The photo I had posted here is removed because it has been bothering me every time I visit the blog. Some of you feel the same way. I just want to say that I didn't post it for sensationalism...I posted it because it's the graphic reality of what really was lost that terrible morning in Nov. 1981. November always reminds me of hearing of Natalie's death right afer that 1981 Thanksgiving and what crushing news it was to hear.
I posted the autopsy diagrams at this blog too a few months back because it's the evidence of the dozens of bruises on Natalie when she was found. I'm sorry if the photo I posted here and the autopsy posts offended anyone. It's a death case, a case we need reopened, and sometimes I get too caught up in "the case" part of it. I've removed the photo. It's too sad and too graphic a reminder.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your critics won't like this Marti. It reminds them of the stark reality too. Notice: no grieving husband nearby!!!! He couldn't get away from this terrible scene fast enough could he? Oh, but of course they all understand. Who would want to idenify a screw-around wife? I apologize for the sarcasm. Thank you for posting this photograph. Although it sickens me, it's a good reminder that this case needs to be reopened fast.
ReplyDeleteI, too, am very saddened by this photo. Just the thought of that beautiful woman ending up like that makes me sick. I agree with the above poster. Wagner continued his souless actions even after her death. He had the stomach to let her die, but not to stay and see the results of his handiwork.
ReplyDeleteI wonder why Dennis needed to identify Natalie. Everyone knew who she was, but I guess it was for official means. Wagner had no right to place such a burden on Dennis. Robert Wagner is disgusting.
ReplyDeleteStefanie Powers' book is out now. Anyone know anything about it? I saw on the Today Show a pic of Natalie with RJ but little was said about them. Stefanie mostly wanted to talk about Holden and what he started in Africa in the 50's. This is prime time for Goodbye Natalie. Hope it moves quickly. This is the kind of photo that should be on the Today Show. I can't believe it's been 29 years this month.
ReplyDeletethis photo is a still from a video clip that ran the week Natalie died. Robert Wagner asked the networks to stop running that clip and they did.
ReplyDeleteI haven't heard about Power's book but hopefully she won't be resurrecting Wagner's good guy image. "He was such a gentleman . . blah blah." This is Natalie's month, I don't want any conversations except about her death. If Powers talks about Holden's death and then ties in Wagner's devastation over Natalie a few weeks later, I will puke. The facts of Natalie's death have to be stage center. Myths about Wagner's emotions will be especially counter-productive this month.
ReplyDeleteSince when does Robert Wagner run the networks? Once again, celebrity trumps real journalism.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the odds of Power's book coming out at this very time? Just when there is going to be a big push for Natalie, a Wagner lover gets to push her book. It reminds me of Marti saying how many times flukes of fate have come up in Wagner's favor. (Publisher dies, natural disaster with Larry King) If there's some force saving Wagner's butt each time we can be sure it's not an angelic one.
ReplyDeleteWagner's attorney's made the request and the networks did as he asked in his time of "grief". It had nothing to do with anyone running the networks.
ReplyDeleteI seriously doubt if Power's publishers planned the release of her book to coincide with the anniversary of Natalie's death or Holden's death, for that matter. Who gives a damn about Stefanie Power's life? She is small potatoes. Hart to Hart made her career. Her book will be bought by fans of H2H and fans of William Holden.
I was just being sarcastic about Wagner running the network. Also, just musing over the silliness of how things that can help Wagner have been happening. I assure you I don't think the Cosmos is at work here. I hope you're right about the limited appeal of her book.
ReplyDeleteWhy would anyone care about a second rate TV actress with limited success in that area. Her film career was not worth discussing, never a leading lady. She will probably take the same route Wagner took, she'll discuss the legends she worked with. Excuse me as I sit back and yawn.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that she merits any attention, I'm just afraid of what she will say about Wagner. Heart to Heart, is her big success, how can talking about Wagner not be close behind? I don't want her sound bites being picked up and spread around. Especially if it is PR about what a great guy he was and what a tragic figure with all he's suffered through. We already have Wagner selling that baloney, we don't need Powers picking up the chorus. Especially not this month.
ReplyDeleteWagner and Powers are going to be on the Early Show on November 5th. That should be interesting.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Hart to Hart.
ReplyDeleteYikes, my fear come to life. Of course they are going to be talking about their mutual tragedies. I'm sorry, I still see danger here.
ReplyDeleteIt's Hart to Hart, not Heart to Heart...lol, clear to see you were never a fan. Everyone should call the Early Show and ask why these two two-bit actors are featured!
ReplyDeleteYes, if you see above, I corrected the spelling. I always try to correct any errors so my message doesn't get lost.
ReplyDeleteDidn't Wagner write something disparaging about Stephanie Powers in his book? It was about her not doing another "Hart to Hart" reunion...I think???
ReplyDeleteNatalie's life should not have ended like this....To think how her mom ended up. Natalie's own children not attending their grandmother's funeral. The consequences of Natalie's death are almost as tragic as her death itself.
ReplyDeleteExcept for Wagner. It worked out just fine for him.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but I was talking about the people who loved Natalie.
ReplyDeleteI know, I just never let a chance to take a dig at Wagner go by. Sorry, if you think I was stepping on your message. Yes, the family definitely splintered after Natalie's death. Once again, Wagner was the guiding hand behind that. He got to exile his pesky in-laws. Lana was banned and her mother was marginalized. So, he took away the girl's mother and then denied them their extended family too.
ReplyDeleteSeeing this photo makes my heart sink. I remember the news clips of this, making the reality of Natalie's death hit home. I also recall the video and photos of a "grieving" Wagner at Westwood Memorial Park three days later, leaning over Natalie's casket, with their girls close by.
ReplyDeleteI felt sorry for Wagner then, but it wasn't too much later that I grew suspicious--mostly because of his gallivanting with St. John. I was a teenager, but I perceived that something was wrong, and it made me uneasy.
Wagner is evil.
Now that I think about it, his EXTREME grieving act, where he had to be held up, was another example of his selfishness. Most parents will cry in private because they know their children need someone to lean on and reassure them. He forfeited that parental duty because the pay off of being the devastated widower was more important to him.
ReplyDeleteWagner has said that he was told (by his lawyers) not to answer the allegations people have made over the years--because they were stories the press reported in order to sell papers. However, Dennis is not "people." Dennis was an employee and a friend. He was also a witness to what went on that weekend.
ReplyDeleteDennis has contradicted everything Mr Wagner has told the police and the public. Why hasn't he come forward to answer GNGS?
Not only that, but Wagner actually has CORROBORATED things Dennis has said. He has given out more bits of information in response to Dennis' reports, and he does not deny anything that Dennis has said. For example, it was only after Dennis reported the wine bottle smashing that Wagner admitted to it.
ReplyDeleteAgain, as I have asked--what innocent person would let someone say such things if they were not true? It's because Wagner has NO defense. So, he stays publicly silent, letting his lawyers make threats behind the scenes.
And you are correct--Paul Ziffren told Wagner not to answer allegations, so that gave Wagner the chance not to get caught up in lies. How convenient. But his lies have still caught up to him.
As we know, in the many interviews he has given over recent years, Wagner has tripped all over himself when ANYTHING related to Natalie comes up. And it's not necessarily allegations about that weekend. It's sickening and despicable. His empire of lies is about to unravel further.
Since he has the best lawyers Natalie's money can buy, I am sure they have advised him to not answer anything about Dennis. If he opens the door, the media will follow up with more questions. Much better to act as though Dennis is a mere blip on the radar screen.
ReplyDeleteYes, Wagner can't answer Dennis because he would be opening a can of worms.
ReplyDeleteWagner does sound awkward whenever he has anyhting to say about that night.
Surely, the press must see the difference between speculation from strangers and Dennis' account?
I spent a long time staring at this terribly sad photo of Natalie's body being loaded into a chopper for transport to her incompetent coroner. Her husband was probably already home crying on someone's shoulder, gathering all the sympathy. I think I've reached my boiling point. Marti, I implore you, please rush your mission. It is 29 years now and this deplorable tragedy can no longer be labeled an accident.
ReplyDeleteWe're all impatient, but things that get rushed are never done properly. Ask Rasure and Noguchi.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that no one wants to hear the truth, they all do. But, the media will do little without the officials (LACSD) willing to listen. So, we are working on a presentation they will not be able to ignore. It takes time.
ReplyDeleteWho is talking about her career or a biography? The photo is something that would be shown on TMZ. It demeans the blog. That's not what GNGS is about. Marti, you did the appropriate thing in taking down that photo. IMO, Marti's book is far more than a death exploration. Marti's book is a tool in acquiring the only justice Natalie will ever have along with giving her a voice.
ReplyDeleteNot sure I agree. I think the photo made people sad, but I didn't hear anyone say they were offended by it. Sorry, but I don't agree that it demeans the blog. I saw no sensationalism in it. We can talk all we want about why he did it, how he did it, who covered it up, but at times all the discussion seems to make it more cerebral than emotional. The picture was black and white evidence of why we care so much. Beautiful Natalie, gone before her time and the brutality and senselessness of it is layed out for all to see. It wasn't graphic so I found no offense in it. It was just a jarring reminder of how painful, unfair and real this case is.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your opinions about the photo. I just felt uneasy about keeping it posted. I didn't think if offensive, but also didn't feel comfortable exploiting that tragic scene. Some images are best left in the mind's eye....visitable by personal choice.
ReplyDeleteI remember when I was talking with Josh Paris of Inside Edition in 2001 and he told me about visiting Rasure. Rasure showed him a photo of Natalie taken at the scene after she was brought to shore. Rasure kept a copy and Josh said he couldn't understand why Rasure showed it to him. I thought it odd, too. Josh said Rasure was very sensitive about the photo...he talked about Natalie's beauty in it when he showed it to Josh (eerie, but Roger Smith said the same thing. Roger was very uncomfortable trying to find the words to tell me she was beautiful "even in death" (how he put it). Rasure showed his photo to Josh in an emotional moment. Sometimes I wonder if Rasure knows he failed her but is too proud to admit it. Rasure was VERY nice to me when I interviewed him. I was so stunned to hear what he said to the CNN reporter last March... about the book being hogwash and it was a celebration weekend for Natalie for learning to swim. His delusional pride (or whatever holds him back) over justice is inexcusable, and it only angers me now.
Wow, are you kind. I have a completely different take on Rasure having that photo. There are a lot of people who want to be part of a major story. Either to feel important or to somehow have a momento of that time. I find it disgusting on many levels. One, Rasure in no way advocated for Natalie, did his job or has even the slightest inclination to clean up his incompetent mess. Two, I am appalled that Rasure would violate Natalie's privacy and dignity by showing that picture. I'm sure anyone would be furious if a police detective showed their loved one in death to anyone he felt like. He had no right. It is just further violation of Natalie by him. He has no ethics, no class and the sensitivity of a toilet seat. How dare he. HOW DARE HE!!!
ReplyDeleteThis is part two of my rant. Does anyone really think that is the first time he has shown that photo? He had no right to take a copy for his own perverted use. Can't you see him showing the grandchildren the picture of the pretty lady and the important case he was involved in? How about the neighbors? Am I the only one who is so furious I can't see straight?
ReplyDeleteWell, you are certainly making me consider another side to it. I wish I knew why Rasure kept the photo, but I don't. Was it quilt because he really did suspect something? Was it egotistical...his last big case? Maybe he just kept a file at home to look over. Maybe he felt as distraught as everyone else in spite of all his mistakes in investigating the case, or maybe he really didn't realize his mistakes or maybe the mistakes were intentional. In any case, I was shocked to hear Josh tell me he had seen the photo. But from the way Josh explained to me, Rasure seemed emotional when he showed it. He wanted the media to "leave it alone...she's gone" as if showing the photo proved it. Every important person has left this case alone. Astounding! The reporters come and go with their headlines, then go on to the next story, the officials don't even want to think about reworking this case, and every so-called journalist tip-toes around Wagner. We keep trying and it is getting better. The CNN coverage was huge, and they are not done. Nor are we.
ReplyDeleteI assume Rasure may have been a good cop at one time. I would cynically suspect his emotion might have had to do with guilt. What motivation would he have for wanting the media to leave it alone? Isn't he all about justice? In theory, he has no horse (arabian, of course) in this race. What does Natalie's departure have to do with pursuing unanswered questions about her death? "Leave it alone . ."? Doesn't that very statement beg the question why? Supposedly, his hand is no longer in the pot, wouldn't he welcome someone else's ability to shed light on a troubling case? I still suspect fear of exposure, loss of reputation etc. Let someone else do the job he couldn't or wouldn't. He is retired from police work. When he kept and showed Natalie's photo, he resigned his decency too.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I have one more consideration for you and then I'll go to bed. Natalie was a child of the studios. She was very conscientious about how she presented herself when she left the house. How do you think she would feel if she knew this photo was available for viewing? You felt uncomfortable posting a picture that showed very little. What does it say about a man who thinks nothing of showing a full on death shot? A photo that is not his to show, or own. He was emotional when he showed it? He was without honor when he showed it. I and my 4 posts are emotional. Him, not so much.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that he showed that photo to anyone says a lot about his character or lack of it. I wonder if Natalie's family is aware that he plays show and tell with an death photo of Natalie.
ReplyDeleteMarti -
ReplyDeleteI think you did exactly the right thing by posting both the autopsy diagram and the photo of Natalie's body being removed from the island.
The gravity of this case, a persons death and the incredible cover-up behind it needs to be brought to the fore front in every possible way.
Yes, the diagram and the photograph are both painful to look at, but that should give rise to an even louder out cry of what an injustice has been done.
The truth is sometimes both ugly and painful.
For example, would it be better if we keep things like child abuse, wife beating, elder abuse, etc. still hidden away because the subjects are unpleasant?
NO!!!!!!!!!!
Those crimes and the crime against Natalie need to be brought forth front and center.
When I saw the diagram and the photograph, my first thought was about what poor Natalie had endured that horrible night.
My second, how could I help to fight for her, how could I help Marti and Dennis in this battle for justice.
By posting the diagram, Marti was offering even more proof, from Natalie's own body, of just some of the horror she experienced that night.
The photograph, what some would like to be the end of this case, the end of Natalie's story.
But with Marti, Dennis and all of us, I know that none of us will let that happen without one hell of a fight!
As for Rasure, his actions and comments before, during and after tell me all I need to know about the man.
Rasure was star-struck as were the other men on the island excepting CG Roger Smith. Wagner and Walken were let go before Rasure reached the scene. I believe in GNGS it says Rasure met the two actors when they got off the helicopter, not at Catalina. Marti posted Eaker's report here, remember? Eaker apparently bought any info she was told and wrote it in her first report. Rasure accepted every word in it and did not conduct a thorough investigation. Her report said a search started immediately, a load of BS. ALl involved had the attidue from the start that Nat died accidentally and they wanted to get it over with. The only person who could've given info was Davern and he stumbled over his words with Rasure because he was probably scared to death over repercussions from Wagner. Rasure saw "the drunken bum" in Davern and a "poor grieving husband" in Wagner. Marti said it: astounding! Rasure is a disgrace to the words detective and justice. Marti is far too kind to give him any benefit of doubt. Marti, I applaud your every effort, but I kindly suggest you toughen up too. Rasure is the last person you should go soft on. That's only my opinion and I hope you do not resent me for telling it.
ReplyDeleteI was the four posts last night. I like Marti's even hand and how she likes to consider all possibilities in people's motives. Even creeps like Rasure. I see things as more black and white, so I appreciate that someone speaks to the grays. Don't agree, but appreciate it. I don't think you have to worry about Marti being tough enough. She has managed to hold up for a long time under a vile onslaught of smears and ridicule. Still she stays the course. I think Natalie is in good hands as I know you do too.
ReplyDeleteWhen I called Rasure years ago I expected him to treat me with distain and disrespect, but he was extremely considerate to me. I never expected him to never return my follow-up phone calls. Maybe his self-defense kicked-in. I was also polite to him. I didn't try any "sneak-maneuvers" to get him to say things he wasn't comfortable saying. Dennis despised Rasure at the time, but Dennis had been personally (verbally) attacked by Rasure for far too long at that point. I was more open-minded. I wanted to listen to everyone involved in this case and form my own opinions and assessments. For those who like to think I was a "Dennis-Puppet" they are completely wrong. What I found out there was that everyone's account substantiated Dennis's account. For instance, when I fisrt learned of Marilyn Wayne having heard Natalie's cries for help, Dennis first told me that would be impossible because HE didn't hear them. He was certain he would've heard those same cries. Instead of dimissing Marilyn, I probed further with Dennis. We pinpointed TIMES as closly as possible: what time did they return from Dougs? How soon did the bottle-smashing occur? Did Natalie immediately go to her stateroom? Etc., etc. Step-by-step, through the process, we had Dennis on the bridge at approximately 11 PM and minutes later the arguing broke out to the back deck. The exchange of words became loud. Dennis wanted to help the arguing couple he RESPECTED and LOVED to not be heard. He turned on loud music (Marilyn heard music at the time and believes it was a party on another boat...it's likely she heard the music Dennis turned on). Marilyn claims the cries for help started minutes later....Dennis had music blasting in his ears at that precise time. Thus, he didn't hear the cries for help from Natalie.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am trying to explain is that having the outside interviews helped me to comprehend all the details I gathered. I didn't count only on Dennis to try to establish how the night went down. Rasure could've done these same things. He refused to speak with Marilyn Wayne and that grows more and more incredible with every year that passes by. It's something I simply CANNOT comprehend.
When you put various accounts together, which is what I did, even listening to Rasure explain how he was shorthanded and how the media was breathing down his neck, I got a clearer picture of how things fell through the cracks in this case. There will always be "gray areas" in this case, but there are also parts that are clearly either black or white. This case needs to be reopened, and I assure everyone I am strong enough to make sure that happens. It's an uphill battle, but not an unwinnable one. Someone recently attacked my use of the word "strategy" by totally misunderstanding it. I will make sure there exists NO WAY the officials will be able to refuse the appeal for the reopening of Natalie's case. That's my strategy ... to be prepared so the request cannot be denied.
Even if he was shorthanded, it seems beyond the pale not to interview a witness that comes forward. He didn't have to seek her out, she was ready and willing. Again, why? Does being shorthanded give you the ok to sidestep normal police procedure? He is lucky no prosecutor ever took a close look at this case. He would have been shredded from head to toe. Let's not forget Wagner had his lawyers working before he even left the boat. Maybe by the time Marilyn came along, the fix was already a done deal. Just my opinion based on Rasure's behavior, assets and recent lies.
ReplyDeleteMarti, After the initial investigation and the meeting at the lawyer's office, did Dennis ever meet Rasure again--during that year he stayed with Wagner?
ReplyDeleteKevin, no, Dennis never saw Rasure after the last meeting at the attorney's office when Dennis's lawyer made fun of Rasure: Dennis and his lawyer saw Rasure walking up to the office and the lawyer said things like, "Here he comes, the Cowboy Detective ready to play Columbo. Let's make him wait and stew a while."
ReplyDeleteDennis was being manipulated even by the attorney arranged for him...it was all more than subliminal, as Rasure was painted as the enemy. It's those kind of things that confuse me. If Rasure was in on something, why would Dennis's lawyer ridicule Rasure? I don't think it gets as complicated as Rasure being paid with Arabians. I just don't, and Dennis knows nothing of any friendship or meetings between Rasure and Wagner for at least a year after. Dennis questions Rasure's motives, even though I can't believe there was a plot within 24 hours that everyone was in on besides Dennis. I think Rasure believed that a person of Wagner's stature (how Rasure interpreted him) could never have harmed his wife.
Dennis was literally ordered to say NOTHING to Rasure. The attorneys wrote Natalie's death history. I can't help but really think that Rasure was a pawn, too, and his pride keeps him from recognizing it to this day. I would really like to talk with Rasure again, but when I did tell him about Dennis's lawyer, Rasure didn't really respond and brushed it off.
What Rasure had to say this year indicates he's delusional. Where on earth did he come up with that weekend being a celebration of Natalie having learned to swim? This just keeps getting crazier.
Marti,
ReplyDeleteThe only key you could provide to officials to guarantee no denial is physical evidence, do you have it ? Dennis is your star witness that is not enough remember a witness must be deemed competent and credible and this process only takes place during pre trial. If your appeal is denied what then will you do ?
No, I don't think Rasure was in on any cover up. I think it was just a really bad investigation. I think that Rasure dosen't want to get behind this because he might be embarrassed by what is revealed.
ReplyDeleteAt the very least, we have Wagner telling the police a completely false story about the last time he saw Natalie, before she disappeared. However, there were clues Rasure should have picked up.
Was Dennis ever asked if it was normal for Natalie to go out in the dinghy by herself at night?
Anonymous 10:31. We have everything we need, and Dennis is a hell of a lot more competent and credible than Wagner fans choose to believe. Our appeal won't be denied, and I won't discuss the finer details here.
ReplyDeleteKevin,
The police don't even realize that Wagner has told different stories than he told the detectives initially. They don't follow this closed case. Soon, they will be presented with all this information, OFFICIALLY.
Dennis was never asked any questions in relation to Natalie's habits. The attorneys wrapped up everything is a brief report that basically said nothing more than Natalie "disappeared." This was really a HORRID investigation.
I'm always amazed when people don't see the significance of Dennis stating that Wagner was involved in an extremely volatile argument with Natalie when she went missing. Do these people need to be knocked over the head? Don't they understand that he told police he last saw Natalie brushing her hair, and that he had no idea how she ended up in the water?...That he said he was in the salon talking? Red lights should start to go off once a person understands what Dennis is saying.
ReplyDeleteThe dinghy was such a convenient excuse for Wagner--until you understand that Natalie was deathly afraid of dark water, and that she didn't know how to operate the dinghy.
It would not have taken much effort by Rasure (or any detective) to inquire about Natlie's knowledge and use of the dinghy.
Maybe this is Monday morning quarterbacking, but it seems to me that those questions should have been asked during an investigation into the death of a woman found floating in her nightgown and coat, with only socks on her feet.
Also, the light on the dinghy was out!
A detective, more than anyone, knows the very high statistics when it comes to a husband or wife killing a spouse.
You can't let the shocking death of such a beloved figure as Natalie pass without a proper investigation.
To quote Arthur Miller, "Attention must be paid."
Kevin, Wagner did not tell the police that he saw Natalie brushing her hair. That story did not surface until he wrote his book. When he told Gavin Lambert his story in "Natalie: A Life" that little ditty was missing from his recollection of that night. This is not the only variation in his story. In Lambert's book he claimed that Natalie, Dennis and Chris were there when he smashed the bottle but in his book he claimed that Natalie had was not present when he smashed the bottle. He is clearly lying, protecting himself, cleaning off any dirt that falls on him with the thought that he violent in the presence of his wife.
ReplyDeleteAs for the hair brushing story, Wagner was asked early in the search what his wife was wearing the last time he saw her. He described the nightgown in detail. If she was gone when he went to the stateroom, how did he know that she was wearing a nightgown? The first time he told the hair brushing story was in his book over 25 years later. He made up that story to cover his ass. He obviously had help from his lawyer when he wrote his book.
Is Wagner's statement available to the public, the police report statement?
ReplyDeleteIn the NY Daily News dated Mon., Nov 30th, they report that Wagner identified Natalie's body and then went home to Beverly Hills. The next day the Daily News quotes Noguchi saying that Wagner and Walken were involved in an argument "not about Natalie, just about things" at the time Natalie went missing.
That's why I believe Dennis' account... Aside from the fact that it is the most plausible explanation, both Walken and Wagner have not contradicted anything Dennis has written.
These contradictions tell me Walken
did cover-up facts.
Noguchi had not completed the autopsy the next day. It was a day or so later that he held a press conference in which he said that there was a non violent argument. The press went wild. Then Detective Richard Wilson said that no one told the police about an argument. He said that if there was an argument it was about "general purposes", it was "not over her". Then he said that he suspected that the coroner was "juicing it up a bit". This was on national television. Walken denied that there was an argument saying "I didn't know that the coroner was on the boat." The fact is that they all lied aqnd tried to cover up the argument. In his statement to the police Walken said that they had a wonderful weekend.
ReplyDeleteIt took Robert Wagner 20 years to fess up about the bottle incident and in all of his interviews about Natalie's death, Walken has never mentioned the bottle incident.
There is nothing in the official police report about Natalie being seen in front of a mirror, brushing her hair. That's more Wagner BS.
If this case is re-examined by the police, the original report will be looked at by those involved.
The NY Daily News that I have is dated December 1st, 1981. It states, "Noguchi told a jammed press conference that Wood's husband,actor Robert Wagner, 51, and Oscar-winning actor Chrisyopher Walken 38, were having a series of arguments during the evening they spent together before Wood's death."
ReplyDelete"The arument was not over her," investigator Richard Wison told reporters. "They were arguing about things in general."
Wilson said, "Eash of the two gentlemen (Wagner and Walken) was examined, and there were no marks upon them."
Asked why Wood, who was not a good swimmer and who already was in her nightgown, would try to leave the yaght in a dinghy, the coroner said, "We are going to investigate that. It is important to find out what thoughts she had to seperate herself from the others, and we will try to find out through psychological autopsy. There is speculation only now."
Sorry about the spelling. Was typing as I was reading the article.
ReplyDeleteYes, a few days after Natalie died all of this was made public.
ReplyDeleteThey showed Wilson on national television saying these things. He said that the men were examined for marks. No one was examined for marks.
Much was made of this "psychological autopsy". What a psychological autopsy does is probe the state of mind of the victim. This is done by asking questions of those close to the victim. In this case the only way to examine her reasons for allegedly separating herself for the others would be to question those who were present and that would be futile because they were all lying at that point. In all likelihood Wagner's and Davern's attorneys put the breaks on this "psychological autopsy" because they knew that it would be comprised of lies and were afraid that Noguchi would dig deeper for his findings. At this point the public and press was not made aware of the fact that Wagner waited close to 4 hours to notify the Coast Guard that his wife was missing. That may have been revealed in the course of the psychological autopsy. Wagner's lawyers did not want that to be revealed, I'm sure.
The Daily News had an AM and PM edition. I recall that most of this took place the afternoon of December 1 but the autopsy was still being done after the fact. I have all of the news casts from that time. It was amazing how quickly they wrapped this up.
This press conference quoted would have been the day after Natalie died (Monday)since this is Tuesday morning's NY Daily News dated Tuesday, Dec 1st, 1981.
ReplyDeleteThe article does say "yesterday" meaning Monday the 30th of November. It also says that a prelimiary autopsy was performed. They already had Natalie's blood alcohol level listed.
ReplyDeleteAll of this does show how quickly everything was done.
ReplyDeleteKevin is correct about the time frame but Anonymous 12:11, great observation about the psychological autopsy. Noguchi wanted to examine why she felt the need to get away from the others. Wagner did not want them to catch on to the fact that she might have felt as she was in danger so he had his lawyers stop it. If Noguchi found that she may have felt danger, the case may not have been closed.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI would think that a full autopsy would be a requirement of the state to determine if there was any foul play. I can't imagine the state would make that decision before completing the full autopsy.
ReplyDeleteAS we know, many, many bodies have had to be exhumed, sometimes years later, because things were missed in the original autopsy.
All deaths that are not of natural causes are considered foul play. The full autopsy was done for that reason.
ReplyDeleteIn a drowning death like Natalie's, an full autopsy would be essential to check the lungs for water. I doubt that Mr. Wagner had a choice in the matter.
ReplyDeleteA full autopsy is done in all cases of drowning deaths to exclude any other possible causes of death. What Robert Wagner may have or may not have requested played no part in the decision to do a full autopsy on Natalie however I seriously doubt that he made any such request.
ReplyDeleteEven if he did, it wouldn't prove that he was free of any "wrongdoing in her death". It would be logical to think that the autopsy would show only that she drowned. He didn't strangle or bludgeon her, I don't think he would have anything to fear. Assuming that ever happened.
ReplyDeleteWrong Anon 8:55
ReplyDeleteWhen NW's body reached the mainland she was placed in a hyperbaric chamber while the investigation was taking place, within hours no foul play was determined. Natalie did not drown she died from hypothermia, very little fluid was found in her lungs. If the coroner wanted to measuse the fluid amount in her lungs this is done by a simple tube insertion to drain the fluid. A full torso autopsy was performed on NW at the request of RW, once again I know this for a fact. Could it be that RW requested the full autopsy because he had been suspicious of foul play ? one minute she was on the boat the next minute she was gone. When the Wagners went to dinner a celebbrity boat was left ungaurded and it had been said she might have went to shore or to another boat, lots of things to think about folks.
You guys never give up, do you? The facts have been established and you "RJ" fans can try to twist it anyway you want, just do it on another blog. You do not have an audience here. You are wasting your time and ours.
ReplyDeleteAren't these fools incredible? In a drowning death a full autopsy is essential to prove that she did not die of any other cause.
ReplyDeleteNatalie Wood did drown, dear. The hypothermia led to the drowning and the suffocation killed her.
Put those tabloids aside 12:29, in the coroner's report it stated that her lungs were voluminous and heavy.
If he was suspicious of foul play he would contacted Marilyn Wayne as soon as he knew that she claimed to hear cries for help and a response. Instead, he did everything he could to shut her up. Nice try!
Someone we all know and respect used the word "insignificant" to describe these fools. She's right!
He knows this for a fact. Where have I heard that before?
ReplyDeleteYes, the person always comes on board and doesn't realize they use the same phrases over and over. It's only one of the easy ways to spot them.
ReplyDeleteThank you everyone for answering the ridiculous statement that Wagner requested a full autopsy. Wagner wasn't concerned that Natalie had gone to visit any other boat and this is the kind of absurb content I do not want at this blog. Once again, there are other places for the fantasies and the fanatics who spew them. Stay away from here. You will be deleted, and you can go sound off anywhere you want about the boot. STAY AWAY. We're dealing with the FACTS here.
ReplyDeleteFacts aren't something these people who create their own stories know how to handle, Marti. These people are mental cases. I read the comment you deleted and it was total BS. It contained no facts. Dennis was not checked for bruises, right? When were Wagner and Walken checked then? These people make up stories because they van't deal with the truth you dedicate yourself to. I was looking at the forum. These people (maybe the one person with multiple identities) is starting up there again, attacking you mostly. I'm going to ask the forum owner to go back to signing in. You should ask the same at your blog.
ReplyDeleteSlip-up when I said "van't" -- maybe it's a subconscious slip because I'm thinking of another 4-letter name that starts with the same letter. In any case, I meant they Can't deal with truth.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the post that says she didn't drown, and uses the phrase "I know this for a fact" is the garbage post. He suspected foul play? He was the foul play. That's the post that should be deleted too. "Lots of things to think about, folks?" Only if proven facts don't penetrate your delusional mind. Thinking isn't your forte so stop annoying us. I also don't agree about asking us to sign in. That's one of the Wagner fans biggest complaints. They whine that they can't tell us apart. Who cares? You don't belong here. They usually have multiple identities so signing in is a joke. Plus, people have their own reasons for signing in Anonymous. I don't care about computers and have miniscule knowledge of them. Anonymous is the only signature I understand. URL? Don't explain it to me, I don't care. We have a high record of ferreting out Pro-Wagner posts. I don't see any reason to change procedure.
ReplyDeleteMarti, don't know if you've seen the "death of Natalie forum lately" but you are being trashed and called unfair here at your blog. This is what people do. Pay no mind to it. I am copying here exactly what I posted at the forum:
ReplyDeleteSTART:
When and where did Nancy Grace say she wouldn't touch this case? LOL. She already did touch it in an excellent article months ago, I believe.
Rulli's really taking the jabs here again, I see. The subject in this thread is mute. It's all been rehashed before so now we attack Rulli's blog - the only place on the internet to intelligently discuss Wood's death -- which Rulli does quite well.
There are no run-away rants at Rulli's blog whatsoever. I'm sure she is a busy woman and doesn't have time to man her blog 24-7. She controls the participants with reason and always with fairness. I've never been uncomfortable visiting her blog, but most internet places are cesspools when the subject of Wood's death comes up (if the shoe fits).
As for Davern manning a blog, I don't think I could LOL any harder. Rulli is clearly the writing author of GNGS where she has taken Davern's story and investigated it. Anyone disregarding Rulli as a valid representative for Davern and the Wood case is a pure idiot.
There are always zealots on each side of any issue, but Rulli does not seem to be one. I've read posts at her blog and she answers as fairly as a question or statement is presented. I've left comments there and I'm not necessarily a Wood fan, but I am a fan of justice.
I've never admired Wagner as an actor as it's plain and clear he can't act. I don't think Natalie Wood was a polished actress either. Yes, she was in some classics and did a great job -- far better than Wagner ever acted. He can't act himself out of a wet paper bag, but Natalie has some gems out there, but she played many bad, bad roles. Yes, she is beautiful, and someone at the Rulli blog said there isn't a bad picture of Wood existing. I've seen some.
But what I've seen more of is Rulli's professionalism in letting people say what they really feel, as long as it's not the kind of garbage we'll always find at IMDB, Wagner fan sites, and even here gets too extreme.
Marti Rulli, I'm going to post this same post at your blog. I trust you will appreciate it.
FINISH FORUM POST
Marti, here's what I posted at death forum:
ReplyDeleteStart:
When and where did Nancy Grace say she wouldn't touch this case? LOL. She already did touch it in an excellent article months ago, I believe.
Rulli's really taking the jabs here again, I see. The subject in this thread is mute. It's all been rehashed before so now we attack Rulli's blog - the only place on the internet to intelligently discuss Wood's death -- which Rulli does quite well.
There are no run-away rants at Rulli's blog whatsoever. I'm sure she is a busy woman and doesn't have time to man her blog 24-7. She controls the participants with reason and always with fairness. I've never been uncomfortable visiting her blog, but most internet places are cesspools when the subject of Wood's death comes up (if the shoe fits).
As for Davern manning a blog, I don't think I could LOL any harder. Rulli is clearly the writing author of GNGS where she has taken Davern's story and investigated it. Anyone disregarding Rulli as a valid representative for Davern and the Wood case is a pure idiot.
There are always zealots on each side of any issue, but Rulli does not seem to be one. I've read posts at her blog and she answers as fairly as a question or statement is presented. I've left comments there and I'm not necessarily a Wood fan, but I am a fan of justice. I've never admired Wagner as an actor as it's plain and clear he can't act. I don't think Natalie Wood was a polished actress either. Yes, she was in some classics and did a great job -- far better than Wagner ever acted. He can't act himself out of a wet paper bag, but Natalie has some gems out there, but she played many bad, bad roles. Yes, she is beautiful, and someone at the Rulli blog said there isn't a bad picture of Wood existing. I've seen some.
But what I've seen more of is Rulli's professionalism in letting people say what they really feel, as long as it's not the kind of garbage we'll always find at IMDB, Wagner fan sites, and even here gets too extreme.
Marti Rulli, I'm going to post this same post at your blog. I trust you will appreciate it.
Sorry, my first post said it was too lenghty so I shortened the first part for another attempt. I see I went up twice.
ReplyDeleteI'm getting frustrated with how to explain that I welcome any input here, but need to keep the input pertinent. For example, I don't want to discuss the issue of body checks of the three cruise survivors. THERE WERE NO BODY CHECKS.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to hear that Wagner called for a full autopsy. He didn't. He was scared to death, shaking in his boots to paraphrase it. These are FACTS. I just don't know how to get this point across: this is a blog to discuss GNGS. I don't care about the forum or other online places.
I don't claim that Natalie was an impeccable actress: even she cringed over a few parts the studio forced upon her. Yet, she has many remarkable, classic films to her credit and she was dedicated to her profession and career. Are there any non-flattering photos of Natalie in existence? Need I even answer? I have one of Natalie lounging in the wheelhouse taken when she was yawning. No, it's not flattering, and I treat it like I would any non-flattering photo of myself: it's in a box somewhere.
Let's just try to stick to GNGS here, the facts, and polygraphed account presented in it, and all should be fine. I do not (can't) monitor this blog around the clock, nor would I care to. I try to check in daily, but I can't spend hours here.
I don't live in a "Natalie Wood Bubble" - Yes, I deeply admired her as an actress, a person, and as a fellow human, I believe her death warrants justice that fell through the cracks in her case. She was a caring, devoted mother of two and her death is tragic, no matter how many glasses of wine she had that night.
Her employee and friend, Dennis, happened to be my close friend. Dennis knew Natalie well. They spent a lot of time together. I know Dennis well, and he would NEVER spend his time at a computer answering blog posts. As the author of GNGS, it's my responsibility to answer valid questions and I truly appreciate all of GNGS's readers.
I take into consideration all feedback on the book, but I just can't tolerate the rearrangement of the facts some people insist upon. As I said before, there are other Internet sites for that, and I would appreciate consistency at this blog I do take pride in, and I don't want it to become the great debate blog over Natalie's death. My book was written based upon an eye and ear witness account. We have little to debate, but a lot to discuss. If you choose to not believe Dennis's polygraphed account, fine. This blog was established for those who believe in our book and mission, not for those looking to create controversy.
If GNGS that speaks for itself hasn't convinced certain people, there is no possibility of reaching those people here, so why would they even want to visit this blog? I appreciate and welcome those supporting the mission of GNGS, and will always answer valid questions, but not factless statements.
Thank you to all, Marti
Well spoken, Marti, but good luck. There's this insane divide on the subject of Natalie's death, and I don't envy your position one bit. It would be wonderful to have an open discussion where people on either side could intelligently discuss the facts, but most Wagner fans won't accept the proven fact that Wagner lied. If they do, they have reasons to excuse it. But, Dennis is never excused because he was never Jonathan Hart. You get what I'm saying. I think you should require sign-in here. Rid yourself of the closed-minded fools forever.
ReplyDeleteAs an earlier poster said, it wouldn't make any difference to privatize the blog. I know that controversy comes with the territory on this topic, but I want to keep the blog open. I wish I could erase the pain on all sides of this tragedy. I once admired Wagner very much, just as Dennis had. I have had no respect for him since I learned truth. It's a terribly sensitive subject but if we're not believed, we're simply not believed. People are entitled to their opinions. I don't bother people who don't believe us, and out of respect I simply ask that they not bother me. Some of the book reviews are not reviews. They are unfounded attacks on our characters and motives. Now, that's an insecurity no blog post of mine can ever reverse. The fighting and bickering are unnecessary, thus why it's so important that the law be brought into this case again to validate what can be validated and explain what should have been explained decades ago. It is Natalie who deserves it.
ReplyDeleteI missed the photo. Is it posted anywhere else where I could see it?
ReplyDeleteMarti, I think a sign-in is a good idea. Have you considered a Yahoo group or a website where the people who follow you MUST submit an e-mail address. ning? If someone stirs the pot, simply delete them from the group or website, no harm done. The troll types always reveal themselves, one way or another. If someone insults you, delete them. This way we will use names or IDs, we'll know who is saying what. Also, if there are any threats, you can trace and publish the IP of the person threatening you or others. I know that you don't want to do that but I've seen it done before. You'd be surprise how quiet people become when their IPs are posted. This is only in the case of the threat to you, not someone who disagrees with you. I want to make that clear. At least a sign-in with a traceable IP gives you some leverage.
ReplyDeleteThis blog was going along very well until a certain troll invaded. At that point we began to be suspicious of each other, in some cases, wrongfully. People have made innocent suggestions and were attacked with more vigor that the troll-some posters have been.
Don't allow these fools to destroy what you've done here and for heaven's sake, stop explaining yourself. Let's carry on.
People who stir the pot are always called out and then they leave (for awhile). They annoy me but since they disappear quickly it doesn't affect the blog for me. I agree we have been unusually suspicious of each other as of late, yet many of those suspicions have turned out to be accurate. I can see Marti requiring people to sign in ONLY if she feels threatened and would like to track them down. Otherwise, again I think it is unnecessary and we have been doing fine for a long time. To let the occasional "troll" dictate how this blog will now be run is nonsense. I will speak my mind whether my name is shown or not. 99.9% of us make valid, polite, and useful comments. I can ignore the 1% that don't, or answer them and send them on their way. It's not a huge problem unless we make it so. Then who wins?
ReplyDeleteOkay, a little problem with my math skills there, but my point is still valid.
ReplyDeleteLOL, we'll let it go.
ReplyDeleteI understand the point about "who wins" but I believe something should be done, some type of sign-in but it's up to Marti.
I suggested something a while back and never got a response. Maybe we can do some type of private, sign-in chat and Dennis can take part? I'd love to ask him some questions.
People ridicule him because of his lack of savvy in interviews. Have they seen Robert Wagner when he is asked questions that he is not expecting, answers that have not been prepared? He trips over his tongue. "UM" "AH" "DAH" "WELL UM"
Marti, do you think a private sign-in chat could be arranged?
The only way at this point I could set up a private chat would be through AOL. You set it up and provide the link or invite people. Actually, I could set up a Natalie chat that remains up that anyone can access at anytime on AOL, but a private scheduled chat might be best because if there are unwanted visitors, the chat creator can boot them. I doubt Dennis would get involved...but maybe he would. I'm also not so sure it would really be of value. We'd probably all turn shy and awkward in a live chat. :-)
ReplyDeleteBut if anyone is really interested in a live chat, please say so, and I could ask Dennis and choose a time. Even if it was only a few of us, it might get interesting.
In the meantime, I'm going to leave the blog as is. I totally understand that people don't like signing in for privacy reasons. I don't mind anonymous posts. Most are quite perceptive.
And the other poster with the suggestion I quit explaining, thank you, because I realize it's not necessary. There's 50 to 1 support here. I couldn't ask for more than that.
It would be interesting if you could get Dennis. I would participate in live chat, but do I need aol account?
ReplyDeleteI think I would prefer just posting on the blog although I do have an AOL account. Isn't all of this diversifying going to be time consuming? I always imagine that you have enough on your plate now. I'm hoping that the release of the paperback will make you even busier in a very productive way. I always think of the blog as the living part of the book. We ask questions and we get answers or we explore with others are opinions about how the facts played out. That's enough for me, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Live chats online are confusing. I started this blog because so many people were emailing me after GNGS's release, and I wanted to answer questions. I also wanted people to know that this is a genuine effort for Natalie Wood, and I felt it important to show my motives. I'm serious about getting the Wood case reopened and the more I can get the truth about her death known, the stronger the effort becomes.
ReplyDeleteMarti, I just finished reading your fantastic book. I remember when Natalie died and thinking how unbelievable the whole story was and I angry I was that it happened to her. I never believed Robert Wagner and hold him responsible for the tragedy. I just bought Natasha and RJ's book too. Your excellent book made me want to read them. All the very best, Lucy Hall in Phoenix, AZ
ReplyDeleteRebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteSorry I missed the pictures. I would like to see the actually autopsy photos simply for information to see if she had strangulation marks around her neck. I think in a rage he could have strangled her with one hand- she was tiny. Other than that- all of the bruises would be explained away. She supposedly tried to get in the dingy and that might account for the bruising to the legs. I'd be curious about hair missing from her head- patches missing if he chased her or pulled her by the hair. These things would show that she had been attacked.
I'm curious whether you (or anyone else) ever were able to speak with Christopher Walken's wife, Georgeianne Thon? Walken was already married to her (in 1969 and still is) when he went on the cruise with Wood and Wagner. Why didn't she accompany him? Has she ever made any comments about the tragedy?
ReplyDeleteMarti,
ReplyDeleteI didn't get the opportunity to see the photo. Is there any way I can?
surfcourier