Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 10/13/2007 6:39:17 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:

New thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1910919/posts?page=1



Skip to comments.

Anna Nicole Smith, The Investigation #3

Posted on 04/07/2007 3:14:35 PM PDT by mom4kittys

Thread Number 3


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: aboutthebaby; anna; annanicole; ans; deadwrongdaddy; getalife; giveitup; hksisafillintheblank; howietheleach; ilovelarry; killingmesoftly; larryisawesome; larryisthedaddy; larrysalunatic; lazyboylarry; lovechild; movealong; nojusticenopeace; oneheroinevirgie; overbonbonsdeadbody; prayersfordannielynn; ritaisaliar; ritaisnotaliar; shameonlarry; spermdonorsanonymous; sternsaresquatters; teambirkhead; thefatladywarmingup; thefirm; turkeybasterd; virgieisevil; virgieisnotevil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 10,401-10,45010,451-10,50010,501-10,550 ... 17,401-17,435 next last
To: All

Just a couple comments/questions about Greta’s VA interview.
VA said she got $5,000 for many pictures of Daniel (and other family members) she sold after Daniel died. Didn’t she say on the stand in FL that she’d not received any money whatsoever for photos or videos concerning Daniel or Anna? Also, remember that Anna had wanted pictures and things of Daniel’s from Virgie, but Virgie didn’t give her any? Perhaps because Virgie had already sold them?
She also answered Greta’s inquiry as to whether or not any of her relatives had received any monies for pictures/videos, and her answer was “No.” Didn’t she admit on the stand in FL, finally, that her sister-in-law did sell a video of Daniel’s grave to Splash?
As far as the interview went, it seemed fairly well-rehearsed and possibly edited , and I’m sure Mr. O’Q was the overseer, as well he should be as her attorney.


10,451 posted on 05/04/2007 12:16:50 AM PDT by tabor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10450 | View Replies]

To: Rte66

thanks, RT - I thought that was a good Virgie Arthur interview, and I can’t believe it if LB said, Virgie made anna unhappy so we dont’ want you around the baby - how mean! - that’s the OPPOSITE of what he said in Seidlin’s court - that the mommydearest video was NOT how Anna thought of her mother. And he KNOWS that anna wanted her mom with her during pregnancy because he TOLD US about her email! But now it’s AWHWITW?

I really don’t understand this at all - why is the wholesale putdown and degradation of Anna and her Mom and Mom’s family going on even on this thread? People are making millions on contracts on movies about how slutty and foobar’d Anna was, and how rotten her family was, but they’re trying to re-write DL’s dna? DL was not, immaculate conception fcol. If I were in Virgie’s position, I’d be royally pissed! (but she’s too busy chasing HK and those responsible for her daughter’s and grandson’s death and can’t waste the emotion right now)

DC is right - LB is acting like a 19yo in a 35yo body.... and he’s being led around by HK like he has a ring in his nose and a tag in his right ear - did HK hypnotize HIM too? what DOES Hk have on LB?


10,452 posted on 05/04/2007 12:46:02 AM PDT by blueplum ([IC - ICE -(ice bath)])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10424 | View Replies]

To: kcw2007; windchime
well, I'll play devil's advocate, and let's say, we already have substantiation of LB's calls and emails, and let's say Moe can substantiate the 'against Anna's will' charge...

And the reason I say that is because, while anyone can say anything in a tv interview, it's not ' under oath' so to speak, the same way a book is.

Moe could be sued for anything he says in a book. Would he run that risk? for what?

holding someone against their will, is kidnapping. it was kidnapping with DL, but what if it was also kidnapping (or intentionally denying liberty) with ANS ?

some say Moe is in cahoots with HK and that's why he would say something bad about LB;

but wait a minute - it's LB and HK in cahoots according to HK's mysterious comments about not expecting to be out of DL's life,

so why would HK, tell Moe, to "attack" LB (and maybe cost LB his custody) on HK's (cloaked) behalf if HK thinks he's ALREADY got a deal going with LB?

doesn't make sense to me

it would be nice to get more quotes from this Moe Book...

10,453 posted on 05/04/2007 12:55:20 AM PDT by blueplum ([IC - ICE -(ice bath)])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10441 | View Replies]

To: tabor
I recall Donna H. saying in an interview that she got some information for her book from Virgie, but that they were not at all close and didn’t know each other well

all I've ever heard Virgie Arthur say is, that she didn't know Donna, and turned her down for an interview about her book because she didnt' want to talk about Anna for that book. If Donna said that she got info 'from virgie' then I wouldn't believe that (and I don't recall her saying that at all but I didn't see all of her interviews). Virgie also turned her down ,when Donna wanted her to go on some sort of 'jerry springer-ish' show for some 'daniel' reunion fabrication, that was hatched by Donna about the time the book idea was hatched. so obviously Donna called Virgie on the telephone at least twice, but I don't think Donna was ever in Virgie's home for a family function or dinner. Virgie worked for years to keep Hogan away from her family, and inviting Donna over or striking up a friendship with her, would have given Hogan excuse to hang around. JMO

10,454 posted on 05/04/2007 1:14:32 AM PDT by blueplum ([IC - ICE -(ice bath)])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10448 | View Replies]

To: windchime
I really wish Moe had testified at the ‘body possession’ hearing so we could compare what he states in ‘his’ book.

well, he couldn't - the body possession hearing was supposed to be just that - it was originally between HK and Virgie Arthur. Virgie went to claim the body, and HK had filed his own claim. Then Opri slammed a 20-day stay on the body and got into the fight. Had it been between Virgie and HK, Virgie would have been given the body of her single daughter, and buried Anna in Texas within 4 days. Well, at least, in the Real World lol

10,455 posted on 05/04/2007 1:22:17 AM PDT by blueplum ([IC - ICE -(ice bath)])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10439 | View Replies]

To: tabor
VA said she got $5,000 for many pictures of Daniel (and other family members) she sold after Daniel died

I believe you misread the transcripts - she sold them long before Daniel died. she made no other money, not after Daniel died, not after Anna died. She did get a free one-day trip to go to the Bahamas to visit Daniel's grave(and ws hounded by graveyard security) and to pound on Anna's gate trying to talk to her. iirc

10,456 posted on 05/04/2007 1:27:07 AM PDT by blueplum ([IC - ICE -(ice bath)])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10451 | View Replies]

To: mom4kittys

Thanks for the ping ...and hello to all from a Texan who is “just sittin’ on the side of the Bay” ....


10,457 posted on 05/04/2007 1:41:20 AM PDT by baysider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueplum; All

since it hasn’t been really brought up a lot, I thought I’d post some info on the topic of Grandparents’ Rights. Note the phrase ‘when a parent has died’ - it seems to be an important point for the Courts. This first post is snipped sentences from the below-link to make it shorter:

California - like every other state — has a grandparent visitation law: Under the law, courts can order that grandparents be permitted to visit their grandchildren, even if the children’s parents object. Recently, in the case of Butler v. Harris, the California Supreme Court upheld the law against a constitutional challenge.

Butler was decided in the shadow of a very similar 2000 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Troxel v. Granville. There, the Court struck down, as unconstitutional, an order granting visitation to grandparents over the objection of the children’s mother.

The Court found the state’s visitation statute “breathtakingly broad.” It also found fault with the court order itself - holding it invalid because it failed to sufficiently defer to the constitutionally protected right of parental autonomy.

Given Troxel, shouldn’t the California case have come out the other way - with the parents, not the grandparents, winning? As I will explain, that depends on how you read Troxel.

...Since Troxel was issued in 2000, several state supreme courts have had occasion to consider or reconsider the validity of their own grandparent visitation statutes. The results have been mixed - as I discussed in an earlier column. With varying statutes before them, state supreme courts have split fairly evenly about the constitutionality of grandparent visitation laws.

...One obvious trend is toward upholding laws that permit grandparents to seek visitation only when the nuclear family is not intact because the parents have never married, divorced, or one of them has died. The California decision and the statute underlying it are consistent with this trend.

...To begin, here are the facts of the California case: A married couple, Karen Butler and Charles Harris, had a child, Emily. Shortly thereafter, they divorced. According to Karen, Charles was physically and psychologically abusive, and he admitted striking her on at least some occasions.

The court granted Karen sole legal and physical custody of Emily. But it also granted Charles’s parents visitation several times a year.

After some difficult visits, Karen sought to terminate the grandparents’ visitation with Emily. The visitation had required young Emily to fly, unaccompanied, from Utah to California several times a year. And Karen worried the grandparents would not be able to protect Emily from her violent father. (Indeed, ultimately, Charles’s parental rights were completely terminated.)

But despite Karen’s wishes, the trial court allowed three visitation periods per year: two that were twelve days long, and one that was six days long. The result was that Emily would spend a month out of every year visiting her grandparents in another state.

...Karen appealed the order, citing Troxel.

...California Law on Grandparent Visitation

California statutes allow grandparents to get visitation rights in three ways.

First, when a parent has died, a court may award visitation to close relatives of that parent, if it is in the best interests of the child.

Second, in a custody proceeding, a court may grant grandparents visitation rights if it is in the best interests of the child.

Third - in the provision that was at issue in the Butler case — grandparents may petition for visitation if the grandchild’s parents are not married or if certain other conditions are met. That provision applied here - because Karen and Charles were divorced.

...Thus, Karen had an uphill battle, to say the least, in challenging the statute. Perhaps realizing that challenging the statute “on its face” would fail, she also challenged it “as applied” to her particular situation.

....But here, too, she lost. The California Supreme Court was unwilling to hold that granting the grandparents’ request, under the circumstances, violated Karen’s parental rights...

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20040903.html


10,458 posted on 05/04/2007 2:49:36 AM PDT by blueplum ([IC - ICE -(ice bath)])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10452 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

more Grandparent law:

State Child-Visitation Laws

All 50 states currently have some type of “grandparent visitation” statute through which grandparents and sometimes others (foster parents and stepparents, for example) can ask a court to grant them the legal right to maintain their relationships with loved children. But state laws vary greatly when it comes to the crucial details, such as who can visit and under what circumstances.

Approximately twenty states have “restrictive” visitation statutes, meaning that generally only grandparents can get a court order for visitation — and only if the child’s parents are divorcing or if one or both parents have died. Most states have more permissive visitation...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_km3608/is_200409/ai_n8623705


10,459 posted on 05/04/2007 2:51:12 AM PDT by blueplum ([IC - ICE -(ice bath)])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10458 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

two more (note again, when a parent has died; note also, marital status of the surviving parent at time child was born may be considered). I don’t have an answer yet for the question, - Under the Uniform Child Protection Act, custody orders between states must be honored - I’m wondering if that might apply also, under the International Act, to Bahama decisions translating to the States?:

KENTUCKY: A court may award visitation rights if visitation would be in the child’s best interest. A court may award a grandparent the same visitation rights as a parent without custody if the grandparent’s child is deceased and the grandparent has provided CHILD SUPPORT to the grandchild.

http://www.parentsrights.org/media/ky_pr.html

***

State statutes providing visitation to grandparents generally require that a number of conditions occur before visitation rights can be granted. The marital status of the parents must be considered in a majority of states before a court will evaluate the relevant factors to determine if visitation is appropriate. In some of these states, the parents’ marital status is considered only if the grandparent or grandparents have been denied visitation by the parents

A minority of states require that at least one parent is deceased before a court can award visitation to the parent of the deceased parent of the child. For example, a maternal grandparent in one of these states may be awarded visitation only if the mother of the child is deceased.

Once the statutory conditions for visitation are met, grandparents must establish the factors that courts may or must consider to grant visitation rights. In every state, grandparents must prove that granting visitation to the grandchild is in the best interest of the child. Several states also require that the court consider the prior relationship between the grandparent and the grandchild, the effect grandparental visitation will have on the relationship between the parent and child, and/or a showing of harm to the grandchild if visitation is not allowed.

If a child’s parents and/or grandparents live in different states, one of several laws will determine the appropriate court to hear a custody or visitation case. If a valid custody or visitation DECREE has been entered in one state, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act requires that another state must enforce and must not modify the decree. Another state may modify the decree only if the original state no longer has jurisdiction over the case or has declined jurisdiction to modify the custody or visitation decree. Congress amended this statute in 1998 to include a grandparent in the definition of “contestant.”

If no state has made a valid custody determination, the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, as adopted by each state, will apply. A court in a particular state has power to hear a custody case if that state is the child’s “home state” or has been the home state of the child within six months of the date the legal action was brought and at least one parent continues to reside in the state. Other situations include those in which a state with jurisdiction over a custody case declines jurisdiction or no other state may assert jurisdiction over the child.

CALIFORNIA: Conditions for grandparent visitation rights include a determination of whether a parent is deceased, the child’s parents are divorced or separated, the whereabouts of one parent is unknown, or the child is not residing with either parent. In addition to determining that visitation is in the child’s best interests, the court must find that the grandparents had a preexisting relationship with the grandchild

http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/grandparents-rights


10,460 posted on 05/04/2007 3:00:27 AM PDT by blueplum ([IC - ICE -(ice bath)])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10458 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

Excellent articles. It does sound like from the Uniform Child Protection Act that whatever the Bahamian decision is construed to be might be applicable.

Or at least that court has provided some arguable proof of a relationship. Although the article said a 2001 appellate court had struck down the California 1998 law re grandparents rights as unconstitutional.

Once again, it’s surprising no main stream TV station has offered up time to a legal expert,talking head to opine about this stuff...


10,461 posted on 05/04/2007 3:21:19 AM PDT by nynjanais
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10460 | View Replies]

To: tabor

1 - at the hearing she said she had received no money

2 - she did finally testify that her sister-in-law sold a video of Daniel’s grave

Another contradiction in her interview with Greta is the response to whether Virgie had ever heard about any boyfriends that ANS might go out with or any men that she was going out with or anything like that? ARTHUR: No.

Virgie had more than ‘heard about’ Mark ‘Hollywood’ Hatten. http://extratv.warnerbros.com/doc/annaletter03032.pdf


10,462 posted on 05/04/2007 3:43:27 AM PDT by windchime (I consider the left one of the fronts on the WOT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10451 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Carolyn

I’ve never watched Amazing Home Makeover, but I’m well versed in the dangers of mold. When we saw it, all I was thinking was all the work it was going to take for us to do it ourselves. This calls for hospital grade respiratory masks.


10,463 posted on 05/04/2007 3:58:09 AM PDT by TheSpottedOwl (Head Caterer for the FIRM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10245 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

Re: the emails-
I’m sure all copies will be made available to Moe, or whomever, for books as long as they follow the HKS script.

I’m not even slightly curious about Moe’s book. I heard or read most of his interviews and his ‘baby girl’ thing creeps me out. That’s a strange term for an employee to use in regard to an employer.


10,464 posted on 05/04/2007 3:59:04 AM PDT by windchime (I consider the left one of the fronts on the WOT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10453 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

Per conversations here at the time of the hearing, Moe was scheduled to testify. Perper hurried them with the deteriorating ANS calls and the witnesses were cut short.

I would link you, but didn’t think Moe information/role consistent enough to save.


10,465 posted on 05/04/2007 4:09:12 AM PDT by windchime (I consider the left one of the fronts on the WOT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10455 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

“Had it been between Virgie and HK, Virgie would have been given the body of her single daughter, and buried Anna in Texas within 4 days.”

I have no clue how you figure that. ‘Judge Hollywood’ said to HKS, ‘you came knocking on my door in the middle of the night’. But for Perper’s alarm sounding at the condition of the body, the hearing might still be going on.


10,466 posted on 05/04/2007 4:25:10 AM PDT by windchime (I consider the left one of the fronts on the WOT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10455 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

“”””Then Opri slammed a 20-day stay on the body and got into the fight.””””

Opri was certainly fighting a lot of battles that resulted in hurting Virgie and helping Howard. I don’t think that was her intent when she came on board as Larry’s attorney.

I would love to know the precise details and final straw that caused her to be fired or quit. Guess that will come out in someone’s book!


10,467 posted on 05/04/2007 4:40:10 AM PDT by sodpoodle ( Despair - man's surrender. Laughter - God's redemption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10455 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Carolyn

I agree. I think she has some kind of really big mental problem.


10,468 posted on 05/04/2007 5:01:38 AM PDT by gopheraj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10142 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle
As long as everyone is stuck on Dannie Lynn and larry, Howard can sneak around and keep anything further regarding the deaths of two people out of the news.

The Horizons?? Bet it's settled out of court and Howard will pay the "rent tab" and move on. Of course, there will be a confidentiality agreement.

Maybe Thompson will find the strength to take him on....but one never knows what videos Howard has tucked away.

10,469 posted on 05/04/2007 5:03:03 AM PDT by Sacajaweau ("The Cracker" will be renamed "The Crapper")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10467 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon

He’s afraid becuase he knows she will not stop until she uncovers exactly what went on with Daniel and Vicki.


10,470 posted on 05/04/2007 5:07:14 AM PDT by gopheraj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10145 | View Replies]

To: All
Thoughts for the day:

TWO YOUNG PEOPLE died at crucial points in their lives and no one cares....except Virgie.

TWO PEOPLE know what they did and there's not a sign of "moral conscience" in either of them....Like "It happened, big deal, so what".

10,471 posted on 05/04/2007 5:07:31 AM PDT by Sacajaweau ("The Cracker" will be renamed "The Crapper")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10469 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

“””””Maybe Thompson will find the strength to take him on....but one never knows what videos Howard has tucked away.....””””

Takes a lot of courage to report extortion, especially in the Bahamas, where it is probably not even a misdemeanor.


10,472 posted on 05/04/2007 5:08:32 AM PDT by sodpoodle ( Despair - man's surrender. Laughter - God's redemption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10469 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Mornin Saca!
“””TWO YOUNG PEOPLE died at crucial points in their lives and no one cares....except Virgie.”””

Are you optimistic that anyone in the justice system or in LE is investigating the circumstances surrounding these 2 deaths? i.e. misappropriation of funds, tax evasion, illegal Rx drug transportation, witness tampering, crime scene tampering, obstruction of justice, fleeing the scene, fraudulent documents, perjury etc., etc.,??


10,473 posted on 05/04/2007 5:17:11 AM PDT by sodpoodle ( Despair - man's surrender. Laughter - God's redemption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10471 | View Replies]

To: tabor

“There were a few things that bothered me about Virgie’s interview. One of them was about not knowing Donna Hogan at all.”

I thought that was strange, too. I didn’t think they’d be friends, but I just assumed that if she was Anna’s half sister, and Anna knew her, Virgie would also.


10,474 posted on 05/04/2007 5:34:35 AM PDT by toldyou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10448 | View Replies]

To: Rte66

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=3106732&version=5&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=PSTY&pageId=1.1.1

FOX 26 Exclusive: Up Close with Virgie Arthur


10,475 posted on 05/04/2007 5:35:43 AM PDT by TexKat ((Just because you did not see it or read it, that does not mean it did or did not happen.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10424 | View Replies]

Comment #10,476 Removed by Moderator

To: toldyou

I believe that a wrongful death suit can be about more than money - see OJ Simpson.


10,477 posted on 05/04/2007 5:59:10 AM PDT by gopheraj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10254 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Scarpetta

10,478 posted on 05/04/2007 6:21:19 AM PDT by TexKat ((Just because you did not see it or read it, that does not mean it did or did not happen.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10422 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

That is only partially correct. At the trial in Florida she testified that her sister in law (?) or whomever went with her did receive money for her video footage. In the Greta interview..Greta specifically asked her if any relatives had received any money and she said no.


10,479 posted on 05/04/2007 6:27:35 AM PDT by TrishaSC (Still Team Birkhead but just a bit estranged)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10456 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

I think the kidnapping claim is going to stem from when Birkhead took her passport to keep her from going off with G. Ben. I think that story was running around prior to paternity.


10,480 posted on 05/04/2007 6:29:47 AM PDT by TrishaSC (Still Team Birkhead but just a bit estranged)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10453 | View Replies]

To: TexKat

Hmm, Virgie in a chair. . .waiting. Nice wallpaper for HKS.


10,481 posted on 05/04/2007 6:31:49 AM PDT by nynjanais
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10478 | View Replies]

To: TrishaSC
Remember I posted that the court could even (God Forbid) make HKS co-guardian.

We still don't know that they WON'T make him co-guardian.

10,482 posted on 05/04/2007 6:33:20 AM PDT by gopheraj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10287 | View Replies]

To: gopheraj

That’s why I’m not jumping on the burn Virgie bandwagon. Not one DARN person knows what is going on in that frickin’ courtroom but they can’t wait to pick up Stern’s talking points...i.e...”If it was up to me it would have been settled today”. BS...Dannielynn would not have gotten out of Horizons any sooner. So what if it turns out that Stern and Larry have agreed to a co-guardianship and that’s what Virgie is fighting. I personally don’t think that’s the case because if so I don’t think Virgie would be so complimentary to Birkhead. This is becoming a public relation war and the only reason why is because the one liked the most will make the most money when the dust settles(and in the case of Stern avoid prison time). Larry has AccessHollywood...Stern has ET and now Virgie is jumping on with Fox.


10,483 posted on 05/04/2007 6:40:49 AM PDT by TrishaSC (Still Team Birkhead but just a bit estranged)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10482 | View Replies]

To: tabor

Virgie had a stroke a few years and during the interview Greta says something like I know you’re not good with dates. I think it was probably rehearsed but some people aren’t very good communicator but that doesn’t mean that they are lying . Our President has gotten slammed repeatedly for not being a good communicator.


10,484 posted on 05/04/2007 6:44:43 AM PDT by TrishaSC (Still Team Birkhead but just a bit estranged)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10451 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

There’s a collective sigh of relief that Larry and Daniel are here. As for the inquest Leroy has done his job and most of the press is running scared. Totally disgusting!!


10,485 posted on 05/04/2007 6:46:14 AM PDT by TrishaSC (Still Team Birkhead but just a bit estranged)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10469 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

There’s a collective sigh of relief that Larry and Dannielynn are here. As for the inquest Leroy has done his job and most of the press is running scared. Totally disgusting!!


10,486 posted on 05/04/2007 6:46:47 AM PDT by TrishaSC (Still Team Birkhead but just a bit estranged)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10469 | View Replies]

To: TexKat

10,487 posted on 05/04/2007 6:49:22 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10478 | View Replies]

To: TexKat

thanks for posting this link. great interview!

“Virgie Arthur realizes no matter what she says, some people will always be convinced she is after the money.”

What’s that saying....’truer words were never spoken’.

Hang tough Virgie.


10,488 posted on 05/04/2007 7:11:29 AM PDT by Kimberly GG (DUNCAN HUNTER '08.....lframerica.com.....MARCH TO TAKE BACK AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10475 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Scarpetta
there Doc! Stay out of the line of fire!


10,489 posted on 05/04/2007 7:18:42 AM PDT by TexKat ((Just because you did not see it or read it, that does not mean it did or did not happen.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10487 | View Replies]

To: TexKat
Stay out of the line of fire!

Hi there! I don't see the point of getting involved in the Larry vs. Virgie debate...

IMO Larry will be awarded sole custody. He's a fit parent with no criminal background, and no court will take sole custody away from him...

10,490 posted on 05/04/2007 7:34:59 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10489 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Scarpetta

Ditto!


10,491 posted on 05/04/2007 7:39:57 AM PDT by TexKat ((Just because you did not see it or read it, that does not mean it did or did not happen.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10490 | View Replies]

To: Lizarde
Hi Liz, It was too late last night to post when I got online, but was glad to see you came through your dental surgery with ‘flying colors’. Hope you’re feeling no pain after your anesthetic wore off. I can tolerate pain, but not drugs...just the least bit of anesthetic puts me under for hours. However, I do remember when the dentist finished the surgery, and I was still basically out of it, he leaned over and kissed me on the forehead. I don’t know whether I had been a good patient, but sort of think he was happy to receive the big check. I paid in advance in order to get a discount!
10,492 posted on 05/04/2007 7:46:36 AM PDT by PeskyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10476 | View Replies]

Comment #10,493 Removed by Moderator

To: Rte66

What is a roombox? (Like a diarama?)
I have seen all of the CSI Las Vegas up to the episode where Nick is buried alive. I have heard spoilers that Gil and Sarah got together after that. I need to see if any new seasons are out on DVD to catch up. I think Grisson is so cool. I like the actor (I’ve seen him in other things) and I like the character Grissom.


10,494 posted on 05/04/2007 8:00:30 AM PDT by mom4kittys (If velvet could sing, it would sound like Josh Groban)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10432 | View Replies]

To: TrishaSC; blueplum

I remember Virgie’s testimony differently. That she was asked did she take and or sell pictures of that occasion. She said she did not. Then she said that her sister in law took pictures. When asked what arrangements or deals her sister in law made with the pictures, I recall her saying she had no part in it and did not know anything about her sister in law’s
actions in that regard. I don’t recall her saying “no” when asked if her sister in law sold them. Just claimed no involvement in or knowledge of it (except that she did take pictures).


10,495 posted on 05/04/2007 8:04:39 AM PDT by txrangerette (Congressman Duncan Hunter for POTUS...check him out!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10479 | View Replies]

To: baysider

Hi there! Welcome.


10,496 posted on 05/04/2007 8:08:20 AM PDT by mom4kittys (If velvet could sing, it would sound like Josh Groban)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10457 | View Replies]

To: windchime; tabor

Please check my post #10,495. Can we reconcile my memory of her testimony, and your post here? I don’t think we are way far apart. In my post I was replying to the assertion that Virgie denied a relative of hers did “this” when testifying, then told Greta differently last night. And I don’t thing Virgie did THAT.


10,497 posted on 05/04/2007 8:13:01 AM PDT by txrangerette (Congressman Duncan Hunter for POTUS...check him out!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10462 | View Replies]

To: All

Is it possible that some on this thread, just like in the media, don’t know or understand the difference between:

CUSTODY of a CHILD

VISITATION of a CHILD

and,

CUSTODIAL responsibilities for an ESTATE

and have missed each time she’s CLEARLY stated:

Virgie Arthur DOES NOT want CUSTODY of DL.

Virgie Arthur DOES want VISITATION with DL.

Virgie Arthur DOES want to participate in the legal (CUSTODIAL) responsibilities of ANS’s estate.

Lot’s of folks read and vist our thread. Can we at least get this straight, once and for all? If you’re not sure of VA’s position, go back and read the transcript of her interview with Greta.


10,498 posted on 05/04/2007 8:23:05 AM PDT by Kimberly GG (DUNCAN HUNTER '08.....lframerica.com.....MARCH TO TAKE BACK AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10495 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette; TrishaSC; blueplum; windchime

On the stand in Fort Lauderdale, Arthur was hammered with questions about any compensation she has or would receive from news organizations for access to interviews or footage after the deaths of her daughter and grandson.

She frequently said no to questions about arrangements with specific media outlets, and sidestepped other questions or claimed she didn’t understand them.

“Have you in any fashion profited at all from the death of your daughter?” asked Krista Barth, an attorney for Stern.

Arthur stared for a moment. “I’m trying to process that question,” she said. Then Arthur attempted to deflect the attention, pointing at Stern.

“He has,” she said.

It was a refrain Arthur repeated several times in an attempt to raise suspicions about Stern and the unsolved deaths of her daughter and grandson.

“I knew she would be next. My grandson did not overdose. Howard was there when he died, and Howard was there when my daughter died. And he has my granddaughter now and it is not even his child. I’m afraid for her life as well,” Arthur said, crying. “Please, help us.”

Stern shook his head. Earlier in Arthur’s testimony, he angrily rose from his seat, but the judge interrupted him before he could complete a sentence.

“You have no podium here, Mr. Stern,” the judge said. “Appreciate you being here, though.”

Later in the day, Arthur acknowledged that she had received some compensation from news organizations. She said the tabloid news agency Splash paid to fly her to the Bahamas when she visited her grandson’s grave last month, and she acknowledged her sister-in-law had sold family video footage.

Arthur also acknowledged that a Splash representative accompanied her to a viewing of Smith’s body Wednesday afternoon.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:i23jzmlq3kEJ:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17257459/+Arthur+acknowledged+that+she+had+received+some+compensation+from+news+organizations.+She+said+the+tabloid+news+agency+Splash+paid+to+fly+her+to+the+Bahamas+when+she+visited+her+grandson%27s+grave+last+month,+and+she+acknowledged+her+sister-in-law+had+sold+family+video+footage.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us


10,499 posted on 05/04/2007 8:35:56 AM PDT by TexKat ((Just because you did not see it or read it, that does not mean it did or did not happen.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10495 | View Replies]

To: TexKat; txrangerette; TrishaSC; blueplum; windchime

VAN SUSTEREN: Now let’s talk about who got what money. Did you get any money from any news organization or media outlet since Daniel died?

ARTHUR: OK. Splash magazine. And all they do is sell pictures.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK.

ARTHUR: You know. And this was way before Daniel died that they came to me and asked me, did I want to, you know, sell them some pictures, you know, of Daniel and Vickie and the family, and did I want to do a book? You know, and I thought well, you know, I might think about it. And that’s all I told them, I might think about it. So I did give them some pictures.

VAN SUSTEREN: How much did you get?

ARTHUR: Huh?

VAN SUSTEREN: How much did you get?

ARTHUR: Oh, how much money?

VAN SUSTEREN: Yes.

ARTHUR: Five thousand dollars.

VAN SUSTEREN: How many pictures?

ARTHUR: Oh, I don’t know, bunch, a bunch, you know, 50, 100, a bunch of pictures.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you give them to use for as long as they wanted or to just use them in one-time deal with them?

ARTHUR: No. They can use them for whatever.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK. All right. So you got $5,000 from Splash for pictures. Any other money?

ARTHUR: No. That’s all I have got.

VAN SUSTEREN: What about any relative of yours get any money?

ARTHUR: Relative?

VAN SUSTEREN: Yes. Like — I mean, it was like, you know, anyone who you — besides Anna Nicole — Vickie? Like did any family member cut any deal that you know of?

ARTHUR: Not that I know of, no.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK. So there is no other money pouring into your family?

ARTHUR: No.

VAN SUSTEREN: How about your legal bills? Who is paying those?

ARTHUR: Well, I’m going to have to pay those.

VAN SUSTEREN: Nobody has made a promised to pay them?

ARTHUR: No.

VAN SUSTEREN: No lawyer has gotten paid?

ARTHUR: No.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269821,00.html


10,500 posted on 05/04/2007 8:57:07 AM PDT by TexKat ((Just because you did not see it or read it, that does not mean it did or did not happen.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10499 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 10,401-10,45010,451-10,50010,501-10,550 ... 17,401-17,435 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson