<< 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   
 
< Previous Page 1 2 3 Next >
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>View more postings