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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

I bruise easily, and twenty-four bruises is a LOT. I think she was battered before she ended up in the water. I could absolutely see, under the circumstances, RW doing nothing to save her and feeling that made him innocent. :mad:

Also, the reason he and Walken are not suspects, is because the autopsy still reads an accidental drowning. That would need to be changed before anyone was held responsible. Let me say right now, that I don't think Walken or the Captain will be one of them. MOO
 
I'm still sitting here shocked at how everyone is letting the captain off the hook as if RW is some huge monster linebacker who would have killed the captain for helping????

The captain is liable not the drunk passengers on his boat.

I think the captain has been feeding Lana such a line that she's been giving him money and support and after 30 years he's actually convinced himself that RW is the one liable.

She fell in the water, RW WENT TO SHORE to look for her in the restaurant, so what did the captain do all by himself on the boat.

This man's story is shady as hell and I bet you anything he had something to do with her death.

I hope CW comes forward and talks.
 
Plumeria5 said:
I am wondering if all the bruises on her legs are from her struggling trying to hoist herself into the dinghy. :(
Click to expand...

The ones on her wrist seem like defensive wounds-- so if she is being grabbed by both wrists, I then go to all the bruising on the back of her right thigh. This seems to me like she was using her body to prevent going through the (i'm not a boat person so I don't know the proper term) little doorway that goes right off the end of the boat. Seems possible she was struggling to me.

Also, cocaine was mentioned a couple of times in that autopsy-- it was certainly popular in 1981.

moo
 
Quiche said:
The ones on her wrist seem like defensive wounds-- so if she is being grabbed by both wrists, I then go to all the bruising on the back of her right thigh. This seems to me like she was using her body to prevent going through the (i'm not a boat person so I don't know the proper term) little doorway that goes right off the end of the boat. Seems possible she was struggling to me.

Also, cocaine was mentioned a couple of times in that autopsy-- it was certainly popular in 1981.

moo
Click to expand...

I thought she was tested for cocaine in her system and it was ND (not detected) hard to read some of the writing so not sure if the toxicology tests all had a ND beside them.
 
In this video Natalie talks about how terrified she was and screaming about having to jump into the water from a boat.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfecwd8Wb2w"]Natalie Wood on Bette Davis @ AFI Tribute - YouTube[/ame]
 
Chewy said:
I'm still sitting here shocked at how everyone is letting the captain off the hook as if RW is some huge monster linebacker who would have killed the captain for helping????

The captain is liable not the drunk passengers on his boat.

I think the captain has been feeding Lana such a line that she's been giving him money and support and after 30 years he's actually convinced himself that RW is the one liable.

She fell in the water, RW WENT TO SHORE to look for her in the restaurant, so what did the captain do all by himself on the boat.

This man's story is shady as hell and I bet you anything he had something to do with her death.

I hope CW comes forward and talks.
Click to expand...

bolded by me.

Do you know for sure that Lana has been giving him financial support all these years?

Actually, what you are saying could explain why he seemed to be frozen with fear during that tv interview. If he's built a phony case to Lana for 30 years and even convinced himself that RW was responsible for Natalie's death, having to come out and say it on tv made him realize he has sort of painted himself into a corner.

On the other hand, if the captain truly was responsible for her death (caused it), why would he now want to come forward saying that RW did it? Doesn't make too much sense.

I hope CW comes forward, too--but I hear he's hired a lawyer now.
 
I've read that she was highly intoxicated and then I've read that her BAC was only .14, which is hardly incapacitating, especially to an experienced drinker (ex: for a 110lb female, this would be after only three drinks). Anyone know which is true?
 
Columbo said:
bolded by me.

Do you know for sure that Lana has been giving him financial support all these years?

Actually, what you are saying could explain why he seemed to be frozen with fear during that tv interview. If he's built a phony case to Lana for 30 years and even convinced himself that RW was responsible for Natalie's death, having to come out and say it on tv made him realize he has sort of painted himself into a corner.

On the other hand, if the captain truly was responsible for her death (caused it), why would he now want to come forward saying that RW did it? Doesn't make too much sense.

I hope CW comes forward, too--but I hear he's hired a lawyer now.
Click to expand...


No I don't know that. I'm not saying she paid all his bills for him but that it does seem to me that she befriended him.


The man was an alcoholic for years, and alcoholics lie and embellish stories when they get drunk, it just happens.

He's calling foul play because otherwise there would be no story to tell.

However I'm pointing out over and over again that as the captain of the boat he had a legal and ethical duty to take care of her even if RW was telling him not to.

So why didn't he? Seems obvious that the CAPTAIN was probably drunk as well which is why HE didn't call the coast guard. There were drugs on the boat and he was drunk so he isn't thinking clearly and basically lets RW handle it.

Can you imagine any captain doing such a thing? Just think about it? Then he sobers up and realizes he didn't follow protocol and now wants to dump it on RW.

Lana has wanted to blame RW for years, and I think it's telling that Natasha Gregson Wagner is estranged from her mother's side of the family.

The captain has "painted himself into a corner" because he's realizing that if they do open the case he is the one who is liable.

RW was a drunk passenger on his boat, by the captain's own words.
 
Four people know what happened that night. One is dead, one has basically stayed drunk for the last 30 years, for good reason I'm sure. One has lawyered up and the other may as well have never said anything at all. I was an adult when this happened and remember about it very well. I have never thought it was an accident.
 
Chewy said:
No I don't know that. I'm not saying she paid all his bills for him but that it does seem to me that she befriended him.


The man was an alcoholic for years, and alcoholics lie and embellish stories when they get drunk, it just happens.

He's calling foul play because otherwise there would be no story to tell.

However I'm pointing out over and over again that as the captain of the boat he had a legal and ethical duty to take care of her even if RW was telling him not to.

So why didn't he? Seems obvious that the CAPTAIN was probably drunk as well which is why HE didn't call the coast guard. There were drugs on the boat and he was drunk so he isn't thinking clearly and basically lets RW handle it.

Can you imagine any captain doing such a thing? Just think about it? Then he sobers up and realizes he didn't follow protocol and now wants to dump it on RW.

Lana has wanted to blame RW for years, and I think it's telling that Natasha Gregson Wagner is estranged from her mother's side of the family.

The captain has "painted himself into a corner" because he's realizing that if they do open the case he is the one who is liable.

RW was a drunk passenger on his boat, by the captain's own words.
Click to expand...

Interesting, thanks. I didn't know that Lana had befriended him. It was extremely irresponsible behavior on the captain's part. Unimaginable.
I also didn't know that Natasha was estranged from her mother's side of the family.
 
Chewy said:
I'm still sitting here shocked at how everyone is letting the captain off the hook as if RW is some huge monster linebacker who would have killed the captain for helping????

The captain is liable not the drunk passengers on his boat.

I think the captain has been feeding Lana such a line that she's been giving him money and support and after 30 years he's actually convinced himself that RW is the one liable.

She fell in the water, RW WENT TO SHORE to look for her in the restaurant, so what did the captain do all by himself on the boat.

This man's story is shady as hell and I bet you anything he had something to do with her death.

I hope CW comes forward and talks.
Click to expand...

I am not going to assume this Captain is lying when I have nothing to base it on. Lets see if he offers to take a poly if LE wants him to do so. Iirc, he has already done so by three outside entities and passed so I see no reason why he would balk if LE asks.

And the re-opening of the case doesn't even seem to be about what he has said or written. LAPD said they have not even talked with the Captain but may do so in the future.

It seems new witnesses have come forward that LAPD finds credible. Maybe more than just the woman and her son who saw and heard things that night. Maybe in a weak moment one of the interested parties other than the Captain confided in someone.

It isn't like this is a new revelation. His book was written two years ago and when Natalie died so many people thought then that RJ was involved somehow.

The Caption certainly knows he could be civilly liable if he has told untruths. Strange that he accuses JR in the book but JR didn't sue him.

So I say, let the investigation unfold and see where it leads.

Maybe after thirty years of wondering some of the puzzling questions can be answered.
 
Columbo said:
In California, .08 BAC is legally drunk. Here's a chart with the various states' limits:
http://www.ohsinc.com/drunk_driving_laws_blood_breath%20_alcohol_limits_CHART.htm
Click to expand...


Thanks for the link, I should have included one myself.

My point wasn't that she could legally operate a motor vehicle- although, at the time it might've been close (I'm only being semi-facetious; the laws covering DUIs have become much more stringent since then). My point was that .14 isn't that high of a BAC to an experienced drinker. I'd imagine, unless her liver was failing, that she'd developed enough of a tolerance where she could easily handle that amount. It's not that much alcohol.


ETA: Kaybug- You beat me to it! :)
 
Kaybug said:
.08 may be legally drunk. But as Columbo said, .14 is hardly incapacitating, especially to an experienced drinker.
Click to expand...

Linz was the one who said .14 is hardly incapacitated (I'm Columbo and I didn't say that! :))

From what I've heard, experienced drinkers may think they can drive and function okay when they have been drinking, but they are more incapacitated than they realize. Their brains really are impaired, and physiologically they are also impaired.
 
oceanblueeyes said:
I am not going to assume this Captain is lying when I have nothing to base it on. Lets see if he offers to take a poly if LE wants him to do so. Iirc, he has already done so by three outside entities and passed so I see no reason why he would balk if LE asks.

And the re-opening of the case doesn't even seem to be about what he has said or written. LAPD said they have not even talked with the Captain but may do so in the future.

It seems new witnesses have come forward that LAPD finds credible. Maybe more than just the woman and her son who saw and heard things that night. Maybe in a weak moment one of the interested parties other than the Captain confided in someone.

It isn't like this is a new revelation. His book was written two years ago and when Natalie died so many people thought then that RJ was involved somehow.

The Caption certainly knows he could be civilly liable if he has told untruths. Strange that he accuses JR in the book but JR didn't sue him.

So I say, let the investigation unfold and see where it leads.

Maybe after thirty years of wondering some of the puzzling questions can be answered.
Click to expand...



Hmph :banghead: Not aimed at you but I don't think I'm explaining myself very well.


THE CAPTAIN IS LIABLE BECAUSE HE DIDN'T CALL THE COAST GUARD HIMSELF AND BECAUSE HE WAS OPERATING THE BOAT TRASHED OUT OF HIS MIND.


If this wasn't a sensational Hollywood story I think everyone would see the issue here.


Imagine you went on a party cruise with a bunch of girlfriends and two guys got in a fight and started punching each other and whoops one of the girls gets knocked overboard.


What would the captain of the boat do?


He's sling back some drinks and just wait around until one of the guys told him what to do?

He's a CAPTAIN that title gives him certain liabilities and ethical and legal responsibilities.

He is blaming it on RW. Even if RW got in a fight and tossed her over the side, why didn't the captain call the coast guard?

A person is missing from your boat and the dingy is gone and she's drunk, you don't wait until morning.


And I hope he gets totally nailed for this. :twocents:


I just googled this quickly


http://matadornetwork.com/notebook/how-to-become-a-boat-captain/


My dad is a 30-year veteran but refuses to adhere to the standards of a Federal license.

As a result, I’m the captain aboard my father’s ship, he is the skipper. I am ‘in command’ while he is ‘in charge,’ and legally it’s my *advertiser censored* on the line if anything happens to our passengers or the vessel.

Being a boat captain has its perks. You are the Top Dog, The Man in charge, the alpha-chicken in the boat world’s pecking order. You can work anywhere on the coast, you aren’t held to the same social standards of a regular boss, and occasionally you get to wear a great hat.
Click to expand...
 
oceanblueeyes said:
I am not going to assume this Captain is lying when I have nothing to base it on. Lets see if he offers to take a poly if LE wants him to do so. Iirc, he has already done so by three outside entities and passed so I see no reason why he would balk if LE asks.

And the re-opening of the case doesn't even seem to be about what he has said or written. LAPD said they have not even talked with the Captain but may do so in the future.

It seems new witnesses have come forward that LAPD finds credible. Maybe more than just the woman and her son who saw and heard things that night. Maybe in a weak moment one of the interested parties other than the Captain confided in someone.

It isn't like this is a new revelation. His book was written two years ago and when Natalie died so many people thought then that RJ was involved somehow.

The Caption certainly knows he could be civilly liable if he has told untruths. Strange that he accuses JR in the book but JR didn't sue him.

So I say, let the investigation unfold and see where it leads.

Maybe after thirty years of wondering some of the puzzling questions can be answered.
Click to expand...

bolded by me.

I pretty much agree with you.

He was just so frozen scared in that interview, I wouldn't be surprised if it was because he knows he can be held accountable now. If he is a recovering alcoholic, doing a twelve-step program, he may now realize he was morally wrong for not carrying out his duties as captain of the yacht, and needs to straighten things out before he meets his maker.

Knowing how justice is sometimes meted out, he probably will be held accountable and the real guilty party (being affluent) will walk. He knew he was taking a huge risk and that's why he was so scared,almost too scared to talk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 84 more.
Total: 316 (members: 85, guests: 231)

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
231
Total visitors
316
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,488
Messages
18,254,772
Members
234,664
Latest member
wrongplatform
Back
Top