Did Fuddy Have an Open-Casket Funeral? (UPDATED)

NOTE: This pdf has been updated in response to new discoveries (thank you to those who pointed out new observations to me) – including the source of image #1 and the signs that it is a photoshop.  Fred, I’ll post the two similarly-cropped images here so you can see them. The top is from KHON, the bottom from KITV. Sorry they’re so small here; I don’t know how to crop the white space out in Paint on my computer. But if you copy these 2 images into Word, expand them to the same size as each other, and drag one over the other you will see the placement of everything is identical except: the missing window sash that creates the cross is missing, part of the khon2 sparkly logo is dimmed enough to not show, an extra flower and floating-in-the-air greenery has been inserted below the easel and the streaming light from the window has been changed to a brown fill that matches the brown of the top window sash to make it look like it’s a wall there instead of a window, and a different person and a larger casket have been C&P’ed in :

cropped khoncropped kitv

Conclusion: The person in the casket shown by KITV is not from Fuddy’s funeral. The image was most likely photoshopped from KHON footage at the funeral (update – it may not have been from the khon footage; more later), as revealed by errors in the photoshop. The casket at Fuddy’s funeral had a different pall and had no body inside but did have an oval bump in the middle of the casket, which I presume to be an urn. The media used at least one instance of fake footage (and maybe two) to imply that Fuddy’s was an open-casket funeral, the family was photographed in positions you would expect if there was a body in the casket, and the casket was treated as if it had a body inside. The public was most likely unaware of the deception to be carried out by the media and honored what they believed was her ashes if they got close enough to see the urn in the casket.

Did Fuddy Have an Open Casket Funeral (Updated)

Here are two images of the casket from the KITV video, with a red line showing the profile of the head end of the casket being straight across:

body close up with reference points added

Friends file past at other funeral

And here’s the image from the Honolulu Diocese, with a red line showing the profile to be two-tiered:

diocese profile two tierLarger image (and darkened a bit to help see the detail):

diocese profile annotated

I’ve tried to figure out how that top tier fits with the hinge mechanism and I don’t understand it, unless it’s a piece of attached cloth that folds down out of the way when the lid closes. I don’t know what it is, but I know that the Diocese photo shows that when the lid is open  that two-tier profile is there. It doesn’t match the straight-line profile of the open caskets in the KITV video.


  1. Posted February 6, 2014 at 9:59 am | Permalink | Reply

    An alternate conclusion: The person in the casket shown by KITV [picture #1] is not from Fuddy’s funeral, because that picture, though similar, is a stock photo. The casket at Fuddy’s funeral did have a different pall from the pall in the stock photo, but everything was according to Hoyle and Robert’s Rules of Order. Loretta Fuddy’s body was indeed present in the casket at the funeral, as observed by the family and hundreds of others, and David Copperfield was conspicuously absent. The public was unaware of a deception, because there was none – at least at the funeral. An autopsy is being performed, though not by an impartial medical examiner independent of the government.

    Beside the downed plane in the water off Molokai, there were few observers – six or eight at most – and even fewer were paying attention to the deceased, possibly only one: Hawaii DOH Deputy Dir. Keith Yamamoto, who was caring for Ms. Fuddy while they floated in the water, and holding her hand until she passed away and went limp.

    Gov. Neil Abercrombie has appointed Gary Gill as acting director of the Hawaii DOH. Gill was previously deputy health director for the environment.

    • Posted February 8, 2014 at 2:57 am | Permalink | Reply

      KITV presented it as if the video was taken right at Fuddy’s funeral. But you’re right; it is a different pall. And it is a different casket; the short side of the casket that the head/pillow would be up against goes straight across in the KITV images that claim to be from Fuddy’s funeral, but the Honolulu Diocese’s photo shows a casket where that is NOT a straight line across – but rather a staircase profile, as if there was a higher step and a lower step.

  2. raicha
    Posted February 7, 2014 at 10:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

    In response to Butterdezillion’s claim that KITV photoshopped images from another funeral, showing hands in an open casket, to claim that it was Loretta Fuddy in that casket. This post deals with part one of her claim, involving the funeral pall.

    A Catholic funeral pall is designed to cover the entire casket, draping all sides. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pall_(funeral) However, when the casket is open, the pall must be folded back over itself on the top of the casket. Photo #1 in Butterdezillion’s pdf file entitled “did-fuddy-have-an-open-casket-funeral-updated1” shows this to be the case. The folded edge is visible across the width of the casket.

    The “embellishment” that Butterdezillion describes is actually known as the Ophrey and is a richly embroidered band running the length of the pall. In photo #1, we are seeing the “wrong side” of the embroidery, as the pall has been folded back.

    In photo #2, we are looking at the “right side” of the embroidery as it appears draped over the end of the casket.

    All embroidery will look significantly different on the two sides of the material on which it is embroidered, often resulting in two completely different and yet complementary patterns.

    On the basis of the “pall analysis”, it cannot be said that KITV photoshopped anything or that the images are of two different funerals and/or caskets.

    • Posted February 8, 2014 at 2:51 am | Permalink | Reply

      Look at the clearest photo of the pall on the left side. It is clearly an accordion fold. The wrong side didn’t show.

    • Posted February 8, 2014 at 5:12 am | Permalink | Reply

      I have made vestments – paraments for the altar, lectern, and pulpit, and stoles for my husband to wear above his robe. The orphreys most often consist of banding which is sewn onto fabric. If you look at http://vianneyvestments.wordpress.com/ you can see an image of somebody restoring old ecclesiastical vestments. They are using a seam ripper to cut through the satin stitch that is used to fasten the banding onto the base cloth. If you search google images for a pall that looks something like the ones in these images, you can find companies that sell banding to be sewn on the cloth for a pall, paraments, stoles, etc. The banding could be embroidered or it could be brocade, in which case there would be a reverse side.

      Either way it has to be attached to the rest of the cloth. Some of these palls have a cross shape formed by the orphrey.

      With the thick fabric that would be used for the orphrey, if a person had to sew together square corners like you would with a quilt, and then finish off the edges on the back to make it look decent (by turning over the raw edges and hand’sewing it down flat so the stitches wouldn’t show on the front side), it would make a very thick bump along the seams. Probably about as thick as the back seam on a pair of blue jeans. That thickness would show up in the image when the back was shown (but isn’t showing on the photoshopped image). And that thickness would also make it near-impossible (if not outright impossible) to accordion-fold the pall neatly in such small loops as we see in the image where the pall is being pulled over the closed casket.

      To get it to fold like that, soft cloth (perhaps embroidered) would have to be sewn down onto the fabric – probably with a satin stitch as shown in the above link. In that case, the back side of the orphrey would never be seen.

      • raicha
        Posted February 8, 2014 at 7:08 am | Permalink


        The embroidery is done directly on the fabric, creating a lovely pall that can easily be accordion-folded. You have no evidence at all that the pall was not embroidered and you are assuming that a band has been sewn onto cloth. But without evidence, my explanation is as plausible as yours.

      • Posted February 8, 2014 at 7:38 am | Permalink

        Do some searches and see how many hand-embroidered palls you can find. See how many ecclesiastical supply houses you can find that sell hand-embroidered palls – and if they do, that sell them without a lining behind it. How much embroidery have you done in your life? How much ecclesiastical embroidery? When you embroider for ecclesiastical cloths you don’t embroider the same way as you otherwise do, because it will too easily pucker the cloth. There is a special stitch that is used for hand-embroidering. And actually, come to think of it, the only time you would have a reverse image would be if it was woven, not embroidered. Brocade has a reverse image because it is woven. When one color is on top the other color is on bottom, so when you flip it over the colors are in reverse order. Embroidery isn’t like that. Standard embroidery is basically a glorified satin stitch, where the thread goes through to the backside and then back up again to the front side. So what you get on the back is the same as what you get on the front. Ecclesiastical hand embroidery involves couching the main thread with smaller, less visible thread or, ideally, the same kind of thread as you’re using for the fill. It results in a backside with little rows of parallel stitches all over the area where the fill is.

        So basically, the only way you’d get reverse is if it’s brocade, which is woven. That has to be done by machine and then sewn on top of other cloth. In which case the backside is never seen.

  3. raicha
    Posted February 8, 2014 at 12:44 am | Permalink | Reply

    Now, about that “bump” in “the Diocese” photo.

    Photo #4 in Butterdezillion’s pdf file shows a long range view of the open casket with something in the casket visible above the open edge.

    Referring back to photo #1, which has not been refuted by the “pall” theory, we see that Ms. Fuddy’s hands are placed over her body and that they lay at a height higher than the open front edge of the casket. However, because the lid of the casket is concave, when it is closed Ms. Fuddy will rest securely and yet not tightly inside.

    The “bump” is not her head or an urn. It is her hands.

    • Posted February 8, 2014 at 3:05 am | Permalink | Reply

      It has been refuted by having the wrong pall. The pall was folded in an accordion fold, as can be seen when they went to pull the pall over the open casket.

      And it has the wrong casket. The side of the casket that is right in front of the head goes straight across in the KITV images, but in the Honolulu Diocese’s photo it doesn’t. In the Diocese’s photo, with the casket open as it also is in the KITV images, it has a stairstep pattern. The Diocese’s photo is the one we know is actually from FUDDY’s funeral because it shows Abercrombie speaking and the congregation.

      James Ahlo commented here that one of those photos is “shameless” and “purported to be” taken at Fuddy’s funeral. Which image is he talking about? He seems to be saying at least one of those photos is false. We know it’s not the Diocese photo. So it seems like somebody who claims to have been there is saying the casket with the hands is a shameless fake, purporting to be from the funeral. I’ve asked him to clarify but there’s been no response.

      • raicha
        Posted February 8, 2014 at 3:38 am | Permalink

        Whether or not the the pall was accordion folded at another time is irrelevant to whether it was folded back onto itself at the time of photo #1. You have no idea what occurred to the pall between those two points in two different videos.

        I cannot understand what you mean by straight vs. stairstep pattern of the casket. Both photo #1 and photo #4 appear to show the identical casket, open. The lid has a lip that fits into the area near the head of the casket, as seen in the KHON video at seconds 48 to 54.

        Further, you can’t determine the exact shape of the open coffin while it is still covered with the pall, including all around the open edges.

      • Posted February 8, 2014 at 4:03 am | Permalink

        How many times do you think they fold and unfold the pall in the course of a funeral?

        Look at the left side of the casket in #4. Darken the image if you have to, to detect the edges. That side of the casket is taller at the back than it is at the front, and there is a step in the middle where it changes height. Totally different profile than the caskets in the KITV images.

      • raicha
        Posted February 8, 2014 at 7:13 am | Permalink

        The KITV images show the very same thing. Photo #1 shows the casket with a cut away at the head end. I honestly do not know what you mean when you say that the KITV shows a straight edge. We are comparing photos #1 and #4, correct?

      • Posted February 8, 2014 at 7:42 am | Permalink

        What cutaway at the head end? All I see is a straight line across on the KITV images, compared to a stairstep profile in the Diocese image.

        And of course you know I can’t show you exactly what I’m talking about because I’d have to “manipulate” images to point out what I’m talking about, and that would be LYING, right?

      • raicha
        Posted February 8, 2014 at 7:57 am | Permalink

        The KITV photo, #1, shows the casket from the end, looking down Ms. Fuddy’s body from the top of her body to her feet. You can’t see the top of her head because of the camera angle but it does seem like a tuft of hair is visible. The casket lid is raised, out of view, on the left side. The end of the casket in the forefront of the photo is lower than the top of the rest of the casket visible above the folded hands. The right side is also lower, making the hands visible above the edge of the casket when viewed in the “Diocese” photo. The lower right side then rises at a right angle at the point where the opening (to be covered by the lid) ends and the rests of the enclosed casket begins.

        All of this is draped, not only by the tablecloth-like pall, but by additional padding around the open edges and by the baby-blue drape shielding the lower half of Ms. Fuddy’s body from view.

        Same casket.

        Think of it this way: If you look at an automobile from the side, it is easy to see the angles of the window frames of the side windows. But if you then walk around to the back of the car, you can no longer see the side windows and cannot accurately describe the angle of the side windows from what you view from the rear.

      • Posted February 8, 2014 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

        I think we’re talking about 2 different things. I’m going to have to use photos to show you what I’m talking about. I’ll use Paint this time, and draw a line to show the profile that I’m talking about. I’ll add the photos to the actual post, since I can’t upload on the comments.

  4. raicha
    Posted February 8, 2014 at 3:41 am | Permalink | Reply

    I don’t speak for Mr. Ahlo, but I would guess that he finds publication and discussion of the photo showing Ms. Fuddy’s hands in the casket to be shameless not because the photo is fake as you claim, but because the speculation is disrespectful to a dedicated and beloved public servant.

    • Posted February 8, 2014 at 4:05 am | Permalink | Reply

      He said the photo “purported to be” taken at Fuddy’s funeral but was shameless.

      • raicha
        Posted February 8, 2014 at 7:10 am | Permalink

        Probably because he doesn’t have the heart or stomach to review all of the videos to confirm the source of the image.

      • Posted February 8, 2014 at 7:40 am | Permalink

        Should be pretty easy to tell whether that’s the same thing you saw at the funeral. He seemed pretty confident when he called SOME PHOTO shameless, “purporting to be” taken at the funeral. Doesn’t sound like there’s any doubt in his mind that the photo – whichever one he’s talking about – is blatantly, obviously, and shamelessly false.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: