I think the case should be re-opened. First the Court will want "discovery" that is sufficient evidence to re-open the case. Lets look at the evidence:

1) The Splendour, sorry it's tainted.
2) Natalie's items she wore that night, sorry it was returned to the family.
3) Text , verbage, he said she said, sorry not acceptable.

There is one piece of evidence though, Natalie's body. If it has not decayed enough they might be able to get some evidence. YES this is what we want Natalie's body exhumed.

Your all a bunch of jack*sses

WISHFULL THINKING *SSHOLES

Your thread makes no sense. Are you for the defense or the prosecution? Filling it with *** euphemisms for profanities is not getting your point across.

You forgot #4: Eye and Ear Witness: Dennis Davern

Heresay, will be thrown out of Court in a second. What else you got?

You need physical evidence, not "he said she said" so come on people what physical evidence is there? besides Natalie's body if there is anything left of it.

"heresay" This is what we are dealing with.
The term is hearsay. And if Dennis were to testify in court to what he saw and heard, it would not be considered hearsay. He was there. If Marti testified to what Dennis told her, that would be considered hearsay.

They would not need physical evidence. She drowned. No one is saying that she did not drown.

That comment "if there is anything left to it" is crude, disgusting.

"if there is anything left to it" A repulsive statement indeed but if I may draw on it. If the person knew even the rudimentary elements of science and the embalming process they would know that remains of a body are there even after the most most ancient embalming procedures.
Statements such as these only prove they are the real haters and will stoop to any level in their attempt to throw suspicion off of Robert Wagner.

"Heresay, will be thrown out of Court in a second." What is heresay? Come on now! We all make typos and such but when we are trying to stress a point and get that point across try to make the effort to spell and punctualt properly. It is bad enough sifting through all these anonymous postings without wondering what a person is trying to say.

After 28 years it would be considered hearsay. What I think the original poster is trying to do is mock a re-opening of the case. No court in this land would re-open a case on something someone says they were a witness to 28 years ago, the Judge would consider them non credible and most likely throw them out of the Court Room for withholding evidence I think you would really need some sort of physical evidence.

The case will never be re-opened. I should be but it will not.

Check this link it could happen
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/30/police-review-rolling-sto_n_272158.html

Interesting. Maybe there is some hope for justice after all.

Never say never

From what Davern is claiming you would need physical evidence, after 28 years what physical is there? "He said she said" won't do it.