Bodycam Footage Release Sparks Controversy in Gene Hackman Death Investigation
The recent release of bodycam footage related to the death investigation of legendary actor Gene Hackman and his wife, Betsy Arakawa Hackman, has ignited a firestorm of controversy. The footage, obtained by TMZ, offers a glimpse into the aftermath of the couple’s discovery and the initial stages of the investigation, but it has also raised serious questions about privacy and the public’s right to know. The Hackman estate, represented by attorney Kurt Sommer, is actively attempting to block the release of further footage, citing the couple’s long-held commitment to privacy and the potential for irreparable harm to their memory and the family’s grieving process.
The released footage consists of two videos. The first depicts a Santa Fe County Sheriff’s deputy speaking on the phone with Elizabeth, Gene Hackman’s daughter. The conversation revolves around the grim discovery of a deceased dog within the Hackman residence, found near Betsy Arakawa Hackman’s body. Elizabeth, identified by TMZ, instructs the officer to cremate the dog’s remains and inter them with her stepmother. In a poignant moment, Elizabeth inquires whether the deceased dog was the couple’s oldest, later confirmed to be Zinna, a 12-year-old canine companion. Her concern extended to whether Zinna was wearing a collar, requesting its preservation if found. The video is dated February 27, the day following the discovery of the couple.
The second video features a groundskeeper, visibly distraught, expressing his grief upon learning of the Hackmans’ passing. He speaks of his personal connection to the couple, emphasizing their kindness and the impact of witnessing their condition. “To see that, both of them… I’m sorry,” the man says, overcome with emotion. "I get attached to all these people. They treat me really well. And I met her [Betsy]. She was a sweetheart and to see them like that…” The footage also includes audio of an officer confirming contact with both of Gene Hackman’s daughters, Elizabeth and Leslie, after the discovery.
Local news station KOB4 reported possessing over an hour of bodycam footage from responding officers. Their reporting suggests that the majority of the footage focuses on the exterior of the Hackman home and includes interviews with the workers who initially found the couple. Importantly, KOB4 noted the ongoing lawsuit filed by the Hackman estate, seeking to prevent the release of these very materials. The Sheriff’s office contends that the released videos fall outside the scope of the lawsuit.
The legal battle centers on the balance between the public’s interest in transparency and the Hackmans’ right to privacy, even in death. Lawyer Kurt Sommer filed a petition on March 11, seeking to prevent the release of the autopsy reports and death investigation materials. He argues that the potential harm caused by the release of these images outweighs the public benefit. Sommer emphasizes that once the images are released, the "bell cannot be unrung," implying that the damage to the Hackmans’ legacy and the family’s ability to grieve in peace would be irreversible. He draws a parallel to the case of Kurt Cobain, where a court refused to release death-scene photographs, citing the profound sensitivity of the material.
Sommer further argues that the Hackmans, who lived discreetly in Santa Fe for over thirty years, placed a high value on their privacy. “Undersigned counsel cannot think of respective harm that would come to the State and County offices from respecting the discretion of Mr. Hackman’s and Mrs. Hackman-Arakawa’s right to privacy,” he wrote in the petition. He contends that honoring their commitment to privacy is a matter of respecting their legacy and the family’s right to mourn without the intrusion of unwanted public scrutiny. The petition seeks to preserve the privacy of the Hackmans following their tragic death and support the family’s constitutional right to remembrance and desire to grieve in peace.
The Associated Press reported that the petition highlights the Hackmans’ deliberate efforts to maintain a low profile in Santa Fe. “They lived an exemplary private life for over thirty years in Santa Fe, New Mexico and did not showcase their lifestyle,” the petition states. This suggests that the couple actively avoided the limelight and cultivated a private existence far removed from the demands of celebrity.
The Hackman estate is represented by Julia Peters, a partner and chief counsel for the Avalon Trust Co. investment firm. According to the petition, Peters was Gene Hackman’s third choice for estate representative, with Betsy Arakawa Hackman being his first. His second choice, attorney Michael G. Sutin, passed away in 2019.
In a press conference, the Santa Fe County Sheriffs Department revealed that Betsy likely died on February 11, and Gene most likely died one week later. Authorities later clarified that multiple calls were made from Betsy to a medical center on February 12. The official cause of death for Betsy was determined to be hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, while Gene died from hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, with Alzheimer’s disease as a significant contributing factor.
Data from Gene Hackman’s pacemaker indicated the last recorded activity was on February 18, revealing an “abnormal rhythm of atrial fibrillation.” Gene’s autopsy revealed “severe heart disease, including multiple surgical procedures involving the heart, evidence of prior heart attacks, and severe changes of the kidneys due to chronic high blood pressure.” Furthermore, examination of the brain showed “advanced Alzheimer’s disease as well as blood vessel changes in the brain secondary to chronic high blood pressure,” according to Chief Medical Investigator Dr. Heather Jarrell.
The release of the bodycam footage has undoubtedly complicated the already delicate situation surrounding the Hackmans’ deaths. The legal battle between the estate and the authorities will ultimately determine the extent to which the public has access to information about the investigation. The case raises fundamental questions about the balance between transparency, privacy, and the dignity of the deceased, leaving the courts to navigate a complex and emotionally charged situation.
