Cissy Houston Wants Lie Detector Test for Funeral Staff

[marv2]

Marv,

I would guess that what would prevent them from being able to get away with a toilet shot is 'the subject would likely sue due to ''humiliation''.

In the case of Whitney, I guess that they would have to prove how the picture has negatively impacted upon them. I also imagine that the biggest obstacle would be that there are no laws which directly speak to a situation such as this...no LEGAL confidentiality clauses were breached, only a moral one.

These days, a lack of decency in matters such as this isn't necessarily against the law of the land. With that said, it seems to violate the laws of karma & we all know the old saying about karma.

Sometimes you have to be satisfied that karma usually does his/her thing & tends to mete out punishment which is harsher than the law would.

True![[in regards to karma). Not too far off the subject, but I just learned last year that in France there is a law against making racial and ethnic slurs. A person could be brought into court and subequently jailed for it! If in this country we can debate forming of laws that could dictate what a woman does with her body, then wouldn't it be possible to create laws to protect people from this type of thing?

Hold the publishers responsible as a part of the law!

[juicefree20]

Even better Marv would be society holding society to a higher standard. Once society embraces, supports & defends b.s, it's guaranteed that we'll get nothing but a steady diet of it on every menu.

B.S. in = B.S. out

[marv2]

Even better Marv would be society holding society to a higher standard. Once society embraces, supports & defends b.s, it's guaranteed that we'll get nothing but a steady diet of it on every menu.

B.S. in = B.S. out

Amen brother, Amen!

[nomis]

we cant blame this generation of journalsim for the photo....I mean didnt Ebony print a picture of Florence Ballard in her casket nearly 40 years ago ?and didnt the Enquirer do it to Elvis ? and im sure Sharon Davis's first book on Motown has Marvin in his casket as well..I really dont want to see the photo but someones bound to post it to me on facebook...

[soulster]

Just thinking about that photo. It probably wouldn't have been so bad if the Enquirer had simply printed the photo as it is, but they digitally zoomed in to show Whitney.

[Jerry Oz]

we cant blame this generation of journalsim for the photo....I mean didnt Ebony print a picture of Florence Ballard in her casket nearly 40 years ago ?and didnt the Enquirer do it to Elvis ? and im sure Sharon Davis's first book on Motown has Marvin in his casket as well..I really dont want to see the photo but someones bound to post it to me on facebook...

I think the problem most have with it is the photo was obviously taken with a cell phone and there was no confusion on the family's desire to keep the viewing private. I'd be willing to bet the photo in Ebony was taken with a fairly obvious flash that nobody could have missed seeing.

[nomis]

I cant remember if the Ballard photo appeared in Ebony or Jet...one of the two..but it was certainly printed..I wouldnt want to be working at The Enquirer this week cos your in for some heavy hate messages from people who are disgusted..but like I said aint anything new..they did it to Ballard,Presley,Gaye..the device is irrelevant..a photo is a photo..the body we leave is the last rite of dignity..

[Jerry Oz]

I cant remember if the Ballard photo appeared in Ebony or Jet...one of the two..but it was certainly printed..I wouldnt want to be working at The Enquirer this week cos your in for some heavy hate messages from people who are disgusted..but like I said aint anything new..they did it to Ballard,Presley,Gaye..the device is irrelevant..a photo is a photo..the body we leave is the last rite of dignity..

I guess what I meant to say was the photo of Houston was obviously done in secret. Were the other photos sanctioned by the families of the deceased? If not, you're right, it's no different. If so, the violation is of trust as much as it is of decency.

[marv2]

Just thinking about that photo. It probably wouldn't have been so bad if the Enquirer had simply printed the photo as it is, but they digitally zoomed in to show Whitney.

I was in King Kullens last night, that's a supermarket here in NY and at each check out aisle, the racks were stuffed with the National Enquirer bearing the pic of Whitney lying in repose. I did all I could not to look at it, but they have them right up in your face. Now what about small children seeing that and other sensationalize type photos? I mean, couldn't such displays cause some traumatization of children?

[marv2]

I think the problem most have with it is the photo was obviously taken with a cell phone and there was no confusion on the family's desire to keep the viewing private. I'd be willing to bet the photo in Ebony was taken with a fairly obvious flash that nobody could have missed seeing.

The photo of Florence was in Jet Magazine. Johnson Publishing has had a routine policy of publishing photos of deceased notables in repose since way back in the early 1950's with the most famous of such photos being that of Emmitt Till's disfigured body in 1955. I believe in recent years they have ceased printing these types of pictures. However, they never put these types of pictures on it's covers. The pictures were always integral to a larger story about the person's life and death. The National Enquirer slapped that photo of Whitney on it's cover as big as possible in an attempt to shock people.

[marv2]

I guess what I meant to say was the photo of Houston was obviously done in secret. Were the other photos sanctioned by the families of the deceased? If not, you're right, it's no different. If so, the violation is of trust as much as it is of decency.

Major difference. I cannot truthfully say that photos of deceased persons published in Ebony, Jet etc were sanctioned by the families because I do not know. I do know that Johnson Publishing [[the parent company of Ebony, Jet..) covered many of those noted deceased individuals lives and careers in a respectful way and treated their deaths that way.

[juicefree20]

Nomis,

It's good to see you here.

The important difference between the pictures which you mentioned & that of Whitney is that those pictures & services were publically-held services. The media was allowed to attend & as such, there were no restrictions placed upon them, as the family members obviously had no problem with the public attending, nor them covering the service[[s).

That's not the case with Whitney, as the fans in New York Metropolitan area had been told 2 days prior to the funeral that there was no way that they'd so much as gain entry to the roughly 6 square blocks which were partitioned off for the funeral. Furthermore, it had been announced that the funeral was going to be by invitation only.

I've shot the funerals &/or memorials of James Brown, Levi Stubbs, Freddie Scott, Tuth Brown, Al Goodman, Randy Cain & our Weldon MacDougal, to name a few. The wishes of the family & that of the funeral home dictated the terms & those terms had to be adhered to. What that means is that even if a photographer had been invited, there would've been restrictions & when receiving their press passes, the restrictions would've been clearly stated on paper & in order to receive the pass, a release of some sort would've had to be signed by the photographer or he/she'd have been out of luck.

In Whitney's case as far as I know, there was just ONE pool video camera allowed in the funeral home to provide the feed for all of the stations carrying the service live. And as memory serves me, there was absoutely no shots of Whitney, as the casket was closed.

The cases which you named were/are covered under the blanket of News/Media & as such, they were afforded the priviledge of taking those casket shots. But in the case of Whitney, this was a sneaky violation & nothing more than exploiting Whitney at the family's expense.

Now if the family had wanted pictures of Whitney to be made public, they'd have allowed everyone in attendance to snap away to their hearts content. And as its obvious that that picture was shot during a PRIVATE VIEWING, Cissy's reaction seems to indicate that if pictures were allowed at the viewing, it would be done only by certain family members & a select few TRUSTED friends, in order to prevent what happened from happening.

Back to the exploitation...had everyone been allowed to take pictures, that picture that appeared in The Enquirer would've had MUCH less value, supply & demand being what it is. And that's what makes this violation so despicable, as I'd be willing to take a guess that the whole thing was pre-arranged by someone, be it delivery person or even someone even closer.

And the family deserves to know whom they can trust, as well as whom they can't. That's only fair.

I believe that as survivors, Whitney's family deserves the right to choose what they want presented to the world, not to have someone trying to milk Whitney one last time decide it for them.

THAT level of deceit is what makes all of the difference in the world, as well as why some type of law should be created in order to protect the rights of the family, as well as to protect the innocent from becoming suspects when they've done nothing wrong.

[juicefree20]

Marv & Jerry,

Not to mention the fact that back then, many of our icons received little attention upon their passing. For some, it was as though they never existed. So within the context of those times, it's understandable why this was an accepted practice because it was indeed a sign of love & respect during a period when our people didn't get very much of either from anyone BUT us.

[juicefree20]

Marv,

I dont believe that they did it to shock anyone because she looked very peaceful.

I believe that their only consideration was the curiosity of people being able to buy a magazine containing an UNSANCTIONED, PRIVATE & EXCLUSIVE picture, a picture which on one else had, then selling more copies than they would've, had they only showed us the same pictures that every other news organization had access to.

They did it to make even more money & you can take that all the way to the bank.

As for any children being traumatized, I seriously doubt that.

The last 2 generations of kids have grown up with death becoming damn near normal. Kids see death on the news, they see death & practice killing in the games that they play. They hear about people being killed in the music that blasts outside of their windows & they hear about it & see on the news & in newspapers. This generation has been exposed to it incessantly, as it's been glorified since the movie "Scarface" & countless other "hood" movies.

Remember, Biggie was all of 18 years-old when he had that monster LP, "Ready To Die" & he died at the age of 24. Tupac died at 25 & several popular rappers & athletes who young kids looked up to barely made it to that age. And how many kids have they known from the neighborhood whom were killed due to senseless violence?

These last couple of generations have become familiar with death in ways that we never dreamed of when we were kids. Too many of them have had to grow up way too soon & that loss of their precious childhood is one of mankind's biggest sins.

And my God, what a price we've all paid because of this.

[marv2]

Marv,

I dont believe that they did it to shock anyone because she looked very peaceful.

I believe that their only consideration was the curiosity of people being able to buy a magazine containing an UNSANCTIONED, PRIVATE & EXCLUSIVE picture, a picture which on one else had, then selling more copies than they would've, had they only showed us the same pictures that every other news organization had access to.

They did it to make even more money & you can take that all the way to the bank.

You are right on in what you said. Shock may not have been the right word. "Titilate"? What I am getting at is they wanted that picture as you said to drive more sales of their paper. They enlarged it for the cover to make an impact in order to get you to buy the paper. The story inside would be secondary. I understand the financial end of doing such a thing, I guess I am still stuck on why? Why would they do such a thing to her family? I mean that picture is always going to be around now as a sad reminder.

[juicefree20]

"Tittilate" fits perfectly because that kind of thing sells & quiet as kept, whether it was kept behind closed doors, it always did & always has. Unfortunately, it's on an entirely different level from the 80's forward because the bar keeps getting lowered.

I have to be honest & say that this was somewhat an inevitablity & I hate to say it, but it has it's roots firmly placed in the days when I was a young kid...the late 60s & early 70s.

This is the price that we're paying for all of that communal living, where bras were burned & anything went. A great message, that of freedom & peace was taken, then twisted beyond recognition. After all of that, hedonism seeped in...the Disco days when folks were trying to get higher & would take damn near any substance, without really understanding the future consequences in order to do so. After awhile, all that anyone seemed to want was "more".

That set the stage for the "I" generation of the 80s & we all know what's happened since then. Folks wanted to change & rebel against the "Establishment", but seem to have missed the true point of the movement, which WAS NOT to become a bunch of greedy, self-absorbed folks.

Funny how we didn't understand that the foundation that we were laying was going to turn into this. But when you want to upset the applecart & change mores, you have to know where & when to draw the line, as well as what cause[[s) you're really fighting for.

Someone really dropped the ball here.

[soulster]

I was in King Kullens last night, that's a supermarket here in NY and at each check out aisle, the racks were stuffed with the National Enquirer bearing the pic of Whitney lying in repose. I did all I could not to look at it, but they have them right up in your face. Now what about small children seeing that and other sensationalize type photos? I mean, couldn't such displays cause some traumatization of children?

I doubt children would be traumatized. I'm sure many people even think that photo is fake. I'll also tell you that all the mags and rags about Houston did not sell last week where I live. Those National Enquirer copies did not move. I know the distributer rep, and she says that the mags about Whitney were duds. You see what is on this week's covers? Nothing about Whitney. It's back to the usual gossip about Jennifer whats-her-name, Kim Kardashian, and Katy Perry Young, pretty White women who mess their lives up.

[skooldem1]

Looks like this is leaning towards a family member.

The owner of the Newark, N.J., funeral home that handled services for Whitney Houston says the home had nothing to do with a photograph that surfaced showing the singer's body in an open casket.

But Carolyn Whigham of Whigham Funeral Home and two pastors say they do know who took the photo that ran in the National Enquirer. They just aren't identifying the person and say that's up to the Houston family.Defending Whigham, the Rev. Ronald Slaughter of nearby St. James AME Church said Thursday the funeral home "had no role in this shameful betrayal."

The 48-year-old Houston died Feb. 11 in California. Whigham says she determined the photo was taken Feb. 17, a day before the funeral.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...photo-15827609