Natalie Wood's sister Lana says the captain of the boat which Natalie Wood was on the night she died told Lana that Robert Wagner had pushed his wife overboard and then refused to help her because he was so mad at her. He said to leave her there and it would teach her a lesson. Nice. Drown your wife and walk away like nothing ever happened. Kind of like your career after Hart To Hart.
Karma
ReplyDeleteImagine all the poor, nameless people with more evidence than this hearsay case on Natalie Wood who would do anything for this type of attention. So is this it? The captain says the husband pushed her overboard? Case closed?
ReplyDeleteI'm just glad my fabulous Christopher Walkin is not implied in this.
ReplyDeleteHmmm... Lana is the last person I would believe about anything.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the Captain pushed her over board????? He who smelt it, dealt it.
ReplyDeleteThere are 2 sides to every story.
Yeah but he who denied it supplied it
Delete;)
I don't really know what Robert Wagner had to gain by her dying. His career was going very well, much better than hers, and they had little kids at home. As I recall, Courtney was very young.
ReplyDeleteSeriously? Thirty years later the captain suddenly has all this info? Not buying it, sorry.
ReplyDeletei think the captain wrote a book recently too, yes this all came back to him 30 years later when he wants attention and money
DeleteWen, you made diet coke go up my nose!
ReplyDeleteOh please, who believes this shit?
ReplyDeleteWhat about the headline -what tapes?
ReplyDeleteI'm always skeptical of info like this when it comes out so late in the game (30 years late) that no good will probably ever come of it.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, what i CAN see as a possibility is perhaps Wagner throwing Wood overboard as a mean prank or way to sober her up, him (drunk too) refusing to help her back into the yacht for a little too long, and then her drowning (with him thinking she was pretending, until it was too late, or maybe even getting sidetracked and forgetting about her until too late) and THEN whoever was on board trying to hush up / cover up what was, essentially, "death by misadventure" (or probably more accurately accidental death / manslaughter / criminal negligence). Thoughts?
Thomas! R u the same poster with whom i was hvng the gay marriage discussion wiith? And you made an extremely well thought out dissertation about gay marriage and gompared it to incest? And i thought, no way. Well, coupla days ago, director nick cassavetes said he doesnt see anything wrong with incest because u arent hurting anyone!! I almost lost it!!! So u made an excellent point, and i see why the issue of gay marriage as a doorway to different unacceptable behaviours was so upsetting for u. I can tell u incest will never be ok with me. Just wanted to let u know u were very foresightful.
DeleteNice that the Captain stepped up to help a lad in distress then.
ReplyDeletei dont believe it.
ReplyDeletehttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/18/article-2063056-0EDA0D2300000578-429_634x445.jpg
ReplyDeleteIf he just shoved her off the boat why couldn't she just have climbed back on over the transom?
THomas, that could work. We all know they were high as a kite.
ReplyDeletesmashbash - I believe he was passed out from all the alcohol, maybe drugs, and didn't hear a thing. Wrong place at the wrong time. So yeah, we can still love him! My husband worked with him a very long time ago in NY theater and says he truly is a nice guy - this was in the late 70s or early 80s.
If this is true---why didn't the captain help her? If he stood by and did nothing then he is just as culpable in her death.
ReplyDeleteIn defense of the Captain he was working for the Wagners and he may have been instructed to not get involved and wanted to get paid. Robert was probably sick of Natalie and the fact that she was working again probably didn't sit well. Natalie was and still is a movie icon but she may not have been easy to live with. They had a more volatile relationship than Taylor/Burton but wasn't as public about it. I can see where people might not want to believe the worst but to me it's the only thing that makes sense. When you have very drunk people who are loudly arguing in public it rarely ends well.
ReplyDeleteMsgirl- fabulous. It is good to hear he is nice. :)
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone remember the episode of Golden Girls where he and Sonny Bono are vying for Dorothy's heart? Sophia was team Bono ;p
It turned into a lovely episode about Blanche's love for her late husband. One of my faves and maybe why I always think of him as a good guy.
That wasnt robert wagner......
DeleteThat was Lyle Waggoner, fyi....
DeleteThis story came out about 8 months ago. Are you just now catching up?
ReplyDeleteI understand drunk rage and stupidity. I don't understand a sober captain not calling for or attempting to help when someone goes over board.
ReplyDeleteVanity Fair has been following this for a while, and in their special Hollywood Scandal, Sex & Obsession edition had more on the captain's story. However, his credibility was questioned.
ReplyDeleteCan't find a (free) digital version but there's an update from August 22/12 here: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2012/08/natalie-wood-death-certificate-changed
Sorry, not buying it 30 years later.
ReplyDeleteAt least not this version.
While I believe he's involved, the degree remains to be seen and proven and at this point, the entire fashtunkina mishegas will only be answered by a Higher Authority.
I personally rest happy knowing that Their punishment will outdo anything the legal system could have done.
I thought she couldn't swim and was wearing a down vest or jacket, if true she would have had a lot of trouble getting back on board...
ReplyDeleteI can't believe he could have been that cruel.
Horseshit. I just don't believe it. If the captain had anything credible to say, he would have said it thirty years ago to the police. Oh, he was too afraid of big, bad ROBERT WAGNER to talk? Come on. Please.
ReplyDeleteEveryone agrees Chris Walken was asleep in his cabin. I hope he at least will be left out of this.
ReplyDeleteIf this is what really happened, I hope he never has a moment's peace. Otherwise, somebody is going to have to come up with some proof before this can go any further. The End.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't murder; there was no motive. It wasn't suicide; there was no note nor indication. I just think this was a terrible tragic accident. And they don't traditionally have clean-cut villains, except in the movies.
ReplyDeleteShe died senselessly and accidentally. It's time to find closure, finish grieving, and move on.
I'm with the others who are glad to hear that Chris is in the clear. He's my favorite of the bunch.
ReplyDeleteThe story is much too little too late. I'll wait for Karma to sort it out.
Dee Lurker, that was Lyle Waggoner from the Carol Burnett Show, not Robert Wagner. Robert Wagner did play a dentist in a scene from the "anti dentite" episode of Seinfeld.
ReplyDeleteTrudi, the captain was drunk too, they all went to a restaurant on Catalina Island and got trashed. Natalie and Robert were bickering and then it started getting ugly. i can't remember if the group got thrown out or if they decided to leave on their own but there were many people who saw the couple drunkedly arguing. It's likely that RJ threatened the captain by telling him he'd fire him or something if he helped Natalie.
ReplyDeleteI'm also suspicious of the story coming out so many years later. But at the same time, I've always thought he killed her.
ReplyDeleteI was going to say similar to what Thomas said. I agree with that scenario being possible.
ReplyDeleteI thought the captain was so drunk he didn't remember what happened. So now he has suddenly regained his black out memories... Just in time for a book... Not helping her as she was being murdered because he was an employee. Nope, I'm not buying what this guy is selling!
ReplyDeleteI agree with whomever above said that if he stood by and let her die, he is culpable too. That, and the fact that he didn't tell any of this to police 30 years ago, instead choosing to wait until he has a book to sell to say it publicly, makes me call total bullshit on his current account of the events that night.
ReplyDeleteAnd not to get in a argument with anyone but, any sex act or marriage between two (or more) CONSENTING ADULT HUMANS shouldn't be constrained by the moral police. Who is anyone to tell anyone else whom they should/should not love?
ReplyDeleteNote again, I said CONSENTING ADULT HUMANS.
(I'll amend the human part f we ever encounter a humanoid race that we chose to intermingle with...after all, Spock was hot.)
Hey Enty - Brad Pitt is divorcing Jennifer Aniston. Oh...sorry.
ReplyDeleteLana Wood seems like a woman who is desperate for money and feels an entitlement to benefiting off her sister's name, influence, whatever she can. Her own personal history is sad and she seems to feel she is a victim in everything.
I would hope he didn't kill Natalie and then raise ALL of her children, while playing the bereaved Love of her life. But, with the info available to the public, to basically call this man a murderer seems a bit unwarranted.
@Lola- so you would be fine with a "CONSENTING ADULT HUMAN" widowed or divorced father marrying his "CONSENTING ADULT HUMAN" daughter?
ReplyDelete(this is kind of how the discussion auntliddy referenced started getting interesting, btw)
@Thomas...I could care less. It isn't my business and who am I to judge who falls in love with whom? As long as nothing was going on when the daughter wasn't an adult (therefore unable to consent legally).
ReplyDeleteLook, I might think it's weird. I might even think it's gross. Just because I wouldn't do something (or might even think it's "icky") doesn't mean that I am in any position to judge the choice of other CONSENTING, HUMAN, ADULTS where their love/sex life is concerned.(I keep harping on that because I want to be clear what the line is...especially the consenting part which should be implicit in the adult, human part but I don't want there to be confusion about my position).
Would it be less morally reprehensible if a child was adopted out and then met and fell in love with her bio father, not knowing who he was until they were already in love with each other?
Our moral reprehension about who has sex with whom is nothing more than a social construct. Most types of relationships that we find morally repugnant actually have (or do) existed and were celebrated throughout history.
*gah...that should be "couldn't care less" not "could"
ReplyDeleteYeah, I know the difference...:)
@Lola- fair enough. But let's follow up on the logic we're using here. Since some people are very much in favor changing the meaning of a word ("marriage") to include a pairing it has never before included in recorded history, what if we started changing the meaning of OTHER words? How about the word "adult"? For example, what if, in the not-so-distant future, a very vocal minority decided that "adult" status arrived with puberty/menarche. Don't laugh: such an idea is not NEARLY as absurd as changing the meaning of the word "marriage", since, in the majority of human societies until about a hundred or so years ago, puberty/menarche WAS the dividing line between child and adult. So, conceivably, in the future, not only could men marry men and women marry women, but a 12 year old "consenting human adult" could marry a 30 year old without anyone batting an eye. And with puberty/menarche coming earlier and earlier nowadays, we might be able pair a 10 year old with a 30 year old. Think about it. After all, who are we to judge who falls in love with who?
ReplyDeleteThomas, you are aware such marriages take place throughout the world, right?
ReplyDelete"Marriage" used to be a business arrangement between fathers of a son and daughter. "Marriage" has meant many things in different cultures over time. Its meaning has changed and will continue to change.
ReplyDeleteIf I recall correctly, you used the parallel of sanctioned incest to discuss the danger of changing the meaning of marriage, and said that that would change the way we view family members, if suddenly relationships among a family were allowed. Ok, fair enough. But how does that correlate to gay marriage? It would not change the was I view co-workers, friends, or strangers, and it will not effect how they view me. If a person is attracted to women, he or she will continue to be, and if a person is attracted to men, he or she will continue to be. Meaning, no straight guy is going to suddenly think, oh, hang on, I have TWICE THE OPTIONS NOW!
@WUWT: you said " 'Marriage' used to be a business arrangement between fathers of a son and daughter. 'Marriage' has meant many things in different cultures over time. Its meaning has changed and will continue to change."
ReplyDeleteThis is, seemingly, rather disingenuous (and slippery) of you. Regarding the first sentence quoted, "marriage" still involved, even in your own words, consisted of a son and daughter. And regarding your second sentence, I defy you to find, at any point in human history, an example of "marriage" consisting of anyone besides one man and one woman. You say that marriage has meant "many things in different cultures over time". Sorry, but that's not true. At all. Also, you (along with most people I discuss this with) bring a whole lot of OTHER baggage into what is, basically, a cut and dried, either/or argument: what "marriage" IS. When you say "It would not change the was I view co-workers, friends, or strangers, and it will not effect how they view me" you are simply muddying the waters (either intentionally or unintentionally) of the debate. How you or your co-workers or friends or strangers interact have NOTHING to do with the redefining and changing of a word's meaning. I have stated that I am FOR a legal, civil (or whatever) pairing of same-sex couples, or whatever anyone cares to call it, as LONG as it's not called "marriage." Because so doing would require the changing of the meaning of the very word "marriage." Which (per my "redefining of the word 'adult' example) opens a door which should not be opened.
PS- I'm only even discussing the above subject because auntliddy brought up our previous discussion, and because Lola commented on the renewed issue. This is not something I generally harp on about. I have GLBT friends and acquaintances. I also have my own opinions about homosexuality, which I am entitled to have and people are entitled to disagree with, if they choose to. When asked, I talk about them. Unfortunately, there are some "hot button" issues that seem to bring out the worst in people. If I say that I am against same-sex "marriage", most people seem to think they instantly have me all figured out. Trust me, they do NOT. People who think that they can instantly pigeon-hole and categorize (and dismiss) a person by their views/opinions (usually ones that they are in disagreement with) are (at best) intellectually lazy, and (at worst) prejudiced. I'm against both...
ReplyDeleteYour argument about changing the meaning of the word marriage (in the previous thread) to include incest included the argument that it would suddenly change how various family members viewed each other (as in, potential mates rather than sister/daughter/mother). I am saying that a change to allow gay mariage would NOT include a change in how we view anyone we come into cantact with, so I do not think your incest-marriage parallel to gay marriage holds up.
ReplyDeleteHey thomas, didnt mean to open can of worms, just complimenting and commenting u on your foresight. To others- there is a reason incest was shied away from as time went on.
ReplyDeleteOh, and as for natalue wood- i think they were all drunk, and no one knows what happened. I dont know what the caPtains deal is, with the sudden memory flash. Speaking of memories, smithsonian.com has interesting article on how iur nemories work, and why they arent completely reliable.
ReplyDeleteIf Robert Wagner did kill Natalie Wood, it's too bad they get to call THAT a "marriage."
ReplyDelete(Getting back on topic a little at a time.)
@WUWT- you are simplifying (at my expense) a discussion wherein I was addressing responses to multiple persons. As I recall, my point pretty much has always been that changing the meanings of words is dangerous. My example (changing marriage to include incestuous relationships as well as same-sex relationships) was to illustrate the absurdity and danger of trying to change word-meanings in the first place, NOT to compare this apple to this orange. I could just as well have gone with interspecies marriage (bestiality, or zoophilia) or living/dead marriage (or at least sex acts.) I'm not advocating any of these things, nor saying they are similar or dissimilar. What I am doing is simply pointing out the "If A, then B, if B, then C" dangers of monkeying around with what something means. And in the interest of full disclosure, I welcome anyone who cares to to return to the original thread and read it / discuss it again and again and again...I know that I have no hope (or little hope, rather) of convincing anyone of anything. We're just talking, is all..
ReplyDeletehttp://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2012/07/brad-pitts-mom-hates-gay-people.html?commentPage=1
"I defy you to find, at any point in human history, an example of "marriage" consisting of anyone besides one man and one woman."
ReplyDeleteMany cultures in history have had plural marriages (legal polygyny); the one man ONE woman has not ALWAYS been the case.
I am not denying that recognizing gay marriage changes for many people the definition of marrige; I just do not find that concept as frightening or precipitous of other things as you and some others do.
I think I'm moving on now.
Haha as soon as I hit the "Publish your Comment" button, I realized I'd left you an opening with that. Glad that you saw it and seized upon it: I certainly would have :) But if I'd simply said "man and woman" instead of "one man and one woman", I'd be correct (and I was correct, in essence, earlier). Not trying to be weaselly, but it's true: "Marriage" has always been male and female. Just as "husband" has always been male, and "wife" has always been female. One cannot find a historical example (or any example, really) of a man being a wife, or a woman being a husband, because it would contradict the meaning of "husband" and "wife". Either way, yes, let's move on. Nice talking to you. Seriously :)
ReplyDeleteIf the Captain was drunk at the helm of a boat he could have lost his license. That would be a good reason to keep quiet. Whatever happened it probably wasn't intentional. The real losers in bringing this all up now are the children.
ReplyDeleteActually, in the past, marriage (both contractual and church sanctioned) has include incestuous unions. I urge you to research historical royal families. In ancient Egypt and Greece, the imperative was actually to marry a sibling since no one outside of immediate family was considered divine.
ReplyDeleteHumans have redefined who may marry whom throughout history (for a fairly current example, I urge you to investigate the illegality of interracial marriages in history).
As to the question of lowering the age of consent, that is a specious argument against incestuous (or other) pairings at best. Age of consent/marriage are two entirely different questions.
As it stands now, I stand by "age of consent". If we lowered the age to say, 12, it wouldn't be the incestuous (or other) pairing I would suddenly have a problem with since I would protest an unrelated heterosexual pairing under the exact same argument that 12 is too young. My protest would be with the consent law itself, not marriage pairings.
And Thomas, I hope you don't think I'm dismissing you in any way. I understand that people have different, strongly held opinions. Even when I disagree, I very much respect everyone's right to feel how they feel; when they have thought about and come to a considered conclusion (which it appears you have done). I don't, however, respect when people "knee-jerk" believe something because their church, their family, their school...whatever, tells them it is so, with no independent investigation to bring them to that conclusion.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I would still argue that when people's freedom to love/marry as they see fit is at stake (barring consent, etc.), government should err on the side of freedom.
Oopsy-I really know nothing about either man-but that episode was a nice thought to go to sleep on ;p
ReplyDeleteUrgh! Time differences make me miss all the hot discussions. Lola v Thomas-who won?
I kid, goodmorning to me; goodnight to you. :)
@Lola- I've just discovered that my response is too long to fit, ha ha. It's so long that, when I tried cutting it in HALF, the first HALF was still too long :0 Anyway, CDAN is an inappropriate place for such a lengthy discussion as our, I'm betting. I can email it, if you or anyone else is interested, otherwise let's just agree to disagree. Have a good one :)
ReplyDeleteThomas, if you are still around, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. I think my email is connected to this account.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but my spider-sense is tingling. I think I'll pass...thanks, though :)
ReplyDeleteLet's just ponder this for a minute: A captain of a vessel saw a passenger go overboard and he deliberately chose to let her drown because his drunk employer said so? Manure of the bull. This guy wrote a book and wants to make some dough off a poor woman's tragic death. Natalie Wood couldn't swim and had been drinking. When people who can't swim get drunk and go into the water, guess what happens?
ReplyDelete