Robert Refuses to Talk to Investigators in 2013
-
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(January 19, 2013 05:45 PM)
King Of Fuh,
The boat captain Dennis Davern passed a polygraph test wherein he said that a fight between Wagner and Wood led to her death. That Wagner is to his mind responsible. That he willfully signed a lie-riddled statement drafted by Wagner's attorney. I do not know why he is not in legal trouble for perjury. I do not pretend to know the ridiculous workings of the law.
Wagner himself admits to having had a fight with Wood prior to her drowning. The initial investigators were told nothing of this. There was no serious effort by investigators to ascertain how she was injured. It is just tragically ludicrous.
Her suspected "emotional" unfaithfulness did not sit well with Wagner, who by his own admission stalked Warren Beatty with a gun and homicidal intent. Davern says he heard Wagner say: "Get off my beep boat" before the inebriated and b111ceaten Wood fell overboard. It has always been known that Wagner objected to a proper search, preferring to wait and see if she returned.
So, what to do about it? Her death is no longer officially considered accidental, but rather the result of "drowning and other
undetermined factors
." I find nothing unbelievable about Davern's story. I want Robert Wagner to serve 10 or so years in prison for criminally-negligent manslaughter and perjury. I want Dennis Davern to serve 5 or so years in prison for perjury and being a lousy captain. Captains have responsibilities of their own, after all. However, for reasons fairly understandable, Davern's polygraph is inadmissible due to his drunkenness at the time of her death. So, nothing will come of it.
As for the unusually lovely and very talented Natalie Wood: she was a fool to marry Wagner, let alone twice, and alcohol and pills do not mix well, especially on a boat. -
amyghost — 13 years ago(January 22, 2013 03:52 AM)
//Manslaughter is distinguished from murder under the law.//
The problem is, there is far too scant evidence to bring a manslaughter conviction either.
All the best available coroner's evidence points to the fact of accidental drowning. Why on earth these ghouls who call themselves Natalie Wood's 'fans' cannot accept this, and leave the woman and her surviving family in peace is beyond me. I'm sure wherever she is now, she's feeling that fans like these she could have gladly done without. They do her memory no respect whatsoever. -
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(January 22, 2013 03:54 PM)
"The problem is, there is far too scant evidence to bring a manslaughter conviction either."
The problem is your mindless redundancy. Don't tell me there won't be a conviction as if I stated anything to the contrary. I said "nothing will come of it."
"I'm sure wherever she is now, she's feeling that fans like these she could have gladly done without."
She's in the Westwood Village Memorial Park Cemetery, and to the best of human knowledge, she isn't feeling a goddamn thing. If she were able to feel one way or the other, she would most likely appreciate that people care to look into the highly suspicious circumstances of her death. -
amyghost — 13 years ago(January 23, 2013 03:53 AM)
DanFG80, quick bit of adviceget over yourself.
I'll continue to reiterate my feelings with regard to the utter lack of respect which ghoulish fanbois show towards Wood and her surviving family with their trash tabloid speculationsand I'll continue to point out the fact that no evidence exists to warrant either a charge of murder or manslaughter against Wagner. Your redundant responses to that notwithstanding. -
shoopies — 13 years ago(January 23, 2013 12:55 PM)
The fact is even though the cops said they have a clearer picture of what happend , they have no evidence a crime has been comited. They still have not deemed Walken ,Wagner , nor that Captain as suspects. Even though her death certificate was amended to included possible bruises , scratches . so fourth they still lack suffect forensic evendence period. And basically everyone on that ship had either smoked something, took something ,.or drank something in that two day period. Not to mention those still living are older than dirt.(No offence intended on the age comment) So how much do you exspect them to rmember? And what they do remember is oviously not going to be very clear at best.
-
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(January 23, 2013 06:37 PM)
"DanFG80, quick bit of adviceget over yourself."
You went from irrelevancy to redundancy, and I should get over myself for pointing that out, eh? It is incumbent upon me to answer according to my respondents, be they sensible or senseless. For reasons heretofore made plain, you are in the latter category. If your inability to stay on point in this simple exchange is any indication of your general intelligence, I would have no choice but to conclude that you, amyghost, are one dumb bitch, in so many words.
"I'll continue to reiterate my feelings with regard to the utter lack of respect"
If you take issue with anything I have said regarding the death of Natalie Wood, quote me and provide a counter argument. That is the way of intelligent discourse, understand? Furthermore, bear in mind these operative words: cogent and necessary. Your inane replies are, so far, woefully lacking in these qualities.
"I'll continue to point out the fact that no evidence exists to warrant either a charge of murder or manslaughter against Wagner."
I have substantiated my feelings concerning Mr. Wagner. You, on the other hand, have not substantiated diddlysquat. I know by now that reading comprehension is an issue for you, and what's more, I suspect you have the attention span of a gnat in the mating season. Nevertheless, if you are to even begin to hold your own here, it will have to be off with the dunce cap and on with the thinking cap. Got it, missy? -
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(January 24, 2013 02:07 PM)
"You sound like nothing more than a self important gasbag, and no one is impressed."
The "gasbag" would be the one who moronically chimed in and has yet to contribute anything by way of substantiation. If this is in any way abstruse, you are the gasbag according to the word's definition.
With no substantiation forthcoming, you have only proven yourself another witless and graceless opinionator on the internet.
Pathetic, to say the least! -
amyghost — 13 years ago(January 25, 2013 04:01 AM)
LOL'ing, Danmaybe we should start viewing you as a suspect. Perhaps you were on a nearby boat that night, opened your mouth, and the resulting blast of hot air blew her right overboard.
//The "gasbag" would be the one who moronically chimed in and has yet to contribute anything by way of substantiation//
Dan, I confess to feeling no great fondness for your person, but reallyeven you oughtn't to be that hard on yourself. Even if you are correct in the assessment that you have contributed nothing.
//With no substantiation forthcoming//
"Substantiation" of what, Dan? I postulated an opinion. One doesn't provide substantiation of an opinion. One provides it for those things one presents as positive evidence, Dan.
BTW, DanI cited the evidence given in the coroner's report as to cause of death. What official documents or forensic evidence have you graced us with thus far?
Stop trying to engage in lawyer-speak, Dan. You make yourself sound bang-on silly when you try it.
//you have only proven yourself another witless and graceless opinionator on the internet//
Really LOL'ing at this point, as that's spoken like a true expositor of the witless and graceless, Dan.
Reallydon't take it so hard that you're being treated dismissively, Danit's only because nothing you're saying is worth giving a to111css about, that's all. -
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(January 25, 2013 10:22 PM)
"Dan, I confess to feeling no great fondness for your person, but reallyeven you oughtn't to be that hard on yourself. Even if you are correct in the assessment that you have contributed nothing."
Your infantile rubber/glue game may work in a kindergarten, but it isn't making it here.
"I postulated an opinion. One doesn't provide substantiation of an opinion."
It's called an argument. Google various combinations of "substantiate" and "opinion." See how many thousands and millions of hits you get. An opinion postulated but not premised is of no real consequence to the matter at hand. If your dentist opines that your tooth should be pulled, do you interrupt his or her reasoning by saying opinions require no substantiation?
"One provides it [substantiation] for those things one presents as positive evidenc5b4e, Dan."
Positive evidence, if believed, serves
to substantiate
the truth or falsity of something.
"BTW, DanI cited the evidence given in the coroner's report as to cause of death. What official documents or forensic evidence have you graced us with thus far?"
More drivel owing to your reading comprehension problem.
You said: "All the best available coroner's evidence points to the fact of accidental drowning."
I said: "Her death is no longer officially considered accidental, but rather the result of 'drowning and
other undetermined factors
.'"
On top of the plethora of problems you demonstrably have, you're not up to date.
"Really LOL'ing at this point"
You can LOL your dumb ass into a critical thinking class, where perhaps even you could learn something about intelligent discourse. In the meantime, you would do well by keeping to something more your speed. Whatever that would be. -
amyghost — 13 years ago(January 26, 2013 08:35 AM)
-Dan are you done with sucking all of the oxygen out of the room yet?
All of your windbagging to date has been nothing beyond a slightly more sophisticated variant on the old line of "I don't like/disagree with what you're saying, so STFU and get off of the thread."
You make the typical mistake of the 'thinking themselves slightly more educated than anyone else in the room' sort in believing that if you clothe those naked sentiments in a somewhat more 'upscale' variety of linguistics, they attain the power of being taken seriously and thus being utterly intimidating. They don't. They just make you appear to be what you area typical specimen of the "jackanape with access to an online dictionary + too much time on their hands = chat forum armchair expert par excellence". (My words, hence the quote marks, in case you were confused by the shift in punctuation, Dan.) Nothing more.
You do, however, give the impression of being one of those who substitutes 'googling' for actual reading and formation of honestly-come-by opinion and thought. Nothing new to see here, that's typical of your typeand when 'googling' doesn't give you a platform of sufficient substance to rest your arguments on, straight you go on a gish-gallop to the (tiresome) ad-hominem attacks.
The one here with a reading comprehension problem is yourself, Dan. Coupled snugly with your deep lack of understanding of what the phrase 'critical thought' actually implies, as apart from ammo for your ad-hom cannon.
You're very boring, Dan. Nothing in either your initial response to me, nor your subsequent drivelling postings has contained anything resembling actual data regarding Wood's death. Merely tired repetition of the of the usual vague gruntings you 'troofer' types excel at employing.
Nothing in the newly released data given on the re-examination of Wood's injuries points to anything that goes beyond suggesting the initial coroner's verdict of 'accidental death due to misadventure/drowning' remains correct. Amusinglyand predictablyyou've latched onto that "other undetermined factors" as a lifeline to support your otherwise baseless theories. Typical strawman approach, Dan. You must have flunked out of that 'critical thinking course' you mention, if you learned nothing more in it than cheap wordplay with extant facts, Dan.
Do carry on with your straw-manning and ad-homming, Dan. You do provide a valuable object-lesson to others in what they need to avoid if they wish to have their rhetoric taken at any level other than the specious. The only thing you've learned with regard to 'intelligent discourse' is how to employ every tired pseudo-debating tactic in the book, the better to avoid it like the plague.
I do like that "rubber-glue" analogy of yours up there, though. That's the most vibrantly original bit of imaginative imagery you've coined here thus far, Dan. Perhaps you should copyright it before some enterprising troll steals it for their own use? -
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(January 26, 2013 04:00 PM)
Still at it, huh?
I see that I have irked you into a woefully irrelevant and nonsensical diatribe. I, too, am irked. My every sensibility is offended by your very existence. I would sooner die a thousand deaths than to share in your contempt for, and ineptitude with intelligent discourse.
Now to the more relevant samplings of your drivel:
"Nothing in either your initial response to me, nor your subsequent drivelling postings has contained anything resembling actual data regarding Wood's death."
My case was made before you chimed in. Though I do not share your penchant for redundancy, I have reiterated how the official word has changed. By the way, I am the furthest thing from a "troofer." I have lost count of how many times you have been dead wrong.
"Nothing in the newly released data given on the re-examination of Wood's injuries points to anything that goes beyond suggesting the initial coroner's verdict of 'accidental death due to misadventure/drowning' remains correct."
da0Hello, Dummy? Earth to verbose Dummy? Her official cause of death has changed. Her death is no longer officially considered an accident. Type "accident" a million times. It won't make a lick of difference.
"Amusinglyand predictablyyou've latched onto that "other undetermined factors" as a lifeline to support your otherwise baseless theories."
Oh, you mean the official word on the matter to date? Unlike you, I do not rely on an autopsy report that has been officially discredited by the Los Angeles County coroner's office as flawed in "every major" finding.
"I do like that "rubber-glue" analogy of yours up there, though."
You should. It characterizes you to a tee.
Do yourself a favor, and carefully read our entire exchange. But this time, objectively look to where you are at fault, as if you were paid cash money for every example found. Fear not embarrassment, for it is part of life. If you have a shred of integrity, it will be an eye opener. Concede thereto, and be a less contemptible human being.