Replies

RE: The biography that I watched was made in 2003, ten years before the “Gawker” piece that I have no knowledge of. Her close friends and family were interviewed. You can choose to believe that they were all lying, but what would have been their motivation? For “legal reasons” they didn’t even name Kirk Douglass, but they gave unmistakable clues to his identity.

WHY DID THEY NOT NAME HIM?

If he really was the rapist, He should be named.

I am going to believe a story about Kirk Douglas because of an interview that did not name him?

Discussing this with you is like trying to explain the door knob principal to a dog. You do realize that if Natalie Wood's family would have gone public when this happened that her budding career would have been over. At that time a young girl who had been raped by an older man was considered “damaged goods”. And this does not even go into the fact that Kirk Douglass was one of the first stars to start his own production company and one of the most powerful men in Hollywood. He had the power and connections to make sure that she would never get a job again.

As far as why the 2003 documentary covered the incident but did not mention Kirk's name and gave unmistakable clues instead... We live in strange times where criminals and their representatives often feel the best defense is a strong offense. Look at the Clintons, the Obamas, and all the nonsense President Trump has been put through. You pretending not to understand this is pathetic.

You are not actually helping Kirk by continuing to show off your stupidity and ignorance about both the history of Hollywood and the history of societal norms. If you want to continue to worship Kirk's screen persona... that is your choice. But in real life by many documented accounts he was an evil leftist pedophile. This is a strange place to be defending that type of person with all of your queer rationalizations.