Gene Hackman's Final Autopsy Contains A Chilling Detail
Gene Hackman may have been starving when he died, his final autopsy suggested.
The French Connection and Unforgiven Oscar winner's acetone levels indicated he may have not eaten for quite some time before his death at age 95 in February, Fox News reported on Sunday.
The autopsy report noted while acetone is used in household products it's 'also a product of diabetic- and fasting-induced ketoacidosis as well as a metabolite following isopropanol ingestion,' Fox News wrote.
It can also be the result of 'prolonged starvation,' according to Healthline.
Related: Hillary Clinton's Response To The Pete Hegseth Group Chat Scandal Is Going Viral
A host of health woes led to the actor's demise, according to the examiner's report, including a 'history of congestive heart failure' and 'severe chronic hypertensive changes' to his kidneys. He also showed 'neurodegenerative features consistent with Alzheimer's disease.'
In March, the chief medical investigator had already determined Hackman died from 'hypertensive and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, with Alzheimer's disease as a significant contributory factor.'
Related: Donald Trump Supporters Are Losing Their Minds Over The New Trump Tariffs, And It's Exactly The Meltdown We All Saw Coming
TMZ wrote the mention of Hackman's acetone levels was 'not totally surprising' since his 65-year-old wife, Betsy Arakawa, reportedly died about a week before him in their Santa Fe, New Mexico, home, 'and it appears he wasn't in a healthy enough state to care for himself.'
Hackman tested negative for the rodent-borne hantavirus, which killed his wife.
Their bodies were discovered in separate rooms on Feb. 25, and the ensuing investigation captured the nation's interest for several weeks.
This article originally appeared on HuffPost.
Also in In the News: "Imagine Getting Called Out By The Pope For Being A Horrible Person": People Are Ridiculing JD Vance For Being So Confidently Wrong That He Was Apparently Corrected By The Pope Himself
Also in In the News: Donald Trump Just Shared A Very Ominous Post, And People Are Calling It "One Of The Worst Statements Ever Made By A Sitting US President"
Also in In the News: The 56 Most Clever Protest Signs From "Not My Presidents Day" Protests
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Which other US cities have joined LA's protests over immigration raids?
Protests have spread across America following days of demonstrations in Los Angeles against immigration raids by the federal government. Thousands of troops and hundreds of marines have been deployed to LA by US President Donald Trump to quell the demos, causing a row with state politicians. Days of unrest were sparked after federal immigration officers arrested large groups of unauthorised immigrants in areas with large Latino populations. Rallies have since taken place from coast to coast, with more planned over the coming days. LA police make 'mass arrests' as Trump vows to 'liberate' city Everything we know about the demonstrations Voters divided on Trump's LA protest crackdown Trump's deportation drive is perfect storm in city of immigrants Texas Governor Greg Abbott ordered the state's National Guard to deploy to San Antonio on Tuesday, ahead of planned demonstrations. He wrote on X: "Peaceful protest is legal. Harming a person or property is illegal & will lead to arrest." In Austin, hundreds of protesters gathered on Monday between the state capitol building and a federal building that houses an office for staff of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). State and local police used pepper spray and tear gas to disperse the crowd, while bottles, rocks and other objects were thrown towards officers. Demonstrators also gathered in Dallas on Monday, where at least one arrest was made. Thousands of protestors gathered in lower Manhattan on Tuesday. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) told the BBC that "multiple" arrests had been made at the largely peaceful protests. Mayor Eric Adams said protests like those in LA were "unacceptable and will not be tolerated if attempted in our city". LA is not the only Californian city that has been demonstrating. Thousands of people have protested in San Francisco - and more than 150 were arrested after a demonstration near another ICE office turned violent on Sunday. Buildings and vehicles were damaged, according to local police, while two officers were injured in the disorder. And on Tuesday, some 200 protesters gathered outside the San Francisco Immigration Court after activists said several arrests were made there. At least 15 people were arrested after around 150 protestors gathered in Philadelphia on Tuesday, according to the BBC's US partner CBS News. Local police said the crowd disrupted traffic and "endangered public safety". Several officers used force when making arrests, they added, saying this would be reviewed. Fireworks were thrown towards police and tear gas used to disperse protestors in Atlanta on Monday, according to local media, as hundreds gathered along the city's Buford Highway on Tuesday. At least six people were arrested. Thousands gathered near an immigration court in the city before marching through the city's downtown on Tuesday evening. Local media reported the crowd was largely peaceful. Several unions gathered in the US capital on Monday, marching past the Department of Justice (DoJ) building. They rallied against the detainment of union leader David Huerta during the raids in LA on Friday. He was released from federal custody later on Monday.
Fox News
33 minutes ago
- Fox News
California Democrat demands ICE 'retreat' so locals can be 'given the opportunity to restore order'
A Democratic lawmaker demanded on Tuesday that Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) leave Los Angeles so that "locals" can restore law and order. "This is the chaos that the president created when he sent an unchecked group of ICE officers, agents to a community to profile and do, you know, these raids that they have not had a warrant," Rep. Norma Torres, D-Calif., said during an interview on MSNBC's "Chris Jansing Reports." Riots in L.A. began over the weekend as the city's mayor, Karen Bass, called out President Donald Trump for ICE raids detaining illegal immigrants. Footage of the riots shows people spitting on and burning the American flag as well as assaulting police officers and setting cars on fire. Rioters also smashed the windows of the Los Angeles Police Department's headquarters. Guest host Christina Ruffini asked Torres about the "tempo of ICE activity you're hearing about in and around your district, and what's the reaction from constituents?" Torres, whose district includes part of Los Angeles County, said she thinks the "locals" should be in charge of reinstating law and order because ICE is racial profiling. "They are not asking for specific names," the lawmaker claimed of the ICE raids. "They are simply going after people because of the way they look. And this must stop. The president must call back these ICE agents. They must retreat in order for the locals to be given the opportunity to restore order, because that is what we are demanding right now." The California Democrat also described her constituents as "panicked" due to the "scare tactics" being used. "They are worried about their families," Torres said. "They're worried about the children going to school, their spouses not coming home. In many cases, people aren't reporting crimes that are occurring to them, whether they are witnesses or victims, because they are too afraid to engage with any law enforcement agency." Trump has defended his move to deploy the National Guard to L.A., saying in a Monday post on TruthSocial that it was a "great decision," and that "If we had not done so, Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated." Trump also announced Monday that he is deploying hundreds of U.S. Marines to L.A. to respond to the riots.
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'
