Sam Cooke

Cecil is an idiot. It’s pathetic when you try to push a point to view so badly that you ignore facts or common sense. Conspiracy nuts and idiots like Cecil are equally bad. Let’s focus on this Sam Cooke he state as fact that Sam slapped Berth Franklin and that he attempted to rape Boyer. I hate stupidity. This idiot leaves out Boyer being picked up for prostitution. Let’s use the most likely scenario, a whore steals a tricks clothes along with thousands of dollars. An angry, drunk, confused john confronts the manager… now we can debate if Sam suspected the two were in it together. That’s not the point, the point is the view taken on that piece of crap article is ridiculously biased based on trying not to create a conspiracy that common sense is neglected and that’s pathetic.

I presume you’re a newbie. We like it here when you provide a URL link to said article, kdj997. That way, we’re all up to snuff on your post…

In the meanwhile, welcome to The Straight Dope.

Are you familiar with the Wikipedia article on Cooke’s death? It states that Cooke was inebriated and that he was overheard confronting Franklin by Evelyn Carr, the motel’s owner, who was on the phone with her at the time. According to the Wiki article, Cooke’s autopsy revealed that he was inebriated and both Franklin and Carr passed lie detector tests regarding their descriptions of the events that took place that night.

With regard to a conspiracy, the article also states that Etta James claimed in her autobiography that Cooke had been beaten badly. So badly in fact that his head was barely attached to his body, and yet no one - neither the police on the scene, nor the funeral home workers, nor any of the other people who undoubtedly viewed Cooke’s body at the funeral home - ever seems to have testified to any such thing themselves.

At any rate, the investigation centered around whether Franklin had shot Cooke in what she believed was self-defense, and the authorities determined that she had.

I do believe that Boyer intended to rob Cooke and she thought that by taking his clothes she might forestall his running after her when he came out of the bathroom. It may be also that she just didn’t think she’d have enough time to rifle his clothing looking for the money and so she decided just to grab it all and ferret out the wallet or money clip or whatever once she got free and clear. (I mean, really, who attempts to rape a woman and then heads off to the bathroom leaving her alone in the room with his clothes, his car keys, his wallet, etc.?) The Wiki article also states that Boyer, after fleeing the motel, hid Cooke’s clothes. If she was a victim of attempted rape fleeing for her own safety, why would she feel it necessary to hide his clothing?

Her story stinks to high heaven, but the authorities were limited to determining Franklin’s guilt or innocence alone, and whether or not Cooke had been the victim of what otherwise would have been a petty crime of hooker/john theft was of little consequence in regard to that larger issue. And given that there was apparently no concrete evidence that Boyer fled in an attempt to rob Cooke anyway, there was nothing else the authorities could have done.

I remember well when that happened and I thought (at the tender age of 16, no less) that Boyle was full of shit - that she’d robbed him and caused him to get killed - and nothing since that time has occurred to change my mind. I was very pissed that Cooke lost his life like that, and whenever the subject comes up I get pissed off all over again.

So thanks for bringing it up. :smack:

(As you are so obviously aware…ahem…we can’t insult other posters outside the Pit, so I’m just gonna have to content myself with giving you a headsmack smilie. Hopefully, it didn’t hurt too much. :D)

This appears to be the column:

Here is what wiki has to say

Note that the article was written in 1976.

The part you seem to take issue with are thus:

  1. The only official statement about what occurred in the room is Boyer’s account. She says he forced her to undress. Is it probable that she was a prostitute and went willingly rather than unwillingly, and tried to skip with his money rather than complete the transaction? Sure. Should Cecil have said more about this alternative? Possibly.

  2. What did Sam do to Bertha Franklin? Did he slap her? Wiki says he was in a drunken rage, he grabbed her, and they grappled, and she fell to the floor. Cecil says he slapped her. I have not read any of the references to tell how accurately wiki portrays the encounter. It is plausible to me that grabbing and grappling included slapping. A better cite would be beneficial.

Passing a lie detector test is in no way conclusive.

I know. Still, don’t you think the odds of two people collaborating to lie to the police about the sudden, unplanned murder of a celebrity singer and then both being able to fool a lie detector test about it are pretty small?

Besides, no one said the tests were conclusive. The police use lie detector tests as tools which are considered to be usually but not always correct in the course of their investigations. In this case the tests were just another element in the investigation that tended to substantiate the two womens’ stories.

It’s a very reasonable scenario that a man picked up a prostitute and took her back to his hotel room, but was stinking drunk, and when he stepped out of the room, the prostitute ran off with his wallet and took his pants to try to keep him from following. Said drunk man was then enraged because of the large amount of cash in said wallet, which is why the prostitute ran off with it instead of just earning her fee. So he stormed out into the hallway and down to the office, looking for the prostitute.

Being drunk and enraged, he lashed out, assuming things that weren’t in evidence, i.e. that the female office manager was in cahoots with the prostitute. Being drunk, any self control he had was reduced, and he started grabbing and shaking the female office manager, perhaps even striking her (not clear from descriptions so far). The female office manager was afraid for her safety and pulled a gun, and used it in self defense when the enraged drunk man did not back off.

The office manager was on the phone with her boss when the man entered the office, and the boss heard the altercation over the phone.

All of that makes sense.

It is somewhat less likely, but not ridiculously so, that a drunk man with a large ego intimidated a woman into going back to his room - perhaps not even realizing he was being so forceful, but the lady took off at the first opportunity. This situation is plausible, but less likely given the details that she ran off with his pants and wallet full of cash instead of just her own clothes, and her subsequent arrest for prostitution suggesting her reason for being in the room was more consensual.

It is starting to be ridiculous when someone proposes that the hotel office manager and owner were conspiring to rob and kill a famous musician by convincing a prostitute to lead him to their hotel, get him alone, then steal his money.

Can a lie detector be fooled? Sure. How likely is it that two average people covered up some devious act that lead to death and fooled a lie detector?

It’s fair to question the accusations against Sam Cooke about attempting rape, and Boyer’s account of how she came to the room, and came to have his pants and wallet. None of which really affects the situation that the office manager faced that night. When a drunk, enraged man stormed into her office and started to grab, wrestle, and otherwise accost her, she took the action she deemed necessary to protect herself. And that is what the police report determined.