You posted a response to my original question. I have answered you in the thread titled A Question About The Red Jacket but I also want to make absolutely sure you see my response so I am starting a thread just for you with your post and the one directly following it. As you can clearly see, I am logged in once more. Please note you are not playing with one of these other fan-zie children that seem to populate this site. I see no reason to respond to every little affected response to my original question but your fabricated and confrontational response needed my personal rebuttal. Regarding the second Anonymous, you do not know who I am so please do not sully my spirit and my profession with your false identification.
Sign me,
PK- don't screw with a Law Professor!


Anonymous
(no login) Re: A question about the red jacket?
Score 1.0 (1 person) June 24 2009, 1:37 PM


natashacourtney (yentruocahsatan) seems to have disappeared...the big name who SIGN'S IN! Didn't quite stir up what you had intended, huh? People aren't stupid. I can't stand people who underestimate other people. Basically, everyone knows there are lots of little and major details surrounding Wood's death that need be answered. Why not wait and see what's coming? Then, I'm sure we'll all have lots to talk about and consider.


Your score: 1 Respond to this message

Anonymous
(no login) Re: A question about the red jacket?
No score for this post June 24 2009, 1:45 PM


Yeah, I know who it is. Another grandstander who thinks that's the big thing. LOL, wait until the big thing hits! Only Davern and Wagner know what really happened (and Natalie but she's gone), and from the description at Amazon, sure seems Rulli did her homework. It says this new book is painstakingly researched. I can't wait. I really can't wait. This summer is dragging by. I waited since Nov. 1981 for this answer. I hope they reopen this case. I wonder if Rulli talked to Rasure. That's one of the most important things. I sure hope so.


Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent)

In the likely event that you can not find my response in the thread I have made it quite simple for you and I have placed it here. Note: still logged in.
PK-don't screw with a Law Professor!


yentruocahsatan
(Login yentruocahsatan) I am right here! -and I am logged in!
No score for this post June 24 2009, 7:26 PM


Excuse me but I am right here and I am logged in. I asked a question. A simple logical question. I stirred nothing up. I can not help it if people take a simple honest question flip it around, squeeze all meaning from it and make their own agenda out of it.
Yes, my screen name is NatashaCourtney inverted. So what? It certainly is a hell of a lot better than Anonymous or some of the other absurd names I've read on here.
Please be sure you know what you are speaking about before you thow meaningless accusations around. I am not one of the fan-zies on this site.

And I responded in the original thread. I think you asked a good question. I am not "screwing" with anyone. I can't understand the use of Natalie's daughter's names. (and I'm not the one who figured it out). I don't think that name choice is a better choice than anonymous. If you are a law professor, you must have more knowledge than the average Joe about how a case like Natalie's mystery death would hold up in court if it ever got that far. Do you believe her case was professionally investigated properly? I now believe you are not a "fan-sie" but you are here. That must mean this case DOES interest you. It interests me, too, beyond a fan-sie level. I'd really like to know your opinion about how you think the Wood case was handled. I actually was upset that you went away...sorry I enticed you back so full of anger, but I also am not threatened by your law professor status. Many of us work honest jobs, and we have some smarts, too. But, I apologize. Yours in one of the most interesting posts here in ages. Thanks for that.

Also, I will not "sign-in" but in the future, my posts will be identifiable by the letters XYZ. Then, you'll know it's me responding to something here. I just sent the above message.

First, let me ask you why a little reversal play on the names of Natalie Wood's two daughter is unacceptable to you but Anonymous is acceptable? At the very least my screen moniker is directly related to the subject at hand and it does not get muddled in a sea of anonymity which appears to be the norm on this board. A pleather of absurd anonymous posts by a group of hit and run, finger pointing individuals who make a case surrounded by name calling and childish finger pointing.
Would you have preferred another post by Anonymous or one of the other absurd names people post with?
Moving on, I was quite offended by the responding posts referring to me as a "big name" and I did not "stir up" as "intended". I stirred nothing up. I asked a civil question. The responding post to that called me "a Grandstander" and implied he/she "knows who it is" Absurd. I assure you only two people on this board know who I am and they too have had their intelligence questioned by the repugnance of half witted enigmas who are the true grand standers on this board.
As you requested, my opinion of the Wood case follows;
If I had to argue this case in a Court of Law with Robert Wagner as the defendant, hopefully I would be on the side of the Prosecution. I believe there is much more to this story than meets the eye. The LAPD dropped the ball several times and Mr. Wagner's star power at the time and friendships with mega stars such as Sinatra dazzled the LAPD.
I know nothing of the new book due in the Fall other than what I have read here, on other sites and what a few people have told me. None of this would hold up in court and as the book has not been released I will refrain from further personal comments other than to say this; Robert Wagner was the sole owner of the Splendour. Robert Wagner was married to Natalie Wood. Robert Wagner was responsible for all actions on his property including those of his wife Natalie Wood, Christopher Walken and Dennis Davern.
PK

It was Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept, not the LAPD.

This is exactly what I refer to when the little nondescript anonymous birds swoop and attack!
They have nothing of substance to add so they correct me with their throwaway Sheiff's Department interjection. I assure you if I was in front of my students or in a coutroom my paralegal team and I would make sure our T's were crossed and our i's were dotted.
As I am not in front of my students nor in a courtroom and I am on this site for purely recreational purposes only, if this is all you have in retaliation to my personal opinion and stance on my previous statements pertaining to Mr. Wagner and his role in his wife's demise please let us not waste each other's time further.
PK

You sound more sensible than most who come here, that's for sure. Lots of people here say that Davern should've done his job, and they blame him instead of Wagner who wouldn't let Davern search for Natalie (per Vanity Fair interview with Davern, Davern claims he wanted to try to find Natalie but Wagner wouldn't allow him to do anything in regards to a search). That sounds weird, but maybe Davern thought Wagner knew she was ok, too. Who knows? Hopefully Davern will soon tell us.

"Davern will tell us what"? In one breath you say that Davern did what Wagner told him to do "do not search" in the next breath you say that Davern did not search because he or Wagner knew she was alright, then you say the book will tell us how she died, which could only mean Davern knows and willing let her die, the woman he was in love with!!! gibberish nonsense. The book will never tell us how Natalie died because if it does then Davern knew and is guilty. You are in for a big letdown with this book, don't get your hopes up.

Gordon

Regarding your many posts on this board you allegedly appear to know a great deal about this book and its contents. I am under the impression that it has not been released yet and no chapters nor passages have been released to the public.
Many of my former students have tried to track down concrete evidence contained in the pages of this book but have come up empty handed each time. The most they have gotten was its name, the books authors, the publisher and a most general synopsis of its contents.
What or who could you possibly know that students of a major New England University do not?
PK

Regarding your response to mag's post. Please tell me where it states that Dennis Davern knew positively that she (Natalie Wood) was OK? The OP is making it very clear that he/she is speculating that possibly Mr. Davern thought she (Natalie Wood) was OK because he thought Mr. Wagner knew she was OK. The OP also makes no reference to the book being concrete evidence to anything as you so slying state.
I notice you certainly have a tendency to paraphrase other people's statements in seeking out your own agenda.
I wonder what a prosecuting attorney would do to your evasive statements and hollow argumentative nature if you were on the stand?

The above post to Gordon is definitely mine. I forgot to log in and initial it.
PK

Gordon stick to the other threads on here where you can get all stupid and no one cares. You can have a tantrum too like you usually do.
Whoever this PK is and the other 2 posters are burying you with their intelligence. Hell, even I don't know what half the words mean that PK person is using.
Better for us dummys to stick with what we know.

You don't know the meaning of the words he's using?? Oh please. You must be "PK himself" ghosting as a "PK fan". LOL

To be honest with you yen (for short I'll use yen) I thought you might be one of those posters impersonating a Natalie fan to gather info, so that's why I had my flip remarks for you, but I like you and I admire your no nonsense intellect, and I concede that the name you chose to use here is far better than anonymous. So, I am now xyz, and I've read the posts here, and I clearly saw what mag was saying, too, and I can't understand the odd response to mag by anonymous as there were no contradictions whatsoever in mag's post, yet some people from "the other side" always seem to twist things here, and I agree with the other anonymous poster that you, mag, and another is burying that oddball with your clarity. Yes, this book is difficult to get info on. There are some vague descriptions, a blog, and hints of truth to come, but little detail. I am waiting for this book as much as the new Dan Brown fiction book! Can't wait for that package to arrive. I wonder what I'll read first. Probably Goodbye and then Dan Brown's. I've been waiting since 1981 for info on this case. Are you doing a study on it with your students? That's so very interesting! I feel there are finally a few intelligent people here now to converse with, but I would never sign in here. Never.

PLease note that I will no longer respond or reference anything to, by or in conjunction with this Gordon person. I am more than pleased to speak to you concerning any of the three scenarios I speak of here but I will never get into the verbal hair pulling of these trite, uneducated and mundane individuals. With that said;
Yes, in the Fall a group of my former students will be doing a mock trial of the Natalie Wood Case, The Thelma Todd Case and the mass murder case of a family that originally took place in the 1970's in a very small New England town.
So far my students have definite cause to bring Charles Luciano, Robert Wagner and the adopted brother of one of the murder victims in the New England case before a jury in connection with these three separate cases.
Please note, this is not the student's concrete admission of anyone's guilt in their findings but definitely a reason for probable cause.
PK
I have no reason not to sign in as I state nothing but facts here and do not delve into the tabloid-ism of these stories.

I think the Natalie case is an intriguing one to "bring to trial" -- certainly an excellent case study for your students as it involves so many angles: the celebrity, the delay in calling for help, her known fear of water, her autopsy results, and on and on. I will be so interested in hearing the "mock verdict" -- if your students are conducting the "trial" this fall, you will have Davern's version to incorporate by then. Thus far, we do not have Davern's. We have a scenario in Finstad's book, but Davern was never interviewed by her. We have Wagner's version and a Vanity Fair article that, frankly, I thought hinted at things that surely should have been elaborated on. Hopefully, this new book coming will take care of that.

This is my reason for the original thread. I was hoping someone knew something about the book that is due in the Fall as I've heard the red down jacket is mentioned in it. We have read the Finstad version but her inconsistencies in other areas of her book makes her scenario on Natalie Wood's death rather hard to believe also.
The Vanity Fair article as you remarked left much to be elaborated on and it fell quite short on conclusions.
The Wagner book, Pieces of My Heat was nothing more than a movie star's autobiography filled with inconsistencies from its first page to its last but most autobiographies are. I ask you, what public figure is honestly going to bare their soul to the public and show all the dark lesions it holds?

None. No movie star would do that. Davern, being your average guy from down the block might hold the answer. I sure hope he comes through with it. I tried to find the Vanity Fair article again, but can't locate it, but recall I was left wanting more after FInstadt's book and the VF piece. Hopefully, this will be it.