The story of David Carradine autopsy photos is viral on the internet for good reason. Seldom have death pictures like these been so readily published by opportunistic media outlets (hello mean Thai-Rath newspaper in Thailand) depicting any celebrity this way, such as a very dead David Carradine nude in the coroner’s office.
Family attorney Mark Garragos of cable news fame has threatened to sue any U.S. media website which publishes the autopsy photos, or any of the dead David Carradine nude photos seen in the Thai-Rath, Thailand newspaper.
We don’t blame him, although principles of freedom of the press are also at play here. Can someone’s privacy be invaded if they are deceased? Does a family have a right to photos of a corpse? Is there any public interest served by seeing the forbidden pictures? Please leave reader thoughts on this issue below.
Why anyone would want to see David Carradine autopsy photos, or David Carradine nude pictures in any fashion will remain a mystery. After all nobody has wanted to see his movies for a long, long time when he was a living, breathing kung fu guy fully clothed and mostly alive. There always seem to be odd forces at work when people are told they cannot have things, something every mom and dad learn when raising a toddler.
So as the scandalous story builds in the Thai Rath rags in Thailand, we’ll maintain our own journalist standards and refrain from publishing the David Carradine autopsy photos. But the question remains, why should a publication not display images that people are interested in, which by precise definition is a public interest story, is it not?
Painting: Autopsy at the Hôtel-Dieu by Henri Gervex, 1876. [not David Carradine autopsy!]