MovieChat Forums > Walking Tall (2004) Discussion > Buford Pusser was murdered

Buford Pusser was murdered

posted 18 years ago by glenn-ross1
22 replies | jump to latest

I believe Buford Pusser was murdered in revenge for closing down the moonshine operations and for killing some of them for killing his wife. I don't believbe his crarcrash was an accident. The brakes were tampered with. What do you think?

[–] king_of_bob 16 years ago

And what evidence lead you to this conclusion? Just speculation because you want the story to be more dramatic than it actually was?

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

[–] The24thFoot 16 years ago

1) They never did an autopsy.
2) The Tennessee Highway Patrol immediately wrote it off as an accident - here in NY we actually investigate all MVAs involving deaths or serious injuries regardless of how obvious the cause appears to be.

Yeah, I would say there was a cover up in Pusser's death/murder.

[–] king_of_bob 16 years ago

1) How is this any kind of proof? Oh that's right, it isn't. Most of the time when a cause of death seems obvious, an autopsy is not performed. Why waste time and money on an autopsy when it's obvious he died as a result of a car crash. An autopsy isn't going to prove anything, except for what killed him. Unless you're suggesting someone killed him, then staged a car accident. Which then begins to sound like a massive conspiracy theory.

2) Of course you do. I guess New York likes to throw money away.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

[–] mercury4 16 years ago

Are you forgeting that he said the brakes were tampered with?

[–] king_of_bob 16 years ago

Maybe you missed the part where he said "I think", meaning he doesn't have proof, it's simply what he chooses to believe.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

[–] mercury4 16 years ago

Yeah, but I read the same thing he read. The brakes were tampered with. I don't understand why you're telling him he has no proof and all that. The guy probably was murdered. Why would you doubt it? I'd like to think that the bad guys didn't get him, but if the brakes were tampered with it looks like they did.

[–] king_of_bob 16 years ago

And what is it that you and the OP read that supposedly proves the breaks were tampered with?

I'm telling him he has no proof at all, because he hasn't presented any. This is the sub of the OP's case: "I read somewhere that his breaks were tampered with, thus he must have been murdered". Nowhere in this thread has he presented any kind of evidence, or even linked to where he supposedly read that the breaks were tampered with.

Sorry, but I don't jump to conclusions based on evidence I've never seen. I don't hear someone say "his breaks were tampered with" and automatically believe the person, especially when they haven't given me a single reason to believe it.

And who are these "bad guys" you refer to? Life isn't that simple you know. There isn't a fine line drawn between good guys and bad guys. Real life happens in the gray areas.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

[–] mercury4 16 years ago

You know what I mean by the bad guys. I mean guys like the scumbags Pusser was trying to put away. Pusser's wife was murdered and I would not doubt that he was murdered. There were a lot of bad people after him. Let's just say for the sake of argument that you knew for a fact the car was sabotaged. Would you call it murder? If someone asked you if Buford Pusser was murdered, what would your answer be? Mine would be, "Most likely."

[–] king_of_bob 16 years ago

And all these "bad people" managed to conspire against him, and not one single person ever got caught? How likely do you think that is? Keep in mind we're talking about reality, not fiction here.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

[–] Fricktator 14 years ago

How is this for reality: Tupac Shakur was shot 10 blocks East of the Las Vegas strip after a Mike Tyson fight and 'nobody saw a thing.'

Odds are multiple people saw the shooting but nobody came forward with information. It's been 14 years and the shooter has never been caught.

So just because they haven't caught Pusser's killer, if he in fact was killed, it doesn't mean he wasn't killed.

Even spell check thinks Obama is a mistake!

[–] king_of_bob 14 years ago

Too bad that's not how things work. You can't just assume he was murdered in the absence of any evidence that suggests that is the case.

The difference between Tupac and Buford(aside from the most obvious of comparisons) is that Tupac was clearly murdered, Buford died in a car accident and the OP is suggesting some sort of conspiracy.

There's also no massive conspiracy involved with Tupac's murder. He was gunned down. There was no group actively trying to make everyone believe his death was an accident.

It's less that they haven't found a killer in Buford's case, and more about there being no evidence to suggest foul play. Why would anyone go looking for a murderer when there's no evidence any murder took place?

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

[–] gaidin-3 14 years ago

This isn't a court room. No one has to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt on the IMDB forums. It is, however, quite a coincidence that he was killed in a car crash after having such a remarkable history in shutting down bootlegging. I've been to the LE Museum that has the tribute to Buford Pusser and it does a pretty good job of telling the story without the Hollywood angle. It is likely that his death was not accidental, but that angle was never investigated. It does strike me as odd that it wasn't investigated since the man DID have people with grudges against him. Given the very public nature of his conflict, an investigation should have been an automatic response by any professional police agency.

[–] king_of_bob 14 years ago

Yeah, it's absolutely unbelievable that someone who opposed criminals ended up dying in a car crash... Are you kidding me? Do you jump to the same conclusion when a former big city cop dies in a car accident or some other totally innocuous event?

And it doesn't have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt, but you do need to give people a reason to believe it beyond "Oh weird, he died"...

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

[–] blackisbeauty 13 years ago

king of bob, your adamant stance on this matter astounds me. Despite all the arguments - some of them very valid - presented by previous posters, you sticking to your guns like that in such a delicate debate on whether the guy was murdered or not, is nothing short of amazing. No evidence, you say? Where is the evidence going to come from if there was NO AUTOPSY OR INVESTIGATION in the first place?? No investigation because the police 'decided' it was a 'straightforward' car accident (and therefore not worth the expense)?? Gimme a break - the guy had violent underworld enemies all over the place, had survived numerous assassination attempts in the past. Are you really so blind as not to see that all this just raises more questions than answers regarding what actually happened? What reality are you talking about here??

I also read somewhere that the cops 'found' a high percentage of alcohol in Buford's blood level afterwards. Now how the hell did they figure that out if (remember?) there was NO AUTOPSY??? Also, the car was dismissed as a total write-off (does that mean they couldn't check it out for clues or anything as to actual cause of accident??). So, not only no autopsy, but NO INVESTIGATION of any kind whatsoever. Duh!!??

And you INSIST there was no reason for enough suspicion to at least warrant a proper investigation?? Sorry to have to mention this pal, but if indeed you are that blind to all the above facts, one can only wonder whether you yourself might not have your own hidden agenda somewhere within the whole sordid story.

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

king of bob, your adamant stance on this matter astounds me. Despite all the arguments - some of them very valid - presented by previous posters, you sticking to your guns like that in such a delicate debate on whether the guy was murdered or not, is nothing short of amazing. No evidence, you say? Where is the evidence going to come from if there was NO AUTOPSY OR INVESTIGATION in the first place?? No investigation because the police 'decided' it was a 'straightforward' car accident (and therefore not worth the expense)?? Gimme a break - the guy had violent underworld enemies all over the place, had survived numerous assassination attempts in the past. Are you really so blind as not to see that all this just raises more questions than answers regarding what actually happened? What reality are you talking about here??

The reality where car accidents happen all the time. In a world where evidence is key to showing that a car accident is anything other than an accident.

What reality do you live in that you automatically assume a car accident is an assassination attempt. Saying "There were past attempts on his life" means absolutely diddly squat.

And why would there be an investigation or an autopsy? If it appears to be a car accident, there's no reason to investigate. And an autopsy only tells you what most likely killed him, in this case I'm pretty sure they already knew it was blunt force trauma as the result of the car accident. If they don't have reason to think there are suspicious circumstances, there's no reason to do an autopsy.

It's amazing to me how you amateur detectives think you know the answer when you have no idea what happened. You have no access to the evidence, and you don't seem to understand the chain of evidence, but you're absolutely certain you KNOW what went down. What I'm saying is, you have no real reason to believe it. More often than not, a car accident is exactly what it sounds like, an accident. I've seen NOTHING to indicate that his death was caused by anything other than being drunk behind the wheel.

You all can speculate all you like, but your claims are baseless. Evidenced by the fact that you can't present anything that actually suggests this was an attempt on his life aside from "Previous attempts had supposedly been made."

I also read somewhere that the cops 'found' a high percentage of alcohol in Buford's blood level afterwards. Now how the hell did they figure that out if (remember?) there was NO AUTOPSY??? Also, the car was dismissed as a total write-off (does that mean they couldn't check it out for clues or anything as to actual cause of accident??). So, not only no autopsy, but NO INVESTIGATION of any kind whatsoever. Duh!!??

They would try to determine the cause of the accident. And a toxicology report is entirely separate from an autopsy. It's done by a lab, not the coroner during the autopsy. It can be done with a small sample of blood. You don't have to cut the body open to get a tox report. The fact that they knew his blood alcohol level proves there was an investigation of some kind, and that investigation pointed towards this being an accident.

Calling the car a total write off means that it was destroyed, which in turn means any evidence is also destroyed. Besides, it isn't like the police automatically assume an assassination attempt when they see what is obvious an accident involving a person who was legally drunk.

And you INSIST there was no reason for enough suspicion to at least warrant a proper investigation?? Sorry to have to mention this pal, but if indeed you are that blind to all the above facts, one can only wonder whether you yourself might not have your own hidden agenda somewhere within the whole sordid story.

I'm still waiting for you to present something to suggest there was need for an investigation. All you've said so far is that he had a high blood alcohol content and that his car was destroyed. That is NOT evidence pointing towards foul play.

I'm not blind to anything. Neither of the two facts you presented point towards anything other than a car accident.

You show just how addled your brain is by suggesting a 31 year old had something to do with the murder of a man in a completely different country from himself. For your information, he was dead for 6 years before I was even born you idiotic conspiracy nut. What part do you suggest I played in this supposed murder and subsequent coverup?

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

[–] blackisbeauty 13 years ago

--------------------

'All you've said so far is that he had a high blood alcohol content and that his car was destroyed.'

---------------------

I didnt say that, I said the COPS said that (and used that 'conclusion' on their part to justify why they decided not to conduct a PROPER INVESTIGATION or even a PROPER AUTOPSY).

Man, I must admit you've proven yourself quite adept at twisting the words we are putting to you (me and the other 'conspiracy nuts' on this thread) to fit as neatly and conveniently as possible into your own forced, narrow-minded theory of what might or might not have happened. I dont really care how old you are, or which country you're from - I'd be much more interested to know your level of education, type of education (esp. professional), IQ status, marital status, reading tastes, stuff like that, which would be more helpful in establishing what type of person you actually are. And if you really, truly, honestly cannot understand what everyone is trying to point out here, and you'd rather stick to this 'lack of evidence' bull-faeces despite all the afore-mentioned pot-holes in the 'official' version of events, then the question still has to be asked: are you indeed that myopic to the point of stupidity, or do you have some personal interest in defending the 'official' version of events as it stands?

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

I didnt say that, I said the COPS said that (and used that 'conclusion' on their part to justify why they decided not to conduct a PROPER INVESTIGATION or even a PROPER AUTOPSY).

I'm still waiting for you to present YOUR evidence then.

Once again, an autopsy isn't required when the cause of death is evident. Several witnesses saw him drinking at the fair, so it's not like the cops made up the fact that he had alcohol in his system.

No "proper investigation" is required. There's no evidence of foul play(since the car was destroyed by fire as a result of the accident). And it's a fact he had been drinking that day.

So, where is the evidence you claim conclusively shows that this is some kind of conspiracy? A valid argument would have to be based on facts, but the fact is, there is NO actual evidence that he was murdered.

Man, I must admit you've proven yourself quite adept at twisting the words we are putting to you (me and the other 'conspiracy nuts' on this thread) to fit as neatly and conveniently as possible into your own forced, narrow-minded theory of what might or might not have happened.

I'm not presenting a theory. I'm presenting what factually happened. You and the people who suggest he was murdered are the ones presenting a theory, based on absolutely nothing.

How is it at all a forced theory that he died as a result of a drunk driving accident? The fact that you're suggesting some kind of conspiracy involving the police falsifying evidence means that you're the one forcing a theory, not me.

Where is the evidence that foul play was involved?

I dont really care how old you are, or which country you're from

This is hilarious. You suggested I was somehow involved in the "cover up" when the fact is I'm not nearly old enough to have been involved. Let alone the fact that I don't even live in the state or even the country where it occurred.

You made a statement that was absolutely ludicrous, and I was pointing out just out ridiculous it was.

I'd be much more interested to know your level of education, type of education (esp. professional), IQ status, marital status, reading tastes, stuff like that, which would be more helpful in establishing what type of person you actually are. And if you really, truly, honestly cannot understand what everyone is trying to point out here, and you'd rather stick to this 'lack of evidence' bull-faeces despite all the afore-mentioned pot-holes in the 'official' version of events, then the question still has to be asked: are you indeed that myopic to the point of stupidity, or do you have some personal interest in defending the 'official' version of events as it stands?

My level of education is irrelevant, as is everything else you care about. You claimed I was somehow involved in this situation, and none of the things you care about would indicate my involvement whatsoever.

There has not been a single piece of actual evidence presented in this thread which suggests your theory of what happened is true. You have wild speculation that's based on absolutely nothing.

Once you give me a real reason to question the official stance, why should I assume it's all a massive conspiracy to murder one man? Unlike yourself, I go with the opinion of the people who were actually involved in the situation. Not some wild theory from some nobody who had nothing to do with the situation at all.

Once you provide some facts that indicate that there is a conspiracy, I'm not simply going to accept your theory of the events in question. It's called critical thinking. You should try it sometime.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

[–] blackisbeauty 13 years ago

------------------------------------------------------------------------

There has not been a single piece of actual evidence presented in this thread which suggests your theory of what happened is true. You have wild speculation that's based on absolutely nothing.
Once you give me a real reason to question the official stance...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasons:

1. He had a lot of violent enemies out there (probably including some people in officialdom) due to his anti-crime crusade

2. He'd survived numerous assassination attempts already

3. There was no autopsy, no investigation, despite a formal request made by his family. Just assumptions on the part of the authorities

4. The car was reportedly burnt-out, along with any clues as to what may have actually caused the crash

And please understand one thing; neither I nor any of the other 'conspiracy nuts' here are insisting it was clearly murder. It is indeed possible it was a real accident, perhaps as a result of drunk-driving. We are merely pointing out that the way the authorities handled the whole matter gives rise to more questions than answers. And anyone with half a decent imagination would surely see that. Unless their viewpoint is biased.

It's called critical thinking. You should try it sometime.

[–] king_of_bob 12 years ago

1) Not evidence of anything.

2) Also not evidence of anything.

3) There was no autopsy because the COD was obvious. Not just assumptions. The evidence indicated that he died as a result of driving under the influence. Even his own family agree he had been drinking.

But again, this isn't evidence of anything.

4) Not evidence of anything.

And please understand one thing; neither I nor any of the other 'conspiracy nuts' here are insisting it was clearly murder.

That's funny, because the subject of this thread, and the fact that you consistently suggest I'm narrow minded because I don't buy what you're saying indicate otherwise. You even went so far as to suggest I had something to gain by disbelieving your theory.

It is indeed possible it was a real accident, perhaps as a result of drunk-driving.

Change possible to probable, and perhaps to almost assuredly.

We are merely pointing out that the way the authorities handled the whole matter gives rise to more questions than answers.

You're not though. You're starting with the assumption that he was murdered, and then you assume that there's some kind of coverup because the evidence doesn't fit your theory.

The question is simple. Was he murdered? Based on the evidence available, there's no reason to assume he was. All the evidence suggests he got into an accident after spending the day drinking. Why is that so hard to believe? Why does it seem easier for you to believe that there's some kind of grand coverup?

And anyone with half a decent imagination would surely see that. Unless their viewpoint is biased.

See, this is exactly the problem. You're using your imagination, not your critical thinking. You're the one with the bias, and it's actually kind of funny that you can't see it. Though granted it's funny in kind of a sad way.

It's called critical thinking. You should try it sometime.

Take your own advice and try using Occam's Razor sometime.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

[–] Milkdoesabodygood 8 years ago

All of youse, shut da f u k up already!

Spoiler alert for them spoil sports out there! Y'all like spoiled milk, stop crying over it!

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] databyter 14 years ago

Very Possible although more likely steering was tampered with from what I've heard.

I found it interesting since someone did the same to my car for similar reasons.

I survived but just barely, and I've been hurting ever since.