I pulled up a small % of JOnane's posts. The real Joanne, although I disagreee with her, isn't as crazy as some of the other's posting here, and everyone is definitely entitled to their opinions, so I do not begrudge Joanne. But to say she never posted here is like saying Wagner is innocent. Use your noggins.

Bad analogy because Wagner is innocent.

Dead wife found in the water she feared all her life, a gazillion bruises, lies told to police, contradicing stories through the years. Yeah, right, he's innocent.

He's no more guilty than anyone else on board that night.

IT WAS AN ACCIDENT!

I doubt that: Walken and Davern had NO REASON to harm Natalie. Wagner, in a jealous rage had EVERY reason. He and Jill sure have had it nice. What's Natalie got? Yeah. He's innocent.

Having a "reason" (although I have no idea what it would be. But I'm sure your demented mind has it all worked out) and doing it are two completely different things. Not to mention having evidence of him doing it. Moreover, how he's living now has zero bearing on what happened that night.

Get over it.

Wagner is as innocent as the fart I just blew

And about as talented as that fart.

"IT WAS AN ACCIDENT!"

Ever heard of arguing your point, not just asserting it? What sort of argument is it to just shout that at us?

The poster before you, in a nutshell, explained why Wagner is likely guilty of something and it's a compelling argument. Then when they (presumably the same person) expand upon the point by adding that Wagner had a motive, you make a strawman of their argument by saying that just because you have a motive, doesn't mean you did something. True enough in itself, but why not address the other points e.g. his lying and his inexplicable action of sitting around drinking and refusing to look for his missing wife?

It's a classic sign of having nothing reasonable to argue: instead of addressing the points made and debating them, one simply stomps their feet and shouts 'IT"S NOT TRUE!'.

There are stars that I admire and look up to, but I keep a reasonable head about it. If any one of them had the history of Wagner's behaviour - even if about a far less controversial issue - it would at the very least temper some of my affection for them and make me more reserved toward them. I have certainly learned things over the years about stars I thought were quite lovely that made me entirely change my mind about them.

You can't be blinded by the fantasy first, and then think you know how truly good a person they are. It's pure projection and an attitude we all should start to critically question as soon as we emerge from our teenage years.

Before I started to read more about Natalie, I wrongly and unfairly presumed people who thought her death was anything but an accident were likely being conspiratorial and/or into salacious, imagined scenarios. I was Wagner-neutral, but didn't want to believe she had married a man who had directly harmed her or neglected her to the point of harm.

But his actions at the time and over the years sadly leave me with more than reasonable doubt about his innocence.

The above post is a very reasonable (which is something that stands out among the gutter level discourse on this site), however, looking at the facts from a debating team point of view isn't the way it should be done.

So before you go criticizing someone else for presenting their case, go ahead an present yours. Properly, meaning as if you were in a court of law NOT in a college debate.

In a court of law you need facts and evidence, not theories and suppositions. To secure a conviction, the jury has to been convinced BEYOND A REASONABLE doubt that the defendant actually committed the crime he or she is being accused of.

But you can't do that because you have no facts or evidence in Natalie Wood's death indicating that crime was committed. All you have are your theories. Sorry, theories get you nowhere in a court room. In fact, with the facts and evidence you have (or, more accurately, lack) no prosecutor in his right mind would EVER dream of preferring criminal charges.

It's time the people on this site face reality and come to terms with the fact that no criminal charges will ever be filed in this case. Know why? No crime was committed!! If it is was, there would be evidence.

There were three men on board. You can't tell me that one of them (not necessarily Wagner) killed Natalie Wood and the other two had no idea. Nor will you convince me that two or all three of them knew a crime was committed and they've all kept quiet all these years.

Face facts and move on with your life.

To the poster who started out saying my post was reasonable...
I have, in other threads on this site, explained why I think Wagner is likely guilty of some involvement in Natalie's death. My post was not about further discussing why I think he is. It was about the poster who responded to ANOTHER poster's summation of the reason they think Wagner is guilty with a forceful assertion rather than a counter-argument. And it was also a broad comment on people who 'argue' that way on this site.

I also discussed that I found enough things questionable about Wagner's behavior that if I had the same question marks about someone I'm actually a fan of, it would make me at the very least a bit more reserved toward them. If I ever found myself arguing back to someone simply with 'IT'S NOT TRUE' to any accusations about them, then I would hopefully realise I was coming from a place of blind fandom.

Since I was not arguing as such for the guilt of Wagner in that particular post, then I was under no obligation to debate in the airtight manner you are suggesting I should have. I'm under no obligation when I criticise someone else's argument style to rehash my own beliefs. I was defending someone else who did state a summation of what many of us on here have posted countless times in a thorough manner.

If I'd answered that person by saying 'you shouldn't argue like that... and btw Wagner is obviously guilty!!!' that would be a different story, and it would not be fair of me to criticise. But it makes no sense to say I can't criticise someone's arguing style because I didn't make a legal case for why Wagner is guilty (especially when it was irrelevant to my post)?!!


Aside from this, if I was actually arguing why I consider Wagner guilty, on what grounds would I be obligated to debate it as if I'm in a court of law? The only time that would matter is if we are actually in a court of law and I am a lawyer. Conversationally, if we were debating the merits of a case or potential case from a legal point of view, then yes someone could criticise another's argument for not making sense from a legal point of view. But I can't imagine any scenario where it makes sense for someone to say -"now debate that at a legal level!!" It is a disingenuous suggestion, as you're simply trying to find a way to put down my post by creating arbitrary new rules I should meet.

On a discussion board, or in a conversation, you can discuss criminal cases or potential ones based on theory, opinion, evidence, hunch, whatever. You can actually even believe someone is guilty and feel there was not enough admissable evidence that it was right that a jury let them go. E.g. perhaps some of that evidence was obtained illegally so it's right it's not admissable, but the evidence makes it unlikely the accused was innocent. When you are debating among lay people and not claiming to be making a legal argument, it can be theory. It does not have to be that you are right beyond reasonable doubt!

And why do you not even hold yourself up to having to be logical even in a 'debating team' level? You deliberately obfuscate the points many have made on here repeatedly by saying they are just 'theories'. We have argued there are things from the case that constitute evidence that in many other cases have been taken as such, and would at LEAST warrant further investigation. Saying there is no evidence, just theories - that is not debating this at the level you decided I should do so on a discussion board. Is saying 'face the facts and move on' an airtight argument for his innocence? No, it is your opinion about how people here approach this and what they should do instead, just as the part of my post where I discussed why I thought the crazy defenders' reactions were blind fandom was OPINION. You are extremely hypocritical. Say that you disagree, argue back your opinions to mine, but don't prescribe some level of debate I am supposed to adhere to while coming nowhere near that yourself.

People who do talk about facts here are doomed by the Wagner fans who shoot back with things like, "That's only your opinion," or "Prove it!" or "It's all theory." There are people here who claim to have read the new book coming. They are not believed by Wagner fans.
His fans aren't worth debating with or worth having a volley of wits with because they refuse to use wits. They claim that the police investigated. They have no clue of the level of investigation into Wood's death. They do not take into consideration that until the 90's, celebrity justice was what it was. Things have changed, but at the time Natalie died, thorough investigating into crimes with involving mega stars was rarely warranted. It is on record that Natalie's case closed within days after confusing attorney statements. Much is on record about the shabby investigation into her death, including a four hour wait to call for official help. And there is so much more that raises suspicions, but Wagner fans refuse to discuss it maturely and continue to blindly defend a man they do not know. I look forward to the new book. I believe the people here who claim to have read it. Only then will I discuss my more knowledgeable opinion, as I hope to be more informed after reading. In essence, your long post does not go unappreciated by the more sane and reasonable of us who review this fiorum, but for the Wagner fans, who you gave an intelligent and awesome comeback to, well, it's nothing more than a waste of your time and theirs. I am fully aware that my long post, too, is a waste of time. But thank you for your brain! It's awful nice to see.

I dont care what anybody sez. Rj Wagner is a drunk mother ****er who killed that beautiful lady. He should be rotting behind bars for the rest of his worthless ****ing life.
Id spit on the son of a ***** if I ever saw him in person.

This is a lie.
Wagner is innocent and I hate all of you who say he isn't. I hope you all die.

Way2funy! Get some help honey! You just might explode.
Wagner is guilty guilty guilty.
I don't know if he is or isn't but it's fun playing with a loose cannon.

Wow, saying you hope we all die really shows what stable fans Wagner has.
Did you ever think that you are defending a man you don't know at all, have no way to know is truly innocent as you believe, to tell a whole bunch of other people you also don't know, but are interacting with, to drop dead? That is not healthy.

You will all die when you are sent to jail at hard laber once we set this case against all of you in front of the Supreme Court!

You will all die when you are sent to jail at hard laber once we set this case against all of you in front of the Supreme Court!< THE SUPREME COURT? WOW! That sure is impressive! You are referring to Diana Ross and the Supreme COURT, right? I am so skeered right now that I will be sentenced to hard LABER! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL LMAO <br> Wanker!

Hey stupid, the word is labor. Another example of the intelligence of Wagner's fans or is this The Chief?

Agree with the OP that no matter what you think of Joanne, it's absurd to claim she never posted here.

I am here representing the Wagners. Joanne is a personal friend of RJ Wagners and she would never post on this site! If this continues we will also inclusive Joanne in Mr..Wagners gag order against all of you and we have all your real names.

Joanne met RJ once at the UK showing of Love Letters. Joanne posted on this site for years. She logged in. Maybe someone should bring it to her attention that there is a nut claiming to be a lawyer who keeps mentioning her name.

"If the continues we will also "inclusive" Joanne"???? I have a 8 year old neice who speaks and writes with more accuracy than you do. But what should we expect from a Wagner fan?

We are shaking with fright over this gag order. Check out The Constitution. Freedom of Speech.

By the way, this is The Death of Natalie Wood Discussion Forum, we are discussing her death. Perhaps you should discuss this gag order with the moderator and owner of this site. You are threatening people posting on his site. I don't think he will like that. I don't think the people who advertise in his site will like that. You should discuss this with him. Send an e-mail to him and threaten his with your gag order.

Stupid fool, you are making a fool out of yourself

But what should we expect from a Wagner fan?
What does that mean? I am not a fan I am their legality counsel and don't you forget it because you will see my face in court when they take you out in a straight jacket and hand cuff on your ankels!
Go back to your imdb board G**** or get ready for a High noon showdown!

"legality counsel"??? It's legal counsel. You are a Wagner fan pretending to be an attorney to try in intimidate us. It's not working. What are are doing is making us laugh as you make a total fool out of yourself.

a Straitjacket, it might help if you spelled it correctly, is a garment used to restrain a person who could cause harm to themselves or others, not someone who posted on the Natalie Wood Death Forum.
What is an "ankel"? Could you mean ankle.
Hand cuff on your "ankels". I believe the they are called leg retraints.

High Noon showdown. You should have your high noon showdown at an insane asylum. You're a nut!

Can't you just picture yourself in court in a straightjacket and leg irons facing some crazed lunatic Solicitor in an "Old Bailey" wig straight out of a Dicken's novel?
Oh, and just so you are aware Wagners; The Old Bailey is an English Court House. (I won't clutter your feeble brain with the general definition of it.) A Solicitor is the same as an American Lawyer. Many courts in England still utilize the wearing of a powered wig. Charles Dickens is considered one of the greatest English novelists who ever put pen to paper.
On a more personal note; PLease stop this nonsense. Seriously, people are laughing at you. No one is remotely frightened off by your ridiculous posts and responses and anyone with a rudimentary education can clearly see you know positively nothing about American laws.
Hence, Wagners representative or Lawyer? I THINK NOT!

and this idiot will continue to post as Wagner's lawyer even though she is providing us with laughs the equivalent of Saturday Night Live in the good old days. And dumb?
"hard laber" LOL

How do you know I am a she G****?