|
ExampleJuly 9 2009 at 11:44 AM No score for this post | Gordon (no login) |
| Somebody posted "no one cares" well it's not that no one cares, it's that no one is interested anymore. A good friend of mine who works in a crime lab told me that with todays technology the Marylin Monroe case could be solved in a heartbeat. I asked him well why isn't anyone doing something about it, he said because no one is interested enough to persue it. This is the same with Natalie's case, no interest. Dennis Davern can say anything he wants, so can RJ so can Walken and even the Wagner girls the bottom line is no one is interested. Oh sure people will read the new book and say "my my" and then move on. If any of you think this new tale of Daverns is going to re-open her death investigation you are wrong. But let's say the investigation was re-opened the only way a final conclusion could be reached is if they exhumed Natalie's body, and we all know that will never happen, not ever.
Gordon |
|
| Author | Reply |
Anonymous (no login) | Re: ExampleNo score for this post | July 9 2009, 11:47 AM |
RJWfan or Fran or whatever the flying **** your nmame is get out of here and crawl back to your Rj list troll site |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: ExampleNo score for this post | July 9 2009, 12:10 PM |
I think the greater public has always cared about this case. So what if it's not reopened? The public will have the answers they always wanted. Ask anyone over 45 on the streets about Natalie Wood. 9 out of 10 will tell you they always suspected something. |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: ExampleNo score for this post | July 10 2009, 10:26 PM |
I strongly disagree. Maybe the paranoids you hang out with feel that way, but the majority of reasonable believe it was an accident. Believe it or not, accidents happen to celebrities too.
Stop stoking the fire. |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: ExampleNo score for this post | July 11 2009, 7:50 AM |
"The majority feel it was an accident"?? That's not true. If that were the case this forum would not exist.
Do you consider this forum "stoking the fire"? If so, why are you here? Oh, that's right, to defend Robert Wagner who lied to the police in his original statement concerning his wife's death. That's common in accidental deaths. The husband always lies to the police. I was an accident, right? Of course in accidental deaths it's essential to lie to protect yourself just in case. And to have your first action be to hire legal counsel ASAP and to do so for yourself and for your skipper to make certain that your stories match. Yes, that just screams "accident". |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: ExampleNo score for this post | July 11 2009, 8:25 PM |
That's not what I wrote. I wrote, "The majority of REASONABLE people believe it was an accident."
Why am I here? Because I am a Natalie Wood fan, and one of the reasonable people who believe it was an accident, who would like to see all this sensationalism surrounding her death put to rest. |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: ExampleNo score for this post | July 11 2009, 6:24 PM |
Wrongh. most people think there is more to the story for the simple fact that there is never a consistantcy on anyone's part especially Robert Wagner. Don't forget, all the big guns are dead now. He does not have Sinatra to write letters and phone calls and all the rest.
Maybe he will just keel over from it all.
Vengence is mine sayeth the LORD! |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: ExampleNo score for this post | July 9 2009, 12:21 PM |
The investigation will not be re-opened because the original investigation is an embarrassment.
and you were the one who said no one cares. You reveal yourself in every post whether it be Gordon, doowanal, the vindicator, wagners.
|
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: ExampleNo score for this post | July 11 2009, 10:33 AM |
There goes gordon or is it vindicator or rjw or wghatever it goes by this week spouting off more crap. a friend? right. big friends in high places. thats why you post on here.
The idiot brigade is upon us. |
|
Olivia (no login) | Re: ExampleNo score for this post | July 11 2009, 1:24 PM |
For the longest time I thought it was an accident--but people my age when I asked about it always said something just didn't add up. I didn't want to hear that, but almost all of them felt that it was not just a simple accident. |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: ExampleNo score for this post | July 11 2009, 5:28 PM |
I would believe Wagner if he stuck to one story but he has changed it so many times over the years that I don't think he knows the truth anymore. |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: ExampleNo score for this post | July 11 2009, 5:45 PM |
Oh, he knows the truth, he simply does not want to tell it. |
|
Wagners (no login) | Re: ExampleNo score for this post | July 12 2009, 11:39 AM |
Gordon We at the office thank you. We have enough for a gag oder on these people.
No need to dirt your hands any farther. The chief said he will be in contact you personally with appreaction. |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: ExampleNo score for this post | July 12 2009, 12:40 PM |
LOL hey wagners are you sure you and old rj werent plastered when you wrote your latest post? |
|
Eduardo Aron Cleaver (no login) | GordonNo score for this post | July 12 2009, 4:39 PM |
Gordon We at the office thank you. We have enough for a gag oder on these people.
No need to dirt your hands any farther. The chief said he will be in contact you personally with appreaction.
____________________________________________________________________________
ROFL You can't be serious! Your post is atrocious! (I am still in side splitting laughter over "gag oder" and "appREACTion") If you are going to play lawyer please grab a dictionary and at the very least an old Prentice-Hall handbook and turn to the chapters on sentence structure!
|
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: ExampleNo score for this post | July 12 2009, 5:04 PM |
what is a gag "oder", could you mean order?
No need to "dirt" your hands, could you mean dirty?
and in the future, the word "farther" is used , primarly, when discussing physical distance. The word would further when telling someone not to
"dirt" their hands.
What is "appreaction", could you mean appreciation?
And it would be "Gordon, we at the office thank you." as opposed to Gordon We.
This is the "wagner" lawyer who uses fancy legal terms like "seise" and "endictment". The same lawyer who does not know that you need a judge to put forth a gag order and that it is not done too often because we have this fancy document called the Constitution. Gag orders are in most cases looked upon as violations of free speech. Just because "wagner", or "Gordon" or "doowanal" does not like what we are saying does not mean that we do not have the right to say it.
"the chief"? You do know that you are making fool out of yourself?
|
|
Anonymous (no login) | Should we add Vindicator to the growing list?No score for this post | July 12 2009, 5:22 PM |
ROFL SIDE SPLITTING ROFL! THE CHIEF! Maybe it is the VINDICATOR!
|
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: Should we add Vindicator to the growing list?No score for this post | July 12 2009, 5:33 PM |
maybe we can all get together and put a GAG ODER on Wagners |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: Should we add Vindicator to the growing list?No score for this post | July 12 2009, 5:47 PM |
Be careful, The Chief may be watching! |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: Should we add Vindicator to the growing list?No score for this post | July 13 2009, 5:11 PM |
THE CHIEF! LOL way2funy! Pass the peace pipe and toke a few cuz the Wagners and Gordon have gooten together and created the VINDICATOR! |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: Should we add Vindicator to the growing list?No score for this post | July 14 2009, 8:22 PM |
RJ is known as the Chief to everyone and everyone loves and respects him because he is a great humanitarium, a great award winning acor, a great Father and still the handsomest man in the movies.
All you haters need to respect this great man! |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: Should we add Vindicator to the growing list?No score for this post | July 14 2009, 10:59 PM |
Award winning? Tell us the awards he won. List them, the awards that he WON.
He is known as "The Chief" LOL. He didn't mention that in his book. Why don't you show us where you read that he is known as the chief. I've seen interviews of many people talking about him and they never refer to him as The Chief, the refer to him as RJ. Show us where people call him The Chief.
|
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: Should we add Vindicator to the growing list?No score for this post | July 16 2009, 12:41 AM |
Davern called Wagner Chief |
|
Vindicator (no login) | Re: Should we add Vindicator to the growing list?No score for this post | July 16 2009, 5:39 AM |
Davern did not call RJ the Chief. He called him the Boss or Mr. Wagner. So this proves now who makes up stories. You with your hate on RJ. |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: Should we add Vindicator to the growing list?No score for this post | July 16 2009, 6:16 AM |
Davern absolutely did call him Chief. It was either Chief or Boss. He called him Mr. Wagner when they first met but that did not last long.
As who who makes up stories, obviously, it's you in many IDs. |
|
Anonymous (no login) | VindicatorNo score for this post | July 16 2009, 6:29 AM |
He did not and you know it so stop telling more sh!t! Davern was an employee of the Wagners. He was only allowed to call RJ the Boss when they were on the yacht. When they were off the yacht he called RJ and Natalie Mr. and Mrs. Wagner. He was not their friend. He worked for RJ.
More of you lies. |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: VindicatorNo score for this post | July 16 2009, 6:57 AM |
Natalie told him to call her "Natalie or Nat" anything but Mrs. Wagner. You don't have a clue.
As a matter of fact Marti Rulli stated on her blog that Davern called RJ "Boss" or "Chief". She would know more than you would but that's not saying much, anyone would know more than you would. LOL |
|
Wagners (no login) | Re: VindicatorNo score for this post | July 16 2009, 2:59 PM |
Davern was never allowed to call the Chief or Natalie Wood anything but Mr. and Mrs. Wagner. Stop this foolishness. Why would anyone believe a Rulli blogger?
You won't be blogging in solitary confinement if you pursued this! |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: VindicatorNo score for this post | July 16 2009, 5:47 PM |
And you are so credible? LOL. You make Natalie and RJ sound like two snobs. That's not the way they were. You have no idea what you are talking about.
It was Rulli who told readers what Dennis called Natalie and RJ.
Pursued what? I'll say whatever I please. Freedom of speech.
Solitary confinement for posting on the Death Forum? OK. I'm shaking!
|
|
Wagners (no login) | Re: VindicatorNo score for this post | July 16 2009, 5:53 PM |
This is very important paperwork in our vast files. Read this and weep because you think you know everything but you don't now anything. When will you finally realize I have the upper hand because I have the word of the Man who never lied.
Wagner has always refused to discuss the events of that night. Walken said in a New York Times interview in 1992 that there was no argument and that neither he nor Wagner witnessed Wood's fall. He added that her small physical stature (five feet tall) was a major factor in the accident. [5] The skipper of the yacht, Dennis Davern, videotaped a rambling and confusing interview in 1992 for the TV documentary program Now It Can Be Told, hosted by Geraldo Rivera. At one point during the interview, his girlfriend, who never met any of the yacht's passengers, appears to goad him into making an accusation, and Davern hesitates. The New York Times is an internationally known daily newspaper published in New York City and distributed in the United States and many other nations worldwide. ... For the British bandleader see Gerald Bright Gerald Michael Riviera[1] (born July 4, 1943), known by his TV name Geraldo Rivera or simply Geraldo, is an American television journalist, attorney, and former talk show host. ...
Of the three witnesses who have talked, only the commodities broker told her story to the media without being pressed and within a reasonable amount of time. (She gave reporters her whole story less than two days after Wood's body was discovered; Walken and Davern both waited more than ten years to say anything.)
|
|
Eduardo Aron Cleaver (no login) | In your VAST files? Are you INSANE?No score for this post | July 16 2009, 6:12 PM |
That is a truncated version from NationMaster.com Encyclopedia you freaking MORON! As a matter of fact, as with Wikipedia there is a disclaimer right on the page stating that it still needs verification!Your vast files are some garbage you stick into your search engine and whatever pops up you believe and add to it!
Now you are back on IMDb as Robertwagnernataliewood talking about GNGS and calling yourself a Natalie Wood historian?
You are sick! Sick! Sick!
Get some help before you implode! |
|
robertwagnernataliewoodw (no login) | Eduordo Aron CleaverNo score for this post | July 16 2009, 7:37 PM |
So now you are a man? I found out who you really are. My fans always find out the down low for me. I think you know I now who you are G****. You are the one who is going crazy because you keep getting my post deleted somewhere else. Don't deny it. You are afraid of me because I am the true Natalie Wood Historian!
Get ready for the real truth. |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: In your VAST files? Are you INSANE?No score for this post | July 16 2009, 7:59 PM |
The truth will come out. I am the only historian on the Inter net. You will find this out very soon. Get ready to wake up.
Natalie Wood cared only about herself and RJ loved her and tried to stand with her but he will be writing another great book and he will finally tell the real truth about his life with Natalie.
Wait and see. The truth is on it's way. |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: In your VAST files? Are you INSANE?No score for this post | July 16 2009, 10:05 PM |
Are you saying he did not tell the truth about Natalie in his book? Are you saying he lied about Natalie in his book. I thought he never lied.
History. You are a historian like Wagner, you re-writes history. I don't know how you will fuction as a historian. We've asked you questions and you don't know the answers.
Natalie's legend follows her and keeps growing. She remains one of the most beloved stars of our time. A few nasty remarks from an internet ignoramous who disses her to make Wagner look good and who knows nothing about her will have no impact on Miss Wood's legend.
This will be especially true after people read Goodbye Natalie Goodbye Splendour.
By the way, after people read GNGS, it would be PR suicide for Wagner to diss Natalie and it will also make people wonder why he lied in his first ghost written auto-bio.
And what makes RJ word the truth? I guess people will judge his truth by GNGS. |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: In your VAST files? Are you INSANE?No score for this post | July 17 2009, 6:21 AM |
You wanker! Natalie Wood cared about everyone. She didnt care who they were. Rich or poor.
Why dont you go over to imdb and join your buddys rjwfan3 robertwagnernataliewoodw and that psycho ***** pedigreepolly.
Maybe you are all of them anyway. Historian? A historian is someone that tells the truth. You tell lies to bulid up that drunk Wagner. |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: In your VAST files? Are you INSANE?No score for this post | July 17 2009, 6:50 AM |
she IS rjwfan, robertwagnernataliewoodw. Same idiot. | |
|
Anonymous (no login) | Re: VindicatorNo score for this post | July 16 2009, 6:19 PM |
I guess Walken lied because Wagner confirmed that there was an argument. Wagner also confirmed that that he smashed the bottle in anger. In that case either "the Man" is lying or Walken is lying. How would Walken know what Wagner witnessed, he was in his stateroom. The part about her stature is an opinion. He has no idea what caused her to "fall". Furthermore, Walken is not the most credible person as he has given different versions of what happened that night in separate interviews. So much for your New York Times interview and your "files" LOLOL
Dennis gave his first interview about Natalie's death in the mid-80s.
Rulli was not his girlfriend. There are a few inaccuracies in this article.
Once again, you are running on empty.
|
|
|
|