Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
GNGS Kindle, e-version, Cover
click on cover for Amazon link
Paperback Cover
Updated case information in paperback. Publisher: E-Reads. Click on cover for Amazon Page Link.
ThreeWiseGirls Blog Talk Radio Interview with Dennis Davern & Marti Rulli
GNGS Hardcover
click on cover for Amazon link
goodbye-natalie-goodbye-splendour
Swoop's World BlogTalk Radio
Marti Rulli Interview, Feb 16, 2011, http://www.blogtalkradio.com/swoopsworld
Popular Posts
-
These are the actual autopsy diagrams of Natalie Wood. Please comment at this post. I chose not to include these diagrams in Goodbye Natalie... -
Long-Lost Natalie Wood Interview: Actress Talks Robert Wagner and Being "Petrified" of the Ocean - E! Online ***
-
James Bond star Lana Wood: She bedded Sean Connery and expected Hollywood to fall at her feet, but after five husbands, she h... -
Some people were occasionally intimidated by Natalie Wood, but not because she intimidated them deliberately. She was a strong woman who had...
-
Most of you have probably seen this but it has always been interesting to me that Redford makes a point of mentioning Natalie's fear o...
-
Natalie Wood is considered one of the most beautiful women ever, if not thee most beautiful woman ever. Her petite, curvy body enhanced her... -
I wish everyone a wonderful Thanksgiving Day with your friends and family, and just want to add that I never forget the meaning behind this... -
I tried to learn all I could about Frank Salerno, the lead detective in Natalie's case, before I was to speak with him. Frank Salerno Sr...
-
This letter was written by Robert Wagner in 1976 and sent to Dennis Davern when the Wagner family had been away in Europe. I know that some ... -
This is a photograph Dennis Davern took of Natalie Wood's daughters, Courtney and Natasha, one afternoon aboard the Splendour. Courtney ...
About Me
Natalie Wood's Splendour
Natalie posing at wheel of Splendour
Miracle on 34th Street Classic
GYPSY
Natalie and Lana
Gorgeous
Brainstorm
Brainstorm was Natalie's last film with co-star Christopher Walken.
Far too soon
Tribute to Natalie
created by Skyler & Kevin
I'm glad I could ask a question as I don't have a google account but it allows me to post anonymously. My name is Belinda. I just read your excerpt you mentioned on the Tron show. I'm going to read your book this weekend if I can get it at lunchtime. My question is: Why did Natalie and Dennis sleep together in the same room? If it's a spoiler to explain, I understand. Glad I caught you this morning. Belinda
ReplyDeleteThanks for your message, Belinda. The fateful cruise started Friday at noon, Nov. 27, 1981. There was tension fron the get-go. By 10 PM, after what seemed a nice day off the coast of Avalon, on Catalina Island, RJ (Robert Wagner) decided he wanted to move the boat 12 miles along the coast to the quiet part of the island, where there was only one restaurant (closed). It was a bad choice to attempt to move the boat in the dark night, and Natalie strongly opposed his suggestion. It turned into an argument and Natalie left the boat with Dennis.
ReplyDeleteDennis stayed with her in her room because she was afraid of being alone: worried about possible break-ins.
That much doesn't spoil it for you, but I will add, the next night when Natalie had another huge argument with RJ, it doesn't make sense that she would have left the yacht without Dennis, who took her ashore the night before (especially dressed in her night clothes). She would've found Dennis and asked for his help and she would have dressed properly for it (although there was no where on the island to go.).
I hope you will learn a lot from the book that explains what was going on in Natalie's life just before she tragically lost her life. Thank you for your question and for your interest. Hope to hear from you after reading. Marti
I have a question about the ropes that tied the dinghy to the Splendour. Is it correct that coroner Noguchi could not say definitively whether Natalie was (1) trying to leave in the Valiant or (2) wss trying to retie the dinghy tighter against the hull, at the time she allegedly slipped and fell overboard? Would not the ropes be unsecured at different places depending on whether scenario (1) or (2) was the case? In other words, if she was attempting to retie, the ropes would have been loosened at the cleats on the Splendour, in which case the dinghy would have had the ropes still attached to it when it was later found in the cove. On the other hand, if she was trying to leave in the dinghy, she would have untied the ropes at the point of attachment to the Valiant, in which case the ropes would have been still attached to Splendour when RJ discovered that the Valiant was gone. Do you know whether the Valiant had the ropes attached to it when it was found? And why was it not possible to determine whether scenario (1) or (2) was the case depending on the answer? -- JamesV
ReplyDeleteAs you can tell, I am not a boat person. It has now occurred to me that the dinghy would have to have a rope secured to it at all times so that it could be tied when docking at a dock. So my question is revised: do you know whether the ropes were inside the Valiant or dangling outside the Valiant when it was found? -- JamesV
ReplyDeleteJamesV, Good question. Thing is, NONE of these ultra important details were investigated. Being that the two restaurant workers who first searched for Natalie before the Coast Guard were called, came upon the dinghy first in a cove, (and then they used it!) no one knows the answer as to whether the ropes were INSIDE or OUTSIDE of the dinghy. The dinghy was found collecting kelp. If the ropes had been outside, the ropes would've collected kelp, too, and were probably slimey. You would think an answer could be found in a report, but there is no reference I could find anywhere. The two restaurant workers probably know, but, astonishingly, no one asked them, or no one recorded an answer if they had. (Both have since passed on.) It sure would have helped to determine Natalie's "purpose" for being on deck near the dinghy. But, through Dennis Davern (and passed on a polygraph) we do know that Natalie was on deck because of an argument with her husband that carried out to the open deck. There was no need to "secure a dinghy" that night, none whatsoever, as Dennis had tied the dinghy tight with TWO LINES about 12 feet apart, at the REAR of the boat, not port as Wagner has claimed (also passed on polygraph by Dennis). Either way, there is also no need to enter the swimstep to secure a dinghy, and wouldn't you think that should have been considered valid information? It was never offered!
ReplyDeleteThe dinghy could NOT float away when being secured by one person because the ropes couldn't be untied simultaneously. Someone untied the dinghy and for those who believe it was Natalie preparing to leave the yacht alone in nightgown and socks, plain and simple: NO WAY! These are the details covered in Goodbye Natalie Goodbye Splendour--details the authorities should have scrutinized! Thanks for your question. Hope this explains. Marti
Marti,
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for writing this book with Dennis. I always thought there was "more " that happened the night Natalie died I thought the book was excellent . I hope the case is re-opened.
Marti,
ReplyDeleteDo you ever fear for your safety after putting out a book filled with information Frank Sinatra helped keep covered? Just curious. I would've waited until he died. N.K.
I would like to see the book discussed on Oprah, Geraldo , The View ,20/20 and 48 Hour Mystery.
ReplyDeleteTo answer N.K. -
ReplyDeleteA very old friend of mine always used to say "You never know nothin' for sure" ...
Now, I know that's a double negative used in that saying, but I didn't change the exact way he used to say it when I mentioned it in GNGS. I've had some "concerned moments" over the years about this project, yes. I sure hope that going about things the right way counts for something, but that sure wouldn't matter if you happen to notice the hood of your car ajar, or the bushes rattling when coming home late at night.
Bottomline is that I stuck to facts and presented conversations I've had with others verbatim. Many people have researched this case. Finstad actually did a much more thorough "interviewing" investigation. I believe she interviewed up to 400 people when writing her Natalie biography.
Many people on Catalina Island have much to say about this case. But I worked mostly with Dennis, who was on the boat.
If anything "odd" ever happened to me, it would only verify the contents of GNGS, wouldn't you think? I know that wouldn't be much comfort for my family and friends (and I do have a regular, everyday kind of life which I am ever grateful for), but it would never remove the lingering "sound" of "Natalie's voice"...
Before I was ready to submit the manuscript, I had a long conversation with Dennis. He said, "If the truth is told, Marti, nothing else matters." We went deeper into that conversation, of course, but to be honest with you, yes, sometimes I worry about various kinds of repercussions. Still, I'm satisfied that GNGS is available.
And, to tie in the other comment, here, I too would like to see the book discussed on those shows, because if one of those shows recreated the experiments in GNGS, they would be amazed at how the events of that tragic night could have been investigated and probably solved.
Question: Has anything strange ever happened to you while writing GNGS? Anything paranormal? Did you ever feel Natalie's presence? Vicky Brown (reader: loved your book!)
ReplyDeleteOne thing happened, Vicky. It was Thanksgiving night 2005. After a big day, my daughter and her friend decided to stay overnight so we could watch "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" together. We were all in the living room, and we needed another blanket. I went upstairs to a spare room to get one. There were two folded blankets on a chair, beneath three small boxes I'd brought down from the attic weeks before. I lifted the top box but the second one stuck to it. Facing up at me, and setting on top of the third box that had stayed on the chair, was a glossy black and white headshot photograph of NATALIE WOOD. It had been "marred," a piece of it "worn" right where the abrasion on her left cheek had been indicated on her autopsy report.
ReplyDeleteIt just stopped me cold. Chills ran through me. I hadn't thought of Natalie for a long while at that time, and although I usually always do at Thanksgiving, this one had been so hectic, my mind was elsewhere. It felt as if she had found a way to REMIND ME to not forget about her, even though I'm not the kind of person to think about things that way.
There simply was no logical or no sensible explanation for how that photo came to be mixed in with those boxes I'd removed from the attic. I can't imagine how it ever got there. I couldn't recall any time that I had Natalie Wood material around those boxes. Ever. No matter how that photo ended up staring up at me, so many things had to "come together" for me to have seen it that night! I hadn't touched those boxes in ages and wasn't even sure why I brought them from the attic; I hadn't been expecting overnight company; I could've retrieved any blanket but went to the spare room for one; I'd lifted one box, but two came up so that the photo was exposed, and it was Thanksgiving night! All this together would always tease my senses. I brought the photo downstairs that night, put it on a shelf in front of my computer, and it has remained there since.
This experience enhanced my drive to finish GNGS. It’s not something I would have included in the book because, of course, it could likely be considered “paranormal” and wouldn't that have been a field day for many, but also because it most likely is purely coincidental but its affect on me will never be forgotten.
As for "feeling" Natalie’s presence, I’m not sure if that’s the case. What I did feel, however, was the lack of an investigation into her case. She deserved better, and that always bothered me. There were late nights at my keyboard I would picture her floating in the ocean, the darkness around her, her sheer terror of realizing her situation, her thoughts (did she expect someone to be pulling up, or for how long did she she “know” it was the end?). I am convinced Natalie lived long enough to have endured terror. Thoughts of her final hours sometimes caused me to hyperventilate. Especially thinking about the very last time her face fell forward into the water while she was floating. Did she say to herself, "I just can’t pull it up again?" There’s nothing paranormal about that.
I am a fan of Natalies. I had a vivid dream about her many years ago. She told me she was trying to go beyond but she couldn't. I woke up crying after she told me she missed her daughters. Thought I'd share that dream. I appreciate your book Marti. I feel I know her better now. Thank you. Helen
ReplyDeleteI found this from http://www.sailonline.com/seamanship/Dinghy.html
ReplyDeleteregarding proper dinghy handling and seamanship:
*Start the outboard before casting off from the boat or a dinghy dock, not after. If you don't do that and your engine does not start, you will a) look silly, and b) have to paddle against the current.
*Using the dinghy at night, always carry a 360¾ white light if possible, and/or at least a powerful flashlight to show your presence, spot obstacles like mooring balls, anchor chains etc., and incidentally to be able to find your boat in the dark.
Presumably Natalie would have been very familiar with these standard procedures -- is not Wagner quoted as saying that she would frequently take the dinghy out herself?
First, the light on the dinghy was out -- would she have EVER attempted to cast off in total darkness?
Second, the outboard motor was never started (Wagner has admitted on record that he never heard the loud start-up noise that the motor would have made, and the state in which the dinghy was found confirms that the motor had not been started). Would Natalie have untied both lines BEFORE starting the outboard motor, given the proper procedures with which Wagner would admit that Natalie was familiar?
Additionally, initialized sleeping pills were in Natalie's stomach, and she was wearing sleeping clothes -- therefore we know she had been getting ready to go to sleep.
From this we can conclude, even without Dennis' testimony, that Natalie DID NOT attempt to leave in the dinghy. And from the physical impossibility you mentioned earlier of untying both lines 12 feet apart simultaneously, we can conclude that Natalie DID NOT attempt to resecure the dinghy.
Therefore, we can conclude, even without Dennis' testimony, that SOMEONE OTHER than Natalie untied the dinghy. Could there be ANY reason for this other than a cover up? --JamesV
This is exactly the kind of critical thinking that never got done in this investigation. It's encouraging to me to see that plain old oridinary everyday folks like JamesV and myself and so many others are able to recognize the thin veil of lies that have shrouded this mysterious death all these years. If somehow the authorities would spend a few minutes looking at this case they would see that something seriously wrong took place 28 years ago and ...well, dammit, they just need to do the proper job, it's never too late for justice.
ReplyDeleteThat's why, even after all of these years, I felt it important to keep trying to get Goodbye Natalie Goodbye Splendour out there: for those like all of you right now posting at this obscure, but extremely important blog, and for those I truly believe might see through the lies and obstruction of justice deliberate in this case.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, James. She did not touch that dinghy nor did she ever try to re-tie the lines. Dennis make her a cup of tea before bed every night when she was on the boat but she would re-tie lines by herself, in the dark without asking for Dennis to please do it for her? PLEASE!
ReplyDeleteThe investigation was tainted by Noguchi's claim that there were scratches on the dinghy. Rasure told Marti that there were no scratches. Noguchi lied to make his story more credible. That alone should open the eyes of the authorities and make them ask why he felt he had to lie about the scratches. And then there was the fact that Wagner lied to the police about the glass. why would an innocent, grieving husband feel the need to lie?
Every single lie requires a second one to back it up, a third one to conceal it, a fourth one to store it in its box and a fifth to wrap it with a ribbon. Wagner told a glaring lie about the bottle, a lie about the dinghy, a lie about when he last saw Natalie, a lie about when he called the coast guard and so many others but so far the dominoes have not fallen as we know they should. A gentle nudge is it it will take to topple this murderous bastard. GNGS is that nudge. Creed.
ReplyDeleteMany lies never get to be exposed. I'm so grateful for the support GNGS receives.
ReplyDeleteJudge Judy says 2 things that apply in this case. One is that if something does not make sense it's not true, the other is "you don't need a good memory when you are telling the truth. People who do not want to see Wagner's culpability mention how odd it is that Dennis has such a good memory. He does not need a good memory because he is telling the truth.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you make of Wagner fetching Natalie's jacket? Some think this suggests pre-meditation - that he wanted to make it look like she was heading ashore. Or perhaps that he wanted to gain her trust before doing the unthinkable. Are there any other possible explanations? Could it have been a moment of genuine reprieve in the fighting? Or is it possible he originally planned to just terrify her by forcing her in the water, and got her jacket to help her survive, but things got out of hand or his intentions became darker? Is there any possibility in Dennis' mind that this was less than murder, e.g a cruel punishment gone wrong?
ReplyDeleteMy opinion: I do not think RJ intentionally murdered her. I think he lost control of his behavior in a blind fit of rage that had been building up all weekend and came to a head that night. One can imagine how an argument/fight could have played out: Natalie is extremely embarrassed by RJ's outrageous behavior in front of Walken: violently smashing the wine bottle on the table, broken glass almost flying into their faces, angrily accusing Walken of wanting "to f**k my wife." Walken is shocked and stunned; he gets up and goes out on deck. "RJ I am not going to stand for this one moment longer!" she says and leaves for the stateroom to go to bed. RJ is not going to let her get the last word. He follows after her. She tells him she has had enough of his drinking and jealous rage and is going to be calling her attorney the next day, is going to leave, etc. "Oh yeah? Then get the f**k off my boat NOW!" He goes to grab her jacket and forces it on her. She is lying on the floor crying and screaming; he grabs her by the legs, drags her out onto the deck, and shoves her off the boat. That is how she gets the bruises on her legs and the scrape on her cheek. But immediately after he pushes her into the water, he realizes that there is no way Natalie would ever forgive him for this, he has gone much too far this time; their life together is finished, his career would be finished, the publicity would be devastating, his life as he knew it would be over-- so he just lets her drown. Again, this is just my opinion of how a marital fight could have realistically escalated to a horrible, tragic end. -JamesV
ReplyDeleteJames, I'm with you on most of this. He could not take chance of having his Jonathan Hart image destroyed by the results of his drunken rage. His image is very important to him. He is all about how it looks and the condition Natalie was in as a result of his abuse would have destroyed his Mr. Nice Guy image and his career.
ReplyDeleteJames, you have great points. Just one thing. Dennis saw Natalie on the deck in her nightgown. So at what point did he get the jacket? The jacket part puzzles me. He is in a fit of rage and he goes inside and gets a jacket? Does he force it on her? and why? Did he think it would weigh her down like cement? However, I now believe that RJ knows what happened that night. I never thought that before, but after reading the book I do now. Karen A
ReplyDeleteKaren, I was not trying to posit an exact time line of how the fight transpired, just trying to imagine how it would come to be that a woman who had put on her nightgown and had taken a sleeping pill in order to go to bed, was wearing a down jacket when she was found. If during the argument/fight Natalie was saying things "that's it, I'm outta here!" or "I'm leaving" meaning she was threatening to leave him, one could imagine that RJ would have responded by grabbing her jacket and forcing her into it or onto her, saying "you're going to leave? here, leave right now! Get the hell off my boat right now!" to make a point. I do not think he planned to kill her. - JamesV
ReplyDeleteOh, I think he planned it! Michelle
ReplyDeleteJames, again you make some really good points. That could be how the jacket got on her--in anger. I agree with you that he did not plan for that to happen, it just did. I wonder if she jumped over to escape his crazy anger (in the hopes that it would bring him to his senses and he would immediately pull her out) or did he shove her. I wonder if she was screaming for someone to help her while she was on the deck and Dennis couldn't hear her because of the music. There are so many possibilities of what could have happened, but the only person who knows the truth is never going to come clean. The fact remains that this beautiful, talented, loving mother was the victim of a drunken selfish fool. I think selfish is the operative word. He didn't care about the people who loved her, like her daughters or her family, only himself. Karen A
ReplyDeleteI'm with JamesV. on this to the extent that we are forced to surmise a scenario on this point as one isn't offered by Dennis. Dennis tells us what he can, he tells us what he was an eye witness to, but, and this is to his credit, he doesn't take any liberties with the truth here. He could have easily inserted what he 'felt' may have happened and we would have accepted it as the truth. It's this important little point that, for me, lends all the credibility to Dennis that he deserves. Credibility is everything here. Credibility talks. Bullshit walks. Wagner is running out of shoe leather.
ReplyDeleteDennis didn't say how Natalie got into the jacket or into the water because he didn't see it happen. But she was clearly wearing a jacket when she was found in the water. To think that she just got up and plopped on a jacket with the intention (while wearing nothing more than a nightgown and socks) of firing up the dinghy and cruising off into the cold dark night is absurd. As a Florida resident and multiple boat owner myself, I have spent many a day and night barefooted and inebriated on a boat, but NEVER would I have set out in dinghy or any watercraft at midnight without shoes, a light or a companion, to do otherwise would be to have a foolhardy fearlessness of the dangers of deep, dark water. A fear that Natalie had embraced for a lifetime
Add to this the fact the fact that she didn't have the first clue as to how to operate the dinghy let alone start it (Pump, Prime, Start, Choke) and what you've got is a growing mountain of lies. Wagners assertion that she was familiar with, and oft times took the dinghy out alone is nothing less than a big steaming pile of bullshit, Dennis was the only one who would have instructed her how to do perform this operation and he never, ever was asked to it or offered to do it. Natalie Wood does not start outboard motors at midnight, in her socks, and after having taken a sleeping pill. Few of us would have either. Wagner is just making things up as he goes along, For Wagner to have stood by this account all these years without anyone ever challenging that claim is proof that Wagner is the luckiest son of a bitch on Earth.
Creed.
Michelle, what makes you think he planned it?
ReplyDeleteMarti,
ReplyDeleteBack in Nov. of 81 when this first happened, I was about 23. I was a fan of Natalie and was very upset about what had just happened. Shortly after the incident I was talking to my aunt about it. I remember like it was yesterday. When I expressed to her that I couldn't believe what had happened to Natalie, she looked at me as if I were crazy. I knew by that look that she was insinuating that RJ was responsible and I said to her.."you don't mean you think Robert Wagner had something to do with it?" She again, smiled that sly, knowing smile and said "of course it was her husband, what do you think?" I told my aunt she was crazy, that Robert Wagner was distraught about the incident and that he couldn't have had anything to do with it. My aunt just shook her head. My aunt has since passed away, but I remember that exchange very well. She saw it all clearly way back then without knowing any details at all, and I always denied it until I read your book. I always felt it was and accident, but on the same token, everything was always fuzzy to me. Nothing seemed clear. Now it does and it breaks my heart that someone who adored someone could let that happen. Do you suppose Natalie's daughters ever questioned the circumstances surrounding her death? Karen A
There are several common sense indications that he planned it.
ReplyDelete1) He didn't insist on Thanksgiving night that the trip be canceled.
2) He never wanted Avalon at all (Natalie wanted to do early Christmas shopping, he wanted privacy? I believe he wanted privacy for more reasons than Davern's assumption of feeling like the third wheel)
3) He was very popular at the time in Hart to Hart. He was on top of his game, and Natalie was determined to reignite her career. He wanted Donna Reed at home and that was never going to happen with Natalie. Still, she made all the money. She had made them rich. She had lots to leave him. He worked murder scripts for years. To a regular actor that means nothing, but to a sociopath always worried about his image since childhood - I read his book, too - it means something. OJ Simpson learned to carve a neck from a movie he played in, remember? What did RJ learn from his show?
4) He wanted to go to the dark quiet part of the island Friday night. He got ahold of himself and sent her off the boat. Why? To protect himself as well as her? Yes.
5) He told Davern she will get what she came for.
6) He proceeded to the empty part of the island when it would've been so easy to turn around and go home as Davern pleaded with him to do.
7) He was anxious to get out of the restaurant.
8) Here's where it gets tricky: he lost it too early. He shattered that wine bottle in front of everyone so he probably changed his mind at that point, but once in the bedroom when Natalie was probably angrier than hell, he decided to proceed with what was swirling around in his head for God knows how long.
That's what I think. Michelle
Creed
ReplyDeleteOne of Davern's recollections was that Wagner had retrieved Wood's jacket. It was the last glimpse he had of Wood. He wasn't explicit enough to convey if he had placed it on her or handed it to her. Davern stated that he thought that Wood had the look of fear in her eyes at this time. I believe Wagner used this occasion to take physical control of her. Think about it, Wagner had no cuts, bruises, or scratches on his face, that could reveal a physical altercation. If he took control of her arms in such a manner, those signs wouldn't likely be upon him.
I believe there was premeditation. On page 143, Wagner was quoted regarding Natalie "...she'll get more than what she came for." This occurred on the last afternoon of Natalie's life before the night's drinking session. It's very difficult to figure foul play involved with a drowning. Fingerprints are washed away by water and the person doesn't need to be struck and left with bruising to achieve the end result. All that was needed was the appearance of a boating accident:
1. Wagner retrieved the jacket for Wood to wear.
2. Wagner released the dinghy only after the cries for help ceased.
3. Wagner introduced the banging dinghy theory.
When Wagner was caught at the stern of the boat by Davern, Wagner ushered him way from the scene and then cleverly started pooring drinks for him. Alcohol can be helpful in persuading someone to do something they wouldn't do sober, and can also be used in claiming memory loss and impaired judgement in any future inquiry regarding any unusual personal actions.
Wagner may have hoped for a different outcome that weekend, but he knew what to do if a certain threshold was crossed. Davern stated that Wagner looked remorseful after the bottle smashing. If his wife had been more accepting of an apology, perhaps the outcome would have been different. Instead a fight transpired and at a certain point he opted for murder and cover-up.
Michael B
Karen A,
ReplyDeleteNatalie's daughters NEVER speak of their mother's death night. Wagner himself has said he tells them to stay away from the subject. He advises to never read anything about it, and they know better than to talk about it. I would have no way of knowing what they think, believe, or feel about it. I am sorry for the pain they've endured, but I also believe the truth belongs with Natalie's legend. There's no hope for a deathbed confession from her widower: he wanted to coast out of his time with his book the lingering image of his character. His book was full of provable lies. Thing is, the law doesn't care enough to prove those lies. How unfortunate for Natalie. Justice delayed is justice denied (per Dominick Dunne). Marti
Michael B,
ReplyDeleteYour last paragraph is very interesting. Natalie was probably so angry at RJ that nothing he could say or do would appease her. She probably told him that she wanted a divorce. She might have provoked him and called him nasty names. So what, he deserved it. Any decent man would have left it alone until everyone cooled off. It all comes back to he's a selfish, jealous, drunken, foul-mouthed idiot who didn't deserve a wife like Natalie. Karen A
Marti, something is bothering me. We know that Lana Wood said that Dennis told her in 1992 that Wagner continued fighting with his wife after she had gone overboard. In GNGS this issue is treated very gingerly, but you do say that Dennis reiterated to you he confessed to Lana the fact of the fight but he did not give her any details.
ReplyDeleteFrom New York Daily News June 25, 2001:
Drawing from Davern's conversation with Lana Wood, among other sources, Finstad writes: "Natalie was in the ocean alongside the boat, yelling, while R.J., who was still furious, and desperately drunk, continued the argument from on board the boat.
" 'Dennis [said he] was very panicky,' " the actress' sister said. "He was sitting, and would say, 'Come on, let's get her.' And he said R.J. was in such a foul mood, at that point that Dennis then shut up." The book continues: " 'Time slipped away,' Davern told Lana, 'until all the sound stopped.' " I have to say that this scenario sounds very plausible to me.
Here is what bothers me. Dennis says he turned on loud music after he heard them yelling out on the deck to cover their voices, but he states that he heard Natalie screaming even with the music on, then heard NOTHING. He waited a few minutes, then looked out and saw them together, AFTER the screaming had stopped; he kept the music on for another ten to fifteen minutes, but never heard any more screaming. He states he then turned off the music, headed back down and came up behind RJ on the deck, and there was no Natalie.
If Dennis saw RJ and Natalie together on the deck AFTER the screaming stopped, and he did not hear any more screaming from that point on until he turned off the music and went back down to find Natalie missing, how can this be reconciled with the statements of Marilyn Wayne, her fiancee and her son that they heard Natalie crying out for help when she was in the water? I have to say this is really bothering me.
--JamesV
JamesV,
ReplyDeleteI went over and over this with Dennis. Here's the difference between hearing arguing/screaming from the deck while Dennis was on the bridge playing music, and the ability to hear her crying for help from the water. Natalie, in the water, was between the Splendour and the Capricorn (Wayne's boat).
When Natalie was on the deck, she was no more than 10 to 12 feet away from Dennis (positioned on the bridge). After she was in the water, she was much further...especially if she immediately drifted while wearing the jacket. While she was also lower in the water, the sound of her voice carried across the water, but obviously not up to the bridge. Maybe the shock of being in the water had an affect on her volume, too.
Dennis heard nothing but the music. Marilyn Wayne was on a sailboat with a silent generator...probably about 40 feet away from Natalie's voice. That means, Natalie probably drifted a good 20 feet immediately for Marilyn to hear her, placing her far out Dennis's hearing range, with or without music, as there were other "boat noises" aboard Splendour, too...a running generator for one.
When Dennis became worried and turned off the music, and went to the deck, Wagner immediately started nervously talking and got Dennis off the deck quickly. Natalie was probably still calling for help. If only Dennis had heard her once.... but he didn't. He went to his quarters forward and truly expected to find Natalie there. Dennis searched everywhere forward, then immediately went to the wheelhouse to call for help and to put on the searchlight, but Wagner was there refusing him. Wagner convinced Dennis she had taken the dinghy, and then drank with Dennis. Wagner never once asked Dennis, "Where is she?" but two hours later when the first person from the island showed up, Wagner started crying, "Where is she, find her, find her!" What an instant, odd, switch of concern.
Hi Marti, I'm the Anon who first posed the question about the jacket here, and I fear it may have gotten lost with among the subsequent replies. I'm hoping you might still share your opinion on the matter, if you're able.
ReplyDeleteAnd James, I agree your scenario sounds plausible but I would still call that "intentional", though not premeditated. I tend to believe it wasn't premeditated (at least not before he became enraged), and think when Wagner said "she'll get more than what she came for", he was referring to humiliating her and making the weekend miserable. I'm not sure though, but I am sure it was an evil act whatever the case.
*lost among (not lost among with - typo)
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, in many talks with Dennis about the jacket, he somehow is aware of that jacket being retrieved, but can't quite capture the moment of evidence as to why he "knows" it. For a few minutes, he thought they were making-up, and the jacket is involved in that scenario in his mind. He says the deck fight happened so fast, it gets blurred, but there's no mistaking the jacket was involved as when he first saw Natalie on deck, she wasn't wearing it. The master stateroom door was right there on the deck where they fought... no reason for Natalie to go retrieve a jacket...she would have gone for Dennis, not her coat, to leave the boat. She would have dressed.
ReplyDeleteBut Dennis recalls thinking that everything had calmed down. How tragic that those were probably the moments Natalie was "leaving the boat."
But Dennis thought maybe they were making up so gave them a little more time. He had not one inkling of a thought that Natalie was in physical danger. In his mind, they were having a loud, overblown argument. He'd been in their employ and friendship for over seven years! He was surprised at this kind of argument, but to even think that Natalie was in physical danger was totally beyond his imagination.
When things got way too quiet, he turned off the music and went down to the deck, and was shocked to hear Natalie "was missing."
Only Wagner knows how the jacket got on Natalie, but as for intent:
1) to keep her warm? (doesn't seem likely with the subsequent results of her being found floating in it)
2) To make it appear as if she left the boat by choice? (could be)
3) with intent to help her sink?
4) Did he know down floats? (I doubt it)
That jacket was such a clue: such a flagrant CLUE! Instead of using it as a clue, it only confused everyone and went with the "banging dinghy" theory well enough to make that IMPOSSIBLE theory stick. Gee, if only the authorities could care enough to delve into it!
The one thing we DO know: something Dennis passed clearly on two polygraph tests: Robert Wagner was with Natalie when she "went missing."
ReplyDeleteI still think the retrieval of the jacket had to do with the subject of the fight, with Natalie telling RJ she was going to leave him. Dennis did say he heard RJ yell "you can get off my f**king boat now" or similar. If we try to put ourselves inside RJ's head, retrieving Natalie's jacket would be consistent with, or a natural angry response to, her saying she was leaving and him responding with the coat to "go ahead and leave now." --JamesV
ReplyDeleteMost likely, JamesV
ReplyDeleteMarti,
ReplyDeleteMy name is Nancy. I read your book twice and believe every single word. You and Dennis strike me as having a great deal of integrity. I'm sorry Dennis had to suffer for so many years with such anguish and guilt for not coming forward sooner My question: Why haven't you appeared yet on Oprah, any of the morning shows, 48 Hours or Dateline, or even Larry King, to bring everything out in the open? Has Robert Wagner been exercising his considerable influence to prevent you from publicizing your book on T.V.? It's imperative to make your case to the media and the public in order to get the investigation reopened. Also, with the advances in DNA discovery, could Natalie's body be exhumed and further testing done? This may lead to new evidence in support of the truth. It's time bring justice for Ms. Wood. I believe Wagner is a true sociopath. Thank you for listening. I look forward to your response.
I have started a petition to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to officially reopen this case. Here is the link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gopetition.com/online/31812.html
--JamesV
Nancy and JamesV, thank you both...thank you so much. The media astounds me. A person very important to this case recently told me: "the media and the celebrity world are in bed together" -- and I believe it. But in this case I don't understand it. This "pass" given to this case is at the expense of a beautiful, legendary actress's life. It is 28 years later, but that is all the more reason to care about what she missed. Last year, when Wagner toured for his book, he created an image based on lies. Provable lies. His longevity in "the business" does not a legend make.
ReplyDeleteThe media is waiting for a break, too. They need the law on their side. IMO, the biggest culprit of all? The authorities! So, thank you, JamesV for your petition. I will bring it to the front of the blog. Natalie Wood needs the public. She always regarded her fans and audiences. It's time to regard her.
Hey JamesV, would you mind if I, or anyone else, posts you petition link elswhere online?
ReplyDeleteCreed.
Creed and Everyone,
ReplyDeletePLEASE post links to my petition EVERYWHERE and ANYWHERE you can. As a signer said, we are seeking justice for one, but in doing so we are furthering justice for all. -JamesV
Thank you for answering my question, Marti. That actually does sound the most likely, James. I didn't realize what you meant before about him forcing the jacket on her, but yes, that makes sense. I hadn't thought of that. But if it was an action of premeditation, I'd suggest another possibility along with those Marti listed: he wanted to make it look like they were making up at that moment so he could gain her trust.
ReplyDeleteMarti,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nancy. Have you tried to get this book discussed on Oprah or Larry King or any other talk show? Karen A
Karen, trying every single day! WHy the media and the authorities continue to "look the other way" and not seek justice for this victimized woman is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteMarti, thank you so much for writing this book. I have been a huge fan of Natalie for about a year and am so glad someone is finally getting the truth out! I hope you are successful in getting the police to reopen the case. Natalie is gone and no one can ever bring her back, but at least some justice can be done about this.
ReplyDeleteHas the law responded to you? The case needs attention! This is a capitol crime, and there is no time limit. Natalie needs a voice and the police must reopen the case! I also hope you are successful in getting the message out to the media. I would love to see Lana go on a talk show with you and Dennis. So much BULLSHIT has been said about Natalie and her death, the truth needs to get around...
Good luck!
I heard your radio interview and you are very sincere about this. I so want this case to be reopened. Natalie could have gone on to accomplish so much and still be with us today if not for her tragic death. I have read Natasha by Suzanne Finstad, A Memoir by Her Sister by Lana Wood, and talked about this with Lana and Natalie's other fans online. She died 12 years before I was born but I miss her so much. Has Natasha Gregson or Courtney Wagner said anything about this? RJ has lied to them their whole life....they need to know the truth about their mother's death!
ReplyDeleteI'm presuming you heard the show this morning. I will post it now as they told me it would be available at their website. I felt a bit frustrated in this interview, only because I'm hoping people will hear the dedication in my voice that you spparently did sense and I appreciate that. I try to fit all I can fit into 12 to 15 minutes, and there were things there just wasn't enough time for. You've read a lot about Natalie. Isn't she fascinating to read about, and watch in old movies?
ReplyDeleteI do not know if Natalie's daughters have read Goodbye Natalie Goodbye Splendour. All I know is that if she were my mother, I would devour every word, no matter what a good or bad father ever suggested to me. They've been led to believe that anything they hear other than "accident" is "conjecture or rubbish" but still, wouldn't you take a look? Nothing in GNGS is conjecture or rubbish. Not one word. Thank you for posting at my blog. I hope you will sign the Natalie petition to reopen the case. Again thanks. Marti
Thank you for replying.
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing how her death was not treated as a crime scene. They just based the entire case off of what Wagner said!
Did they base the Laci Peterson case off what her husband told the police? Nope. and Natalie's is no different.
It's unfair that Natalie's case never received the proper treatment. Practically every moment of her life has been documented in biographies except for her last night....thank God someone has FINALLY put the truth out there.
I have never liked Robert Wagner. I think he is a disgusting, attention-seeking bozo who got lucky when he married a beautiful and talented starlet. Notice that she practically gave up her film career after she remarried him, while he continued doing his TV shows? He was too controlling and also very mean to her family. He was jealous that she was reactivating her career in the early 80s and making a movie with Christopher Walken. Wagner is a jerk.
Anyway I'll stop right there. Once again thank you so much for writing this book.
Thank you for understanding the need for this book. I truly appreciate your comments.
ReplyDeleteSomeone left me a completely opposite comment yesterday that I erased. She/he called me disgusting for profiting off Natalie Wood's death, which is absurd. I put over 25 years of my life into trying to establish some justice for Natalie Wood and by book was the ONLY way to achieve the goal. I am proud of my work for Natalie and will never apologize for it. There are many people involved in this case who should apologize. I will take this opportunity to address the person who left the comment and to other's who plan to leave insulting comments here. I respect your opinions, as we are all entitled to our personal opinions, but please leave your insults elsewhere. I won't be accused of or allow derogatory comments in regards to my truest intentions at this blog. If you have something rational to say, positively or negatively, I will not remove your comment, but I won't allow personal attacks on myself or Dennis at this blog. My efforts have been honorable and just, for the true side of this ageless tragedy.
Those people who attack the book are not Natalie fans, they are fans of Robert Wagner (hard to believe he actually has some) and they probably haven't even read the book. Screw them.
ReplyDeleteI also love the picture of Natalie on the book better. She looked her best with long hair, much better than the other biographies that have really bad pictures of her on the cover.
I have never seen a bad picture of Natalie...
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean is that I love to see her smile, not that she was ugly (obviously).
ReplyDeleteOn Lana Wood's book, for example, the picture just gives off a spooky feeling, even though this is Natalie.
Marti
ReplyDeleteI believe that Wagner loosened the ropes of the dinghy only after the cries for help ceased. The Wayne party stated that the music continued for a few minutes after the woman's cries for help ended. Dennis stated that after he turned off the music he soon heard boating sounds that he relayed as the sound of ropes being released from their ties. Wagner probably waited for the cries to end--he didn't want the loosened dinghy to serve as something to hold onto.
Michael B
That's the scenario I surmise, too, Michael. Unless it was released for her to cling to. But, if that didn't work, why not call for help pronto? SO, back to your scenario. I suspect it's more accurate.
ReplyDeleteI know what you meant. I was kidding. I was not crazy about the picture on the cover of Lana's book either.....
ReplyDeleteI bet Natalie would have been a beautiful 70-something woman. Her beauty came from within. That never leaves a person, even in physical photographs.
ReplyDeleteI think she would have aged like Ali MacGraw, who is 71 (same age as Nat, only a few months older) and looks fantastic without any surgery. It's really hard to imagine what she'd looke like, she's been gone so long.
ReplyDeleteMarti,
ReplyDeleteHave you contacted Bill Dakota? He wrote a great
article in 2007 on Natalie's death.
It would seem that 48hrs.would be interested in doing this story.
Again, thank you for all you have done.
Marti,
ReplyDeleteI was at grauman's for the first time last week and saw Natalie's feet and handprints. The only thing I recall seeing her in was West Side Story. I was a theatre nut during my high school years and got my bachelor's in it in college. I was just last week informed of Natalie's death; but I had never known the details. I came across some of her photos yesterday and she was a remarkably beautiful woman! In fact, I at once thought I was looking at a glamour shot of my wife! Ha ha. weird eh?? Anyway, the circumstances behind her death have intrigued me greatly and many of the reported accounts haven't jived. I am considering reading your book. In regards to Dennis, why specifically has he waited 28 years to get this out?? Did he not act when this happened in 1981; and if he did not, why?
To the person who asked about Bill Dakota. Bill has a Natalie blog, too. His theories vary somewhat from what actually happened. I think he believes Walken spent the night with Natalie Friday night. It was Dennis who spent the night with her.
ReplyDeleteThis story is right up 48 Hours' alley, I agree. But no show ever took an intesrest of their own to investigate this case closer in 28 years. I suppose they didn't, and still don't, want to offend celebrity. Thanks, Marti
Natalie has been gone since 1981, and did I read correctly that you just heard of her death? Either you were young at the time of her death or possibly away...like on the moon? I'm not being sarcastic, it's just that her death was worldwide news...big news. It was such a bizarre death for someone who was always vocal about her fear of water. And, if you have a wife that looks like Natalie, hold on tight! I just did a radio show today with someone who once saw Natalie in a restaurant at Marina del Rey. He fondly recalled that she was the most beautiful woman he had ever seen in person. Many I've talked to who've seen her say the very same thing.
ReplyDeleteI hope you will read the book because your next question is pretty much an issue carried through the entire story: why the 28 year wait. Trying to tell the truth, the story, became PART of the story. Dennis has spoken details for many, many years about the facts of Natalie's death. When he told in 1984 about Wagner's bottle smashing aboard the yacht the night Natalie died, Wagner virtually denied it in an "answer article." Then, 27 years later in his book, Wagner admits to becoming angry and smashing a wine bottle (cops were told rough seas had broken the bottle)-- When Dennis told more details about the argument that transpired in the master stateroom, Detective Rasure of the case was right behind Dennis calling him a liar in most every interview. When I called the police in the early 80's to set up an appointment for Dennis to talk with them, they asked me who Natalie Wood was.
That's why we felt it important that Dennis submit to a polygraph test that we included in the book. (He passed!). You will be amazed at all of the things you will learn about Natalie's untimely death in Goodbye Natalie Goodbye Splendour. I can promise you that. If you read it, I thank you. Afterward, please let me know if you believe the petition to reopen her case is valid. I have a feeling you will choose to sign it. Thank you, Marti.
Sorry Marti, it's late and I didn't word that correctly. I haven't been on the moon. I meant to say that I had just heard of the nature of her death the other day. I knew she had died young. I was just a young kid when it made news in 1981. :) Sorry about that.
ReplyDeleteOh, I wasn't being sarcastic: honestly. You'd be surprised how many young people don't recognize the name Natalie Wood, and she was so much bigger than many recognizable celeb names. I believe that's because her widower did everything in his power to keep her name and legendary qualities OUT of the limelight after her death (his quote: "no one will ever make a movie or write a book about Natalie in my lifetime"). But, he used her for his book when necessary. When Natalie's name is mentioned, it can bring questions his way: questions he has never wanted to be asked, or answer. That's PART of why the name Natalie Wood is unfamiliar to many, and especially why true details of her death are never brought to the forefront. I hope you will read Goodbye Natalie Goodbye Splendour. You'll be amazed, I guarantee you will be amazed about all of the things most people DIDN'T know. Thank you SO MUCH for your interest! Marti
ReplyDeleteI agree Marti. He has done absolutely nothing to preserve her legacy. He is a self-promoter and for some reason does not want her to get any attention, even in death. I was born after she died and I recognized her name but didn't really get interested in her until this year
ReplyDeleteNatalie Wood is worth the interest.
ReplyDeleteMarti, thank you for the response after my clarification. I didn't want it to sound like I had been on Mars all these years. :) I was only 8 years old when Natalie passed. Her status as a screen star was revealed to me in middle school when my theatre instructors showed the class West Side Story. I really have not seen anything else with her in it. I suppose I should. I have a Bachelor's in Theatre Arts and I find it strange that nobody ever told me in college or before then that Natalie had drowned at a young age through rather questionable circumstances. My aunt told me just a week ago after seeing a photo my wife and I had taken at Grauman's during our 10th anniversary trip to Los Angeles. She was very familiar with Natalie and seeing her feet and hand prints there in our photo prompted a discussion of her death. Then I came across your book and that led me here to inquire about it. You have had quite a bit of flack about not having any proper evidence and research in your book. Not having read it, I cannot speak on that but what is your response to those who say you have no proper research in this book and everything is conjecture. You certainly must have a good heart for doing what you had done all these years for Natalie and having the petition available to reopen the case. I will tell you this. I am the kind of person who if presented with a scenario I feel somebody was wrongly treated and I cared about that person, I would not hesitate to do what must be done to give that individual a voice. In the end, I believe that God is taking care of Natalie and will do what is best to preserve her memory. :)
ReplyDeleteWhile I am thinking about it, could you give me an idea about how this project came into being for you; how long you actively worked on it; and what you specifically did to back up your information? Thanks :)
ReplyDeleteI just read the interview with Lana. I am happy to hear that she is getting some acting jobs. She has been through alot with the death of Natalie and her daughter being ill. My best to Lana !
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous who was 8 when Natalie passed:
ReplyDeleteI expected that I would take a lot of flack after GNGS so I made certain I didn't cross any lines while writing it. Dennis Davern was an eye and ear witness to the events and circumstances surrrounding Natalie's death and he knew what happened up until minutes before Natalie was no longer on the yacht. Dennis passed a certified polygraph that is included in the book.
I based all content on records, documents, police report, autopsy, and personal conversations, evidence testing, interviews and experiences in relation to the theories that spread over the years. Nothing in GNGS is conjecture: GNGS's purpose is to eliminate "theories" and to prove all of the "conjecture" impossible, which I believe the book succeeds with.
How I became involved in this story, I suppose you could say by chance. I was a long time friend of Dennis's and he needed someone he could trust with the kind of information he knew. Dennis has regrets, but he was never comfortable in the position he was in before he finally contacted me and said, "I need to tell the truth."
Many Natalie fans saw through the quick closing of the case, the oddity of Natalie drowning, and the veil of secrecy, and all of the strange reactions to Natalie's death. Far many more than ever spoke up, but now people are speaking for Natalie, too. She has a louder voice, and I believe it will grow.
I believe Natalie is receiving at least some of the overdue justice she has always deserved.
Also, every questioned you asked me :-) is exactly what the entire book is about, from page one on. How I got involved, others who became involved and participated, Dennis's full account, the exposure of the faulty investigation, the autopsy, the pleas for justice... it's quite a saga, and a quest for Natalie.
Again, thank you for your interest. Marti
Marti, thank you so much for all of your time answering my questions. I know you must be very busy and I think it is great that you take the time to converse with all of us! You are to be commended for that and it is greatly appreciated! :) You are first class! Out of curiosity, during all of this time being involved in this book and its information, did you ever hear anything out of camp Robert Wagner??
ReplyDeleteI will answer this question a bit more quickly. We heard a few things through the years -- all of which I have documented, and some of which is in the book.
ReplyDeleteI just heard a radio interview you and Dennis gave and he sounds like a really down to earth quiet introverted kind of guy. I remember the host asking him why 28 years and isn't this kind of a cash grab on your part and I thought exactly what he answered. That he could have come out 24 years ago with it if it was just a cash grab. The story of how a reporter literally posed to sleep with him to get to the story was simply appalling to me! I have no doubt he was offered far more money throughout the years than he would make off of this book today.
ReplyDeleteMarti
ReplyDeleteHave you given copies of GNGS to other law enforcement personalities for feedback? I think a couple of retired personalities who should read it are Vincent Bugliosi and Mark Fuhrman. I'm sure your acquainted with both of their names. The two are often guests commentators on network television shows whenever a criminal case is the subject. If these and others were to recommend opening the case it would be a great benefit. Perhaps they can pursuade network program directors to tackle this subject. I have to admit I'm beginning to wonder about Rasure and a possible conflict of interest with him, if he hasn't offered you any feedback yet.
Michael B
Marti.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, thanks for being so brave in bringing this all out in the open in a truthful format. I just finished your book. It was a great book and well written! I always liked Robert Wagner, but now I see that he used his power and influence to keep people quiet so that the truth wouldn't come out. I don't think so much of him now.
It really bothers me that no one wanted to re-open the case. Mr. Salerno really disappointed us all when he suddenly turned cold on you.
I am wondering what was the cause of Paul's death and if it had anything to do with the "secret" he had to reveal after talking with RJ after his performance in Philly? It sounds suspicious.
Thanks again for a great book and I wish you and Dennis well!
Marti
ReplyDeleteI have a MySpace fan page for Natalie if you are interested in looking. I have over 400 photos and posted links to the petition and your website.
http://www.myspace.com/nataliewood81
Thank you for writing this book.
WOw, thank you to the last three posters: Here's my comments:
ReplyDeleteMichael B: good suggestion. I am working on that. I am so disappointed in Rasure and Salerno. I called Salerno last week. He said he would call back but he didn't. I'll move on to the more concerned...you would thank that would be Salerno. Hope he'll come through.
Anon#1 - Thank you for your comment. Paul passed away of natural causes. I think his secret had to do with something he knew about RJ. He said it was something he knew for a long time (before Natalie passed), and it probably did't relate directly to Natalie's death. I wish Paul had told me: about the secret and about his terminal cancer. But, he didn't. I'll always miss Paul. Fun, fun person with a zest for life. Like Natalie, left us far before his time.
Anon#2: Thank you for posting the petition at your myspace fan page. I love that people are "getting this" and helping. The people are all that Natalie has. Thank you so much: it's a very important petition and each signature matters. Thank you for leaving the link. I will visit your page tonight.
Marti,
ReplyDeleteSuzanne Finstad wrote that Natalie divorced RJ because she found him "in a compromising position with another man."
Do you think that Paul's secret had something to do with that?
and do you believe this part of the book?
I know that what Paul wanted to tell was something he couldn't get past his lips. I was on the phone with him for two hours and it was an excruciating attempt for him to reveal whatever his secret was, and finally he said enough that could help me toward an educated guess, but I have no way to confirm, so the secret went to his grave with him.
ReplyDeleteAs for Suzanne's revelations: again, without proof to confirm how and why their first marriage ended, there is no way to know. My source was Dennis who didn't know things that deeply personal about either. Dennis was shocked to witness the argument he saw the Thanksgiving weekend of 1981.
Dennis saw RJ as a content, married man, but one who was easily capable of jealousies over Natalie. Others saw RJ differently.
Sexual preference is personal business unless it factors into something criminal (i.e. rape, child molestation, homicide, etc).
What bothers me more than anything is RJ's priority of image control at the expense of not calling for immediate help to find a missing wife.
Marti,
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, THANK YOU FOR WRITING THIS BOOK!! How brave you are, knowing the heavy hand of 'the celebrity powers that be' hang over anyone trying to get at the truth in this case.I think it would be a GREAT HELP if Dennis would under-go hypnosis about that night. Your book is amazing, but one comment above all left me chilled to the bone, 'He put her coat on her.' My God!!!!!!!!! I believe that Dennis witnessed more that his mind will allow him to remember. Perhaps at times in the past, when Dennis had sought a way to cope through drinking a bit too much, moments have unveiled themselves to him. With help, I think that Dennis has even more to tell about that night. I tend to think he is still holding information back. What are your thoughts? And, will you be writing a sequel? Hopefully, that answer is yes, you have such a gift for writing!
The night Dennis told me about the coat, the alcohol had taken him to that moment. The way he said it, the look in his eyes, the tears in his eyes, the matter-of-fact way he said those words...it chilled me then and it chills me now. He has since buried the image those words had sprung from, and now says his opinion of the coat is based on what he extraneously saw and heard, but I will always believe tis more than opinion. Dennis's hypnosis session was a good one, but I believe further sessions would help him to recall more, too. Thank you for your message. I promise, if there is a sequel, it won't take another 20 years. :-)
ReplyDeleteGNGS was attempted in so many different formats, but only one finally felt comfortable: telling Dennis's story, and telling it as the legend grew and as Dennis gained the courage to tell it all. So many dedicated people helped in so many ways and I am forever grateful for that. Before it ever reached the publisher's editing team, GNGS had a long life, and never would have been accomplished if not for the assistance, encouragement, and help I received throughout the years (Carol, Mark, Lyn, Mary, and Gail in particular, looked over every word and saw where grammatical errors existed, where wording should be sharper, where data was incorrect, where evidence needed strengthening, and where heart needed complimenting: their dedication matched mine: we were all mission-minded). This story needed to be told. Dennis gave truth to one of the most convoluted stories ever. And, there will be new information in the paperback. Again, thank you, Marti
Did your educated guess on what Paul knew make you feel it was something shocking? Did you suspect it was something criminal and/or violent from RJW's past? (I understand if you can't answer).
ReplyDeleteOh, I have no doubt Paul's was one of the hardest kind of secrets someone would ever have to live with. I wish he had freed his mind of it. I doubt it was criminal related. I do believe it had to do with a separate involvement Paul had with this entire story, one that semi-related, but he could never muster the inner strength to tell me all the details. I wish I had paid more attention to him, he was such a dear friend, and such a sensitive soul, and fun-loving, like his brother was before November 1981, but it was Dennis whose brain I kept picking at. I wanted to know what happened to Natalie that night. Now, I am interested in the extraneous. I became obsessed with Natalie's last night. Maybe I just wanted to confirm my own suspicions, to prove I wasn't a conspiracy oriented fool. I despise when the public’s collective intelligence is taken for granted, and I feel that the Natalie Wood case is a prime example of that slap-in-the-face kind of effort from day one.
ReplyDeleteI have many reservations about this book, but I didn't come here to trash anybody's name. Let me make that perfectly clear. No matter what the truth is, Natalie Wood at least deserves a thorough investigation. I am sure that many will say that the investigation took place in 1981 and that it is over; and maybe that is correct. I have no idea. I think the whole point here is that the entire situation was tragic and I think that I read that most if not all on that boat that night were drunk. When you combine alcohol with boating under any circumstances, you run serious risk of problems. If most involved were above the legal limit, then that wasn't a very bright decision. I say that with sincerity and mean no offense to anybody. I hear that Walken, Wagner and Natalie were drunk that night. I am not sure about Dennis but regardless it was still not a bright decision. I wonder what the result would have been had those 3 been sober?? You have to wonder. :( Maybe Natalie would be alive today. My father was a falling down alcoholic and nothing good ever came from that. Anyway, Marti I wish you luck with your mission and I hope that Natalie is resting in peace.
ReplyDelete^^ I think this is a good example of a respectful way to express a differing opinion.
ReplyDeleteAnon, have you read GNGS? I notice you say 'maybe' about a few things that are thoroughly established in the book. Since you have an open mind, you might find it an interesting read.
I think there is no doubt alcohol played a significant part in this tragedy, and maybe you're right - maybe if no one had been drinking, Natalie would be alive.
But - and I'm sure you know this, having dealt with an alcoholic in the family - that doesn't let him off the hook. Yes, alcohol can make someone a jekyll and hyde, but it can also bring out latent tendencies in someone. In Wagner's case, they weren't so latent anyway. He was still jealous and enraged in his sober moments on the boat that weekend.
I've noticed some Wagner fans think alcohol explains everything that night. I'm not addressing this to you, Anon - I have no idea if you are a Wagner fan and since you have had experience with an alcoholic father, you would know the realities of heavy drinking. But I just wanted to bring it up while we're on the topic. Some Wagner fans think drinking explains him not calling for help for hours. But that is complete bull. I don't care how drunk you are (unless you are passed out, which he wasn't), if you're on a boat and a loved one goes missing, you could not help panicking and acting very quickly. You may be a little slower to act and more inept in your actions - but you do not wait many hours and even then have to be talked int it. The only thing that could possibly interfere with that instinct to do everything to establish a loved one's safety immediately is not wanting to find them.
He also clearly had enough presence of mind to try to get Dennis drunk, to make up a story about Natalie going ashore...and to have likely untied the dinghy. And I think if what is described in the book is what happened, it's an unavoidable conclusion that there was a certain amount of calculation and awareness present in the terrible act itself.
Alcohol explains some of what happened, but not enough. I have also wondered if he reacted badly to the quaalude he took. I think any calmative drug can have a rebound anxiety effect as it starts to wear off, and I've read quaaludes can cause a rebound psychosis. Again though, this would not let him off the hook. It is likely the substances he ingested intensified his rage that night. But he already had a history of jealousy, anger, arrogance, entitlement and image-consciousness - no substance created those factors, which I believe are the primary triggers.
Anyway, all this is just my opinion, I'm sure Marti can answer you much better.
No, I have not read it. My reservations are in buying it as a result of me being a bit dubious I suppose. I have read alot of background information on this online from various sources and also I have learned alot on here as well. Thank you by the way for the compliment on me being respectful. My father may have been a drunk but he raised a good man. :) I do my best. I have never believed in disrespect because quite frankly there is no reason for it. Oh, I am neither a Wagner fan or a Natalie fan either. So, you can be assured that I really am unbiased to either side. I just try to see everything from an even playing field. Innocent until proven guilty kind of thing. Thanks again. :)
ReplyDeleteNo problem. It's just there were some people coming on here attacking Marti and Dennis and lying about some information, and when some of us were upset about it, they complained differing opinions were squashed. It really was not about the opinion, but how it was said. You showed how to express a differing opinion respectfully.
ReplyDeleteIf you are hesitant to spend money on GNGS, perhaps your library could get it in for you? It's hard for me to explain quite how temperately it's written. I can understand the hesitation to read a book you think may try too hard to convince with dubious facts, but it's not like that at all.