While talking this morning with a friend, she told me the story of a new movie she has just seen. This suggested me the idea of a probable, possible, theoretical scenario that could have unfolded that night on board the Splendour....
I've heard theories about Nat discovering RJ and Walken in a 'compromising situation'...but what if they (RJ and Walken) proposed her a 'jeux à trois' and she did not want to play that game...?
Incidentally that's what happens in the movie my friend told me about and this woman, frightened, and out of panic, throw herself in the water (the scene takes place on a boat) but gets saved by a passing by craft.
Mind you, mine is just a theory, nothing more...

Go ahead and bite, Michael!! This one's right up your alley....

Actually, I hoped to get a reply from you, Michael....

Well, it's nice to know somebody respects my opinion.

Here it is:

R.J. and Walken had only met once before this week-end. That was on location in N. Carolina on the set of "Brainstorm." They certainly did not have time to get to know one another intimately. It is unlikely this homosexual scenario took place. Quite simply, the two men never had the time to get a relationship going - certainly not one that would have gone that far so soon.

I respect everybody's opinion. But actually by 'theory' or idea, as farfetched as it might seem, was not suggesting an homosexual scenario between RJ and Walken.(A person sexual life is his own business, but certainly I prefer to think of RJ as a more intelligent man, not to engage in such a thing with his wife on board! Or sleeping upstairs, at the time of the first divorce!And this putting aside the fact that I might or might not agree with RJ alleged and/or presumed homosexual tendencies)
I was suggesting... a little different scenario...something involving the three of them. This 'something', this 'jeux à trois' (a threesome game), being the event that caused Nat to try to leave the boat without thinking of the consequences, or the fact that there was rough sea that night. Being the two men drunk, VERY drunk, (and Natalie, too), this could have been the reason why Natalie left the Splendour almost in a hurry. And dealing with drunken men is not an easy task....
By the way, Michael, thank for taking your time to answer my 'question'...

Well, from what I've read, the reason Natalie left was because R.J. and Walken were arguing over her.

R.J. asked Walken if he wanted to "F*** my wife?" I believe that is Dennis Davern's testimony that this took place. I see no reason for him to lie about that. Everybody knows the two men quarelled about something.

Natalie would not have jumped into the water on her own, drunk or not. She was neither suicidal, nor brave enough to ever jump in on her own. Certainly, a three-some proposition would not have caused her to jump overboard.

p.s. For the record, I do not share your liberal views on homosexuality. Guess you'll be voting Democrat this election year. Just remember what brought Rome to ruin!

By the way, there's always that possibility that R.J. and Natalie fought, too, and R.J. either pushed Natalie overboard, or she stumbled over in her rage.

There definitely was an argument. I tend to think R.J. was responsible for Natalie going overboard. I also am inclined to believe he did nothing to fish her out, either. He continued to argue with her on deck as she was in the water. Then, he either walked away and forgot about her, whether intentionally, or unintentionally..

(Walken would have gone to bed, and Davern relocated somewhere else on the yacht, when R.J. allegedly fought with Natalie.)

1- There was certainly an heated argument going on that night between RJ and Walken and quite possibly between RJ and Nat,allegedly for her flirting with Walken or stay away from home and the kids. Whatever. Guess we agree on this point.
2-Also guess that almost any of us had, at least once, argued with a friend or spouse or mate...and you have to consider that RJ was arguing over and with Natalie so he was very and personally involved in it.
3- Now, what happens when you argue or have a big fight with someone you love and care? You probably tell your friend or spouse to go to hell, you do not anymore care what may happen to him/her. And what if all this fight is fuelled by alchool? Every word and action is raised to the nth power. With this scenario in mind, and Natalie will have certainly answered back word by word to her husband, she might have stumbled overboard in the heat of the discussion. RJ might have unintentionally 'forgotten' about Natalie in the water (for the above mentioned reasons)...When RJ's anger cooled down - here's the two hours delay in calling for help - and his 'the devil may care' attitude towards his wife softened up and he reasoned upon his actions, then and only then he called for help.
4-Now, as to 'we had a friendly political debate...' as stated by both RJ and Walken,and the controversial argument between the two, I think that neither RJ nor Walken wanted to really wash their 'dirty linen' in public. And add fuel to an already self-fueling fire; after all the subject of the argument was a very personal matter.
5-Just a couple of words OT: I do not want to start a political debate in here which might be more controversial than the current subject.... I'm not voting Democrat at this year's US elections...mainly because I do not live in the States. I have political elections in my own country and that's more than enough!

See, this is where you lose me. I don't dispute that everyone on board had been drinking heavily all weekend. And I don't dispute there was an argument. But there is ZERO evidence - Z.E.R.O. - that anyone pushed Natalie overboard or that anyone stood idly by and watched her drown. What leads you to believe this it what happened, other than it would make a juicy story and sell a lot of books?

In all seriousness, Reverend Michael, why have you excluded the other two men on board and pointed your finger of guilt at Wagner? Your hatred of Wagner is well known on this board, but to be fair, how come the other two men don't get a look from you? Or if they have gotten a look, what "evidence" do you have that excludes them from being a suspect in your "theory"?

Calling me "Reverend" is ignorance on your part. Again, I have not been to school for that, nor do I recognize that title. It's a man-made title, not a Biblical title.

Now that we've dispensed with the disclaimer: Neither Christopher Walken nor Dennis Davern had reason to harm Natalie. I first wondered if Walken did because Natalie refused his sexual advances, but that's dumb, because R.J. was around all the time, except for when they snuck off to the restaurant by themselves. Certainly, Natalie had no problem at the restaurant with Walken. Witenesses said she had a problem with R.J. there.

Dennis Davern was Natalie's friend. He was true to her like a puppy dog would be! His going to the motel with her the night previous proved his loyalty to her. He would have no reason to harm her. I know a great deal more about his relationship with her and what he did and did not do onboard that night, but I have agreed to not revealing those details on any public website. I gave my word to Marti Rulli, who entrusted me with knowledge of the events. But, again, he had no reason to harm Natalie.

There is too much evidence that points the guilt to Robert Wagner. So we don't have a "smoking gun." Call it circumstantial evidence then. Perhaps Dennis and Marti will produce a "smoking gun" in their book. I doubt it, but we'll see what they have to say. She didn't reveal exactly what Dennis saw or knows as far as the answer(s) we're all looking for, but I bet they do know something incriminating that involves Wagner.

I believe R.J. either pushed Natalie overboard or she fell accidentally while throwing a fit. Either way, he did not fish her out of the water, nor allow anyone else to. I also like the way that other guy here reasoned what happened. I agree that is a strong possibility as to where those two hours went before R.J. decided to do something about Natlalie's disappearance.

So, why didn't you bash him, or ask him any questions? Hopefully, now you know I'm not just looking for a "juicy story to sell my book." My book has much more in it than just this story. It will do well based on many other celebrity stories, besides the Natalie Wood one. Many people are still interested in reading about Shirley Temple, or John Wayne, or Audrey Hepburn, or heroes of war like Jimmy Stewart, Tyrone Power, Mickey Rooney, Bob Hope, Betty Grable, etc.

+Michael

...guess 'the other guy' it's me...
Anyway, I'm just trying to reason out what happened that night, as everybody has been doing since I found this site and went through all the past theads.
I do not give much credit to Davern-I have seen the Gerardo Rivera show, including the 'incriminating sequence' so to speak, with him and Marty Rulli. Now, I do not know exactly what kind of show he hosts, being the one about Nat the only one I've seen. But he looks for the sensational news, hence, he title of the program. Whether it aired live or not, even a live show has a script and I had the impression that the whole behind the camere conversation was somewhat 'staged'. For the good of Rivera, for the good of the TV audience and, last but not least, for the good of TV ratings. Otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing it. So, I do not think they have any 'smoking gun' as you said, Michael.
Besides that, witholding knowledge of a 'crime', or of an alleged crime, does not make the person an accomplice? I'm not questioning Davern's loyalty to Nat or RJ, his employers, I have no ground to do that. And why, then, he waited 27 years? And he's still waiting...
Now to Chris Walken. You exclude him from the 'list of suspects' and I can see your reasoning there. But his behavior that night makes me think...I guess it was in Finstad book that it's written that Walken woke up the next morning, asking for breakfast or something, completely oblivion of the events of the previous night.Authorities came on board that night, didn't he hear anything? Boy, he was really dead drunk! The whole Splendour could have sank and he would not have realized that! At least RJ managed to collect himself up and finally call for help!
As much as I do not like it, I have to somewhat agree with you, Michael, about the 'circumstantial evidence'...I've tried to look at those events from every side, taking every news with a good pinch of salt, my 'souces' being the usual, no first hand and reported news have to be taken very carefully. There's not one single truth, but there are _truths_: RJ,'s, Walken's, even Davern's and there's the truth of the police officers involved in the investigations. I'm led to think they did their job well...even if, yes, there are some 'loose ends still to tie up' (you will pardon me this Lt Columbo quote!).
I don't think there's such a thing like an 'attempted' negligent homicide in any penal code. If there has been negligence from RJ, there has been negligence, too, from the other parties who were there.
Don't know whether ultimate responsibility for
1 the good order on board a private yacht, and
2 safety for the passengers on board
falls over the owner, RJ, or the man who has the captaincy, i.e. Davern; or whether the owner is also considered captain of the yacht with Davern being a sort of 'factotum' on board, with an occasional manning of the helm; and how much the size, the tonnage, of it is important or not, in order to establish a hyerarchy of duties and responsibilities...
Certainly I would not like to have a drunken captain or 'factotum' on board my yacht or someone who gets carried away with alchool just because the owner and his wife and guest are doing so and possibly invited him to have a glass, too...
A series of unfortunate coincidences and circumstaces all conjured up that night, that led to Nat death: if they did not go to Catalina that weekend... if they did not invite Chris Walken...if Natalie did not start flirting with him, whatever her reasons were...if they did not drink, out of frustration and/or jealousy...
About one thing I completely agree with Suzanne Finstad: alchool was the leit motiv and it was a dangerously alchool fueled weekend. If only...

You want circumstantial? How's this:

a) If any of the men (Wagner included) wanted to harm Natalie, they would have thought twice about doing so on the boat since there were two other men on board who would be witnesses.

b) No way did Wagner stand by and mock her as she drowned WITH DAVERN WATCHING because Davern would have turned him in - and been guilty too for failing to rescue her. Why would someone do such a thing with someone right there watching you? Doesn't make sense. And don't give me that "Wagner was too drunk to know what he was doing" garbage. If he wasn't too drunk to mock her, he wasn't too drunk to realize a witness was standing right there.

c) As for the nonsense about a tryst between Walken and Wagner, please. Would anyone in their right mind try such a thing with their WIFE right there? They were ON A BOAT, for goodness sake. It's not like they were in a large house with tons of space.

So that leaves this: What about it being nothing more than an accident? Sometime there is no THERE there. But people like Michael can't accept that. For them, there always has to be more to the story. Accidents don't sell books.