Gene Hackman dead at 95: Iconic actor and wife, 63, are found dead with their dog at Santa Fe home. #3

[Cherwell]

Thank you for clarifying. The errors in reporting are getting to be so routine that I hardly believe anything I read any more. That issue is compounded by some media outlets which rely on other media reporting as their news source. One gets it’s wrong and it goes on and on.

As in the case of the daughter I do wonder what question she was asked because the media has a habit of only quoting the answer, sometimes only partially quoting it. For example she might’ve been asked “the last time you saw your father, how was he?”. Her “Well last summer was the last time I was able to go out there <cut!>…………but>>” Manipulating or out of context quoting is one reason people often refuse to talk at all. Nobody wants to publicly appear uncaring and out of touch. It’s becoming obvious that some media relishes in presenting the worst side of people (so we, the common folk, can look down on them and feel better about our own shortcomings? Maybe.) I fear ‘good taste’ and common courtesy in news reporting has become a thing of the past.

Some media can be trusted. It's important to read and discern for yourself. At least a few media sources (ie NYT) reported the Santa Fe press conference accurately. -- And if a person is quoted there is a good chance it is correct. Otherwise the outlet can be sued. That's why I trusted what Dr Childs said in the otherwise suspect DM.

Even then you can't be sure what they've left out.
See @ClearAhead 's post quoted above.

The BBC reports that cellphone data is what alerted the Sheriff's office to calls to Cloudberry Clinic. (I can't find a copy of the Sheriff's Department update but it's been reported numerous places.) So it seems the cellphone data has been analyzed.

Gene Hackman and Betsy Arakawa death: New evidence in timeline

Authorities say the actor's wife called for medical help a day after she was thought to have died.

www.bbc.com

There's a video of the sheriff's update somewhere. It must be in one of the media reports quoted in this thread as I haven't been looking elsewhere.

 

[ClearAhead]

'We won't know who gets Gene Hackman's reported $80 million fortune unless his 3 kids contest his will'​

'It's entirely possible that they do stand to inherit some of the fortune, though the public likely won't know unless it's contested, the estate lawyers told BI.'

We won't know who gets Gene Hackman's reported $80 million fortune unless his 3 kids contest his will

A 2005 copy of Gene Hackman's will does not indicate where the assets in his trusts will go.

www.yahoo.com

According to the abc video posted here just above, the order of who is in line to get the proceeds of an estate goes - spouse, children, parents, the siblings. If so the children are next in line without the Will even being contested considering Betsy Arakawa Hackman is deceased.

JMO

 

[JDG]

A judge can also set it all aside, then follow the law of the state or country where they resided.

The trusts will likely be followed though, unless there is something tricky about them.

I think the ‘children’ will get a fair portion of the estate, then charities or whomever.

 

[priyaya]

The BBC reports that cellphone data is what alerted the Sheriff's office to calls to Cloudberry Clinic. (I can't find a copy of the Sheriff's Department update but it's been reported numerous places.) So it seems the cellphone data has been analyzed.

Gene Hackman and Betsy Arakawa death: New evidence in timeline

Authorities say the actor's wife called for medical help a day after she was thought to have died.

www.bbc.com

Okay this is what I assumed happened
So doctor didn't volunteer info and phone is only way they would have gotten in touch with doctor. Guess they have some access to it

The temporary restraining order was granted and encompasses “death investigation reports” so I wouldn’t expect the Sherrif’s Office or ME can release any more details until the matter is resolved. As for my own opinion, I think we know enough details as it is so maybe this will be all? The public knows where and what caused their deaths, does it really matter so much as to when or what phone calls took place?

This might be the reason the doctor came forward, adding to the timeline and washing out the Feb 11th mistake in the date of death of Betsy. JMO

Photos of Gene Hackman, wife's deaths to be restricted with temporary restraining order

A court has issued a temporary restraining order blocking the release of photos and videos related to Gene Hackman and his wife's deaths.

www.usatoday.com

“….Additionally, the order temporarily prevents the disclosure of autopsy reports or death investigation reports for Hackman and Arakawa…..

….A court hearing to discuss the temporary order is set for March 31.…

…..The petition argued that the order was necessary to protect the late couple's "right to privacy," saying that "during their lifetime, the Hackmans placed significant value on their privacy and took affirmative, vigilant steps to safeguard their privacy," according to NBC News and People magazine.”

So I understamd not wanting to show images of the scene. No one need to or wants to see that.
But personally I would want the phone records or at least the dates released because it's the last piece of the information.

I do personally feel better for some reason knowing betsy made a call about not feeling well. It's a shame the doctor didn't encourage her to call emergency services

 

[Warwick7]

The BBC reports that cellphone data is what alerted the Sheriff's office to calls to Cloudberry Clinic. (I can't find a copy of the Sheriff's Department update but it's been reported numerous places.) So it seems the cellphone data has been analyzed.

Gene Hackman and Betsy Arakawa death: New evidence in timeline

Authorities say the actor's wife called for medical help a day after she was thought to have died.

www.bbc.com

BBM
Interesting...that cellphone data is what alerted the Sheriff's office to call Cloudberry Clinic.

M00 the cell phone data and information is essential and worthy of discussion.

 

[slowpoke]

I do personally feel better for some reason knowing betsy made a call about not feeling well. It's a shame the doctor didn't encourage her to call emergency services

^snipped

In my experience, doctors probably would have told me to do the usual things if I said I was congested, but not sounding ill (as in Betsy’s exchange with the dr):
Drink lots of liquids, rest, hot showers or humidifier…but if it persists, call us back. Then they would’ve always remind me to go to urgent care or the ER if I find I have trouble breathing or feel worse.

Her worsening of symptoms must have come on fast, poor Betsy.

JMO

 

[Izzylizzy]

dbm

 

[iamshadow21]

DBM

 

[Izzylizzy]

Wrong thread.

I know and deleted it.
Would you also delete?
Thanks!

 

[MerlinFalcon]

I would hope my kids would take my dogs if I were to pass. I know there is nothing in my will about my pets but I'm almost certain without question the dogs would stay in the family. Perhaps I should change up the will to say take the dogs or get nothing.

JMO

A friend of mine passed recently and he hoped his family would take his dog but they refused. The dog had a very treatable but expensive chronic disease so he spoke to a friend who agreed to take him and my friend put that in his will. He also left them a lot of money for his care.

 

[SteveS]

According to the abc video posted here just above, the order of who is in line to get the proceeds of an estate goes - spouse, children, parents, the siblings. If so the children are next in line without the Will even being contested considering Betsy Arakawa Hackman is deceased.

JMO

The ABC "expert" in the video knows a few basics about wills but is completely clueless about how trusts work, and way out of his league here. His thoughts being offered are fairly worthless.

Some key points:
1 The expert does not understand the difference between a trustee (the person who administers a trust according to its rules) and a beneficiary (the person who stands to benefit from it). It's a MAJOR difference, all the difference in the world, and elementary level stuff for estate planners.
2 GH's will is almost certainly what is known as a "pour over will" and is simply instructing that the assets "owned by Gene at his death" (an important point) are to be retitled and made a part of his trust when he does. The successor trustee of the trust is named in the will to do this on behalf of the trust (not to receive the assets personally as beneficiary).
3 It's certain that the trust has a whole set of what'if's for who would be the next in line to be the successor trustee if the original person (B) predeceases GH. Whoever that next person is, the will's assets will end up being handled by that next-in-line person. And that person won't do anything except put Gene's personally owned assets at death into the trust.
4 MORE IMPORTANTLY - the will does NOT govern or handle any assets owned by the trust(s) (again, the ABC expert is clueless in saying that it does). A trust is a completely separate legal entity, empowered to own assets.
5 This trust has been described as a LIVING trust, which is a fairly common estate tool. Gene and his experts would have retitled all of his assets to be owned in the trust name (NOT HIM), but the rules of the trust would allow him full control and benefit during his life (including take them out of the trust if he wanted). Then at his death, the successor trustee would handle them, per whatever designations GH put in the trust, to benefit the beneficiaries (which will ultimately end in the assets being disbursed to them as designated). IN ESSENCE - the trust, not a court, controls the disposition and dispersal of his assets, and without public scrutiny. Trusts are private.

Who gets what he left? The beneficiaries of the trust, in whatever amounts he designated.

The fact that this trust has been operating for DECADES will make it virtually impossible to challenge, unless GH failed to specify who is in charge and who benefits at his death should B die first. That's incredibly unlikely.

 

[JDG]

 

[Izzylizzy]

The ABC "expert" in the video knows a few basics about wills but is completely clueless about how trusts work, and way out of his league here. His thoughts being offered are fairly worthless.

Some key points:
1 The expert does not understand the difference between a trustee (the person who administers a trust according to its rules) and a beneficiary (the person who stands to benefit from it). It's a MAJOR difference, all the difference in the world, and elementary level stuff for estate planners.
2 GH's will is almost certainly what is known as a "pour over will" and is simply instructing that the assets "owned by Gene at his death" (an important point) are to be retitled and made a part of his trust when he does. The successor trustee of the trust is named in the will to do this on behalf of the trust (not to receive the assets personally as beneficiary).
3 It's certain that the trust has a whole set of what'if's for who would be the next in line to be the successor trustee if the original person (B) predeceases GH. Whoever that next person is, the will's assets will end up being handled by that next-in-line person. And that person won't do anything except put Gene's personally owned assets at death into the trust.
4 MORE IMPORTANTLY - the will does NOT govern or handle any assets owned by the trust(s) (again, the ABC expert is clueless in saying that it does). A trust is a completely separate legal entity, empowered to own assets.
5 This trust has been described as a LIVING trust, which is a fairly common estate tool. Gene and his experts would have retitled all of his assets to be owned in the trust name (NOT HIM), but the rules of the trust would allow him full control and benefit during his life (including take them out of the trust if he wanted). Then at his death, the successor trustee would handle them, per whatever designations GH put in the trust, to benefit the beneficiaries (which will ultimately end in the assets being disbursed to them as designated). IN ESSENCE - the trust, not a court, controls the disposition and dispersal of his assets, and without public scrutiny. Trusts are private.

Who gets what he left? The beneficiaries of the trust, in whatever amounts he designated.

The fact that this trust has been operating for DECADES will make it virtually impossible to challenge, unless GH failed to specify who is in charge and who benefits at his death should B die first. That's incredibly unlikely.

Wow!
Thanks for the education now I just need to remember it all. lol
I'm curious what an attorney as the successor trustee on an $80 million trust could be paid for their service?

"Hackman appointed his former attorney, Michael G. Sutin, as the successor for personal representative in line should Arakawa Hackman die. Sutin died in 2019, so with Arakawa Hackman's death before Hackman's, his representation passed to his next successor, attorney Julia L. Peters, according to a copy of an application for informal probate of will and appointment of personal representative filed on March 6, which was also obtained by EW."

Gene Hackman's children not named as successors in $80 million will, but could claim estate

Gene Hackman appointed his wife, Betsy Arakawa Hackman, as the beneficiary to his $80 million estate, but her death opens the successor question to Hackman's three adult children and closest living heirs.

ew.com

 

[Izzylizzy]

A bit on attorney Julia Peters.


"Santa Fe district court documents reviewed by USA TODAY show Julia Peters, who works for a Santa Fe-based trust company, has been appointed the personal representative of both Hackman's and Arakawa's estates following the couple's deaths last month.

In an application filed March 6, Peters asked the court to informally admit Hackman's will to probate and informally appoint her as his personal representative. A First Judicial District Court judge approved the application that same day.

'Who is in Gene Hackman's trust?'​

On March 7, notice of Peters' appointment as Hackman's personal representative was mailed out to his three children.'

Gene Hackman and wife Betsy Arakawa named each other in their wills

A month after the couple died separately in their New Mexico home, an outside party has been appointed as the representative for their estates.

www.usatoday.com

 

[tlcya]

The ABC "expert" in the video knows a few basics about wills but is completely clueless about how trusts work, and way out of his league here. His thoughts being offered are fairly worthless.

Some key points:
1 The expert does not understand the difference between a trustee (the person who administers a trust according to its rules) and a beneficiary (the person who stands to benefit from it). It's a MAJOR difference, all the difference in the world, and elementary level stuff for estate planners.
2 GH's will is almost certainly what is known as a "pour over will" and is simply instructing that the assets "owned by Gene at his death" (an important point) are to be retitled and made a part of his trust when he does. The successor trustee of the trust is named in the will to do this on behalf of the trust (not to receive the assets personally as beneficiary).
3 It's certain that the trust has a whole set of what'if's for who would be the next in line to be the successor trustee if the original person (B) predeceases GH. Whoever that next person is, the will's assets will end up being handled by that next-in-line person. And that person won't do anything except put Gene's personally owned assets at death into the trust.
4 MORE IMPORTANTLY - the will does NOT govern or handle any assets owned by the trust(s) (again, the ABC expert is clueless in saying that it does). A trust is a completely separate legal entity, empowered to own assets.
5 This trust has been described as a LIVING trust, which is a fairly common estate tool. Gene and his experts would have retitled all of his assets to be owned in the trust name (NOT HIM), but the rules of the trust would allow him full control and benefit during his life (including take them out of the trust if he wanted). Then at his death, the successor trustee would handle them, per whatever designations GH put in the trust, to benefit the beneficiaries (which will ultimately end in the assets being disbursed to them as designated). IN ESSENCE - the trust, not a court, controls the disposition and dispersal of his assets, and without public scrutiny. Trusts are private.

Who gets what he left? The beneficiaries of the trust, in whatever amounts he designated.

The fact that this trust has been operating for DECADES will make it virtually impossible to challenge, unless GH failed to specify who is in charge and who benefits at his death should B die first. That's incredibly unlikely.

excellent articulation of the situation. agree with what you have described above.

 

[Joe Friday]

I don't recall seeing an official obituary for either Gene or Betsy. No mention of any funeral or being laid to rest at such and such a cemetery that I know of. No mention of anything regarding burial in the TV special last night, Google search turned up nothing of value.

Maybe they were so private their wishes were to not have an obituary published, wake, funeral, public announcement, ect.

What was done with their bodies? (Buried, Cremated, still at the ME office left unclaimed)

(Seems the media is more worried about reporting about what is going to happen to their money, than if they were given a proper burial)


JMO

 

[Izzylizzy]

Watch 'Last Days of Gene Hackman: ABC News Special'​

By Jim Donnelly
Mar 19th, 2025

'ABC News Studios' timely new primetime special "Last Days of Gene Hackman: ABC News Special" aired Tuesday, March 18 (10:01-11:00 p.m. EST), on ABC, and was streaming next day on Hulu. The one-hour film takes a deep dive into the last days of beloved actor Gene Hackman and his wife, Betsy Arakawa, after they were mysteriously found dead in their New Mexico home. The special provides a detailed look at the investigation into the deaths that shocked the public, with an outpouring of grief and condolences from friends and fans of the acclaimed actor.

The puzzling and saddening details of the couple's death unfolded over the course of a couple weeks, with new information from cell phone forensics revealing calls made by Betsy to a concierge medical group just before her death. The special includes interviews with Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza, who takes viewers through the timeline of events as the details of the investigation unfolded, ABC News correspondent Trevor Ault, ABC News entertainment correspondent Chris Connelly, and local friends of Gene and Betsy. "

Watch 'Last Days of Gene Hackman: ABC News Special' | ABC Updates

'Last Days of Gene Hackman: ABC News Special' airs Tuesday 10/9c on ABC and streams next day on Hulu.

abc.com

 

[Joe Friday]

According to the TV special the items BA must have gotten at the Farmers Market were still sitting on the counter when the bodies were discovered. The surviving dogs must have had enough food to not have eaten this food or didn't eat what a dog wouldn't eat and that is what was left. I wonder if Gene was may have been nibbling on some of this food.

 

[Izzylizzy]

I don't recall seeing an official obituary for either Gene or Betsy. No mention of any funeral or being laid to rest at such and such a cemetery that I know of. No mention of anything regarding burial in the TV special last night, Google search turned up nothing of value.

Maybe they were so private their wishes were to not have an obituary published, wake, funeral, public announcement, ect.

What was done with their bodies? (Buried, Cremated, still at the ME office left unclaimed)

(Seems the media is more worried about reporting about what is going to happen to their money, than if they were given a proper burial)


JMO

The comments from GH's nephew are the only ones I've yet to see about a funeral.

Gene Hackman's nephew reveals changed funeral plans

‘It's still very, very early,’ Tim Hackman said in an interview

www.standard.co.uk

 

[tlcya]

The comments from GH's nephew are the only ones I've yet to see about a funeral.

Gene Hackman's nephew reveals changed funeral plans

‘It's still very, very early,’ Tim Hackman said in an interview

www.standard.co.uk

his comments make sense in that nobody anticipated Betsy predeceasing Gene and so now there is confusion as to who is planning both Gene and Betsy's funerals.

It is possible they had preplanned their funerals and prepaid them but Betsy was the person everyone anticipated would have the duties of actually crafting the obituary, setting the time, date, selecting music, who would eulogize etc. In her absence there may be some debate as to who will have that task now in her absence.