It's just hard for me to imagine that she just slipped into the water. i think there was some foulplay involved and some people aren't talking. Unfortunately, it's one of those things we'll never discover the truth about.

Hi

There are certainly inconsistancies with the 'official' account. For example, the question of how Natalie ended up in the water and why, when she fell in (assuming that she fell from the yacht, or slipped from the dinghy, close to the yacht) she didn't try to climb back aboard the yacht. After all, the yacht did have a 'doorway' at the back that was there to to give people on board access to and from the water. Also, there were three ladder-like 'rungs', which (I suspect) served the same purpose as the aforementioned 'doorway'.

Of course one explanation might be that Natalie was worried about the reaction of her husband to the news that she'd 'lost' the dinghy (bare in mind she was intoxicated at the time and had just had a row with her husband). Maybe she thought that she could get the dinghy back, so avoiding further conflict? Then, by the time she realised her mistake, the dinghy had floated too far away from the yacht for her to consider aborting the attempted 'rescue mission'. She was a weak swimmer and when that is added to her intoxication, it's a recipe for disaster.

I doubt any deliberate act of murder was involved. Whatever happened was caused in large part by the level of alcohol consumed by all concerned.

Incidentally, if I were an investigator, I would take a good, long look at Dennis Davern, the skipper of the yacht. His behaviour since that night has been suspicious to say the least (turning up drunk for police questioning, changing his story as often as most people change their underwear). This seems like the behaviour of a guilty man (or one with something to hide).

Joanne

Why would it be inconceivable that murder could be involved considering the context of the threesome, the flirting with an overabundance alcohol consumption situated in a context of intense argumentation. This context is ripe for murder and the company line is nonsense.

It isn't inconceivable that murder was involved, though the physical evidence doesn't show any evidence of foul play. Natalie had no injuries on her body to indicate that she'd been a victim of violence (i.e. she wasn't beaten or hit over the head). Of course that doesn't automatically rule out murder, but it does make it much less likely. It's very difficult to force someone off the deck of a yacht without leaving some sign on their body - whether it be bruises, abrasions or cuts.

I see nothing to indicate that Natalie's death was a deliberate or premeditated act on the part of someone else. That doesn't mean that it wasn't - just that the existing evidence doesn't indicate that it was.

Joanne

I'm sure Joanne still lives in her dream world but her old thread here really does not say much for RJ. She is basically blaming Davern which is insane but hypothetically and for the sake of argument let us say she is right. Robert Wagner would not have done everything in his power to bring justice for Natalie and a conviction for Davern?
Joanne my dear, the reason RJ never went after Dennis Davern was because he knew he wasn't guilty of anything and neither was Walken. How did he know it? Because he was the one that was guilty.
He didn't have to search any further than the face staring back at him in the mirror.

The person who posted as Joanne Smith ISN'T the person you think she is. The actual Joanne Smith in the RJ group said the other night that she hasn't posted a message on this forum in over two years. This would appear to be another case of someone "borrowing" another's identity.

what is the purpose of dredging up a four year old thread????

Obviously! Look at the dates of the Smith posts. They are old.