CA - Natalie Wood, 43, drowned off California coast, 29 Nov 1981

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Kind of interesting to be in this position. On most of the cases I follow, I am usually on the "that guy, or woman is guilty as hell", but, strangely, I still don't believe Wagner killer her and it appears I may be the only one that believes that.

I recall vividly when this happened and I remember seeing him right after and at the funeral, and he was a broken man. I know he is an actor but, frankly, I never thought he as that good of an actor, his fame came mostly from fluff like Hart to Hart.

I also have really strong doubts about the Yacht captain. Why did he wait 40 years to express his doubts? And Walken isn't talking at all, although at this point he has nothing to lose. Even if he lied at the time, any statute of limitation would protect him from everything except the murder itself and I don't think anyone believes him guilty of that.

I will watch with an open mind what develops. I taped the 48 hours segment and am about 1/2 way through it, so we will see if that pushes me further to the guilty side for Wagner.

At any rate, I do not believe there will ever be a trial. There is simply too much reasonable doubt for a conviction. I understand she was terrified of water. I also understand that she, as well as the others were drunk. People do really stupid things when they were drunk. I do not mean any disrespect to Natalie. She was a great talent and I just recently watched "Miracle on 34th. Street" for the thousandth time and marveled again at how much talent she had even at that young age.
But, she was human. She drank too much and, IMO, made a very stupid and tragically sad mistake.
 
Maybe he appeared “broken” because in an act of drunken rage he pushed, tripped, yelled,backed her into the water & ignored her cries for help.

As for the captain..yes to me he is like a Kato Kaitlin type. Cared deeply for both ..but sided with the Alpha not the deceased(until later).
I agree with another poster ...why didn’t the captain go get Walkin & stop the fight, or rescue Natalie? Captain says he cared deeply for both RJ & Nat. FGS, he drove her to shore the night before & listened to her complain about divorce,etc. Perhaps he shared all the horrible things Nat said about RJ with RJ that night.
IMO it was not just about the alcohol and stupid things. It was about control & verbal abuse amped up , mixed with someone not stepping up & doing the right thing.
The captain over talks..the other 2 say nothing.
I think all 3 feel guilty.. as they should. JMO.
 
I was very surprised to hear that there is apparently no murder by omission law in California. In Texs, if a spouse or parent saw their SO or child drowning and made no effort to save them, they could be charged with murder. It looks like the only way anyone will answer for Natalie Wood's death is if they literally pushed her overboard!
 
This is JMO
I had never really followed this case until I saw the recent show so basing my views on just the show.

I saw the recent show and I think they did a good job of showing about what happened. It all sounded quite logical. Everyone gets drunk and there begins to be serious arguments between Natalie and her husband.

Walken being there according to a link I just read was because of the film they were shooting which still was not done and they had time to blow that weekend. So either she or him invited him to spend time on their boat and "party".

I think I even read that on the film Natalie was acting as Walkens wife in the film so that right there could start to cause jealously on her husbands part. Movies seem very real at times and especially if there were any kissing or love scenes in the movie. I havent seen that movie so dont know how close they got on the movie set.

Anyhow I think the show was about right for what led up to it. Everyone drunk. Walken just trying to have a good time. Natalie probably enjoying his company a little too much because of her arguments brewing with her husband. And the husband getting madder and madder the whole time until the infamous all out yelling fight that got way out of control.

I suspect Walken retreated to his room or stayed below during the worst of their fighting and when Natalie and her husband somehow got near the outside of the boat, then she either slips or he pushes her in anger as she goes overboard. The biggest crime I think is her husband did nothing to save her. He likely knew she was struggling in the water and did nothing.

The problem is I dont think there will ever be enough evidence to convict anyone because its a classic case of he said/she said and she is not here to really tell her side. I dont think Walken saw enough of the last minutes of the fight on the outside of the boat because he probably wanted to stay out of it when they were heavy into an ugly fight. And same for the captain.

So unfortunately I dont think this case can be pursued further. Even if they get the captain to testify against him it still is his word against his and too many variations of the story over time. They could try the case with just the captains testimony but the case would likely end up in a hung jury at best.

All JMO based mainly on the recent TV special.
 
Agree completely Hatfield. Unless someone saw him holding her under water then this would result in “reasonable doubt”, IMO.
 
chlban said:
Kind of interesting to be in this position. On most of the cases I follow, I am usually on the "that guy, or woman is guilty as hell", but, strangely, I still don't believe Wagner killer her and it appears I may be the only one that believes that.

I recall vividly when this happened and I remember seeing him right after and at the funeral, and he was a broken man. I know he is an actor but, frankly, I never thought he as that good of an actor, his fame came mostly from fluff like Hart to Hart.

I also have really strong doubts about the Yacht captain. Why did he wait 40 years to express his doubts? And Walken isn't talking at all, although at this point he has nothing to lose. Even if he lied at the time, any statute of limitation would protect him from everything except the murder itself and I don't think anyone believes him guilty of that.

I will watch with an open mind what develops. I taped the 48 hours segment and am about 1/2 way through it, so we will see if that pushes me further to the guilty side for Wagner.

At any rate, I do not believe there will ever be a trial. There is simply too much reasonable doubt for a conviction. I understand she was terrified of water. I also understand that she, as well as the others were drunk. People do really stupid things when they were drunk. I do not mean any disrespect to Natalie. She was a great talent and I just recently watched "Miracle on 34th. Street" for the thousandth time and marveled again at how much talent she had even at that young age.
But, she was human. She drank too much and, IMO, made a very stupid and tragically sad mistake.
Click to expand...


Dennis Davern DID NOT wait over 30 years to come forward. He tried to come forward as early as 1984 and was ignored. He struggled with this situation FOR YEARS. And he is doing everything he can to help the investigation. Walken did speak with detectives, although what he told them has not been publicly revealed. Why don't people ever ask why Wagner didn't come forward, or why he didn't press for a proper investigation? That double-standard annoys me to no end.

Again, Natalie's blood alcohol level was .14, which is not unreasonable at a social drinking level. NOTHING would have changed her life-long fear of drowning. Wagner was the one with the drinking problem - Natalie even confided to friends that she was concerned about it. Even looking at him now, you can tell that he drank heavily for years. The witnesses heard the loud argument on the boat deck between Wagner and Natalie which corroborates Davern's account. There have been cold cases much older than this one that have been prosecuted successfully. Natalie was abused before she was put into the water, hence why the word "accident" was removed from her death certificate. It was consistent with a struggle.


Incidentally, my local paper carried a short article, in which a source "close to the family" stated that Wagner "will never talk to the cops, and they want a deathbed confession but they're never going to get it" and that "no one in the family believes he is responsible for her death" (this obviously excludes Lana Wood and her family). What an odd - and telling way to phrase it. If he's truly innocent, cooperating would not be a problem and why is there any need to mention "a deathbed confession" if he didn't kill her?

It's not hard to put two and two together here.
 
[video]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/natalie-wood-death-in-dark-water/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab5i&linkId=47727901[/video]

This is a must-watch.
 
Someone told me that the Harbour Master wrote a book years ago and one chapter has the story of the drowning. He says it was an accident. The whole book is not about it. Just one chapter.

Is anyone familiar with this?
 
Hatfield said:
This is JMO
I had never really followed this case until I saw the recent show so basing my views on just the show.

I saw the recent show and I think they did a good job of showing about what happened. It all sounded quite logical. Everyone gets drunk and there begins to be serious arguments between Natalie and her husband.

Walken being there according to a link I just read was because of the film they were shooting which still was not done and they had time to blow that weekend. So either she or him invited him to spend time on their boat and "party".

I think I even read that on the film Natalie was acting as Walkens wife in the film so that right there could start to cause jealously on her husbands part. Movies seem very real at times and especially if there were any kissing or love scenes in the movie. I havent seen that movie so dont know how close they got on the movie set.

Anyhow I think the show was about right for what led up to it. Everyone drunk. Walken just trying to have a good time. Natalie probably enjoying his company a little too much because of her arguments brewing with her husband. And the husband getting madder and madder the whole time until the infamous all out yelling fight that got way out of control.

I suspect Walken retreated to his room or stayed below during the worst of their fighting and when Natalie and her husband somehow got near the outside of the boat, then she either slips or he pushes her in anger as she goes overboard. The biggest crime I think is her husband did nothing to save her. He likely knew she was struggling in the water and did nothing.

The problem is I dont think there will ever be enough evidence to convict anyone because its a classic case of he said/she said and she is not here to really tell her side. I dont think Walken saw enough of the last minutes of the fight on the outside of the boat because he probably wanted to stay out of it when they were heavy into an ugly fight. And same for the captain.

So unfortunately I dont think this case can be pursued further. Even if they get the captain to testify against him it still is his word against his and too many variations of the story over time. They could try the case with just the captains testimony but the case would likely end up in a hung jury at best.

All JMO based mainly on the recent TV special.
Click to expand...

JMO, the most damning evidence against RJW is that he was there, saw her fall or pushed her in the water, but returned to the cabin of the boat and told the captain that she got in the dinghy and left. When the captain pressed him to call for help after a couple of hours, he told the harbormaster to look for her onshore, that she left for land in the dinghy. For hours, he told everyone not to search or try to help her. It wasn't until they couldn't find her onshore that they decided to begin searching the water.

He knew she wasn't in the dinghy. The key was in the off position and the oars were locked. He never saw her get in or start the engine or row away. Yet hours later, he was telling searchers that she took the dinghy to the island.

RJW deliberately deceived the others on the boat, the searchers and LE.
 
Noirdame79 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if they were involved BEFORE Natalie's death - he moved on way too quickly.
Click to expand...

And the key word Wagner has championed from Day One is the “accident”.
reminds me of my ex referring to his extra martial affair as the “incident “
Abusers can spin it ,dumb it down & spoon feed it to mask what really took place.
I’m glad DD shared how Natalie felt. She wanted a divorce. She was done.
Next day she’s dead. Everything is RJs...plus sympathy.

JMO & I believe the witnesses.
 
Betty P said:
JMO, the most damning evidence against RJW is that he was there, saw her fall or pushed her in the water, but returned to the cabin of the boat and told the captain that she got in the dinghy and left. When the captain pressed him to call for help after a couple of hours, he told the harbormaster to look for her onshore, that she left for land in the dinghy. For hours, he told everyone not to search or try to help her. It wasn't until they couldn't find her onshore that they decided to begin searching the water.

He knew she wasn't in the dinghy. The key was in the off position and the oars were locked. He never saw her get in or start the engine or row away. Yet hours later, he was telling searchers that she took the dinghy to the island.

RJW deliberately deceived the others on the boat, the searchers and LE.
Click to expand...

...AND he sent Davern to identify her body.
 
two things:

1) if you look at photos taken from inside the back deck, does the height of the rail preclude anyone falling overboard from a standing position? rulli believes yes. was natalie sitting on the rail and then shoved off? or did he hit her and throw her off? how can we ever know this unless an actual witness comes forth?

2) the autopsy diagram of her bruising shows a bruise on her left cheekbone indicated to have been done with an upward motion. could she have been hit or punched (which put her over the rail with that force)? shouldn't noguchi have been able to ascertain injuries from physical abuse? he should've right?
 
redheadedgal said:
two things:

1) if you look at photos taken from inside the back deck, does the height of the rail preclude anyone falling overboard from a standing position? rulli believes yes. was natalie sitting on the rail and then shoved off? or did he hit her and throw her off? how can we ever know this unless an actual witness comes forth?

2) the autopsy diagram of her bruising shows a bruise on her left cheekbone indicated to have been done with an upward motion. could she have been hit or punched (which put her over the rail with that force)? shouldn't noguchi have been able to ascertain injuries from physical abuse? he should've right?
Click to expand...

JMO

The dingy has me wondering if maybe at first he did untie it to maybe try to shove it toward her to maybe try to save her.

I have a hard time believing he planned that out and untied it just for the purpose of claiming she took it to shore.

What I think is more likely is maybe he did untie to try to shove it toward her and then maybe he realized there is no way it was going to make it to her as it floated away. Then he probably panicked and began saying things that was starting to cover up what really happened.

I dont know. Its just hard for me to believe he untied it after she had already drowned. I think he was too drunk to do that kind of planning. I think he fit that into the story after a half hearted attempt at shoving the dingy toward her but it was too late and it never got close to her.

JMO of course.
 
JMO
As far as the bruising there is one thing I have wondered about. And this would only be if the bruising was not purposely inflicted by her husband.

There was a movie called "Open Water 2: Adrift" about a group of people that got stuck in the water off their yacht with no ladder to get back on.

If anyone has ever tried to pull themselves into a raft or a canoe when in water it is very hard to do. One method is to put your legs over the edge first and try to use your legs to help yourself up on the boat.
Ive fallen out of canoes before and I have used this method. It is pretty hard to get back in a canoe when you are in water.

One explanation for the brusing could be if she made attempts to get back on either the boat or the dingy using her legs. Bruising on arms could happen that way too as you flail around trying to get yourself out of the water.

Im not saying that I even think this happened. Just offering an idea of how the bruising could have happened without her husband inflicting them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Water_2:_Adrift
 
JMO
Just to be clear on my personal view.
I think the husband's biggest mistake was he did little to nothing to try to save her. He should have done much more to try to save her.

No matter how mad he was at her he should have done much more to try to save her.
 
Noirdame79 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if they were involved BEFORE Natalie's death - he moved on way too quickly.
Click to expand...

Many years ago a friend of mine was killed in a car accident, after long and very happy marriage. When that friends husband remarried within a year of her death (although they were seeing each other within a month) I was also very bothered. A much older friend of mine (in her 70's at the time) told me that in her long experience, happily married men tended to remarry much faster. She told me, "if I die before Matt, he will be one that does that". When she passed a few years later, she was spot on. Although I literally did not think Matt would live through her funeral, he was so destroyed by her loss, he had a lady friend within months. I think happily married men try to recapture what they lost. Women, not so much, they are more likely to remain single and revere their lost husband memory.

So, his quick remarriage to a woman he had known socially for decades, proves nothing to me either way..

I am still open to the possibility that this was a heat of passion push, or something of that nature but, as I said, and I think most people do agree with this, there is simply too much reasonable doubt to ever convict an 87 year old man of a crime.
 
chlban said:
Many years ago a friend of mine was killed in a car accident, after long and very happy marriage. When that friends husband remarried within a year of her death (although they were seeing each other within a month) I was also very bothered. A much older friend of mine (in her 70's at the time) told me that in her long experience, happily married men tended to remarry much faster. She told me, "if I die before Matt, he will be one that does that". When she passed a few years later, she was spot on. Although I literally did not think Matt would live through her funeral, he was so destroyed by her loss, he had a lady friend within months. I think happily married men try to recapture what they lost. Women, not so much, they are more likely to remain single and revere their lost husband memory.

So, his quick remarriage to a woman he had known socially for decades, proves nothing to me either way..

I am still open to the possibility that this was a heat of passion push, or something of that nature but, as I said, and I think most people do agree with this, there is simply too much reasonable doubt to ever convict an 87 year old man of a crime.
Click to expand...



From what I have heard, men are more likely to remarry after the wife dies, more so than a wife whose husband dies.

When my father passed away, Mom never even thought of interest in another man - I think she knew what she had was pretty special, despite the fact that male contemporaries would attempt to "strike up" conversations with her. That turned her off. Plus, at the time he died, she was in recovery for congestive heart failure, recently diagnosed with cancer and diabetes, so there is no way she would have been able to take care of another man when she had to take care of herself.
 
Well Nat would probably be simply & beautifully
79 years, 6 months, 2 weeks, 5 days old today


Never too late for justice IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 97 more.
Total: 1,977 (members: 98, guests: 1,879)

Online statistics

Members online
98
Guests online
1,879
Total visitors
1,977
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,578
Messages
18,097,022
Members
230,886
Latest member
DeeDee214
Back
Top