

Roberta,

I agree & good on the Christian Post for speaking out. I await to see the response from other leaders regarding this.

But what I think is truly sad is that a large wave of condemnation & a larger spotlight will only serve to sell even more of their papers. I'm sure that they fully understood that there would be many people who wasn't going to appreciate that picture. And there's one thing for sure. We certainly know that they're not going to apologize & likely have the printing presses at the ready in order to print additional issues.

Which is most likely why they ran the picture to begin with.

[Roberta75]

Roberta,

Usually, a publication requires a release before printing a picture for publication.

I have been required to sign releases for submitting certain pictures & required to sign releases limiting what I could do with certain pictures or video.

With that said, I believe that in cases such as this when it is public knowledge that something such as this is a private event that the publication publishing the picture should be legally forced to give up the person who submitted the picture in order to determine their right to have sold said picture.

The family should know who is responsible for the breach, because it has the effect of making people whom may be innocent, suspects.

For example, how would it feel to be the director of that funeral home after that picture hit the newstands, the internet & from what I was told, on the news? How about any worker who did any business inside of that funeral home...delivery person, ushers, attendants, or even a family member?

Why should anyone have to be viewed with suspicion for a breach such as this? it would be far simpler were the law to allow for the identification of anyone in a situation such as this, if only so that the innocent aren't viewed as suspect.

Contrary to what many believe, just because you BELIEVE that you have the right to do something doesnt necessarily mean that you HAVE that right.

Just as so many of us have become accustomed to the theft of programs, music, pictures & stories, which many of us believe are ''fair game'', today's internet mentality has somehow made people believe that they have the the "right" to things which aren't theirs, never was & worst of all, they simply don't seem to respect that fact.

That it, until it happens to them.

Amen Juice. The Houston family should definitely know the name of the traitor who took and sold that photo.

Roberta.

[P-Shark: The Revenge]

People are definitely trying to profit off her death. This one clueless ebay seller even has the nerves to call people immature for reporting him the first around. There were other vultures trying to sell these, some going up to the 4 digits!

Zoom Enlarge Sell one like this Official Whitney Houston Funeral + bonus Program,invitations,table top ARTICLE Item condition: New Time left: 2d 19h [[Feb 25, 201217:33:13 PST) Price: US $399.99 Buy It NowBuy It Now Add to cartAdd to cart Best Offer: Make OfferMake Offer Add to Watch list You'll earn $8.00 in eBay Bucks. See conditions Extra $10 eBay Bucks back on 1st purchase Subject to credit approval.See terms Shipping: FREE Expedited Shipping | See all details Delivery: Estimated between Fri. Feb. 24 and Tue. Feb. 28 Returns: No returns or exchanges, but item is covered by eBay Buyer Protection.

DUE TO IMMATURE PEOPLE MY LISTINGS WERE FLAGGED AND REMOVED!

YOU ARE BIDDING ON THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ACCORDING TO EBAY GUIDLINES AND THE BONUS IS "FREE"!

THE REAL VALUE IS IN THE BONUS IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN! IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE EMAIL ME ASAP!

BONUS: Official Whitney Houston Funeral Program in mint condition!! [[this is not a PDF), TWO INVITATIONS, AND TABLE TOP TENT!

THIS BONUS IS THE REAL DEAL AND ARE VERY LIMITED NO ONE BUT FAMILY AND FRIENDS WHO ATTENDED THE FUNERAL HAVE THESE!

NOTE: THE ARTICLE WILL NOT BE SHIPPED WITH THE BONUS,THE PIC OF THE ARTICLE IS ONLY ON LISTING AND I WILL EMAIL THE PIC FOR DELIVERY PURPOSES ONLY!

SORRY TO ALL WHO BID ON MY LAST LISTING!

GOOD LUCK! HOPE YOU ALL UNDERSTAND MY LISTING!

[jillfoster]

Also with Jet, I think it was just catering to what was accepted then in the community. I know they ran the open casket pictures of Emmitt Till at the request of Mrs Mamie Till, but other pictures of like Sam Cooke, Malcolm, MLK and many other notables were published for those who could not attend the services in person. I don't know, I am just trying to rationalize it now. I grew up reading Jet and during those times it did not seem strange or even something that would raise a fuss. I am sure that they had permission to run the photos. This case of the Houston Family is entirely different and the publication running them are doing so purely for sensational reasons. This is what angers me most about it.

I think Marv, the difference is that the Enquirer is considered a tabloid, and Jet a legitimate journalistic publication. It IS a double standard... but maybe this is a case of not WHAT occured, but how it was presented, and by whom? Juice... There is no getting a release from someone who is deceased. What this person did some people consider wrong, but there is nothing illegal about it, unless someone tresspassed in the funeral home to take it, which I highly doubt. And NO... even the Enquirer is protected and not required to reveal their source. So the Jeannie is out the bottle, and people are gonna have to suck it up and deal.

[nosey]

I videotaped my husband's funeral @ 4 years ago as it was a beautiful service and the historian in me just wanted to have it for perpetuity's sake. I videotaped my elderly uncle's funeral @ 6 years ago as his last surviving sister was unable to travel at that time and I wanted her to be able to have it. I hear now I started a trend in that little town; now it's become common practice. I don't find photographing the dead or videotaping funerals morbid at all.

[luke]

Thanks Marv and Juice and sorry about your wife Juice. I agree Nosey-death should not be considered morbid. Going through my sister's death and being there with her in her home and seeing her after and the funeral and subsequent memorials also ultimately helped me to deal with my own mortality. Larry King did a show awhile ago about how death is one of the last big Denial issues in this country, at least for many people. At my aunt's funeral her daughter issued a proclamation that there were to be no displays of emotion--of course my family was one extreme!!

[jillfoster]

Luke, what it boils down to is all types of people have all types ideas about what is appropriate at a funeral. Some people think it's morbid and in bad taste to repose someone, while in the world I grew up, it's ALWAYS done. We never take pictures of it, because that's how we are... but we DO take family pictures of the family at the gathering afterward. I don't think it strange if someone does take pictures of their loved one. The mortician has a hard time sometimes, because they NEVER take pictures, so therefore, they have no portfolio of their work, it all depends upon word of mouth, and that leads to dissatisfaction at times, because some morticians are artists, and frankly, some aren't. Like in the town where I live, the one mortician that gets the LEAST work [[Because he's not on the main drag) is by FAR the best when it comes to makeup talent and presentation. I mentioned that a floral delivery person might have done it.... having said that, it's a BIG might. Any funeral home that's not a "small potatoes" operation SHOULD have a flower room. It's a room that has an entry to the outside, but is never locked, so the florist can deliver at any time they need to, even when there is nobody at the funeral home. Around here, it's just always unlocked... but in larger cities, the door is usually equipped with a push button code lock, and all the local florists have the code, but the general public does not. If this funeral home is what it should be, then someone who works for the funeral home would be the direction I'd look. Perhaps a night cleaning crew or something like that. But I was not terribly offended by the picture of Whitney in repose, because like Marv mentioned... we saw photos like that of almost every major star in Jet... even Flo.

[arrr&bee]

First of all let's calm down,all of a sudden we're upset seeing a celeb in the casket on the front of a rag like the enquirer[did'nt these folks post the so-called death stare of jfk some years back?]this is america and we're about sensationalism and you all know it,now as for me personally i find it grusome to take a photo of a dead person[i rather picture them alive and smiling].

[abfan]

First of all let's calm down,all of a sudden we're upset seeing a celeb in the casket

It's not about about seeing he pic....We had our time with her. with her familys' consent at the funeral.This is just another attack on the Lady's Privacy by money making vultures.I mean really. How much of this woman's life do we need.This is type of stuff that may have drove her to do drugs in the first place...

[jobeterob]

This is about what we would expect from the Enquirer.

I wouldn't have seen it if I weren't a member of SD.

How much did they pay for the picture? Was the person that sold it fired?

[marv2]

Thanks Marv and Juice and sorry about your wife Juice. I agree Nosey-death should not be considered morbid. Going through my sister's death and being there with her in her home and seeing her after and the funeral and subsequent memorials also ultimately helped me to deal with my own mortality. Larry King did a show awhile ago about how death is one of the last big Denial issues in this country, at least for many people. At my aunt's funeral her daughter issued a proclamation that there were to be no displays of emotion--of course my family was one extreme!!

I also don't look at it as morbid, it is just that I don't want a lot of reminders of the actual service. I have tons of pictures from life events of family and friends. I cannot judge folks that take pictures of their own family members or videotape their services. As I said, I took pictures of my grandfather but we never looked at them again.

[marv2]

First of all let's calm down,all of a sudden we're upset seeing a celeb in the casket on the front of a rag like the enquirer[did'nt these folks post the so-called death stare of jfk some years back?]this is america and we're about sensationalism and you all know it,now as for me personally i find it grusome to take a photo of a dead person[i rather picture them alive and smiling].

I agree JAI, it's all about sensationlism. I hate the Enquirer because not only did they and whoever took the picture do a sneaky, underhanded thing. It is also because they are thumbing their noses at the familys well known wishes to keep parts of their mourning process private. It is like the Enquirer is saying "screw you, we'll do whatever we want and make a lot of money in the process..."! This is the part that really irritates me. This is the attitude that makes me want to see a serious organized boycott of this "publication". They are stepping all over the feelings of the Houston family.

[marv2]

It's not about about seeing he pic....We had our time with her. with her familys' consent at the funeral.This is just another attack on the Lady's Privacy by money making vultures.I mean really. How much of this woman's life do we need.This is type of stuff that may have drove her to do drugs in the first place...

You are so very right Abfan! It's the picture, it is the way they are totally disrespecting Whitney a nd her family. They are PIGS! I will never buy anything from them.

[Jerry Oz]

Once someone passes, there's really nothing we can do to them that matters. We don't cry because we're sorry for them so much as we are sorry we lost them. I don't take the pictures to be disrespectful to Whitney as much as I find them inappropriate on a human level. Her family doesn't deserve the disrespect. The person who sold the pic would probably be willing to fight if someone did the same thing to his/her mom but it's okay to profit from it when it's not. What an ethic.