Looking for a variety of reports about the Anna Nicole Smith drug trial? Sorry, you aren’t going to find many. Linda Deutsch appears to be the only reporter consistently covering this important trial. Why is this important? California Attorney General Jerry Brown is very concerned about the rash of celebrity deaths from prescription drugs and the trend must stop. “Just because it’s in a nice little package and has a name on it and a date and a doctor’s name under it, doesn’t mean that it can’t kill you,” he said.
The list of dead celebrities gets longer and reported addicts are being outed with the lucky ones being forced into rehab. And don’t forget the reality television show about celebrity addicts called “Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew”. One of the defendants Dr.Kapoor in the Anna Nicole Smith trial once advertised himself as an “Entertainment Doctor”. But what does that have to do with a reporter and the judge on the case? Hold on, I’ll get to it.
Background
More than 20 felony drug charges were brought against Howard K. Stern, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich and Dr. Sandeep Kapoor because boat loads of drugs were being prescribed for Anna Nicole Smith. Fake names, misspelled names and borrowed names were used to procure the same drugs that killed the late model and occasional actress. Warnings issued by pharmacists to Stern and both doctors that drug combinations and amounts ordered would kill the patient, were ignored.
After the sudden and unexpected death of Anna Nicole’s son Daniel there is no doubt that the woman was depressed however, not one single antidepressant was found in her system after her death. What was found were downers. That’s right. A horribly depressed woman was prescribed downers. The autopsy report showed that she had ingested Klonopin, Valium, Oxazepam and Lorazepam which are all anti-anxiety medicines aka tranquilizers. Methadone which is only supposed to be prescribed for the most severe pain or surgery was found in her liver bile. Methadone is also what killed Daniel.
Tranquilizers make a person less anxious by slowing down the central nervous system to produce a calm affect. Ok, maybe one of them for Anna Nicole but four at the same time? In addition to that she was also taking Chloral Hydrate which is a rarely used and dangerous sleeping medication. Benadryl was in Anna Nicole’s system too. Benadryl has been found to enhance the affects of other drugs and alone makes a lot of people feel drowsy. Does that sound like Stern and the doctors were trying to help Anna Nicole? If a random blogger knows that you don’t take those six to seven medications in combination, why doesn’t a lawyer and two doctors know that?
The trial. What is really happening?
So here is the problem. Except for a few stragglers, veteran Associated Press reporter Linda Deutsch is speaking for the media in this case. She actually is, because if you “Google” any key words associated with the trial, 95% of the coverage is her articles rewritten and re-posted. What is wrong with that? Deutsch is said to be “pro-defendant.” I visited a blog called “Trials and Tribulations” written by a lady who is called “Sprocket”. This is what she had to say about Linda Deutsch.
It’s been widely recognized on every crime form/message board I’ve ever read for the past four years, that Linda Deutsch’s reporting is obviously biased towards the defense side of the case. This is not a new opinion I’ve developed since attending this trial. I’ve felt this way for a long time. When I was covering the Robert Blake trial, I read as many of the reporters that I could and back then I often wondered if Linda and I were watching the same trial. Don’t get me wrong. I have a ton of admiration for Linda. She is a world famous reporter, and is highly respected among her peers. And, you will not find one of her colleagues who will go on the record and publicly say she is pro defense. I also have to note that I’ve often seen Linda in very warm conversations with virtually every member of the defense team on this case.
I also found a site who ranked “America’s Worst Journalists” and why.
Blogger Roscoe Daily ranked Deutsch the 11th worst journalist due to……wait for it……..“BIAS.”
There are more complaints out there in comments by bloggers and forum members and I know what I feel when I read her articles. I even read accusations of napping during trials. Deutsch has been a reporter for over 40 years so I guess that is not unexpected. But if true, let her take her nap at a fashion show or she can cover when Larry Birkhead has leaked a big media event happening in the swing set area of his local playground.
The Judge
That brings us to Judge Perry. Did he really say these things? Or is the reporter taking his words out of context?
The death of Daniel Smith is irrelevant.
Why? The methadone that killed him was most likely supplied by one of the doctors on trial and it did not just walk into the house that Anna Nicole and Howard K. Stern occupied and then fly to the hospital where Daniel died all by itself.
Perry said outside the jury’s presence that he was concerned about the prosecution’s case.
“It’s the people’s position that Anna Nicole was kept in a drugged state,” Perry said. “They claim she was a pawn in the hands of her handlers and doctors who kept her in a drugged state to control her and her money.”
The evidence so far does not support that, he said.
“I’m seeing a strong-willed person who ordered people around and was her own boss,” Perry said.
The trial just started. He answered his own statement though. She may have been strong willed but was kept drugged because it was easier to control her.
Its too bad that the DA has to not only argue with the defense but the judge too.
Deputy District Attorney Renee Rose protested that she could understand the court’s rulings if the case was going to be decided by a judge. “But this is a case for a jury.” she said.
The judge told Rose he saw the issues in the case as limited to whether Smith was an addict who was getting too many drugs and whether prescriptions were obtained under false names.
The judge is limiting the states case?
He said he was unable to tell whether Smith’s demeanor in the 2004 American Music Awards videotape was the result of drugs or her normal acting style at staged events. He pointed out that a second video given to him by the defense showed Smith making statements four days later that the appearance helped her career.
“She’s fairly entertaining and at her voluptuous best,” Perry said. “It is, in the court’s view, a very strong representation of the Anna Nicole personality … My question is, is any of this real.”
I think its inappropriate for a judge to remark about any woman being “voluptuous.”
Of course its “real”, Anna Nicole nor her handlers cared about her appearing in public drunk, smashed or wasted on drugs. Some actually profited from it. Larry Birkhead included.
Perry went on to say, “The problem I have with this case is we have a very public figure …. We are a movie-watching, TV-watching nation. And as the defense has said, what we see on television is not always real.”
When jurors returned to the courtroom, they were shown the AMA video as well as a pre-interview in which Smith touted her weight loss on a product she was promoting. In both segments, she waved her arms and was speaking with a slight slur.
Judge Perry has ruled that numerous pieces of evidence can not be used. He barred the infamous “Clown Video”, he said the cause of her death could not be discussed even though the cause was “drug overdose”. Perry told experts and pharmacists to “tone down their remarks.” Why must those witnesses tone down their remarks when they are recounting what was actually said?
The defendants are claiming they did not know that Smith was an addict. Come on!
In an exclusive interview 10 years ago, Smith told ABC News that she had serious drug problems.
“I was on prescription pain medication and I was taking too much and I went into a coma for that,” she said.
Once an addict, always an addict!
Perry also barred a taped TV interview of Smith when she left the Betty Ford Center after treatment for drug and alcohol addiction in 1996. He said it was too far removed in time from events involved in the trial.
“For you to say this lady was loaded on drugs for 10 years before these people came along — I don’t know how this helps your case,” the judge told Rose. He said jurors could be told Smith had undergone treatment at the center.
Perry also said he was uncomfortable with the prosecution’s claim that the doctors violated the law by prescribing to Smith under assumed names. Witnesses are likely to testify that is the norm in the celebrity community.
“That’s not what this case is about,” Perry said. “The case is about were they overprescribing and was she addicted.”
Perry said he might allow a brief snippet of video from a party showing Kapoor nuzzling Smith. The prosecution claims the interaction shows a breakdown of the doctor-patient relationship.
The same allegation was raised regarding photos of Smith and Eroshevich naked in a bathtub together.
The judge asked for more legal briefs on whether the photos should be admitted to show the breakdown of the doctor-patient relationship. He said he felt they showed nothing sexual beyond depicting a “playful” relationship.
For the DA to say that Anna Nicole was an addict as long as ten years ago is actually good for the prosecutions case. It was established back then she was an addict and was an addict until the day she died of her addiction. However her death did not happen by her hand alone.
And saying that two naked women in a bath tub showed only a “playful” relationship is outrageous. But did Judge Perry really say that? E! Online reports the judge said, “”None of the jurors have gotten naked and got into the bathtub with their doctors,”"..
Did the judge say he was uncomfortable about the charge of prescriptions for Smith under assumed names? If its the law, it should be upheld. If the trio are found not guilty of the assumed name part, does that mean it will be a California free for all with doctors writing any name they want on a prescription?
“I don’t know why it wasn’t tried in Florida,” the judge said. I can not imagine a judge who has trouble with the prosecutions case wondering why the case was not tried in Florida. Does he mean a murder case? All three defendants are licensed to practice their trades in California. Most of the drug activity was in California. Their residences were in California. What happened in Florida was her death. So does Judge Perry believe Anna Nicole’s death should have been tried as a homicide? Or are we not getting the full picture?
The defendants reporter…
“Ms. Rose, you are overreaching,” he (Perry) said. “Time and again you are grasping at straws. I’m very concerned about the way this case is charged and being prosecuted. If you’re going to accuse someone, you should have some evidence.”
Rose responded, “We understand the court doesn’t like the way we are putting on our case, but we have a job to do.”
*******
Here’s a great article about the problem with “court managed media”, written by a “friend of Linda Deutsch.”
{ 13 comments }
It sickens me to read what the judge is saying. Does the judge ok drugs to be given out the way stern handed Anna the perscriptions and then she died?
I think you’re right both ways, QV. Anything Deutsch reports should be scrutinized for negativity. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any other reporters present that are reporting about the case on a daily basis.
I don’t know what to think about that judge, and I don’t give a flying flip if he reads this. When a witness takes the stand, they swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Here we have a judge saying “don’t do that because is would be inflammatory”. If it’s the truth, it needs to be heard…good, bad, or indifferent. The pharmacists told all three defendents the drug cocktail they were trying to obtain for Anna was a toxic mix, a time bomb, a killer. The judge is impeding expert testimony, IMO.
I hope to heck the jury is not as stupid as the judge seems to think they are. It’s sad but this California judge is beginning to sound more and more like the Bahamian judge……I can hear him now, “These are your only choices….”
Anna Nicole Smith Had “Clear-Cut Addiction Issues”
(CNS) Posted Monday August 30, 2010 – 6:45pm
http://67.59.172.92/article/Local_News/Local_News/Anna_Nicole_Smith_Had_ClearCut_Addiction_Issues/71013
Carol, I have heard “don’t write anything to piss off the judge”. He is presented with evidence and his mantra is “too inflammatory.” (As you said above) What the hell is going on?
How can it be inflammatory when something has been said and it is asked of the witness to repeat? We heard the phrase “pharmaceutical suicide” many months ago. Those actual words were used. but in a court of law they are too inflammatory???? I wonder what Judge Perry’s colleagues think of his actions?
So actually Stern can add Judge Perry to his defense team because the judge is doing a fine job defending the defendants.
Thangs. Thank you so much for this report. This is how court is supposed to be conducted. This expert makes his testimony and lays it out there without mincing words. Anna Nicole Smith had clear cut addiction issues. Applause for that guy. OMG. Did you read what even ET had to say? Brickhead deliberately stayed away from the word “addict”. Yet when he wanted the baby, that was a different story. I so hope the jury is noticing the lies. That is if the DA is being permitted to shove Brickheads lies right back in his face. I hope it was not too defamatory. What the judge should have been doing is asking him if he would liked to be charged with perjury?
It didn’t look like this guy was being sushed like everyone else is.
Oh and FORD SHELLEY IS A COWARD! I do applaud the judge for not letting that idiot testify in front of the jury. And bravo to Melanie Thompson. It sounds like she has more gonads than her brother in law.
QV…You’re welcome.
This is the real meat of this case. The doctors with real evidence to back up what they say not the BS we’ve been hearing from Brickhead.
Obviously Larry Birkhead and Ford Shelley have SOMETHING TO HIDE or they wouldn’t be LYING. We’ll find out one day, long after this trial is over and Stern turns on both of them….and he will turn on them.
Melanie Thompson must be one of the only ones with any morals in that group. Thank God there’s ONE.
As for the judge, he should be recused for his comments if he actually said what’s been reported.
Excellent article. I have watched many,many trials and have yet to see a judge act this way. He should have reclused himself if he did not like the case. I wonder if he has a little RX problem himself?
Something interesting, I was reading the warrants last night and learned that Kapoor was being investigated for RX writing abuse with 8 or 10 other patients. One patient’s mother had even contacted the medical board and said she was concerned because of the drugs they were dispensing to her daughter, an addict. She accompanied her daughter to a visit and the P.A. saw her and asked what prescription do you want today… no exam by Kapoor or the P.A… In my opinion, both Kapoor and E. do not deserve medical licenses.
Napoli, I totally agree. Good thinking that the judge might not want the doctors and drug pimps to have to stop getting drugs for addicts especially if they are high profile people. Anna Nicole’s autopsy did not show any disease or injury that would necessitate those types of drugs in those quantities. This trial has been a farce. There was another judge assigned the this trial and he ruled against dropping the conspiracy charge. Then they bring this judge back. I am a crime watcher too and I have never seen anything so corrupt in any trial I have watched or read about. Something stinks really bad.
I do not understand who makes the decisions which judge gets on and off but there was change after change on the civil cases Stern is involved in too.
This is LA and celebrity justice is tainted.
Perhaps there is bit of intimidation factor there too, with a huge defense team of 5 or 6 high profile lawyers versus 2 county employees, the prosecutors. .
I do not understand the latest though about the law changing in 2006 and how that would affect this case. Most of the overt acts occurred sometime in 2006 or before, the media did not report when exactly in 2006 the law changed, but I think this must help the prosecution as I knew that prescribing controlled substances to an addict for pain was legal. However, medical protocol requires testing to be done to find the reason for the pain. She could have had a cancerous tumor growing and they would have never known it because from what I understand Kapoor did no medical tests or exams. And E. didn’t even have records.
California Pain Laws
http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/pain/calpainlaws.html
Linda Deutsch was very pro Phil Spector, and pro OJ for that matter. I think she has *** in her eyes. However, the * in this case is dead, and the defendants are 1. a professional leech 2. two incompetent doctors who probably use drugs and have no problem prescribing it to their friend,a celebrity and faux patient.
The power of celebrity is very very strong. So is the power of drugs. Hopefully the jury was screened carefully and are not on drugs themselves. (Sometimes I wonder about the judge. ) Clearly, the 3 amigos broke the law over and over… their beloved Anna Nicole is dead because of their actions.
L.A. has a problem prosecuting celebrities. These are not celebrities but the docs represent two of many faux docs recklessly prescribing controlled substances for money/friends/celebrities.
California would be remiss in not prosecuting this case. Just as FL is remiss in not charging anyone with manslaughter for Anna Nicole’s death.
Regarding Sprocket, and what she had to say about Linda:
“I’ve often seen Linda in very warm conversations with virtually every member of the defense team on this case.”
I believe she was referring to the defense team on the Phil Spector case, and not the present case.
Yes, thanks Kathy. It’s in a block quote so hopefully others will understand as well.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }