TMZ Story Triggers Fireworks in Smith Case

76. #8

NO MOTHER would ever agree to a will that disinheited future children. That is unheard of and no court would allow that.

However Stern gets her to sign that will....that what? Oh, maybe he takes out her son and gets her to marry him. hmmmm, starting not to sound so far fetched.

Posted at 11:31PM on Feb 21st 2007 by Cambel

77. I think the "judge" (who is a pompous idiot) was intentionally nasty to Howard, who is obviously suffering stress and grief related to his loss. Although I do not believe he is "snow white", I think he is truly grief-stricken. And somebody needs to tell these allegedly educated-idiot attorneys that the correct word is "reMUNeration", not "reNUMeration". Maybe 2% of what they talk about is related to determining Anna Nicole's burial site, which is the purpose of this hearing. Despite Seidlin's claims, this whole farce is truly a CIRCUS and needs to stop soon! Bury that poor girl in the Bahamas next to her son and let it be done. Vergie, go back to Texas and stay out of this...you and your sister-in-law are user/losers!! Big time!

Posted at 6:14PM on Feb 21st 2007 by Debbie in Sparks, NV

78. The fax means nothing when you consider all the other testimony that appeared in front of that crazy judge. Are you for real? Why did he allow that stupid testimony? There's no business records exception for hearsay. That fax was pure hearsay because, as many have commented, TIME CAN BE WRONG on a personal fax. Let the woman be buried already. this should teach all of us a lesson. make final plans even if you're young and healthy, and revise that plan once every two or three years.

Posted at 6:11PM on Feb 21st 2007 by clara

79. First, I'd like to say that I am not watching this one TV, so I don't know who all the players are, but I do know a lot about estate planning and will contests.

It is possible that the will was requested simply to update it, since her sole beneficiary (her son Daniel) was now dead and the will made no provision for her new daughter. Also, it is not uncommon for a will to contain guardianship provisions which Mr. Stern, as an attorney, would have realized were going to be necessary regardless of who eventually turned out to be the father of the child.

However, if what I am reading is correct, and Mr. Stern denies even requesting the will before her death, then he can't very well backtrack now and state that it was to update the document. Further, there is no way to prove or disprove the date on the fax since there's a little issue dealing with the control of the fax. It would be much too easy to back the date up several days in order to "prove" that the date was off. It's sort of a chain of custody problem in effect. He would have been much (much) better off if the fax had come from an impartial third party (such as an Office Depot or a Kinkos).

In any event, the whole thing sounds like an incredible circus, and I may actually have to turn it on to watch.

Posted at 11:15PM on Feb 21st 2007 by Ricky

80. Howie, you're toast.

Posted at 6:13PM on Feb 21st 2007 by froglevel

81. This hearing is not about paternity, executor of the will, etc. This hearing is about where Anna Nicole is to be buried. The rest of the many issues will be addressed later. I believe the Judge is on the right path.
The body needs to be viewed, if that is what they all decide (and I am certain Anna Nicole would want it that way) and then be put in the ground....somewhere.....anywhere!
The Judge has made it clear that this is the issue at hand. HKS, LB and Vergie need to come together bury Anna's remains.

Posted at 6:14PM on Feb 21st 2007 by D. Stevens

82. STERN'S FINANCIAL "ARRANGEMENT WITH ANNA" TELLS THE WHOLE STORY! All living expenses including housing, food, clothing, was paid by Anna. The fact that Anna is seen with her many other men and Stern walking 6 feet behind them proves this! No man allows his partner to sleep with other men! Stern benefits by keeping Anna drug dependent because she needs help keeping all those aliases straight to get the next refill.

Posted at 6:18PM on Feb 21st 2007 by W Taylor

83. The phone company would have records on whether or not a fax was sent on that date from his attorney to them...right???

Posted at 8:13PM on Feb 21st 2007 by Kim

84. The Judge is well within his scope. It's all about INTENT.

Posted at 6:18PM on Feb 21st 2007 by opi

85. Heck, I almost feel sorry for these people!

Posted at 9:08PM on Feb 21st 2007 by Matthew Jones

86. re wrong date on fax machine:
how many fax machines have you ever come across that had the date programmed incorrectly? Yeah, zero. This fax comes from a law office. The date is going to be right. Remember Ockham"s razor--the simplest explanation is the best explanation. The date is correct. The fax was sent five days before she died.

Posted at 6:29PM on Feb 21st 2007 by That Girl

87. I agree with post #64. I can not believe that someone has not put an end to this circus. A woman has died - she was a mother, a friend and she loved and was loved. Does no one respect human life? When you die do you want some of these horrible things said about you? Have each of you lived your life so carefully that you have never made any mistakes? How can everyone be so judgemental of someone that you don't even know.

I did not know her and I'm sure that 99% of everyone who has added a post did not know her. Yet, the majority are quick to condemn her and Howard. How can anyone know that Howard killed her? How can anyone really know that drugs killed her? Yes, she had a history of drug abuse but does everyone who has battled drug abuse die of a drug overdose? She was under an huge amount of stress - the death of her son, possible postpartum and several lawsuits. Tell me how many of you could bear up under such circumstances.

I also find it hard to believe that Howard "controlled" her since 1996. She had free will - I do not believe that every decision she made was influenced by Howard or made while she was drug impaired.

Paternity needs to be established for the sake of the baby, but Larry has no business in deciding where Anna Nicole's body should be buried

Posted at 6:32PM on Feb 21st 2007 by Deborah

88. I think it is obvious to everyone that Anna would have wanted to be buried near her son. She choose to have him buried in the Bahamas where she apparently was going to live (for whatever reasons). I think her mom should get her priorities straight when it comes to this. She talks about digging up Daniel and reburying him in Texas...if that's where Anna wanted it to be then she would have done that. Why can't these people simple let them rest in peace now and get onto the most important aspect .....the little baby.

Posted at 6:40PM on Feb 21st 2007 by Tina

89. Howard is the leech of leeches. He has Larry's daughter. The Judge said "people" should look at their conscience's. Stern doesn't have one. He's a leech, hoping to keep the kid in the Bahamas and never give up a DNA test, then get the money from Marshall.

Posted at 6:43PM on Feb 21st 2007 by opi

90. I have a fax machine and the date and time aren't correct. They should get the telephone records if it really matters!

Anna's mother is trying to say this proves that Howard killed Anna. Why would he kill his money train!!!!

Posted at 6:46PM on Feb 21st 2007 by Doreen