jakeem

Wagner now a "person of interest" in Natalie Wood's death

176 posts in this topic

I am certain there will be no deathbed confession.

 

Who's to say he won't die a sudden death?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not counting on a deathbed confession.

Look, for better or worse, we do live in a country where the rights of one individual should always be taken into consideration when one is accused of a crime or misconduct. That is why we have a court of law. 

Even here in the U.S., we already have a disgraceful history of executing someone without even a trial (too many African Americans were lynched simply for being 'black'). 

If one wants a system of 'guilty until proven innocent' go move to Russia, Iran or China. But heaven help you if YOU are the one who ends up as the accused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Bethluvsfilms said:

Why should he confess if he didn't do it? 

I am not saying he is innocent, he may very well have had a hand in Natalie's death, but then again he may have had absolutely NOTHING to do with it at all.

I believe accusations should be paid attention to, and it is unfortunate that a lot of cases of abuse end up getting ignored....but I STILL believe that accusations, unless 100 percent proven beyond doubt, should be treated as accusations and not proof of the accused's guilt.

 

 

Abuse is a strong accusation to disprove. Not that courts of law are good at proving them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bethluvsfilms said:

I'm not counting on a deathbed confession.

Look, for better or worse, we do live in a country where the rights of one individual should always be taken into consideration when one is accused of a crime or misconduct. That is why we have a court of law. 

Even here in the U.S., we already have a disgraceful history of executing someone without even a trial (too many African Americans were lynched simply for being 'black'). 

If one wants a system of 'guilty until proven innocent' go move to Russia, Iran or China. But heaven help you if YOU are the one who ends up as the accused.

But people of color, women, and other marginalized groups are socially and through our exclusive justice system are guilty until proven innocent. If everyone was treated like the white man in America, then everybody would be allowed the privilege of innocent until proven guilty. That's not the reality though. 

The reality of our justice system is that abusers, accused and proven, get off more than they are held accountable. The reality of our justice system is a disproportionate amount of women are blamed for the crimes committed against them in a court of law, as there are barely any laws that actually, actively protect them. 

That's what I like about the #MeToo movement because enough voices are coming out and speaking out. It's not a witch hunt because in witch hunts women usually get burned at the stake for their "witchcraft," but that would be the United States' justice system daily when it comes to abuse, rape, assault. There are many ways the aggressor can use, and barely any the victim can use. Your mention of African Americans, who are also victims of the "justice system" are usually murdered by law enforcement in this country of ours, because, like lynching, a gun determined their "guilt" even if it was the usual "fear for their life" as police officers currently use to get off in a system that protects them. 

Getting back to Natalie Wood, R.W. might be too proud and take it to his grave what happened that night in 1981, but something could crack, and we won't hear about it until way after. It was only two years ago that an author friend of Loretta Young revealed that Clark Gable date-raped her on the set of The Call Of The Wild after she learned about what date rape meant from her children after watching a news broadcast. I believe her, even though its been 18 years since her passing.  To my knowledge, Loretta Young didn't and wouldn't kid around with things like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw a sign on a bus that said 'if you see something,  say something';   It also says to use common sense.  Looks like a recommendation for profiling to me.

E.g. one's common sense might be that since gays are more likely to be molesters,  one needs to 'say something' if they see a gay man in a park where there are young boys.  

Of course I don't agree with this type of 'common sense'.   Just pointing out that there is no common, agreed upon 'standard' for common sense.     

   

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, hepclassic said:

But people of color, women, and other marginalized groups are socially and through our exclusive justice system are guilty until proven innocent. If everyone was treated like the white man in America, then everybody would be allowed the privilege of innocent until proven guilty. That's not the reality though. 

The reality of our justice system is that abusers, accused and proven, get off more than they are held accountable. The reality of our justice system is a disproportionate amount of women are blamed for the crimes committed against them in a court of law, as there are barely any laws that actually, actively protect them. 

That's what I like about the #MeToo movement because enough voices are coming out and speaking out. It's not a witch hunt because in witch hunts women usually get burned at the stake for their "witchcraft," but that would be the United States' justice system daily when it comes to abuse, rape, assault. There are many ways the aggressor can use, and barely any the victim can use. Your mention of African Americans, who are also victims of the "justice system" are usually murdered by law enforcement in this country of ours, because, like lynching, a gun determined their "guilt" even if it was the usual "fear for their life" as police officers currently use to get off in a system that protects them. 

Getting back to Natalie Wood, R.W. might be too proud and take it to his grave what happened that night in 1981, but something could crack, and we won't hear about it until way after. It was only two years ago that an author friend of Loretta Young revealed that Clark Gable date-raped her on the set of The Call Of The Wild after she learned about what date rape meant from her children after watching a news broadcast. I believe her, even though its been 18 years since her passing.  To my knowledge, Loretta Young didn't and wouldn't kid around with things like that. 

I agree that, yes, unfortunately a lot of abusers do end up getting off the hook because the law is either too lenient or the victims are too scared to speak up immediately after the abuse for fear of their safety or having their careers ruined. No argument that this is unfair and unjust.

I've made this point before, and so have others on here but it seems to be lost on you....accusations do not and should not constitute absolute proof in a court of law. For every legitimate claim there is of harassment, rape or abuse, there are quite a few cases where there is no foundation. I think abusers do need to be held accountable for their actions, but I also think that the accused's side needs to be heard as well as the accuser's, that's why we have the courtrooms and juries for. Justice unfortunately is sometimes blind, and unfortunately the guilty do go free and the innocent punished, but be that as it may, the legal system in the U.S. is 'innocent until proven guilty' and as I say, live elsewhere if you want a different kind of legal system.

False accusations against someone aren't nearly as bad as being burned as a witch, or being a victim of abuse, but it can unfairly damage someone's reputation and life. 

And while there are a lot of bad, racist cops out their who 'shoot first, ask questions later', there are many cops who risk their lives to protect the lives of citizens so don't brush all law enforcement as cops out to shoot and kill every African American. 

And for the record, I don't begrudge #MeToo for their standing up for women who have been sexually harassed or bullied, I think their voices should be heard.

Maybe something might crack about Robert Wagner, but IF and when it happens, loathe it as much as you want, he should still be given the benefit of the doubt. 

Without actual proof, anyone can say anything about anyone. Maybe Wagner is guilty, maybe not. Just as maybe this author friend of Young's is on the level, or maybe she's just saying anything to get her 15 minutes of fame. 

Bottom line, words without actual evidence cannot be used to condemn or convict someone in a court of law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly the first time I've heard of this Clark Gable date rape accusation. I feel like this would come as news to Robert Osborne, who always described it as an on-set "fling" or "affair". Could you provide the name of this author friend so I might be able to do some online research on my own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, sewhite2000 said:

Certainly the first time I've heard of this Clark Gable date rape accusation. I feel like this would come as news to Robert Osborne, who always described it as an on-set "fling" or "affair". Could you provide the name of this author friend so I might be able to do some online research on my own?

Here's some info on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_Young#Pregnancy_by_Clark_Gable

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, well that says her daughter-in-law provided the revelation, not an "author friend". But still interesting. Despite the close connection, that's one person providing unconfirmed hearsay 80 years after the fact. I'm uncertain how to feel about that.

I certainly didn't know Young's son was in Moby Grape!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, sewhite2000 said:

Okay, well that says her daughter-in-law provided the revelation, not an "author friend". But still interesting. Despite the close connection, that's one person providing unconfirmed hearsay 80 years after the fact. I'm uncertain how to feel about that.

This seems to be a good illustration of the inherent difficulties present in this sort of thing - there appears to be only 2 people who were in a position to determine the accuracy of the story & neither of them are now capable of  publicly doing so, assuming that one or either of them actually wished to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2018 at 1:38 PM, TomJH said:

I'm just waiting to hear Trump say it's Obama's fault.

This would not be comedy to several people I went to high school with, who as far as I can tell, spend their entire lives on Facebook saying how everything bad that has ever happened to America is Obama's fault, even everything bad that's happened since he left office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, limey said:

This seems to be a good illustration of the inherent difficulties present in this sort of thing - there appears to be only 2 people who were in a position to determine the accuracy of the story & neither of them are now capable of  publicly doing so, assuming that one or either of them actually wished to.

As I was attempting to go to sleep, I was struck by a memory of a dialogue exchange in the movie Broadcast News. William Hurt's character doesn't just want to be a news reader guy; he wants to develop his own stories. And producer Holly Hunter says okay, well what have you got? And he says you'll take it seriously. You won't just dismiss it out of hand? And she sighs as if he she can't believe he thinks this of her and says yes, yes, I'll take it seriously. And he says when a woman is sexually assaulted by someone she knows. And her reply is something like "BLECCCHHHH!!!" And he gets a look on his face like a hurt puppy, and she immediately says, sorry, sorry, go ahead.

Now the whole joke of that sequence is maybe supposed to be more about the personality of those two characters - that despite her promise to the contrary, she can't help but express her initial reaction to something with her entire body. But I think it was also at least a secondhand "joke", if that's the right word, about the subject matter, which in the cynical America of 1987 seemed, hard as it may be to believe now, trite and too sentimental to be considered "hard news", as if, you know, we had other, more serious things to worry about. And it got a big laugh when I saw it in the theater in 1987. The Albert Brooks character has a similar reaction to the subject matter a little later on the movie, and that also got a laugh. Although to be fair, it is then played for empathy when we see Hurt's finished piece (though his contrivance of inserting a shot of himself tearing up later turns out to be a major plot device).

Also kind of interesting in the movie it's a man who wants to do a story about this subject that a woman doesn't really find newsworthy.

Anyway, jump forward 30 years, and things as a culture we have shifted where no news organization is going to dismiss a date rape allegation. Potential ratings are too good! Certainly a good thing that the issue is getting more attention, but is it also a bad thing in that it often feels like a more exploitative, gotcha sort of issue in which the accusation pretty much always seems to be more important than any proof or any other follow-up? Sorry if this is veering the thread way into off-topic territory. I included the Broadcast News example to try to keep it movie-relevant. It also makes me think of Absence of Malice when Paul Newman asks, "What do you do when they conclude an investigation, and the guy is innocent?", and Sally Field has to respond, "Well, they never tell us when they conclude an investigation."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, sewhite2000 said:

to try to keep it movie-relevant. It also makes me think of Absence of Malice

Which, coincidentally, is showing on Movies! Friday 11.30am CT (if you can tolerate the ads & possible edits for content).

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, hepclassic said:

But people of color, women, and other marginalized groups are socially and through our exclusive justice system are guilty until proven innocent. If everyone was treated like the white man in America, then everybody would be allowed the privilege of innocent until proven guilty. That's not the reality though. 

The reality of our justice system is that abusers, accused and proven, get off more than they are held accountable. The reality of our justice system is a disproportionate amount of women are blamed for the crimes committed against them in a court of law, as there are barely any laws that actually, actively protect them. 

That's what I like about the #MeToo movement because enough voices are coming out and speaking out. It's not a witch hunt because in witch hunts women usually get burned at the stake for their "witchcraft," but that would be the United States' justice system daily when it comes to abuse, rape, assault. There are many ways the aggressor can use, and barely any the victim can use. Your mention of African Americans, who are also victims of the "justice system" are usually murdered by law enforcement in this country of ours, because, like lynching, a gun determined their "guilt" even if it was the usual "fear for their life" as police officers currently use to get off in a system that protects them. 

Getting back to Natalie Wood, R.W. might be too proud and take it to his grave what happened that night in 1981, but something could crack, and we won't hear about it until way after. It was only two years ago that an author friend of Loretta Young revealed that Clark Gable date-raped her on the set of The Call Of The Wild after she learned about what date rape meant from her children after watching a news broadcast. I believe her, even though its been 18 years since her passing.  To my knowledge, Loretta Young didn't and wouldn't kid around with things like that. 

 I like to read your posts because you bring up things that the average person doesn't know or doesn't want to talk about.

 

Anyway Natalie Wood was a role model for me when I was growing up and I was quite devastated by her untimely death.

As a result, I didn't keep track of much that was going on with her family after her death.

With all this recent brouhaha, I was really surprised to find out something interesting.

After Natalie's death, Wagner moved to Switzerland taking Natalie's children with him. I have to admit that kind of surprised me in more ways than one.

I wonder if this is common knowledge and I wonder how long he stayed?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2018 at 9:38 AM, Princess of Tap said:

 I like to read your posts because you bring up things that the average person doesn't know or doesn't want to talk about.

 

Anyway Natalie Wood was a role model for me when I was growing up and I was quite devastated by her untimely death.

As a result, I didn't keep track of much that was going on with her family after her death.

With all this recent brouhaha, I was really surprised to find out something interesting.

After Natalie's death, Wagner moved to Switzerland taking Natalie's children with him. I have to admit that kind of surprised me in more ways than one.

I wonder if this is common knowledge and I wonder how long he stayed?

And, why would he flee suddenly? Questions remain. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2018 at 8:05 PM, Bethluvsfilms said:

I agree that, yes, unfortunately a lot of abusers do end up getting off the hook because the law is either too lenient or the victims are too scared to speak up immediately after the abuse for fear of their safety or having their careers ruined. No argument that this is unfair and unjust.

I've made this point before, and so have others on here but it seems to be lost on you....accusations do not and should not constitute absolute proof in a court of law. For every legitimate claim there is of harassment, rape or abuse, there are quite a few cases where there is no foundation. I think abusers do need to be held accountable for their actions, but I also think that the accused's side needs to be heard as well as the accuser's, that's why we have the courtrooms and juries for. Justice unfortunately is sometimes blind, and unfortunately the guilty do go free and the innocent punished, but be that as it may, the legal system in the U.S. is 'innocent until proven guilty' and as I say, live elsewhere if you want a different kind of legal system.

False accusations against someone aren't nearly as bad as being burned as a witch, or being a victim of abuse, but it can unfairly damage someone's reputation and life. 

And while there are a lot of bad, racist cops out their who 'shoot first, ask questions later', there are many cops who risk their lives to protect the lives of citizens so don't brush all law enforcement as cops out to shoot and kill every African American. 

And for the record, I don't begrudge #MeToo for their standing up for women who have been sexually harassed or bullied, I think their voices should be heard.

Maybe something might crack about Robert Wagner, but IF and when it happens, loathe it as much as you want, he should still be given the benefit of the doubt. 

Without actual proof, anyone can say anything about anyone. Maybe Wagner is guilty, maybe not. Just as maybe this author friend of Young's is on the level, or maybe she's just saying anything to get her 15 minutes of fame. 

Bottom line, words without actual evidence cannot be used to condemn or convict someone in a court of law. 

I think in the case of Natalie Wood the full recalling of what took place on the boat after many years gives me individual cause to question the predisposed innocent until proven guilty white Americans are prone to thinking about themselves, and white American men are prone to thinking about themselves. 

And regarding my point about cops, its more systemic than it is individual, like sexual violence towards women is also systemic than it is individual. I think right now in Hollywood there are a lot of unearthed stories about Hollywood's past getting credence whether the victim is still alive or physically transitioned. The point is the power maintained through sexual violence is the same of the power maintained through racial violence. 

For example, of all the women who spoke out against Harvey Weinstein, Harvey at the time only responded to Lupita Nyong'o. What does that say? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2018 at 7:25 PM, sewhite2000 said:

Okay, well that says her daughter-in-law provided the revelation, not an "author friend". But still interesting. Despite the close connection, that's one person providing unconfirmed hearsay 80 years after the fact. I'm uncertain how to feel about that.

I certainly didn't know Young's son was in Moby Grape!

Not to mention Wikipedia is not a credible source.  Anyone can go on there and edit anything they want to.  I'd like to see the actual source where this information came from.  If the source is something like the National Enquirer or any sort of source that thrives on revealing unsavory information about people, then I'd take it with a grain of salt.

EDIT: The source apparently is a blogger's article on BuzzFeed and she has no sources listed.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2018 at 6:38 AM, Princess of Tap said:

 I like to read your posts because you bring up things that the average person doesn't know or doesn't want to talk about.

 

Anyway Natalie Wood was a role model for me when I was growing up and I was quite devastated by her untimely death.

As a result, I didn't keep track of much that was going on with her family after her death.

With all this recent brouhaha, I was really surprised to find out something interesting.

After Natalie's death, Wagner moved to Switzerland taking Natalie's children with him. I have to admit that kind of surprised me in more ways than one.

I wonder if this is common knowledge and I wonder how long he stayed?

Maybe Wagner left with the kids because he wanted to protect them from the newshounds and also he just wanted to escape.  He might not have fled because he was guilty, but perhaps he was just tired of being hassled constantly.  It's not to say he did or didn't have a hand in Natalie's death, because nobody truly knows what happened except for the people on the boat.  If nobody saw Natalie enter the water, then only Natalie truly knows what happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

Maybe Wagner left with the kids because he wanted to protect them from the newshounds and also he just wanted to escape.  He might not have fled because he was guilty, but perhaps he was just tired of being hassled constantly.  It's not to say he did or didn't have a hand in Natalie's death, because nobody truly knows what happened except for the people on the boat.  If nobody saw Natalie enter the water, then only Natalie truly knows what happened.

That's exactly what her children feel that I read-- that he left to shelter them.

I've always been exceedingly fond of Wagner.

 But I have to say that Natalie Wood was the star that I followed and I'm still interested in finding out what happened to her --if it's at all possible. And Wagner would be the only person who could do that for us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like people just want an explanation for Natalie's death (which I'm sure her daughters would like the definitive answer) and just want to pin it on someone, in this case Wagner.  Perhaps he did do it, but without any actual proof, i.e. not hearsay, not bogus lie detector test results, random "new" information that wasn't divulged 37 years ago, etc.  actual tangible proof, then nobody will ever know.  If there weren't surveillance tapes, or multiple eye witnesses (who sometimes aren't legitimate because if something is stated often enough, the witness may believe they actually saw it and later it'll turn out that the event never occurred) or any actual evidence that proves that so-and-so committed a specific crime, then nobody will know.  

Apparently the Splendor yacht is still around and as of 2011, it was docked in Oahu.  Maybe a forensics team should investigate it using all the new technology that's been invented since 1981.  Although, there's been another owner since then, so the DNA results might be a bit muddled. Especially since the article I'm reading states that the new owner had the yacht completely restored.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

Not to mention Wikipedia is not a credible source.  Anyone can go on there and edit anything they want to.  I'd like to see the actual source where this information came from.  If the source is something like the National Enquirer or any sort of source that thrives on revealing unsavory information about people, then I'd take it with a grain of salt.

EDIT: The source apparently is a blogger's article on BuzzFeed and she has no sources listed.

Re: Wikipedia

I use it a lot to verify details and dates and such for the trivia quizzes.

Over the  years what I found out in general about Wikipedia is:

 it's not so much that they have erroneous information, but that it often lacks important and crucial information to the subject.

Also it often lacks a good all-around critical analysis or summary of the subject.

The Encyclopedia Britannica selects people who are authorities on a particular subject and they can be biased.

But Wikipedia is more or less a catch if you can and you often have to use other sources to verify it or simply have enough knowledge of the subject yourself to see if it's correct in general.

In other words beware. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

It seems like people just want an explanation for Natalie's death (which I'm sure her daughters would like the definitive answer) and just want to pin it on someone, in this case Wagner.  Perhaps he did do it, but without any actual proof, i.e. not hearsay, not bogus lie detector test results, random "new" information that wasn't divulged 37 years ago, etc.  actual tangible proof, then nobody will ever know.  If there weren't surveillance tapes, or multiple eye witnesses (who sometimes aren't legitimate because if something is stated often enough, the witness may believe they actually saw it and later it'll turn out that the event never occurred) or any actual evidence that proves that so-and-so committed a specific crime, then nobody will know.  

Apparently the Splendor yacht is still around and as of 2011, it was docked in Oahu.  Maybe a forensics team should investigate it using all the new technology that's been invented since 1981.  Although, there's been another owner since then, so the DNA results might be a bit muddled. Especially since the article I'm reading states that the new owner had the yacht completely restored.  

As I told Hep in another post, I'd rather lost track of Natalie's family after her death.

Looking at these recent stories, I was truly shocked to see her daughter Courtney. Her resemblance to Natalie is heartbreaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

Re: Wikipedia

I use it a lot to verify details and dates and such for the trivia quizzes.

Over the  years what I found out in general about Wikipedia is:

 it's not so much that they have erroneous information, but that it often lacks important and crucial information to the subject.

Also it often lacks a good all-around critical analysis or summary of the subject.

The Encyclopedia Britannica selects people who are authorities on a particular subject and they can be biased.

But Wikipedia is more or less a catch if you can and you often have to use other sources to verify it or simply have enough knowledge of the subject yourself to see if it's correct in general.

In other words beware. LOL

Lol.  Yes.  I'll read Wikipedia to get the gist of something and obtain basic information, but if I really want to know about something, then I'll seek out other sources.  I remember in college, every single class, they had to remind students that "no, you can't use Wikipedia for your research paper."  I would use Wikipedia to find sources that people used and then quote from those sources, not Wikipedia. In school, the internet used to not be considered a legitimate source, but now I think there are some legitimate sources since print media isn't as prevalent now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

It seems like people just want an explanation for Natalie's death (which I'm sure her daughters would like the definitive answer) and just want to pin it on someone, in this case Wagner.  Perhaps he did do it, but without any actual proof, i.e. not hearsay, not bogus lie detector test results, random "new" information that wasn't divulged 37 years ago, etc.  actual tangible proof, then nobody will ever know.  If there weren't surveillance tapes, or multiple eye witnesses (who sometimes aren't legitimate because if something is stated often enough, the witness may believe they actually saw it and later it'll turn out that the event never occurred) or any actual evidence that proves that so-and-so committed a specific crime, then nobody will know.  

Apparently the Splendor yacht is still around and as of 2011, it was docked in Oahu.  Maybe a forensics team should investigate it using all the new technology that's been invented since 1981.  Although, there's been another owner since then, so the DNA results might be a bit muddled. Especially since the article I'm reading states that the new owner had the yacht completely restored.  

The cops did check out the boat recently. I dont know what they could've found as to evidence after all these years.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Hibi said:

The cops did check out the boat recently. I dont know what they could've found as to evidence after all these years.........

Obviously all the most useful evidence would have been on the boat during the original investigation in 1981.  Robert Wagner sold the yacht a couple years after Natalie's death (don't blame him, I wouldn't want to use it again).  The new owner (who put the yacht up for sale a few years ago) had the yacht completely refurbished, but I guess they kept Natalie's cabin pretty much as it was with the original tile work.  I imagine if there was any DNA on the boat, it's been cleaned off or painted over or what not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us