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

[redheadedgal]

re: the finstad book** and what i've read so far: i'm even more confused than ever...


info already discussed here:

-she says CW was awake and not in his stateroom when NW disappeared from the boat as per his initial statements to LE

-she says witnesses on nearby yacht heard cries b/c they had the windows open in their stateroom and as well they had a quiet generator... they believe this was why they heard the voice when no one else did... as it was cold and rainy that night and most people would not have had windows open under these conditions


new information:

-she says that there was a disagreement/fight at the restaurant that evng between the couple ... and NW threw at least one wine glass against the wall as per two waitresses. (was this info published anywhere else?)... apparently CW told LE that he first threw a wine glass to the floor "as he always did" and then NW did similarly... both waitresses say only NW threw a glass

-she says there was disagreement as to who spotted the dinghy first and the condition of the dinghy when found... the night manager of the restaurant (who took a boat out to look for NW when he heard about the situation) and a pair of lifeguards say they spotted it first. plus, the lifeguards maintain the dinghy and the oars were in "disarray... as if someone had been trying to climb back in" whereas the police divers say the oars were in place and it looked like no one had been aboard <---- how on earth is such an inconsistency even possible??!

and lastly, RW's official press release about the "accident": i believe i posted the entire thing on a previous page if anyone wants to go back to read the whole thing but finstad says there are 5 inconsistencies with it:

1) RW was not going to the stateroom to join his wife after she retired as he said

2) NW did not often take the dinghy out alone as he said

3) RW did not look for her within 10-15 minutes as he said

4) RW did not have a small cruiser with which he went to look for NW as he said

5) RW did not immediately contact the coast guard as he said

now, for me, like joran van der sloot and casey anthony, when you lie even just once --NOT TO MENTION AS MUCH AS RW IS ACCUSED OF WITH THIS STATEMENT-- it tells me you are not telling the truth and you are intentionally hiding things... usually things that are untoward, less than exemplary, criminal? that you want no one to ever find out*


* yes i know DD lied but i am not accusing him of things untoward with this last statement... he has come clean imo... and RW has not ever even attempted to explain why all these contradictions exist

(for those who have read his book: does he explain this?)


** rulli's book states that finstad got some facts wrong... so until i read that book i won't really know how the two differ and if any difference is truly pertinent to how NW died


columbo-- re the LW book: b/c i was ill almost the entire time i've had the book i've only really read the 5-6 pages about that night through the funeral (basically the end of the book)... i would suggest you try to get the book and read it for yourself and maybe you'll uncover some info i missed. LW does say that just prior to that fateful weekend, she thought something was off, amiss, wrong with her sister... but she never returns to this later on to analyze what she thought it might've been

 

[Columbo]

re: the finstad book** and what i've read so far: i'm even more confused than ever...


info already discussed here:

-she says CW was awake and not in his stateroom when NW disappeared from the boat as per his initial statements to LE

-she says witnesses on nearby yacht heard cries b/c they had the windows open in their stateroom and as well they had a quiet generator... they believe this was why they heard the voice when no one else did... as it was cold and rainy that night and most people would not have had windows open under these conditions


new information:

-she says that there was a disagreement/fight at the restaurant that evng between the couple ... and NW threw at least one wine glass against the wall as per two waitresses. (was this info published anywhere else?)... apparently CW told LE that he first threw a wine glass to the floor "as he always did" and then NW did similarly... both waitresses say only NW threw a glass

-she says there was disagreement as to who spotted the dinghy first and the condition of the dinghy when found... the night manager of the restaurant (who took a boat out to look for NW when he heard about the situation) and a pair of lifeguards say they spotted it first. plus, the lifeguards maintain the dinghy and the oars were in "disarray... as if someone had been trying to climb back in" whereas the police divers say the oars were in place and it looked like no one had been aboard <---- how on earth is such an inconsistency even possible??!

and lastly, RW's official press release about the "accident": i believe i posted the entire thing on a previous page if anyone wants to go back to read the whole thing but finstad says there are 5 inconsistencies with it:

1) RW was not going to the stateroom to join his wife after she retired as he said

2) NW did not often take the dinghy out alone as he said

3) RW did not look for her within 10-15 minutes as he said

4) RW did not have a small cruiser with which he went to look for NW as he said

5) RW did not immediately contact the coast guard as he said

now, for me, like joran van der sloot and casey anthony, when you lie even just once --NOT TO MENTION AS MUCH AS RW IS ACCUSED OF WITH THIS STATEMENT-- it tells me you are not telling the truth and you are intentionally hiding things... usually things that are untoward, less than exemplary, criminal? that you want no one to ever find out*


* yes i know DD lied but i am not accusing him of things untoward with this last statement... he has come clean imo... and RW has not ever even attempted to explain why all these contradictions exist

(for those who have read his book: does he explain this?)


** rulli's book states that finstad got some facts wrong... so until i read that book i won't really know how the two differ and if any difference is truly pertinent to how NW died


columbo-- re the LW book: b/c i was ill almost the entire time i've had the book i've only really read the 5-6 pages about that night through the funeral (basically the end of the book)... i would suggest you try to get the book and read it for yourself and maybe you'll uncover some info i missed. LW does say that just prior to that fateful weekend, she thought something was off, amiss, wrong with her sister... but she never returns to this later on to analyze what she thought it might've been

Thanks, redheadedgal! You're bringing up some really good points about the inconsistencies.

I've read RW's book but don't remember him even alluding to any inconsistencies in his story. As I recall, in the book he tells a cut-and-dried version, but not the same story he told the police. I may go back to the library today and check it out again, just to be sure. I don't remember anything about throwing wineglasses either at the wall or onto the floor of the restaurant! It seems like other customers at the restaurant remembered that the group was acting rowdy. RW may not want to admit this.

I also don't remember the facts that Rulli says Finstad got wrong. I'd have to review the book again. I'm also going to look for Finstad's book. I haven't read that one.

 

[Niner]

I just finished reading RW's book... first I want to say that I have always liked RW; probably since I was 12 or 13 years old, back in '59-'60... and STILL do!! LOL! I don't really believe he has/had intentional done anything to Natalie that night. With that said...

...and lastly, RW's official press release about the "accident": i believe i posted the entire thing on a previous page if anyone wants to go back to read the whole thing but finstad says there are 5 inconsistencies with it:

1) RW was not going to the stateroom to join his wife after she retired as he said

2) NW did not often take the dinghy out alone as he said

3) RW did not look for her within 10-15 minutes as he said

4) RW did not have a small cruiser with which he went to look for NW as he said

5) RW did not immediately contact the coast guard as he said

respectfully snipped...
1) actually, here is what he says about that...

pg 256:
The last time I saw my wife she was fixing her hair at a little vanity in the bathroom while I was arguing with Chris Walken. I saw her shut the door. She was going to bed.
By the nature of the disagreement, it was a circular argument, and the fact that neither of us was feeling any pain made it harder to break the circle. About fifteen minutes after Natalie closed the door, Chris and I moved from the salon up the three steps that led out onto the deck. If I had to categorize the emotional temperature, I would say that things were threatening to get physical, but the fact is that they never did.
After some minutes on the deck, the fresh air helped us calm down, and came back into the salon and sat there for a while, but not long. At this point, everything was fine between us. Then Chris went to bed, I sat up for a while with Dennis. And then it was time to go to bed.

so we don't actually know 'how much time' went by - with his "for a while" comments...

2)

pg 256:
I remember wondering if she'd taken the dinghy because of the argument, and then I thought, No way, because she was terrified of dark water, and besides that, the dinghy fired up very loudly, and we would have heard it, whether we were in the salon or on deck.

3) and 4) and 5): this is the next paragraph after the above and where he says it was time to go to bed.

pg 256-257:
...I found Dennis and said, "I think Natalie took off on the dinghy." At that point, I thought she had gone back to Doug's Harbor Reef, the restaurant where we had had dinner.
I radioed for the shore boat and went back to the restaurant. Chris and Dennis tayed on the Splendour. When I got to the island, the restaurant was closed. Natalie wasn't anywhere around the dock area, nor was the dinghy.
By this time, it was about 1:30am on the morning of Nov. 29th, and I was scared and confused. Dennis radioed for help on the Harbor Channel, which is monitored by the Bay Guard. The Coast Guard came out to the boat, and they went through the Splendour from top to bottom, from the bilge on up. THey checked everything. THen they started search and rescue, which is very difficult at night, crisscrossing the ocean surface with searchlights from the Coast Guard helpicopters. Hour and hour - nothing.

Hope that helps!! :seeya:

 

[Niner]

Also, wanted to add this quote from his book re Lana:

pg 269:
Natalie's will didn't leave her sister Lana any money, just her clothes. A few days after I went back to work on Hart to Hart, Lana called the house and said she wanted her inheritance. Liz, Natalie's secretary, explained that the will hadn't been probated yet, but Lana kept calling and demanding her property, which included some fur coats that were particularly valuable. I wanted Natasha and Courtney to have those, so I told Liz to have the coats appraised and I would send Lana the money. The coats were appraised at $11,000, so I sent Lana a check for that amount and told her she could have everything else.
Damned if Lana didn't take me literally. She pulled up in a truck and proceeded to strip Natalie's walk-in closet down to the walls. She even took the underwear. The clothes ended up on sale in a store on Ventura Blvd. that dealt in second-hand clothing. Lana then promptly rushed to write a ridiculous book about her sister that was published a year after Natalie died. Her writing career went about as well as her acting career.
At least she was consistent.

 

[redheadedgal]

niner-- i appreciate the info but most of that really doesn't help me understand all the contradictions/inconsistencies re: the initial press release. why not?

2) RW initially told LE he thought she'd taken the dinghy as per his statement to LE and you've just posted his own words about going to the restaurant to look for her. why would he do this if she'd "never take the dinghy out alone" and no one "heard the motor" as per the quote you posted from p. 256? and yes, i realize he's now saying he thinks she went to retie the dinghy but it still doesn't explain the contradiction of him saying she'd take it out alone/she would not take it out alone.

3) DD now says the two men sat and drank/talked for what-- 2 hours? after she went missing. so-- which is it?

4) the press release says "he took his small cruiser" to look for her. you just proved it wasn't his small cruiser but a shore boat. how could this detail be wrong in the press release? no doubt RW would've authorized whatever statement was made about the accident, correct? can it be explained away as a mere typo or does he want the world to think he did everything he could to save her? and why would he need to do this?

5) the statement said "he" (as in RW) contacted the CG but a) "he" did not. according to records doug oudin -the harbormaster- called the CG around b) 3:30am. this is FOUR hours later! the way RW tells the story does not make it sound like it took this long. he certainly didn't write that DD called the harbormaster who then called the CG @ 3:30am. why not? again, does he want everyone to think he did everything he could, when he in fact, might not have?

about LW: who really knows the truth about the clothes and furs... seems to be a 'he said she said' situation. fwiw, she gives a totally different amount of money re: the furs. bottom line, it's obvious they do not see eye to eye so that would be reflected in how the other is portrayed in their book. but i do know that RW sounds like an a-- just from how he wrote about LW in that last paragraph.

 

[Niner]

niner-- i appreciate the info but most of that really doesn't help me understand all the contradictions/inconsistencies re: the initial press release. why not?

2) RW initially told LE he thought she'd taken the dinghy as per his statement to LE and you've just posted his own words about going to the restaurant to look for her. why would he do this if she'd "never take the dinghy out alone" and no one "heard the motor" as per the quote you posted from p. 256? and yes, i realize he's now saying he thinks she went to retie the dinghy but it still doesn't explain the contradiction of him saying she'd take it out alone/she would not take it out alone.

3) DD now says the two men sat and drank/talked for what-- 2 hours? after she went missing. so-- which is it?

4) the press release says "he took his small cruiser" to look for her. you just proved it wasn't his small cruiser but a shore boat. how could this detail be wrong in the press release? no doubt RW would've authorized whatever statement was made about the accident, correct? can it be explained away as a mere typo or does he want the world to think he did everything he could to save her? and why would he need to do this?

5) the statement said "he" (as in RW) contacted the CG but a) "he" did not. according to records doug oudin -the harbormaster- called the CG around b) 3:30am. this is FOUR hours later! the way RW tells the story does not make it sound like it took this long. he certainly didn't write that DD called the harbormaster who then called the CG @ 3:30am. why not? again, does he want everyone to think he did everything he could, when he in fact, might not have?

about LW: who really knows the truth about the clothes and furs... seems to be a 'he said she said' situation. fwiw, she gives a totally different amount of money re: the furs. bottom line, it's obvious they do not see eye to eye so that would be reflected in how the other is portrayed in their book. but i do know that RW sounds like an a-- just from how he wrote about LW in that last paragraph.

Okay - I haven't seen this press release from when it happened... sorry!! :blushing: I was just going off your questions, and typing up what he had said in his - so it does look like a LOT of inconsistencies... :waitasec:

 

[Columbo]

Welcome, Niner, it's good to have you in on the discussion!

 

[redheadedgal]

niner-- no worries. you did without a doubt help illuminate those inconsistencies (and his character) by posting those passages from his book, so thanks! :crazy:

i just don't know if they can be explained as simple mistakes and typos or if he has purposefully misled everyone since that night. i think if this is the case, its safe to assume we know why.

glad you are here too! "see you" tmrrw morning! :seeya:


btw ~ the press release is in post 571 if anyone would like to give their thoughts on all this

 

[Kimberlyd125]

No foul play found. Be right back with the link.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...dence-of-foul-play-in-natalie-wood-probe.html

He said detectives are still looking at some aspects of the case, making sure smaller questions not answered in the original investigation are addressed. McSweeney said that in such cold cases files are never really closed and they can be pulled off the shelf anytime information comes in that's worth looking at.

But he said he's doubtful that more investigating will change the overall conclusion that her death was an accident.

 

[Columbo]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...dence-of-foul-play-in-natalie-wood-probe.html

He said detectives are still looking at some aspects of the case, making sure smaller questions not answered in the original investigation are addressed. McSweeney said that in such cold cases files are never really closed and they can be pulled off the shelf anytime information comes in that's worth looking at.

But he said he's doubtful that more investigating will change the overall conclusion that her death was an accident.

Kimberley, thanks for the article. I copied and pasted a few prime points, and underlined them. I guess these are the same ones we've been going over and over, but anyhow:

"(Walken and Wagner were arguing)They eventually calmed down and said goodnight, Wagner said, but when he went to bed, Wood wasn't there. Wagner thought that his wife had taken a small inflatable boat by herself, as she had done before, his spokesman said after the incident."

IMO, She'd never take the inflatable boat out in pitch dark by herself. Or maybe ever by herself.

"After 10 to 15 minutes passed without her returning, Wagner went to look for her aboard a small cruiser, the spokesman said. "

As redheadedgal has said, "what small cruiser?" !! There was no small cruiser with the Splendour.

"When he couldn't find her, he contacted the Harbor Patrol."

When he couldn't find her, he contacted the Harbor Patrol....at 1 a.m.,almost 3 hours after she was discovered missing.

JMO--maybe I missed something. When there are so many stories and apparent lies, it gets really confusing.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

No new info yet in Natalie Wood case

Sheriff's spokesman says investigation still open

Author: By the CNN Wire Staff

Published On: Jan 11 2012 04:06:26 AM EST Updated On: Jan 11 2012 10:38:48 AM EST

New / Reuters
LOS ANGELES (CNN) -
Nearly two months after reopening its investigation into the death of movie star Natalie Wood, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has yet to come across new information that changes the case...

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...case/-/1719418/7751546/-/ocsqssz/-/index.html

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

Natalie Woods Case Boat Captain Suggests Cops Could Be WITHHOLDING Info

Cops might not have been 100% honest when they said they turned up goose eggs in the Natalie Wood homicide investigation -- this according to a rep for the boat captain.

As we previously reported, the L.A. County Sheriff's Department spokesman said investigators have found nothing to lead them to believe Natalie's mysterious death in 1981 was anything but an accident.

But a rep for Capt. Dennis Davern -- named Rick Kramer -- isn't convinced ... telling us, "We don't know that there's nothing new that's been found. That would be assuming that detectives in any situation report to the public on everything they uncover."

 

[kINGFISHER]

They may interview Davern and possible charges for not telling the truth. Wonder if he would retract his information and do a deal if it saved a conviction or would he have the courage to still speak out . Sounds like they could have him tied up either way, conviction for not telling the truth and the case dropped , if so he can't win.
.

 

[Chewy]

Book publicity and Lana Wood being money hungry and resentful and not caring at all about her sisters children.

Gee I think I said this 20 pages ago. Still waiting for the big reveal that the cops are holding back. DD is really something else. Not only does he say he has a crystal clear memory of something that happened 30 years ago while he was admittedly drunk. He's also made money off a woman he purports to have let die as he sat around drinking. What a guy. I can see why people think he's "honest."

 

[kINGFISHER]

Book publicity and Lana Wood being money hungry and resentful and not caring at all about her sisters children.

/QUOTE]

Only his children can say what they really think about this case being reinvestigated . Admit not really good for them if they believe their father but we really have no idea what they feel or know. How do you know Lana does not care about her sisters children ,might be just the opposite.

 

[Zoe Bogart]

Los Angeles Times

January 11, 2012

Detectives say there's nothing to suggest that her death while sailing off Santa Catalina Island in 1981 was anything but accidental.

Nearly two months after they began a controversial new investigation into Natalie Wood's death while sailing off Santa Catalina Island in 1981, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department detectives have found no evidence to suggest that the cause was anything but accidental.


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0111-natalie-wood-20120111,0,5153110.story

Interesting to call it a "controversial new investigation". Makes me wonder how they really feel about it. Not a good sign. I'm thinking the earlier investigation was probably an easy choice to label "accidental". No glaring signs of foul play, assuming the bruises were made in the fall or from what she was banging around in the water, knocking into floating or stationery objects. Add to this no real eye-witnesses, and witnesses claiming somewhat varying but similar stories of what transpired, and it was a holiday weekend, I'm thinking "accidental" looked really good to them.

I still say all onboard plus the ear-witness weren't completely honest about why they weren't persistent about getting help out there A.S.A.P. I firmly believe they were not willing to have authorities out there checking on what was going on, and not just on the Splendour. I have problems with witnesses who said they heard a woman calling for help, a male voice saying they were coming to get her, and the witnesses didn't offer any assistance, but went back to sleep in the satisfaction that the mysterious voice would find the desperate woman, and all would be well. The ear-witness claimed to have called the Coast Guard or Harbor Police, or whatever, but then quickly snuggled again in their comfy bunks. Really? A call of distress and they go back to bed. :banghead:

Of course, it doesn't override the actions of the people left on the Splendour. Various, mixed, changed stories, and one lying drunk who says his memory of 30 years ago is crystal clear and everyone else is lying! Sure. Plus the drunk sleeping it off and the fighting, drunken husband who "began searching 10 or 15 minutes" after he discovered her missing, which could have been anywhere from 5 minutes to a few hours from the time saw her brushing her hair and closing the door to their cabin.

I don't envy the police at all on this one. Thirty years is a long time to get to the truth, and when the players have no consciences...

Plus, I have trouble with the books written by people who weren't there, and those who were who are known to be fabricators.

 

[redheadedgal]

Interesting to call it a "controversial new investigation". Makes me wonder how they really feel about it. Not a good sign. I'm thinking the earlier investigation was probably an easy choice to label "accidental". No glaring signs of foul play, assuming the bruises were made in the fall or from what she was banging around in the water, knocking into floating or stationery objects. Add to this no real eye-witnesses, and witnesses claiming somewhat varying but similar stories of what transpired, and it was a holiday weekend, I'm thinking "accidental" looked really good to them.

I still say all onboard plus the ear-witness weren't completely honest about why they weren't persistent about getting help out there A.S.A.P. I firmly believe they were not willing to have authorities out there checking on what was going on, and not just on the Splendour. I have problems with witnesses who said they heard a woman calling for help, a male voice saying they were coming to get her, and the witnesses didn't offer any assistance, but went back to sleep in the satisfaction that the mysterious voice would find the desperate woman, and all would be well. The ear-witness claimed to have called the Coast Guard or Harbor Police, or whatever, but then quickly snuggled again in their comfy bunks. Really? A call of distress and they go back to bed. :banghead:

Of course, it doesn't override the actions of the people left on the Splendour. Various, mixed, changed stories, and one lying drunk who says his memory of 30 years ago is crystal clear and everyone else is lying! Sure. Plus the drunk sleeping it off and the fighting, drunken husband who "began searching 10 or 15 minutes" after he discovered her missing, which could have been anywhere from 5 minutes to a few hours from the time saw her brushing her hair and closing the door to their cabin.

I don't envy the police at all on this one. Thirty years is a long time to get to the truth, and when the players have no consciences...

Plus, I have trouble with the books written by people who weren't there, and those who were who are known to be fabricators.

i disagree with almost everything here. with this type of thinking poor natalie will never truly rest in peace imo.

 

[Chewy]

That's shocking to me because everything Zoe Bogart wrote is exactly what the statements from the night said.

I personally think the real reason DD didn't call the coastguard is because they had drugs on board and in their system. They didn't want to get arrested or have a scandal. I also think if they were drugged all of their mental capaciities were compromised.

What I find odd about people defending DD as under RW's powers. Is that they act as if he was cold calm and collected, when according to everyone he was drunk. He was drunk as well. So how is he being the mastermind of some dark cover up.

 

[Columbo]

Suzanne Finstad, a former lawyer, wrote a really definitive biography of Natalie Wood entitled Natasha. She went to every place that Natalie ever lived, and talked to all her old friends and acquaintances who would make themselves available to her.

I think it's interesting, that while Natalie was a rebellious teen (no wonder, given her mother's control over her), who smoked heavily and drank a lot, in the sixties she went on a health kick. She quit smoking, limited her drinking to only a little Pouilly Fuisse wine, and told her hairdresser: "I'm not going to those parties where they put out the line of cocaine and stuff". She just wasn't into social drugs. Her crowd, RW and the older Hollywood crowd, were into drinking. RW's excessive drinking, in fact, was really bothering her. (See page 322 of the book)

Also, she was not a prima donna at all. She had a really high IQ, took acting very seriously and strove for perfection.