I believe that Mr. Gaye was not killed by his Father, but by the Government. If you look at murder rates, the rates for Parent/Child murders are well under 0.1% of all total murders. I find it bizarre that such a weird occurrence could happen to such a well known person. It would be like a celebrity dying today from a lightning strike, it just doesn't happen.

So how did the Government do this? Think about RFK's killer, Sirhan Sirhan. He was hypnotized into killing Bobby and I think the same thing happened with Marvin Gaye's Father. The reason why the Government would target him is because his Anti-War stance was gaining momentum among youth and they wished to silence him the same way they did with MLK Jr. and the Kennedy’s.

If the government ran around killing anti-war artists during the 60s (or today), there wouldn't be any albums in the stores or movies made.

Consider a few things:

-People in the government then and now are pretty out of touch when it comes to pop culture. It's unlikely, but possible, that no one in the White House even knew who Marvin Gaye was. No kidding.

-If there is a secret government and shadowy subcultures among the rich, they may not have liked Gaye, but they would have liked the money he could have made them more than they disliked him. Killing him would be bad business, and they wouldn't do it. People say "Well, Elvis makes more dead than he did alive", but Elvis was Elvis, Elvis has been dead longer than he was alive (and longer than his career), and had Elvis lived until today, think of the money he would have made had he released five to ten more albums.

It makes no sense for the government to have wanted Gaye dead, in my opinion, is all that I'm saying. But it is an interesting theory. I think that we should give Gaye's dad all of the blame he deserves for killing his son, to be honest.

No.....his father shot him absolutely!!!!

http://www.findadeath.com/Deceased/g/Marvi...marvin_gaye.htm


http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murd...in_gaye/13.html

Marvin Gaye is one of my all time favorite artists. There was no conspiracy with his death.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...757C0A962948260

Ever notice whenever a popular artist or musician dies, there is ALWAYS a conspiracy? Hendrix, Morrison, Cobain? Bah. Over indulgent children that can't handle fame, or drug and alcohol induced mania. It's a shame, and I feel bad for them, but that's all there is to it.

Is it just me or does this not really belong in the conspiracy forum?......As for the death it was sad thing and yes his father did it not the government, They don't waste time on killing people like this, They had no need he was not gaining that much of a movement.....

Think about it....If they didn't take out the dixie chicks they sure didn't kill Marvin Gaye.......

I think there might have been a conspiracy behind John Lennons murder but Marvin Gaye?? I don't see it.

his dad killed him, lets not start another rock star conspiracie theory. what about laurel and hardy did they really die of natural causes, did they ,,, did they.

hah! Dixie Chicks! Proof that talent and brains don't go hand in hand! Funny but valid!
Yeah, the rock-star conspiracy thing is lame and old. Even the Lennon murder someone mentioned. People like this usually invalidate themselves without the governments help.

I'd agree. Marvin Gaye's death seems pretty straight forward. The only celebrity musician's death that looks very suspicious to me is Kurt Cobain's (that I've put a lot of research into anyway). I won't go into detail but it definately looked fishy, and Courtney Love isn't exactly straight and narrow...



< wonders where this subject would belong if not the conspiracy section >

I think that in some cases the government may have some people eliminated, but I doubt Marvin Gaye is one. As others have said, there are plenty of other celebrities who have spoke out about the government & it's dealings & they are still alive. Some of them may even be more popular then ever. Like maybe Jane Fonda? She spoke out a lot about the war & she became even more famous afterwards with her aerobics, movies, marrying Ted Turner...

I don't think it would be in the government's best interest to kill someone who's high-profile. Cause it raises too much attention, too many speculations & draws far too much attention even years later. It would be far better to discredit them. Killing somone off like that basically makes them a hero or even a martyr, which is something I don't think the government would want. Leave them as a pain in the backside or a fly buzzing round your head while you try make them look stupid.

In some other famous cases, like the ones of Lennon & Rebecca Schaeffer it was a means of getting attention/love. Chapman felt that he could win the affections of Jodie Foster for killing John. Bardo was obsessed with Rebecca & he was going to have her or no one would, period. I think when someone famous dies in such a way it's almost like people won't accept that it's murder plain & simple.

Do I think there are some conspiracies? Heck, yeah! But then we can talk all day about them & would probably still not agree, so I'll leave it at that. But in Marvin's case I say, "Highly doubtful."

I'm not saying this is the gospel truth, but there is enough evidence to warrent discussion. Marvin Gaye's father displayed many of the same symptoms that Sirhan Sirhan did after the murder (Claiming he was unable to remember the event taking place, writing non-sense in journals, etc..). I think the connection is just TOO strong to dismiss without even talking about the possibility.

Whatever happen to Marvin Gayes father?

He died in a retirement home in California. He died of pneumonia.

Cheers

Maradona (10)

Perhaps, but imagine if you were in his shoes. He just murdered his son, "unable to remember what happened" and doing things that make no sense (such as the journals) are actually not uncommon. Shock/disbelief can do things to protect us from a reality that is just to horrible to face. I dont' know about you, but I personally have hit some really difficult (nearly impossible) times & I've become a robot. Not knowing what I'm feeling, doing... not even feeling that I'm a part of my own self. When reality is too real, going off the deep end isn't a big stretch.

I didn't say that it wasn't possible, just that I doubted it & gave reasons as to why I didn't think so. Regardless of how hard we look, not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes parents/kids just loose it & someone ends up dead. Also in reading up about Marvin, Sr. it looked like he had a lot of demons of his own to deal with. Probably didn't need the government's help. Not saying it didn't happen, just that I doubt it. In all accounts the shooting happened during/after a heated argument, that does not sound premeditated. Conspiracies are really more planned/organized. You mentioned Sirhan Sirhan, now that I agree was a conspiracy. Not cause of his inability to remember what happened or nonsensical writings but because of all the things that had to happen for him to be able to shoot Kennedy. How did he get into the kitchen with a gun? Why was he not get killed by security? Why was Bobby being brought through the kitchen anyways? It's like all of these elements had to fall perfectly into place before Sirhan could carry out the plan.

In the Gaye case: Heated argument between father & son yet again. It gets out of hand. Father gets gun. Father shots son. Believe me, there are thousands of stories just like this...probably even in your own town/city. Marvin, Jr. also had a reoccuring battle with cocaine addiction, which was "on" at the time of his murder. If the government really wanted him dead, why not use his drug of choice? I read a biography on Marivn, Jr., he threatened to commit suicide, why not use that? Why use the father as a weapon of the government? IMO, using the dad would be leaving too much to chance. He could back out at the last moment. He could have possibly been stopped. He could have told his story to someone...namely the press.

el midgetron, I found this on wikipedia about the father: Marvin Gay Sr.

A tumor in his brain? Like Charels Whitman?