Friday, December 9, 2011
Marti Rulli - On The Grid Internet Talk Radio-Nov. 26, 10:00 am EST
Many questions have been sent to me through email, and I've tried to answer as many as time allows, and I will personally get to each and every one of you, but in the meantime, I will answer some of the questions being asked here.
Why I requested a polygraph test for Dennis Davern is because I realized many people might think that because I am his friend that I would believe him unconditionally, but that was never the case. I always asked Dennis dozens of questions for every piece of his account. I never once caught him in a situation where his claims didn't add up. But, because I was his friend, I especially wanted to remain as objective as possible. I wanted a professional to hear his account, to judge by reaction and machine if the professional believed him. I hired a man of experience in criminal law, a man who knew his work in polygraphing. It wasn't only to verify the contents of Goodbye Natalie Goodbye Splendour -- it meant a lot to me as well. By asking Dennis to take a polygraph, I feel I had requested what any other author would've requested while writing a story that had little support. One person believed in Dennis and that one person was me. I knew it would take a lot to get others to realize Dennis's regrets for the mistakes he had made, but to also understand how Dennis had been manipulated.
Why I told about my and Dennis's relationship in GNGS was only to help readers to understand my relationship with Dennis and to impress the fact that I had and have a personal life "on the side" of working on GNGS. I gave a good percentage of my spare time to a mission that always seemed to go nowhere. I also tried to not take time from my own family in the process, but it was not easy. I worked mostly late at night, and sometimes the story was so compelling, it became eerie. I would get chills while writing some parts. But, I forged ahead. I made calls. I researched. I did what I could do to substantiate what I had come to believe.
When the online petition was started in 2009, after GNGS's release, I thought it was a great idea, but I honestly did not believe it was enough to get the case reopened. I sure hoped it would be enough, but I had talked with the lead detectives of the 1981 case. I had been led to believe I would have to go through them, or at least to have their approval before proceeding. I was always nice to them, and they were polite to me as well, even though they knew how badly I wanted them to agree Natalie's case deserved another look. In fact, it was Frank Salerno, who had been in charge of Natalie's 1981 case, who had suggested to me in 2009 that I write a summary to present to the LASD. At that point, knowing I would not have his help, I figured GNGS was the only justice Natalie might ever receive so I sought publication, and figured GNGS could be the summary, and I did have a copy of the book sent to the LASD. I heard nothing.
We had hoped for 1,000 signatures on the petition, and when I saw how long it took to get to 500, that's when I decided to rally the witnesses I had interviewed who had been overlooked in the 1981 investigation. It took a while, but I gathered their testimonial statements and informed the attorney who had started the "Reopen Natalie Wood Case Petition" that I would like to include the statements when the petition would be submitted. He had suggested long ago that Dennis send a testimonial statement to the LASD, but after talking with Frank Salerno, I doubted it would help. So, he completely agreed it was a good idea to submit testimonial statements. We were going to send in June or July 2011, despite we had only near 800 signatures, but a couple of statements were still being worked on at that time. As soon as I gathered all of the statements, I submitted them to accompany the petition, and then we heard from the LASD a little over a month later. I do not know who later made the statements public, but it was not me. I had promised I would never do that, and I am not sure how the statements were distributed to the media. In any case, at least the information has given the public something they've deserved for a long time: answers to a 30 year-old mystery, a case that deserved more than it received in 1981.
Whatever comes of the new reinvestigation, Natalie is getting what any citizen deserves upon such a mysterious death: an investigation.
I appreciate shows like "On The Grid" that offer me the time to explain the many varied aspects of the story behind my involvement and to proclaim that I still stand behind everything I put in the book I wrote. I feel GNGS has succeeded because now the case is in good hands. I thank everyone who has written to me, and will do my best to answer the questions I can answer.