I've been asked to make a comment here about all the uproar that is taking place now, so I hear. I have not read any of the comments recently posted.

I want to again apologize to Lana Wood for derragatory comments made by me. They were wrong, and I am sorry about that. But, that is a private situation between Lana and myself. We have been in contact with one another this week and she has accepted my apology. I told her my reasons for my anger and she accepted them. I never meant to hurt her daughter Evan, and I didn't realize I had. But, I'm sorry about that, too. I have always cared about Evan since I learned about her illness. If I had the financial resources, I would pay ALL her medical bills, so she and her family could concentrate on each other. She has a wonderful husband, and a great mother, too, who has always been there to lend a hand when needed.

All of us who care about this story of Natalie Wood get caught up too much, emitionally, sometimes, because we all have our own opinions on what took place the week-end she died. I am as guilty as anyone here and everywhere else of that. I hate that this happened, and only God himself knows all the details of what took place, and who is responsible. However, as a writer, is my job to gather as much of the facts from numerous sources and form an opinion and/or leave it up to my readers to form their own. And that's exactly what I want to do. Yes, I will give my opinion/theory, but I also leave it open for my readers to form their own. Writers cannot be sued for offering their opinions, as long as they are not baseless accusations. If I interview someone and they tell me they saw this, or they saw that, or they heard this or that, and I form an opinion or theory on that, well, that's my legal right to. If the stories turn out not to be true, then the person making the accusations has to answer for them, not me. I'm just the reporter. But, in my case, I do believe those I have interviewed, and many of those interviewed by other sources, such as Suzanne Finstad.

If I have a problem with the police not doing an adequate job, in my opinion, well, that's my opinion. How can somebody sue me for that? Get real! If I tell my readers that Duane Rasure, for example, told another interviewer something different from what he told the last one, then why am I at fault? Don't Natalie's fans have a right to know that? Don't they have a right to decide who's telling the truth? It was their money that made her rich and famous, afterall. I don't mean that disrespectfully, but that's the truth. True for any celebrity.

If I tell my readers Dr. Noguchi reported in his own book that Paul Miller and the Wagners were friends, but later find out they weren't, according to a reliable source, and I tell my readers, do I not have a right to report that? Do I, like so many other people - on record, in fact - not have the right to question why Robert Wagner waited so long to notify the authorities of his wife's disappearance? I believe I do.

While I regrettably let myself say some pretty dumb things here on this forum, when it comes to stating the facts or reporting what my research and interviews have turned up, I am serious about that, and I have every legal right to report my findings, as well as my own opinions on them.

I'm sorry this upsets people, but really, the only ones who should be getting upset, in my opinion, once again, are the ones who have something to hide, or something to be sorry for.

Natalie Wood is not the main topic in my book. I am writing about several Hollywood stars of the past. She is only 1/50th (or whatever) of my material. Those that were expecting a long drawn out book about the Natalie Wood case are going to be disappointed.

I'm out of here for good now. Just wanted to go on record about all this.

-MJE

p.s. I can assure you, if you ever read my name for a user I.D. here, it WILL NOT be me. It will be someone impersonating me. Let's hope that doesn't happen. I won't know about it, though, as I won't be back.

Mr Anonymous here with some quick comments on your parting treatise:


You haven't read any of the comments, yet most of your post focuses on being sued. Right. Lucky guess on your part, I suppose.


No, we "all" don't get caught up emotionally and let the subject get the best of us. You do. Most of us can maintain our cool, so don't try to assuage your guilt with the "everyone did it" excuse.


You will once again call me a Wagner Defender (sigh) but I can't help but notice your double-standard apology. You apologized to Lana and her family, but said nothing to Wagner or his daughters when the things you've said about him are far, far worse. In your time here, you constantly hoped him dead, not to mention your implication that he killed his wife and watched her drown. I'm sure the girls would have loved to read that.


You state: "If I interview someone and they tell me they saw this, or they saw that, or they heard this or that, and I form an opinion or theory on that, well, that's my legal right to. If the stories turn out not to be true, then the person making the accusations has to answer for them, not me. I'm just the reporter." Wrong! I suggest you visit an attorney and find out what you can and what you can't write about before you start cranking out copies in your garage. If someone tells you a lie and you publish it WITHOUT VERIFYING IT'S ACCURACY, you - THE AUTHOR - are liable. Why do you think Finstadt's book was released in two versions: one in the US and one in the UK? Because the UK has very strict libel laws and the rumors should wrote about Wagner and the end of the first marriage wouldn't pass muster; she had no facts to back up her gossip and she would have been sued. Sadly, the libel laws aren't quite as strict here in the States.


Your theory of Wagner tossing Natalie in the ocean and watching her drown has no basis in fact. That nonsense was developed in your little mind. So go ahead and publish it. See what happens. I hope you have a nice suit for court appearances.


Finally - BS, Michael. You'll be back (which is why I know you'll read this response). You'll begin by just reading the posts. But eventually someone will post something you don't agree with and you'll respond. Maybe not with your sign in, but you'll respond. And we'll know it's you.

I know 2 people who spell Finstad's name as you do---Finstadt and both are HUGE Wagner fans. I have never seen any others and I have seen many, spell it as you do, except for 2 very big Wagner fans.

Sorry, that's the German spelling. Because I spelled it that way, suddenly I'm a HUGE Wagner fan? Okay whatever, Sherlock.

Why has this become the "Mr. Anonymous" board? Doens't anyone have anything to say about this message Mr. Eastman posted or Natalie Wood?

I have something to say about "Mr. Eastman's" comments. He knows about as much as our recent "Vlad". NOTHING. Who cares what either say?

and if you are new here you may wonder why there are no responses but for those who have been around for a while, everything that can be said about her death, has been said, many times, in many ways.

Mr. Anonymous here...

This isn't my board, not by a long shot. Feel free to post anytime. I can't help the fact that I've been the one responding. shrug But as the other Anonymous poster just said, there really hasn't been anything new to cover, which is why the board has been so dead lately.

Hello Michael

Sarah - why are you so eager for people to respond to Michael's post. Could it be that you're Michael?????

The name, "Sarah Abraham" is a reference to Biblical figures. We all know how Michael likes to hide behind his Buy Bull, so I would be willing to wager that "Sarah Abraham" is, in actuality, Michael J. Eastman!

Michael can't stay away from this board. He's thoroughly addicted to the attention that we give him.

I don't know about that. The poster misspelled the word "doesn't. Michael's spelling was usually accurate.

Not always. He never did spell anonymous correctly, and it was righ there in front of him!

Not always. He never did spell anonymous correctly, and it was right there in front of him!

Guilty as charged. Just wanted to exit this forum on a lighter note. I was wondering if anyone was going to figure out the "Sarah" and "Abraham" connection. (LOL)

I typed too fast, that's why the misspelling of "doesn't." Who cares? But, thanks for the moral support, Maryanne. Anyway, the board is yours...I'm out of here now.

p.s. Who insulted me and compared me to Vlad? Geez! I make dumb comments sometimes, but overall, I'm a good person. (LOL)

ROFL....Yeah right. You couldn't stay away for 24 hours, why would next time be different. You'll be back. But what'll it be next time? Noah? Cain? Gomorra? Mary?

It was more like 72 hours - check the dates - but then, again, Mr. Anonymous, you never were the brightest person here.

The point is that on more than one occasion you have told us that you were "leaving the board forever", and you have always come back a short time later. You seem to think that the word "forever" means 72 hours or less.

Stop flip-flopping, you always say one thing and then do the opposite. Don't you have any integrity? You gave us your word that you were leaving, now you wouldn't want to go back on your word would you?

72 is when you posted. But tell me you didn't peek, even just once, before then.

Fact is, you have such a high opinion of yourself and your ridiculous theories, you really believe we can't live without you and that if you shout loudly enough, we'll eventually agree with you. You'll be back....again and again and again.....

Nah, I won't be back. But, you might find me nosing around the Dominique Dunne board next. Hope they don't have a "Mr. Anonymous" jerk there, too. One of you in the world is more than enough!

However, all my fans here can follow me over there if they like. (LOL) That board is dead right now, last time I checked, so I'll have to perform a ritual to awaken the dead fans there. (LOL) (That should get to you, Mr. A., since you really believe I am so full of myself.)

p.s. I noticed you didn't argue against my claim. You always shed the light back on me in order to escape your guilt, which in this case, is stupidity. It was 72 hours bewtween my posting, not 24, as you stated. But, whatever, and good-bye...

You're back now.....LOLOLOLOL.

I didn't say it was 24 hours between posts (read again!). I said that I was sure that you came back to VISIT the site within 24 hours of your (cough, cough) farewell post. There is NO way you waited 72 hours to check responses to your sayonara. You're too full of yourself to wait that long.

Finally....your FANS!? Please. Get over yourself.

LOL, Mr. Jerk, LOL!!!

Bye!

p.s. I know you'll miss me. This whole board will go dead without me. Too bad, I have other cases to get to in my book!

Michael has been back at least 6 times since posting his final statement. My question is for Mr. Anonymous. Are you male? Or is that just another thing Eastman ASSumed? I will LMAO if you are female. Either/or, I agree with you.

Nope, I'm female. Don't know why Michael assumed as he did. I asked him several times, but he would never answer. Oh well, you know what they say about assumptions. Sure did work out that way for Reverand Michael, didn't it? LOL

For some reason "Mr. Anonymous" I thought you were female. LMAO Maybe that's because while reading your input I'm reading what I would say but it's already there, by you. Women think differently than men think. Many moons ago, a case was solved. People should leave it alone.