In the post below about "How Natalie Got Into the Water" there's a rather lengthy discussion about whether or not the Natalie case should be reopened (over 200 comments now so it goes to a second page...if you don't see your comment appear when posting, click to reach the second page where comments end on the first page).
Anyhow, the DOWN JACKET is back.... someone asked, "why didn't she take it off if it was hindering her swimming capabilities?" Someone also believes Natalie was unconcious and drowned quickly.
Marilyn Wayne heard Natalie crying for help. Therefore, there is evidence she was NOT unconscious.
If she had been, she was revived by the water, because she was crying out to be saved.
I have NO DOUBT Natalie realized the jacket was her excellent life preserver. Again, can't begin to describe how buoyant a down jacket is when wearing it in water. I've been in water wearing life jackets, and I've been in the water wearing a down jacket...I'd prefer the down jacket ANY day in an emergency. Natalie, not being a confident swimmer, would never have chanced removing the jacket, especially in a deep, dark ocean. I'm sure it did hinder her ability to direct the direction she wanted to move toward, because the ocean currents were strong, and far too swift to fight.
Natalie was carried away by ocean currents quickly. The further she was distanced from the Splendour, no doubt the more frightened and terrified she became. She was on her own, with nothing more than a down jacket that kept her floating and the hope that someone would immediately try to rescue her.
To remove her jacket would have been instant death for Natalie and she knew it. She did the smart thing: she kept the jacket on. It helped her to live for hours, and, sadly, in the end, it helped her to be discovered...most likely just MINUTES too late according to a trained, certified Coast Guard Captain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Many people thought Dennis Davern was lying when he first told the story in the 1980's about Wagner breaking the wine bottle.
ReplyDeleteWho later confirms Dennis' story? Wagner!
Doesn't this say it all?
Wagner's arrogance is revolting. He confesses his lies in his book and the lazy police still let him sip his midnight brandy!
ReplyDelete"To remove her jacket would have been instant death for Natalie and she knew it. She did the smart thing: she kept the jacket on. It helped her to live for hours, and, sadly, in the end, it helped her to be discovered...most likely just MINUTES too late according to a trained, certified Coast Guard Captain."
ReplyDeleteHow can that worthless excuse for a human being live with himself knowing these words are true?
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteHypothermia and exhaustion took hold. At this point her head fell forward and she took in water to her lungs and drowned. I haven't read the post script in the paperback yet but am anxious to read it.
One thing that is a bit puzzling. If Wagner put on the jacket- I wonder if he knew it would keep her afloat? I wonder if he assumed she would die anyway and that she would be discovered since the jacket was red and easy to spot. I doubt in his fumbling drunkenness he really gave much thought to this. But I am sure he was relieved that her corpse was found- otherwise, he would have had to play the role of concerned hubby for days while they searched for her body. He was able to get out of dodge real fast after the discovery.
I believe that he thought it would hinder her, weigh her down and make any attempt to survive more difficult. I doubt that he had a clue that it would keep her from sinking to the bottom of the ocean and keep her alive.
ReplyDeleteBut, WHAT IF Natalie was just cold and decided to put her own jacket on? Dennis says he doesn't know how she got the jacket on and the most LIKELY explanation is that she herself donned the jacket as this is what people do when they're cold. There doesn't seem to be a reason to think that she didn't. So if this is true, it means that Wagner didn't have anything to do with her wearing it. Actually I can't think why Wagner would even consider putting a down jacket on Natalie with the intent for it to aid in her demise. That's a very far reaching conclusion considering that no one ever in history has been noted to put a jacket on a person in an effort to drown them. I mean, it just doesn't strike me as something anyone would think of in the heat of that type of moment.
ReplyDeleteI believe that once in the water Natalie recognized that her jacket was probably allowing her to stay afloat and allowed her to have the presence of mind to call out for help. I don't think that Wagner in his state of drunkenness mixed with rage and in the middle of a knock-down drag-out with Natalie would have that level of cognitive thought to purposely think the jacket would assist him in silencing Natalie Wood forever.
The Big Pic.
If she was cold she would have gone back inside.
ReplyDeleteThat's a very far reaching conclusion considering that no one ever in history has been noted to put a jacket on a person in an effort to drown them. I mean, it just doesn't strike me as something anyone would think of in the heat of that type of moment.
ReplyDelete^^^ Why is it far reaching? I'm not attempting to pick an argument here but how many cases have you studied that you can make a statement such as "in history"? I have never considered murdering someone whether in the heat of the moment or premeditated. Have you? How would we know what goes on in the mind of a person with alcohol in them along with jealousy and enough rage to smash a liquor bottle?
And let's not forget that he screamed to her "Get the f... off my boat" and moments later it was quiet.
ReplyDeleteOh please! More for the grieving widower who layed the love of his life in the ground and then went out banging that talentless St. John within weeks. The man is a self centered selfish murderous prick.
ReplyDeleteDennis said that it first got quiet and then he thought Wagner got Natalie's coat. It is the quiet that seems suspicious. Natalie comes out of the stateroom screaming and not long after there is silence. It appears that something happened to Natalie between the time she came out screaming, to complete silence between the two of them.
ReplyDeleteIt is at that point that Dennis said he thought he saw Wagner get Natalie's coat.
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteIf Wagner had "subdued" Natalie by force. Perhaps he thought her leaving the boat via the dingy would seem more plausible if she had a coat on. If she had noticeable scraps and marks on her- things that he might notice- like arms and legs- he may have wanted to cover these areas so that they didn't bleed on the deck. Who knows. Just like her socks. I think sometimes murderers do pose their victims in an attempt to conceal their crime.
Of course they do! That occurs even in murders that are not premeditated.
ReplyDeleteAll of Wagner's actions from the time Natalie went missing were that of a man who wanted to cover his tracks. None of his actions were that of a man who was worried about his wife. He was worried about himself.
Anon 1:28, If Wagner put the coat on Natalie it wasn't to "aid in her demise." He would have put the coat on her to make it appear that Natalie left the boat of her own free will.
ReplyDeleteI always assumed that the fight continued out onto the back deck because they were afraid Walken would hear them. I think it may have ended up out there because Wagner was trying to get Natalie off of the boat.
Dennis said that Wagner wedged himself in the doorway of their stateroom when he knocked on the door. Was Wagner hiding something? Was he keeping Natalie from leaving? Dennis also uses the words "screaming or yelling" to describe what Natalie was doing when they came out onto the deck. Was Wagner dragging Natalie?
Did he have her by the arm and was she yelling for him to stop? If Wagner was dragging Natalie, I doubt she would have put her coat on herself.
Natalie went silent soon after. I don't think there is any doubt that Wagner was with Natalie when that happened. This is probably when Natalie was knocked unconscious. While trying to force her off of the boat Wagner, either on purpose or by accident, did something to cause Natalie to lose consciousness.
From what I've read about Natalie, she was not the type of person to go out onto a deck wet with rain, in her socks. I think Natalie was forced out onto that deck.
ReplyDeletePut this visual into your head;
ReplyDeleteNatalie Wood out on a cold, wet deck in a nightgown, socks and a jacket tying a dinghy.
Natalie Wood the movie star of movie stars from the tip of her perfectly groomed tresses right down to her perfectt pedicure! This is Natalie Wood here! Not Marjorie Main!
Now ask yourself what is wrong with this picture? If you come up with nothing is wrong you are a bigger fool than even I take you for!
Please note: I am using the collective "you" here and not associating it with any specific person.
How reasonable is it that Wagner would kill his wife with two witnesses within eye and ear shot of what was happening? Was he prepared to kill all three? Cause, you know , what if they told on him? Thats a pretty big gamble to think that two people (one of them not even a friend) would keep THAT secret for the rest of eternity. Gotta admit, that's a brain scratcher.
ReplyDeleteBrain scatcher? Your post sounds more like an ass scratcher. You were posting while scatching your buttocks? Sounds like it to me.
ReplyDeleteHow transparent are you?
Wasn't Walken asleep? Wasn't Davern supposedly drunk? At least that is what the Wagner troupe has been feeding us and themselves for years.
Can someone please eradicate this troll and his transparency? I've soiled my hands enough on IT!
Wagner wasn't thinking reasonably. If he was he never would have smashed a wine bottle on a coffee table while accusing his guest of wanting to F*** his wife.
ReplyDeleteIn the heat of the moment, many people have killed in front of a witness or two.
But I don't think Wagner went into that stateroom with the intention of killing Natalie. Natalie probably told him that she wanted out of the marriage-whether she meant it is another thing, but I think that is what she told him...she was embarrassed and humuliated by Wagner's behavior. When he heard that, I think he lost it--he was already in a bad state of mind. That's when he told Natalie to get off his F****ing boat. I think he dragged her out onto the deck and he manhandled her, and in the process Natalie was hurt. I think at that point he made a decision to put an unconscious Natalie into the ocean. Dennis still had the music playing, so Wagner thought he could get away with it...he was right.
To Kevinr, THANK YOU! You responded to my questions without calling me an ass scratcher or a troll. I appreciate that. You make great points, Wagner was extremely pissed and god only knows how drunk, still though , there are those who believe that Walken was not passed out but only hiding from the ensuing chaos that Wagner unleashed. I'm not trying to say that it didn't happen just the way you say it happened but how are we going to convince a jury? There's an awful lot of speculation about some things we have NO WAY of knowing. The defense team would shred that whole scenario to bits.
ReplyDeleteMy question remains however, how did Natalie come to wear that jacket? And do we want to try to expect a jury to believe that Wagner forced it onto her while she was unconscious? semi-conscious? or didn't he have anything to do with the jacket? This is a crucial point in the story because it tends to either incriminate him or not incriminate him depending on what happened. You can't walk into a courtroom gussing at these things. You have to be able to prove something or know enough to not mention it.
I want to see some solid arguments supporting the accusations and alot less name calling and troll-finger pointing. We can all live without that kind of crap, can't we? Plus , if we check our emotions at the door we could come up with a much tighter case , dont you agree?
The Big Pic.
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteOk- the fresh wounds to her right arm (you have to see the back of the autopsy chart) would have happened before she had on the down jacket. Obviously the down jacket would have cushioned any blows to her arm. So assuming that she and Wagner were in a fight (safe assumption)- she probably just had on her nightgown.
Now the prosecution could say that Wood tried to get away from him or that Wagner and Wood went outside to argue so that Walken wouldn't hear them. Wood would have put on the jacket to keep warm. This is one possibility. But I don't think that they were that rational. I think that she was in bed in her night gown and probably took off her gold earrings (the ones that were found on the floor) like all women do before bed. She may have put the socks on too since it was a cold night. I think Wagner came in and the two got into a vicious fight over Walken. Pillows may have been thrown. Its a small cramped area. Maybe Natalie would have gone outside momentarily to get away from him. But this would have been in haste and she wouldn't have grabbed her coat.
I still think that Wagner had her cornered in that bedroom and she probably would have tried to escape thru the salon not the deck but if you are afraid- I guess you just go out the nearest exit. In any event, Wagner probably had her in his grasp and things got out of control- the bruising to her nose and lacaration and bruising to the face- reflect that he hit her at least once and probably either tried to smother her with his hand or possibly a pillow. But I don't believe she got the bruises from falling off the boat. She was too short to go over the railing. Someone would have to throw her over and if she fell off the swim step, she wouldn't have that type of bruising. She wouldn't be bruised by the inflatable dingy or the swim step. If she fell off the swim step- that doesn't explain these bruises. Someone would have to recreate a scene where she could have got these types of bruises and the only way I can see is that she was in a fight with Wagner before she put on the jacket.
Same with the cuts to the back of her right leg. They were fresh and if that happened in the water with socks on- then the right sock would have some off in my view. So I believe that Wagner put the socks on her. Maybe there was some bleeding and he didn't want blood in the salon or the deck because how can you explain blood on the deck if she fell off the boat? She couldn't have bleed inside the boat or on the deck if she was overboard. And there was no blood on the railing- I'm sure. They would have looked for that.
I think Wagner saw his handy work- the bruises and scratches. Maybe he just wanted to cover them up because they were nasty. If he thought he'd killed her, ie she was unconsious, I am sure a million things went thru his head. Like- what have a done and how do I cover this up. So he put on the coat making it appear that Natalie was trying to leave via the dingy.
So Rebecca, are you saying that when Dennis came knocking on the state room door and Wagner answered all disheveled and sweaty that he was in the act of putting the jacket on to a now unconscious Natalie Wood? (cause makes some sense)
ReplyDeleteThe Big Pic.
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I like the naysayers and the devil's advocates because you really have to think about what you are saying and how you would prove this in a court of law. The defense attorneys would try to create reasonable doubt and the prosecution would have to have answers.
Correction. {cause that makes some sense} is what that line was to read.
ReplyDeleteWe are not in front of a jury.
ReplyDeleteIn the court room Wagner's lies will be revealed. The 4 hour wait to call the CG will be questioned, actions while waiting to call the CG which were sitting and drinking and telling Dennis what not to say.
Also brought out will be that the entire investigation and it's result was based on lies. A good prosecutor will make that clear to the jury, they will make certain that the jury knows what Wagner originally told the police. The jacket is trivial to the prosecutor but we know that the defense won't bring it up! Also, a good prosecutor will play the celebrity card, they will tell the jury that Wagner was never interrogated at any of them would be if he was not a celebrity.
And then there is an eye and ear witness of the fight in the stateroom and on the back deck! It will be brought into question that Wagner lied to the police about the last time he saw his wife, that he saw her for the last time on the back deck and then she was gone! Wagner will be asked why he lied about that. That should be very interesting. The prosecution does not need the jacket to make a case or to convince a jury. If Wagner had told the truth about the last time he saw his wife we would not be on this blog right now. In all likelihood justice would have been done and Wagner would be in jail. His lies and his celebrity covered his ass.
Do you think we, including Marti, don't know who you are? Why would we care what YOU want. We want to see Wagner pay for his crime. BIGGER PIC
Yeah Rebecca, I agree 100%. It's one thing to sit back and make Wagner the devil at every turn and it's something else altogether to make a lucid and logical argument supporting a position.
ReplyDeleteLogical thinking can lead to a breakthrough.
The Big Pic.
You know if was a lovers quarrel that went haywire. I think he knew that if and when she came too- not only would she press charges, she would divorce him and the world would know that he was a vicious man. He would be fired from Hart to Hart, his kids would hate him. He was scared. People do lots of crazy things to cover up a murder. He had to do it quickly and the jacket and socks were to make it look like she was leaving and to cover his tracks.
ReplyDeleteSo to answer the question- yes, Natalie was immobilized by fear at that point- but I am not sure unconsious only because Dennis says he saw them on the deck after that and Nat wasn't wearing the jacket. Correct me if I am wrong because I don't have the book anymore.
Natalie was getting ready for bed. Where was she going that she needed her coat? She was just minutes from entering her bed.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I can't think why Natalie would put her coat on and not her slippers or shoes. She went out onto a wet deck on a rainy night in her socks? I don't buy that one. I think he forced her onto that deck. Remember, there was nowhere for Natalie to go even if she wanted to get off of that boat.
Natalie was a very small person. Not only was she short, but she was tiny--small boned. I don't think Wagner at 5'11'' would have that much of a problem putting on her coat. I think a good prosecutor could demonstrate that in court.
From the description Dennis gave of Wagner, it is very easy for me to believe Wagner was running around and lifting a heavy object overboard.
There is an overhang over the door to the deck that would have concealed Wagner. He could have placed Natalie's body over the side of the boat where Dennis was not looking. This would account for Wagner's sweating, panting and disheveled appearance that Dennis described (to put Natalie over the side Wagner would have had to lift her 4 feet or so rather than drag Natalie to the open door).
I don't think Wagner wanted another divorce. I think he saw this as a solution to his problem.
Also, he was the only one fighting with Natalie. It was just the two of them.
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeletePS: The 1:02 post was a response to the answer about was Nat unconsious when Dennis came to the door. I don't think she was yet.
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything Kevin said.
To whoever said: " We are not in front of a jury."
ReplyDeleteYou're right and at the rate we're going we aren't going to ever get there. Until we can hold conversations that don't include your brand of name calling and Wagner bashing for the sake of bashing, this blog is just going to look like a conspiracy theorists hangout. Im suggesting that instead of erroneously thinking I am someone I'm not, you stop look and comprehend what's being said here. I dont want to see Wagner skip out on this but why is it so hard to form a lucid, well thought argument to support or deflate a position? Don't baffle me with your insight as to who you think I am, dazzle me with your intellect. Put your belief where your head is and try to keep your rage at the opposing veiwpoints to a minimum. I'm serious , it's so much more gratifying.
The Big Pic.
Walken could very well know a lot more than he has told. I hope someday he does the right thing and comes forward with that information.
ReplyDeleteI just hope he does it before Wagner croaks--probably not.
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteI still think Walken doesn't know much and what he does know he has kept quiet out of fear- if you believe that Wagner has made veiled threats thru his lawyer. Walken may have felt at minimum that Wagner could destroy his career. The other thing is, if Nat's death was labeled "murder"- then Walken's own lawyer could point out that all of them would be suspects- not just Wagner. Wagner seems more likable and normal than Walken. Walken could have been depicted as "gay" or having an affair with Wood. All three men could have turned on each other at that point. Dennis slept in the same bed with Nat the night before!!! Yikes. What a mess. So because Walken was probably high from pot, drugs and alcohol- I think he was passed out. Dennis said he didn't lock his bedroom door and appeared to be sound asleep when they were searching the boat. So, I really don't think Walken would be a very helpful witness- other than to say Wagner was angry. But Wagner has already admitted that.
Hey BIG PIC!
ReplyDeleteDid you read GNGS? If you did you wouldn't be talking out of your ass and people wouldn't be telling you to stop talking out of your ass like I am telling you right now.
I don't care who you are. Whether you are the resodent troll or not means nothing to me. What means something to me is Natalie Wood is dead because of her husband and if you can't get that into your head, I feel very sorry for you. How is that? Check it out. I said nothing bashing about Wagner other than he killed her which isn't bashing. It is the truth exactly like I see it.
I can agree with almost everything Kevinr said. I don't think Wagner put the jacket on Natalie. First of all its not that easy to put a garment on a limp person. And then the question of why would he want to? I'm just not buying ththat the jacket was put on her to hide bruises...I don't think there was any presence of mind to worry about bruises.
ReplyDeleteWhy am I arguing about this jacket????? The jacket is CRUCIAL. It served as Natalies ONLY CHANCE OF SURVIVAL. To say that Wagner was the one who put it on her could be argued that he thought he was just trying to make sure she was warm as the night air was cold- NOT that he thought it would cover her bruises and weigh her down to the bottom of the cold , dark sea. Trying to get a jury to buy that one is simply not realistic , that plus now he is being responsible for putting her socks on her feet???? The simplest explanation of things tends to be the correct one. But trying to paint Wagner as a mastermind of quick thinking and brilliant, if flawed, deductive reasoning that the jacket was going to be something he could use against Natalie is such stretch of the imagination that I would be embarrassed to present it to a jury. No, the most likely scenario , in my opinion, is that Natalie was, for whatever reason, cold and wanted to wear a warm jacket...maybe she was contemplating going out on the deck. We don't know and we can't truly know but I do know that if we pile too many complicated actions on Wagner he starts looking like a target and less like a murderous spouse.
The Big Pic.
Wagner admiitted that? Maybe Wagner needs to admit about who he screwed around with on the Splendour and around Catalina when his wife wasn't with him.
ReplyDeleteKevinr,1:03. The way you put it sounds more to the point it's what I have thought. Lets remember what Dennis has told us everyone and not change things around. Thanks, Pam
ReplyDeleteRebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteI disagree with calling people "trolls". There are lots of people who like to ask questions and so far I haven't really scene too many holes in my theory. So, questions only harden my resolve.
To whoever said: "Did you read GNGS." [Yes,twice]
ReplyDeleteThen said: If you did you wouldn't be talking out of your ass and people wouldn't be telling you to stop talking out of your ass like I am telling you right now". [You are now on my list of posters to ignore. You add nothing to the conversation and in fact are here only to cause problems. It's just that kind of mentality that tends to have this case overlooked and panned by people that really need to be paying attention to it.] I'm quite done with you.
The Big Pic.
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteWagner has admitted being angry and breaking the wine bottle. That's what I meant by "Wagner has admitted he was angry". As for the jacket- why is it important? I agree that Wood could have put it on by her own free will. That is a possible scenerio. It was cold and rainy out. Dennis's account isn't clear on this because he says when he saw her she didn't have the coat on but obviously there were lots of things he didn't see that night. He didn't see how she fell off the boat for example. So, yes she could have put the coat on by her own free will. That is a possibility but it didn't fit in very neatly with my scenerio. I believe Wagner was in a rage and if anything Wood was trying to get away from him. I doubt she would have worried about the jacket.
As for the comment about Dennis sleeping in bed with Natalie- I used that as an example as to why all three men if they spoke to a lawyer would know that they all would be suspects in her murder and some of the things that transpired might make Dennis look like a possible love interest. I don't believe he was but how many married men would be comfortable knowing their wife got so cosy with the captain. Lawyers always have to tell their clients to be careful what they say- and I am sure Walken's lawyer did and may have made him fearful.
anon posted; I haven't really scene too many holes in my theory
ReplyDeleteOh really, well I haven't SEEN anything in your theory except holes.
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteThanks for the spell check- scene was a Freudian slip. I noticed that too but didn't feel like posting again to correct it. You really keep me on my tows! (kidding "toes")
By all means- fill in the holes. I want to know what you think happened
Bullcrap! Look at the size of Natalie Wood and look at the size of Wagner.
ReplyDeleteHe was the jealous one not her. He saw his fame and place on the A list slipping away again just like when she dumped him the first time and he wasn't having that. Not again!
Natalie Wood was still A list. She'd only made a handful of features and tv work since her divorce from Gregson but she was still considered superstar A list status. Wagner was A list only when he was at the hems of her designer gowns. What becomes a legend most? It sure as hell wasn't Robert Wagner in that ad. He was too busy groveling to Bette Davis for second billing in her booze ads!
Dennnis saw Natalie ON the back deck without her coat on. Dennis said, there's no way she would've said, "Oh, I"m cold, let me go get my coat before we finish this argument!" Walken was sleeping, in a sleep Dennis is sure was not a fake one. And, there were moments Dennis was quite worried about his own safety. Yes, he and Natalie had shared a bed the night before, Dennis as her friend and "bodyguard" -- but if Dennis were eliminated that night, certainly a scandal could have been made of Natalie and Dennis having shared a room the night before. It would've been based on total lies about the reason why he stayed with Natalie, but these thoughts ran through Dennis's mind while Wagner was trying to get him pass-out drunk.
ReplyDeleteAlso, one thing about Dennis, he would make a more credible witness than many would think, astoundingly so. Dennis is a very respected person, in friendships, business, and one instantly knows when he talks that he means what he says and says what he means.... media twisted many of Dennis's words, but he would surprise even the most skeptical ... you'd be amazed, but most of all, he would be believed. The police would believe Dennis, and so would a jury. When one is telling the truth, it's easy to recognize. Wagner would never take the stand. NEVER. Dennis could handle any question: because he's telling the truth. Dennis, Roger SMith and Marilyn Wayne would all take the stand...why? They've got the truth! Only a liar doesn't defend himself, especially in a case like this.
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about? Where is this A lister stuff coming in? If you remember in 1981, Natalie had not yet made a comeback. She wasn't really in the public eye. Wagner was because he was on the very popular Hart to Hart. I watched and loved that show. So Wagner was popular and I think he was worried about Natalie making a comeback- that could be true.
But again- your post seems somehow a reaction to something that I am missing.
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteMarti- my previous response was to the previous poster FYI. Also, I am not questioning Dennis' credibility. In fact, you know from my email to you why I do believe Dennis.
I was just addressing why I think Christopher Walken was told to stay mum on this. If Natalie's case turned to a murder case, back in 1981, then anyone on the boat would have been treated as a suspect. So that's a scary possibility. I am glad to see how confident you are in Dennis.
Rebecca, you asked "As for the jacket- why is this important?" EXCELLENT QUESTION!.
ReplyDeleteThe jacket was crucial as to how long she was able to survive in the water. Without it she could have drowned in seconds but with it she stayed afloat the entire time. Many hours.
If we want a jury to believe that Wagner put it on her unconsious body, we have to establish that she was unconsious and we can't do that.
We would have to convince a jury that Wagner had the presence of mind to think that putting that jacket on her was going to drag her down below the surface of the water
and we cant prove that either.
So by trying to make out that Wagner was involved in dressing Natalie to go drowning, it looks like a grasping, reaching and unrealistic set of circumstances. It's much too complicated for what it is ...it as afterall , just a woman wearing a coat.
BUT!!!
What if Natalie just happened to put her jacket on herself? Everyone can relate to putting on a jacket.
Isn't then just possible that Wagner someone got her into the water not knowing that a down jacket floats? Doesn't that seem to be a simpler and much more plausible scenario?
My long winded point here and to answer Rebecca's question, is that the more complicated and complex we make this the more it starts looking a little like a conspiracy theory. And that's exactly what we don't want.
Now as to how she actually got into the water? This is really the absolute crux of this case and making an argument that Wagner put her there is going to take some seriously compelling and pursusive lawyering. Maybe we should think about that one of these days.
The Big Pic.
The Big Pic.
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteYes- I agree that the jacket has become sort of a red herring. Your comments make sense.
Rebecca I was not talking to you but now that you addressed me, I will do likewise to you. Do you know what an A lister is? It did not matter than Natalie was not actively making films anymore than Elizabeth Taylor or Sophia Loren don't make films on a regular basis now. Their A list standing goes much deeper than what movie or tv show they are doing just like Natalie's. Hart to Hart seems to be this massive hit in people's eyes who watched the tripe week after week. It was a popular show but no where near the Dallas or Dynasty series was. Would you like to see the ratings? Natalie had the respect of the industry she grew up in. Wagner acquired that respect when they remarried and after when he played the widower Mr. Wood.
ReplyDeleteThe red herring? This isn't Agatha Christie! Marti explains all of that in her book. Are you being sidewinded by the ramblings of a Wagner fanatic dressed in neutrality?
Hi, me again-Big Pic here. Im not neutral. I see things for what they are and am able to discuss them without name calling and insults, you should try it sometime. By checking your rage at the door only then will you be able to comprhend what is transpiring here. I may take the position of Devil's advoacate from time to time but it's only to encourage thinking about the realities of bringing this to a courtroom. Rulli, posted this thread presunably to invite comments about the down jacket. I made my comments, are you seriously advising others to disreguard my posts because YOU don't like them? Really? Are these your best responses to intelligent, thought provoking comments? I'm not here to advise you personally but I think we both see a need for you to chill out just a bit and allow the whole big rest of the world to have their own opinions. Opinions don't hurt anyone , do they?
ReplyDeleteThe Big Pic.
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteI just don't understand why you were talking about the A lister thing. Yes, I understand what the "A" list is. Just trying to figure out why this was part of this discussion about the jacket.
As for the poster, why can't people ask questions without being labeled a sympathizer? What difference does that make? I don't think that poster is anything other than someone trying to find truth.
Let's all remember that in Marti's book, Dennis said, "He put her coat on her."
ReplyDeleteWagner put Natalie's coat on her.
I believe Dennis.
Also, this name calling business is out of order. I know that those of us who truly care about Natalie can sometimes let our emotions run high. I know that after reading Marti's book for the first time, I almost felt as if Natalie had died again because I was finally reading about what really happened. But turning on one another will only defeat our purpose.
For those who believe Wagner, please go elsewhere, you are not wanted or believed here.
Rebecca, he is the person who has attacked Marti all over the Net. He used different names, different locations etc. He is a vicious troll who has caused more trouble than he is worth. Ask Marti about him. privately. She will tell you.
ReplyDeleteWagner didn't put the coat on Natalie to weigh her down. He did it to dress her so she looked like she was going to take the dinghy out. That is why he also released the dinghy. That is a very plausible explanation.
ReplyDeleteI think when someone is in danger of losing his freedom and lifestyle he can make some fast decisions.
I don't think a jury would have such a hard time believing that.
Actually I think you are both full of s*** and I've seen this neutrality before or as you called it Devil's Advocate just as I've seen the Rebecca type posts before.
ReplyDeleteSounds like people with more than one face to me but that is cool. It is just a matter of time before people see it for what it is.
You are both doing something that has been done before. You are both questioning Marti's integrity with every post you put here because she answered all your big pic and red herrings in her book.Now go running to Marti with your little emails about how honest and decent you both are and you are getting picked on. In fact you just might be one person. All I see besides me posting is your dumb posts flying back and forth. Why not get a room?
The question you don't answer is why did Natalie put her coat on? For what reason? Why put on a coat and go out in socks onto a wet, rainy deck? None of that makes any sense. Where was she going? Why couldn't she keep fighting with Wagner in the stateroom? What was on the deck that was so important?
ReplyDeleteI don't think it was her intention to go onto that deck, and that is why she had socks and a nightgown on. That is why Dennis first saw Natalie without her coat.
Big Pic: I'm all for discussing the realities of this case, but I'd appreciate you responding to other blog members less arrogantly. If you are someone not looking for problems it would be quite easy to not take offense at any mis-identification and explain yourself and reason for being here in a less curt manner. Stop instigating. There are a few of your comments now that have me concerned.
ReplyDeleteWe are not a bunch of conspiracy makers and the coat is not a red herring. I performed my down jacket test only to prove the coroner wrong, because I suspected Natalie lived much longer than the coroner suggested. I based my suspicions on the fact Natalie had no rigor, a woman heard her crying for help, and that hypothermia would not have taken her for a good few hours, especially wearing a coat that is ultra buoyant. Then, AFTER GNGS was published, I had the opportuntiy to talk with Roger Smith, the coast guard captain who verifies my suspicions about how long Natalie lived in the water. My jacket test was meant to show how flawed even the medical examiner's office investigation was: The coroner said a down jacket weighs up to 50 lbs. OUT of water...that is INACCURATE. He said it weighed her down IN the ocean. That is INACCURATE. My test proved the CORONER's THEORIES to be wrong, and was not intended to prove HOW Natalie's jacket got on her. Dennis knows she went to the deck NOT wearing her coat. It's all speculation about how the jacket got on her...not meant to be court evidence, or to become the BIG question, as there is no solid evidence about the coat. But, it's worth speculating about because it stands to reason she had no reason to put the coat on for any good reason. Maybe she went inside and put her coat on because she was going to walk to Dennis's quarters, but never made it. The BIG PICTURE is that Wagner was arguing with her on the back deck at the time she "left" the yacht. That was witnessed. That's the RED FLAG.
I'm also beginning to suspect your posts because the familiar spelling errors are beginning to occur... hey, I allow for typos, make them all the time myself, but you are really beginning to sound (and look like) the person we've had so many problems with. Why not sign-in? Or email me? Logical discussion is always appreciated, but something's not jiving with all this. I don't think you "came out of the blue" with all of your "logic"
Now he's going to ask you Marti if you used the same brand jacket Natalie was wearing. lol
ReplyDeleteI dont recall seeing that Dennis said "He put the coat on her" In fact, the three burning questions I walked away with from the book were: 1) How did she get the jacket on? 2) How did she get in the water? and 3) What was Paul Daverns big secret? But if you guys say that Dennis said that, then I do stand corrected and now that's just one less lingering question.
ReplyDeleteLastly, I aint jocko. I am someone else. Believe it, don't believe it. I don't care anymore. I am not ever going to reach you, you have your mindset and no one including good sense or the good lord could steer you off if it.
The Big Pic.
In fact, I bought an expensive jacket, a mid-range priced jacket, and also tested an old one I had. I also tested a down vest. A duck is a duck...some jackets used more goose feathers or duck feathers, whichever is used, and others use more feathers. ALl worked the SAME.
ReplyDeleteAs for the socks, my only reason for testing that was to show it's unlikely Natalie acquired her bruises from trying to mount a float-away dinghy for hours.
Dennis didn't untie the dinghy. Natalie didn't untie it and Walken was sleeping. I don't think we'd need a jury filled with rocket scientists to figure that one out, and Kevin, I totally agree with you. The jacket and dinghy-release was to make it appear as if Natalie had left the yacht. I think Wagner was shocked to learn the jacket kept her afloat. She came thisclose to being able to have him arrested. I hope that she would have.
I'll tell you how I know Natalie was unconscious...because no one walks around in wet socks!
ReplyDeleteKevin, I agree. He put the jacket on her OR brought the jacket out to her to give the impression that she went out in the dinghy.
ReplyDeleteWith all of his lies brought out in court, it won't be difficult to convince a jury, not at all. By the time they present that to a jury, the prosecutor will have already have had Marilyn Wayne testify about the threats she received from the Wagner camp to keep her mouth shut and Dennis will have testified to what he saw and heard, putting Wagner out there on the back deck with Natalie.
To The Big Pic,
ReplyDeleteI'm filling in the blanks when I say Wagner put the coat on...just like a lawyer would.
Big Pic, honestly, I don't think you sound like "J" - but what on earth would you need to "reach me" (or others here) for?
ReplyDeleteWe all understand what evidence would not stand up in a court of law and we know what evidence WOULD hold its own.
In GNGS, there's the part where Dennis and I were in the bar in NY and he went melancholy and said, "He put her coat on her" -- at the moment Dennis said it, I was certain it was a vision of it...that suddenly he remembered this terrible thing. Stupidly, I waited many years to question him about it, and his clarity was not as vivid...yes, people DO forget things, but Dennis believes Natalie had NO REASON to put on her coat, and when taking all else into consideration, he believes the coat had something to do with, "Get off my effing boat."
The three questions you came away from the book with are valid questions...the three basic questions that still doesn't have a negative effect on the fact that Wagner was with Natalie when she "left" the yacht, and that he lied to the authorities.
LOL, your big question was how did she get the jacket on? LMAO. what total BS. and the Paul Davern question. Why would you care about that? You want to know if it's a secret about Wagner. It has nothing to do with Natalie's death.
ReplyDeleteNo one said you were Jocko. No one mentioned Jocko. LOLOL Gee, I wonder if this could be Jocko? LOL
Anon 4:57,
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think if the general public knew how much Wagner has lied it just might get people stirred up enough to force the authorities to do something.
Big Pic. Just read that line you wrote about our mindset and good sense etc...etc...
ReplyDeleteI go where the evidence takes me!
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteWow! I stepped away for a few minutes and I don't know what's going on. First of all- I did not mean to upset anyone with the Red Herring comment. I meant that this issue could be picked apart and since all I know is Dennis said that Nat didn't have it on when he saw them on the deck- then I can only guess what happened. If you recall, I was the one that wrote the synopsis about what I thought happened based on the book. I am confused about who Big Pic is but I don't see having questions and discussions makes him a "troll" but I just joined this blog- so don't know what has happened. I have been using my real name and Marti has my address. If I just wanted to stir up trouble I wouldn't have done that. So I am who I say I am and have no agenda- other than the truth.
I think people misinterpret my comments. My father is a lawyer and so I am used to having to always have a reasoned argument. So I pointed out the obvious- if this had been a murder investigation all three would be suspects. That doesn't mean that I don't think Wagner did it- I have spelled that out in gross detail. But I don't mind hearing other people's input. People don't need to name call.
This was supposed to have been a murder investigation. Every unexplained death is a homicide until proven otherwise. If the TRUTH had been told from day one, there would have been only one suspect that being the man who was out there on the back deck with Natalie when she went missing, that being Robert Wagner. Dennis was not with her, Walken was not with her, Wagner was. Moreover. by the time this was put in the hands of a prosecutor, Wagner would have gone beyond being a suspect.
ReplyDeleteAlso, any homicide cop or criminal attorney will tell you, when a woman is found dead all eyes are on the husband, especially if he was present. And of course their was the matter of the rather long wait to call the CG. Yes, all eyes would have been on Wagner if he told THE TRUTH.
Nobody told the truth.
ReplyDeleteBig Pic, Did somebody insinuate that I meant Jocko? I never mentioned the guys name until this post and only to tell you I didn't mean him at all. You sound like a female who hadn't read GNGS yet but had nasty things to say about Wagner. Then she read the book and joined the other side so strongly she was making up her own Natalie Wood bio on her own blog and trying to be friends with the Wagner supporters. Thats who I meant and I know lots of people on here know who I'm talking about.
ReplyDeleteRebecca. Everybody is a lawyer or related to one or their Father is one one their Mother or knows one or walked by one once so they are qualified to judge everybody else and only what they say is right. That line is as old as Wagner's lies.
I know who you are referring to, I don't think Big Pic is that person for a variety of reasons that I shall keep to myself.
ReplyDeleteThat person sounds like the one who has "a background in "criminal justice and psychology" and writes book reviews and follow up responses with the same pseudo heteronomous self gratifying prattle on Amazon. Why does so much of what she has to say smack of so much familiarity? Where or where could I have possibly read all of that nonsense before?
ReplyDeleteWagner is guilty and that is my statement on the criminal mind.
Anon 7:49- you are right, no one told the truth. All three men lied but the only one who was telling Dennis what to say was Wagner. I wish Dennis had told the police what he saw and heard. I wish Wagner had, if he had he might be in jail right now.
ReplyDeleteI recall that when Rasure went to question Dennis, Dennis told Rasure that he wanted to talk to RJ first. HELLO ...BIG RED FLAG...
There were too many important questions unanswered (and/or deliberately overlooked) by the original investigators who were assigned to investigate the death of Natalie Wood. It appears that Ms Wood's husband, actor Robert Wagner, was given preferential treatment because he was a celebrity within the Hollywood community.
ReplyDeleteSince the release of "Goobdye Natalie, Goodbye Splendour", new information has come to light that suggests Ms Wood's death was not what we have been told it was. This new information includes many mistakes made by the Los Angeles County Coroners Office--serious oversights.
I am here(like most others)to help expand on what has been written in "Goodbye Natalie, Goodbye Splendour." I am a lay person concerning the law, but I do this in the interest of jutice being served.
Okay, first I would like to comment about who I do know is who. Rebecca is someone with an amazing concept of this story...one of the readers who has walked away from the book really caring about what happened to Natalie, and a believer in justice for Natalie. SHe never felt right, since hearing of Natalie's death, about what truly went down that night. I've had personal contact with Rebecca, and I want to vouch for her sincerity here. She hasn't been involved for the many years we've studied every aspect of this case. When she asks a question, it's a sincere search for understanding the case better. Just want to clear that up.
ReplyDeleteRebecca: Over the years, people have tried to cause a lot of trouble for people who believe there is something sinister related to Natalie's death. That's the only reason we become suspicious when someone new shows up...just so happens you showed up when someone was stirring the pot. The better part here always remains calm and logical, even when the pot does get stirred. YES, maybe sometimes that's okay, but our main goal is to emphasize the facts and details that ARE the big red flags in this case, yet still go ignored by authorities. The controversy does not stem from this blog... it's been around for years, way before GNGS.... I thank you for accepting the truth in GNGS.
Concerning Dennis' credibility. I think knowing that the Wagners had him in their employ for 7 years, that they trusted him with watching their children and that they gave him use of their credit card for supplies, speaks for itself.
ReplyDeleteAn excellent point, Kevin, and it went beyond that. They treated Dennis's family like family, they invited him to their private parties (ALL of the time!), they invited him to studio previews, and the night before Natalie died, she invited HIM to visit MGM to preview Brainstorm! They dined together on the boat and at the Wagner home too many times for Dennis to even come up with a number: it was THAT constant! He was "Uncle Dennis" to the girls, and you are perceptive enough to recognize this.
ReplyDeleteHave the daughters ever tried to contact Dennis since he left?
ReplyDeleteRebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteThanks for the clarification. Now I would love for someone to write down all the pertinent facts in order to better flesh this out. Who's game? I have to work today or I would try to tackle this.
Of course not, they were kept from maintaining relationships with Natalie's family so any association with Dennis would have been out of the question. Dennis knew too much about that weekend and RJ knew it.
ReplyDelete"Write down all the pertinent facts"
ReplyDeleteWe've doing that since this blog came to be.
It's important to differentiate between facts and gossip. Some people are more into the gossip in an effort to shine Wagner's shoes, if you get my drift.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfecwd8Wb2w
ReplyDeleteExhibit A
"Pertinent facts"? "Write them down"?..."Youtube exhibit A"?
ReplyDeleteI'm very sorry but I disagree. I don't need to write anything down or watch a youtube video which I've more than likely seen at least a dozen times in the past.
"Goodbye Natalie Goodbye Splendour" and the voice of Dennis through Marti's writing has said all I need to know.
Sign me: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
The latest comment on the petition says it all:
ReplyDelete"It is obvious to all that was a "celebrity" case gone off track. The evidence was never gathered nor was it sought. It's time this case was re-opened to a new assessment of the facts and testimony that were overlooked in 1981."
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteI am trying to gather another facts to present this to someone willing to do at least a program on the mysterious case of Natalie Wood. Marti's book relies heavily on Dennis' account and I am not dismissing this but obviously there needs to be enough circumstantial evidence for people to take re-opening this case seriously. That's why I am asking for info here. I am not writing a book and don't intend to profit in any way from her death. Maybe you could say something that would contribute to re-opening the case. We have all read the book and do take it at face value but up to now- that hasn't been enough to re-open the case. Let's work together to find evidence.
I do not take the book at face value and there is no mystery involved. I have followed Natalie Wood's life, career and death for almost 48 years.
ReplyDeleteDennis Davern's words only justified to me what I have always thought since Natalie's death. I did not see a movie or two of hers, read a column or two about her death and then wait over 27 years for a book to be written telling me what happened. GNGS only verified my own beliefs and Marti knows this. The reason why GNGS relies heavily on Dennis' account as you state is very simple. It is Dennis' account. It is the account of the one person brave enough to come forward and tell the story of the last days in the life of his employer and friend, Natalie Wood.
Did someone accuse you of writing a book and I missed it?
Sign me: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteNo, I just know there is some paranoia on this site and my fact gathering mission is just to enable this case to proceed. In other words- no agenda besides that.
Maybe I don't understand the purpose of this blog. My understanding is that people want Wagner brought to justice. Unless there is public outrage- then it will never happen. In fact, I doubt anything will happen post-humously (Wagner is 80). So unless something is done in the near future- Natalie's name will be sullied, Wagner will never be held accountable and all of Marti's hard work will be for naught.
Rebecca we have been doing what you are suggesting since the blog appeared, many of us long before that. We have been there and done that. I take pride in my efforts. Truly, it's been Natalie's fans who have stood up for her, defended her people who have tried to sully her name, defending her against Wagner. Most of us have been where you are right now.
ReplyDeleteAs for Marti's hard work, many of us have been there before the book was even close to being published, encouraged her to go for it and stood by her during the attacks by Wagner's supporters. She's never been alone, trust me.
As for paranoia, you are obviously new to this. Ask Marti about what's gone on with the people or person in question, ask Marti what she has endured and how her friends here have stood by her, supported her. I warned her before the book was complete that she will have to deal with some truly cruel people who will go to any extent to make Wagner look like a prince. She handled it all will courage, she knew she was not alone
What we need is public exposure far beyond an internet blog. We need CNN, MSNBC etc. We need Marti, Dennis, Marilyn Wayne, Roger Smith etc. to be on a panel type show discussing the facts about the case, the horrid investigation etc, Wagner lies need to be exposed. We need national exposure. That's what will bring public outrage. Let us not forget that GNGS was never truly promoted by the original publisher.
To Anon 1:00, I love everything you just said. This does need a far wider audience than this blog can provide which makes this blog doubley important when it comes to welcoming new folks into these discussions. If every time someone new with a slightly or even radically different take on this case is ridiculed and called a troll you will soon find yourselves surrounded by a very tight-knit and SMALL group of buddies and very little else. It's gonna take a conversation with a broader base to be effective. Just my opinion but I think theres alot of meat on it.
ReplyDeleteSigned, Fake Name.
It doesn't help to have new folks who undermine the blog.
ReplyDeleteWhat does "new folks" have to do with media exposure? This blog is for supporters of justice for Natalie and supporters of Marti and of
ReplyDeleteDennis. People who work to shine Wagner's shoes are looking to do just that. They don't give a damn about Natalie or Marti or Dennis or justice.
I'm not naive enough to believe that you love everything I said, nor do I care.
Those of us who have been in this from the early days can spot a sincere contribution as opposed to what the troll posts. I'd rather have 3 posts from someone who is sincere than 1000 from a phony troll who is looking to stir up trouble and to enhance Robert Wagner. Just my opinion but I think there is a lot of meat on it. LOLOL Sounds foolish, doesn't it?
Anon. 1:30PM--EXACTLY
ReplyDeleteRebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteI watched that video of Natalie and RJ talking about Bette Davis and I thought it was evidence that Natalie was in her own words fearful of the water and she referenced that her screams were probably heard all the way to Catalina. If there were a court case- and that's where my head is at... you need more than heresay. That's why I called that exhibit A. If you already watched it- that's fine. So this was new to me and was concrete evidence that she was afraid of the water. This would be documentation and evidence. I thought it pertinent. This was not in the book and I think that the more info. we can find... the more helpful.
"Heresay? Let me see if I have this correct. What you are telling us is Dennis Davern's recollections of his time with Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood and the final weekend of Natalie Wood's life is hearsay?
ReplyDeleteI think she means you hear the fear of water from Natalie herself as opposed to someone else telling that anecdote in court. Of course that would have more impact.
ReplyDeleteRebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying that. Yes, I was referring to the youtube video of Natalie. Did everyone see that? Its chilling to me.
Actually you don't hear it in that clip because that was scripted (all the AFI's are scripted to a certain degree) but you do hear it and see it in her face on an interview where she talkes candidly about being on the water as opposed to being in the water. Check that one out and that is not 'heresay'.
ReplyDeleteRebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteWhat clip are you referring to? I didn't see that one.
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteMarti have you contacted any of the Cold Case programs on tv? This would be a great story.
There are countless examples of Natalie's fear of water. A video of the person expressing their fear in not hearsay. That is Natalie speaking for herself. I have countless videos of Natalie expressing her fear of water of deep, dark water. I have one in which she said "I'm petrified, always have been, of deep water, dark water." That video would be more valuable than an AFI Tribute Video.
ReplyDeleteRebecca,
ReplyDeleteNatalie's fear of water (deep, dark water) is well documented. From the time of the movie talked about in that AFI Tribute video, "The Star," right up to the time she died. You will find her talking about it in various written interviews and on video. You will also find that many of the people she worked with know about this fear and discuss it as well--including many of her directors.
I believe her pathological fear of water started when she had her accident on the set of "The Green Promise"...she was 10 years old. That is when she developed her distended left wrist that she covered for her entire adult life with bracelets.
I doubt that Wagner's defense attorney will be foolish enough to challenge that fact. Wagner has enough lies on his plate without trying to deny something he already confirmed.
ReplyDeleteWatching the AFI tribute video I can't help but think that Natalie's talent could never surpass her own personality. She is the most articulate and intelligent woman I've ever had the pleasure of listening to.
ReplyDeleteTime and time again, in every interview I've seen Natalie participate in, I find it a thrill just to listen to her talk. I don't even need to see her act (although I wouldn't want to give that up) to appreciate this rare human being.
It is such a waste that this woman had her life cut so terribly short.
You are so right, Kevin. Well said!
ReplyDeleteHer fear of water came before "The Green Promise".
ReplyDeleteRebecca,
ReplyDeleteHow come you never post in the evening hours?
I've always read that it started with the accident she experienced on that movie.
ReplyDeleteRebecca,
ReplyDeleteThere's a list in the epilogue of the paperback of the evidence gathered that warrants the reopening of this case: and the list is somewhere here at the blog. We all reviewed the list here (started as 10 items) and it got edited for the paperback, but it's all right here. Much of the listed evidence has little to do with Dennis's eye/ear witness account. There is ample evidence beyond Dennis, but he's such a prominent factor that people sometimes don't look beyond him. I assure you, I did. I needed (personally and professionally) to substaniate what Dennis revealed, and I'm proud of the job I've done, and of all the new evidence I've uncovered since the first release of GNGS. Wagner telling the Coast Guard Captain, ROger Smith that he didn't call for help because he thought Natalie was off screwing around is huge. That's info in the paperback not uncovered before the hardcover was first released.
Wagner lied to the police and admitted it in his own book. The 4-hour delay to call for professional help is telling. Wagner NEVER asking Marilyn Wayne one thing, one curious question, anything about what she heard (and he saw her just a week afterward) is evidence -- there is bold evidence and there is subtle evidence, but there is plenty enough to get the case reviewed.
It takes some behind-the-scenes work and decent people who care enough to get involved. That includes the media, but I have no doubt they are waiting in the wings.
Everyone here at the blog has been following all this with me here at the blog, and many behind the scenes. They know their details and without the support I have, well, I don't know how I could take all of this alone.
The show-ups who try to "show-up" the truth are wasting their time here.
Marti, Are Roger Smith's, Marilyn Wayne's and Dennis' account of what happened on file anywhere (at a lawyer's office)?
ReplyDeleteCan they each give a deposition to a lawyer for future use?
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteTo answer that snide question. I have a 10 year old son that comes home from school around 5 and then I spend time with him until I tuck him in bed around 9:30. So that's why I am not constantly on here. Why I have become so suspect- I really don't know. I wouldn't have taken the time to write that I thought Wagner killed Natalie if I was from the supposed enemy camp. I am a self employed mural artist from Baltimore with two sons and read the book like everyone else. I thought I could help but this isn't really a positive place for me and at this point I feel like crying because of this back and forth. So, my hope is that Marti's story will become more widely known.
Kevin, no, their stories are no where on file with attorneys or the authorities. Narilyn told her attorney about the death threats she received, and connected them with the case. Dennis has the original false statement he signed still filed in LA and we were once threatened with it (told that it would be held against Dennis if he ever "talked" -- and that came nastily from Wagner's attorney). Want to hear something astounding? I heard on the news that CHarlie Sheen has hired Marti SInger as his attorney, one whose ethics and tactics are highly questioned. Some say he's brutal. Guess who the attorney warning letters Dennis and I recived who my attorney battles were from? You got it: Marti Singer. (hate his name is same as mine) :-)
ReplyDeleteYep, Wagner used the same attorney Sheen is using, one not timid about getting down and dirty, but we haven't heard from him since GNGS! That says a lot. I've wondered lately, out of idle curiosity, how Wagner and Sheen got along on the set of Two and a Half Men...Don't forget, Wagner had a recurring guest part for a season on Sheen's show.
In any case, I KNOW firsthand how nasty SInger can get.
So, beyond what Marilyn told Suzanne Finstad, hers, Roger's, and Dennis's stories, ironically, unbelievably, are only with me. That's not to say I'm not doing with those stories what you suggest. It's, in fact, exactly what's in the works.
Rebecca,
ReplyDeleteI hope you won't take those kind of questions personally because I know why it was asked of you. I also know that the person who asked it (not sure exactly who) but, I do know that it's only an effort to protect this blog and its group of people who really take this case seriously, from the chance of having to go through what has happened several times in the past, here and elsewhere.
This is such a controversial story and there are some people who have been literally hateful. You've been here to this blog, but you should see some of the other Internet places where Natalie's death is discussed. You will find the most vile things in the world said about Dennis and myself. I would be lying if I said it sometimes didn't hurt, but then I simply consider the source, and I get over it quickly enough. There are people who worship Wagner -- of course, many people here adore Natalie too, but it's different. Some Wagner fans are out of control; they lie for him (as if they know him personally) defend him against all logic, and they adore him to the point of sabotaging blogs, invading computers, creating fake ID's...it's bizarre.
I've been insulted, ridiculed, rumored, and I take it because I stand behind GNGS with not one shred of doubt in the truth it contains.
There is a person who doesn't post at night who has become known as one of the worst of those who invade truth sites about Natalie's death. That person always starts off by posing a lot of questions, tries to decipher "the evidence" and I guess some were suspicious of you, maybe because not enough people get on board so quickly the way you have. I'd like to post here the message you FB'd me about why you DO believe Dennis. It was so logical and well thought out. You've put a lot of energy into this case, just from reading GNGS and I appreciate it. But, please know that you're just being put through a "screening" like being padded down at the airport :-) because it's just safer to ask than to be sorry later. Some people have tolerated all the nuisances for years and won't chance tolerate it again, including myself. It truly was THAT BAD. I can understand you being offended by that question, and I appreciate you answering it honestly, because if you were not legit, your answer would have been much different, but I've posted here that you are legit, so I hope that settles this.
I appreciate that you care about this case, and I also appreciate those who care so much for this blog that they will ask questions of new visitors. You're exactly what this case needs: THE PUBLIC. I wish there were more of you. Hopefully, if we do get media attention, that will happen. With you, it happened because you read GNGS and it affected you. Many people will read it and then just move on to the next book. You've become part of a voice that grows louder for Natalie.
I always say, I do it for her, and that's the truth. She couldn't hold her head up any longer at one point, and that thought is unbearable.
Kevin, sorry for all my typos in my comment to you about Martin Singer...I'm SO tired...been working for many hours with little sleep... I'll make more sense and spell accurately next time.
ReplyDeleteRebecca, please don't let the negative comments on here bother you or deter your enthusiasm for posting and finding out more about this case. It's true that this blog has been invaded many times much to the frustration of us all. It does tend to make people paranoid. Even poor Kevinr was at one time unfairly raked over the coals. I have been here for a year and a half and for the most part it has been a peaceful blog with wonderful exchanges. It continues to be a great blog and it is the only place to get true and up to date information about Natalie's case. Can people be overzealous? Yes, especially in the last 4 or 5 months. It is unfair to discourage new readers by making them jump through hoops to prove their loyalty or sincerity. I don't think it's anyone's place to do so. Invaders will always be repelled with vigor but they always give themselves away eventually, we really don't have to trick them. Marti has encouraged your participation, it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. As things go forward, you will find our unity for Natalie will be greater than our differences and you will find your place here.
ReplyDeleteRebecca does not post at night and only posts at certain times of the day and mispells exactly the same words as you know who but I will give the person the benefit of the doubt for now but I'm not thrilled with the review she left on Amazon no matter how many stars she gave the book. A compliment with a swipe at Natalie Wood just don't make it with me and for that I don't give her the benefit of a doubt.
ReplyDeleteI'm not afraid to say it and lets not dance around it. The reason why people are so untrustful of others on here is because of Jocko with enough bogus screen names to fill a Manhattan telephone book. He loves this and thrives on it.
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteI am not a good speller. I write fast- sorry for typos but I joined this blog in March after I read the book. So get over it.
By the way, it wasn't KevinR, Big Pic or Bigger Pic that upset me. It was the person constantly jumping on the me.
I think Kevin and the Pics were engaging and I enjoyed their questions and remarks. But those that don't have any name are hiding behind their computer screens and bullying people. I am sick of the "motives"- that they are defending Marti. I see it as a game of bullying and that they aren't contributing. I only came back on because Marti emailed me trying to explain some of the paranoia. You can still be civil to others or your no one with any intelligence is going to stay on here.
Ask Marti about Big Pics. She'll tell you how "engaging" he is.
ReplyDeleteBullying, hardly.
whether you are sick of the motives or not, we are defending Marti. She knows why. She has experienced it and many of us have experienced it along with her. We have had our e-mail accounts hacked into, we have had innocent loved ones named on public forums, I'm talking about children. You have no idea what we have experienced because we supported Marti's book.
You call it paranoia, you call it bullying but until you've experienced it you'll never comprehend it. I've asked myself many times if it has been worth it but the answer is always the same, justice for Natalie is worth it. If you have been through what some of us have been through you would post anonymously, also.
As far as not contributing, I've been here since day one and have contributed vastly to this blog and to the book. You are just starting out here, you seem to want to start all over again which is fine but you accuse those who have already traveled that road, many times, of not caring because we don't jump in.
I am the same person who posted the info about Natalie's kids, about Natalie's Will etc. I post about many facets of her life and I have been repeatedly challenged by an anonymous poster who tries to infer that I am lying. I consider that bullying. All I can do is post around them.
Let's start fresh!
Rebecca,
ReplyDeleteFor those who believe there's not enough evidence to get to a court room: they may be right, but there is plenty of evidence to at least try, and to bring the media into this decades-long saga.
I can understand people thinking, even AFTER reading the GNGS, that alcohol played a huge part in that weekend. Suzanne FInstad really played up the alcohol factor, not excusing Natalie from it at all, either. Because her level was .14, the coroner played it up using alcohol as the culprit for Natalie's "accidental fall" -- I don't know how else to say it: but that's all CRAP.
Maybe I didn't make it clear enough in GNGS, but Natalie having drank wine and/or maybe a few cocktails that day and night had virtually nothing to do with WHY she died.
It is a known fact that alcohol intensifies any particular mood... and Wagner's mood was full of unjustified anger, jealousy, and insecurities. Natalie's mood was one of fun and leisure and holiday spirit. Each of those moods tried to influence the other, but in the end it was Wagner's vicious mood that trumped Natalie's and she ended up dead for it. This is FACT.
There's nothing about how much Natalie drank that lends to WHY she is gone. That's like saying that at any given time I'm going out to dinner with my husband and friends and choose to drink two glasses of wine more than I drank the previous time I had been out to dinner that I should realize I might have to end up in the nearby river for making that choice of an extra glass or two of wine. So, the alcohol card isn't playing with a reasonable deck in this case. What Natalie drank the evening she died is irrelevant and pales as evidence a to WHY she died. She was on a social weekend, trying to have a pleasurable, holiday weekend, no different from any other pleasure cruise save for the fact her jealous husband wanted to make her pay for wanting to enjoy this particular weekend.
Please trust that the people at this blog...excepting occasional intruders...who see this crystal clearly, and as someone said: this is REAL, not a Miss Marple story. Natalie was left to SUFFER in that ocean...it is unconscionable to think about her ordeal. She died a slow and torturous death for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with how many glasses of wine she had that evening. The people here aren't protecting me so much as they are protecting the facts about this case being misunderstood. There's no wiggle room on that, just as there wouldn't be in a court room. I have no doubt you're going in the right direction in regards to this case, and I truly appreciate your interest. Hearsay is what I tell about Dennis's account. Direct testimony is what we hear from Dennis himself. Dennis's name is on GNGS. It's contents are not hearsay.
So, please understand that no one is trying to disregard or insult you. None of this is personal...it's just so exasperating when it gets to the finer details of the TRUE EVIDENCE!
To elaborate on the hearsay thing: Dennis saw and heard everything he tells in GNGS...other evidence substantiates it (Marilyn heard the music while Dennis was playing it)...the TIMING matches...Natalie's case is rather simple for as complicated as it's sometimes made out to be. There are SO MANY details that substantiate Dennis's account, and as I said of GNGS, its contents are not hearsay because it's Dennis, the person who was there telling his account...it's not as if I'm saying what I say without Dennis's verification. Dennis is willing to reveal every detail to authorites. First thing though, they've got to be willing to hear it. They're got to understand it's not hearsay.
ReplyDeleteRebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteFirstly I NEVER said that Dennis' remarks were hearsay. I tried to contribute Natalie's own words (scripted or not) at the AFI benefit for Bette Davis where she described being so frightened by the prospect of jumping in the ocean that he screams could probably be heard all the way to Catalina. I think if I were going to do a documentary... that would be the opening and end with her drowning in the water off Catalina island. That's why I said that wasn't hearsay.
I read her hairdresser's accounts and I know she was telling the truth but
in a court of law that would be considered hearsay. A courtroom is going to be different than a article or a book. Just something that has to be considered. But more importantly, I love that clip. It shows what a woman of high character. She was just so beautiful and it really brings home to me- what this whole search for truth is about.
Now- I seriously doubt that this will go to court, simply because there are so many people that would involve. The court would take into account the victims- they aren't pushing for a new trial, other than Lana. Then there is the DA, who has to feel that there is enough evidence to reopen the case. Then there would be a grand jury. Etc. So at this point, unless someone is going to do a lot of legwork- ie. A major network with a show on cold cases- I don't see how this is going to be fleshed out. So, I think as many people that can contribute documents, video, excerpts from people who witnessed say Wagner's jealous and alcohol abuse. Then nothing more is going to happen.
On a positive note, I am the people who blog here are convinced of his guilt and if Wagner's fans and stooges come here they know that the matter hasn't been put to bed. If Wagner is squirming that's a good thing.
Hearsay is secondhand info that a witness only heard about from someone else and did not see or hear it himself.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Natalie and RJ were arguing on the deck. RJ said "Get the F... off my boat" Dennis heard the argument and will be allowed to repeat the statement because it is not hearsay. It will be introduced to prove that RJ was angry at Natalie. Just an example.
It truly depends on the judge as there are so many different aspects of the hearsay rule.
I assume you are referring to living victims. There is one true victim and that is Natalie.
ReplyDeleteThis may never reach a court room but it could reach the point where the case is re-examined by the police.
Not all cases go to a Grand Jury.
Rebecca,
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of making a dcoumentary showing that Natalie did not die the way the coroner and the police said she did.
The first step (long before a courtroom) is getting the police to reopen the case. I think that can be a very difficult thing.
Natalie's case is not a cold case but a closed case and that makes a big difference. I don't think the police like opening a case that was "solved" because they have so many current cases to work on.
Marti will probably have to convince a detective why Natalie's case should be reopened.
I would think that Dennis' testimony about the volatile argument that Natalie and Wagner were engaged in would be very compelling. Especially since it shows that Wagner lied to the police about when he last saw his wife.
ReplyDeleteVictims? Plural? No! One victim. Natalie Wood. Kevin is correct. This is not a cold case but a closed case. Yes, it will take a lot to reopen a closed case. Any closed case is a hard one to reopen but in this regard it might be even harder because the buffoons who originally worked this case would need to be reinvestigated by the buffoons running things today and I'm sure the proverbial "blue wall" is in place.
ReplyDeleteNot only is it a closed case, it's 30 year old closed case. That's a long time. It's happened in other cases, it's happened in cases in which people have come forward with the truth but it will not be easy.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that the case will reach the inside of a court room but I would like to see it re-investigated. Too many lies were told, lies which enabled an accidental drowning conclusion by the star-struck LACSD.
If a documentary is all we have to give Natalie some justice, then so be it! It will draw attention to the case, the lies, the contradiction, Rasure's inept investigation and the very dark side of that charming man the public knows as Robert Wagner.
The "blue wall" is obviously alive and well judging from Marti's conversation with Salerno.
ReplyDeleteYes, Kevin, Dennis testimony would be very bad for Wagner as it would expose all Wagner's lies including his fable about the last time he saw Natalie. Why would he lie would be the question on everyone's mind?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Wagner will confirm that he saw Natalie in her last moments of life? I wonder he will admit that, yes, he was with her on the back deck and in the stateroom. He has never denied what Dennis claimed. When asked about the Vanity Fair article he referred to it as "conjecture" but he did not deny any of it. He did not say, "that's not true". It would be interesting to see what he would answer when put in a position where he HAD to answer.
What about inquiring to the California Attorney General's office? Perhaps the state government might be able to pull some strings to get the local police to re-open the case and ensure that things are done right?
ReplyDeleteForgive me...I actually have hope in the government.
If only real life was like "Columbo." Once he caught the bad guy in a lie, the jig was up.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Wagner's lying, it seems like we are the only ones who see the "elephant in the room."
Rebecca, I just read your review on Amazon. I have to say some of what you wrote startled me. Let me preface this by saying I was the one that defended you many posts above. I stand by your right to be here and you have been vetted by Marti. However I also want to be fair to the poster who was suspicious. There is a familiarity and tone to your review that I could see setting off alarms. All of the individuals were to blame? No, Robert Wagner is solely to blame irregardless of what anyone else did that night. He is the one and only reason Natalie is dead. He is 80 now and he has been a good father? Sounds like a defense, as if he has made amends in later years. Something I'm afraid we have heard before. Given his ego, drinking problem and narcissism I find it hard to believe he was a stellar father. I think Willie Mae was their rock and Wagner merely a guest star passing through. Those are a few examples of what causes people concern. I am not trying to open a can of worms again as Marti has given the final word of your acceptance. I just felt that I needed to give the other poster an equal defense for their suspicions having read the review. I promise you I have no bullying intent nor am I attacking you. I think if you look back on your review you will see that it feels ambiguous.
ReplyDeleteRebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteI wrote to Marti first. She liked what I had to say and asked me to post it on Amazon. I posted the same thing I posted to Marti- so I doubt she took offense. I did it to promote her book and gave it a positive review.
I felt and still feel that Natalie's life could have been spared if not so much drinking was going on. We know Natalie was alive while in the water. Now- I sympathize with Dennis but I do think if he had his wits about him- he was the captain and had every reason to believe that there was a man (woman) overboard. There are procedures. He may have been confused and I am sure if he could go back in time he would have done things differently. Also, if Walken was so drunk and uncaring he would not have just slept thru the fight. He had more than enough reason to believe that Natalie was being harmed by Wagner the maniac.
So yes, I stand by that there is enough blame to go around. However, Dennis admits that he should have done things differently. So as far as Dennis is concerned I think he has suffered enough.
Kevin, in my years of dealing with this, I've seen things that can't be denied and it can't be denied that Robert Wagner lied to the police and to the public to protect himself and to protect his image. Those who don't see it, perhaps don't want to?
ReplyDeleteHave you read Wagner's book? He was almost cordial to Dennis in his book. He minimized the relationship with Dennis he and Natalie had but he never made reference to anything Dennis said over the years. There were no denials or confirmations. My feeling on that is that he knows what Dennis knows and did not want to provoke Dennis into defending himself. He wanted this to go to sleep, then came GNGS and not a word from Wagner.
Rebecca, Thank you for your polite answer. I appreciate that you didn't take offense at what I said. I still strongly disagree about "enough blame to go around", but that's what makes this blog interesting. Many mistakes were made that night by too many people to list, but, again, Natalie lost her life because of the selfish, jealous decisions of only one. (Not trying to have the last word)
ReplyDeleteWalken did not know that Natalie was missing until she was found dead. Whether he slept through the argument, we'll never know for sure because he will never tell. He did, however, lie to the police. He told the police that they had a wonderful weekend. Obviously, he wanted to distance himself from this and still does.
ReplyDeleteHe also lied in interviews. In one interview he claimed that he was in the salon with Dennis when RJ came out to tell them that Natalie was missing. We know that is a lie but why did he tell the story that way? That's an outright lie.
As for enough blame to go around, in my view all 3 men could have done things differently, all 3 men should have been examined head to toe for marks but it's all on Wagner who boasts in his book about what a wonderful life he has had, how blessed he has been. Truly, out of the 3 men, Dennis has suffered the most emotional pain over Natalie's death.
I am still so confused about Walken. Some say he hasn't said anything over the years an d some say he's been interviewed by someone and lied about what happened. Can somepne who knows the absolute truth about this guy explainn why all the contradictory comments are floating around?
ReplyDeleteRebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong. I blame Wagner but I think even he wouldn't have been so violent and wreckless if he hadn't been drunk. I guess like everyone here there is always... if only. If only Natalie had returned to LA like Dennis had suggested. Then maybe she would be alive today. So, it isn't criminal intent or blame that I feel toward Walken and Dennis. Just that if only... kind of feeling, Its a sad story. I don't think Wagner set out to kill Natalie. I think he was in a jealous rage and he snapped. What makes him a bad person is that he didn't do the right thing and show remorse for what he did. He didn't take responsibility for what he did.
I say all of this with a little bit of perspective. I was in an abusive marriage with an alcoholic. I tried to get help and people told me, you'll know when enough is enough. One day he threw me up against a wall and I ran to the kitchen and grabbed a knife out of the knife holder. My two year was playing in the basement at the time. If he had come at me- I don't know what I would have done. Nothing happened. I left him that day and never looked back. So, I understand how people behave irrationally and how things get out of hand. But, he should have been a man and admitted what happened.
He is a man with an obsession with how he is perceived by others. It's a little more complex than if he had been a man. With Wagner, it's all about how it looks which contributed to Natalie's death.
ReplyDeleteHe may not have planned her death but he conspired to cover up his part in it.
I am very sorry about your marital history, it must have been a nightmare. I understand your point about things getting out of hand but everyone is still responsible for their actions. Here's the difference in your stories. If you had used the knife, it would have been horrible, but definitely self-defense. Natalie posed no such physical threat to Wagner. His "snap" was based on all he was going to lose in a divorce and the jealousy and actions of a sociopath. I look forward to the day when alcohol will not be an excuse for every heinous thing that happens. Besides, Wagner is a professional drinker, his actions prove he was thinking on his feet and not incapacitated.
ReplyDeleteWalken has spoken about Natalie's death when asked about this in interviews. He's given a few different stories and will take it as far as he chooses to and then the subject is changed. He was interviewed by Playboy and Face magazines and was asked about Natalie's death
ReplyDeleteRebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteI see Wagner on interviews and he always sounds rehearsed and like he is searching for his next word. People who tell the truth don't do that. I think he lies about everything. I think he lied about Barbara Stanwyck. I think he is probably homosexual. So in many respects he has probably died his way thru life and has gotten away with it. That irks me!!!
Woops- I mean "lied" another Freudian slip.
ReplyDeleteRebecca, have you seen the Larry King interview?
ReplyDeleteIt irks me too, Rebecca and that was well put, "he lied his way through life."
Have you seen Natasha on youtube talking about how well he handles his liquor?
anon@2:01,
ReplyDeleteThose bells that went off for you are the exact bells that went off for me when I read Rebecca's review and then came here and read the comments. I'm sure that is what set off some people on here. It all did sound too familiar and no one but Wagner is to blame for his wife's death.
Moving along here to Rebecca and with all respect. Can we please set our adjectives properly? If Wagner has had sexual relations with men he would be bisexual not homosexual because we do know for a fact that he has had relationships with at least two of his three wives which has produced children.
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteNo I'll look for the Natasha clip on youtube. I haven't seen that.
I know what you mean about bi-sexual. Having relations with both sexes is bi-sexual. But I think people are on one team or the other! People from his generation were ashamed and hid this. Rock Hudson and many others married to conceal their homosexuality. Even my dream dad Mr. Brady was married and fathered a child but turned out to be gay. It happens all the time and I think when people live in the closest they develop psychological problems. I have gay friends, so this isn't about homophobia. I don't want to inadvertently offend anyone.
I too, believe that the excessive drinking that night played A PART in Natalie's death.
ReplyDeleteIt turned a bad situation into a nightmare.
Without those EXTRA drinks, Wagner MAY NOT have gone as far as he did.
Natalie MAY HAVE been able to think more clearly, even in that horrendous situation, through her incredible fear, emotional pain and the physical suffering she endured, both in and out of the water.
Walken may have still been with what SHOULD HAVE BEEN a happy group, still in the salon, laughing and trading stories.
Dennis would not have felt he needed to give Natalie and Wagner privacy during that awful argument because, HOPEFULLY, there would not have been one.
All in all, perhaps cooler heads would have prevailed and Natalie would still be with us.
Just imagine, we could be talking about her new movie or the new season of her television show, instead of her murder.
I speak as someone who lost an aunt, the sunshine of our family, to a drunk driver.
Three car crash. She was the only fatality.
We were told by the coroner that even if my aunt had survived the accident, her brain had been destroyed as a result of her injuries.
A horrible irony is that she was a passenger in one of the cars because she never learned how to drive.
No, I am not a teetotaler, but contrary to an old Mae West line, 'Too much of a good thing can be TOO MUCH'.
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteI'm with you! Wagner was an alcoholic and it is a poison. In small doses its fine but in large doses you are literally poisoning your brain. I feel terrible about your Aunt and far too many people are drinking and driving on a regular basis.
P.s I wanted to mention that I am sorry if my post on Amazon sounded like someone else's but remember- many people can arrive at the same conclusion. So I don't think my take on what happened is really out of the ordinary. And again... I am not now, nor have I ever been the dreaded "jocko".
I understand how two adults can push each other's buttons and that things can get violent and out of hand...I've seen that happen.
ReplyDeleteWhat I can't understand--and why I have come to feel the way I do about Mr Wagner--is how he could let little Natalie float away in the dark ocean and not do anything to help her? You see, he had lots of time to calm down. There were many hours that passed when he could have done something, but he didn't
He knew better than anyone how she feared the very thing that he made her experience.
Rebecca,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment about what I posted.
I am so sorry for the dreadful experiences you endured during your marriage and am so pleased that you and your children are out of that situation.
Please feel welcome here and free to speak your mind.
I enjoy your posts. They are well sounded out and thought provoking.
Being new to this blog, as we all once were, you are asking questions and should be supported in that.
You are by me!
Thank you Kevin! You and I see things exactly the same way. Four hours is a long time to think about a situation. He coldly and calculatingly stopped anyone from helping her and had the forethought to try and muddle Dennis' brain too. No, his path was set and alcohol played no part in that decision. Remember, Dennis said he was surly from the get-go and that was before imbibing. Yes, alcohol can impair judgement, but Wagner was used to functioning under large amounts. It is virtually impossible to defend the amount of time he had to think about the horror he put her into and blame it on alcohol.
ReplyDeleteNo one in their right mind would defend the atrocities Wagner inflicted upon Natalie that night and that is not what I was doing.
ReplyDeleteI would be one of the last in line to do so.
I believe that a murder was committed that night.
Suppose he had not been drinking at all?
I think we would have had an entirely different outcome.
I was not trying to defend him.
The very thought would be laughable if it were not so disgusting.
Wagner should get an Oscar playing the part of the poor, broken-hearted widower.
I am certain he would have tried just as hard to portray the the innocent, 'left by the big movie star' divorcee, if Natalie had survived and left him.
I don't think she would have gone to the police, given her desire for personal privacy.
Going from being surly to committing murder are actions that, to my mind, belong on different planets.
I know surly six year olds.
Ted Bundy, the notorious serial killer, was known for his gracious manners.
As far as the timeline between Wagner's thoughts and actions, I believe they were all about self-preservation.
A living Natalie could tell the world what happened that night.
A dead Natalie could not.
Wagner chose his imagine and Natalie's death.
I will not foul Marti's site with the language I would prefer to use in connection with that animal.
I think that some people drink so they can act on things that they've already made up their mind to do.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you, Kevin! His actions were cold and calculating after Natalie "went missing". He would not allow Dennis to turn on a light! WHY? That should have been HIS FIRST MOVE! It had nothing to do with alcohol at that point. He knew exactly what his next step would be at all times.
ReplyDeleteJust want to say that it's cool that we are getting along, putting our heads together. This is the only place on the Net where we can discuss the circumstances of Natalie's death without someone waving the Wagner flag. That is why we get so pissed at the intrusions of people who have an agenda when they post here. Nice for Marti too, that we have had a peaceful discussion on some aspects of that night that we might disagree about.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't talking about you when I stated that it would be virtually impossible to defend the amount of time he had to think about what he had done. Sorry if you thought that, I was speaking in general. You're right the leap from surly to murder in general would be ridiculous. However, Wagner wasn't just being out of sorts. He had a burr under his saddle and no amount of convivial conversation was erasing it. Have you ever noticed when you are in a bad mood that everything that comes along seems to ratchet up your mood? Most of us cope with it but I think Wagner used that as the starting point for everything he ever resented in the marriage. Marinate in jealousy, narcissism and control issues and you have a toxic brew. Wagner was an experienced drinker and I still don't think it is a believable factor. Remember when he angrily followed Walken and Natalie to shore after his nap? I think the fuse was lit and it was never going to go anywhere good. To this day no one can come up with a plausible reason Wagner wanted to pull anchor and go to the deserted part of the island. He was hellbent on that against his wife's wishes. Sorry, too much thoughtful determination in his actions to make me think alcohol was fueling the sequence of events.
ReplyDeleteRebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind words Anonymous. I wish everyone had screen names but I understand why they don't. That's why I type my name under Anonymous because I didn't know how to blog using the other profile selections. I am sure all of you know what I'm talking about. Just a blog item that makes it hard to know who is talking to who.
I think we need to get back to discussing Natalie Wood and I'd like to start by discussing the type of person Robert Wagner truly is. These are all facts and I'm sure the President of his Fan Club or whatever she calls herself knows this but she'd probably eat glass before admitting it.
ReplyDeleteMadame Tussaud's Wax Museum in London wanted to put Natalie's image in Wax either from West Side Story or Gypsy. Her likeness would have been placed in the Icons section with the likes of Bette Davis and Elizabeth Taylor. Robert Wagner who owns certain copyrights on Natalie's image flatly refused! Why would he refuse this? I think it is because he wants the public to forget her as the generations go on. He wants her forgotten because he does not want to be remembered as the man who took her away from her daughters and the world. What do you think?
Rebecca Howell
ReplyDeleteWhat you said doesn't surprise me. He was probably insulted that HE wasn't the one they wanted to make a wax figure of!
Why would anyone want a wax figure of him? Seriously. What movie or role did he ever have that was so legendary?
ReplyDeleteThe old Wax Museum not far from Disneyland that closed a few years ago had all those older stars. Some I never heard of but Wagnuts wasn't there. I think what anon 7:26 said is right. Wagnuts wants her forgottenand I think you are right also. I wonder if he would have agreed if they asked to do wax figures of both him and Natalie together.
Yes, Natalie immortalized in wax was another reminder of her iconic status and what he will never achieve. It's like the cemetary plot. No one will be buried by Natalie. Every decision he makes screams of fury and resentment.
ReplyDeleteHe puts on that loving widower facade with sweet words but his actions speak louder than his words just as they did the night Natalie died. It's been obvious to me that he wanted her to be forgotten. He's slick and conniving underneath all of that surface charm. He wants her to be forgotten because if she is remembered, the night she died will be remembered also.
ReplyDeleteIn his book he spoke so lovingly of her, vastly different than he did a few years earlier in Gavin Lambert's book. He changed his agenda, IMO, so that people would say "OH, he loved her so much, he would never have harmed her". I don't believe that he thought that anyone would write a book about Natalie's death in his lifetime. OH WELL!
He gave orders at the cemetery that nothing be left from fans. He told them that if items are left from fans, he would have Natalie moved to another cemetery. This info comes from the ladies who work in the office at Westwood Memorial Park. They told this to two women who brought a remembrance to the cemetery on the 25th Anniversary of Natalie's death. At first they said that it was their rule but when the two ladies made reference to vast amount of mementos left for Marilyn Monroe, the ladies at Westwood admitted that the order came from Robert Wagner. The only flowers left for Natalie are from her fans. Nothing from her family. I know this because I have friends who go to visit Natalie on her birthday and on the anniversary of her death. There is never an arraignment from Wagner or her kids for that matter. The only people who remember her are her fans and Wagner wants that to end. How sad is that?
Maybe it would have been too much for him and his daughters to handle. Having a wax figure of the love of your life and the Mother of your kids would be like having her there. Did anyone think of that?
ReplyDeleteWhich love of his life would that be? Natalie, the one he let die? Or Jill, the one he fooled around with barely 3 weeks later? No. No one has thought of that because it doesn't fit the current facts.
ReplyDeleteToo much to handle? I knew someone would surface making an excuse for him. No one was telling him he had to go see it, it would have been in London. I think he and Natalie's daughters would have survived the trials and tribulations of a wax figure of Natalie. I would think they would be happy, it would have been an honor. He did fine with the star on The Walk of Fame but he had no choice, his permission was not needed.
ReplyDeleteHe seems to bounce back very well from things that are too much for him to handle. Natalie was gone for only 10 weeks and he had a girlfriend. He is resilient. Too much to handle, LOL.
"like having her there". Wouldn't having Natalie's daughters around be more like having her than a wax figure would be?
ReplyDeleteHe needed them for props. Can't have a "grieving" widower raising children "alone" without them. An "actor" needs his props to be believable.
ReplyDeleteIs there going to be a documentary made about GNGS?
ReplyDeleteIf there was a documentary made would Dennis take an actived part in it?
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Does anyone here have an IMDb PRO account? And if so could you please check Wagners profile and see what contact info is available on him? Id like to send him my copy of GNGS along with a nice (well maybe not too nice ) note.
ReplyDeleteYou won't get any father than his assistant and I guarantee you he will never see anything you send unless it is a card, love note or FAX telling him how much you worship him and how many times a day you would like to kiss his butt.
ReplyDeleteSave your money and time and why not put it to use getting more people to sign the petition and/or buy an extra copy of GNGS and give it to someone who might not be able to afford a copy of their own.
...and you can sign me: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
I can't believe that Wagner would not have read at least some parts of the book. I would imagine he would want to know if Dennis got the story straight...from Wagner's silence, I'm guessing he did.
ReplyDeleteYou took the words right out of my mouth, Kevin. At the very least he has been informed of the contents of GNGS.
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming Wagner has kept tight lipped because mainstream media coverage of the book has been so lacking, and he doesn't want to stir interest.
ReplyDeleteI've said before that it looks very incriminating--to me--that he has said nothing.
This is not a story told by some unnamed source written by "Ths Star."
The man who puts Wagner with Natalie at the time she went overboard is the very man who was in Wagner's employ for 7 years. He was the man who Wagner entrusted to watch his children. Wagner trusted this man enough to give him his credit card. He was the man Wagner and Natalie felt comfortable with and confident in with helping them entertain the many guests they had on board the Splendour.
Dennis was included (just like a family member) in many things while he was in their employ.
What could he say (at this point in time) in his defense?
How can he stick to the same lie about Walken and him talking in the salon?
ReplyDeleteWould Walken commit perjury for Wagner--if it came to that?
To Keep your friends close and your enemies closer:
ReplyDelete(KYFCAYEC) Thanks for your suggestions they are good ones too, but I prefer to do it my way. I want to send him the book with a few page markers in place along with a personal letter. I understand that IMDb PRO accounts have access to his "people" who ever they are, and I'm pretty sure the man does have a mail box attatched to his house so I'm gonna take a shot. I'd like to think I have rattled his cage in some small way.
I'm sure Wagner is hoping that it will never come to that. It would be interesting to see what Walken would do especially since, like RJ, his stories have varied over the years.
ReplyDeleteIf Wagner takes a public stand on GNGS, he would give the book more publicity. That is something he does not want to do.
I'm hoping that Marti does a documentary and that she has complete control. I'd love to see what Rasure would say in reference to the book, the investigation, the revelations, that fact that it's been established that Robert Wagner lied to him. In all likelihood he would refuse to cooperate.
Kevinr, is it possible that Wagner hasn't spoken out publicly becasue no one has actually accused him of anything? Why would he deny something he hasn't been accused of? I heard him say in an interview, and I think it ws with Charlie Rose, that he has a policy of simply not commenting at all. He went on to say that the media, and I think he was reffering primarily to the tabloids can say anything they want to and theres no way to stop it so he simply ignores it. Except for the silly book he wrote he's pretty much tight lipped about the whole thing.
ReplyDeleteBTB, it will never reach him. Give it a try but he will never receive it. IMDBPro is not a means for the public to contact celebrities and send them "gifts" LOL. They won't give you his home address. They will give you his agent's contact info.
ReplyDeleteThe book puts him on the rear deck moments before his wife went missing and has him inventing the lies that were told to the police. I would say that he is "accused" of doing quite a bit. LOL
ReplyDeleteAny just to clarify, what Wagner said in that interview was that anyone can write what they want about someone who is deceased and they can't be stopped. He was not making reference to what was written about him. If something is written about a living person that is untrue, that person can file a libel suit. Wagner has not done that nor has he ever publicly denied anything that Dennis has said over the years. He has referred to it as "conjecture".
ReplyDeleteBTB,
ReplyDeleteBest of luck on that but even the most minor celebrities such as Wagner and St. John have someone handling the public for them so I'm sure Wagner will never see anything you send. IMDb pro is celebrity agent contacts and such. If you want a celebrity address you won't find it on IMDb and a word if I may; don't overstep your boundaries. Sending anything that can be taken as offensive through our mail system is a Federal offense. Wagner is not worth it.
If the media and tabloids can say anything they want about a living celebrity someone needs to tell Carol Burnett, Larry Hagman, Barbara Mandrell, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt and a host of others that they need to return the money they got when they sued the rag papers for character defamation and won!
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:53,
ReplyDeleteThe accusation is unspoken but it is very clear that Dennis is saying Wagner lied to the police about not seeing Natalie after she left Walken and himself talking/arguing in the salon (which was another fabrication).
A husband having a fight with his wife (where things could be heard hitting the ceiling of the room they were fighting in) just before she disappeared--and then was found dead 8 and a half hours later--is quite a different story from the one that is in the official police report.
I understand what you are saying, but I think the accusation is clear--at least to me.
I have also heard Wagner repeat that statement about not being able to do anything about stories in the press, so he ignores them.
ReplyDeleteBut that is my point, this is more than "something printed in the press."
This is coming from a man who new him personally. A man who he was close to for 7 years.
Not allowing the wax figure to be created and displayed?
ReplyDeleteNot allowing fans to leave flowers at her grave?
Wagner obviously has a psychotic rage against Natalie that grows with the passage of time, instead of diminishing.
That disgusting quote above Natalie's photograph in Wagner's love letter to himself, otherwise termed his autobiography? Beyond the pale.
What about Natasha and Courtney?
I would like to know what Wagner's relationship really is with them and if they are aware of his continued cruelty to their mother?
I'm sure they at least flipped throught the book.
When are they going to start standing by their mother?
I think most people still remember them as the little girls at their mothers gravesite.
Well, they are grown women now, pushing forty years of age.
Sorry to say, I have a feeling they are more concerned with the purse strings Wagner controls then their mother whose hard work helps to finance their lifestyles.
With all due respect, sending someone a book in the mail is not a federal offense. But thanks for your warning. BTW, I get it that anything sent to a celeb has to first pass an agents or some other handlers hands but I'm going to do it all the same. So what's that agents name and addy? Anyone?
ReplyDeleteOh and one more thing, to the LOL'er up there...nope, he hasnt't been formally accused of anything. So I'm not ready to LOL just yet.
I was LOL-ing that fact that he has been accused of doing quite a bit. Some people feel that unless someone uses the word MURDER, they are not accusing Wagner.
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to send it to his agent, put a note on the book saying there's a part in it that would be perfect for Wagner.
ReplyDeleteWagner has told the story countless times about how Paul Ziffren made him promise not to read or respond to anything that is written in reference to Natalie's death.
ReplyDeleteIn the interview that the person made reference to, Wagner said that what is said about a dead person cannot be stopped by any means. I know Wagner is not overly bright but even he knows that he can sue over anything said about him that is not true.
Using the US Postal Service to send something that is unsolicited and offensive to the person receiving it, is most certainly a Federal crime.
ReplyDeleteSending a book thru the mail is not a federal offense. (In case you missed the eariler post)
ReplyDeletePlus, who said anything about sending offensive material?
ReplyDeleteAnon 12:14 said: "If you're going to send it to his agent, put a note on the book saying there's a part in it that would be perfect for Wagner."
ReplyDeleteNow THAT'S a good idea. Thanks!!
"Id like to send him my copy of GNGS along with a nice (well maybe not too nice ) note."< This is what I was referring to with "all due respect".
ReplyDeleteThis would be a Federal Offense and if you think it wouldn't by all means go for it but I don't think you'd get much help from any of us and I doubt very much if Marti would condone this sort of action either. I'm not speaking for her or anyone, just giving an observation.
Addressing BTB,
ReplyDeleteYou said you were going to send a not so nice letter with the book. That could get you in trouble. Why don't you order a book and have amazon or Barnes and Noble send it (if you get an address)? You wouldn't be able to highlight parts, but it would be interesting and spare you fed problems. Personally, I want to hear from Marti on your idea. No offense, but I don't think it is a good one. I think maybe people here tend to forget Marti is on this. Sure, we're here tossing ideas and opinions back and forth and we get impatient waiting for the big day aomething will happen, but I'm trusting Marti wouldn't be wasting her time with a blog and all she does if something weren't going on behind the scenes. If all else fails, I think we all should show up outside Wagner's home. That would draw some attention. I wouldn't mind my next vaca to be in Aspen!
Anon 12:14,
ReplyDeleteThat's funny! I'd love to see his face when he opened it.
I know he would have that same look that he uses in all of his tv shows. He gets a real serious look on his face and then one eye starts to twitch. I've seen it so many times.
*something
ReplyDelete"RJ, there's a part in this new book that they say you'd be perfect for."
ReplyDeleteI love it!
He's too old and drunken-worn to play himself. Maybe Charlie Sheen? LOL
ReplyDelete