The Last Picture Of Daniel Alive

Here are a second batch of documents from the Inquest into the death of Anna Nicole Smith’s son Daniel Wayne Smith who died less than 12 hours after arriving in the Bahamas to see his new baby sister.

1. Anna Nicole Smith’s statement(s) to the Bahamian Police Department.

2. Larry Birkhead’s statement to the Bahamian Police Department.

3. Howard K. Stern’s statement(s) to the Bahamian Police Department (There appears to be pages missing in this one).

4. The summation from The Court. A must read where the “Court” tells the jurors what verdict to come back with…

5. Howard K. Stern’s testimony as previously published but with the court and lawyer discussion added in.

6. Court and lawyer discussion 23 pages.

7. Larry Birkhead’s testimony as previously published but with the court and lawyer discussion added in.

Please click here to read the inquest transcripts… 

Anna Nicole Smith Baha PD Statement

Larry Birkhead Baha PD Statement

Howard K Stern Baha PD Statement

Daniel Smith Inquest Summation

Daniel Smith Inquest Stern w Court Discussion Included

Daniel Smith Inquest Court Lawyer Discussion 23pgs

Daniel Smith Inquest Birkhead With Court Discussion Incl 80pgs

These are transcripts from the Bahamian inquest into the death of Anna Nicole Smith’s son, Daniel Wayne Smith, who tragically died several hours after he arrived in the Bahamas to see his three day old baby sister. This is not the whole inquest but what is here should be complete and relevant testimony.

Please click here to read the inquest transcripts…

Daniel Smith Inquest Larry Birkhead Testimony

Daniel Smith Inquest Howard K Stern Testimony

Daniel Smith Inquest 129 Pgs

Daniel Smith Inquest 113 Pgs

Daniel Smith Inquest 100 Pgs

Daniel Smith Inquest 73 Pgs

Daniel Smith Inquest 45 Pgs

Question: What do Virgie Arthur and Michael Lohan have in common?

Answer: Both are parents of celebrity drug addicted children who have used mainstream media in an attempt to save the lives of their children.

Virgie Arthur, the mother of late model and actress Anna Nicole Smith, spent her daughter’s adulthood worrying about her. The two women ended up with a contentious relationship due to Anna Nicole’s drug use and Mrs. Arthur’s attempts to help her stop using. However, according to court records, they never completely severed ties.

The situation exploded into tragedy September 10th, 2006 when Anna Nicole’s son, Daniel Wayne Smith died suddenly of a methadone overdose within hours of arriving in the Bahamas to meet his three day old baby sister, Dannielynn.

Daniel Smith was not a drug user or abuser. A Bahamian inquest commenced and Doctor Lee Hern, lab director for the Miami-Dade County medical examiner’s office, said he felt Daniel’s death was the result of an “intentional” overdose. However all parties agreed that Daniel’s death was not a suicide. Daniel would have had to take six to eight 10mg tablets for the levels of methadone found in his body. Dr Hern testified that Daniel was not a habitual drug user and he had never seen anyone take methadone on a recreational basis in that quantity. There was fresh bruising on Daniels body that has never been explained and was not due to resuscitation efforts.

Mrs. Arthur’s attorney Neil McCabe, stated in court filings that after Daniel died, Anna Nicole tried calling her mother to tell her about his death. Mrs. Arthur was unable to answer the phone so Anna Nicole attempted to leave a message. The message stops when the call was abruptly disconnected by Howard K. Stern. Mrs. Arthur was in fear for Anna Nicole’s life but was never able to reach her daughter again.

Desperate to warn Anna Nicole, Mrs. Arthur, a retired 26 year Harris County, Texas Sheriffs Deputy went to the media in an attempt to get a message to her daughter. She told her to be careful of the people who surround her or she may be next. Mrs. Arthur’s worst fear came true on February 8th, 2007 when her world famous daughter also died of a drug overdose. Mrs. Arthur’s unmarried daughter’s body was given in the end to two men who enrich themselves exploiting Anna Nicole’s memory. Mrs. Arthur is not permitted to see her granddaughter Dannielynn and those same two men use that adorable innocent child just like a miniature Anna Nicole aka cash cow.

The State of California is now prosecuting Howard K.Stern for eleven felony counts in connection with obtaining and supplying the drugs that killed Anna Nicole Smith. The State of California under Marsy’s law, has notified Mrs. Arthur that she is next of kin for the criminal proceedings which start August 4th, 2010. The father of Smith’s daughter Dannielynn could also apply on his daughter’s behalf for next of kin status however, Birkhead has proclaimed his support for Stern even though some of the most damning evidence of enabling Anna Nicole’s drug abuse originated with Birkhead in his attempt to be recognized as the father of Dannielynn.

Lindsay Lohan, a child actress who starred in popular movies such as, “The Parent Trap”, “Freaky Friday” and “Herby: Fully Loaded” has also drifted down the wrong road to alcohol and substance abuse. In 2006, Lindsay was known to have been attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. But by July of 2007, she had three stints of rehab under her belt*. By August of the same year, she pled guilty to possession of cocaine and DUI. She admitted that her life had become unmanageable due to being addicted to alcohol and drugs.

Most recently Lindsay has been sentenced by Judge Marsha Revel in LA Superior Court to 90 days in county jail and 90 days in a substance abuse program for violating probation after she missed seven court-ordered weekly alcohol counseling sessions during the 27 week period between December 2009 and July 2010.

Unlike the Anna Nicole Smith case where her lawyer/companion Howard K. Stern, (along with his sister Bonnie Stern, Journalist Art Harris,  Harvey Levin of  TMZ and Larry Birkhead) conspired to assassinate Arthur’s character with manufactured information using the media in order to turn public opinion against her, Michael Lohan comes forward attempting to save his daughter with his own set of problems.

Link to Michael Lohan’s letter to the judge in Lindsay’s case.

* Wiki Lindsay Lohan

**New York Daily News

***USMagazine

February 5th is the day trial is scheduled to begin for Howard K. Stern and doctors Sandeep Kapoor and Khristine Eroshevich for felony charges related to the drug overdose death of Anna Nicole Smith. Its anyone’s guess as to whether it will go forward at that time.

But, here’s a clue! America’s favorite “pimp-daddy”, Larry Birkhead made an appearance on Access Hollywood seemingly to proclaim Stern’s innocence and throw the doctors under the bus.

Even though Birkhead acknowledges that Stern “wreaked havoc” on his life, he proclaims that he would be shocked if anything “came down” saying that Stern hurt Anna Nicole or her son Daniel Wayne Smith who both died of drug overdoses.

In contrast,  pathologists testified at an inquest into Daniels death that no evidence was found proving Daniel to be a drug abuser.

Birkhead, on Stern injecting Anna Nicole: Never once did I see Howard inject Anna Nicole. I think we will hear a lot of colorful things from a lot of colorful people. I did hear that was said…about Howard injecting her.. when they get cross examined, we’ll see how they hold up.

Perhaps Birkhead didn’t see it, but at the preliminary hearing for the upcoming trial, Anna Nicole’s bodyguard Maurice Brighthaupt testified that he saw Howard K. Stern cook a crushed Valium pill in a spoon and also saw him inject her four or five times in the months leading up to her death. He also saw Eroshevich inject a substance into Anna Nicole.

About the doctors who prescribed the medicines.. “they were friends of Anna Nicole, also her doctor(s). I was witness to things regarding their interaction and I think that’s probably what might be of interest in the case and some of the other things that go along with the time line.”

Mark Speer, a highly decorated retired Los Angeles County Sheriffs Deputy swore in Howard K. Stern’s lawsuit against Rita Cosby for the book Blonde Ambition, that Birkhead gave him a needle that was used to inject Anna Nicole to hold for safe keeping. He ended up taking it back after Speer spoke to the DEA about the needle and they showed no interest.

Speer testified that the finger prints of TrimSpa owner Alex Goen might be found on the needle and vial and also that he believes that Larry Birkhead was “bought off”.

In what was believed to be a last ditch attempt on Howard K. Stern’s part to silence Speer in his suit against Cosby, Stern filed a  lawsuit before Speer was to give his deposition. Stern eventually dismissed the lawsuit against Speer. In a press release, Speer said, “I am delighted that the frivolous lawsuit brought against me by Howard K. Stern has appropriately been dismissed. I stand behind all the statements I have made in this case. I am glad truth prevailed.”

Stern also dismissed his lawsuit against Rita Cosby. Stern’s criminal attorney, Steven Sadow is fond of stating to the media that “settlement” terms are confidential. However, the document ending the case states that it is dismissed in its entirety without costs going to either party. Does that sound like a “settlement”?

Daniel Wayne Smith was born in Mexia, Texas on Jan. 22, 1986 to Billy and Vicki Lynn Smith aka Anna Nicole Smith. He spent the first six years of his life living with his grandmother, Virgie Arthur whom he adored, due to his mother working nights and starting a career that would eventually propel her to stardom.

From all accounts, Daniel was a shy and well mannered boy having the same interests as most boys his age. Living in California, Daniel was a star in his own right. He was the step-son of billionaire J. Howard Marshall. He was a somewhat reluctant cast member in his mother’s E! Entertainment Channel television program, The Anna Nicole Show during the 2002 and 2003 seasons. His shy demeanor and quiet ways endeared him to all who watched the show. He played movie roles in “To the Limit” (1995) and “Skyscraper” (1996). Later he worked as an Associate Producer in the movie, “Illegal Aliens” which was released in 2007.

As Daniel grew older, his mother reported that Daniel was very intelligent and a “straight A Honor Student”. Daniel loved electronics and music and was hardly ever seen without his IPod, reports a close family friend. He loved to play and mastered even the most complex video games. His interest in film making started early after seeing the movie “Jaws”. Daniel loved horror movies like most young men, but as a young boy, they frightened him until the friend explained the movie making process to him. From then on, he was hooked. “He wanted to become a director so that he could make people feel things he was feeling”. Daniel is pictured here on the set of “Illegal Aliens”.

When Daniel’s mother Anna Nicole Smith moved to the Bahamas in 2006, Daniel stayed behind in Studio City, California with family friend and the producer of “To the Limit and “Skyscraper”, Ray Martino. Daniel was attending Los Angeles Valley Community College. Rumors have circulated that Daniel was planning to attend a California state college. However, a horrible tragedy struck that forever changed many lives and continues to invoke controversy to this day.

On September 7th, Daniel’s mother, Anna Nicole Smith, gave birth to a baby girl. Daniel was happy and excited to visit his mother and new baby sister. He flew from California to Nassau Bahamas. He arrived late on September 9th, 2006 at around 11:00 p.m. He posed for pictures with his mother and the baby who at the time was to be named Hannah Rose. He visited with them, played with the baby whom he had instantly fallen in love with so much so he did not want her taken out of the room. He was seen by a nurse at around 6:20 a.m. “attending to his mother’s comfort”.. At 9:38 am, Anna Nicole awoke and saw that Daniel was not breathing. Hospital personnel tried in vain for 22 minutes to revive Daniel. He was pronounced dead at 10:05 a.m. One of the last sentences he reportedly uttered was, “why am I so tired”, according to Howard K. Stern who was the only other person consistently in the hospital room besides Anna Nicole during Daniel’s visit and when he was found unconscious and unresponsive.

The controversy surrounding Daniel’s death continues to this day. Dr. Cyril Wecht was hired by Howard K. Stern to do a private autopsy on Daniel and said the cause of death was “a lethal combination of Methadone, Zoloft and Lexapro”.

Dr. Lee Hern testified at the Bahamian Inquest for Daniel and had a very different opinion. “But for the methadone he (Daniel) would not have died,” said Dr Hern, who said he did not believe the 20-year-old was a habitual user of the drug. Under questioning, Dr Hern, the lab director for the Miami-Dade County medical examiner’s office, said he felt Mr Smith’s death was the result of an “intentional” overdose. However all parties agreed that Daniel’s death was not a suicide. A courtroom witness stated that Daniel would have had to take six to eight 10mg tablets for the levels of methadone found in his body. Dr Hern testified that Daniel was not a habitual drug user and he had never seen anyone take methadone on a recreational basis in that quantity. The Bahamian jury was given few options for a decision and came back with a verdict of “non-dependant drug use”.

Daniel Smith indeed was not a drug abuser. He had hopes and dreams for the future. He was excited about the birth of his sister. The family friend said, “He was a good kid and even at 20 years old, he had a kid’s imagination. He was gaining a reputation of being a special person all on his own, separate from the rep his mom had. People were looking at him as a man in his own right, and not just as the son of Anna Nicole Smith. And Vicki Lynn was so proud of him for that, because that was something he alone was responsible for. She knew Daniel was going to have the burden of her baggage on his shoulders for the rest of his life, but he was already making accomplishments that put him above all that. He was going to be someone important. Anna believed it and we all believed it”.

Anna Nicole Smith who died five months after her son’s tragic and unexpected death, renamed her baby daughter in honor of her son. Dannielynn Hope Marshall Birkhead now resides with her father Larry.

Today is the two year (update, three year) anniversary of Daniel’s death. Although it was reported by major news outlets that his body was being prepped to be taken back to California from the Bahamas, he lies with his mother, in a strange country and in an unmarked grave (update, the grave now has a marker). His last words to the man whom he trusted, Ray Martino, as he boarded a flight to the Bahamas were, “don’t leave me there”.

The Honorable Judge Denny Chin of New York’s Southern District Federal Court rendered his decision yesterday in the case of Howard K. Stern vs Rita Cosby and Hachette Books, on Cosby and Hachette’s motions for Summary Judgment.

Hachette Books won their motion and are dismissed from the case. Judge Chin found that a book publisher has no obligation to investigate a book author’s sources.

Cosby’s motion was granted in part and denied in part.

The dismissal of Hachette naturally has the affect of reducing any award that Stern may reap if this case, barring settlement goes to trial if by chance he would win any of the remaining counts he cites as defamatory.

Stern said Cosby attributed the following to him in his original complaint about her book.

1. Criminal Lewd Act and Homosexuality

2. Videotaped Homosexual Act

3. Illegal Cocaine Use

4. Filing a false police report

5. Conspiracy to Commit Murder

6. Perjury

7. Pimping

8. Fraudulent Inducement for Prostitution

9. Obstruction of Justice and Destruction of Evidence

10. Theft Money Laundering and Wire Fraud

11. Fraudulent and Perjurious Statements Regarding Dannielynn’s Paternity

12. Kidnapping for Ransom

13. Extortion or Blackmail of Larry Birkhead

14. Drugging Anna Nicole

15. Criminal Involvement in the Death of Anna Nicole Smith As Evidenced by Financial Motive

16. Criminal Involvement in the Death of Anna Nicole Smith As Evidenced by Financial Motive (this is listed twice in the original complaint)

17. Criminal Involvement in the Death of Anna Nicole Smith As Evidenced by the Fax of Ms. Smith’s Will (Five Days Before Her Death).

18. Criminal Involvement in the Death of Daniel Smith

19. Criminal Involvement in the Death of Anna Nicole Smith

Judge Chin makes note that as the non-moving party, the court construes all facts in a light most favorable to Stern.

Cosby’s motion for summary judgment was granted as to Statements 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 14. Summary Judgment was denied as to Statements 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. The later are the issues that will be before a jury if this case goes to trial.

Thinking of how close any of us who follow the Anna Nicole cases could have came to having a copy of one “smoking gun”, which became counts One and Two is regretful. Mine personally is that I did not save the video displayed on former Bahamian resident Lincoln Bain aka Mr. Controversy’s site. Nor had anyone else who I asked.

The video was replaced with a disclaimer that it had been edited. Although Bain assured his readers the full and unedited interviews with Anna Nicole’s nannies, Quethlie Alexis and Nadine Alexie would be placed back on his website, it never happened.

Lincoln Bain, who previously voiced his opinion that Howard K. Stern is homosexual ended up becoming a spokesman for the two women and was instrumental in foiling any attempts that Rita Cosby made to get sworn affidavits from them. Bain then mysteriously became a “so called” reporter for journalist Art Harris. Harris has written on his blog that Howard K. Stern shared his innermost secrets with him, leaving inquiring minds to wonder what happened to cause Bain’s change of heart regarding his criticism of Howard K. Stern.

I can say that because I was fortunate enough to speak to a couple of different sources who attended the inquest into the death of Daniel Smith. Bain’s reporting on Harris’s site about the inquest greatly differed from what I was told. Read the series here, here and here and here and here and here.

Shortly after the conclusion of the inquest and 15 minutes of fame on Fox News where Bain did a 180* about the two nannies from his original reporting,  Bain closed his website down and has claimed to have left the Bahamas to move to the UK. The two nannies also disappeared and have not been heard from.

Judge Chin’s 58 page opinion says that a jury should hear what encompasses the questions of whether Cosby was reckless and acted with malice in publishing certain portions of the book or was wrong to rely on certain sources who told her that:

• Stern and Larry Birkhead are homosexual and Anna Nicole frequently watched a video of Stern and Birkhead engaging in gay sex.
• Stern acted as a pimp and collected money from numerous men in exchange for sex with Anna Nicole.
• Stern lied about being the father of Dannielynn.
• Stern is responsible for the deaths of Anna Nicole and her son Daniel Wayne Smith.
• Stern embezzled money from Anna Nicole and sent it to offshore bank accounts.
• Stern had Anna Nicole’s will faxed to him five days before her death..

Judge Chin dismissed the following counts and said that Cosby was not reckless or acting with malice and a jury will not hear when she wrote:

• Stern and Anna Nicole were users of cocaine.
• …in regard to the conviction of Mark Hatten for assault and stalking Anna Nicole. Also that Stern tried to get Hatten to murder Pierce Marshall who was fighting a multiple year battle over her late wealthy husbands millions.
• That Stern perjured himself on the stand in the February 2007 Florida burial hearing when he falsely denied being paid for an interview by Entertainment Tonight.
• Stern destroyed evidence by flushing pills down the toilet he reportedly found in Daniel Smith’s pocket after he mysteriously died.
• Stern offered Birkhead custody of Dannielynn and other enticements in return for Birkhead leaving him as executor of Anna Nicole’s estate.
• That Daniel Smith told “someone” Stern kept feeding his mother drugs and that he controlled Anna Nicole like a “Svengali”.

While Stern is busy defending himself in Los Angles Superior court along with two of Anna Nicole Smith’s doctors, Sandeep Kapoor and Khristine Eroshevich, for felony drug charges in connection with the drug overdose death of Anna Nicole Smith, he will also continue to litigate this case with the next hearing being a pre-trial conference in Chin’s court on September 11th at 12:00 pm.

Just picked up a copy of US Weekly magazine. This blog does not correctly process question marks in the title. If possible, I would have placed a big question mark ??? behind the “Tombstone for Anna Nicole” part.

US magazine published a story about the arrival of Dannielynn’s 2nd birthday. She sure is a cutie and I hope she had a wonderful time.

As I read the article, I came upon this paragraph quoting Larry Birkhead;

What does this birthday mean to you?

…Today I’m toy shopping; last week I was tombstone shopping for Anna’s grave. [He and Howard K. Stern plan to put it on her Bahamian grave to commemorate what would have been her 41st birthday on November 28]

One glaring omission stood out to me. Just a tombstone for Anna Nicole? What about Daniel?

The second thing that stood out is, just last week, Larry was “tombstone shopping”.

On August 15th, I wrote this article. It explained that on June 20th 2007, Art Harris of artharris.com wrote an article announcing the search for a “Flawless, 7 X 8 Foot Slab of Granite; Stern and Birkhead Hunt “Perfect” Memorial; TBD Anna & Daniel Photo To Be Etched in Stone”.

January 5th 2008, a Howard K. Stern propaganda site published the name of the company who was to make the stone. Subsequently, myself and a fellow blogger Kerry, learned that not only was the company who was cited not in the process of making a stone for Anna and Daniel but a stone of the size reported is not even permitted in the cemetery where they are buried.

Now Larry has announced yet another stone for Anna Nicole. Perhaps they will follow through this time after all the false alarms and stories released to the press that have never happened. Hopefully there will also be a stone for Daniel.

Here is another quote that caught my eye;

What’s it like being a first-time father?

It’s tough. And I’m under a microscope. Everything I do is judged. When I first got Dannielynn, she loved to be held facing forward, so I would hold her that way. And I would go on the blogs, which I’ve leaned not to do, and people would say, “Larry doesn’t even know how to hold his baby!”

I have to agree with Larry. Public perception is everything when you make your living in the limelight. That’s why it’s pathetic when a public figure is caught lying. It ruins reputations and can result in loss of income.

Larry had a few things to say about Virgie Arthur. She is Dannielynn’s grandmother who has not been permitted to see the baby since Larry and Howard K. Stern became best buddies. Which is somewhat bizarre after the claims that Larry made against Howard during the burial hearings and to the Bahamian police department. Larry claims there is a custody battle between Virgie and himself in the Bahamas. Is there?

Larry also claims “You have these people fighting for your daughter trying to take money from her“. Very strong and unproven words about a woman who lost her daughter and grandson in the space of five months on your best buddy’s watch. Not nice Larry. Not nice at all.

Daniel Wayne Smith was born in Mexia, Texas on Jan. 22, 1986 to Billy and Vicki Lynn Smith aka Anna Nicole Smith. He spent the first six years of his life living with his grandmother, Virgie Arthur whom he adored, due to his mother working nights and starting a career that would eventually propel her to stardom.

From all accounts, Daniel was a shy and well mannered boy having the same interests as most boys his age. Living in California, Daniel was a star in his own right. He was the step-son of billionaire J. Howard Marshall. He was a somewhat reluctant cast member in his mother’s E! Entertainment Channel television program, The Anna Nicole Show during the 2002 and 2003 seasons. His shy demeanor and quiet ways endeared him to all who watched the show. He played movie roles in “To the Limit” (1995) and “Skyscraper” (1996). Later he worked as an Associate Producer in the movie, “Illegal Aliens” which was released in 2007.

As Daniel grew older, his mother reported that Daniel was very intelligent and a “straight A Honor Student”. Daniel loved electronics and music and was hardly ever seen without his IPod, reports a close family friend. He loved to play and mastered even the most complex video games. His interest in film making started early after seeing the movie “Jaws”. Daniel loved horror movies like most young men, but as a young boy, they frightened him until the friend explained the movie making process to him. From then on, he was hooked. “He wanted to become a director so that he could make people feel things he was feeling”. Daniel is pictured here on the set of “Illegal Aliens”.

When Daniel’s mother Anna Nicole Smith moved to the Bahamas in 2006, Daniel stayed behind in Studio City, California with family friend and the producer of “To the Limit and “Skyscraper”, Ray Martino. Daniel was attending Los Angeles Valley Community College. Rumors have circulated that Daniel was planning to attend a California state college. However, a horrible tragedy struck that forever changed many lives and continues to invoke controversy to this day.

On September 7th, Daniel’s mother, Anna Nicole Smith, gave birth to a baby girl. Daniel was happy and excited to visit his mother and new baby sister. He flew from California to Nassau Bahamas. He arrived late on September 9th, 2006 at around 11:00 p.m. He posed for pictures with his mother and the baby who at the time was to be named Hannah Rose. He visited with them, played with the baby whom he had instantly fallen in love with so much so he did not want her taken out of the room. He was seen by a nurse at around 6:20 a.m. “attending to his mother’s comfort”.. At 9:38 am, Anna Nicole awoke and saw that Daniel was not breathing. Hospital personnel tried in vain for 22 minutes to revive Daniel. He was pronounced dead at 10:05 a.m. One of the last sentences he reportedly uttered was, “why am I so tired”, according to Howard K. Stern who was the only other person consistently in the hospital room besides Anna Nicole during Daniel’s visit and when he was found unconscious and unresponsive.

The controversy surrounding Daniel’s death continues to this day. Dr. Cyril Wecht was hired to do a private autopsy on Daniel and said the cause of death was “a lethal combination of Methadone, Zoloft and Lexapro”. However Dr. Wecht was indicted on 84 federal charges of criminal fraud. The trial resulted in a hung jury but reports from this September 5th, 2008 article, say prosecutors are planning on a retrial leaving Wecht’s opinion open to suspicion for many.

Dr. Lee Hern testified at the Bahamian Inquest for Daniel and had a very different opinion. “But for the methadone he (Daniel) would not have died,” said Dr Hern, who said he did not believe the 20-year-old was a habitual user of the drug. Under questioning, Dr Hern, the lab director for the Miami-Dade County medical examiner’s office, said he felt Mr Smith’s death was the result of an “intentional” overdose. However all parties agreed that Daniel’s death was not a suicide. A courtroom witness stated that Daniel would have had to take six to eight 10mg tablets for the levels of methadone found in his body. Dr Hern testified that Daniel was not a habitual drug user and he had never seen anyone take methadone on a recreational basis in that quantity. The Bahamian jury was given few options for a decision and came back with a verdict of “non-dependant drug use”.

Daniel Smith indeed was not a drug abuser. He had hopes and dreams for the future. He was excited about the birth of his sister. The family friend said, “He was a good kid and even at 20 years old, he had a kid’s imagination.  He was gaining a reputation of being a special person all on his own, separate from the rep his mom had.  People were looking at him as a man in his own right, and not just as the son of Anna Nicole Smith.  And Vicki Lynn was so proud of him for that, because that was something he alone was responsible for.  She knew Daniel was going to have the burden of her baggage on his shoulders for the rest of his life, but he was already making accomplishments that put him above all that.  He was going to be someone important.  Anna believed it and we all believed it”.

Anna Nicole Smith who died five months after her son’s tragic and unexpected death, renamed her baby daughter in honor of her son. Dannielynn Hope Marshall Birkhead now resides with her father Larry.

Today is the two year anniversary of Daniel’s death. Although it was reported by major news outlets that his body was being prepped to be taken back to California from the Bahamas, he lies with his mother, in a strange country and in an unmarked grave. His last words to the man whom he trusted, Ray Martino, as he boarded a flight to the Bahamas were, “don’t leave me there”.

Those of us who have been following the investigations and subsequent lawsuits surrounding the deaths of Anna Nicole Smith and her son Daniel Wayne Smith have at one time or another been threatened with exposure to lawsuits, physical violence and other sundry unmentionable acts. At times, I have felt embarrassed, humiliated, angered, outraged, amused and frustrated. But lately the dominant emotion has been disbelief. Disbelief, that human beings can behave in a manner that I never imagined before joining the list of interested citizens reading and voicing my opinion on the subject.

Many have expressed their frustration over the perception that their fundamental right to free speech has been threatened and at times thwarted by persons involved in this whole mess of a media and legal circus. Most of these rants have no basis in fact or law and the problem is easily remedied by simply clicking on the “red x” in the corner and retiring with a good book. But not all the concerns expressed can be so casually dismissed. As tawdry and at times silly as some of this is, there are profound legal and moral issues involved.

( Need not be registered to comment but see rules below. Thank you.)

As soon as Mr. Lin Wood signed on as Howard K. Stern’s attorney, he issued a statement that many [at that time] believed was meant to intimidate the media and bloggers into silence. That’s a “chilling effect”.

Web sites such as RoseSpeaks and The Bald Truth started researching anyone who publicly uttered damaging information about Howard K. Stern. No one was off limits. Not even Mr. Ford Shelly’s child. These web sites then published that information no matter how irrelevant or immaterial the “uncovered” information was. As long as it was damaging to the person, it was fair game. That’s a “chilling effect”.

Back in September of 2007, about 20 to 30 regular posters on TMZ were banned en mass at the same time for no discernable reason. “Butterfly” posted a comment that she was asked to compile a list of names of those posters who were “anti-stern”. She said that she subsequently did so and, “poof” they were gone. That’s a “chilling effect”.

I know that Kerry and I were warned by Rose Turner after she misidentified us, that we were now “fair game” as limited public officials. That’s a “chilling effect”.

Both Mr. Harris and Ms. Turner published false information that the Magistrate presiding over the Bahamas inquest into the death of Daniel Smith had asked the public to identify themselves and that bloggers who did not do so might be arrested and sent to jail. The only motivation that I can even begin to imagine was that they did not want anyone to attend a public hearing into the death of an American citizen in a foreign country. That’s a “chilling effect”.

Mr. J. Nazarian, the private investigator for Mr. Howard K. Stern began to openly post comments on numerous websites read and visited by bloggers interested in the story. Suffice to say that his posts were not warm, fuzzy vignettes about life as a P.I. That’s a “chilling effect”.

Someone stole the contents of garbage cans from in front of the home of Wilma Vicedomine who is involved in Mrs. Arthur’s legal defense. Mr. Harris bragged that pictures of the garbage might soon be available via his website and Mr. Nazarian wrote about the contents in a post. That’s a “chilling effect”.

Professionals used their state licenses to obtain personal information and then posted that information on public message boards and internet sites. That’s a “chilling effect.”

But the one that bothers me the most is the constant refrain from Rose Turner, Art Harris, J. Nazarian and members of her site that “we have your IP information and we know who you are. That is not just a “chilling effect”. That’s an, I’m going to scared the hell out of you effect.

Kerry and I wanted to write an article titled “Share & Compare” exploring the possibility that information was exchanged between site owners and then turned over to legal representatives of Mr. Stern. We reached out to many of you and asked that you share your personal story with us. The response was overwhelming and frankly a bit frightening.

I was deeply troubled by the universal belief that an orchestrated attempt had been made to stifle free speech and to scare citizens into silence. Because so many of you took the situation so seriously, I decided to do no less. It was obvious that a short article was not going to suffice. So instead Kerry and I began to research, ask questions and prepare a detailed analysis of the issues involved.

I reached out to QV and asked if she would be willing to provide a forum to discuss what did and did not happen. What the legal ramifications are. Why it is important. And whether or not there is any available redress for those who feel victimized by this whole mess.

Hopefully we will all learn what the legal limits are. The moral limits are the responsibility of the individual.

Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [1]

Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution guarantees four freedoms: freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791. With these words The Founding Fathers sought to establish a government under which its citizens could speak and write freely without fear of reprisal. The dictionary defines “speech” as “the faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words”[2]

The French Historian and writer, Voltaire famously articulated the philosophy behind the principle of free speech in the 1700′s with these words, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire understood that if someone can be censored today for expressing an unpopular idea, then tomorrow you or I could suffer the same fate.

As early as 1644, John Milton spoke of the supreme significance of free speech in society when he said, “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”[3]

In 1689 the English Parliament secured a Bill of Rights from the Monarchs William and Mary. One of the rights that they fought to obtain was the “freedom of speech in Parliament.” Under our Constitution that freedom was taken further and granted to all citizens.

George Washington himself addressed the issue of Free Speech stating,

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we maybe led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

The fact that “freedom of speech” is contained in the first amendment to the Constitution is no accident. President Thomas Jefferson reaffirmed this principle in his inaugural address in 1801 stressing that censorship should never be used as a means to change pubic opinion. Instead he argued that Reason is the only legitimate tool.

“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

In “The First Freedom,” Nat Hentoff quotes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson:

“I am really mortified that the sale of a book can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry, too. Are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold and what we may buy? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched?”

In an address to the Congress during World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt reiterated the importance of free speech. He spoke of his desire that the four freedoms articulated in the First Amendment to the Constitution be expanded and embraced throughout the world.

“We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression-everywhere in the world.”

More recently Salman Rushdie fourth novel, “The Satanic Verses, published in 1988 led to violent protest in several Muslim countries and a fatwa issued against him by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then the Supreme Leader of Iran. This religious edict called for Mr. Rushdie’s death and as a consequence he was forced to live in hiding for nearly a decade.[4] In spite of this, Mr. Rushdie is unwavering in his defense of Free Speech saying,

“Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself.”

The Foundation of Free Speech in the Fight for American Independence

In order to understand how important the framers of the constitution and the courts viewed the right of anonymous speech one must look to the historical media prevalent at the time. Before the advent of electronic communications ideas and opinions were expressed through speeches, books and pamphleteering. .

Historically, a pamphlet is a small unbound booklet or leaflet comprised of a few pages loosely stitched together. They were brief and written in such a style that they were easily understood by the masses. They were sold very cheaply and used to disseminate information and as a means for the expression of opinions on the important issues of the day. Pamphlets usually had large printings and wide circulation. They could be read aloud, discussed and passed from one person to another. “Pamphlets became a significant means of mass communication and an essential vehicle for carrying on political debates in colonial America.”[5]

George Orwell a prolific pamphleteer wrote,

“The pamphlet is a one-man show. One has complete freedom of expression, including, if one chooses, the freedom to be scurrilous, abusive, and seditious; or, on the other hand, to be more detailed, serious and “high-brow” than is ever possible in a newspaper or in most kinds of periodicals…”[6]

Pamphleteering enjoyed its greatest success and popularity during the 17th and 18th centuries. Pamphlets were widely used as a means of political dissent and debate during the English Civil War and the American and French Revolutions. They were also a common tool employed to spread the ideas of the Enlightenment. During this time period writers such as Joseph Addison, Richard Steele, and Jonathan Swift produced numerous pamphlets. The French Revolution was fiercely debated among intellectuals in England; Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France 1790, a vehement denunciation of the revolt, was answered by Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man 1791-92, addressed to working people, which became the most widely read work of its time.[7]

“From pamphlets may be learned the genius of the age, the debates of the learned, the bevues of government, and mistakes of the courtiers. . . . they carry a reputation of wit and learning to allthat make them their companions.”[8]

It was in this form — as pamphlets — that much of the most important writings and ideas were disseminated during the American Revolution. The use of the pamphlet allowed one to do things that were not possible in any other form. They were used by many to express a heated personification of the larger conflicts and issues of the times. This would then result in a contentious serious of individual exchanges through pamphlets — arguments, replies, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals. These characteristically proceeded with increasing shrillness until it ended in bitter personal vituperation. First and foremost, the American pamphleteers, were amateurs and it is this amateurism, this lack of practiced technique that explains much of the crudeness of the Revolutionary pamphlets.[9]

In 1776, American writer and human rights advocate Thomas Paine published a radical pamphlet called, ‘Common Sense’. This pamphlet is the most coherent statement to date of American independence views and historical scholars believe that its writing and dissemination changed the course of history in the United States.[10]

A very important feature of pamphleteering was that the author could remain anonymous if they chose to do so. Even if the writer(s) of the pamphlet claimed authorship of the document they could escape retaliation by the Crown and its representatives because of the ‘on the run’ nature of publishing that the pamphleteer employed. The role of anonymous pamphleteers in the building of our nation has been recognized by the highest court in the land.

“Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind.”[11]

Free Speech = Anonymous Speech

While most of us are aware from basic American Civic classes that the Constitution contains an amendment guaranteeing the right to free speech, when talking to many of you it was apparent that the right to “anonymous speech” was not fully understood by everyone. The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. In fact, “…all of the Federalist Papers were signed by Publius, a pseudonym representing the trio of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay .”[12] Anonymity of speech is important because without it a person(s) would hesitate to say certain things or expose unpopular ideas for fear of retribution.

The courts have consistently upheld the concept that free speech and anonymous speech are bound together and protected under the constitution. Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment.

1919

The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” [13]

1974

Don’t underestimate the common man. People are intelligent enough to evaluate the source of an anonymous writing. They cansee it is anonymous. They know it is anonymous. They can evaluate its anonymity along with its message, as long as they are permitted, as they must be, to read that message. And then, once they have done so,it is for them to decide what is `responsible’, what is valuable, and what is truth.[14]

1978

“Inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual.”[15]

1995

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society. [16]

1999

“People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other so long as those acts are not in violation of the law. This ability to speak one’s mind without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one’s identity can foster open communication and robust debate.” [17]

Limits on Free Speech

United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary.[18] The courts have ruled that both state and federal governments have the right to enact statues that limit certain narrowly defined types of speech but these limits are very specific and the courts have generally been reluctant to impede the free exercise of speech.

Unlike many other democracies the government in the United States of America is expressly forbidden from restricting speech. Court rulings that involve limitations on the free exchange of ideas and thoughts have broadly followed the philosophy that reason and free speech should prevail over fear and censorship.

“Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.”[19]

Our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.[20]

Though government cannot regulate the content of speech it has an obligation to its citizens to provide remedy for parties that sustained injury as a result of such thing as defamation and hate speech. Through time the judicial system has developed a body of law to specifically address these issues. That is why suits such as defamation and libel are civil torts and not criminal. Laws regarding defamation only apply to specific individuals who have been victimized by the acts of others. The Courts have struggled to find a balance between the constitutional right to speak freely and anonymously with the right to secure legal redress through civil litigation.

Simply put if someone says something that isn’t true about another person and as a result of that false statement the person is “injured”, then that person has the right to seek legal redress through the court system. The courts will rule on liability and award money to address the damages incurred. In the context of what has been happening in this saga, it is of utmost importance to remember that a process has been established through the courts to address these issues precisely because of the value that the courts and society place on freedom of speech. Those that seek a way to circumvent the process do a great injustice to the very foundation of our constitution and the courts.

Free Speech on the Internet Where the internet is concerned case law is new, but the courts have held that the right to speak freely includes the liberty of anonymous speech on the Internet. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, was the first major Supreme Court ruling regarding the regulation of materials distributed via Internet. The Court voted to strike down anti-obscenity provisions of the Communications Decency Act (the “CDA”), finding they violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment..[21] In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the high court decided,

“Notwithstanding the legitimacy and importance of the congressional goal of protecting children from harmful materials, we agree with the three-judge district court that the statute abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.”

The court further stated that a speaker on the Internet is the modern-day equivalent of a pamphleteer.

Through the use of [online] chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer.[22]

Other courts have also recognized and affirmed that the right to speak anonymously without retribution and censor extends to speech on the Internet. In ACLU v. Johnson the court extended the right to anonymous free speech to the Internet.[23] In a 2000 case the court stated that,

“To fail to recognize that the First Amendment right to speak anonymously should be extended to communications on the Internet would require this Court to ignore either United States Supreme Court precedent or the realities of speech in the twenty-first century” [24]

Although the case was later reversed on other grounds the court found in America Online, Inc, v Anonymous Publicly Traded Co. that, “Inherent in First Amendment protections is the right to speak anonymously in diverse contexts,” including on the Internet.” [25] America Online, Inc. v. Anonymous Publicly Traded Co., 2001 Va. LEXIS 38 (Va. S. Ct., Mar. 2, 2001)

The Constitution Also Protects Our Freedom of Association on the Internet. The ability to bring people together who share a common interest and to provide a means for them to communicate with each other is one of the most valuable tools that the Internet has provided to modern society. Message boards and chat rooms create a community or association of people and forum in which they can come together regardless of geographical locations the exchange and debates ideas in their common area of interest.

The Supreme Court has recognized the synergy of freedom of speech and assembly.

“[T]he practice of persons sharing common views banding together to achieve a common end is deeply embedded in the American political process. The 18th-century Committees of Correspondence and the pamphleteers were early examples of this phenomena and the Federalist Papers were perhaps the most significant and lasting example.[26]

The court ruled that the release of a membership list violated the constitutional right to freedom of association.[27] In Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee the held unconstitutional a subpoena intended for us in discovery of alleged co-conspirators by compelling the release from the NAACP of its member’s identities. [28] The U.S. Supreme Court in Gibson affirmed the importance of protecting citizens from having their private associations disclosed through the use of a subpoena in a civil case.

It is particularly important that the exercise of the power of compulsory process be carefully circumscribed when [it] tends to impinge upon such highly sensitive areas of freedom of speech. . . freedom of . association, and freedom of communication of ideas.How does this apply to the current litigation and threats of litigation

We’ve already shown that the American tradition of protecting and honoring anonymous speech can be traced back to the Founding Fathers of our country through the use of pamphleteering and that the courts have ruled that the internet in analogous to that.

Many people chose to communicate their ideas and opinions on line using pseudonyms (assumed names) or anonymously (no name at all). “[T]he free exchange of ideas on the Internet is driven in large part by the ability of Internet users to communicate anonymously,”[29] yet in the internet we rely on Web sites or ISPs to protect our anonymity so when should our ISPs be turned over to a defendant or his attorney during the discovery process in civil litigation? Ann Beeson, Staff Counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union has stated that, “unless online anonymity is protected, whistleblowers who want to criticize their employers, parents who want to criticize the principal of their children’s school – and many others – may be afraid to speak out. That would be a loss for our country.”[30]

In terms of civil suits that would involve the “unmasking” of anonymous posters on the internet the courts have determined that strict procedural safeguards must be imposed “as a means of ensuring that plaintiffs do not use discovery procedures to ascertain the identities of unknown defendants in order to harass, intimidate or silence critics in the public forum opportunities presented by the Internet.”[31]

Following this procedure a litigant must first apply to the court for a subpoena seeking the identity of the individual whose statements are the subject of the suit. This safeguard was put in place because the courts found that, “Against the backdrop of First Amendment protection for anonymous speech, courts have held that civil subpoenas seeking information regarding anonymous individuals raise First Amendment concerns”.[32]

Accordingly, “the constitutional rights of Internet users, including the First Amendment right to speak anonymously, must be carefully safeguarded.”[33] Otherwise, “[i]f Internet users could be stripped of that anonymity by a civil subpoena enforced under the liberal rules of civil discovery, this would have a significant chilling effect on Internet communications and thus on basic First Amendment rights.” [34]

By Kerry and Einy

[2] “Speech.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language Fourth Edition 2000.

Dictionary.com. 19 April 2006. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=speech

[3] Areopagitica: a Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing to the Parliament of England

[4] Salman Rushdie, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie

[5] US History Encyclopedia: Pamphleteering http://www.answers.com/topic/pamphlet

[6] George Orwell, (“Introduction”, in George Orwell and Reginald Reynolds, eds., British Pamphleteers):

[7] [Pamphlet From the Hutchinson Encyclopedia of World History. © Research Machines plc [2006] All

Rights Reserved, Helicon Publishing is a division of Research Machines.]

[8] [Myles Davis, Icon Libellorum (1715), as quoted in H.L. Mencken, A New Dictionary of Quotations

on historical principles from Ancient and Modern Sources 883 (Knopf ed. 1991) (1942).]

[9] Bernard Bailyn’s “The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution”. published in 1967,

[10] [Robert C. Berring, Deconstructing the Law Library: The Wisdom of Meredith Willson,

89 Minn. L. Rev. 1381, 1405 (2005)].

[11] And as the Supreme Court stated in Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960):

[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonymity

[13] (Abrams v. United States, [250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting)]).

[14] New York v. Duryea, 76 Misc. 2d 948, 966-967, 351 N. Y. S. 2d 978, 996 (1974)

[15] First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978)

[16] McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 342 (1995)

[17] Columbia Insurance Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999).

[18] Freedom of speech, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

[19] Justice Louis Brandeis opined in Whitney v. California in 1927,

[20] Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630-31 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

[21] Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)

[22] Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)

[23] ACLU v. Johnson, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1033 (D.N.M. 1998), aff’d, 194 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1999)

[24] re Subpoena Duces Tecum to America Online, Inc., 52 Va. Cir. 26, 34 (Va. Cir. 2000)

[25] America Online, Inc. v. Anonymous Publicly Traded Co., 2001 Va. LEXIS 38 (Va. S. Ct., Mar. 2, 2001)

[26] Citizens Aginst Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290, 294 (1981):

[27] NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 466 (1958)

[28] Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 372 U.S. 539, 558 (1963)

[29] http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

[30] http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/SLAPP/20020711_eff_pr.html

[31] Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756, 771 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2001).

[32] Sony Music Entertainment v. Does, 326 F.Supp.2d 556, 565 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).

[33] Doe v. 2themart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1097 (W.D. Wash. 2001).

[34] 2theMart.com, at 1093 http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Speech:_Anonymity

****Anyone can comment. Need not be registered. But if anyone attacks another poster, the authors or the site owner, your comment will be removed without warning.

Former FBI agent and Houston Bureau Chief turned investigator Don Clark appeared on Scared Monkeys Radio to speak about the results of the Bahamian inquest into the death of Daniel Smith.

The following is a rough outline of some of Mr. Clark’s comments to show host Dana Pretzer.

Clark: Focus in the inquest was switched to an individual who could not testify or come back and refute. The people that were there, their testimony was totally different from what we have heard and read before. There was a 180 degree turn.

The person that had the finger pointed at her that was listed as the responsible party, concerning drugs, types of drugs and doses taken.. that person was not there to testify. I will give the jury credit, when they heard that information, they had to be stunned.

Where things seemed to have broken down was that there was no real opportunity for the jury to compare factual information, testimonial information of what people have said in this inquest or other judicial proceedings. There are clear records. I’m not going to pull any punches, there were clear records of certain things that Howard Stern said in court in Florida and certain statements that Bahamian police have taken and that was totally different than what was said on the witness stand and by other witness as well.

The host Dana Pretzer asked what has today’s society done to contribute to this particular tragedy?

Clark: An old FBI agent said, it’s all about the money. I’ts about whatever a particular entity can get on camera or on film and be able to display and show. Unfortunately that is what it seems to be. Unfortunately for the viewing public, they only get what someone else has decided the public needs to see and hear.

This case, in my life, I have never seen anything like this, that has moved to the scale that it has. It seems certain outlooks and certain people have different views on things and they only paint those and paint the other party in the worst light whether they deserve that or not.

Clark: Bottom line, this pretty much closes the lid on this aspect of the case. I don’t know what could pop up now. I go back to the initial investigation. Even if the jury had decided an open verdict, an open verdict would mean they know something happened, they didn’t think it was an accident, they did not think it was a suicide, they just did not see enough facts and evidence to move it forward to the next level. Even if it would have come back with that, I just don’t see that there is enough evidence available in the Bahamas to be able to present to a regular court and jury to find someone guilty of something or to say there was no guilt here.

I take that back to the investigation from everything that I know about the investigation at this point. From the way that the scene was handled in the hospital, to the way that witness were handled, to the way the statements were taken, I don’t see that the evidence is there to make a case.

But the reality is if any person takes a look at transcripts in the Bahamas, and if statements were taken and analyzed properly, they will see that there was a lot of opportunity there for significant investigation to try to find out what happened in the death of Daniel.

Having said that, I think there is an opportunity to find out what happened in the death of Anna. I just don’t believe that the envelope should be sealed at this point. I think there is opportunity there to see what really happened in the case of her death in Florida.

Dana Pretzler: What can we in the media do to be fair in a case like this?

Clark: People want to surmise and come to their own conclusions but the way to find that is to follow the facts and not put a particular twist on it concerning the direction that you want it to go. If media sticks to facts and circumstances and not be so selective as to what pieces of sound byte they put out there then we can move on to the next program.

Just be a little more responsible about what they say about people that someone may have casually said to them and they don’t even know this person. This person is a nice person with a great reputation. Then all of a sudden one bit of info comes up and this person is terrible and that is not a good thing for a professional media outlet to be doing.

Pretzer concluded that this has happened in this case to all sides.