Through the years, Dr. Lyndon Taylor and I had discussed every aspect of Natalie’s death. One night, Lyn emailed me questions he would like to ask Wagner—many kinds of questions an interrogation should have included. We instant-messaged each other and added to the questions in a natural flow.
Being that the authorities hadn’t asked enough questions after Natalie was found, and might not have known what to ask, we went further and imagined a court case for Natalie Wood, with Wagner as the defendant, but of course knowing he would never take the stand.
We role-played back and forth as a courtroom defendant and prosecutor might. We tried to imagine what Wagner would answer if ever questioned, so we could surmise the results of how a jury might react to his possible answers. We knew these questions would be easy for any liar to get around, but we also wondered if these kind of questions would spark a jury's interest. What would you think after hearing this possible testimony exchange?
We were sure to be truthful for “the defendant” when we knew he would have to be truthful (or caught perjuring), and we tried to press for information from our “defendant.”
This exercise was strictly ACTING for me and Lyn—our “mock trial”—because we believed that to one degree or another, Wagner knew more than he ever told. We switched parts a few times along the role playing. This is from a file I saved in 2005 after Lambert's book was released and Lyn and I were astounded at the fabrications it contained.
We called this 101 Questions for Wagner (with presumed answers from him).
(Where applicable, all questions established to be connected with the night and morning of Natalie Wood’s disappearance and death).
It was only the last question we couldn’t even fathom to mock.
1) Did you break a wine bottle across a table, accusing Walken of wanting to "ef" your wife?"
Something like that. I was angry Natalie was away from home so much, but that’s as far as it went.
2) Why did you wait hours to report a missing wife?
I thought she might return. I thought she was in the dinghy.
3) Then why did you cry, “She’s gone, she’s gone?”
Because she was taking far too long. I knew that something must’ve gone terribly wrong.
4) You allowed a public statement within a day of your wife's death, claiming that because she always took the dinghy out alone, you weren't immediately concerned. In fact, you were well aware of the truth that your wife, Natalie Wood, never took the dinghy out alone. Why would you have allowed such a statement?
The media is demanding and they don’t go away without statements. I was grieving. My attorney rushed the statement. I told Rasure she wasn’t in the habit of taking out the dinghy.
5) Your boat captain claims you wanted to protect your image, thus made a decision to not search for your wife. Was that egotistical fear worth the chance of losing your wife?
No, of course not. But, in thinking she might return, knowing it had been a mistake for us to argue, I thought she would return feeling the same way and we could patch up our differences.
6) What would be the harm in allowing your boat captain to turn on the searchlight then?
I thought it would draw attention. I thought it best to wait.
7) You were well aware of your wife’s fear of water and you still felt it best to not draw attention?
I thought she was in the dinghy, not in the water.
8) Okay, let’s presume she’s in the dinghy, not the water. How did she get into the dinghy? You didn't hear the dinghy motor, did you?
No, I didn't so I don't know how she got into it.
9) Then you wouldn’t know how she got into the water?
No.
10) Your boat captain claims you were with Natalie when she disappeared from the yacht. How could you not know how she got into the water?
I was elsewhere on the boat.
11) Marilyn Wayne heard a man’s voice say he would help a woman pleading for help, saying she was drowning. Natalie is the woman who was found floating the next morning—so how do you explain that man’s voice?
I don’t know whose voice that was or if there was a voice.
12) You told Doug Oudin your wife was wearing her nightgown. How do you know that?
She had gone to bed. I guess I saw that she had changed.
13) Did your late wife own different style pajamas?
What?
14) Did your late wife own pajamas with pants, pajamas with shorts, as well as nightgowns?
Yes, of course.
15) Then how did you know to tell Doug Oudin she was wearing a nightgown?
That’s what she usually wore on cruises.
16) Do you think your late wife would have taken a dinghy ride in a nightgown and socks, wearing no underwear?
No.
17) Then why didn’t you immediately call for help?
Because she was upset. I thought she might have left.
18) To where, Mr. Wagner? The island was closed.
I didn't know. Maybe to another boat, or to just get away for a while, to cool down.
19) Dennis Davern heard you fighting with your wife. He saw you on the rear deck with your wife. Minutes later, your wife is missing. Do you stick with your banging dinghy disturbing her sleep theory?
Yes.
20) Did you fight with your late wife in the stateroom? And when was the last you saw her?
No. After I broke the wine bottle is the last I saw her.
21) You mean shattered the wine bottle, but we have a witness who claims differently. Mr. Davern says he even went to your stateroom to break up the fight. What did you say to Dennis Davern when he came to your stateroom to control the fighting?
I didn’t say anything.
22) Did Davern come to your stateroom?
No.
23) If you weren’t with your wife, where were you?
In the salon, maybe to the wheelhouse.
24) With your captain?
Yes. Maybe here and there.
25) What were you doing?
I was feeling embarrassed. I had a drink.
26) How long were you in the salon with your captain?
About a half hour.
27) Your captain states otherwise, but where was Natalie?
I thought she was in the stateroom.
28) Why was your stateroom in such disarray? Remember, we have photographs.
Don’t know. Maybe Natalie had been looking for something.
29) You interviewed with Gavin Lambert and told him that the dinghy had been tied port, thus conveniently supporting your banging dinghy theory. Was the dinghy tied port.
Yes, I believe so.
30) If you think Natalie untied the dinghy because it was banging, do you agree that it would have been virtually impossible for the dinghy to escape unless she untied both lines at once which makes absolutely no sense?
Yes
31) Davern claims to have tied the dinghy with two lines, at the rear of the boat. Where was the dinghy tied?
I remember it being tied port.
32) Okay, see you're sticking with that. The cleats the dinghy ties to are accessible from the deck. Is it absolutely necessary to retie the dinghy from the swim step?
No.
33) So, with your wife’s known fear of water, do you believe she would choose to use the swim step over the safer deck, in the rain, while she’s in her nightgown, to re-tie the dinghy?
I don’t know what she decided to do.
34) You say you believe the dinghy was tied port. When tied port, are the dinghy ropes accessible from the swim step?
No.
35) Do you realize then that your theory of tying the dinghy from the swim step—as you claim your late wife might've done—doesn’t fit with it being tied port?
Yes.
36) You were an avid boater. Do you know the first thing a person is supposed to do when someone is missing from a boat? Isn't it to call for immediate assistance from qualified lifeguards?
Yes, but I didn't think she was actually missing. I thought she went somewhere.
37) For over four hours in a nightgown and no underwear?
I don’t know.
38) You don’t know? If the retying the dinghy theory is eliminated, Mr. Wagner, we may be able to figure out what happened to your wife. Can you be more helpful?
I don’t know how she fell.
39) What do you know, Mr. Wagner, about the night Natalie Wood drowned mysteriously? Do you know none of the theories make sense?
No.
40) You got your boat captain an acting job, correct?
Yes.
41) Why?
I was going to sell the boat. I liked Dennis. I wanted to help him.
42) You like Mr. Davern?
I did.
43) Was Mr. Davern a good boat captain?
We were getting to the point we might not need him anymore.
44) Yes, that’s what you said in Lambert’s book. So you were going to let him go soon. Maybe. But, he stayed in your life for over three years after Natalie’s death, and for over a year after you sold the boat, correct?
Yes.
45) How much money did you give him after Natalie Wood passed? And why?
I don't know how much. He maintained the boat. It was salary.
46) From your personal account?
Yes, I believe so.
47) Why?
Odd jobs. He took care of the boat until it was sold.
48) Why didn’t you give your landscaper an acting job after Natalie died?
My landscaper didn’t lose his job because of my wife’s death.
49) But you were going to soon get rid of Davern had Natalie lived, you just claimed. Didn’t you sell your house soon after Natalie died?
Yes.
50) Did you keep the same landscaper?
No.
51) So why didn’t you give your old landscaper an acting job when he lost you as a customer because you sold your house?
That’s different.
52) How is that different, Mr. Wagner? There are plenty of other boats at the marina Mr. Davern could have applied for work with. Why did you take him under your wing and give him an acting job?
I was just helping him. He was connected, you know? He was on the boat when it happened…
53) So you paid for his therapy, too, we have on record. Was that maybe to help him deal with the truth he was expected to bottle up?
Absolutely not.
54) I’m sure the death of Natalie brought pain to many people, including a pallbearer, Bob Lang, who was your handyman and Natalie’s one time business partner. Why didn’t you ask Bob if he needed a gift of therapy?
Again, that’s different.
55) So you agree that Davern was close enough to your late wife that it warranted you paying for his therapy?
Yes. It was only a few sessions…to help get him through it.
56) How long after your late wife was buried did you start dating? We have evidence of the exact date, so please, let's hear it from you. What month and year, Mr. Wagner?
I had dinner with a friend in February 1982 if that's what you're referrng to. We later became closer.
57) Sure, lots of people have dinner dates with friends on Valentine's Day, especially grieving widowers twelve weeks after losing the love of their life. Scratch that. So, Davern identified your wife’s body?
Yes.
58) How long did Davern stay at your house after your wife died?
A few months steadily, then in and out for about a year.
59) Did you provide him guards and chauffeurs?
Yes.
60) Why?
The media hounded us.
61) The media hounded Marilyn Wayne, too, who had heard a drowning woman cry for help. Why didn’t you provide her guards?
I don’t know Marilyn Wayne.
62) Mr. Davern witnessed a lot the night your late wife went missing from your boat. Are you saying you provided him guards so that the media couldn’t get to that information?
I was helping to protect him.
63) Why didn’t you want to cooperate with the media?
They wanted to sensationalize the tragedy.
64) Do you think that’s what Marilyn Wayne, an innocent bystander, wanted to do? Sensationalize your wife’s death?
I’m not sure.
65) Weren’t you interested in possibly learning something about how your wife might have died? You wanted to keep the media from asking about how your wife may have died?
Yes. It was too personal. I was grieving.
66) Up until Valentine's Day, at least. Scratch that. Did you ever ask Davern what he might know about how your wife got off the boat?
No.
67) Because you say you’re not sure if it was a banging dinghy or a choice to leave the yacht for Natalie, why wouldn’t you ask your boat captain if he had seen anything? Weren’t you curious enough about your wife’s disappearance to ask the captain if he had seen or heard anything?
Yes.
68) But you didn’t ask him. Why?
We were both wondering what happened to her.
69) Did you ever suspect an intruder upon your boat the night your wife went missing?
No. Not in weather like that night. It didn't cross my mind.
70) Why not?
It was unlikely. I just didn’t think like that.
71) But you had a missing wife and a missing dinghy. You had put bars on your windows at home. Kidnapping didn’t even cross your mind?
Yes. No. I was confused. I knew she was upset.
72) And you still think she was re-tying a dinghy, being that upset?
Yes.
73) What did you think was more likely: that she left in anger because you had broken the wine bottle, or that she had fallen in the water while retying a dinghy?
Either or, I suppose. I didn’t know.
74) An intruder wasn’t in the realm of possibilities? You had it narrowed down to the two most illogical theories?
They didn’t seem illogical at the time.
75) And you don’t know that night what you thought was most likely?
Yes. I thought she had taken the dinghy.
76) That’s good. Because you told Lambert that you didn’t suspect banging dinghy until weeks later. Is it something your wife did often…take the dinghy? Did she often "star gaze" as reported in a statement?
No.
77) But you thought taking the dinghy was most likely because she was mad. Did she ever leave in the dinghy when she mad before this night?
Well, she had left the night before because she was upset.
78) Thank you! Yes, she had left the night before with your captain because she was upset you wanted to move the boat in the dark. Why didn’t you tell the police this fact instead of claiming she had left the night before because of rolling seas?
It was a marital disagreement the night before and I kept it personal.
79) You kept the maniacal bottle smashing personal, too. So, you never knew of your wife leaving in the dinghy because she was mad, but on this night, you thought it was the most logical explanation for her disappearance?
Yes.
80) And you thought it likely that she was too mad to put on shoes and underwear, but not mad enough for a coat?
I didn’t know she wasn’t wearing shoes. It was cold enough for a coat.
81) But you told Doug Oudin in the middle of the night that Natalie was wearing a nightgown. You didn’t think this scenario warranted an immediate search? Wagner?
I called for help when I thought it was necessary.
82) Several Hours later, correct? Where do you think Natalie had gone?
To the restaurant or to the island to call someone.
83) In her nightgown. Okay, when you called for help, what did you say?
Someone is missing from our boat.
84) So, you didn’t say it was Natalie Wood missing. You didn’t specify anything. You just put out a vague message. Weren’t you afraid for your wife?
Very afraid for her.
85) But not as much afraid for her as you were for your reputation, correct?
I was waiting to see if she would return.
86) Answer the question, Mr. Wagner.
It's not really a question. I was afraid for bad publicity as well as for my wife. We were both famous. The media would've been all over it that night. I waited until I feared for her life.
87) That's a mouthful, finally. But you stalled to look for her because you wanted to protect your reputation, so your previous answer borders on perjury, Mr. Wagner. Want to answer it again? Did you put off looking for your wife to avoid bad publicity?
Um, well...you see...somewhat. There was more to it than that. I thought she would return.
88) Were you upset that your wife was "back to work" and not at home as much any longer? Her "career demons" talked about in Lambert's book weighed heavy on you?
No. Somewhat.
89) How do you think bruises, abrasions, and scratches came to be scattered across Natalie’s arms, legs, back, neck, and face?
I don’t know. The coroner thinks she may have clung to the dinghy and tried to mount it.
90) You believe a coroner that got fired? Scrath that. We have testimony from the lead detective claiming there were no scratches on the dinghy. Do you believe she acquired the bruises by trying to mount the dinghy?
I don’t know. I'm not that kind of an expert..
91) Dennis Davern claims he heard you fighting with your wife in the stateroom that you say you didn’t go to. He also claims he saw you and heard you and Natalie arguing on the deck. But you say you were with Davern in the salon. So, did you hear the same noises coming from the stateroom that Davern heard?
No. He was on the bridge.
92) Yes, claiming he saw you and your late wife on the rear deck. Were you out on the rear deck?
When I noticed the dinghy missing, yes. I may have been moving around the boat before that.
93) Do you wear ear plugs?
No.
94) But you didn’t hear—wherever you were—the noises Davern heard?
No.
95) You didn’t hear a woman’s cries for help from the ocean that Marilyn Wayne heard or respond to those cries?
No.
96) So, it wasn’t your voice that said, “Hold on, we’re coming to get you?”
Absolutely not.
97) Multiple witnesses have testified to your state of intoxication on the evening of November 28, 1981 and early morning of November 29, 1981. Harbormaster Doug Oudin claims you were intoxicated when he visited The Splendour at approximately 3:30 AM on November 29th, 1981, as exemplified by your slurred speech and difficulty in moving in a coordinated manner. Why did you continue to drink alcohol after you knew your wife was missing?
I was nervous.
98) Why was it that upon hearing the news that Doug Bombard had found Natalie’s body near Blue Cavern Point, you immediately flew by helicopter back to the mainland and wouldn’t identify your wife's body?
That would’ve been too hard for me to do and I wanted to get to my daughters.
99) Too hard to see those bruises?
Yes. Impossible. Well, I didn't know, you know, how she would look, but I knew I couldn't bear to see.
100) If you loved your wife, why did you stand by and drink for over four hours while the mother of your children was dying in a way that you knew was her worst fear?
101) Mr. Wagner? Why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
OMG! I was about to turn in and thought I'd check your blog first, and as sleepy-eyed as I am right now, I couldn't tear away from this until finishing! Riveting! You never cease to amaze us, Marti. Lyndon is sure someone special to Natalie too. The entire book changed when his part came. I'm glad you have him. Goodnight, Marti. I'll be be thinking of this as I fall asleep. Riveting!
ReplyDeletePS: from Hollywood
ReplyDeleteI would not believe one word of a testimony such as this. It's a shame he skated scott free from these simple type questions that could expose him. This is incredibly sad.
ReplyDeleteI would love to have him submit to this kind of questioning.
ReplyDeleteHis lies would shine through
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this I was "frozen" picturing him in the hot seat, squirming and stuttering the way he does, squinting his eyes and trying to give the pure look of innocence, sweating, anger building because he knows he's lying, and everyone in the courtroom knowing it. Tense read, marti. Too bad it's not reality but it's surely captivating.
ReplyDeleteAlso...he never told the detective about smashing the wine bottle. That's huge and it's hinted at here, but not clarified, but it doesn't even have to be. These kind of questions would expose him. No wonder he "never wants to talk about Natalie's death." This man is definitely hiding his part in that terrible night.
ReplyDeleteHe withheld the information about the bottle during the initial police investigation but that does not seem to bother Salerno. The police are no better than Wagner. They should be put in the hot seat also.
ReplyDeleteI agree. This mock trial says it all.
ReplyDeleteMarti,
ReplyDeleteYou stated " I had included in GNGS the letters that went back and forth between Wagner's attorneys and ours" "The letters were removed from the book by the publishers only for the reasons of book length" Since you were going to publish the letters anyways could you please post the letters here so we can view them?
Thank you
It was after the Geraldo Show “Now It Can Be Told” aired in January of 1992 that we started hearing from Wagner’s attorneys. They were all over us, demanding we inform them of our every move and contact with anyone in the media. Their stunning demands actually made our attorney laugh. But it wasn’t funny. They wanted us SILENCED and there were threatening legal action warnings. Mainly, they were going to have Dennis arrested if he didn’t stop talking. They claimed his original statement he signed was binding and he could go to jail for having signed it. It was ridiculous, because Dennis was willing to admit he signed a bogus statement drawn up by the attorney Wagner had hired for him. Dennis wanted the truth known, and we were being lured by media promises at that time. We offered ALL of our interviews for the sake of truth. NO MONEY exchanged between agreements, and we wanted to keep it that way. But, the Geraldo producer, who I’ve later heard is known as one of the most conniving producers in the business. Well, she kept repeating, relentlessly, about all the “millions” we would make if we would reveal that Natalie was not in the habit of taking the dinghy out alone.
ReplyDeleteThe night before the show, Dennis revealed to me in private about his suspicions about how Natalie’s coat got on her. The next day, when we were at the studio, the producer was mentioning how her little production would bring us millions. It was sickening. That’s not why we were there. We had been promised a panel of three attorneys and we were looking forward to their professional input. There was NO ONE there but us: Dennis, myself, and my friend Carol Lallier who had been helping with the book. After the few millions comments by the producer, I knew we had to get out of there, this show would not be beneficial. I asked for alone time with Dennis, and they unplugged the camera in front of us. The producer’s “millions” was buzzing in my head and I made a sarcastic remark to Dennis that went, “After what you told me last night, we’d make billions if we put that in the book” -- it was an off-the-cuff, sarcastic remark in reference to the producer’s “millions” lure – COMPARING what she said would bring millions if we revealed to the issue of Natalie’s coat being revealed. The comment was a stupid thing to have said, but was nothing more than a snide remark. Wagner’s attorneys thought they had all they needed to silence us.
(continued)
But, I guess they didn’t think we had a good enough attorney to silence THEM! Our attorney answered them, showed the entire broadcast (they had edited the parts they wanted and showed it to lead detective Salerno. We have never heard from Wagner’s attorney’s since, even after the publication of GNGS because they know that there isn’t ONE THING in GNGS they would be able to prove inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteAt this time, we tried to contact Salerno (not yet retired) to give Dennis’s statement to authorities. Salerno would not accept the call.
I have changed my mind about posting the actual letters that were exchanged here. Things are a little too heated right now, and I’m not sure who asked for the letters, but maybe you asked a tad too sweetly? Please email me if you are someone I know and trust and I will email you the letters. Those letters hold a lot of weight about how much Wagner feared Dennis's truth.
Marti,
ReplyDeleteDo yourself a favor, keep the letters to yourself. Beware of faked email ID's. Change your mind about sharing these letters. The ilk of what's out there isn't worth it.
I agree. These are not innocent requests. Keep the letters to yourself and use them when it will really count.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the good advice. I will take it. I sincerely mean that. I really try to keep up with posts but really need the next few weeks. The mock trial post took me 2 minutes to pull from an old file when Lyn Taylor and I "performed" it in 2005. The explanations above took away close to an hour I can barely spare. I'm in the crunch of the holiday season with work and obligations and some social things too. This is the busiest season for me. I am also busy with several book-related happenings. I will post as much as I can between now and New Year's, and will be sure to post pertinent updates. If we can't get the case reopened as we now are into the 30th anniversary of Natalie's death approaching, I will be proud I gave it my all and rest upon the fact that the truth will always be available via GNGS for anyone who ever wants to accept it. That in no way implies I'm done, just pressured, as it just can't go past Nov. 29, 2011. It's time. Thanks, Everyone.
ReplyDeleteThese are a good representation of the questions Robert Wagner should be asked and expected to answer. The evasive answers you speculated he might offer, as I'm sure would be similar in actuality, proves this is a husband with something terrible to hide. Good job, Marti.
ReplyDeleteI agree (again) you should NOT post the letters or share them with anyone, even those you think are closest to you, as it appears they have turned on you also. I'm so sorry for all you put up with. I wish I could help. Keep your head high and your chin up. The fools who betray you, betray Natalie. Never forget that. She is your focus. I have never doubted it for a moment. Marti, I really admire you.
ReplyDeleteIt is I, who agreed about the letters. Who are you? Or are you agreeing "again" regarding the subject? Clarify, please.
ReplyDeleteSorry, no infringement intended. I was the one who first said "do yourself a favor" ...
ReplyDeleteA misunderstanding and nothing more.
Thank you, I just wanted to make sure my message didn't seem as though it was continuing. I think you gave very sage advice. It's nice to know there are still many people who have her best interests at heart.
ReplyDeleteI have Marti's best interests at heart too because I believe you feel justified in your search for justice for Natalie, Marti. I have read all the books about Natalie Wood. I want to speak candidly about my opinion of them all.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Suzanne Finstad's book would categorically be considered the best written in a literary sense ...please take no offense yet
:-) ... and Gavin Lambert's was transparent by page three, I also want to address Noguchi's book and Lana Wood's book. Noguchi's was an attempt to regain his reputation. He obviously fell victim to the shame of his dismissal and created a plausible theory which he probably convinced himself was honorable, but there were so many holes in his theory, any astute reader could argue him intelligently. Lana Wood's memoir was alot of emotion with clear indecisiveness over whether to pour on the sibling resentment or to highlight the sisterly love. I have no doubt she was "directed" and that it wasn't the end result she might have hoped for.
Back to Finstad: clearly she wanted the "complete" biography, but she failed. It was tedious at best, although extremely well written. The endless quotes confused me.
I recall reading in GNGS, Marti, where you talked about deciding to refrain from handing your years of research over to Finstad. I silently applauded you at that tense point because you made the right decision. Your book, in my opinion, deserves a place in history based on its content. I have no doubt, maybe long after we are all gone, it will be your book that is referenced in regards to complete truth and respect for Natalie Wood.
I also know it took you a long frustrating time to give us your book, but I am glad it is here. Your effort is far more than worth the time it took me, with pleasure, to write you this comment. God's speed, Marti. I believe Natalie now can rest in peace. You've done plenty, and I thank you. Stay proud.
K. Dougherty
Wow, thank you for these kind words of encouragement. The sheer mania going on at Frank Wilkin's forum is mind boggling. I wish I knew how to calm those people down, and I'm sure by even mentioning it I'll be called a thousand names and accused more of being behind it, but I have NOTHING to do with it, and want NOTHING to do with it and am grateful Frank is lenient enough so that kind of nonsense doesn't carry over to my blog. Those people are in a fury, ready to blow gaskets! I saw they mocked my Christmas Tree. LOL. That's a very old photograph,. Unfortunately, I haven't put my tree up yet, something I usually do right after Thanksgiving. I plan to get it up this weekend. Guess I'll have to snap a picture to prove I'm not a liar. How absurd.
ReplyDeleteI guess that's what I get for my mock trial post. But, here's why I posted it.
As I explained, this was something Dr. Lyndon Taylor and I spent a night doing five years ago. We both recognize that Wagner can skate around most questions that should be asked of him. But, our goal was to simulate it to see the overall impression such evasive answers would leave with perhaps a jury. I posted it simply because I think it's interesting.
I was the most fortunate person to have had the pleasure and working experience of my association with Lyn. He was brilliant on the Natalie case and worked his brilliance for five long years. His drift tests put Noguchi and the Island team to shame, debunking the bogus theories of how Natalie ended up where she was found. He calculated Natalie's weight in the ocean, factoring in ALL conditions. He supplied me the psychological charts the medical examiner didn't and COULDN'T match. He conducted interviews with the Island people involved that weekend, and well, he was the turning point for GNGS. There would be no book without him. He is a man of class, stature, a professer, a VP of a college, a business genious, and the nicest, brilliant man one could hope to encounter. He cuts to the chase. When he suggested the "mock trial" experience, it helped us to understand a lot of things. We weren't trying to sound like attorneys...we were ad libbing. Lyn's work and brilliance puts Rasure's and Salerno's work on the Natalie case to shame. And even if the novices choose to insult Dr. Lyndon Taylor, well, I think that forum frenzy speaks for itself. I'm addressing the forum mania only to reiterate how irrelevant that kind of behavior is to the mission to see justice for Natalie.
There will never come a time to win an argument with stubborn ignorance because that kind of ignorance and rudeness is impenetrable, i.e., a waste of time and energy. I am humbled always by the intelligence of those who support true justice for Natalie. I have never and would NEVER physically harm anyone. People who CAN and DO, disgust me. Especially those who never have to answer for it. Thank you, each and every one of you.
Marti, Love these questions--very good logic.
ReplyDeleteThanks for clearing up the "Make billions" comment. The way you explained it above makes it perfectly clear the context in which you made it.
One more thing...I DO appreciate those defending what's really at stake here over at the forum. I did see a few comprehensive, intelligent posts, and I know how difficult it is to let the wild voices dominate, but those voices "speak for themselves" -- the lies and innuendos are recognizable. But voices of reason and clarity are often necessary to keep things balanced, and I appreciate it. I simply want NOTHING to do with the madness.
ReplyDelete" I simply want nothing to do with the madness" Then you better evaluate your associates because it's an associate of yours that is causing the madness and that is unfair to you. And THAT IS A FACT.
ReplyDeleteI do not have to evaluate my associates because I have no clue what that even means. It is impossible that any of the insane and inane remarks at the forum have anything to do with me or anyone I associate with, because, quite frankly, I don't "associate" with anyone I don't know and trust. If there are people who have associated themselves with me there is little I can do about that, but that doesn't necessarily mean I associate with them. Whatever is going on, I have no clue what it is. I didn't know whether to delate the comment above or to address it, but as you can see, I've chosen to make it clear that NOTHING going on that forum relates to ME in any shape or form.
ReplyDeleteI started this blog only because the subject matter in GNGS is without end. It's a lingering topic and new developments or information always seems to arise, via those close to the subject or such as Roger Smith's account finally coming into view. I thought a blog would be an opportunity to help interested readers stay abreast of developments. Sometimes, I post things that helped me to write GNGS, or things that gave me insight into how to deal with certain areas of the subject. I thought people would get to know me a little better, too, and hopefully would recognize my truest intent.
After Wagner's book that was full of fabrications about what happened the night Natalie died, I felt COMPELLED to present GNGS to the public.
For those of you who can recognize truth, especially backed by the evidence and a CERTIFIED polygraph test by a professional, one of the BEST in the business, I appreciate your aptitude for grasping facts and truths, as it's clearly MENTALITY that rules both sides of this case. Do I think I'm better than Rasure and Salerno? No, but I sure know I went after the truth they neglected and left behind them.
And, thank you to all who accept my explanation that the ancient billions comment meant nothing and was used out of context by a bitter producer, as well as prompted by her. That's the truth, and it's a really refreshing thing when someone gives a person the common courtesy of believing an honest explanation. I, nor Dennis Davern, have nothing to lie or hide about.
When I "talk" I name names and can back up my claims. If you won't, or can't, please spare me the innuendos that someone I am associated with is causing havoc because that's not the case.
I'd like to see Wagner answer that last question, Marti. I can see how all the others lead to it thus "leaving him stumped and stuttering", but it's the only question he would really need to explain, but he never will because he's a liar and more. I wonder what it's like to hold something so horrible inside for a lifetime because that's what he has had, a lifetime, while Natalie lies in her grave, robbed of motherhood, career, and life itself.
ReplyDeleteTerribly sad.
"that's not the case" if you don't know exactly who it is and don't know exactly what is being said then you better open your eyes and "listen to the voice" you're being made a fool of. In your position right now you trust no one, look for the one who always has an agenda and "listen to the voice" and compare, it's right in front of you
ReplyDeleteWell, frankly, this would be a mystery harder to solve than the mystery of Natalie's death because I have no clue who or what you are talking about and I'm through with this so please stop with the innuendos.
ReplyDeleteMarti -
ReplyDeleteWhile living with Wagner, has Dennis mentioned visiting Natalie's grave with him or perhaps Wagner going alone?
Wagner has done evrything in his power to disregard Natalie and her memory except when it served his purpose, i.e. his 'biography;, which is a total joke.
Then he just used her to make himself look like a victim. Poor RJ.....Yeah, right!
No, Dennis is not aware of any visits Wagner made to Natalie's grave during the year Dennis lived with him after she died. When I learned that Wagner had given Dennis a home, I was suspicious--even of Dennis! It seemed too bizarre for me. But Dennis never said anything about it, only that he was still working for Wagner and that he felt uncomfortable staying on the boat where he had lived before Natalie died. When I witnessed Dennis start to deteriorate, mentally AND physically, I knew in my heart of hearts that something wasn't "right" -- but I never questioned Dennis on it. I knew if I did, he would not talk about it, so I tried to talk and act as normal as possible around him. Then he just broke down. It was, and always will be an unfair burden for him to carry.
ReplyDeleteDoes Dennis feel guilty? Of course he does, but it's a convoluted type of guilt. He did nothing to harm Natalie. He let Wagner diminish him that weekend, and he allowed the manipulation. In hindsight, he knows how, when, and where he should have reacted to Wagner differently than he had, but things are always easier in hindsight. But thoughts about it still bother Dennis and I doubt his uneasiness will ever go away. But -- and this is the God's honest truth -- over the years, whenever I asked Dennis the HARD questions about his part in that weekend, his answers were always delivered with TOTAL confidence that HE HAD NO PART IN CAUSING ANY HARM TO COME TO NATALIE AND NO PART IN THE RELEASING OF THE DINGHY. I INSISTED those questions be part of the polygraph, too. Not that I doubted him, but I knew there would eventually be people who would.
Wow, this was great. :-) I can almost see it on a movie screen!
ReplyDeletefrom KB