I've been accused of having "no proof" for the claims made in Goodbye Natalie Goodbye Splendour. When authorities who know how to do their jobs are looking for evidence, no matter how much physical evidence is available, most will agree that the BEST proof they can acquire is AN EYEWITNESS.
THAT'S what we have for Goodbye Natalie Goodbye Splendour. Our book is based on an EYE and EAR witness account of SOMEONE WHO WAS RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE of the events leading to Natalie Wood's death. He SAW. He HEARD. And everything he saw and heard, and everything he experienced as a RESULT of being the ONLY eyewitness is DOCUMENTED in this book.
We hired one of the BEST polygraphists on the East Coast, an experienced, professional man who worked in criminal law for decades. EVERYTHING Dennis saw and heard corresponds with the physical evidence that DOES exist.
Dennis Davern and I are not lying, and we are willing to go to any length authorities would request of us. One sit-down with Dennis Davern and THEY would know he's not lying, too. We're working on arranging that "sit-down."
So, I suggest to those readers who insist on calling us liars, to present exactly WHAT they claim we are "lying about" -- and then to discuss it civilly or to PROVE IT. There isn't one thing they can challenge legitimately, so they cower and hide from THIS HONEST blog and sprout up their own little empty blogs and they invade decent posts and reviews at Amazon to spread their little wishful thoughts.
Dennis and I are not lying, thus we are willing to go on record to defend ourselves, and now will make a concentrated effort to do just that. Only people who CAN'T defend themselves hide instead of defending themselves from false accusations. Dennis and I can prove our words, down to the tabletop the bottle was smashed upon! We only wanted the truth available to the public because we learned long ago we couldn't depend upon the law, but we've learned that we don't have to stick to the negligent original detectives to help our mission. So, all of you who still don't want to accept truth, and all of you who want this carried further: you've got it! More details to come.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Marti,
ReplyDeleteThis must be so stressful for you. You've done such a decent thing and you finally bring us the truth about Natalie's death and then people attack the color of your hair! How juvenile of them! Someone keeps repeating the age you got your first book published, too (someone who ISN'T published, mind you) and the jealousies and envy and accusations are rampant but you stay firm and steady and it's amazing to watch. I want to see this case reopened, I want to hear about it in the news! I can only imagine that takes a lot of hard work but the public has faith it will happen. I just want you to know how much you are admired. The fools talk about this entire thing as if it were not serious. I recognize how serious an issue you are involved in. You are one special person, and I pray for your safety and success. You have tons more support than you may ever realize! G.A.M.
Marti, those who make such accusations are simply ignorant and nothing more. Their statements are meaningless and worthless because they are erroneous. They do not understand that eyewitness testimony is direct evidence. In direct evidence a witness relates what he or she directly experienced. Physical evidence such as the broken wine bottle, bruises on Natalie's body, the stateroom being in shambles, is circumstantial evidence that supports the direct evidence of the eyewitness testimony. In a trial, Dennis Davern's testimony would be admissible as DIRECT evidence of what occurred on the Splendour that night. The other side could cross-examine Dennis, and could also put on their own direct evidence in the form of witness testimony. It would then be up to the jury who they believe. But Dennis' testimony combined with the physical evidence that is known, would certainly be sufficient evidence to present to a jury to determine a verdict.
ReplyDeletePt 1 Book Review Amazon!
ReplyDeleteFirst off.... NO, I'm hardly Inspector Clouseau! :D There are already so many great reviews, I don't want to just repeat what's already been said at this point. I'm just really overwhelmed by some logical deductive reasoning I've just gone through in reference to RJ's lies & alibis (he made up for the coroner spread), as a logical conclusion that they are all evidently just that... lies.
This is not a book to take lightly or that you should ever read in a day or two or three or four or even five. Be prepared to allow bits and pieces to soak in. Even rereading it again won't hurt and can help you come to grips with the crux of RJ's implausible defense and the stories being physically impossible to validate. With this book, you get the sense and surreal view of these people's lives as a fantasy and the reality that some deep dark secrets have yet to be revealed or uncovered. This book will not answer all your questions and I'm not about to tell you what I think personally about Robert Wagner's guilt or innocence. More than anything this book begs for answers that have yet to be given by Robert Wagner himself. All I can say is I highly recommend everyone to read this book that is yet satisfied that they know what actually happened to Natalie aside from RJ's Stories being proved false! .....and then decide for yourself if you think that the investigation of Natalie Wood's death was as inept as it seems to have been after you're done.
Here's my questions for Robert J. Wagner:
But first, let me say I'm trying to gather the official reports generated from the weather that was at the Isthmus that night November 28th/29th. Weather for the mainland, both North and Southern end of Catalina can vary greatly. I suspect some of these bogus media reports come from different days or locations. The Coast Guard too has logs. The Coast Guard search craft has logs. Two Harbors Yacht Club has Logs as well (A Meteorological Reporting Station is at Two Harbors with it's logs). If you have all these logs supporting many witnesses on the scene, saying it was calm..... it was most certainly calm that night and I'll prove to you why!
Think about it.... the controversy isn't new. Some didn't believe RJ's stories or coroner's mis-information in the first place, concerning Natalie Wagner's death as reported. Since then Chris Walken convicts himself by his silence. When he never revealed the full details of the seriousness of his argument with RJ and the other two guys present have since admited a bottle of wine was smashed exploding glass everywhere around the table RJ broke it on. They have pictures of the stateroom! ...the dingy was double tied to stern off two cleats (port & starboard) on the fishing cockpit rail, not the swim step. So why would she even need to go on the swim step? You only tie a dingy to stern in calm water or the winds are coming from the bow end of the yacht and especially without any swells coming from stern to bow toward the shore. Otherwise the dingy is in danger of going under the swim step and getting caught and damaged (with pitch instead of waves and surf swell from behind). Any yachtsmen knows this!
Pt. 2 Review!
ReplyDeleteThe only time you would tie a dingy to port is when swells are coming from the starboard side of the boat. Then use the Yacht for protection in extreme seas cases and then the boat is going to be rolling while the dingy never ever bumps into the port side of the..... Yacht it's tied to. Moorings are laid out to keep boats from rolling in normal high swell conditions, naturally bow in to shore. Under certain conditions rolling in swell and waves can't be avoided though. That's what happened in Avalon. Swells were coming in from the south and you'll get roll rather than pitch on moorings, with swell coming in from the side or ricocheting and causing turbulent and confused seas in a harbor. This is why everyone left Avalon. To get up North and around Bird rock to moor in a protected area from Mexican storms. If seas were rough..... and since the storm was from the south (from Mexico, even up in two harbors), you would have tied the dingy to starboard...., if you were any kind of experienced seaman at all.... and starboard is the dominant side boats and ships of all sizes use to board on gangways, etc anyway. Primarily because of both Inland and Offshore waterway Rules declare starboard as "Right of way". You pass to the right of the center waterway buoys and dock to the right just as you park to the right, on streets.
Why did RJ allow himself to slip up and allow claims of calm seas make his two different scenarios impossible to validate. If Natalie left to go party on other boats (and he's such a jealous, macho male chauvinist, breaking bottles over Chris Walken flirting with his wife), why would she go or be allowed out in rough seas in her pajamas and socks to party? When she was deathly afraid of dark sea water as it was and a storm makes that worse. If the dingy was tied to port, the only way for it to be banging up against the side of Splendor, would be if the rough seas and swell were coming from port side of the yacht. Which would be right, sort of. Because they'd be coming from the south (Mexico) in a storm. So... but now here's the killer fact to at least prove that what he did by lying, was put himself in a pickle; If the same currents and swell that were supposedly causing the dingy to bang into the port side of Splendor, were indeed the same rough swells and currents carrying the dingy and her body away to port and into that cove......., THEN how is that even physically possible? It's NOT! .....his story defies the laws of physics in the natural world!
RJ can't have it both ways. Either there was a storm causing the dingy to bang into the port side of the boat or ??? (something's fishy, because then it somehow carried Natalie and the dingy floating up stream against the wind and swell and against the laws of physics) ....it's not even possible! Since we indeed know where her body and the dingy ended up going and that was south of where Splendor was moored. Then we indeed know for sure any heavy seas and current were coming from starboard side of Splendor. Therefore no heavy seas could have had the dingy banging into Splendor from port side... to have ever bothered anybody on Splendor or any other yacht in the harbor. Because we've proved that any current, seas or heavy swell was coming from the North (starboard side of Splendor) by the fact of where the body and dingy ended up in a cove to the south of the yacht. This condition would be proper then, but the dingy would be prevented from ever...... banging into the side of Splendor. As it would be held off the side without any fenders even needed. Now the clincher; If the dingy was being held off port, then she had no reason to even get up in an attempt to adjust it, when it couldn't have been bothering her in the first place.
Pt. 3 Review:
ReplyDeleteSo let's just say she for some reason gets up to adjust the dingy, though. The only way to adjust it, would be from the fishing cockpit itself for the stern of dingy line and then either out the Bridge side window or from inside the salon window forward. Somebody on board is going to see her do this...... believe me. So with that excuse...., he has no defense. That's what he gets for rushing into committing himself to a lie that could be proven, that it was just that..... a lie.. A story to throw the cops and media off. That's why he waited to hatch his alibi before he decided to notify authorities. Nobody even questioned it or logically concluded from his stories, the absurd impossibility of them. Can you imagine he thought Natalie had gone partying on other boats..., that weren't having any parties that time of night and the only way RJ and Dennis would have allowed her to use the dingy, would have been in calm waters anyway. So what really happened Robert Wagner? Your scenario doesn't stand a chance of being remotely true! ....unless the storm was still going on, by the time Natalie or her body left the boat and then they would have ended up to the north of Splendor's mooring in a cove and on the rocks.
If the storm, that was still being felt to a degree early Saturday morning was still going on that night, Splendor would have indeed been set North of the Mooring's centerline. Then yes a boat tied to port would have been bouncing up against the port side of Splendor. Exactly where Natalie's head would have been (Master Stateroom Head Board is built in on port side of Splendor). But why would a good yachtsmen or old salty dog sailor Robert Wagner been foolish enough to tie the dingy up on that side in the first place?...... knowing it would be banging into Natalie's head board side of Splendor... it's absurd to believe this possible even by a drunk. But.... this is why he choice to erroneously pick this story and it's the only way he could validate it logically in his head, the stupid fool. A good sea going detective would have immediately suspected something was amiss and the investigation would have been begging for more and better answers and would more then likely been investigated as a homicide or at the very least negligent homicide.
Under prevailing (normal) weather conditions any breeze would either come from the west side of the island (through the natural funnel effect of the Isthmus) in a Westerly wind or more likely Northwest wind (which would be partially blocked by the mountains northwest). Which would still have Splendor set to the port side of their mooring's centerline (mooring centerline is when a yacht tied on both the shore-side mooring buoy to the bow and stern tied to offshore mooring buoy and is called your indicated line of set, either port or starboard). If winds are calm under prevailing Two Harbor's weather conditions, the Alaskan tidal currents would have had Splendor still set to port and is the only way her body and the dingy could have ever ended up in that same cove together. So the facts and RJ's alibi all these years, just don't jibe under final analysis. Not only that, but this can all be proved with diagrams very easily. Indicating currents and mooring set in relationship to where the body and dingy ended up. You don't need to prove the weather conditions. They prove themselves by where the body and dingy were eventually was found. Therefore the dingy could in no way, been banging into the port side of Splendor to bother Natalie...... So RJ? ...your story smells very very very..... 'Flying' Fishy Wishy!!!
Thank you for this review. Lyn Taylor, who was moored at the Isthmus near Splendour claims the same exact things you have in your review and he knows Catalina Island in every way. He is a brilliant man who was extremely helpful to me in so many ways and he could also be helpful to the authorities. I'm going to post his calculations about Natalie's weight in the water, something else that was cut from the book that I thought would've been very helpful.
ReplyDeleteIn 30yrs of investigative research Marti, you can hardly expect to be able to put it all in one book. You wrote this book over the course of many years and no writer and editing team has ever written a factually perfect all encompassing book ever. Your book will always be a book in progress, just as our lives are. It will never have a true ending until the questions it asks are answered! ;)
ReplyDeleteMustang X
What...he lied all those years ago and now is telling the truth? No.
ReplyDeleteAs a long time fan of Natalie, I was offended by this book. I obtained the book at the Public Library, I would not purchase a book of this type. I borrowed it only because it was about Natalie.
If Dennis' story is true, he lied - for RJ - and only started this drunken, guilt-ridden "need" for justice for Natalie after RJ cut him off.
The book was poorly written, not convincing, distasteful. I believe we will never know what happened to Natalie.
Why can't Lana Wood request photos taken by the investigators or Coast Guard of the inside of the Splendour showing the the master bedroom and the state it was since she is a direct family member according to the Information Act?
ReplyDelete