<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>View more postings  

It's unfair

March 8 2007 at 5:52 AM
No score for this post
Chris  (no login)

 
i'm angry when i read and hear that the reason why Natalie drown is because she was intoxicated, but she wasn't the only one, the 3 men in the boat with her were too, perhaps more than her. ESpecially her husband RJ Wagner who was so drunk that he left, by his negligence, Natalie died. at least he would have been charged for that.
And although he was soo... devasted, this poor man, began an affair with Jill, only 2 months after the tragedy because he didn't like to be alone....hahahah...poor Natalie.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 18 2007, 11:43 AM 

I have always been suspicious of the explanations given about her death. One thing that bothers me is that the people involved in the investigation have referred to her wearing a nightgown before they found her....How did they know she was wearing a nightgown unless someone saw her before she ended up in the water? Just a thought.


 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 19 2007, 5:20 PM 

Well, it seems pretty obvious to me that they would have been able to see what she was wearing about they found the body. Just another thought....

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 19 2007, 6:55 PM 

What I am saying is that they made a reference to her wearing a nightgown before they found her. One of the statements was that they expected to find her alive, maybe along the rocks in her nightgown. Someone must have told them that she was wearing a nightgown.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 19 2007, 7:09 PM 

I've never heard that they gave searchers a description, but if they had, she left the stateroom to go to bed. When she was discovered missing, it would be easy to determine whether she had changed into her night clothes or gone up on deck in her "regular" clothes by what was in the bedroom. They could have determined that she had changed since the clothes she WAS wearing before she dressed for bed would have been left in the bedroom. And wouldn't RJ know what she normally wore to bed and what clothes she packed? That makes it pretty easy to give a description.

Maybe I'm not understanding your line of thinking, but to me it sounds like you're over analyzing something that appears pretty obvious.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 19 2007, 8:00 PM 

My line of thinking is that someone on the boat saw her in her nightgown. They didn't assume, they knew. The search people were looking for her in a nightgown. In my view, there is more to this story than we'll ever know and i believe I'm in the majority with my beliefs.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 19 2007, 8:04 PM 

How do you know they KNEW she was in her nightgown rather than they just ASSUMED she was in her nightgown? How do you know what they KNEW? Moreso, they could do more than assume if they knew she had changed her clothes (as I indicated in my last post). What else would she have changed into?

But the more important point is that she was found wearing her red down jacket. That was more visable than her nightgown. In fact, I've heard that the jacket is what caused her body to be spoted by the helicopter.


 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 19 2007, 8:20 PM 

Well, lets see...It's cold, dark and in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. A nightgown would not be my first thought as to what she could be wearing. A nightgown would be the last thing that I would assume that she was wearing. Before they went to look for her they went to the Splendour to ask RJ if she knew how to operate the dinghy and how much fuel was in it. It could have been at that point that the searchers asked RJ what she was wearing. According to what we have heard, the last time he saw her she was wearing clothes...but the search party was looking for her in a nightgown. They said it very specifically. There was no mention of the red jacket until she was found. They didn't know she was wearing the jacket but they knew about the nightgown.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 19 2007, 8:34 PM 

First off, they weren't "in the middle of the Pacific Ocean"; they were anchored off shore.

Secondly, I've never heard that the searchers were looking for her in her nightgown. The story I've heard had her in the red down jacket. Yes, as you say the last time RJ saw her she was in regular clothes, but you don't seem to understand (or don't want to understand) how reasonable it is for RJ (or any of the others if they checked the bedroom) to see that she had changed clothes and was presumably now clad in a nightgown.

I agree that no one will ever know what happened that night. But if your point about the nightgown is an effort to imply that the someone on the boat did her harm, I don't get it. It seems to me you're positing that because someone (I assume you're blaming RJ) gave the searchers a description that included a nightgown (which, as it turned out, she was in deed wearing) you take that to mean someone saw her on the deck before she fell overboard? Why couldn't knowledge of the nightgown have some after she was discovered missing using the reasoning I've outlined?

Moreover, why can't Natalie's death just be an accident? Why, when a tragic death involves a celebrity, does it have to involve something sinister? People drown everyday in this world. It happens. And my feeling is it happened on that night.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 19 2007, 9:21 PM 

It was about 200 feet from shore. Considering that fact that she could not swim well and was afraid of deep, dark water and that it was cold and wet and her feet would not touch the bottom 200 feet is closer to the middle than to shore...relatively speaking. At one time I felt as you do. I felt that it was an accident, a cruel twist of fate. The more time goes by the more i feel differently. I feel that something else happened that night.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 19 2007, 9:28 PM 

They were not looking for her in the jacket. When they saw the red spot in the water they did not know what it was but of course they checked. That statement was from the helicopter pilot. one of the people who searched by boat said that they expected to find her along the rocks in her nightgown.



 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 20 2007, 4:30 PM 

But again, I don't see how you are arriving at what you seem to believe is fact - that someone actually SAW her before she fell in simply because that someone told the searchers she was wearing a nightgown. Why couldn't that someone simply presumed she was wearing a nightgown since that's what they believe she changed into, based on the fact that a) she was retiring to bed and b) her regular clothes were left in the bedroom? To me that's a big leap to believe that because someone gave a clothing description to the searchers it means that that person actually SAW her, rather than the notion that they supplied the description based on what they believed she would be wearing.

As for the jacket, maybe the searchers said they were hoping that they'd find her in her nightgown since that would have meant she was able to remove the down jacket that ultimately weighed her down.


 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 20 2007, 5:50 PM 

No that's not what they said. Why is it so unbelievable that someone did not tell the search people that she was wearing a nightgown. Is that because RJ said that the last time he saw her she was in the main salon? All we know is what he has told. Is it so out of the realm of possibility that he is keeping things to himself? And while we're at it, it took him close to three hours to call for help. Does that make sense to anyone out there? Natalie could not swim, was afraid of the water...especially deep, dark water yet he waits close to 3 hours to call the harbor patrol. Please!!!

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 20 2007, 4:32 PM 

Yes she couldn't swim, but 200 feet from shore is a lot different than "in the middle of the pacific ocean."

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 20 2007, 5:40 PM 

OK, you win. They wern't in the middle of the ocean. But even with that , a nightgown is not what anyone would assume that she was wearing....even 200ft from shore.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 20 2007, 6:42 PM 

Why?? SHE WENT TO BED! It would stand to reason (there's that word again - reason!) that she changed into night clothes, especially if her other clothes were left in the bedroom. Jeez......

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 20 2007, 6:46 PM 

re: a nightgown is not what anyone would assume that she was wearing....even 200ft from shore.


Huh? They were on a luxury yacht for goodness sake, not in a canoe.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 20 2007, 8:25 PM 

We can go back and forth with this all night. I believe that Wagner saw her before she died. I believe that he went down to their stateroom , they fought and she ended up in the water. He made no attempt to save her because he saw her hanging on to the dinghy. When he went back to check she was gone. That's why it took him so long to call for help. He and Davern had to get their stories straight. As a matter of fact when the police asked to question Davern he said that he would have to talk to RJ first. I don't think Walken knows what really happened but Davern did which is why Wagner kept him under wraps at his house. He was afraid of Davern's mouth.
You believe that Wagner is totally innocent. That's fine but as time goes by there are fewer people who feel that way. Good night...

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 20 2007, 8:50 PM 

I don't know why the passage of time would make people believe things any differently. What new evidence has been produced since November, 1981?

Morever, in order to believe what you do, one has to:

1) believe that the police interrogators found no inconsistencies in the version of events relayed by all aboard. Since you seem to believe that RJ and Davern had to have time "get their stories straight", believe me, professional interrogators can pick up certain things, such as when stories from two or more persons match just a bit too perfectly.

2) believe Davern. And given his track record, I wouldn't believe him if he told me the sky was blue.

You're right; we can go back and forth all night, and still we won't be sure what happened that night. My belief that it was an accident is based on the fact that police investigated and found no foul play involved and the coroner findings supported that opinion. Case closed.

But most of all, I'm not one for conspiracies. And if there was foul play involved, that's what we'd have since all three men would have to keep quiet about it (not counting, of course, Davern's attempts to cash in on one sensational story after another). Occam's Razor (the theory that all things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one) supports my belief on what happened that night.

Good night to you also.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 21 2007, 6:31 AM 

Good morning...lol

I am not basing anything that I am saying on Dennis Davern. I know better. Believe me, I'd rather believe that it was an accident. Truly.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Vlad
(Login vladislaus)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 22 2007, 12:26 PM 

Maryanne you are right. Anonymous you are wrong and not looking at all the facts.RJ was asked by the harbor patrol, and the avalon sheriff what natalie had on the last time he saw her, he said a nightgown, this statement was documented.NO she was not ready to go to sleep otherwise she would have taken a sleeping pill as she did for over 25 years, NO she did not go to tighten the dinghey because it was banging against the boat, it was rubber like a balloon it made no noise when it hit the boat and furthermore, her bedroom was insulated against noise, experts documented that no noises could disturb her.YES she went to her room and changed RJ did not come to the room to start ANOTHER arguement she went back up top, that explains the red down feather jacket. From this point on there could only be 2 or 3 possible explanations of what happened according to documentation.

Good work Maryanne........so after she went up top what do you think happened?

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 22 2007, 4:55 PM 

Sorry Vlad, no sale.

I have a very hard time understand how you - a person who did not talk to the parties involved nor saw any of the evidence first hand and received all of your information second hand via press accounts and/or shady biographies - know more about what happened that night than the police who actually responded to the scene and investigated?

I'm trying to look at things objectively and have seen nothing that points to foul play, other than the sensational theories thrown out by people like you on message board like this. And after reading your posting history, it's clear you have an agenda. So once again I ask - Why can't Natalie's death have simply been a tragic accident? Why, when a celebrity is involved - does the death have to involve something sinister? People drown everyday in this world and it's a pretty safe bet to say that the vast majority are accidents.


 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Another anonymous
(no login)

It's unfair

No score for this post
August 13 2007, 4:11 PM 

It is you who are being stubborn and very naive, or obtuse, one or the other. It IS sinister and it IS OBVIOUS that Natalie saw something which so horrified her she had to get off the yacht at any cost, and got into the Zodica, something she never would have done if not in deep shock...as to why she was shocked, we can ONLY conclude she saw Wagner and Walken in flagrante delecto...RJ reverting to type once again. And PLEASE explain why it took Wagner THREE HOURS to call in the emergecny...and why Walken's wife was not invited?????

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Chris
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 23 2007, 7:30 AM 

I have the same feelings. I don't believe the "official" version of the story
I believe they had a fight,they were drunk, they were both very angry. She slipped and fell in. RJ taunted her from the deck,in anger, not because he wanted her to die And because she was along side the boat he walked away angry, thinkingshe'd be able to make it back onto the boat herself. And after, as you said, RJ and Davern had to get their stories straight.
And the fact that RJ got together with Jill soon after Natalie passed away, what do you think of that ? I have my own idea

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Chris
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 23 2007, 8:03 AM 

My above message is for all who think thought that there was more to Natalie's passing than what we know.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Vlad
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 23 2007, 2:35 PM 

Thank you Chris.

Anonymous what you say makes sense.What I say makes sense, that is the problem with Natalies death. Other scenerios, other than the accidental therory work. It sounds like to me you have gotten all your information from Finstad and Lambert and thats great I read the books too.My information is from only witness statements, and Dr. Noguchi.When you put my info together it was not accidental, others feel the same way more than the ones who think it was an accident. LOL isn't that why we are here? Thank you for caring.

Chris what do you think happened?

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Vlad
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 23 2007, 3:04 PM 

One more thing, Natasha Gregson and Courtney Wagner know the truth of what happened, Davern told them in complete secret. The truth will come out after RJW dies it will be their vendetta against Walken and others, it will also set the record straight about their mothers death. Kate Wagner also knows but will not have a part of it in fear of losing the Vanderbilt money set aside especially for her.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 23 2007, 5:25 PM 

OK, now you're just talking crazy. How do you know what Courtney and Natasha know? And Katie has "Vanderbilt" money coming to her? Maybe there was a grassy knoll just off shore and that's what REALLY happened. You sound like part of the tinfoil hat crowd.

Davern is the last person I'd believe about ANYTHING. His version changes each time he needs a little cash, so I don't care what you believe he told Courtney and Natasha, if he in fact told them anything.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

It's unfair

No score for this post
August 13 2007, 4:24 PM 

Oh stop being so nasty. Yes, VANDERBILT money, as in WATSON WEBB, a direct descendant of CORNELIUS VANDERBILT...Webb was madly in love with RJ and it is HIS money which is going to go to Kate and the girls. There ARE situations and circumstances that even a person with incredible prescience, such as you, may not be aware of...strange but true. Believe it...or not. You need to utilize less hubris and more humility and flexibility.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 23 2007, 9:56 PM 

Re Vlad's post: One more thing, Natasha Gregson and Courtney Wagner know the truth of what happened, Davern told them in complete secret. The truth will come out after RJW dies it will be their vendetta against Walken and others, it will also set the record straight about their mothers death.




You know, Vlad, the more I think about your above post, the more it strikes me as complete idiocy. First off, to believe what you're saying, one would have to believe that Natalie's daughters find Davern more credible than their own father (I know Wagner isn't Natasha's biological father, but he raised her, she took his last name, and she calls him Daddy.) I find this hard to swallow since they both remain extremely close to RJ. So if they believe Davern's version (told to them, as you say, in complete secrecy!), how do you explain the fact that they aren't displaying any blame toward Wagner? Are they merely pretending while he's alive to believe his version? And they'll what, hold it against him after he dies? It makes no sense. If what you say is true and they actually have bought Davern's dillusions, they'd cut off all contact with Wagner. Bottom line is, no one knows the truth of what happened that night except Natalie.

I also don't get your line "it will be their vendetta against Walken and others." Care to explain?

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 23 2007, 5:32 PM 

Vlad,

Re your statement: It sounds like to me you have gotten all your information from Finstad and Lambert and thats great I read the books too. My information is from only witness statements, and Dr. Noguchi.



No, what I'm saying is actually the exact OPPOSITE of what you wrote above. My info certain doesn't come from Finstadt's hardcover trash and Lambert's book was basically RJ's version (which, truth be told, is just about what the investigators concluded). Your theory, on the other hand, cannot be based on the coroner's report, because he determined the death to be accidental. If there had been even a hint of the foul play odor that you smell, a criminal investigation would have begun. Back to you.


 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Chris
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 26 2007, 4:01 AM 

Vlad, i share all Maryanne POV. She explains very well what i think it happens that night. All her post are very interesting.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 23 2007, 5:27 PM 

What meaning does RJ getting together with Jill have to Natalie's death? Are you implying that Jill was somehow involved? I don't see your connection.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 23 2007, 7:10 PM 

Anonymous has a name. Her name is Joanne. She is a huge Robert Wagner fan. So much so that she goes all over the Internet defending him. She haunts the Natalie IMDB board waiting for someone to say something negative about him. She has no objectivity when it comes to Wagner and could give a damn about Natalie. This posters opinion is worthless because she is here only to defend Wagner.
i thought it may have been her but then something in her last post gave her identity away. Go away, Joanne.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 23 2007, 7:11 PM 

I'll see the rest of you later. Your observations are interesting.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 23 2007, 9:02 PM 

Maryanne,

What in my previous posts makes you think I'm defending Wagner? By believing Natalie's death to be an accident, I haven't by definition "blamed" anyone. But does that mean by calling it an accident I'm also defending Walken and Davern?

I've read Joanne's posts on this board and I agree with some and disagree with others. But I'm not her. Sorry to disappoint you.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 24 2007, 6:08 AM 

Sure you are.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 24 2007, 10:55 AM 

Maryanne,

I'm not Joanne. You can believe me or not, I really don't care.

But I thought we were discussing the facts of the case. Other than believing it to be an accident, I certainly don't know what I wrote to lead you to believe that I'm defending anyone.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 24 2007, 9:39 PM 

You are consciously trying not to defend Wagner. I didn't say that was why I believe that you are Joanne. You said that. I said that there was something in your post. And this something points right to you, Joanne.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 25 2007, 12:07 PM 

You are too funny. Whatever, believe what you want to believe. I'm not defending anyone. I just happen to think it was an accident. But everyone needs a hobby. Yours seems to be wondering about that night and trying to find a "there" where there is none, so enjoy yourself. But in the end, the investigative conclusion (and therefore the facts) are on my side of the argument.


 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 25 2007, 4:58 PM 

You know, I've been thinking more and more about your version, Maryanne. And the holes are just to big to allow me to buy the story.

You wrote "I believe that Wagner saw her before she died. I believe that he went down to their stateroom, they fought and she ended up in the water. He made no attempt to save her because he saw her hanging on to the dinghy. When he went back to check she was gone. That's why it took him so long to call for help. He and Davern had to get their stories straight."

Now this is basically the version Davern fed to Finstadt and I had never heard it posited prior to her book (which contained a lot of sensational stuff; the rape story being another example).

The biggest contention I have with this version is that Daven claims to have witnessed the supposed fight on deck but he did nothing to help save Natalie after she fell in. If she was flailing away in the water, with Wagner taunting her from the deck, why didn't Davern jump into save her? To hell with RJ and his wishes, a fellow human being was in danger!! So it seems to me in his effort sensationalize for his own personal (and monetary) gain, Davern incriminates himself by his own inaction. He's just too stupid to see it though, since he came up with this version after the first eight or so never panned out.

As for why RJ waited so long to call for help, my guess it was because he assumed Natalie went to shore as she had the previous night. The dinghy was missing remember. If the dinghy was there and she was gone, that's a different story because how could she have left the boat without the dinghy? But since the dinghy was also gone, it's easy to reach the conclusion that she took it and left the boat. Now could his calling the authorities sooner have saved her? Perhaps, but we'll never know.

To put the decision into perspective, since hindsight is 20/20, how many times have you had an overdue friend or relative? After a few minutes, did you immediately assume the worst and call the police? Most likely the answer is no. And that's because most people use reason and don't suspect right off that their loved one is in danger. It is only after more time passes that you think something horrible might have happened. That seems to have been what happened here.

Try looking at the events (as we know them, not as we "suspect" them to be) as if you're there while they are happening, not with the luxury of knowing the outcome. It may give you a different perspective and it could help explain why certain decisions were made as they were.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 25 2007, 7:04 PM 

Joanne,

My views have nothing to do with Dennis Davern. You are so hung up on the illusion of perfection in Wagner that it is a waste of time to discuss this with you. You are beyond reason because of your obsession with Wagner. You stalk the Natalie sites to make sure no one is saying anything bad about your boy. That's exactly what you are doing now. And you did it again, you revealed who you are, not by defending Wagner, it's one word that you typed that is the give away. Now please go away so the rest of us can discuss this. You'll never change my mind or the minds of anyone else here. Go to an Rj website because that is one of the few places where your feelings are shared. You must have noticed that the majority of us feel that he has some culpability in Natalie's death.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 25 2007, 7:34 PM 

Maryanne, a line by line response to your post (my response in caps):

Joanne, ONCE AGAIN I AM NOT JOANNE. BUT WHATEVER...

My views have nothing to do with Dennis Davern. AH, BUT THEY DO IF YOU CONTINUE TO BELIEVE HIS VERSION. I CAN'T HELP BUT NOTICE THAT YOU DID NOTHING TO DISPUTE MY ASSERTIONS.

You are so hung up on the illusion of perfection in Wagner that it is a waste of time to discuss this with you. You are beyond reason because of your obsession with Wagner. You stalk the Natalie sites to make sure no one is saying anything bad about your boy. That's exactly what you are doing now. And you did it again, you revealed who you are, not by defending Wagner, it's one word that you typed that is the give away. YOUR CONTINUED BELIEF THAT I AM JOANNE IS CLOUDING YOUR ABILITY TO RESPOND TO MY ARGUMENT. BUT IT'S JUST A COP OUT NOW. YOU KNOW I'M HITTING YOU WITH FACTS AND YOU CAN ONLY RESPOND WITH YOUR THEORIES. SO INSTEAD OF COMING BACK AT ME WITH YOUR SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT, YOU'RE USING THE EXCUSE THAT YOU WON'T DEBATE WITH JOANNE BECAUSE SHE DEFENDS RJ. TRUTH BE TOLD, YOU'VE LOST THE ARGUMENT AND CAN'T HANDLE IT.

Now please go away so the rest of us can discuss this. You'll never change my mind or the minds of anyone else here. Go to an Rj website because that is one of the few places where your feelings are shared. You must have noticed that the majority of us feel that he has some culpability in Natalie's death.
YES, I'VE NOTICED THAT SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT, ESPECIALLY MANY ON THIS BOARD. BUT THE FACTS OF THE CASE DON'T BARE THAT OUT. I TOO AM TRYING TO DISCUSS THE CASE, BUT YOU SEEM UNWILLING TO DO SO.


 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 25 2007, 8:44 PM 

What facts? No one knows what happened to her. You don't know, I don't know and the police don't know. All they know is that she drowned. She was afraid of deep, dark water and couldn't swim yet her husband waited close to 3 hours before he called for help. Be real, Does that make sense, no, and if it doesn't make sense it is not true.He spent those 3 hours covering up. You are the one who can't face up to the realization that Robert Wagner is hiding a great deal about what happened that night. And the majority of us feel this way. You are very much in the minority. You sing the same song no matter where you go. You make the same lame excuses all over the Internet. The only reason you are here is to defend Wagner just as you do on the IMDB board where, again, the majority believe that something other than an accident happened that night. And it's not only here and IMDB. There are sites that deal with classic Hollywood where that night is discussed and it is felt that Wagner is hiding a great deal. So maybe you are the one can't face facts.
And by the way, I know a bit more about the American legal system than you do. Everything I stated about evidence and the press conference is true. And it's also true that Wagner lied about the argument on the boat. He told the detectives that it was not over her. I wonder how foolish those detectives felt when it was revealed by Wagner that the argument was over her. That alone may have altered the investigation.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 25 2007, 8:52 PM 

What facts, you ask? The ones viewed by the investigators that led to their conclusion.

But you know whay? You're right, the case should be reopened. Not because any new evidence has surfaced, but because the majority of people on Internet message boards think so. Case closed!

And don't be so sure about the American legal system and my knowledge of it.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 26 2007, 2:41 AM 

LOL...You keep using the police investigation as your buffer. It does not wash with me. Wagner lied!!! Their investigation was based, in a large part, on his lies. It means the the LAPD screwed up.
As far as the Internet, it's public opinion. You can ridicule it all you like but it has become a voice of the people. The majority of those people feel that Wagner was involved in his wife's death. And I'm not talking about fanbots. I'm talking about well read educated people who are not "fans" of either Natalie or Wagner. As time goes on it grows to a greater degree because people are more open-minded. They can see that it simply does not make sense. You don't see it because you don't want to. You are totally blinded by Wagner and the image of a character in a TV series.



 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Vlad
(Login vladislaus)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 26 2007, 3:00 PM 

Anonymous is not Joanne, Joanne does not hide who she is and has no need to, she is the most knowledgeable person there is when it comes to Natalie and RJ.

Like I said before, see what's happening here, see how passionate people are about her death, we all cannot be wrong, it was not an accident, she was not murdered ( in a physical sense) it was negligent homicide on behalf of Robert Wagner. Both his daughters know about this and the truth will be set free as soon as Wagner goes to hell.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 26 2007, 4:21 PM 

It's Joanne...I'm aware of her "knowledge". She has come on here anonomous before. There is one word that gives her away. All that she knows about Natalie is colored by her obsession with RJ. It's Joanne. No doubt in my mind.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 26 2007, 4:23 PM 

oooops anonymous.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 26 2007, 4:31 PM 

Maryanne, you are obsessed with Joanne. I don't know what word Joanne apparently has a copywrite on, but whatever it is, I guess I infringed. Mea culpa. Vlad is right; I am not Joanne.

But you two and the rest of your merry band can live in your fantasy world, happily playing junior PI. In the meantime, the truth AND THE REAL INVESTIGATIVE CONCLUSION (the one that counts) is on my side.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 26 2007, 5:20 PM 

The "investigative conclusion" was tainted with lies.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 26 2007, 5:24 PM 

and with that there was no "truth"

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 26 2007, 5:43 PM 

re: The "investigative conclusion" was tainted with lies.

So says you. But guess what? Your opinion doesn't count. You can second guess all you want, but it won't mean anything. Other than giving you something to do.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Maryanne
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 26 2007, 5:58 PM 

Wagner lied. Why can't you face that. He lied. I'm not making this up. I have the video of the detective saying that "the argument was not over her, it was over general purposes." Those were his words. In Lambert's book RJ told the story of the argument. It was over her. He lied and that in itself taints the investigation. Who knows what direction the investigation would have gone in if the detectives were told the truth. And who knows what else he lied about.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
March 26 2007, 6:01 PM 

<sigh> see my post in the other thread....or are you hot on the trail of the REAL story behind Anna Nicole's passing? It can't be an accident. Celebrities don't die accidently.


 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: It's unfair

No score for this post
August 13 2007, 4:43 PM 

Actually, "Anon.", that is true although I realize you were being facetious...many celebrity deaths can be attributed to foul play, and this one certainly falls under that designation.
Here'a another factoid for you to chew over...you MAY be wrong! *Shock! Gasp!* And we may be right!
(I know this never occurred to you so thought I'd mention it in passing...)

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Schuyler
(no login)

It's unfair

No score for this post
August 14 2007, 2:39 PM 

Vlad, please! Stop the insanity! JOANNE is the best source of knowledge re RJ and Natalie???? Holy cow dude; you need to step back and assess the facts more closely...Joanne knows nothing beyond what she has READ; she knows no one close to either one of them nor did she ever even meet them beyond. perhaps, a sweaty handed attempt to get an autograph, perhaps. She is a pathetic woman with no real life of her own who lives in a fantasy centered around RJ and she will defend him to the death. She is NOT exactly coherent nor is she even capable of an educated guess as to what happened that night.
Say whatever you want re that night, but please, I beg you, never think Joanne knows ANYTHING beyond her own tiny fantasy world in lala land.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Isn't "Joanne" or "Anonymous.....

No score for this post
February 15 2009, 6:11 AM 

related or is wagner himself?

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

Re: Isn't "Joanne" or "Anonymous.....

No score for this post
April 14 2009, 2:11 PM 

well, let's blame it all on lana. that's the going path.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)

He did it!

No score for this post
May 13 2009, 8:28 PM 

Wagner killed her! He is a drunken bum. He is 79 but looks 179 because of the guilt he has carried around abnd all his crapolo books and interviews won't change that fact.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Current Topic - It's unfair
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>View more postings  
 Copyright © 1999-2014 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement