Wake up, sheeple. Bob Saget was murdered.

Sounds like it's still a little mysterious how he suffered such an extensive head injury. If I were the police, I think I'd be investigating to see if anyone else entered his hotel room that day.

He was found under the covers but they think he accidentally hit his head hard enough while in bed to resemble being struck by a baseball bat? I find the idea of falling down in the bathroom and then trying to "sleep it off" in bed more plausible than that.

Something smells fishy about this whole story. Those head injuries sound pretty severe.

To be fair, some medical professionals on Twitter have claimed it's possible for this kind of injury to happen from a fall, in response to other professionals claiming it seems hard to believe. 5 days ago, this person went through an explanation of the anatomy of a head injury, and said, "I surmise that Mr Saget fell suddenly, like a slip in the bathroom shower or a tile floor striking his head very hard. There may or may not have been initial loss of consciousness, but he clearly went to bed. The bleeding likely continued to accumulate and he died."




His big argument was trying to explain how the injury could happen with one blow to the head. But even he said the impact had to be "very hard." So not sure how that could happen in bed, unless he took a running jump into the bed. He also said, "I’ve seen plenty of basilar skull fractures. Usually they are from a harder mechanism, but have also seen from slip and falls on ice to the back of the head."

"Fishy" seems like the wrong word, since that implies something suspicious. There doesn't seem to be any doubt that he died of an accidental head injury sustained while by himself in his hotel room. The specifics of how the injury happened are peculiar and/or mysterious, but the evidence apparently rules out any possibility that anyone else was involved or that his injuries happened elsewhere.

I understand the family's need to protect Mr. Saget's dignity (and I agree) but I can't help but think his death was caused by him doing something not so dignified.

They seem to be saying they know the door was not opened in between the time he entered the room and when someone went in to find him dead. That seems pretty persuasive, but also sounds like something the writer of a Sherlock Holmes story could find a way for the criminal to get around.

If they wanted this to be private, why, as the article says, did the family on February 9th states as if they were there that Saget hit his head accidentally.

How do they know that? The family shouldn't have said a damn word if they wanted to keep this private. Why does the public need to know how Saget died?

And fractures around the eye sockets meaning the front of his head as said by the Florida medical examiner. Or did the medical examiner change his findings? Haven't been keeping up with this on the news.

Seems fishy to me.

Yeah, I get that, and I'm not prone to conspiracy theories. But there is something to be said for the common sense sniff test.

Hotel rooms are safe places if you're alone. I don't care how tall you are or how small the bed is, this just doesn't make a lot of sense. If you can't admit that, then you're not being honest with yourself or anyone else. Sure, he could have keeled over and died but it just seems fishy. The only person who knows exactly what happened is dead and police have gotten things completely wrong one or two times before. 'nuff said.

To me, the "common sense sniff test" tells me:
1. The police say there is no physical evidence of anyone else being in the room, or of anyone else inflicting the injuries.
2. There is no way someone could have gotten into the room without somehow manipulating and altering the record of the electronic door monitoring system, which seems unlikely.
3. If there was any evidence that this was a murder, I can't think of any plausible reason why the police AND coroner would want to conceal that.

So our two options seem to be:
1. Bizarre freak accident that somehow resulted in injuries more severe than one would normally expect from a fall/head bump, or
2. High-level professional assassination including tech to to alter the door records, expert manipulation of forensic evidence to conceal the assassination, and possibly even cover-up by police and coroner. And all this to kill a guy who apparently was beloved and had no enemies.

I'm going to go with "1" as being more plausible.

I haven't been following this too closely, but it seems to be getting more into "things ain't adding up" territory.
Of course you have to sort out all the conflicting reports from the so called experts.Just going by what is being reported
now about the severity of it,can a person just falling or bumping ones head result in that type of injury?...I remember back in grade school playing basketball in gym class and one of the players took a drive towards the cement wall headfirst he was out like a light and winding up with a concussion.Saget is found in bed,that is the mystery,again freak accidents happen and people act differently to trauma,maybe he was totally out of it and thought of just lying down.:shrug:

I didn't say the family was attempting to conceal the cause of death by keeping the records private. My point was they said to the public that it was an accident!

The family does not know that it was an accident but was told by someone who had the authority to tell them this. They told the public this when they should have just kept quiet and let the investigation unfold on its own by those who have the authority and science to know for sure.

The first time I heard that Saget died was on CBS news and they did not even mention a blow to the head. So how the heck did this story blossom into all this new information if the family didn't want it public. They did say that it was an accident, something they don't have the facts to determine.

The lawsuit is not the issue. It's the family suddenly wanting everything quiet after they started the ball rolling mentioning it was an accident which they had no facts to back that up.

As any good lawyer will tell you... Keep your f-in mouth SHUT!

What do you mean "they had no facts to back that up?" They had the medical examiner's ruling that it was an accident, based on his investigation.

The family doesn't "want everything quiet." They simply want the records of the investigation (specifically, the photos and video) to be kept private.

If the family had released no statement about the cause of death, it still would have been made public. Their "keeping quiet" would have had zero effect on that. I'm really puzzled as to what you think they did wrong here, or what upsets you about their actions.

Can you provide the report, article or document where the medical examiner said it was an accident because I'm going by that the medical examiner said there were fractures around the eye sockets but you later said that that is a radial fracture from Saget hitting the back of his head.

I posted that AP report and the medical examiner didn't mention this specifically. That's the point about this discussion in that you pick certain words to describe what you've read and I'm going by what I posted above that you seem to want to correct me on as if you've got more reliable data.

So which is it? Who has all the facts? AP or the articles you read.

This article quotes from medical examiner Joshua Stephany's report:
"In consideration of the circumstances surrounding the death and after examination of the body, toxicology analysis, histology, and a respiratory pathogen panel, it is my opinion that the death of Mr. Saget was the result of blunt head trauma. His injuries were most likely incurred from an unwitnessed fall. A toxicology analysis did not reveal any illicit drugs or toxins. The manner of death is accident."

Even better, you can view the autopsy report here. Note that it says:
"It is most probable that the decedent suffered an unwitnessed fall backwards and struck the posterior aspect of his head. The manner of death is accident."

Have you ever heard of an autopsy report including guesswork about a witnessed or unwitnessed occurrence? I haven't. These reports are supposed to be purely objective, detailed, scientific observations about the tissues and condition of the deceased subject. The cause of death should be described in detail based on the findings of the autopsy. The DA or some other authority would then use the autopsy report and police report to make some determination of whether there is an accident. No way an autopsy can make claims about witnesses or lack thereof. Fishier and fishier.

The DA does not make a determination of whether there was an accident or not. That is always determined by the medical examiner. The medical examiner determines cause of death and rules whether it was accidental, murder, suicide, or natural causes. In this case, medical examiner Joshua Stephany ruled Saget's death an accident.

Have I ever heard of an autopsy which included guesswork about a witnessed or unwitnessed occurence? Why yes... Bob Saget's autopsy, which I linked to in my earlier post. There is an image of the last page of the autopsy report which can plainly be seen on the page I linked. I'm not sure what you are arguing is "fishy" here when the autopsy is plainly visible to read for yourself.

An autopsy by definition is an examination of the deceased. Not a recreation of the crime scene or guesswork about witnesses. That is the job of the cops and DA. If an autopsy veers into that territory to make the "accident" conclusion, something is fishy.

You are incorrect. An autopsy will always present a ruling about whether a death was an accident, homicide, suicide, or natural causes. Not only is there nothing fishy about that, it is one of the core functions of an autopsy.

I'm still not understanding what you think happened here with your suggestion that it is fishy. Are you implying this is not the real autopsy, or that the medical examiner has engaged in misconduct or something?

You've already said that and I've already said the fishy thing is that the autopsy made a claim about the theorized fall being UNWITNESSED. An autopsy de facto is not able to determine whether anyone else was in the room. It therefore cannot make a determination about witnesses. And yet this autopsy does. You admitted in a previous post you know of no other autopsy that would make such a determination.

That's fishy. People don't normally fall in a room by themselves, hit their head, keel over and die. And an autopsy could not possibly make a determination, if someone died of head trauma, as to whether they slipped on their own or were pushed. That determination would have to come from someone down the investigation chain. I don't dispute that autopsies will present a ruling about cause of death, but it can not rule outside the bounds of the clinical data gathered from the autopsy.

You just got me to think of another possibility that Saget might have hit his head outside of his hotel room and blew it off and later died in his sleep. That also suggests he may have had an altercation with someone he knew and decided to not make a stink about it since it was during his standup work.

I'm curious as to the latest info... I've heard they maybe be contemplating that he was murdered...are they really going that way?...my wife just informed me of this...

You are incorrect in stating that a medical examiner cannot express an expert opinion about the circumstances of the death, just as you were previously incorrect in stating that a medical examiner cannot render a judgment about whether a death was accidental. They can do both things, and there is nothing unusual or improper about it.

Obviously in this case, the M.E. felt the preponderance of evidence supported his conclusions. There is no clearly no evidence anyone else was in the room, and there is evidence which rules it out (the electronic record of the door lock, physical evidence related to the position of the body). And the evidence also apparently rules out his sustaining the injury before he entered the room.

You keep saying this is "fishy." What exactly do you mean by this? Are you suggesting the M.E. is lying or engaging in misconduct?

The headboard theory sounds frankly ridiculous. Even the doctor on Twitter laying out how this severe an injury could possibly happen believed it was from a fall. So unless he was jumping up and down in bed and fell down into the headboard, I can't buy into the headboard theory. The idea that there is that much danger from getting into a hotel bed also seems statistically far-fetched. I doubt any life insurance policies ever considered the possibility of death by headboard. Slipping and falling in the bathroom, that we are all aware of is a danger.

Also, as far as I can tell, the headboard theory has only come from TMZ, quoting anonymous sources. The official medical examiner report only mentioned a backwards fall.

I once struck my head on a headboard. I was 6. It was a game I invented called Geronimo, where I'd stand on the foot of my bed and fall backward. It hurt, but I struck the bed frame at my occipital ridge, which is supposedly a problem area but I had no blackout or other symptoms aside from a little local pain. No concussion or anything. I nearly scared the babysitter to death, though.

So what's the theory here. Was Saget playing Geronimo without the babysitter?