It's unfair

It's unfair

Chris
Chris

March 8th, 2007, 11:52 am #1

i'm angry when i read and hear that the reason why Natalie drown is because she was intoxicated, but she wasn't the only one, the 3 men in the boat with her were too, perhaps more than her. ESpecially her husband RJ Wagner who was so drunk that he left, by his negligence, Natalie died. at least he would have been charged for that.
And although he was soo... devasted, this poor man, began an affair with Jill, only 2 months after the tragedy because he didn't like to be alone....hahahah...poor Natalie.
Reply
Share

maryanne
maryanne

March 18th, 2007, 4:43 pm #2

I have always been suspicious of the explanations given about her death. One thing that bothers me is that the people involved in the investigation have referred to her wearing a nightgown before they found her....How did they know she was wearing a nightgown unless someone saw her before she ended up in the water? Just a thought.

Reply
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

March 19th, 2007, 10:20 pm #3

Well, it seems pretty obvious to me that they would have been able to see what she was wearing about they found the body. Just another thought....
Reply
Share

maryanne
maryanne

March 19th, 2007, 11:55 pm #4

What I am saying is that they made a reference to her wearing a nightgown before they found her. One of the statements was that they expected to find her alive, maybe along the rocks in her nightgown. Someone must have told them that she was wearing a nightgown.
Reply
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

March 20th, 2007, 12:09 am #5

I've never heard that they gave searchers a description, but if they had, she left the stateroom to go to bed. When she was discovered missing, it would be easy to determine whether she had changed into her night clothes or gone up on deck in her "regular" clothes by what was in the bedroom. They could have determined that she had changed since the clothes she WAS wearing before she dressed for bed would have been left in the bedroom. And wouldn't RJ know what she normally wore to bed and what clothes she packed? That makes it pretty easy to give a description.

Maybe I'm not understanding your line of thinking, but to me it sounds like you're over analyzing something that appears pretty obvious.
Reply
Share

maryanne
maryanne

March 20th, 2007, 1:00 am #6

My line of thinking is that someone on the boat saw her in her nightgown. They didn't assume, they knew. The search people were looking for her in a nightgown. In my view, there is more to this story than we'll ever know and i believe I'm in the majority with my beliefs.
Reply
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

March 20th, 2007, 1:04 am #7

How do you know they KNEW she was in her nightgown rather than they just ASSUMED she was in her nightgown? How do you know what they KNEW? Moreso, they could do more than assume if they knew she had changed her clothes (as I indicated in my last post). What else would she have changed into?

But the more important point is that she was found wearing her red down jacket. That was more visable than her nightgown. In fact, I've heard that the jacket is what caused her body to be spoted by the helicopter.

Reply
Share

maryanne
maryanne

March 20th, 2007, 1:20 am #8

Well, lets see...It's cold, dark and in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. A nightgown would not be my first thought as to what she could be wearing. A nightgown would be the last thing that I would assume that she was wearing. Before they went to look for her they went to the Splendour to ask RJ if she knew how to operate the dinghy and how much fuel was in it. It could have been at that point that the searchers asked RJ what she was wearing. According to what we have heard, the last time he saw her she was wearing clothes...but the search party was looking for her in a nightgown. They said it very specifically. There was no mention of the red jacket until she was found. They didn't know she was wearing the jacket but they knew about the nightgown.
Reply
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

March 20th, 2007, 1:34 am #9

First off, they weren't "in the middle of the Pacific Ocean"; they were anchored off shore.

Secondly, I've never heard that the searchers were looking for her in her nightgown. The story I've heard had her in the red down jacket. Yes, as you say the last time RJ saw her she was in regular clothes, but you don't seem to understand (or don't want to understand) how reasonable it is for RJ (or any of the others if they checked the bedroom) to see that she had changed clothes and was presumably now clad in a nightgown.

I agree that no one will ever know what happened that night. But if your point about the nightgown is an effort to imply that the someone on the boat did her harm, I don't get it. It seems to me you're positing that because someone (I assume you're blaming RJ) gave the searchers a description that included a nightgown (which, as it turned out, she was in deed wearing) you take that to mean someone saw her on the deck before she fell overboard? Why couldn't knowledge of the nightgown have some after she was discovered missing using the reasoning I've outlined?

Moreover, why can't Natalie's death just be an accident? Why, when a tragic death involves a celebrity, does it have to involve something sinister? People drown everyday in this world. It happens. And my feeling is it happened on that night.
Reply
Share

maryanne
maryanne

March 20th, 2007, 2:21 am #10

It was about 200 feet from shore. Considering that fact that she could not swim well and was afraid of deep, dark water and that it was cold and wet and her feet would not touch the bottom 200 feet is closer to the middle than to shore...relatively speaking. At one time I felt as you do. I felt that it was an accident, a cruel twist of fate. The more time goes by the more i feel differently. I feel that something else happened that night.
Reply
Share


Confirmation of reply: