Welcome To My Book Blog

A place to update and discuss facts surrounding the controversial, tragic death of legendary Hollywood film actress, wife and mother, Natalie Wood who drowned mysteriously Nov. 29, 1981 off Catalina Island. Thank you for visiting.

Friday, November 12, 2010

Lana (and Laurie)

Lana as of late has been especially tormented emotionally over the death of her sister. Call it delayed reaction...continued reaction....the thing that will never go away...mixed emotions....NOT KNOWING....topped by a negligent investigation into her sister's death, and the wear and tear keeps taking its toll.

When I said we won't discuss tabloid articles here, I meant that we're not going to carve tabloid articles into stone at this blog. The people who believe in Wagner's innocence will jump at the chance to promote the recent Globe article that claims Lana is praying for Wagner's forgiveness. The Globe stretched Lana's words so far that true meaning disappeared.

Lana WONDERS what she ever did to receive such annimosity from Wagner. At one point in her life, she pleaded and prayed to know why she became a victim of Natalie's death, and rest assured, she IS a victim.
Lana once hired a private investigator, Milo Speriglio, whom I had the opportunity to speak with a decade ago. Milo had no doubt that a degree of foul play was involved in Natalie's death but he was at a loss to put anything together without an eye and ear witness. The Globe once published a "Natalie Wood was Murdered" headline, quoting Milo. Milo had never said that and he settled out of court with the Globe. Milo wanted to talk with Dennis but Milo never had that opportunity. That is around the time Dennis called Lana and told her about the terrible argument aboard the Splendour the night Natalie died. Lana has since never once begged, pleaded, or prayed for Wagner's forgiveness and she doesn't now.

Lana assisted Suzanne Finsatd with Natasha. Lana co-produced the TV movie The Mystery of Natalie Wood. Lana told CNN she wants her sister's case reopened just this past March. Lana backs Goodbye Natalie Goodbye Splendour. Lana has said on radio and TV this year that she believes Dennis Davern.
A Globe tabloid article does not wipe all of that away.

I spoke with Lana since the article and she is still willing to cooperate with an official request to have the Wood case reopened. She wants the officials involved in regards to what happened the night her sister died. The Globe article will eventually be ammended by and with more credible media outlets.

The theme of how tormented Dennis always was is definitely woven through GNGS, but there are many others just as tortured over the loss, and just as angered over the lack of justice. Lana is number one amongst them.

Note: I am going to be extremely busy in the near future and may not be able to attend the blog as often as I'd like. My friend and confidant LAURIE who knows this case through and through and who I trust completely will keep everyone informed, answer questions, post, etc. in this thread and others. I will post any book updates and media information or let Laurie know to inform you. Please rest assured that there is better news coming for Natalie's case.

92 comments:

  1. I was disappointed to hear about the article. It seems silence would have been the wiser choice given the vicious nature of those rags. However, I still feel enormous compassion for Lana and don't doubt for a minute her commitment to GNGS and justice for her sister.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lana hasn't even seen the article yet. She'll be in touch with me after she does.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is a shame. This will mark the 3rd or fourth interview in a row where Lana either is mis-quoted or mis-speaks to the detriment of Natalies cause. It would all make such a better scenario if Lana came across as sincere about doing something significant for her sister.
    There's always next time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry, but she disgusts me. How sad that she is the only blood link to justice for Natalie. Natalie's best friend isn't Lana. Nor is it Dennis. It's Marti. Do you realize this, Marti?

    ReplyDelete
  5. We are all just outsiders with an opinion about this case. Lana is a blood relative and as such, has been deeply affected by the case. It is her call to proceed in any way she sees fit. If it turns out she made a mistake, then it is still rightfully hers to make.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Who knows what's going on. Lana has been very honest about her financial problems on her own website. Her house was foreclosed and she recently was evicted from her apartment. It would make sense that Wagner would bribe her with money to stay quiet. If she is misquoted then why doesn't she ever point this out in her blogs?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The quotes I read sound very straightforward, and I don't see how she was misquoted. Something dosen't feel right about this.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lana has always played both sides. I would think the CNN article more credible, and I'm waiting to see what she'll say when Marti and Dennis make their move to get the case reopened. That's what will matter. Lana probably made a few bucks to get something out there this month. I put no weight into it. Lana does not call Wagner Robert and that's what the Globe article has her using, thus I can definitely see how she was misquoted.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Also, (same person as above) I'm waiting to see what Marti has to say after she hears from Lana.

    ReplyDelete
  10. One quote uses Robert, and the other RJ.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well Lana would never use Robert so how straightforward could the quotes be? We're talking Globe, Kevinr. Anyways, what's the difference what Lana says? She's valuable only to a certain point. It's Dennis Davern's witness account that matters.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I, for one, don't think Lana owes anyone an explanation for anything. It's Wagner that owes all of us an explanation. Are we forgetting that??? Once again, it's Lana and Dennis attacked for things said that we didn't hear come from their own mouths. Let's stick to what we actually witness them saying, and talk about things from credible sources. IMO, this is sidetrack conversation that is totally unnecessary and misleading.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Stories I've seen or read in the rags have ended up in the NY Times. I don't discount them completely.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well let's say Lana did say those things: what's it mean? It means she's a little loopy and/or desperate. How did she become desperate? Everyone hates her for suspecting "Robert." She's down and out according to her. I could care less what Lana says. Dennis Davern didn't say those things and he's the one who saw what happened to Natalie. Marti says Lana didn't even see the article yet. I'm not jumping to any conclusions because of a rag article. That's all I'm trying to say.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I agree. This piling on to Lana is getting old. As I said in an earlier post above, Lana has a right to say or do anything she chooses. Are we going to agree or like everything done? Doubtful, but it's none of our business. If anyone should be upset, it's Marti. It will be her work that gets unraveled. Anyone see her bashing Lana? Lana is important, but Dennis is the main attraction. Let's not pounce until all the facts are in. The Wagner fans are having a field day with us. Let's not help them out.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sorry, I meant with this.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Look, Marti is the one who started this post, and people have the right to respond.
    I don't understand why Marti is trying to mitigate Wood's statements?
    Lana Wood can feel anyway she wants, but I don't feel the need to defend her.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm confused, how is Marti trying to mitigate Wood's statements?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Some of you are obviously new to this. This is not the first time she has made a statement in Wagner's defense and it won't be the last. I remember that she said that the thought that RJ did harm to Natalie was "ridiculous" and that she had known him since she was a little girl. It was around that time that she hired Milo Speriglio. She is no more credible that Robert Wagner is.
    Marti spoke to Lana, Lana told her that the interview was altered. We shall see what happens when Marti promotes the book.
    Lana has not confirmed or denied the interview. RJ has not confirmed or denied the contents of GNGS nor has he ever confirmed or denied the many instances in which he was quoted, in tabloids. They had him saying the most ridiculous things shortly after Natalie died. The last people Wagner wanted to talk to about Natalie's death were tabloid reporters.
    As for Wagner's fans, they have been called her a liar she spoke her first negative word about RJ. Now, all of a sudden her word is believable? That would make Wagner's fans very shallow, wouldn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yes, you have a right to respond. So do people with an opposite opinion. You're getting worked up over nothing. We're talking about an article that hasn't even been seen yet. So in essence, we're responding to quotes from supposed quotes.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The article was on the net, on many sites. I can't believe you people are rambling on about something you have not even read.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Not read in it's whole form. Many of the media have picked up a chunk of the interview and that's what everyone has seen. It needs to be seen in complete form. Who are "you people" as opposed to yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I am myself, all others with the exception of myself are you people.

    ReplyDelete
  24. According to Lana Wood she has been misquoted where her sister or Wagner are concerned since she learned to speak.
    How much was she paid for the article and that will tell you how much she is misquoted.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm not new to Lana Wood or anything she has to say about Mr Wagner. I've seen or read all of her comments and interviews.
    Sometimes, I don't trust her.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Lana is important, but Dennis is the main attraction". This feels like the same poster that got deleted for saying, sarcastically, that they thought this blog was about justice for Natalie, but they were wrong. Dennis is the main attraction in how the case will get reopened. He continues to stand as the only eyewitness. That makes all eyes on him and what he has to say. Natalie is the reason we are here. Dennis and Marti will be the reasons she receives justice. Don't pretend you didn't understand the original intention of my quote.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I want to preface this comment by saying I, too, have been alarmed by things attributed to Lana. When I heard about this globe article, my first thought was, oh crap. However, even if Lana kisses Wagner on the mouth in Times Square, I will still give her a pass and this is why. Lana had a brutal, mentally abused childhood where she was basically told she didn't exist. She was shown every day that she was nothing compared to her sister, yet she managed to love that sister and take care of her mother when she got alzheimers. That's a lot of compassion for someone who never received any. She has also lost her life savings saving her daughter from cancer. Does this say villain to you? Add to that, losing her sister in a most brutal and unresolved way. We have all heard of people climbing to the top of a tower and shooting at people for much less than Lana has endured. Walk in her shoes, people, and then tell me how you would react or proceed. Ultimately, I think about Natalie. She loved her sister. How would she feel about her fans trashing the sister she loved? Think she would support it? Anyway, that's my stand. You can start picking on me all you want. I can take it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. So, we still have to try. That is just the way things are. Natalie meant to much to me to stop wanting justice for her death.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Speaking down to you is the only direction I have. I knew you were the same troublemaker. You continue to come back with the same recycled tripe even though your points have been constantly addressed. No one is listening, we've heard it all before. Your missionary zeal for showing us how delusional we are is noted, now blow.

    ReplyDelete
  30. To the poster who is playing Lana's violin. Say's who? Who told all of the stories about Lana's childhood? Lana did. If you can believe all the BS she has tossed around over the years, then you go for it. She wants sympathy and knows how to get it. Do you know how many people she has taken advantage of? Many people have walked in Lana's shoes and they have survived without taking from people, without crying about it, publicly.
    Lana cleaned out her bank account? After her daughter's recovery she was on line talking about her doll collection valued in the thousands. She still had that collection after her financial devastation. She also had 12 dogs and 7 cats living in her home. That's a huge expense, not to mention an unhealthy living arrangement. That's why she was evicted from her home. Before you toot Lana's horn, do a little research or talk to people who have been into this longer than you have.
    I have no doubt that Lana made up some of the tales she told in her book. She was pissed at her sister for not leaving her cash and she did a payback. Robert Wagner is a despicable human being, a lying bastard but Lana is no better. She's one step above him because she never killed anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thanks for your feedback, but I prefer to err on the side of kindness. If that makes me a dope, so be it.

    ReplyDelete
  32. It does not make you a dope, it makes you the type of person that Lana feeds off. She takes advantage of people with kind hearts and makes promises she has no intention of keeping.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Speaking down to you is the only direction I have. I knew you were the same troublemaker. You continue to come back with the same recycled tripe even though your points have been constantly addressed. No one is listening, we've heard it all before. Your missionary zeal for showing us how delusional we are is noted, now blow."

    This is what Natalie deserves? This abhorrent cretin attempting to pass itself as a human being? You are no better than the RJ Wagner followers. Are you sure you are not doing double duty?
    You are repulsive and the memory of Natalie Wood does not need or want an amoeba such as you and your kind. Now I shall take the only logical advise you blew my way.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Your response would be funny if it wasn't so disturbing.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I like Lana. Yes, I've heard everything said on both sides about Lana, but I got to know her well when Suzanne was working on "Natasha" and I have a file of probably 400 emails betwenn Lana and myself from 2000 to 2004. In 2007, we resumed our correspondence. There's a lot of info in these emails that always help me to understand Lana.

    I was away all day yesterday, and I will be very busy Mon thru Fri this week. I don't want to have to delete things from this blog and I really try my best to respect all opinions, as long as they are based in fact or dervied from logical thinking. The Natalie case has become so convoluted, it would take a lot even for professionals to sort it out, but I have no doubt that will eventually happen.

    Dennis and I didn't switch publishers because this story wasn't taken seriously. Throw a publishing company president's death into the works of a devastating economy and there you have it: no more company. GNGS was their best selling book. The new company is only going to produce e-versions and paperback. GNGS has a long way to go, but it's an important story that will receive it's just place, just as the truth of Natalie's death will find its way.

    I have no doubt that Lana wants the case reopened. She wants to hear from PROFESSIONALS what they think AFTER examining the TRUTH rather than the lies the three survivors of the cruise told. I do my best to work toward that happening but every day there are obstacles. There are many people involved. This is not over, and the reality of EVERYTHING involved in this case is something not lost on me. Sometimes it feels like a burden but mostly it feels like an obligation, neither of which I resent.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I am disappointed that you answered the Wagner poster about the publisher. You have answered this same person many times about the same points. If you look back at old posts you'll see the exact same baloney is said every time. In fact, I'm almost sure you have asked them to stop posting but they always return. Their vicious name calling post above yours also shows mental instability. I know it is both an inconvenience and pain for you to have to delete and monitor these posts. I'm sure you assume people will conduct themselves as adults but as you can see it doesn't always happen. I guess until you can come back with some regularity, I will just have to mentally delete some of these posts.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I've made some quick deletions. I'll probably delete this entire post. It's not serving anyone, especially Natalie.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thank you for taking the time to delete the Wagner repeat offender. Unfortunately, his/her most offensive post remains. (all the name calling and vile attitude.) I think deleting the whole post is a great idea. I agree, very little of a positive nature came out of this post. Thanks for taking the extra time to review the thread again.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Why does this entire post have to be deleted? It's not right to keep deleting comments every time someone is displeased.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Were you displeased when everyone was jumping on you and accusing you of being an imposter? Different opinions shouldn't be a cause for being deleted, but offensive name calling should. Otherwise, rational discussion will be hard to come by. We'll start to sound like the other boards that we so disrespect.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I didn't ask for anything to be deleted-I never have. What I didn't like were people accusing me of not being me--I thought it had gotten out of hand.

    Not every person who leaves a negative comment, one that implies doubt about Wagner's involovement, means that he or she is a "Wagner fan." Some of the comments I've read were very interesting.

    I'm taking Dennis at his word, but it is important to question what Dennis and Marti have written.

    I think it is hard to see the truth if one gets too emotional over this. It is important to be as objective and unbiased as possible.

    I know that I can get caught up in the emotion of it and lose perspective...I am very guilty of this.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Just delete my posts and make the shoe shiners and Yes Men/Women happy.
    It is fine to be talked down to on here and called names and accused of stalking when I am only voicing an opinion. Sorry that it does not meet with the high standards of what the speculators and Yes Men/Women have to say but when a person is accused of things because their opinion differs and they are called stupid, dumb, etc. usually they go on the defensive and strike out. That is what I have done.
    Once again, I believe RJ is guilty but I won't speculate and make up tall tales just to accomplish that. When Dennis comes forward and tells exactly how Natalie got in the water then I will join forces with him. Why wouldn't I? I've believed everything else he has told. Until then it is speculation.
    This blog needs a revamping and a sign in or it will never be taken seriously. It appears to be taken over by the censorship board screaming for deletions. Last time I checked, Will Hayes was still dead!

    ReplyDelete
  43. LOL, everyone posts anonymously yet everyone seems to be able to identify each other...I find this endlessly amusing.
    ~Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
  44. Some people are very obvious, like the troll who threatened Marti with the powerful group. Beyond that, it's impossible to tell who is saying what. For this reason a sign-in would be a much better way to go.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I have no problem identifying who I am speaking with either. If we have names I can see more personal attacks. The other boards log in and it hasn't changed the demeanor or civility of them one bit.

    ReplyDelete
  46. but you know who is being rude and obnoxious. Without the sign-in, you don't know if it's different people or the same person. Nothing will ever stop personal attacks on the net but with sign-ins we would be able to differentiate between the rude posters. All of this anonymous posting is ridiculous. There are other types of websites in which "members" can communicate privately rather than get into personal attacks while others sit back and yawn.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Marti has enough to do without having to revamp her blog. Isn't easier to just ignore anyone being rude or obnoxious? I can't see the value in knowing if it's one person or three. I refuse to engage with the occasional nasty person. If everyone ignores them and they don't get a rise out of us, maybe they will go away. Problem solved.

    ReplyDelete
  48. It's in her own best interest and the best interest of the book to re-vamp her blog before the paperback is published.

    I found it interesting that people post about evils of Lana, about the evils of RJ Wagner, all the tabloid trash but no one was in the least bit interested in Marti's post about the status of the book on Amazon, about whether to respond to the e-mail that Amazon customer's received. That does not seem to be important on this blog which is for that very thing, for the book that we are hoping will result in some justice for Natalie.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I buy my books at Barnes and Noble so the post didn't relate to me. Perhaps others were in the same situation and it wasn't really a statement about everyone's priorities being skewed. At least that was my take on it.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Even so, the Amazon post is an indication of the uncertainty the publication of the book.

    ReplyDelete
  51. It will be published. Marti has said that very clearly.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Yes, the book will be published. VERY SOON.

    The only thing I'm worried about in requiring blog sign-ins is the occasional new interested person who might not post a valid opinion due to sign-in. Many people like to remain anonymous over the net, even with strangers they communicate with daily in chat rooms, etc. I'm hoping a lot more visitors will look at the blog after the new release. I'm not sure what to do.

    Also, I heard from Lana. She has read some things being said since the article was published. She was definitely misquoted. She NEVER said anything about asking for or wanting forgiveness from RJ. What she did talk about was NOT published and/or misconstrued. Lana wants justice for Natalie, but she doesn't want a "battle" -- that's the same way Dennis felt for so many years. I don't understand it, but both always seemed at peace with that attitude. Maybe I want too much for this injustice. I don't know. I must go with my own feelings. Natalie deserves justice. Lana says she knows Natalie better than anyone, and I believe that. She says Natalie would not want a battle either, as she loved her daughters too much for that...the thing Dennis always said, too. I have to sort out my feelings about all of this. I want to move forward, and I think with the past few months' lull, my truest mission has lost momentum. I hope to get it back. Lana knows how much Natalie loved her husband, for better or worse, but I ask: how far does "worse" go? 'Til death do us part' has its limits on HOW that death occurs!

    Thank you all...i appreciate all support.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I'm a regular poster and I am fanatic about my privacy. It's just a personality quirk, I don't post anything I need to hide. If there was a sign-in I guess I would just become an observer of the blog. It seems like only a few people bring this us (ironically, they all post anonymous even though they have other choices) and the vast majority of the blog remains silent. I'm sure you will find what feels right for you and everyone will abide by that decision. As for Lana's comments, I'm sure the studio bred Natalie would avoid a battle. I'm not sure the terrified woman struggling for her life would agree. I'm not trying to spur you forward, for I know the risks and ridicule you will also face. It will be a soul-wrenching decision for you. Why did Lana hire a detective if she didn't want to make more of the original findings? Justice is always a battle. If you lay down and take the path of least resistance, it makes it that much harder for someone else to get justice. (That's aimed at Lana, not you) I defended Lana in one of the above posts but now I hear the distinct sound of backpedaling when it's time to put up. Make sure it is your decision alone, you have put in the work, you should have the final say which ever way you go.

    ReplyDelete
  54. P.S. How does Lana imagine justice for Natalie will come about? She wants it, but she doesn't want to fight for it? Is she expecting a death bed confession from Wagner? Lots of people loved the husbands that ended up killing them, is Lana suggesting they all get a pass? OK, that sounded harsh but you get the gist of what I'm suggesting.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Murder or allowing a spouse to die the death the feared their entire life goes beyond "for better or worse".
    I think Natalie would be pissed he let her die and miss watching her kids grow up.
    The biggest thing with Natalie Wood was loyalty. I'm sure Lana many not want to see that but loyalty was huge with her.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I didn't say the book was not going to be published. I was making reference to the uncertainty of when the book would be published, when it would be available to the public. I should have made myself clearer.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Just for the record, nothing has changed in my mind about wanting justice -- TRUE justice -- for Natalie. Whatever comes of reopening the case, I will live with the results, but that case NEEDS to be reopened. With five million people behind me, or with a few caring people behind me, or no one behind me, I will continue to seek true justice for Natalie.

    ReplyDelete
  58. It wasn't clear in your post what you were having to think about. It sounded as if Lana was giving you pause about pursuing the case for the reasons you listed. I'm happy that reopening the case is still your goal. Thanks, I know it's a tough road but you have many people behind you. Come to the blog if you get down, plenty of us will be here to encourage and re-energize you! Unfortunately, I'm starting to think there will come a fork in the road, where you have to decide if Lana is an asset or a liability. Hopefully, she also will come through for you.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Thank you so much. I have never doubted that this case needs to be reopened. I would assume it natural that Natalie's entire family would want the same, but it was only Lana who was always looking for answers. Yet, she lives with the torment that even after getting those answers that it will never bring Natalie back. She emphasized to me how much she loved Natalie and always will. Lana has been so abused in regards to this case. She feels doomed if she does and doomed if she doesn't, and I sympathize with her. I feel confident that once things get moving along again, which should be very soon, Lana's hope for justice in this case will prevail. Everyone seems a bit down in the dumps lately and that does work on all of us. But I know there are so many good people who completely comprehend the reason and meaning behind seeking justice for Natalie. What I wanted to think about is whether Lana can take any more of it. It has brought her nothing but heartache and troubles. She's a strong person but even the strongest of us can know when it just hurts too much to keep fighting. You really have to stay focused on what you are fighting for. It's what helps you to get back up when you are down. I think that when someone is left to die, and possibly even put into the position to be left to die is an incomprehensible, despicable act and I don't care how drunk the person is while making such a choice, and I believe our justice system is structured to help the victim, not to coddle the person who might be responsible. That's what helps me continue on my path.

    ReplyDelete
  60. It's weird Marti but you put it well as I've really been down in the dumps lately about Natalie. Maybe it's because it's Novemebr. It's a melancholy time to think of her maybe, but this year seems worse than others. I can only imagine what it's like for you. You always seem so positive and I often wondered how you do it. I want you to know I appreciate your honesty about how you sometimes get down too. You are facing a huge crowd out there that will come at you from all angles. I have a feeling you'll dodge every bullet, and that you'll be shooting straight ftom the hip at the same time. Never doubt you have support.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I know you like quotes. Here are a few to take you through your busy week.
    "When you feel like giving up, remember why you held on for so long in the first place". -author unknown
    "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something sometime in your life".- Winston Churchill
    "Never give up, for that is just the place and time that the tide will turn". - Harriet Beecher Stowe

    ReplyDelete
  62. Anon, 1:51 & 1:55
    Thank you! It's amazing what a few words of encouragement can do for a person. I have a very important meeting this weekend with someone very important to Natalie's case. A decision will be made on how to approach the next step. As soon as I can, I will report more about it. (I also have a desktop of regular work I must finish before Thanksgiving, and then I can spend the next two months on seeking a resolution for GNGS. I should be announcing the exact release date by this weekend. Yes, production delays are disappointing but they are only temporary.

    I do love quotes. I have a little flip-top calendar on my desk that has a quote of the day on it, and today's goes right along with the theme of the quotes you just posted. Here it is:

    Nobody trips over mountains. It is the small pebble that causes you to stumble. Pass all the pebbles in your path and you will find you have crossed the mountain. ~Author Unknown

    ReplyDelete
  63. I am the one who posted about the PB and e books edition on the forum. So, to the people who trashed me on here and on there because I had a difference of opinion please wipe the egg off your face. I have always stood behind this book. My opinions were slightly different so many went after me for no reason.
    Marti, you may delete this post by all means but I just wanted you to know, just because I had an opinion did not mean I was stalking or trashing as some of your followers did to me and you sided with them.
    Best of luck with the e book and paperback and I will always support GNGS but I will do it silently from here on out. No glowing reviews like in the past or correcting people when they are wrong, etc. 9and major "etc." is was) Just silent support.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anonymous 9:19. I don't know who you are but I assure you, I appreciated all support for GNGS (silent or major) and I welcome all opinions ... as it was many times a diverse opinion presented that would help to explain an important aspect of Natalie's case. Sometimes a problem lies only in the presentation of opinions, and I don't recall siding with anyone over you in particular, but I do recall trying to keep a few certain individuals from invading and spoiling this blog as they have other Internet places. I want to keep this blog about Natalie and the effort to get the authorities to reopen her death case file. Her case warrants another look.

    From the moment Dennis told of the bottle smashing in 1983, I naively believed the police would automatically reopen this case. But it has taken a whole lot more than that and we still aren't there yet.

    I don't want new readers to visit this blog and see ANYTHING even remotely resembling the death forum where bickering and arguing prevails. This blog is for case details, book updates and occasional asides, so if I interrupted any of your thoughts about Natalie's case, I apologize.

    I'll discuss ANY particular about the 1981 weekend voyage, or about the case. But, for those with closed minds about Dennis's credibility, it is worthless. Anyone who wants to eliminate Dennis's account from the criteria will go around in circles forever on this case. Those people would be astounded at their misconception of Dennis if they met him. Anyone from Dennis's past has nothing but wonderful things to say about his character. Dennis has always left lasting (good) impressions with people who have crossed his path, especially with people in his occupation. Of course, there is one exception: Wagner is the only one who has ever discredited Dennis and that's among worldwide harbormasters, dock workers, celebrities, friends, relatives: Dennis was even offered a harbormaster job as he is so dedicated to his work. Everyone admires Dennis but for ONE. (well, two, if you want to count a negligent detective who met him in the worst of scenarios), so there's ANOTHER red flag about the overall case!

    I don't defend Dennis because this was a mystery death case. I defend Dennis because he deserves to be defended against the closed-minded fans who won't even step into the gray area of this tragic death. Dennis wasn't "stoned out of his mind" or in a "drunken stupor" the night of Natalie's death. He saw and heard and has lived with the torment for far too long. Dennis's account is pertinent: it is the most important factor involved in solving the mystery of Natalie's death. That's a reality and I'm sorry but I need to remain in the reality zone as we move toward true justice for Natalie. That's the goal: justice for Natalie, not to see if there's any chance Wagner "walked inside for a moment."

    I welcome OPINIONS, but I do not welcome people rewriting what IS. If you could be more specific about what I "sided with" I would know better how to answer you.

    In any case, I appreciate your support for justice for Natalie more than I can express.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Dennis was his own worst enemy in many ways. He presented himself as what you say he was not, in the Vanity Fair article. He said he was high and drunk. He may have been telling the author what he wanted to hear but he did say it, nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Simply, you sided with people who said that Dennis said exactly how Natalie got into the water and you allowed them to call anyone with a different opinion ugly names and then when some of us tried to defend ourselves you called us stalkers and deleted our posts but left their's intact. This is a major accusation on their part and all that was asked was on what page Dennis made this affirmative statement. No one has yet to answer that but instead they called people names. Other than this Kevinr person, who is to say who it was or how many as all the posts are anonymous. Strange that you have a list of followers who don't post but dozens of anonymous do. One person, a defender of your book just asked if it could be possible that RJ turned away from Natalie and went inside and the rest was basically fate. Your followers called the person horrible names and accused them of all sorts of things. It sounded like a tabloid editorial page. Please be assured, I am not referring to one particular person. That one person should have their mind deleted not just their posts.
    So there it is. I'm sure if you leave these posts up without deletions or editing the anonymous posts will start to fly with more mud slinging at me but that is fine. I've defended Natalie Wood for years and not just since her death and I have defended you and Dennis and GNGS in the face of family and friend opposition so I'm sure I can handle any anonymous mud throwers.
    When people sign in and stop the anonymous I will too. Until then, sign me another anonymous follower.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I read this blog everyday and I am pretty sure I remember the exchange you are talking about. NO ONE ever claimed that Dennis said how Natalie got in the water because nobody knows including Dennis. Someone asked a poster how they THINK Natalie got in the water and it was answered. I remember it got a bit heated but I don't recall name calling. You got mad and said basically what you have said in your above posts about differing opinions and people being thin-skinned. You were told you had ample chance to clarify and defend your opinions and people would listen. People can get overzealous sometimes but usually some calm opinions come in and the discussion returns to the facts at hand. I'm sure I will be accused of being an attacker, but to be honest, I find your posts to be defensive and at times self-pitying. I don't say that with malice it's just how I hear them. Also, the egg on your faces comment surely couldn't have been crafted to win friends. Stick to your opinion in a rational manner and don't give up so easily. Eventually, people will civilly agree to disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I recall that some of the bloggers took offense when I said we don't know how Natalie ended up in the water. People got angry and said that Dennis was there and he told us how it happened. I kept saying that Dennis never said that he was certain about how it happened and some of the bloggers got up in arms about it. They began defending the book and Marti and Dennis. I remember this very well.

    Why should anyone have to defend an opinion about how Natalie got into the water? I know that several people who post here feel that she was pushed or thrown in. That opinion was welcomed without a challenge. The poster who presented his opinion suggested that Natalie was not tossed or pushed, that she may have fallen during the argument with Wagner. That's possible and that does not make Wagner any less guilty, especially since he spent 4 hours scheming about a cover up and drinking rather than calling for the Coast Guard's assistance in finding her. It seems that posts that cast Wagner in the worst light are never questioned but when someone said that Natalie MAY HAVE fallen as Wagner walked away, people became incensed, taking it as an insult to what Marti and Dennis presented in the book. At the time of this spat we were all rather defensive because of the invasion of the blog by a few Wagner trolls. I suggest we put all of this behind us and start anew, looking forward to the paperback and it's promotion. The 29th anniversary of Natalie's death is on our doorstep. Let's remember HER. She is the reason we are here, right?

    ReplyDelete
  69. How could Natalie have fallen in?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Very easily if she was standing in front of the opened gate that led to the swim step. That gate was always left opened. She may have been walking and arguing with Wagner, moving quickly. She could have slipped and fallen in the water as Wagner turned to go back into the stateroom. The rear deck was not big. It's a possibility. I believe it was Wagner who untied the lines to the dinghy to make it look like she had left the boat. He was very drunk and he may have reacted differently than he would have if he was sober. Wagner's supporters scream about Natalie being drunk and Dennis being drunk, Robert Wagner was intoxicated. I believe Lyn Taylor's story about seeing them in the restaurant and observing how intoxicated Wagner was. Getting back to the rear deck, she could very well have fallen in the midst of the argument with Wagner. We don't know for sure, we never will. Robert Wagner will never admit that he argued with Natalie on the back deck much less admit that he saw her in the water. Dennis does not know for sure. As far as how she got in the water, it's all speculation. I would not, however, define her death as an accident even if she fell during a spat with Wagner.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I can't see that being the case. With her terrible fear of dark water, I don't think Natalie would have been standing so close to the edge that she could have fallen in--especially with the state of mind that Wagner was in. I keep coming back to the answer that Wagner must have been responsible for Natalie ending up in the water; not by accident.

    ReplyDelete
  72. She did not have to be standing close to the edge. She could have been a foot or so away from the edge, she could have been walking and slipped and fell in and he let her die. The state of mind he was in is defined by seeing her in the water and doing nothing, It's possible that she fell. He could have reached out to her in a violent manner and she could have moved and fallen off the boat or he could have thrown something at her and she moved to avoid it. Any way you slice it, he is responsible for what happened to her that night.
    I have never bought that banging dinghy story. The fact that he felt the need to invent that tale tells me that he knew better. He needed a story to feed the public and the press as well as Natalie's family and friends.

    ReplyDelete
  73. There was also a swim step Natalie would have had to go over. I just don't think it is possible without her being assisted by another person. The back of the boat was not that small; there was plenty of room for Natalie to stay safely away from the edge.
    I keep coming back to the same conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Also, according to Dennis the dinghy was tied there--at the back of the boat.

    ReplyDelete
  75. There was also a swim step to be thrown over. The swim step was there, either way. It would have taken a lot for him to pick her up and throw her in the water, over the swim step and along side or on top of the dinghy. We are talking about 2 people fighting on the rear deck of a boat with an opened gate. It is possible that in the heat of a very tempestuous argument she could have easily slipped and fallen over. If she fell, the water in her mouth and nose would have muffled the sound of the scream. If RJ picked her up and threw her in she would have screamed before she hit the water. If she was semi-conscious and placed in the water, them there would not have been a scream at all. We'll never know. Perhaps if the police had done their job we would know.

    ReplyDelete
  76. HOW Natalie got into the water is important but we will never know unless the only witness to it comes forward, and that particular witness is not Dennis Davern. AlL WE CAN DO IS TO SPECULATE, GIVEN KNOWN INFORMATION, WHAT MAKES MOST SENSE.

    Dennis knows that Wagner was with her when it happened. Many people (including a professional editor) missed the point of my mentioning my blind friend, John, in GNGS. When we were teenagers, I asked John a lot of questions that in older age I would never impose on a blind person (comfort zones shrink with age?). Anyhow, as a kid, I learned a lot from John. I always asked about how he "knows things" being he can't see, and it would exasperate him that people were so ignorant about other senses. John once warned me (while we sat in the living room) that my toddler son had a fork in his hand in the kitchen. I couldn't see my son as a wall separated us. But John "knew" -- sure enough, my 2-year old was carrying a fork around.

    John usually responded to me with answers like, "How could I NOT know things? My senses are as strong as yours, only I can't see. When I hear a fork fall on the floor, I know it's a fork because I'm used to listening for what it is. You wait for your eyes, while I trust my ears. Both senses can be as accurate."

    So, as a writer, I only told about John in a brief sentence in GNGS to enhance my point that while Dennis may not have seen the exact moment Natalie got into the water, or heard the exact words being argued because the music was on, he DID hear the voices for the complete duration of the back deck argument...he HEARD the movement, FELT the movement right below him, and has NO DOUBT a terrible argument was transpiring. Within a minute after he didn't hear and "feel" things, he headed down. (Reminder: a couple of hits off a joint and a few drinks hadn't crippled Den's senses...yes, Dennis has said they were all drinking but that's another "debate" -- Dennis was aware of his surroundings: it's why he stayed up and hadn't gone right to bed.)

    No, Dennis didn't see Natalie's transfer from the boat, but he SAW and HEARD Wagner's behavior and words and actions after Dennis went to the deck (remember, he had been only a few feet away above the couple.) After all the fury of looking for Natalie onboard (because that's what Dennis hoped had happened...that she went forward) then hearing that the dinghy was missing and hoping she might be in it, Dennis still, instinctively, knew ALL was wrong, but he believed the man he had worked for for 8 years, a man he hardly recognized this night.

    HOW Natalie got into the water is not how she technically died. Technically she drowned. Even if she was thrown into the water, that throw is not TECHNICALLY the cause of death. And that's a huge part of all that went wrong in this case. NOT RESCUING HER OR CALLING FOR HELP TO RESUE HER IS WHAT KILLED NATALIE WOOD.

    So, if Wagner walked away for a minute and Natalie fell (unlikely scenario but, no, not impossible), there still exists the issue of leaving her in the ocean to die. That's the part that's not a waste of time to discuss because we know it's TRUE.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Also, I believe it was Wagner releasing the dinghy that tells us exactly what his intentions were.

    ReplyDelete
  78. That's exactly what I am trying to say, whether she was pushed or thrown, whether she had fallen, is not the point. The point is that Wagner did nothing to save her. That half hearted radio call to say that "someone" is missing was not a search and rescue attempt. It was a necessity at that point that he do SOMETHING and he did as little as he could. Even at that, he waited 2 hours. That's a long time but 4 hours for a Coast Guard call is ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Good morning, Marti. I caught exactly why you talked of your blind friend when I read GNGS. Although Dennis did not see "the deed" he of course was aware of all going on around him. He didn't know how to act or react. This is redundant, and I think you are a tad too worried about those who can't comprehend this on their own. You are a decent person to take your valuable time for this. Please don't misunderstand me. I think your comment is brilliantly put, and necessary, but might fall to stubborn deaf ears. Some people don't know how to use any of their senses. If they did, they wouldn't be crying to you over such fundamental issues.

    What cracks me up is the person who claims Dennis said he was high that night. (They believe him on that point, right?) I've been high before, very high, and never missed a beat. These people think Dennis has stayed high, no matter how many times you've explained that he hasn't. They think he financed his life on Natalie's death, no matter how well you explain that impossibility. They think you wrote GNGS for money, no matter how many times you've explained you put more into it than ever returned.

    I think you should go about your business without having to cater to these people who refuse to accept all you've done for the late great Natalie Wood. You, of all the characters in this godforsaken story, are a wonder. I hope you have a wonderful Sunday and a wonderful Thanksgiving. I happen to be invited on a boat for next weekend. I will think of Natalie.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Wagner did more than walk away from Natalie in the water; it was his intention to let her die.
    By covering up the fact that Ms Wood was, in fact, in the water, he prevented someone else from saving her.
    I think it is important to understand the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Hello, the person who said Dennis was high was Dennis himself. He made that statement is the Vanity Fair article. That's were those of us who have been following this story for decades got that information. It's not gossip, Dennis said it.
    Who is saying that they don't believe Dennis? This is how arguments start on this blog. Put your spoon away, no one here is doubting Dennis credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  82. THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
    You are absolutely correct. Dennis stated he was high in the Vanity Fair article. It is not gossip. Dennis stated it.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Yes, Dennis himself, from the horse's mouth, has said he was "high" that night -- to people who smoke pot, even one joint, that means "getting high" or "being high." Dennis was NOT incapacitated to the point he wasn't aware of what was going on around him...by the joint he shard with Walken or by the drinks he had at dinner. Dennis admits they were all drinking for many hours and that he smoked pot with Walken. No one was affected adversly from the booze and pot that night but for one. Everyone was socializing until the bottle smashing, no different from many other cruises. That Dennis was "high" is not gossip, but the way some people interpret it (i.e., he was delusional from it that night, he has stayed "high" forever since, he was and is a bum)is ABSURD. Dennis told the truth about the drinking and pot to Sam Kashner and to me. The poster who said people believe him about that but not about other things makes a good point. Yes, Dennis was "high" just as he said; Yes, he saw the bottle smashing, just as Wagner confirms; Yes, Dennis claims Wagner is at fault for Natalie dying, just as Wagner said those very words in his own book; Yes, Wagner was with Natalie when she went overboard, just as Dennis's polygraph tested. Yes, Dennis Davern's account is true. High or not that night.

    And, for the most part, I know I'm preaching this to "the choir" -- this post is more a vent. Thanks, Everyone, for letting me vent.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Dennis also mentioned Valium in the Vanity Fair article. Smoking a joint does not dull one's memory to the point that Wagner's fans would like everyone to believe nor would taking a few Valium, if he ,indeed, took the Valium. It seems like Katzner played Dennis a bit.

    We all need to vent and it's helpful to you here to clarify what is rumor and what is fact.

    ReplyDelete
  85. It was Quaaludes that were taken on the cruise, FRIDAY, NOT Saturday. Dennis drank and shared a joint with Walken later on Saturday. Yes, Kashner played Dennis more than a bit, but I got along well with Sam after we met. Overall, Sam did a good job with Dennis's truth and should be considered the one who finally broke through to the truth of all the reporters out there. Also, contrary to what some believe, Dennis was NOT paid for the VF article. It was Dennis's attempt to put the truth behind him, but after Lambert's book of lies, I convinced Dennis that he had to do more, and he was very willing to do whatever it would take to help get the case reopened.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Kashner made the big money from the Vanity Fair article.

    I recall reading some reference to Valium, I may be mistaken. I believe one of Wagner's fans made some accusation about Valium.

    The Quaaludes did not play a part in this as it was the night before that all members of the party indulged to lighten the mood created by Wagner's childlike behavior. Even St. Wagner popped a pill.

    ReplyDelete
  87. The Quaaludes were taken VERY early in the afternoon on Friday. Yes, Wagner took one and said he felt no different regardless. They were a mild tablet according to Dennis. For a few hours after everyone took a quaaludes, the mood did lighten. By later that night, Natalie was off the boat and in the motel room with Dennis. Imagine that. It still blows me away that Dennis shared Natalie's final bed with her, and I am comforted by the fact that I know he made her laugh a little that night, and subsided her fears and anger, and that he was there as a true friend to her. But, just imagine, being the person who spent Natalie's last night with her, and what you would think about on every anniversary of that night. It's heartbreaking.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Marti, that was my favorite part of the book, Dennis memories of what he and Natalie said to each other at the Pavillion Lodge. I can picture her waving her finger at him, telling him that the clothes stay on.

    ReplyDelete
  89. :-) I remember when Dennis told me that part way back when, and he was smiling when he described it. He said they talked a lot about Christmas coming that night, about what Natalie was going to get the girls but Dennis couldn't recall what gifts she'd mentioned, only that she suggested he take them to Knottsberry Farm. He was so overwhelmed by the pieces of eight neck chain she had given him. He still wears it around his neck to this day.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Natalie mentioned on numerous occasions how much she loved Knotts Berry Farm. There seemed to be a bit of "little girl" left in her. probably a result of being burdened with adult responsibilities when she was a child.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I hate Knotts Berry Farm. Its not a farm and there are no berries.

    ReplyDelete