Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

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


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, hepclassic said:

Whether you agree with me or not, the fact that Natalie did say that she was being abused by Richard Wagner and she felt he might try to kill her, and she winds up dead doesn't mean she can't speak for what actually happened. It means no one listened to her when she did speak. Abuse victims need to be believed always. 

This thread has really gotten long with lots of nominees for the Captain Obvious Award, but I have to ask where has it been established "as a fact" that Natalie said she was being abused by "Richard" Wagner and felt he might try to kill her? As has already been noted, even if this were the case it would not be evidence of his guilt for her murder, but I still wonder where this came from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thenryb said:

This thread has really gotten long with lots of nominees for the Captain Obvious Award, but I have to ask where has it been established "as a fact" that Natalie said she was being abused by "Richard" Wagner and felt he might try to kill her? As has already been noted, even if this were the case it would not be evidence of his guilt for her murder, but I still wonder where this came from.

richard-wagner-9521202-1-402.jpg

"How did I get in this?"

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, TomJH said:

richard-wagner-9521202-1-402.jpg

"How did I get in this?"

A bit off topic but my professor gave me the assignment of composing a tone poem for the Wagner Tuba. If there's anything that's difficult to do it's getting the Wagner Tuba to sound pleasant. :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Robert Wagner. Gotta love this abusive patriarchal culture we live in- a woman says she is being abused, and has to prove it, and whomever she accused is the "real victim" of "hearsay and gossip" because who would believe a woman? 

As a supporter of the #MeToo movement, maybe its #TimesUp for Robert Wagner. 

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

Sorry, Robert Wagner. Gotta love this abusive patriarchal culture we live in- a woman says she is being abused, and has to prove it, and whomever she accused is the "real victim" of "hearsay and gossip" because who would believe a woman? 

As a supporter of the #MeToo movement, maybe its #TimesUp for Robert Wagner. 

You were already told that even repulsive people are covered by the US Constitution.   

Is the ACLU full of people that support an abusive patriarchal culture?     I ask because they have very serious concerns with regards to the MeToo movement and associated violations of Constitutional law.

Again,  this Woods death is NOT related to the MeToo movement because she was NOT able to speak about what happened to her that night.   Therefore one can't believe her or NOT.     Again,  the DEAD can't talk!!! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

You were already told that even repulsive people are covered by the US Constitution.   

Is the ACLU full of people that support an abusive patriarchal culture?     I ask because they have very serious concerns with regards to the MeToo movement and associated violations of Constitutional law.

Again,  this Woods death is NOT related to the MeToo movement because she was NOT able to speak about what happened to her that night.   Therefore one can't believe her or NOT.     Again,  the DEAD can't talk!!! 

This thread is riddled with assumptions and misconceptions. Yes, the Constitutional provisions relating to criminal matters apply to "repulsive persons" once they are charged with a crime. Robert Wagner has not been charged with a crime. There is no presumption of innocence that is violated by people speculating as to his guilt or innocence. The same goes for Trump who has not been charged with a crime. 

As to the ACLU concern for violations of Constitutional law in connection with the MeToo movement, I have not seen such concerns expressed in items I have read online from that organization. With respect to most of the fallout from that movement, such as the firing of men based primarily upon accusations from women whose versions are believed by the employer, there are no constitutional implications at all. Such implications would attach if the men were charged with crimes but they were not. Harvey Weinstein, Charlie Rose, Kevin Spacey, et. al. were not entitled nor did they receive any "presumption of innocence".

I also see no connection between the MeToo movement and Natalie Wood's death. I asked earlier for the source of the claim that she said she was abused and feared for her life prior to the night of her death but received no response. 

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

This thread is riddled with assumptions and misconceptions. Yes, the Constitutional provisions relating to criminal matters apply to "repulsive persons" once they are charged with a crime. Robert Wagner has not been charged with a crime. There is no presumption of innocence that is violated by people speculating as to his guilt or innocence. The same goes for Trump who has not been charged with a crime. 

As to the ACLU concern for violations of Constitutional law in connection with the MeToo movement, I have not seen such concerns expressed in items I have read online from that organization. With respect to most of the fallout from that movement, such as the firing of men based primarily upon accusations from women whose versions are believed by the employer, there are no constitutional implications at all. Such implications would attach if the men were charged with crimes but they were not. Harvey Weinstein, Charlie Rose, Kevin Spacey, et. al. were not entitled nor did they receive any "presumption of innocence".

I also see no connection between the MeToo movement and Natalie Wood's death. I asked earlier for the source of the claim that she said she was abused and feared for her life prior to the night of her death but received no response. 

The ACLU hasn't voiced specific concerns related to MeToo but instead general ones related to sexual harassment and assault and how these are dealt with by a civil society (so yea, sorry if I overplayed that one).  E.g.  The Obama directed order to colleges and how to handle sexual harassment and assault claims (that was changed by Devos, which was supported by the ACLU.   The CA law that got rid of the statue of limitation for most sexual assault cases.    Related to guns,  the directive that those seeking help to fill out their social security forms are reported to a Federal agency to prevent them from owning guns (the ACLU filed a briefing against this directive).   All of these are related to what I view as the government either denying due-process or other rights based on assumptions of guilt.     

The issue I have here what I see as an assumption that a DA isn't doing their job if they don't file charges.  I don't want a DA filing charges against someone,  unless the evidence supports such charges,  because of a lynch mob mentality by the general public.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

The issue I have here what I see as an assumption that a DA isn't doing their job if they don't file charges.  I don't want a DA filing charges against someone,  unless the evidence supports such charges,  because of a lynch mob mentality by the general public. 

Absolutely agree with that. I certainly would not like to see any prosecutor charge someone based on a desire to respond to public opinion although that has often occurred. Remember the McMartin day care abuse trial? That happened during a period of our history when it was said that children never lie about abuse and must always be believed. There is no category of person who "must always be believed".

 What has always amazed me is the hubris of persons who speak with surety about some issue about which they have absolutely no knowledge, whether it is a statement that the police in this case have "no new evidence" and are just grandstanding, or that Wagner is some sort of serial abuser whose "time is up". 

I see ACLU concerns relating to MeToo relating to the enforceability of the non-disclosure agreements typically contained in settlements of sexual harassment cases. That issue certainly has constitutional implications, but nothing related to whether Robert Wagner murdered Natalie Wood.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

 

The issue I have here what I see as an assumption that a DA isn't doing their job if they don't file charges.  I don't want a DA filing charges against someone,  unless the evidence supports such charges,  because of a lynch mob mentality by the general public.   

In this case, I dont think the majority of the general public is interested one way or another about this.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hibi said:

In this case, I dont think the majority of the general public is interested one way or another about this.

You don't live in So Cal, do you?    This is a weekly story on the local (LA \ Hollywood) news stations every time something 'new' comes up (well, so called 'new').      

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

You don't live in So Cal, do you?    This is a weekly story on the local (LA \ Hollywood) news stations every time something 'new' comes up (well, so called 'new').      

No. And the LA area isnt the majority of people in the USA........

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly bringing up healthy speculation and dignifying Natalie Wood's own words on the case got someone's undies in a bind- but it does lead me to wonder about those who are calling "witch hunt" whether or not they are just defensively doing so because they have something to hide. 

Like I said, this is just my opinion on the matter, you don't have to agree with me on my thoughts on Natalie Wood's death. I think there is enough reasonable doubt on Robert Wagner still. I think just because Natalie Wood is dead doesn't mean her warning people of Robert Wagner's behavior towards her isn't invalid. I think Lara's suspicions of her own sister aren't sinister as those who want to keep this under wraps. I don't think #MeToo is a witch hunt, and I don't know where the tie in to the ACLU is coming from outside of a Trump gaslight. 

I mean- if #MeToo is dignifying Judy Garland's experiences what we now call sexual harassment, as well as Marilyn Monroe's, Maureen O'Hara's, and even Loretta Young's date rape with Clark Gable, then why not dignify Natalie Wood's warning before she ended up suspiciously drowned in 1981? 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, hepclassic said:

I think just because Natalie Wood is dead doesn't mean her warning people of Robert Wagner's behavior towards her isn't invalid.

Huh? Translation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

At least RJ did the right thing & more, he refused the press to even take a shot of her in death!!!

 

& had Noguchi fired

 

On that note, arguably the most disgusting & despicable photos I;ve ever as yet seen on the net is several shots of Sharon Tate & dead BIG TIME!

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

It means that Natalie Wood's warning about Robert Wagner's behavior should be taken seriously, and her death doesn't invalidate it not being so just because she can't speak. She did. Did anyone believe her? 

I agree with this post 100%.   I really do.    It is also very possible the police didn't investigate R.W. as thoroughly as they should have shortly after her death due to a cavalier attitude toward spousal abuse.     If that was what happened it was a miscarriage of justice.

Note that the case was re-opened in 2011 based on the ship captains revised statements with regards to that fight between Wood and R.W. shortly before boarding.    This lead to an amendment of her death certificate from "accidental drowning" to "drowning and other undetermined factors".

But TODAY the issue-at-hand is what should happen TODAY.    I see nothing 'new' that should have lead to yet another reopening of the case since there is no additional evidence to warrant doing so.    BUT that doesn't mean R.W.  didn't murder her.   It just means there isn't enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for the DA to file charges.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
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
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...