Larry Birkhead is on the stand in the preliminary hearing involving Anna Nicole Smith and the defendants who allegedly fueled her drug habit.
Birkhead just testified between August 2004 and May 2006, he saw Anna take the following drugs regularly: Topamax, Lasix, Klonopin, Valium, Xanax, Potassium and Methadone.
He has not talked about whether Howard K. Stern or the two other defendants -- Sandeep Kapoor and Kristine Eroshevich -- helped facilitate Anna's drug use, but he did identify Dr. Kapoor as Smith's regular physician at the time.
UPDATE 3:20 PM ET -- Birkhead testified he saw Anna's prescription bottles with several different names on them: Anna Nicole Smith, Michelle Chase, Vicki Marshall and Jane Brown. Larry also said the whole time he knew Anna he was concerned that she would take her meds inappropriately.
UPDATE 5:50 PM ET -- Birkhead testified he never saw anyone force Anna to take medication. He said he saw Anna with a duffel bag full of meds. Birkhead said he saw Stern give the bag to Anna Nicole, but didn't see him administer any drugs.
See More
Reader Comments
(Page 23 of 53) Previous 15 Comments | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments
â¦
I'm anxious to see who starts *spilling* the truth out in the SC case.
A little lost on how it would be decided for recovery of Estate losses.
Will FS and people who took ANS's property like their attorney be criminally charged by distributing it to Fox News or the LE in CA?
Or to the legal office in Texas who had been looking for anything to perhaps control the Estate?
I do hope that many contracts are Ordered for the Court to see exactly how much Fox paid for that stolen tape along with transportation / lodging costs for FS/GBT to appear on GR, GVS ---
Would the actions have to be proven in this Estate case and then another case filed by the Estate for criminal charges once the activity is revealed? Or, if criminal actions are proven does the SC DA just look at the case transcripts when completed with sworn testimonies and decide how many charges of illegal crimes they have committed? How would that work when more than one State is involved? There is SC, TX, GA, CA ---
Posted at 12:58PM on Dec 13th 2009 by jm
*****
The criminal activities alleged against SB and McCabe in HKSâs successful prima facie showing in the U.S. District of Northern GA are Federal crimes. The civil case could function as the investigation necessary for a U.S. Attorney to act. However, as we saw with the Cosby case and her possible charges regarding tampering with Federal witnesses and obstruction of justice (nanny-gate), her settlement in that case precluded forming a Court decision and record of the exact nature of her activities.
Cosby never had a defense (or any defenders) for her defamatory book but the Hachette Insurance Carrier fueled her lawyer to delay, continue to defame HKS and cooperate in the nefarious actions of the VA people for over two years.
The SC case defendants have neither defense nor defenders either. The rogue SB has been helping the VA people since February 2007 (even longer than Cosby). SB, the baby Thompsons, McCabe and Clark all cooperated in their relentless action to induce any LE to believe their lies.
SB sought to quash her subpoena to testify at a deposition based on a privilege the N. GA Court said she didnât have (attorney-client privilege) then sought a stay of that order in the SC Court (denied in minutes after her filing). SB continues to file paperwork to delay the actions of the SC Court in the mistaken belief she is regarded still as an esteemed member of the Bar. SBâs position is pathetic when one considers that nobody is prepared to support her least of all her fellow conspirators.
I would think that the highly redacted depos of the SC case defendants in part speak to the issue of how much third parties paid whom for what when.
829. I strongly doubt that Haitian nannies will testify in LA court. They received money from Ford Shelley ($5,000) and Cosby offered them $15,000 and John O'Quinn/Clark offered them money as well. Even Rita Cosby had doubts about those poor, illiterate immigrants when they used an adjective "FLAGRANTLY" in affidavit. Big Moe will be crucified beacause he's a liar and thief. Sadow shall expose his adultery and theft of Anna's belongings.
Posted at 12:13PM on Dec 12th 2009 by MM
*****
Yet it is amazing how many people have figuratively laid bets that they could succeed in their evil plans using what they thought they heard from the nannies, bamboozled them into signing or what they fabricated the nannies had said. The circus CA prelim demonstrated an increasingly desperate prosecution that had one after another of its witnesses testify for the defense instead of to what they had been coached, threatened and/or expected to say. The tabloid silliness culminated with Santiago on the stand once again to relate what he claimed he heard from the nannies.
Santiago thus joined the ranks of FS, OâQ/Clark/McCabe and Cosby.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ANNA_NICOLE_SMITH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-10-19-05-31-25
UPDATe
I don't think the prosecution did very well today--they are really reaching, as I knew they would be with trying to crossmatch dates of travel with DEA records--to prove a crime. I always said that, apparently the judge agrees.
It's a really weak case, no conspiracy proven. They need to wind it up already--they are making it worse each day.
HS or OSITO,
Do you know if this Judge at the preliminary hearing has the authority to say that a multitude of these charges have no merit, therefore are dismissed?
For example, the six charges for Kapoor gets knocked down to
two charges --
Then going into trial, if they do - the amount of charges could be downgraded from the onset.
Thanks.
Howard learned to lie from his mom:
Nothing wrote:
Oct 23, 2009 3:00 pm US/Pacific Investigator: Smith Had Multiple Sources For DrugsLINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent
Stern's lawyer Steve Sadow suggested in cross-examination that some of the medication was legitimately issued to Stern for a back problem and when he had botox injections.
More lies wrote:
HKS's deposition from New York on page 462-
Q- Did you regularly on a daily basic take any kind of prescription-
Witness- You mean throughout the whole time period? No
A- I didn't take any single medication from 2004 on.
Posted at 7:13PM on Oct 23rd 2009 by jm
Swim wrote an informative post about that but I can't find it now. Something about the judge decides which charges may go forward and then writes it up in a doc ument--a charging doc ument (?)--forgot what it is called. Then there is a type of 'lottery' in which the case is picked up by whichever judge it gets tossed to.
Still looking for his post--I found my own from Oct. 19th about Doss crossmatching travel dates for Dr. E and Howard and turning them into felonies. I figured that out from her affidavit in that search warrant she signed with Dr. Klessig--the one that was never issued for medical records of FOUR people!
I found it!
--------------------------
The 'information' from a prelim is used to charge the defendants and they are arraigned again on whatever charges make it through the prelim (not necessarily any or all of the original charges).
So then the case is tossed back into the Trial Court's schedule and whenever it can be brought to Court and the roll of the dice determines a new Judge.
Posted at 12:15AM on Oct 19th 2009 by Only swim in the Ocean
Thanks so much HS!
Yes, this is nuts!
"Doss crossmatching travel dates for Dr. E and Howard and turning them into felonies. I figured that out from her affidavit in that search warrant she signed with Dr. Klessig--the one that was never issued for medical records of FOUR people!"
I have been reading and am truly in awe of how much you remember and how you are piecing together this odd puzzle created by the hand of Texas! Great job! Heck! The Defense could use your info!
I continually get lost with all of the illegal moves that have occurred! Which makes my blood boil, I tell you! ;)
I hope that Perry will be fair according to the letter of the law.
Wonder how many days the Defense will get, or will they get to call their own witnesses to refute this weak Prosecution team?
I was actually saddened by Clark, and WV going back! :D
That would have been a great cross by the Defense!
(wonder if that is really WV posting on RT's?) Wonders never cease.
That stunt by McC was ridiculous, still do not think it was legal for McC to be allowed to utter one word in that Court in CA.
He has no pro hac vice - they should have retained a CA attorney. Also think that was BS for any one of the Defendants paying a penny for travel and lodging UNTIL they actually called them and told them they would be testifying on a certain day.
Posted at 8:08PM on Oct 23rd 2009 by jm
I had never really read the search warrants even though I downloaded three of them. Reading those very slowly over a few days, I realized these two DEA agents were responsible for these charges that did not include Howard originally. There is no paperwork on him, no search warrants, nothing. The search warrants specifically deal with Dr. K and Dr. E and briefly mention Howard regarding Ira Freeman--the Key Drug pharmacist.
These warrants are from October 12, 2007 and were just unsealed before the prelim, or the original date of the prelim Oct. 3rd.
This is the same case they have presented as is in the search warrants...with the exception of adding Howard and also Santiago only claimed the commission of two felonies by Dr. E. (he and Doss were assigned to investigate Dr. E). I never did figure out the 11 felonies for Howard--other than perhaps every time he picked up a prescription for a controlled substance for ANS it was a felony! Unbelievable!
While reading these Search Warrants from 2007, I quickly saw that the case presentation reflected exactly the witnesses and details from the warrants and so it was fresh in my mind. Of course, Dr. Thompson yesterday, omitted that Dr. E talked to him about Dr. Barrett, the Bahamian psychiatrist who was treating ANS in Nassau---
By the first day of the prelim, I had begun re-reading Clark's NY depo and noticed Lin Wood talking about the WV email! Then I noticed Clark talking about the co-opting of Moe and Tas in April 2007. He said 'early April.' By that time Moe was on the stand in the prelim! LOL. But I also recalled the dates of Santiago/Doss and their visit to Florida --April 10, 2007. That's when I had figured out the stolen computers had now gone on April 12, 2007 to CA. I never figured that out before.
So, it has become a puzzle for me to unlock the pieces and fit them where they belong..a timeline of events. Keep in mind as we were all getting the rapid day-by-day TMZ coverage and Geraldo blathering DURING all this in 2007, we didn't have a clue as to the real facts. We guessed a lot of this, but never able to confirm any of it.
Today, I went back to Art Harris' archives to refresh my memory of what we did know and when we knew it. I recalled reading his articles but had forgotten details and dates.
As for the Texas Trio--
There is no real confirmation that all this happened. We do know that McCabe's pro hac vice status if only good for the Bankruptcy case in Ca. It makes no sense to me that DC and WV would use a lawyer who is, himself, involved in all this--he cannot be considered 'outside' of the loop. He knows he can't represent them in CA.
The whole story is questionable IMO--all of it--right down to the crap about the hotel. Like, who CARES? What does gossip have to do with the prelim?
I have NEVER heard of the defense bringing in witnesses at a preliminary hearing. Never. Cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, YES. So, if it really did happen as the gossip maintains--I personally think it was a defense tactic to get rid of all three of them for the duration of the prelim.
I recall Swim once saying--a long time ago--he could just picture McCabe blathering outside the courthouse to the media, as he did at the Inquest. Actually, it wasn't so long ago he said that--it was when all the phony baloney about VA being next of kin and being allowed to come to the trial. That part may be true, but the rest of the story was deliberately twisted into 'next, a wrongful death suit' and a bunch of stupid speculation.
For whatever it's worth--probably nothing--I have learned long ago to ignore gossip (even in real life--I hate it and won't be a party to it) so that I am now totally immune to blogger gossip and chuckle to myself sometimes at the complete lack of logic and critical thinking skills that produces such strange and bizarre comments. Sometimes I feel sorry for the poster for making a fool of themselves publicly.
There is no excuse for not asking questions and learning, and no excuse for correcting errors and mis-judgments and wrong conclusions.
PS
I do not watch tabloid tv--never did before all this. I hate that ET and Insider format--the screeching, the glitzy style of reporting, the breathless comeons of 'blah blah, stay tuned'...the teasers.
*no excuse for NOT correcting errors and mis-judgments and wrong conclusions.
I should have clarified that I RECENTLY read the affidavits for the first time--and was still reading them when the prelim began. When Moe took the stand, I had just read the Clark depo about he and WV renting the conference room at the hotel in Ft. Lauderdale to meet with Moe, Tas and Porter, the agent who contacted Clark or he contacted Porter--forgot.
So all of this was fresh in my mind.
"I personally think it was a defense tactic to get rid of all three of them for the duration of the prelim."
Posted at 8:32PM on Oct 23rd 2009 by Howard Supporter
* * * *
- That very well could be.
LOL Thank you for the rest of this post too!
Awe, the good ole days at Arts! I believe he got a raw deal in this mess personally. A good guy I think.
____________________________
Three new new docs for you.
October 23, 2009 Virgie Arthur files Supplemental Record with the Texas First Court of Appeals that was previously filed with the Supreme Court of Texas on Art Harris Writ for Mandamus.
http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2599
October 23, 2009 Virgie Arthurâs Response to Art Harris Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits before the First Court of Appeals in Texas before the Oral Argument due on October 27 at 1:30 PM.
http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2600
October 23, 2009 Virgie Arthurâs Sur Reply to Art Harrisâ Reply to Arthurâs Response to Harrisâ Writ of Mandamus filed before the hearing on October 27 at 1:30 PM before the First Court of Appeals.
http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2601
"I was actually saddened by Clark, and WV going back! :D
That would have been a great cross by the Defense!
(wonder if that is really WV posting on RT's?) Wonders never cease."
It wouldn't have been a cross by the defense if the defense was calling them as hostile witnesses through subpoena. The cross would have come from the prosecution to 'rehabilitate' the witness.
I just don't see how their role in all this could be brought up by the defense, out of the blue, as a means of offering background as to how the charges originated. The only place I see it is when Santiago testified--or Moe--. The defense would have had to recall a prosecution witness, just as Santiago was recalled today or yesterday (?) by Renee Rose.
What is allowed in a courtroom MUST directly relate to the case being presented in some way--to the charges.
There is always the judge's chambers for something like the Texas Cabal involvement--or other means, I honestly don't know. Clark was on the prosecution witness list I think, so that gave the defense the right to subpoena him. WV's name must also have been on it--who knows? Just like the nannies are on the list.
I suppose if Don Clark HAD been called by the prosecution, then he could be a hostile witness. Perhaps this puts the trio from Texas on notice for the trial. The Texas judge denied their quash--if there really was one. Why wasn't it in federal court? Wood always used the federal courts for subpoenas in Texas. But this isn't Wood for the criminal defense.
"It wouldn't have been a cross by the defense if the defense was calling them as hostile witnesses through subpoena. The cross would have come from the prosecution to 'rehabilitate' the witness.
I just don't see how their role in all this could be brought up by the defense, out of the blue, as a means of offering background as to how the charges originated. The only place I see it is when Santiago testified--or Moe--. The defense would have had to recall a prosecution witness, just as Santiago was recalled today or yesterday (?) by Renee Rose."
Posted at 8:55PM on Oct 23rd 2009 by Howard Supporter
* * * *
Well that does make sense!
Also this that you stated:
"What is allowed in a courtroom MUST directly relate to the case being presented in some way--to the charges."
^^^
That part about 'relate', maybe Renee missed that in law class? :)
Interesting you mention the Judge's chambers. That is where all of them needed to be with that Slice incident!
I do have a feeling it will not all be blown under the rug, have a feeling they are just being discrete at this time.
Maybe a power-play for her to return as the law clerk for this.
Who knows, a very odd prelim to say the least!
"Awe, the good ole days at Arts! I believe he got a raw deal in this mess personally. A good guy I think."
It's more than obvious why they went after him and tried to take out his website. Anybody who was pro HKS was done away with quickly. That is censorship with a vengeance.
His coverage of the ANS story was excellent. I vaguely remembered his article about the stolen computers and how they couldn't get a judge to sign a search warrant of the computers because there was no probable cause. But I never saved the link to that article.
Art asks a good question in that old article, about Howard trusting them (Seminole Police and ME's office). Little did he know the Seminole Police would shortly turn the stuff over to Santiago. I still don't know where in his testimony at the prelim Santiago was asked about Florida investigators mirandizing Howard and he waived his rights because 'he had nothing to hide.'
Famous last words--nothing to hide. If a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich, and the likes of Santiago and Doss can twist ordinary events into felonies and attempt to show Dr. E and Dr. K PHOTOS in a courtroom--trying to bring into the case something that does not belong there, and something NOT ILLEGAL in California--as the bloggers tried to say it was illegal for Howard to have a sexual relationship with ANS--it is not illegal in CA and he even talked about that in his NY deposition. He certainly would KNOW more than some idiot blogger.
The broken chain of evidence from the stolen computers was well known to law enforcement in Florida and to DOJ. However in Florida he GAVE them the computers. He gave NOTHING TO SANTIAGO.
When they go after somebody with such a vengeance and with so much pressure from Texas--and the media joins in the fun and games, there is virtually little Howard could have done. Lin Wood has done a yeoman's job with the civil suits.
Remember the system shuffles people in and out and once you are in the system, chances are you will be again. It pays to be smart, defnsive and cautious--trust NOBODY. LOL.
