Great article in POLITICO today. I am glad to know that what I have been telling friends and family privately was again right on as to how the political world is changes due to instant news, 24/7 infotainment passed as news, and blogs. I explain at the end of this article as to why I feel all of this is important.
The Huffington Post dispatched a reporter to Texas this summer to investigate rumors about Rick Perry’s personal life, hoping for an irresistible story about hypocrisy.
Enter L. Lin Wood Jr.
Retained by Perry’s gubernatorial campaign committee, the acclaimed libel lawyer fired off a letter to the website in August, threatening to sue if the story ran – an aggressive response even for a candidate whose aides later admitted they entered “Def Con 9” mode when long-circulating rumors began to swirl anew as Perry prepared to run for president.
The Huffington Post’s founder Arianna Huffington said recently the website didn’t spike the story because of Wood’s letter, but because there was “simply no there there.”
Still, Wood’s behind-the-scenes work for Perry – and his more public efforts last month to shoot down allegations of sexual impropriety leveled at former Perry rival Herman Cain — suggest there’s an appetite among high-profile campaigns for a more aggressive response to damaging stories. And though some Washington scandal veterans argue Wood’s confrontational approach— which blends litigation-style PR with legal threats and actual lawsuits — is better suited for Hollywood and supermarket tabloid stories, others predict the demand for those services will only expand as scandals increasingly dominate political coverage that spreads rapidly online.
“I’m not out looking for business,” Wood told POLITICO. “But I think that any candidate for public office would be well advised to have the benefit of an experienced opinion on whether a particular article or a particular accusation might rise to the level of being actionable defamation, because I’m afraid that the environment is such that this type of reporting is not going to get better. I’m afraid that it’s only going to get worse.”
Wood is also representing failed Senate candidate Jeff Greene, who lost a Democratic primary in Florida last year, and is suing newspapers over stories that linked him to a real estate scheme. In a letter sent in the heat of the campaign to the St. Petersburg Times, Wood called their story “journalistic fiction” and suggested he would file a lawsuit for “many millions of dollars unless the Times immediately corrects its libel” by retracting the story.
Wood’s past clients show his work had been mostly outside politics until recently. I predict with Wood going out on his own now in a boutique law office we might see him more on the political stage and it would be smart to hire him before the other guy does is my motto.
Wood’s past clients include Democratic Rep. Gary Condit, in the reporting of the death of intern Chandra Levy. Wood became the star Libel Litigator in the country when he made his reputation by helping exonerate Richard Jewell. Wood went on to represent clients in a host of high-profile cases, including the parents of JonBenét Ramsey, the young woman who accused basketball star Kobe Bryant of sexual assault and of course multiple lawsuits in the Anna Nicole Smith saga.
Ray Sullivan, a Perry spokesman, told POLITICO that the governor’s team decided to hire Wood in August when “we got wind that” Huffington Post — which he described dismissively as “a liberal web-based media outlet” — “seemed intent on quickly writing lies about the governor, and we were concerned about the speed at which those lies could be published online.” Sullivan characterization of the situation matches one outlined in more detail in an ebook by Mike Allen and Evan Thomas, which explained that Perry’s aides were “distressed to learn that Jason Cherkis, a Huffington Post reporter, was in Austin prowling around on a story that had been gossiped about for years in the Texas capital: is Perry gay?”
The rumors included “a detailed story about a supposed assignation with a former [male] state official,” wrote Allen and Thomas.
Wood “authored one strongly worded letter to the media outlet, which never replied and never wrote the story,” Sullivan told POLITICO. Wood “did this one thing and that’s it. We never told him to stop and he’s not billing us now as far as I know. The purpose for which he has been retained is completed,” Sullivan said.
Arianna Huffington, president of The Huffington Post Media Group, told POLITICO that the decision not to run a story had nothing to do with the letter. “We looked at what we had; we realized that it was not a publishable story, and it was over,” she said. “The story was already killed before we got the letter from Lin Wood. I never even read the letter.” She added: “If we feel good about a story or stories, we run them, no matter what the legal threat. That’s not an issue. We have a great legal department and have no problem taking on legal challenges.”
Lin Wood’s work for Cain went differently. He began work more than a week after POLITICO first revealed that two women had received financial payouts after accusing Cain of sexual harassment. Additional accusations of harassment followed, as did an allegation from an Atlanta woman named Ginger White that she’d had a 13-year affair with Cain. L Lin Wood labeled all the allegations “lies,” urged women considering making additional allegations to “think twice” and wrote a letter to White’s lawyer asking for her phone records to “ascertain whether the decision to grant interviews was politically motivated and to determine whether she has received or [been] promised money for participating.” Wood also investigated the backgrounds of White and at least one supporter of another Cain accuser, and highlighted their financial problems, which he asserted the media had willfully ignored.
“What I find naive is the failure on the part of members of the media to be asking the tough questions of the accuser, someone who has obviously a troubled past, who has an incentive potentially financially to go out and to make these kinds of unfounded accusations,” Wood told Piers Morgan in an interview on CNN a few days after White went public about her alleged affair with Cain. “Why don’t you look at yourself, Piers, and the members of your media and recognize that you in fact and the media are participating in the deterioration of our political process?” In that interview if I remember correctly Wood never brought out the scandal consuming the U. K at the moment of illegal wire tapping which involves even Morgan’s previous employer.
Wood told POLITICO he has had “informal conversations or communications” with the lawyers for Sharon Bialek, who accused Cain of harassment, and White, “but there have been no formal demands made under applicable statutes at this point in time.”
Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon said he “really enjoyed working with Mr. Wood,” who he said talked with “several individuals in leadership positions” on the campaign. But Gordon stressed that the lawyer worked for Cain personally and not the campaign, which would have been required to disclose payments to him.
Don’t be surprised if more defamation specialists like Wood get involved in politics, Richard Painter predicted, adding “accusations – and how to deal with them both in offense and defense – is an important part of the political game. This will be more common. It is most unfortunate, but that’s the way it is.”
Political lawyers serve their clients well by trying to block damaging stories from running and by seeking to stop the spread of those that do, said Trevor Potter, who was the top lawyer for [John] McCain’s presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2008. “In my experience, it is not unusual to hire lawyers and to have them intervene with news media to essentially litigate a story in the hopes that it can be knocked down and proven unsubstantiated before it is printed,” said Potter. “And obviously, from the campaign standpoint, you don’t want to have an accuser out there doing a press tour day after day. On the other hand, if you can’t prove it’s false, that’s a political problem, not a legal problem.”
Wood told POLITICO that it’s not about politics for him, explaining “my representation of political figures in my career is not based on a political ideology.”
Though he worked on Richard Nixon’s 1972 presidential campaign (recalling he was “extremely disappointed … to learn that in fact he was a crook”) and contributed to the presidential campaigns of Republicans John McCain and George W. Bush and Democrats John Edwards and Barack Obama, Wood said “I don’t claim to be a political person.”
The principles driving his work do not “vary based on whether it’s a presidential campaign or a senate campaign or a state campaign or even a non-political attack on someone’s reputation,” said Wood, who in his late teens spent about a year covering high school football and basketball for his hometown newspaper, The Macon News. “I just happen to take the view that the rules should be the same for public figures, political candidates, and even private individuals, and that is a rule that goes back and insists upon fundamental principles of journalism being adhered to by the media.”
Ah you have to wonder if Bush would have been a one term president if John Kerry had been smart enough to hire Lin Wood BEFORE the swift boat ads took hold?
This is offense PR at it’s best, and as explained in Lin Wood’s own words he is not about political ideology. In today’s instant stories online in some cases without a scintilla of evidence I have long said we would not have had great presidents in the past like Franklin D. Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy. Wood sees where there is a need and will continue to fill that need in my opinion for years to come in the political arena. You can’t blame Wood’s belief in Nixon, I often say I voted for the guy both times and he broke my heart. Nixon is probably the single one reason I am a moderate independent that normally splits my vote today.
Be sure and read the whole story at POLITICO and the well documented links in the article that will give you a lot of background on Perry, Cain and Wood. Wonder how the democrat Jeff Greene’s litigation is going?
We encourage all of you to join other posters to discuss all of the cases we cover. Diamond Girl runs the community part of the site and remember discuss the evidence don’t attack other posters. If you read a post that upsets you just scroll past that comment http://community.rosespeaks.com/ I seldom step on the forums that belongs to the members and is in great hands with Diamond Girl and she will be having a robust discussion there that all of you are invited to join. However, as I do have time I enjoy reading and participating in the discussion.
Visit our Download Section and pick up all of the documents related to any cases we follow; we put up papers throughout the trials, and then leave them up as part of the history of the cases we cover.
Follow Us On Face Book and on Twitter and see who Rose Speaks is following.
The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners. If comments to this or any other articles are not related to the article or does not meet the terms of use for Rose Speaks, they will be removed by the moderators.
I did not see it but have found some video clips of L. Lin Wood and Piers Morgan going head to head in what appears to be at times a heated exchange.
Did any of you actually catch the whole show? I saw replays on CNN of them talking about how heated Piers Morgan called attorney L Lin Wood naive and surely Morgan did not think what he was saying? With part of it clipped out and then Wood’s southern gentleman voice coming back with “I’m sorry you find me naive” and then slapping Morgan down. Wood was on Morgan’s show to defend his client GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain.
My question is did Morgan do this for ratings as taking on Wood with no holds bar and no fear of a lawsuit, or was it a Brit that had no idea what is going on in our legal system?
I wish I had seen the whole hour, I don’t know if Lin Wood was the guest for the full hour or not, do any of you? If so give us your play by play of who won this “debate”.
I also wonder if Wood has found a new set of clientele, remember Jeff Greene suing some media in Florida for endorsing his opponent and then trashing Greene? It is certain I believe, as some in the news is saying that if we had 24/7 infotainment/news back in the 30′s, 40′s, 50′s and 60′s we would not have had great presidents like Franklin D Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy. So what is the balance on the public or voters right to know, and what is private and/or personal lives? I understand why Newt Gingrich was outed in the late 90′s; because while he was leading the charge for President William Clinton’s impeachment over consensual sex that Clinton did not feel he needed to bare all to the voters, especially when President Clinton was on the way out to retirement. While we were learning that Gingrich had abandoned a wife who was dying with cancer for a mistress he had for years. So it was good-bye to Gingrich the Speaker of the House at the same time.
I can’t find this on the CNN site but you can view it at You Tube here:
The thought of throwing rocks if you live in a class house comes to mind on that.
Wood also addressed the 24/7 infotainment/news craving for all things personal and private and what that appears to be doing to candidates in this day and time.
I think I see Lin Wood carving out that a politician does not have to openly share what is a very private life UNLESS it all checks out before you air it. Should the infotainment/news be allowed to fill the airwaves for 24/7 with rag magazines type gossip?
I am leaning towards Wood going for it. How is that Democratic US Senate Candidate Jeff Greene lawsuit going? The backlash on this is would it give the U. S. Supreme Court Justices a pass on conflict of interest? Or will it affect how the Court might rule on something like this coming before them?
Here is one more video I found, might be a copy because I did not have the chance to watch it before this post.
So tell us your thoughts, remember that anyone who can afford it can bring a lawsuit, but are these “news tidbits” out of line because they could be based on gossip and not facts? I did find the full interview transcript on the CNN site.
We encourage all of you to join other posters to discuss all of the cases we cover. Diamond Girl runs the community part of the site and remember discuss the evidence don’t attack other posters. If you read a post that upsets you just scroll past that comment http://community.rosespeaks.com/ I seldom step on the forums that belongs to the members and is in great hands with Diamond Girl and she will be having a robust discussion there that all of you are invited to join. However, as I do have time I enjoy reading and participating in the discussion.
Visit our Download Section and pick up all of the documents related to any cases we follow; we put up papers throughout the trials, and then leave them up as part of the history of the cases we cover.
I HAVE A LOT OF DOCUMENTS TO PUT UP ON THE STANCIL FORD SHELLEY AND GAITHER B THOMPSON II CRIMINAL CHARGES IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND WILL HAVE THOSE UP TOMORROW FOR ALL OF YOU.
Follow Us On Face Book and on Twitter and see who Rose Speaks is following.
The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners. If comments to this or any other articles are not related to the article or does not meet the terms of use for Rose Speaks, they will be removed by the moderators.
Judging from my Google alerts, Judge Robert J. Perry is going to become the latest judge to make the list of judges who are household names. I first ask the question, why is this already being picked up by the international media? Anna Nicole Smith has been dead for over three years, and when alive was a B class celebrity. In fact in death she has become a much bigger celebrity. I had never followed her in life and have heard on numerous occasions that I am not the only one.
Judge Robert Perry is whittling down the jury pool to what might become either Fox News right wing Bible Thumpers or just plain good cons.
A jury of ones peers, well that never happens, ones peers are seldom that. For the most part the only requirement is reading, writing, able to think and being a breathing human being, but in the Anna Nicole Smith case this is about to change.
If you don’t want to serve on this jury here is what you need to do.
1. Bring a large bag of prescription medications and asked to be accommodated like any juror seeking disability accommodations as required by both federal and the laws of most states, even here in backward Texas.
2. Talk incessantly about your own illness, your doctors and most importantly agree to waive your legal rights and spill everything to the judge and lawyers, while the news media is quickly making notes of what you say for their next article, about every ache, pain, medical condition and of course every pill, patch, shot, etc. you have taken in the last few years. In the written jury questionnaire mention the great feeling of the drugs used for your last colonoscopy. Tell them you like that high feeling and that you might abuse cold medication.
3. Be sure and tell them about your grandmother, grandfather, your parents, your brother or sister, hell even throw in aunts, uncles and neighbors who you feel any empathy for due to medical conditions and of course inform this Court of any prescriptions you have ever picked up for anyone.
Now that will get rid of about everyone over the age of fifty-five and any person that feels anything for a fellow human being and the court appears in yesterday’s rulings to guarantee you will be gone within the fist thirty minutes on August 2nd as the jury is being picked.
That leaves the under fifty crowd, watch Fox News, [Infotainment], for your news and already have judged that people who take medications, or are ill, disabled etc. must inherently be bad and it appears you are in like glue on this jury.
How many good potential jurors is this going to exclude in the guise of “getting rid of the kooks” or as Judge Robert Perry stated; “The problem with celebrity trials is it has a tendency to bring out kooks, frankly.”
Now you are down to twenty to forty five year old jurors of your peers. Weed out parents with young children that need care, those who are care providers for the disabled, throw out any juror who questions being drilled about medical conditions and even prescriptions they take. That will whittle it down to the Fox news watchers, Bible thumpers and those with a holier than thou complex or really good cons.
Then you will go through a back ground check by Judge Perry, to be sure you are “clean enough” to be a jury of ones peers.
See there are many ways not to get involved in this mess in California, and who would want to be on this jury? Yes some have illusions of making the news with interviews at the end, but those are going to qualify under these rules. The lawyers will never know your name and the judge’s staff will be browsing the internet to be sure the jurors don’t blog about the case. DO WHAT??? Blog about the case, I thought jurors were not even allowed to talk about the case, read about the case, would that not include blogging in your night time hours???
A bankrupt California state spent most of Tuesday, July 20 discussing Motions related to “…arguments about publicity, the Internet and the effect of social media and blogs on the jury. Judge Perry plans to keep the names of jurors secret from lawyers, who complained that would make it impossible to track whether they were blogging or reporting on the trial via social networking websites. However, Judge Perry did agree to ask prospects if they have blogs or have social media accounts.” You know those pesky networking sites like Face Book, My Space, even LinkedIn which most professionals belong to, in fact just throw out anyone with a home computer to be safe here.
Judge Perry also intends to ask his staff to check periodically to make sure jurors are not blogging about the case. Of course most posters don’t use their real names so the jury should be asked about any monikers ever used on the internet. However this all goes back to I thought you were not suppose to read or discuss a case if you are on that jury, silly me, I am not up with the times of twittering while sitting in Court. Oh yes eliminate everyone with a Twitter account.
I am hoping more courts go in this direction, [said tongue in cheek], it will save all of us in this new era where many of us use Google the AP, the HuffingtonPost.com, The Washington Post.com, The online versions of the Houston Chronicle, the Fort Worth Star Telegram, CNN.com, MSNBC.com, and even Google alerts to get out of jury duty by just confessing these sins. Throw out the fact that for most these are all ways that today’s news junkies get their information. More and more print media is going out of business while the advances in news by internet increases with new technologies and more and more of us turn on our computers to get our news. It appears that is ok with this Judge, however not being in Court yesterday I don’t know this for sure, but to be safe just don’t admit you ever posted a comment on any site whether a reputable news site or TMZ. Better yet, tell the judge you don’t believe in any of these new fangled gadgets, ah no, then you would be in the age group of aches, pains and medications which is automatically excluded. What is a modern day juror to do???
Perry also intends to take the unusual step of checking the names of jurors against criminal records to see if they are hiding anything. If you are a con without a criminal past you are in the jury pool, bring a bathing suit and towel for fun and games for the next six to 10 weeks. However this newest step by Judge Perry creates my next question is criminal as in a speeding ticket or criminal as on parole??? However good cons are going to say the right things if they want on this jury and the honest people who have real doctors, real medical conditions or family members who do, just fill out that form, get your six dollars for the day and you are on your way back to the office or home. Oh be sure you say you believe all policemen and investigators or lie proof and there is a election this year in California, use that as extra “insurance”, [cough cough].
Another tidbit you can do to get out of this jury, whisper the two words that are guaranteed to send you home. What two words can you say that will cause the D. A. and most Judges to go screaming in the night to make sure you are no where near their court room?
Wait for it….
Wait for it….
Jury Nullification… the act of saying this is bullshit. In the old days, our forefathers wanted jurors that went by common sense and their conscious and jury nullification was encouraged to prevent run away legislature or unfair laws. However today, it is a guarantee to get out of jury duty which is why the jury instructions normally says, “you are only to judge this case by the facts involving the law as I instruct you to do”.
John Adams, our second president, had this to say about the juror: “It is not only his right but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” That is not true today, if you even admit you know about your right as a citizen on a jury to use exactly what our forefathers wanted, you are practicing jury nullification which is a big no no in today’s society of complex laws and nustso statutes.
Now if Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich and Smith’s former lawyer-boyfriend Howard K. Stern knowingly fueled a known addict’s addiction and threw caution to the wind, then convict them. That is how it should go down.
If they did more then what is common practice in the world of Hollyweird, then convict them. If you sense a potential juror is a kook, of course dismiss them. That is why there are jury consultants, but don’t trample on privacy laws to be sure you get that Fox News listener and exclude the CNN and MSNBC crowd.
I loved this exchange yesterday as reported by the AP and I bet Harvey Levin and the TMZ.com staff cringed as the AP led with this exchange:
“Rose made the unusual disclosure that she was filing all of her legal documents under seal to keep them from falling into the hands of celebrity website TMZ. The judge said he was going through her sealed motions and unsealing many of them.
“I don’t think you should file under seal just because you don’t want the media to see it,” Perry said.
“Everything I file ends up on TMZ,” Rose said.
“Who cares?” said the judge.
“Our jury pool is out there,” said the prosecutor.
“Do we even want people who watch TMZ on the jury?” asked the judge.
“We’re going to get them,” Rose said.
“I hope not,” said the judge.”
One way to guarantee those people are not part of the jury pool is just ask any potential jurors if they know who or what is TMZ.com.
Does that mean TMZ.com has received a failing grade in intelligent readers? If so the Court should cruise around “T”, at least TMZ has slowly begun to enforce the TOS and Privacy Policy instead of remaining like the wild west of internet posting.
Be sure and print this article and carry it with you the next time you get a jury summons in Hollyweird, where the right wing nut cases and good cons are welcomed as jurors and those “normal people” get sent home.
Ah the joy of doing ones civic duty of serving on a jury.
THIS ARTICLE DOES AND INTENDS TO POINT OUT THE LUNACY OF HOLLYWERID CELEBRITY TRIALS. Because frankly, who the hell would want to serve on one of these juries???
Now on a serious note: Judge Robert J. Perry has a tremendous amount of discretion. Judge Perry is known as a no-nonsense judge with a distinguished legal background as a former federal prosecutor, he is often selected to preside over high profile trials. In Dec. 2009, he barred television cameras and other electronic recording devices from the trial court in another high profile trial reaffirming his penchant for mitigating intense media coverage in the interest of a fair trial in his courtroom.
Perry has been a trial judge on the Los Angeles Superior Court. Since 1992, he has presided over more than 580 felony jury trials, including 237 murder trials, 28 of which were death penalty trials.
He was honored as “Judge of the Year” by the Los Angeles County Bar Association Criminal Justice Section in 2009 and by the Century City Bar Association in 2002. Born and raised in Glendale, California, Judge Perry is a graduate of Claremont McKenna College and Loyola Law School. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Los Angeles for 12 years, and then was in private practice with Epstein Becker and Green, and later with Douglas Dalton.
In short, you could not ask for a better judge for a criminal high profile case, and he likes Stern’s attorney Steve Sadow, so what more could anyone ask for in this case. Lessons learned over the last three years appear to have paid off in changing the Court back to Judge Perry who presided over the preliminary hearing which means he has the background on this case.
He has also ruled against the prosecution and at times has added lesser charges to jury instructions stating the state had not reached the standard of the charges assistant district attorneys have asked to present to a jury.
Google Judge Perry, he is impressive in the way he handles cases that could become powder kegs of any racial tensions in the past and handled them well.
Be sure to participate in our MEMBERS ONLY FORUMS, get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the forums where you can safely discuss things you do not want to see copied and pasted on another site.
The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
Who does the brown hair belong too or as one of our moderators said “Someone got some splaining to do”.
What the Orange County crime scene investigators and the FBI needs is to match is Caucasian head hair, dark brown, fine 5″ long.
In a case that the D.A. office has released ten of thousand of pages a month in a public trial of Casey Anthony, why do they fight to release some of the information to Anthony’s defense team?
The FBI released it to the Casey Anthony defense team ONLY upon request and then not until April 5, 2010.
Report requested on March 17, 2009 from Linda Kenney Baden Esq. file material from the Trace Evidence Unit. This material includes bench notes, computer printouts, and other specific information regarding the case.
The Sheriff’s department submitted seven crime scene investigators hair samples on three different days, under names on two dates and just by numbers on another dates.
The additional hair and other specimens were received on November 25, 2009, December 8, 2009 and December 9, 2009.
The following specimens were submitted under cover of communication dated November 24, 2009 and examined in the Trace Evidence Unit (Hair and Fiber).
Seven crime scene investigators (extensive hair samples)
A Shop Vac Vacuum (Anthony home)
2 Steam Cleaners (Anthony home)
A vacuum cleaner (Anthony home)
And a plastic bag. (Anthony home)
On November 30, 2009 examined by the Trace Unit (Hair and Fiber) Items resubmitted for testing: TEU secondary evidence.
This report states it supplements FBI laboratory reports dated August 1, 2008, August 6, 2008, August 13, 2008, September 12, 2008, October 6, 2008, October 15, 2008, October 21, 2008, November 6, 2008, December 19, 2008, January 27, 2009 and June 25, 2009.
Human hairs with characteristics of apparent decomposition; however, none were found.
The previously reported Caucasian head hair found on specimen is microscopically dissimilar to the head hairs compromising the seven crime scene investigators and it matched none of them.
Crime scene investigators originally found the 5″ of hair and eliminated the seven crime scene investigators Scene was processed on Dec. 11 through Dec. 20. The hair sample was submitted to the FBI on Dec. 13, 2008.
Then there is the canvas laundry bag similar to the one that Caylee Anthony’s remains were in; well the finger prints on that excluded Casey Anthony, George Anthony, Cynthia M. Anthony and Lee A. Anthony. So the fingerprints do not belong to anyone in the Anthony family.
The hair does not belong to Caylee Anthony, Casey Anthony, George Anthony, Cynthia M. Anthony or Lee Anthony. Now they have eliminated all of the crime scene investigators, so who does the hair belong too?
Remember that very important piece of duct tape? The one that was so important to compare hair samples and fingerprints too? Well somewhere between the Orange County Sheriff’s Office crime scene investigators and by the time the FBI had completed the examination that piece of duct tape had been contaminated and so it shows nothing that can be introduced, how convenient is that?
Then you have the reports of Texas Equu Search, stating that on August 28, 2008 and the first part of September 2008 that because of a tropical storm the water where the remains were found was at least waist high to they did not search that area while in Florida.
However, Roy Kronk saw the bag with something white (like a skull) on two days in the middle of August 2008 and after all of that flooding went back on a “hunch” and found the remains on December 11, 2008, so why had the bag not floated a tad with the current of the water? Has Kronk given a sample of his 5” brown hair to be excluded? I am not saying Roy Kronk killed or put Caylee’s body there, I do feel like something with Kronk smells fishy.
This is the danger when cases are tried in the public media of the infotainment world on Nancy Grace, Geraldo and Greta Van Susteren, Fox and Headline News Infotainment.
Can Casey Anthony get a fair trial anywhere in Florida or for that matter in the United States?
I will be adding links of other papers released today added to this article but the hair analysis jumped out at me and I wanted to get this up first.
Be sure to participate in our MEMBERS ONLY FORUMS, get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the forums where you can safely discuss things you do not want to see copied and pasted on another site.
The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
I have been looking around the web at blogs this weekend and came up with this question. What Polarizes Bloggers on High Profile Cases from Anna Nicole Smith to Haleigh Cummings and Caylee Anthony?
There seems to be few out there with an open mind to follow the legal paperwork, let Google be your friend and make up your own mind of what is the truth for you; or has that been done already?
Whether it is Anna Nicole Smith with the pro Howard K. Stern bloggers on TMZ.com or the Virgie Arthur bloggers on Topix.net, few seem to be open about either side. It has become a hate festival with each side bashing the other and when Court papers come out reading through them and declaring a victory for “their side”…
I have now went out and done the same with bloggers on Haleigh Cummings and Caylee Anthony and found them just as divided and polarized with few bloggers still open to facts. For instance in the Caylee Anthony investigation we now have the 5 inch piece of brown hair found that DNA cannot match it to Caylee Anthony, her mother Casey Anthony, the Anthony family and even the crime scene investigators. I would think this would cause many to back up and take a second look, who does that hair belong to? Added to that you have the FBI lab contaminating the duct tape so any evidence on that is now useless. However with all those new revelations in the past week has any blogger decided to back up and take a second look? If so I cannot find them. They spin it to their side and bash the other side or even those still open minded for being dumb or having an agenda.
Then you have Haleigh Cummings, a case that has been spun out of control by Infotainment “News” as the newest hot story. We see the same players, Greta Van Susteren, Geraldo Rivera and Nancy Grace, each competing for the “bombshell or exclusive only here”, but what they talk about is all over the news by the time they come on at night. So there is neither new evidence, an exclusive and/or a bombshell, only bottom line ratings. We are now seeing lawyers in that case, like the Casey Anthony case; beginning to remove themselves from these cases or have bar complaints and then the defense of the lawyers and not the case becomes the focal point.
In Anthony’s case it is Jose Baez for Casey Anthony being reported by the D. A. with what seems to be ongoing never ending complaints against Jose Baez. In the Cummings case we have a lawyer now saying that because in the beginning things were going so bad that, Kim Picazio the attorney for Haleigh’s mother, Crystal Sheffield, had a media consultant who assisted Crystal Sheffield and the legal team, lending their expertise and advice on the strategic placement and release of information to turn around the negative press Crystal Sheffield was receiving. Crystal Sheffield and Kim Picazio spent a great deal of time with their media consultant. “The release of information, or breaking news, in a high media case, must be preplanned, time-sensitive, and intentional,” said Ms. Picazio. Ms. Kim L. Picazio is out of the Haleigh Cummings case and has been cleared by the Florida State Bar of any wrongdoing.
We have seen a lot of that here at Rose Speaks.com in relations to all cases connected to Anna Nicole Smith and I still find it a phenomenal situation with the new instant news of celebrity or high profile cases on the internet.
In public filings by Ms. Picazio she gives her insight about the lawyer turned media spokesperson for a family member in one of these cases saying; “As the spokesperson for Crystal Sheffield, the release of positive information to the public, whether on the internet, or to other media sources, in furtherance her best interest or desired results. …
…The very nature of the role of a “media spokesperson” is different in kind than most other roles customarily served by an attorney. It requires the disclosure of information customarily thought of as “off limits” to the public and/or your opponents. This job requires more than showing up at media interviews. It requires complex strategy, intelligent calculation, finding and maintaining inside sources for information, and trusted contacts who can be your eyes and ears for the “feel” of the public. Damning information about a client that is swirled around the Internet will surely be aired in national headlines, and can devastate your client’s image, credibility, case or cause. Disclosures of information are aimed at directing, it was imperative that we kept key contacts in law enforcement, the community, the media, as well as on the internet, to properly counter many unflattering stories which could have destroyed Crystal’s credibility and chances of ever having custody of her children. Quite simply, guiding, directing and dodging the release of information from your client’s detractors, is an intensely calculated process in a high media case. The parties were involved in a high media tragedy, and “fault” and “blame” for the disappearance of Haleigh Cummings is still being discussed nationwide. Disclosures of this nature were done in the obvious effort to steer suspicions away from her as a suspect in her daughter’s disappearance, raise her public image, and gain an advantage in the very public custody issues that were being televised each day on the news.”
[These] “cases have created a nationwide obsession, and it continues to be a prime topic in local and national news, and internet crime news sites.”
Ms Picazio goes on to say; “The internet is essentially where a growing number of the general public gets their news every day. I received thousands of emails from the public commenting on the Crystal Sheffield/Haleigh Cummings matter, some of which even told me how to better put on my make-up. The public sent tips, leads, support, well-wishes and sometimes screaming insults, my way.”
Then Ms. Picazio addresses the new phenomena of internet bloggers saying; “… [That both Ms. Picazio and] Crystal Sheffield, have suffered libelous attacks on their reputations by internet bloggers, and avant guard journalists.” [You have to] “always attempt to protect your client from these types of self-serving intruders who would befriend the family, or members of the legal team, only to be secretly feeding a hidden agenda for fame, fortune, or the notoriety. From the inception of the Haleigh Cummings case, scheming bloggers have sought the coveted “inside scoop”, attempting to befriend family members, journalists, and law enforcement officers.”
[Lawyers now] “have to have sophisticated computer equipment installed, and often staff member will “catch” fishing expeditions from bloggers attempting to get an email back from the legal team/spokesperson. Emails are easily edited, and on many occasions, you will catch these schemes as they were being planned in chat rooms dedicated to the Haleigh case.”
… “Insidious bloggers can be devastating to a client in modern-day high media cases.”
Ms Picazio finishes her thoughts on bloggers by saying; “Often fanatical about missing children’s cases, bloggers spend countless hours “sleuthing” information about all people connected to the case, call and write to authorities with rumors for false tips, and try to become personally close with insiders or family members involved in the case. The most coveted information source for a blogger is to obtain insider information directly from a family member in a case. Unfortunately, the Crystal Sheffield/Haleigh Cummings matter is a prime example of the intrusion and disruption caused by modern-day, fanatical bloggers, who go to great lengths for an “inside scoop” in high media cases. The internet and manipulative bloggers was, and remains, a hurdle to contend with in the Haleigh Cummings case by all involved. There have been countless news articles on the subject of the internet frenzy that plagues the Haleigh case and investigators. The Haleigh Cummings case is the most active criminal investigation blogged about on the internet to date, other than the Caylee Anthony matter. Although I was surely not obsessed with blogging, the internet frenzy was a very real fact and hazard that existed in the case.”
I found Ms. Picazio thoughts expressed to the Florida State Bar something to ponder. Is this the new typical “blogger”? As you know we have had bloggers cross state lines to take pictures of our home just because. We have read where bloggers where doing screen shots or even sending things from Rose Speaks.com to lawyers in the Anna Nicole Smith cases only to find out later from the lawyers, they would never use something obtained in that way. So are bloggers the next step in reporting news or are bloggers angry people who take out that anger towards the world behind the safety of a computer screen in these high profile cases? Do we all need to “own our words”?
NEWEST PAPERS FILED IN CASES WE ARE FOLLOWING:
April 26, 2010 Notice of Hearing for the Motion for Continuance set in Harris County for May 7, 2010 at 11:30 A. M.
Be sure to participate in our MEMBERS ONLY FORUMS, get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the forums where you can safely discuss things you do not want to see copied and pasted on another site.
The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
This many high profile names in the headlines yesterday just from California is a good day for tabloid news, well except for Feel Good AG Jerry Brown of California. It almost appeared as the gubernatorial race is gearing up for 2010 Jerry Brown wanted some reason to give a press conference. Hey Mr. Brown, why Dr. Sandeep Kapoor and Dr. Khistine Eroshevich, you have a bag full of press time and face time if you would just discuss the case that is over shadowing the news media locally, nationally and internationally, remember Michael Jackson and Dr. Conrad Murray? The two doctors currently in court were doctors who main crime appears to be is being struck by the celebrity of their patient Anna Nicole Smith; thus involving a celebrity patient, Anna Nicole Smith, accidental death from prescription medication. On the other hand the Michael Jackson and Dr. Murray, involved a dangerous anesthesia, Propofol, IV poles and with a warning that a doctor is never suppose to give this powerful and potential lethal mediation except in the strict confines of a hospital under supervision with a crash cart nearby because it can kill your patient.
Dr. Perper ruled in Florida, that Anna Nicole Smith’s death was an accidental combination of prescriptions, with neither doctor that now faces a trial even present on her day of death. Michael Jackson’s death was ruled a homicide and that occurred in the state where feel good AG Jerry Brown, had jurisdiction over the corpse of Michael Jackson, you know he died in your state; jurisdiction over the dangerous Propofol anesthesia, equipped with IV poles, and a giant warning on it’s label of “DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME; and to make all of this a tidy backdrop for a picture perfect AG Jerry Brown to have a soapbox news conference. Brown has jurisdiction over all of the people, the celebrity death and the anesthesia and you have the physician, Dr. Conrad Murray, and yet Brown claims, if infotainment news is to be believed that Brown is laying low on the Jackson investigation, WHY?? Is that an admission that the Kapoor – Eroshevich investigation was botched by your office? Now that is not going to look good for an eighty year old “wanna be governor” who is setting his stars on the Smith death to gain the governorship of California just one more time. If you live in California would you want Brown in charge of your money and saving your state from total meltdown financially?
However, Brown not to be deterred sent his assistant attorney general; the one that would take over Brown’s job if at eighty Brown became sick while serving as the Attorney General of California. From the accounts inside the court room that poor man got his arse handed to him with a strong lecture, you have to wonder if this guy was worried that his boss, Brown was not going to get that face time Brown was hoping for. However, if Brown wants face time and plenty of it as the election year rolls around, my advice try concentrating on the Michael Jackson homicide, doesn’t his three small children deserve any less from the man who would spearhead any charges connected to their daddy’s murder/homicide?
Following sending Brown’s representative by to Brown’s office some strong directed words, only as Judge Wesley could do Brown’s guy was sent backing.
After the hearing, Eroshevich’s attorney, Adam Braun, told the media that; “There’s simply no basis to prevent her from practicing medicine at this point.”[This case] is related to a single patient and on its face, it’s laughable that she would [be deemed] an imminent threat to the public.”
Judge Wesley sat a “boring” Motion and how to interview those pesky people who stole a few things from Anna Nicole Smith and as one source who knows Ford Shelley said; he is strutting like a peacock saying he is the KEY witness in sending Howard K. Stern and the two doctors to prison. Well that is unless Shelley is indicted before he appears on some pesky federal charges for paying an FIDC bank loan off with a forged rental agreement which was not worth the papers Ford Shelley wrote it on. Shelley might just graduate from a no body to a high profile person in a way he does not want. Once source told us because of Shelley handling the family business in such a shell game stunt it has ripped the family apart and that Gina, Ford Shelley’s wife, has to do nails and hair to try to keep her husband afloat. I guess without Anna Nicole Smith’s Estate’s belongings to auction off for a flow of cash, Shelley is finding himself a tad broke, and minus family support. Wonder if this will be a wonderful holiday season for Shelley? Will the Thompson family invite him over for dinner, I am told don’t hold your breath and if you are going to make a bet, it would be that Shelley will be left out in the cold.
Back to the California criminal trial, Judge Wesley has set one “housekeeping” Motions, discovery, handing over more evidence to the defense etc. for Friday, December 18 and a tentative trial date of February 5, 2010. However, Steve Sadow, the lead attorney for Stern told the waiting press that because of Motions to be filed and the schedule of the Court his client’s trial might postpone until sometime in the summer of 2010.
I wonder if that will be enough time for Brown to decide to get the microphones ready for a series of news conferences to trout out the Jackson homicide for his gubernatorial campaign.
A court watcher media person told us from yesterday’s hearing that Stern looked more self assured, even with a tad of arrogance. My thoughts on that is I would be willing to bet if he has extra money these days jingling in his pocket and room to take a deep sigh these days that would be courtesy of Rita Cosby, although everyone is keeping mum about that to be sure something like the O’Quinn settlement from appearing on those pesky gossip sites, like “T”.
The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
With a head line like that you can just imagine where this article is going.
I woke up this morning to a bunch of B. S. in my in box and was sure this was a surreal Trick or Treat Halloween prank and a pretty good one I thought. That is until I realized it was REAL and then the anger and feeling sick began to settle in.
We have Rita Cosby’s good friend, James Edstrom, writing on his “gossip site” today that at a party or nightclub he was at in December 2007 that O’Quinn was, “Two Sheets to the Wind”. We are please to say because of a tad of nudging by Rose Speaks.com, Edstrom cleaned up his article and gave Mr. O’Quinn the credit he deserved and took away the New York style of bragging when you really can’t remember for sure what happened.
The Houston Chronicle is now reporting that John O’Quinn was driving at a high rate of speed when his SUV became airborne and impaled on a t tree killing O’Quinn and Johnny Cutliff instantly. The Houston Police Department has turned the investigation over to it’s “Vehicle Crimes” department for a thorough investigation. That department said although the road was slightly wet it would not have caused the type of accident that killed O’Quinn and Johnny Cutliff unless O’Quinn had been traveling at a high rate of speed. They have recovered John O’Quinn’s cell phone from the wreckage and with that and the black box from the SUV they hope to have some answers next week. It will take several weeks to get the toxicology reports back, but police said it did not appear that any medication etc. was involved in the fatal crash. Which brings up a question I have. We have all heard the stories of a police officer placing a speeding ticket in the pocket of a speeder killed in a vehicle accident, could a posthumous charge apply to O’Quinn for the death of Johnny Cutliff? Mr. O’Quinn’s funeral will be on November 4, 2009 at 11 AM at the Second Baptist Church in Houston with a showing open to the public from 4PM to 8 PM on November 3. We do not have the funeral arrangements yet for Mr Cutliff but as soon as we do we will list it here for those of his friends whom have asked us to keep them updated.
With John O’Quinn now dead the fear of Houston publications being sued by this giant of a man literally and figuratively. They appear to be beginning understanding that and so slowly they are printing “their truth” about O’Quinn. Some if it includes that; “The death of John O’Quinn in a single-car vehicle crash abruptly and prematurely ended the saga of a man as big and brash and full of contradictions as his native city.” The Houston Chronicle article went on to say in part; “Like Houston — a brilliant, rambunctious city that sometimes seems to have a chip on its shoulder — the 68-year-old, 6-foot-4 O’Quinn combined great achievement, wealth and generosity with a gnawing insecurity. In this brilliant, rambunctious lawyer’s case, it took the form of alcohol abuse and a tendency to push his practice of law beyond his acknowledged courtroom brilliance to the ethical boundaries of the profession.”
“…O’Quinn was demonized by tort reform advocates as a symbol of frivolous lawsuits and outrageously large damage awards. … O’Quinn established himself as a premier plaintiff’s lawyer in a city renowned for its legal giants. Yet he rarely seemed at peace with that status, trying to fill a void that money and fame could not reach. In recent years, O’Quinn’s friends say he found a measure of contentment and stability. Even so, it’s hard to imagine this most dynamic of Houstonians ever wanting to rest in peace.” Many in Texas say that John O’Quinn almost single handed was the motivation for tort reform in Texas and thus Texas is now a safe haven for doctors to practice and not have to pay a fortune for malpractice insurance.
Virgie Arthur, Anna Nicole Smith’s estranged mother, will be making her first public interview since the Inquest into Daniel Smith’s death in 2008. Ms. Arthur has returned to a trusted allied in Geraldo Rivera to do the interview. It is ironic the interview will on Halloween night, kind of fits Geraldo’s bizarre sensationalism. Ms. Arthur is expected to talk about her personal loss with John O’Quinn’s death. Knowing Geraldo though I am willing to bet the conversation will cross over to her enemy Howard K. Stern being bound over for trial in California with two of Smith’s doctors, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor and Khristine Eroshevich with the third arraignment of the three scheduled for December 11. Surely as a “lawyer” (cough – cough) Gerlado knew this was to be expected and is no real win which equals high fives for his participation in this “alleged” lynching. So be sure and set your clocks for Geraldo, have a glass of red wine and see how Geraldo turns all of this into sensational infotainment for the All Mighty Dollar, [advertising revenue]. Does Geraldo, you think, ever feel any shame or is the nature of infotainment is those who bring in the advertising dollars get to keep their much lusted after shows?
Then there is Harvey Levin, the Jewish gay lawyer/journalist that has made internet sensationalism via his celebrity gossip blog into a way to bring in tons of money via advertising. Are we seeing a picture emerge here that involved infotainment and dollar signs? There are plenty of allegations around Hollyweird, we have learned, that Levin, if our source is correct and the allegations are true, also shares one thing with Anna Nicole Smith – an addiction to Methadone. Isn’t he just a tad afraid that feel good Jerry Brown might hone in on him next?
Levin, since Anna Nicole Smith’s death, has hardly held back his personal disdain for Howard K. Stern while showing favor in positive articles for his “good friend”, Larry Birkhead. Levin and his staff have allowed, since 2007, many – many posts of anti-Semitism and right down hate for Stern to flourish uncontrolled on TMZ.com and often fed by Harvey Levin via TMZ.com.
The sickest example of this lust for that all mighty advertising dollar, is the horrid reference to the now infamous Anna Nicole Smith’s clown video that has been released in public discovery in both the New York defamation suit of Howard K. Stern vs. Rita Cosby but also as of yesterday the California criminal proceedings.
If one is to believe what Harvey Levin appears to be alleging about Anna Nicole Smith in her ninth month of pregnancy, then we must assume Levin is implying that Dannielynn Birkhead was born suffering from the effects of multiple drug addictions. Now how is Levin going to explain that one to his good friend Larry Birkhead? Perhaps the free face time and positive press he has always lavish on Birkhead will be enough for Birkhead to forgive what Levin appears to saying in his most recent allegations involving the infamous clown tape and Howard K. Stern.
I bet this morning or yesterday, Levin was beating himself up for not buying that tape himself at the time he bought the photos of the refrigerator from the Bahamas home known as Horizons; the infamous unfilled fax for medication from Dr. Eroshevich to Dr. Kapoor just days after Daniel Smith, Anna Nicole’s son, died. Then of course there are those continuous changing and selling of affidavits by the nannies which neither the National Inquirer or Birkhead found to be believable but Levin bought them right up for publication on TMZ. Do you feel sorry that Levin let the infamous clown video slip through his greedy hands?
Harvey have you not been watching the preliminary hearing and the sharpness of Stern’s criminal attorney Steve Sadow? My bet is you ain’t seen nothing yet, and get some new news not the recycle bull shit appearing on your web celebrity slamming blog site. You like all of us knew Stern and the two doctors would be bound over for trial, so why the cheap shots by you? Oh yea I forgot that constant chase for the illusive advertising dollars in a shaky economy.
Finally we have Lin Wood playing with Georgia Attorney Susan M. Brown a frustrating game for him called “where are the hard drives”.
In the latest filings in the South Carolina federal court the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith is asking for contempt charges and sanctions against G. Ben Thompson and his “former” attorney, Susan M. Brown.
In more of the excerpt of Brown’s deposition released with the October 29 filing, you have to wonder where Brown got her law license. Now to think that Wood made a comment about Texas lawyers lacking ethics, I bet he is feeling a Georgia lawyer is also a tad shy of ethics today.
As you read the excerpt with again some pages redacted, at the end do you have any clear idea of “where are the hard drives”?
I came away scratching my head after seeing so many attorneys in the deposition of Susan M. Brown in person and by phone distancing themselves from Brown in what has to be an old time record of “we don’t have them, do you”, behavior, of “where’s the hard drives”.
What does happen to an attorney if it is proven that she did commit a crime of fraud as the Memorandum from the Georgia Court ordering her to appear for a deposition states and proves to be true?
There is the Motion for Contempt, the Memorandum of Law in support of the contempt and sanctions, new exhibits to read, some old exhibits referred to and the excerpt of Lin Wood trying to pin a room full of lawyer down to “Where are the hard drives” in a game which is funny and sad at the same time.
Ah the continued entwining of all things Anna Nichol Smith and the money and publicity she has continued to earn in death. Do you think the Georgia attorney, Susan M. Brown is being investigated for ethics violations in Georgia as well as the charges she faces in South Carolina?
Ms. Brown as does Gaither Thompson II, Gina Thompson Shelley and Melody Thompson have to file their answers by November 16 after being added to the lawsuit in place of a few Doe names. We also have a far more serious filing from Brown due on November 16, the Contempt of Court and Request for Sanctions against both her and her previous, or is she still his current lawyer, G. Ben Thompson. Ah to be a fly on the wall when that hearing finally takes place.
Is Anna Nicole Smith more famous in death then she ever was in life? Has her death created a new piranha feeding frenzy not seen before in the land of gossip and infotainment?
I’ll get back with all of you after I force myself to watch Geraldo, I really don’t like the guy. I wonder how Virgie Arthur looks after being out of the lime light for the last 18 months.
We will have all of the latest documents listed by date and court here today. Check back and remember that the downloads are opened to ALL not just members of Rose Speaks.com.
October 29, 2009 Anna Nicole Smith’s Estate Motion for Contempt and Sanctions against G. Ben Thompson and lawyer Susan Brown for keeping Estate property and copies of property WAY after the Court Ordered all property and copies of property to be returned to Wood’s office.
October 29, 2009 Anna Nicole Smith’s Estate Memorandum of Law to support the Motion for Contempt and Sanctions against G. Ben Thompson and lawyer Susan Brown for keeping Estate property and copies of property WAY after the Court Ordered all property and copies of property to be returned to Wood’s office.
October 29, 2009 Exhibit A of the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith vs. G. Ben Thompson, Ford Shelley, et. al, which is an additional excerpt of the deposition of Susan Brown from October 5, 2009.
October 29, 2009 Exhibit C of the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith vs. G. Ben Thompson, Ford Shelley, et. al, which is the courier receipt for picking up the Hard Drives to deliver them to Wood’s office dated January 21. 2009.
October 29, 2009 Exhibit H of the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith vs. G. Ben Thompson, Ford Shelley, et. al, which a letter from Teresa E. Lazzarom to Luke Lantta returning additional Estate property dated September 22, 2009.
October 29, 2009 Exhibit I of the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith vs. G. Ben Thompson, Ford Shelley, et. al, which a second letter from Teresa E. Lazzarom to Luke Lantta returning additional Estate property dated September 24, 2009.
October 29, 2009 Exhibit K of the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith vs. G. Ben Thompson, Ford Shelley, et. al, which is an Affidavit from Niall Cronnolly that the hard drive had been removed from Susan Brown’s computer on October 8, 2009 and destroyed and method used to destroy the hard drive on October 9, 2009 at 11:15 AM.
The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
Entries (RSS)