PP here- also, I think he did probably fall in the bathroom or something. Older people can have some spectacularly bad falls! The reports about the room was that he was in a typical sleeping position in bed ,the room was tidy and everything was in order and only his stuff was there.

I think it was as simple as that.

Florida has sunshine laws, which is why so much stuff like this is public.

I understand the need for these laws-but I also understand why the family wants it kept private. Nobody wants their loved one's death to be a reddit forum for decades!

Whatever it is, has to be terribly embarrassing. Poor guy and his poor family. Let's just leave them alone. I hope they win the court order and can maintain privacy. I like to think of Bob Saget as a fun, raunchy comedian who had a nice home life (kind of like Danny Tanner at home w/his wife) and I don't want to know that he died under sordid and awful conditions. He clearly didn't die from a bump on the head--something malicious went down and the family wants to keep that private, whatever it is. They should be allowed to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Photos won’t get released, but the autopsy report will. Can’t block that. They are trying to block everything. It must be bad.

Or they just want privacy.

Yeah. I'm a little confused about why so many people seem to think they have a right to know exactly what's in the autopsy. Perspective, folks. This is someone you watched on a TV show, that's it. You didn't actually know the man and aren't family.

The point of this information being public is accountability. The public has the right to know and measure whether their public servants are doing their jobs properly. If someone is murdered then the public has an interest in knowing that happened. This case seems awfully dodgy such that more information is warranted. Do we need photos of the guy in the morgue? Probably not but more info is definitely in order.’

It’s likely it was not a murder, but potentially some sort of kinky/fetish activity while alone. Could’ve been dressed in some thing that would be embarrassing to his family/his character, strangling himself for pleasure (which would make sense if he passed out and hit his head doing that).

Makes me think of popular CA local anchor, Chris Burrous. Here’s a thumbnail sketch of his death but even the wiki leaves out extremely graphic and salacious and scandalous details:

According to a Los Angeles County coroner's report, Burrous died from methamphetamine toxicity, complicated by hypertensive and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease on December 27, 2018. He was found unresponsive at a Glendale, California Days Inn. [11] It was reported that Burrous was in the company of a male companion, and had been engaged in a sexual encounter and using crystal meth at the time of his death. His death was ruled an accident.


See also: Michael Hutchence, INXS and ((first name?)) actor Carradine.

What do these men all have in common? Sudden in hotel room - all under fetish-related circumstances.

Also in common, none of your damn business. These men still had families who loved and respected them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Photos won’t get released, but the autopsy report will. Can’t block that. They are trying to block everything. It must be bad.

Or they just want privacy.

Yeah. I'm a little confused about why so many people seem to think they have a right to know exactly what's in the autopsy. Perspective, folks. This is someone you watched on a TV show, that's it. You didn't actually know the man and aren't family.

I say leave the family alone. His family and friends are dealing with the trauma of losing him unexpectedly. Allow them to grieve and process his death without the media circus. Simple humanity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Photos won’t get released, but the autopsy report will. Can’t block that. They are trying to block everything. It must be bad.

Or they just want privacy.

Yeah. I'm a little confused about why so many people seem to think they have a right to know exactly what's in the autopsy. Perspective, folks. This is someone you watched on a TV show, that's it. You didn't actually know the man and aren't family.

The point of this information being public is accountability. The public has the right to know and measure whether their public servants are doing their jobs properly. If someone is murdered then the public has an interest in knowing that happened. This case seems awfully dodgy such that more information is warranted. Do we need photos of the guy in the morgue? Probably not but more info is definitely in order.’

It’s likely it was not a murder, but potentially some sort of kinky/fetish activity while alone. Could’ve been dressed in some thing that would be embarrassing to his family/his character, strangling himself for pleasure (which would make sense if he passed out and hit his head doing that).

Makes me think of popular CA local anchor, Chris Burrous. Here’s a thumbnail sketch of his death but even the wiki leaves out extremely graphic and salacious and scandalous details:

According to a Los Angeles County coroner's report, Burrous died from methamphetamine toxicity, complicated by hypertensive and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease on December 27, 2018. He was found unresponsive at a Glendale, California Days Inn. [11] It was reported that Burrous was in the company of a male companion, and had been engaged in a sexual encounter and using crystal meth at the time of his death. His death was ruled an accident.


See also: Michael Hutchence, INXS and ((first name?)) actor Carradine.

What do these men all have in common? Sudden in hotel room - all under fetish-related circumstances.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Photos won’t get released, but the autopsy report will. Can’t block that. They are trying to block everything. It must be bad.

Or they just want privacy.

Yeah. I'm a little confused about why so many people seem to think they have a right to know exactly what's in the autopsy. Perspective, folks. This is someone you watched on a TV show, that's it. You didn't actually know the man and aren't family.

The point of this information being public is accountability. The public has the right to know and measure whether their public servants are doing their jobs properly. If someone is murdered then the public has an interest in knowing that happened. This case seems awfully dodgy such that more information is warranted. Do we need photos of the guy in the morgue? Probably not but more info is definitely in order.’

It’s likely it was not a murder, but potentially some sort of kinky/fetish activity while alone. Could’ve been dressed in some thing that would be embarrassing to his family/his character, strangling himself for pleasure (which would make sense if he passed out and hit his head doing that).

He could have just slipped getting out of the shower and banged his face on the counter and his head on the tile floor.

The point that a PP made above is valid. We are not his family or friends and this idea that we have a “right” to know is just ludicrous. We do know that we died of blunt force trauma to the head. And as for accountability…. the public likely has enough information from events that are actually determined to be homicides by the ME and responding officials to assess whether public officials are doing their jobs. Does the PP want to audit all traumatic/accidental deaths to assess whether they are “dodgy” and perhaps indicate foul play?

It’s no wonder the family doesn’t want all the details released. Armchair experts, and probably people with actual expertise looking for a paycheck, will exhaust themselves by publicly dissecting every aspect of his last moments and remains. The less fuel for that fire the better.

The statement by the family about reminding the public to remember what a kind person he was seemed a a little weird.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Photos won’t get released, but the autopsy report will. Can’t block that. They are trying to block everything. It must be bad.

Or they just want privacy.

Yeah. I'm a little confused about why so many people seem to think they have a right to know exactly what's in the autopsy. Perspective, folks. This is someone you watched on a TV show, that's it. You didn't actually know the man and aren't family.

The point of this information being public is accountability. The public has the right to know and measure whether their public servants are doing their jobs properly. If someone is murdered then the public has an interest in knowing that happened. This case seems awfully dodgy such that more information is warranted. Do we need photos of the guy in the morgue? Probably not but more info is definitely in order.’

It’s likely it was not a murder, but potentially some sort of kinky/fetish activity while alone. Could’ve been dressed in some thing that would be embarrassing to his family/his character, strangling himself for pleasure (which would make sense if he passed out and hit his head doing that).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Photos won’t get released, but the autopsy report will. Can’t block that. They are trying to block everything. It must be bad.

Or they just want privacy.

Yeah. I'm a little confused about why so many people seem to think they have a right to know exactly what's in the autopsy. Perspective, folks. This is someone you watched on a TV show, that's it. You didn't actually know the man and aren't family.

The point of this information being public is accountability. The public has the right to know and measure whether their public servants are doing their jobs properly. If someone is murdered then the public has an interest in knowing that happened. This case seems awfully dodgy such that more information is warranted. Do we need photos of the guy in the morgue? Probably not but more info is definitely in order.’

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Photos won’t get released, but the autopsy report will. Can’t block that. They are trying to block everything. It must be bad.

Or they just want privacy.

Yep, they want privacy...because they probably profit off proceeds from Full House. If word got out he was into hookers or rough sex, or was beaten for gambling debt, people may stop watching that show.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a hit job, probably a rival comedian. I should know, I once lived less than 3 miles away from the Sagets

Rival comedian?! Lol. This thread.

Some of you are (still?) watching way too much Law and Order.

A) I think that person was joking
B) A lot of Law and Order episodes are derived from real cases

A) maybe they were, who knows.


B) Great, entirely missed the point though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Photos won’t get released, but the autopsy report will. Can’t block that. They are trying to block everything. It must be bad.

Or they just want privacy.

Yeah. I'm a little confused about why so many people seem to think they have a right to know exactly what's in the autopsy. Perspective, folks. This is someone you watched on a TV show, that's it. You didn't actually know the man and aren't family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Photos won’t get released, but the autopsy report will. Can’t block that. They are trying to block everything. It must be bad.

Umm you sure about that? What if the court determines ‘good cause’ was he was murdered and it’s being covered up? The photos can be shown to prosecution and they’ll leak the description to whichever local reporter.

(4)(a) The court, upon a showing of good cause, may issue an order authorizing any person to view or copy a photograph or video recording of an autopsy or to listen to or copy an audio recording of an autopsy and may prescribe any restrictions or stipulations that the court deems appropriate.

(b) In determining good cause, the court shall consider whether such disclosure is necessary for the public evaluation of governmental performance; the seriousness of the intrusion into the family’s right to privacy and whether such disclosure is the least intrusive means available; and the availability of similar information in other public records, regardless of form.

This was a big deal in Florida after Dale Earnhardt wrecked and died during the Daytona 500. The family sued to prevent release of photos. I remember a lot of news about it but it was a long time ago. I’m not sure, but I think the families approach here may have more to do with Florida law and not wanting photos splashed across the internet than something salacious.

+1 If it were my loved one I roukd be horrified at the idea of photos released to the public, and in this case they would certainly be scrutinized by the masses. No privacy or dignity.

Anonymous wrote:Photos won’t get released, but the autopsy report will. Can’t block that. They are trying to block everything. It must be bad.

Or they just want privacy.