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

[redheadedgal]

1) People who take drugs are drug users. I'm not sure what your point is.

2) Also I've seen reports that state that the autopsy report doesn't indicate the levels of drugs in her system so I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers from. But her blood alcohol level was way over the safe limit.

1) "drug user" has a negative connotation akin to "drug abuser" or "druggie" or "addict". i do not afix these labels, names, insults to NW. i think it's sad we needed to debate/discuss this issue in the first place.

2) it's right there in the report...

 

[redheadedgal]

1) It's not "NAVY" protocol, it's basic protocol. If everything is fine on the boat that's one thing, but as someone else has pointed out earlier, 2) the buddy system is generally used on boats and NW was missing with the dingy. The owner reigns as long as everything is pretty much normal. .

1) you keep stating this as fact-- so please provide a legitimate credible source that states that in pleasure cruising a hired help/driver/friend trumps boat owner/employer especially when something is abnormal.

2) not really sure what exactly you are trying to say about the buddy system and the dinghy... are you implying that when RW/DD realized that NW and the dinghy were gone they should've been even more concerned -much less not concerned- b/c she wasn't supposed to take it alone? if that's the case, then where's your uproar that RW didn't request the search lights turned on immediately? the instantaneous call to the coast guard? the shouting to all nearby boats for help looking for her?


*was the buddy system even used back then? i'm sure boating rules and regulations are much more strict and safety conscious nowadays...

 

[redheadedgal]

1) Right unless it's anyone whose story you want to discount. You can't apply a form of logic to one thing and not to another just because you don't like where it's going.

2) Do you have testimony that RW "demanded" that DD go back to the boat? For all we knew he asked him to and DD didn't mind. Maybe he wanted to smoke a joint or whatever, but where is the DEMANDED part coming into it?

3) He thought CW was hitting on his wife and wrote it in his book.

4) Your assertion makes absolutely no sense IMO.

5) No but being a jerk doesn't make you a murderer.

1) to my knowledge DD didn't get angry, smash a bottle etc...

2) it was stated up thread

3) i never read RWs book so i have no idea what he said or didn't say about that night. i do know he didn't tell the whole truth. davern didn't either but he's trying to now imo.

4) i'm speculating as everyone in this thread is

5) i never called him a murderer

 

[redheadedgal]

IMO the only reason the case was reopened was because the other boat stated that they called for help twice and no one showed up.

If anyone on this thread can show any statement from the DAs office that states they opened the cased specifically because of what DD said, then I'd like to see it.

Why from the DA's office specifically? Is this not good enough?

More details will be announced Friday at a press conference in Los Angeles. Sheriff's Homicide Detectives said they decided to look into the case again because they were recently contacted by "persons who stated they had additional information about the Natalie Wood Wagner drowning."

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that comments made by the captain of the boat off which Wood drowned on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of her death prompted the reexamination.​

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-57327031-10391698/l.a-sheriff-reopening-natalie-wood-case/

 

[redheadedgal]

There is no reason RW would have protected DD if he had been the culprit you seem to think he was.

exactly!

 

[Chewy]

1) you keep stating this as fact-- so please provide a legitimate credible source that states that in pleasure cruising a hired help/driver/friend trumps boat owner/employer especially when something is abnormal.

2) not really sure what exactly you are trying to say about the buddy system and the dinghy... are you implying that when RW/DD realized that NW and the dinghy were gone they should've been even more concerned -much less not concerned- b/c she wasn't supposed to take it alone? if that's the case, then where's your uproar that RW didn't request the search lights turned on immediately? the instantaneous call to the coast guard? the shouting to all nearby boats for help looking for her?


*was the buddy system even used back then? i'm sure boating rules and regulations are much more strict and safety conscious nowadays...

First of all I did post the link pages back. Everyone just ignored it. Everyone continues to ignore it.

It's very simple (I took this from page 6 btw. That's how long ago I posted it.)

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

I became a licensed captain because I wanted to charter my family’s sailing schooner.
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.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_captain"]Sea captain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

A sea captain (also called a master or a shipmaster) is a licensed mariner in ultimate command of the vessel.[1] The captain is responsible for its safe and efficient operation, including cargo operations, navigation, crew management and ensuring that the vessel complies with local and international laws, as well as company and flag state policies. All persons on board, including officers and crew, other shipboard staff members, passengers, guests and pilots, are under the captain's authority and are his ultimate responsibility.

There is no legal distinction with respect to the rules of navigation between vessels operated for pleasure and for profit, between large boats and small ones, or those with a crew and those operated by one person[ii].

http://boats.uslegal.com/liability-of-motorboat-owners-and-operators-for-injury-or-damage/






Second of all FINALLY YES someone is finally looking at what I am saying.

The minute NW was found missing on that boat, regardless of if RW thought she had just stormed off, the captain should have notified harbor patrol.

Especially if he knew that she had been drinking and using drugs. And even if RW in his drunken state was ordering him not to do anything because he didn't want a scandal he should have still contacted harbor patrol.

He had a legal obligation to do so.

Why didn't he? IMO because he was drunk. They all acted badly because they were drunk, their perspectives were all off. And also because there were illegal drugs on board. If cops found drugs on the Yacht, the Yacht would be seized.

Both RW and DD were responsible for what happened that night. I don't think foul play was involved and I do think that they dropped the ball years ago during the investigation.


Yes it was a pleasure cruise and yes of course DD was probably intimidated or just confused by RW calling the shots. But DD is legally and ethically responsible for her death.

The reason I mention that he was in the Navy is because he definitely would have known the protocol if he was in the Navy prior to being a captain on the Splendour.






Now that I've answered your questions. Could you answer mine.

If this wasn't a Hollywood scandal and you simply read a story about a yacht captain who got drunk while chartering a boat and admitted to using drugs and a regular passenger fell off his boat and he sat and got drunk all night instead of following protocol would you still treat the man like some hero because he tried to blame his lack of action on the woman's drunk husband? Seems to me that people are bending over backwards to suggest that DD wasn't "really in charge" or that he was just a friend along for the ride.

 

[Chewy]

Why from the DA's office specifically? Is this not good enough?

More details will be announced Friday at a press conference in Los Angeles. Sheriff's Homicide Detectives said they decided to look into the case again because they were recently contacted by "persons who stated they had additional information about the Natalie Wood Wagner drowning."

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that comments made by the captain of the boat off which Wood drowned on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of her death prompted the reexamination.​

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-57327031-10391698/l.a-sheriff-reopening-natalie-wood-case/

You only wrote PART of what the Detectives said.

Here is the whole statement.

(CBS/AP) Last Updated 6:27 p.m. ET
Robert Wagner is not considered a suspect in the death of his wife, actress Natalie Wood, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said Friday.

Lt. John Corina said new information deemed "substantial" has prompted homicide detectives to re-open the case, but that Wood's Nov. 29, 1981 death is still considered an accidental drowning.

A yacht captain has come forward to say that he lied to investigators about the mysterious case.

And DD published his book about it two years ago. So how can that be the "new" information that prompted them to open the case?

And finally someone else said "Why doesn't RW come out and address what DD has said?"

Well it's wrong to speculate a person's motivations when you don't know them. However he has made a statement which says he "fully supports the investigation." Could be that he knows the statute of limitations ran out and they won't be able to prove anything, or it could be that he knows DD is lying and knows it will come out. We don't know.

 

[eve]

First of all I did post the link pages back. Everyone just ignored it. Everyone continues to ignore it.

It's very simple (I took this from page 6 btw. That's how long ago I posted it.)

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



Sea captain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Second of all FINALLY YES someone is finally looking at what I am saying.

The minute NW was found missing on that boat, regardless of if RW thought she had just stormed off, the captain should have notified harbor patrol.

Especially if he knew that she had been drinking and using drugs. And even if RW in his drunken state was ordering him not to do anything because he didn't want a scandal he should have still contacted harbor patrol.

He had a legal obligation to do so.

Why didn't he? IMO because he was drunk. They all acted badly because they were drunk, their perspectives were all off.

Both RW and DD were responsible for what happened that night. I don't think foul play was involved and I do think that they dropped the ball years ago during the investigation.


Yes it was a pleasure cruise and yes of course DD was probably intimidated or just confused by RW calling the shots. But DD is legally and ethically responsible for her death.

Now that I've answered your questions. Could you answer mine.

If this wasn't a Hollywood scandal and you simply read a story about a yacht captain who got drunk while chartering a boat and admitted to using drugs and a regular passenger fell off his boat and he sat and got drunk all night instead of following protocol would you still treat the man like some hero because he tried to blame his lack of action on the woman's drunk husband?

Again, I'm going to say I have a fair amount of boating experience and what you cite is true but in reality when the yacht owner is paying you and you are all partying together and said owner orders you to keep your mouth shut you as a drunk/shirker of duties may well follow those orders. Not right, but DD is admitting this now! It is pretty much his whole point.

I STILL say the one with the real stake in the outcome - i.e. loss of wife -- RW -- has more culpability. Ethically - and that is more important than maritime legalities in this instance, 30 years later, IMO.

So DD screws whole thing up and RW never calls him out on it but just says, "Oh, that's ok Captain, you were drunk, she's gone. Move into my house, I'll get you a job on my show."

Begs questions -- why would RW prevent search and rescue immediately? He would be demanding it! Why would RW protect Captain's irresponsible azz and even move him into his home after? Given what we know, who was in best position to have gotten her help in time if the Captain wasn't doing his job? Big name RW, that's who.

Eve

 

[jjw]

First of all I did post the link pages back. Everyone just ignored it. Everyone continues to ignore it.It's very simple (I took this from page 6 btw. That's how long ago I posted it.)

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



Sea captain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Second of all FINALLY YES someone is finally looking at what I am saying.

The minute NW was found missing on that boat, regardless of if RW thought she had just stormed off, the captain should have notified harbor patrol.

Especially if he knew that she had been drinking and using drugs. And even if RW in his drunken state was ordering him not to do anything because he didn't want a scandal he should have still contacted harbor patrol.

He had a legal obligation to do so.

Why didn't he? IMO because he was drunk. They all acted badly because they were drunk, their perspectives were all off.

Both RW and DD were responsible for what happened that night. I don't think foul play was involved and I do think that they dropped the ball years ago during the investigation.


Yes it was a pleasure cruise and yes of course DD was probably intimidated or just confused by RW calling the shots. But DD is legally and ethically responsible for her death.
Now that I've answered your questions. Could you answer mine.

If this wasn't a Hollywood scandal and you simply read a story about a yacht captain who got drunk while chartering a boat and admitted to using drugs and a regular passenger fell off his boat and he sat and got drunk all night instead of following protocol would you still treat the man like some hero because he tried to blame his lack of action on the woman's drunk husband?

BBM
1)The poster just asked for the link. Just because someone doesn't have the same opinion as you doesn't mean they are ignoring your info.

2)I have said DD was to blame along w/ RW. He also didn't get help and is legally responsible too. I'm leaving CW out because he reportedly was asleep during all of this. You can't go after DD for neglecting to get help, when RW did the same thing. I assure you the authorities will look at all culpability. RW not being the Captain doesn't get him off the hook.

3)There is more to the story than that little summary. YOU CAN NOT IGNORE THE ACTIONS OF ROBERT WAGNER THAT NIGHT. To ignore the changing story of Wagner and his negligence(DD was negligent too) is not looking at the case in an open manner. No one is calling DD a hero. If he is telling the truth, then it's about time.

The truth is all parties were not open and truthful to the authorities at the time. Authorities did not do a proper investigation into Natalie's death and that's why it's such a mystery. Is it an accidental drowing or something else? We will probably never know or be satisified with the answer. If this had happened today, it would have probably been investigated as a homicide from the beginning which is normal for cases like this now. Investigators would have questioned all parties more thoroughly, the Splendour would have been looked over w/ a fine-toothed comb by CSI, specialists would have re-enacted the events and DNA and other forensics would be available to figure out what happened to Natalie.

Regardless how she ended up drowning, DD and RW were both negligent that night. The thought that Natalie didn't die quickly and maybe floated for a time expecting her beloved husband RW and close friend DD to save her, while they were on deck *disrespecting her and drinking respectively, infuriates me. :furious::banghead:


*RW-saying she was probably off with someone else

jmo

 

[Chewy]

Thanks for at least admitting it's true.


Your speculations about RW are in my opinion just gossip. RW did not identify NW's body. He asked DD to do it because he couldn't handle it. So perhaps he felt he owed him.

And as you pointed out he did tell DD not to do anything and may have felt guilty for putting him in that position. Speculating beyond that is just gossip.

Your question Why did RW prevent them from searching and why if DD said that he really truly did think that NW was in trouble did he do nothing.

Beg this question WHY? If DD really thought something was amiss did he do nothing and allow NW to die? It doesn't make any sense at all. If he did, he's an accessory to murder.

This is why I am only looking at what DD is saying and not RW. RW is responsible for being a drunk jerk who let his ego get the best of him an ultimately his wife died for it. That's not murder. That is an accident. Manslaughter maybe.

But stick ONLY with what DD is saying. He's saying that the truth is back then right away he knew something was wrong and that RW made him not do anything. COME ON. I don't care how much someone paid me or intimidated me, if we're talking about DEATH I'm going to move into action.

What kind of person doesn't try to help someone who suspects is dying because he's "intimidated" by RW? The minute harbor patrol showed up DD would have had back up.

He's lying. He has changed his story so many times.


Instead lets look at what originally was said and match it to the evidence of behavior.

Originally DD said that RW thought she had gone to shore or to another boat. This is corroborated by the others that showed up when RW said she was "that kind of woman."

Obviously he thought she went off to another boat and was blowing him off. That matches.

All this new "confession" shows me is that DD is admitting to standing by and doing nothing (oh except for getting drunk because RW poured the alcohol down his throat while he was tied to a chair) and let NW drown.

Not a hero in my book.

I don't believe him.

And if he is lying he's taking a man and trashing his reputation, stabbing him in the heart with one of the worst tragedies of his life, hurting her children, hurting Jill St. John and all the others who loved and cared about her. Dragging CW back into it.

For what?

 

[Chewy]

[/B]


BBM
1)The poster just asked for the link. Just because someone doesn't have the same opinion as you doesn't mean they are ignoring your info.

2)I have said DD was to blame along w/ RW. He also didn't get help and is legally responsible too. I'm leaving CW out because he reportedly was asleep during all of this. You can't go after DD for neglecting to get help, when RW did the same thing. I assure you the authorities will look at all culpability. RW not being the Captain doesn't get him off the hook.

3)There is more to the story than that little summary. YOU CAN NOT IGNORE THE ACTIONS OF ROBERT WAGNER THAT NIGHT. To ignore the changing story of Wagner and his negligence(DD was negligent too) is not looking at the case in an open manner. No one is calling DD a hero. If he is telling the truth, then it's about time.

The truth is all parties were not open and truthful to the authorities at the time. Authorities did not do a proper investigation into Natalie's death and that's why it's such a mystery. Is it an accidental drowing or something else? We will probably never know or be satisified with the answer. If this had happened today, it would have probably been investigated as a homicide from the beginning which is normal for cases like this now. Investigators would have questioned all parties more thoroughly, the Splendour would have been looked over w/ a fine-toothed comb by CSI, specialists would have re-enacted the events and DNA and other forensics would be available to figure out what happened to Natalie.

Regardless how she ended up drowning, DD and RW were both negligent that night. The thought that Natalie didn't die quickly and maybe floated for a time expecting her beloved husband RW and close friend DD to save her, while they were on deck *disrespecting her and drinking respectively, infuriates me. :furious::banghead:


*RW-saying she was probably off with someone else

jmo

BBM There isn't an "opinion" about law. The law is the law. If I posted the law and it is the law a person should look it up themselves if they disagree with the statement that it is a law. Not continue to ask me to prove it's the law.




I guess this is what bothers me about the way it has unfolded. I agree and have said many times that they were BOTH responsible for her death. And so was she unfortunately.

They were all responsible.


However people are treating DD like a hero now. It would be different if he was saying "I am responsible for her death and so is RW and we should have not been drinking and careless" or something like that.

Instead he wants the investigation reopened and RW held to blame. And everyone is running right along with that.

But this is IF what he is saying is true. I don't believe him. He isn't saying the truth, he's blaming RW and creating a new story of murder, he's not saying that they were criminally negligent. He's painting a picture of murder.

 

[eve]

BBM There isn't an "opinion" about law. The law is the law. If I posted the law and it is the law a person should look it up themselves if they disagree with the statement that it is a law. Not continue to ask me to prove it's the law.




I guess this is what bothers me about the way it has unfolded. I agree and have said many times that they were BOTH responsible for her death. And so was she unfortunately.

They were all responsible.


However people are treating DD like a hero now. It would be different if he was saying "I am responsible for her death and so is RW and we should have not been drinking and careless" or something like that.

Instead he wants the investigation reopened and RW held to blame. And everyone is running right along with that.

But this is IF what he is saying is true. I don't believe him. He isn't saying the truth, he's blaming RW and creating a new story of murder, he's not saying that they were criminally negligent. He's painting a picture of murder.

Chewy, if the law were that simple I wouldn't have spent three years in law school learning about it. We wouldn't have courts or lawyers. What law are you referring to, anyway? Maritime law? Negligence? (which is civil, BTW).

No one here is referring to DD as a hero.

I think RW felt he owed him, alright, but not for id'ing the body.

I do not understand why you ask the question of DD (why did he not do anything) and you do not apply that scrutiny to RW?

We KNOW why DD said he didn't do anything! He said RW ordered him not to. Whether you or I would have heeded the order, he got a place to live and jobs out of it, didn't he? He didn't get dragged into the drowning and have to face his own culpability in it, right? Pretty strong motivation for him to do nothing and keep his mouth shut if you ask me. Especially if he was in the throes of a drinking bender at the time.

But why didn't RW do anything?

I will never believe he really thought she took off in her nightgown to screw around with someone on another boat after a night of fighting and drinking when she was terrified of the sea. Never.

And, I too think of her trying to hang on out in the water knowing help (her own husband!) was close but not even looking for her. Horrible.

Also a reminder that regardless of CA law re: boat captains, the only thing (that I know of) that is a criminal legal issue here is murder because of the tolling of the statute of limitations.

Eve

 

[Columbo]

This link, which was provided by Chewy, states that the boat and the boat's owner are responsible for what happens on the boat. Not the "captain".

http://boats.uslegal.com/liability-of-motorboat-owners-and-operators-for-injury-or-damage/

"The party who has been wronged by a vessel has his right of action against the vessel in rem, or against the vessel and its owner in personam".

I don't think that DD's coming forward now is any kind of CYA move or an attempt to make money. I believe his extreme nervousness, that you could see in his tv interviews, shows that he knows he is putting his own head on the block because he is partly culpable.

 

[eve]

This link, which was provided by Chewy, states that the boat and the boat's owner are responsible for what happens on the boat. Not the "captain".

http://boats.uslegal.com/liability-of-motorboat-owners-and-operators-for-injury-or-damage/

"The party who has been wronged by a vessel has his right of action against the vessel in rem, or against the vessel and its owner in personam".

I don't think that DD's coming forward now is any kind of CYA move or an attempt to make money. I believe his extreme nervousness, that you could see in his tv interviews, shows that he knows he is putting his own head on the block because he is partly culpable.

I absolutely agree Columbo. And not to sound like a know -it -all about boating, but my dad had a big boat like that and had a captain a few times and let me tell you, the owner is the man. Even if they don't know what they're doing (which my father did). I learned a lot about boating and have gone on many 4-night excursions. There is no general feeling that the hired captain will take responsibility while the owner parties and throws caution to the wind and worse.

"My wife just fell overboard. Fish her out while I make another martini. And then swab the deck."

or

"We really f'd up. Here's the story, nothing else to do now but save our azzes...and don't worry, you will be taken care of, little buddy."

Good catch, Columbo!

Eve

 

[Columbo]

I absolutely agree Columbo. And not to sound like a know -it -all about boating, but my dad had a big boat like that and had a captain a few times and let me tell you, the owner is the man. Even if they don't know what they're doing (which my father did). I learned a lot about boating and have gone on many 4-night excursions. There is no general feeling that the hired captain will take responsibility while the owner parties and throws caution to the wind and worse.

"My wife just fell overboard. Fish her out while I make another martini. And then swab the deck."

or

"We really f'd up. Here's the story, nothing else to do now but save our azzes...and don't worry, you will be taken care of, little buddy."

Good catch, Columbo!

Eve

Thanks, eve.
You certainly don't ever sound like you are a know-it-all type. Your experience boating plus the actual legal statements from the link prove that the owner is "the man" on board the boat.

 

[Columbo]

Chewy, if the law were that simple I wouldn't have spent three years in law school learning about it. We wouldn't have courts or lawyers. What law are you referring to, anyway? Maritime law? Negligence? (which is civil, BTW).

No one here is referring to DD as a hero.

I think RW felt he owed him, alright, but not for id'ing the body.

I do not understand why you ask the question of DD (why did he not do anything) and you do not apply that scrutiny to RW?

We KNOW why DD said he didn't do anything! He said RW ordered him not to. Whether you or I would have heeded the order, he got a place to live and jobs out of it, didn't he? He didn't get dragged into the drowning and have to face his own culpability in it, right? Pretty strong motivation for him to do nothing and keep his mouth shut if you ask me. Especially if he was in the throes of a drinking bender at the time.

But why didn't RW do anything?

I will never believe he really thought she took off in her nightgown to screw around with someone on another boat after a night of fighting and drinking when she was terrified of the sea. Never.

And, I too think of her trying to hang on out in the water knowing help (her own husband!) was close but not even looking for her. Horrible.

Also a reminder that regardless of CA law re: boat captains, the only thing (that I know of) that is a criminal legal issue here is murder because of the tolling of the statute of limitations.

Eve

Agree, agree, agree--I could have bolded your entire post!!

 

[Kimster]

TRICIA AND LEVI PAGE ARE ON FOX LIVE LA TONIGHT!!!!!!

Don't miss this show! Seriously!!!

:great::great::great:

9PM PACIFIC TIME!!

Here's the live link: http://media.myfoxla.com/live/2/

 

[Columbo]

Yesterday I got RW's book Pieces of My Heart at the library because I want to see for myself what he has to say.

I've only just started to read it, however, I thumbed through it a bit first. As discussed here, he excludes Natalie from the dedication. There are a lot of pictures of her throughout the book.

The beginning of each chapter has a page with a photo that pertains to the subject of the chapter, and then the chapter title appears above the picture. Some of the chapters have slightly x-rated titles, which I suppose is to help with book sales. I was appalled* to see that one chapter is called "That *advertiser censored**ing C**t Will Never Work in Hollywood Again" and the picture below the title is a picture of Natalie in a black catsuit type outfit. Since I haven't read the chapter I'm only guessing at the content, but I suppose some producer may have said that to NW at some point. However, if that is true---or even if it isn't---what a totally disrespectful way to portray her. Especially considering the circumstances of her death. I couldn't believe it. It's like he's mocking her. Unbelievable. I have no respect for him.

* ETA: I think it was disgusting more than appalling...but anyway...

 

[eve]

Yesterday I got RW's book Pieces of My Heart at the library because I want to see for myself what he has to say.

I've only just started to read it, however, I thumbed through it a bit first. As discussed here, he excludes Natalie from the dedication. There are a lot of pictures of her throughout the book.

The beginning of each chapter has a page with a photo that pertains to the subject of the chapter, and then the chapter title appears above the picture. Some of the chapters have slightly x-rated titles, which I suppose is to help with book sales. I was appalled to see that one chapter is called "That *advertiser censored**ing C**t Will Never Work in Hollywood Again" and the picture below the title is a picture of Natalie in a black catsuit type outfit. Since I haven't read the chapter I'm only guessing at the content, but I suppose some producer may have said that to NW at some point. However, if that is true---or even if it isn't---what a totally disrespectful way to portray her. Especially considering the circumstances of her death. I couldn't believe it. It's like he's mocking her. Unbelievable. I have no respect for him.

I have always thought it extremely odd that he excluded her like that -- married her twice and had a child with her...

Eve

 

[Columbo]

I have always thought it extremely odd that he excluded her like that -- married her twice and had a child with her...

Eve

It is so odd. Because her picture is all over the book, and he talks about her, of course...but then to not say a word about her in the dedication. It's strange, like he's dancing around something or there's an elephant in the room he won't talk about. And then that chapter title page about NW which is so nasty. :waitasec: Really makes me wonder....As I said, I haven't read the whole book yet, but it shouldn't take long.