• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Anomalies in fandom

Well, I really didn't want to open this gigantic can of worms, but since it's being discussed anyway, I will say that I personally believe that Roddenberry was Grace's assailant. It's totally circumstantial evidence and with GR, GLW, and her confidant Leonard Nimoy all being dead now, we'll never know for sure, but yeah, I think it was him.

Look at the facts from Whitney's account & other sources.

1) The Executive was someone who likely had an office on the lot. (GLW says that they "found an empty office," but I think that's probably an obfuscation on her part. He was comfortable enough in the office space to pour her a drink from the wet bar.)

2) The Executive was someone who was creatively involved with the show. (He lured Grace there by wanting to talk about ideas for her character. That's unlikely to be an accountant with the studio. It points to someone who was involved in the writing and/or the production of Trek, very likely both. Someone who had the power and the ability to make changes to Yeoman Rand's character happen. GFW describes The Executive as someone who "had a lot of power over my future.")

3) The Executive was personally involved with someone else, someone who GLW seemed to know. (GLW and Majel Barrett were both in the episode "The Naked Time," which shot from June 30 to July 11, 1966. GLW says that they were halfway through the shoot for "Miri" when her assault occurred. "Miri" shot from August 22 to August 30, 1966. Presumably GLW would've also met Roddenberry's wife Eileen by this time.)

4) The Executive was someone who commonly had affairs with other women, to the point that he claimed his partner was understanding about it. (Over the years, Roddenberry had affairs with Nichelle Nichols, Majel Barrett, and his assistant Susan Sackett. And according to "WNMHGB" director James Goldstone, GR only cast Andrea Dromm as Yeoman Smith because he wanted to score with her, although Dromm has denied that GR ever gave her any problems. And these are just the affairs that we know about.)

5) GLW says that she'd known The Executive "a couple of years" by this point, and had known him to be "a womanizer," but not violent. (See above. I'm not personally aware if Whitney wrote about where or when she'd first met Roddenberry, but she starred in his unsold pilot Police Story, which Memory Alpha says was produced in 1965 after "The Cage," although it didn't air until September 1967.)

6) GLW was worried about seeing The Executive on the lot the Monday morning after the assault. (So it was presumably someone who was regularly on the Star Trek set, not just someone from the studio that she saw every once in a while.)

7) Grace was fired from the show a couple of days into the September 1966 hiatus in shooting. (So if her firing was retaliatory and not just coincidental timing, it came from somebody high up in the show, someone with the power to make that happen. According to his entry on Memory Alpha, Roddenberry stepped down as the sole producer of ST after John D.F. Black's departure from the series in August 1966, and Roddenberry instead became Star Trek's executive producer. And if Roddenberry was less involved in the day-to-day of the show after that point, perhaps that further explains why Nimoy stayed with the series after learning about Grace's assault.)

(...And now I'm wondering if the name "The Executive" was perhaps a subtle jab at Roddenberry's reduced responsibilities on Trek, or perhaps a conscious clue on GLW's part.)

And looking in Inside Star Trek: The Real Story to see what Herb Solow and Bob Justman had to say about Grace's firing, I find this on page 243 of my paperback:

"In discussions in early September, 1966, Roddenberry, Solow, and Weitzman agreed there was no artistic or financial justification to continue her very limited role in light of the show's serious budgetary problems. Strangely, Roddenberry evinced no interest in retaining his hand-picked yeoman, while Justman, opposed to 'losing her,' held out hope that she would return to guest star in future episodes. Roddenberry never contacted Whitney to give her the bad news. Her agent was formally advised by Desilu Buiness Affairs that her services were no longer required.

"(Years later, there was talk of a sudden personal rift between Roddenberry and Whitney that occurred just prior to her departure from the show. The rift supposedly guaranteed that she would never return to Star Trek. But she did return--in some of the Star Trek movies. And there was no appearance of any ill will between them.)"​

And finally, the clincher for me:

8) The Executive gave Grace a polished gray stone that he made by way of apology. (Herb Solow and Bob Justman talk about Roddenberry's hobby of polishing stones in their book Inside Star Trek and say that he often gave them out as gifts.)

When you think about it, there just isn't anyone else who ticks off all of those boxes.

I'm honestly not trying to convince anyone else of this - think what you want to think - but I know what I believe. The polished stone is just too disinctive and unusual of a detail for it to be a coincidence, IMO. I believe it was Roddenberry.

Yes. Which is why I haven't talked about it here before.

I can see where Justman and Solow are coming from there - I would also be upset to be tarred with that brush. But I think it's incredibly unfair to Grace to say "she should've been braver," especially if GR was her assailant. Roddenberry was positively lionized by 1998 when she wrote her book. It was incredibly brave of her to say as much as she did.

That's a point. But I think it's unlikely that anyone else in the production besides Nimoy knew the extent of what had happened to Grace.
9) Her memoir was published in 1998, and in it she says that The Executive is gone and can’t hurt her any more. Of the Trek staff who could be reasonable suspects, only Coon and Roddenberry were deceased by that date, Coon in 1973, and Roddenberry in 1991. That basically narrows the list down to two of the Trek people, one of whom—Coon—had only been on the staff for a few weeks when Miri was filmed.
 
Yeah, she wasn100% referring to someone who was deceased because as long as the person was alive he would be in a position to hurt her.
 
9) Her memoir was published in 1998, and in it she says that The Executive is gone and can’t hurt her any more. Of the Trek staff who could be reasonable suspects, only Coon and Roddenberry were deceased by that date, Coon in 1973, and Roddenberry in 1991. That basically narrows the list down to two of the Trek people, one of whom—Coon—had only been on the staff for a few weeks when Miri was filmed.

That's a tremendous point, and it raises the question of whether there's any evidence for or against Coon.

Regarding the implied exoneration of the other few execs, there's a problem with that. A lot of Hollywood folks don't actually read the book in a situation like this, to say nothing of reading it closely and giving weight to small details, like a detective. They just hear the rumor, and amid a rush of other daily business decisions, maybe they'd rather not hire that guy who might be that rapist.

And that's how a cloud of suspicion can harm a man who was never technically "accused" of anything.
 
Yeah, very few people are going to go to the lengths that some here have in their analyzing of every little detail of that chapter including knowing all the particulars of the assailants personal life and habits.
 
As @Serveaux and I discussed recently, there's been essentially zero serious academic writing about the history of Star Trek, certainly in terms of a serious production study with historical context. Most of the "history" presented has been in form of anecdotes by people with a story to sell, self promotion, or axes to grind. There's so much stuff about Trek that people accept at face value because people they love who said it, not because there's any factual evidence for it...and often what evidence there is contradicts it.
 
Last edited:
9) Her memoir was published in 1998, and in it she says that The Executive is gone and can’t hurt her any more. Of the Trek staff who could be reasonable suspects, only Coon and Roddenberry were deceased by that date, Coon in 1973, and Roddenberry in 1991. That basically narrows the list down to two of the Trek people, one of whom—Coon—had only been on the staff for a few weeks when Miri was filmed.
An excellent point that I forgot to include. Thanks for the addition, Maurice.
That's a tremendous point, and it raises the question of whether there's any evidence for or against Coon.
Gene Coon was far from a womanzier, according to several accounts. Happily married, Coon ultimately left his wife when he re-established contact with his long lost love who he discovered was working as a model in L.A. (He saw her on a billboard, IIRC.) He felt so guilty about it that he let his wife basically have everything in the divorce. And he passed away just a couple of years after marrying his first love. Contrast that with Roddenberry telling his wife Eileen that he was heading to Hawaii by himself to recover from the grind of Star Trek while he was really going there with Majel.

I believe that Shatner tells the story of Coon's marriages in his Star Trek Memories book, but it wouldn't surprise me if Justman and Solow also covered it in Inside Star Trek: The Real Story. (Normally I'd check, but it's late and I'm tired. Maybe tomorrow.)
 
And that's how a cloud of suspicion can harm a man who was never technically "accused" of anything.
There's the goalpost shift. There's a lot of daylight between can harm and did harm. At this point, having repeatedly asked how these men have been harmed as you claim they have been and having received no answer to that question, I'm just going to assume at least until you present otherwise that you can present nothing showing that they were in fact harmed by GLW.
 
Here's how one of these three or four men raped me but because the story is about me and not the rapist I won't name him
The other big headline I remember at the time was that she claim to be a sex addict. That was mentioned in a lot of the reviews as well. I wonder if her sex addiction was caused by this incident?

You wonder if being sexually assaulted made her a sex addict?

Neither of these posts are okay. Please don't go down this road again.
 
She stated herself that she became a sex addict sometime after she left the show. Something triggered that maybe it was the experience that messed her up
 
She stated herself that she became a sex addict sometime after she left the show. Something triggered that maybe it was the experience that messed her up
Grant, you don't know what you're talking about here. @1001001 is a psychologist. I would say that they know more about this subject than you.
 
Certainly something in her life that was negative caused her to have the sex addiction that she spoke about several times. I was simply wondering if this was the negative experience that may have triggered that. I'm not a psychologist I was just wondering. I don't have the book so I don't know what her explanation was for why her life went so bad in so many ways. Maybe somebody who read the book would know the answer.
 
I don't think, with real people, we can often say "X happened, and that flipped a switch." Transformative experiences are probably more common with fictional characters.
 
Well she was dealing with a lot of stuff at the time from what I've learned in this thread. there was a divorce the assault and then being fired so probably wasn't only one thing. But as someone stated in this thread she chose to start off the book in the first few pages with pretty graphic description of the assault. So presumably there was some reason why she chose to start the book off with something that shocking.
 
It was kind of sad how after season one they ditched all the female specialists. Besides Palamas and a few random yeoman they felt nurse or switchboard operator was all the females were capable of. I remember one female Helmsman and 1 girl taking Spocks station but that was it. Maybe I'm missing a couple of bit part crewwomen. Really prefer season one's depiction of the crew.
 
Lt. Carolyn Palamas
Lt. Marlena Moreau
Lt. Com. Dr. Ann Mulhall
Lt. Mira Romaine
Lt. Marlena Moreau = "Captain's woman" in a mirror universe is hardly a "specialist", and her our-universe counterpart is only identified as a Lieutenant in blue who handed over a clipboard.
 
Yeah I mentioned Palamas. Archaeology Department. Marlena through 98% of her performance was playing the captains lover and she worked in the chem lab when she wasnt sleeping with the captain. And Mira romaine's portrayal was pretty much cringe-worthy.
Ann Mulhall was a good character because she's at least listed as an astrobiologist and not one of the traditional female roles.
Season 1 had Lieutenant Masters as an engineer. The only engineer we saw in the second season or actually heard of was the one who caused Scotty's head injury which pretty much indicates she was incompetent? That's not flattering. Angela Martine was a command officer into first season episodes. The actress came back in the third season as what else? - the switchboard operator. Although not technically part of the first season Pike's first officer was a female. Ariel Shaw was a lawyer which was not probably considered a traditional female job in the 1960s. And Elizabeth Dehner was a PhD in psychiatry. So yeah I would definitely stick by my theory that first season especially the first half of the first season portrayed the female Starfleet members as more important and holding more varied positions then were considered traditional female jobs.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top