Jury to resume talks in Anna Nicole Smith case

"Jurors must decide whether the three defendants gave excessive opiates and sedatives to the former reality TV star while knowing she was an addict. Defense lawyers said Smith was not an addict and the medications were for pain.

Drs. Sandeep Kapoor and Khristine Eroshevich and Smith's boyfriend-lawyer Howard K. Stern have pleaded not guilty. They are not charged in Smith's 2007 overdose death in Florida."

So if they're not charged in Smith's overdose; then why are they on trial? What case does the prosecution have?

lastoutlaw wrote:

"Jurors must decide whether the three defendants gave excessive opiates and sedatives to the former reality TV star while knowing she was an addict. Defense lawyers said Smith was not an addict and the medications were for pain.
Drs. Sandeep Kapoor and Khristine Eroshevich and Smith's boyfriend-lawyer Howard K. Stern have pleaded not guilty. They are not charged in Smith's 2007 overdose death in Florida."
So if they're not charged in Smith's overdose; then why are they on trial? What case does the prosecution have?

Great question and most are asking the same thing.

No, dont think so. Most of the country knew Anna Nicole Smith was an addict and wonder why those three worked so hard to get so many drugs that ended up killing Anna Nicole Smith.

test

Looopy wrote:

No, dont think so. Most of the country knew Anna Nicole Smith was an addict and wonder why those three worked so hard to get so many drugs that ended up killing Anna Nicole Smith.

Untrue, with no evidence to back up the trash you write.

Two Accidental Overdoses!

FACT

Ahhh, the proxy testing station to post more trash with.

Monster Mash LTS wrote:

<quoted text>
Untrue, with no evidence to back up the trash you write.
Two Accidental Overdoses!
FACT
Ahhh, the proxy testing station to post more trash with.

Over 2000 pills per month (FACT)
ANS often slept in her own feces, urine and vomit (several sources including Stern and Nannies)
Fell asleep while eating (Larry Birkhead)
Never seen so many pills in his life (Larry Birkhead)
Topping off meds in the hospital (Larry Birkhead)
ANS labeled herself as an addict (Anna Nicole Smith)
Daniel was not a drug abuser (FACT)
Many more but a waste of time. Sternies will never learn.

Monster Mash, so true, totally factual, thank you! The drugs were lined up daily by Eroshevich and Stern, and Anna slept or if she was up she was falling down. Not an addict? Of course she was, if she hadn't been she would have had more control in her life and she would still be alive.

Nobodys Fool wrote:

Monster Mash, so true, totally factual, thank you! The drugs were lined up daily by Eroshevich and Stern, and Anna slept or if she was up she was falling down. Not an addict? Of course she was, if she hadn't been she would have had more control in her life and she would still be alive.

May I ?

Thank you. The nannies did not keep their story straight on any account, so why would I believe them when they said she slept all day, or anything else for that matter. I wont, nor would I believe a "fool" either.

I know I know, Im damn good. You are welcome, any time.

lastoutlaw wrote:

"Jurors must decide whether the three defendants gave excessive opiates and sedatives to the former reality TV star while knowing she was an addict. Defense lawyers said Smith was not an addict and the medications were for pain.
Drs. Sandeep Kapoor and Khristine Eroshevich and Smith's boyfriend-lawyer Howard K. Stern have pleaded not guilty. They are not charged in Smith's 2007 overdose death in Florida."
So if they're not charged in Smith's overdose; then why are they on trial? What case does the prosecution have?

One step at a time.
No rush on the homicide charges.
The statue of limitations is... unlimited.

Some defendants spend the rest of their lives looking over their should and wondering if, when, where...

:)

It was easy for aggressive prosecutors to confuse a nanny who barely speaks our language, especially with a judge who behaved as though he was on the defendants' team. Hopefully the Jury was able to overlook the Judge's
inappropriate remarks and threats, which were shocking to say the least. Do judges normally threaten to change the
verdict reached by the jury? Just thinking, and after all, Anna said herself that she was an addict, and she had even been in treatment for addiction at the Betty Ford Clinic.

hay fool wrote:

<quoted text>
May I ?
Thank you. The nannies did not keep their story straight on any account, so why would I believe them when they said she slept all day, or anything else for that matter. I wont, nor would I believe a "fool" either.
I know I know, Im damn good. You are welcome, any time.

The nannies used a translator and the possibility of misinterpretation of their testimony has to be taken into account. It was playing with words. I didn't see much difference between their testimony on Mr. Controversy and what they said on the actual trial. Their previous testimony is still accessible on the u-tube. How would you, Hay fool, explain the testimonies of people like Larry, Moe and Shelley, who didn't need a translator and yet they were singing a different tune on the preliminary and a different one on the actual trial?....and no, I don't think you are that good. If you were, you wouldn't need to advertise it.

Believe it or not wrote:

<quoted text>
The nannies used a translator and the possibility of misinterpretation of their testimony has to be taken into account. It was playing with words. I didn't see much difference between their testimony on Mr. Controversy and what they said on the actual trial. Their previous testimony is still accessible on the u-tube. How would you, Hay fool, explain the testimonies of people like Larry, Moe and Shelley, who didn't need a translator and yet they were singing a different tune on the preliminary and a different one on the actual trial?....and no, I don't think you are that good. If you were, you wouldn't need to advertise it.

I watched those videos before the Nannies turn to testify. They stuck to their story. What Judge Nazi ruled out hurt Stern too. The testimony of him crying about not wanting to go to jail will not be forgotten though. As one great poster on topix says,-you cant unring the bell-. The Nanny was attempting to say that although Stern was crying about Anna Nicole not waking up, he was more concerned about going to jail.

Looopy, the Nannies never changed their stories, they never said they saw Howard inject Anna, but saw the needles, etc., and saw him giving her heavy doses of drugs by mouth, and if you view the videos of their past statements nothing they said was changed. That Anna was heavily drugged is validated by the actual documentation of the drugs she took. Actually, Moe saw Howard inject Anna, according to his past statements, and I don't know if the prosecutors presented past statements by Larry and Moe for the jury's enlightenment. If we can rely upon statements by the person reporting the trial, the judge should step down from the bench because of his biased and threatening attitude toward the prosecutors in this case, his removing some of Howard's charges, and the report that the Judge was even saying he had the power to "change the verdict". Those comments from a judge seem beyond the pale. Due to the Judge's behavior, I would imagine the defense lawyers didn't expect the jurors to really do their jobs. I think the jurors are intelligent and diligent persons who believe in justice.

No Verdict Today, I like your thinking. Especially about the judge. Once again no one is reporting except for Deutsch so we don't know if Perry is back or not since she never reported him gone. I have no problem with the news of the jury sheets but I do have a problem that Judge Perry was the author.

ITA That man is an insult to the office of district judge and should be removed for not only his prejudicial attitude against the prosecution but as you so aptly wrote, his THREATENING attitude as well. His treatment of the jurors was disgraceful and condescending as reported by Linda Deutsch.

We don't even have a verdict yet. That should demonstrate that our complaints are not due to the final verdict but the misconduct and prejudice exhibited by Judge Perry.

Looopy,to use the venacular, the judge was "throwing his weight around" in a most inappropriate way, a travesty of justice, so rightfully he might have been removed, and was replaced, hopefully permanently.

Personally, I am surprised that nobody in position to do so did not step forward sooner to stop outrageous comments that he made throughout, finally stating he could "change the verdict". If a judge changes the criminal charges and can change the verdict why do we have trials? Since when does a judge insult the prosecuting attorneys, allow the defense team privileges in presenting evidence while apparently blocking legitimate evidence which should have been presented to the jury by the prosecutors? It was a shocking display. My question would be why?

Lets not forget that judge Perry is the same judge who was sitting on the pretrial and agreed that the prosecution has enough evidence to proceed to the trial. What happened to judge Perry between the pretrial and the trial? Why was he leading the jury into believing that the prosecution has not enough evidence and if the jurors vote guilty, he can overrule their decision? The reporting of Linda Deutsch was biased. Did she wake up between her naps to hear only what the defense was saying? Very little was reported by her what the prosecutors were arguing. Unfortunately most sources were using Linda's articles to report the trial's events.

No Verdict Today wrote:

Looopy,to use the venacular, the judge was "throwing his weight around" in a most inappropriate way, a travesty of justice, so rightfully he might have been removed, and was replaced, hopefully permanently.
Personally, I am surprised that nobody in position to do so did not step forward sooner to stop outrageous comments that he made throughout, finally stating he could "change the verdict". If a judge changes the criminal charges and can change the verdict why do we have trials? Since when does a judge insult the prosecuting attorneys, allow the defense team privileges in presenting evidence while apparently blocking legitimate evidence which should have been presented to the jury by the prosecutors? It was a shocking display. My question would be why?

I believe the Judge was replaced, unofficailly that is using "vacation" as an excuse. IMO he got called on the Carpet after he said, he would overturn the Jury's Verdict if he didn't like it....big no,no !

Unethical Conduct wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe the Judge was replaced, unofficailly that is using "vacation" as an excuse. IMO he got called on the Carpet after he said, he would overturn the Jury's Verdict if he didn't like it....big no,no !

Well, Unethical Conduct, that is the word for it! Too bad nothing was done about that outrageous conduct sooner, because the judge's remarks were really detrimental and outlandish! I have NEVER heard of ANY judge behaving in such a manner. It is a SAD commentary on our times when a judge behaves as though he is prejudiced against justice and the prosecuting attorneys. Since the defense attorneys were so convinced they had nothing to worry about, and didn't even feel it necessary for many witnesses (or maybe they didn't have any) you don't have to wonder why they were so smug. Judges and Jurors are not by any codes of decency supposed to be biased or tampered with prior to or during a trial.

Could today be the day?

I really hope they are charged with over prescribing, then it may help wehn Michael Jackaon's case comes up in January.
How could you not know the woman was in trouble, shame on them boyfriend and all, nanny's -doctors- freinds. What was it, was cash laying around or was she so doped up and was writing checks to them. Oh, I think I know, if they would have gotten her help, she would have sobered up and had some mental clarity and relaized the demons around her. Duh, stupid me