Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Perhaps Not The Most Convincing Defense

I saw a video of Anna Nicole Smith in a store with her daughter, shortly before her death, in which she was clearly extremely intoxicated. It was the type of scene that would have been tragic even if she were still alive. So I don't have much sympathy going in, for the argument that those close to her couldn't have or shouldn't have recognized the nature or extent of her drug habit. That doesn't necessarily make them guilty of crimes, but it does make me question their motives and sincerity.
Steve Sadow, one of three attorneys representing [Smith's lawyer and boyfriend, Howard K.] Stern, told reporters outside of court that state Attorney General Jerry Brown's allegations Stern was Smith's "principal enabler" in acquiring the toxic prescription drugs that led to her death two years ago are a "blatant attempt to advance his own political career."

"He is innocent of the baseless allegations made against him in the criminal complaint," Sadow said. "Both Anna and Howard believed in their doctors and relied in good faith on their medical judgment."
So did Elvis1.


1. According to this article,
In the first eight months of 1977 Presley's physician, Dr. George C. Nichopoulos, wrote 199 prescriptions totaling more than 10,000 doses of sedatives, amphetamines and narcotics - all in Elvis' name.
Sound familiar?


  1. . . . and it certainly won't make them guilty of a crime if we legalize most or all recreational drugs . . .


  2. More likely, decriminalize, regulate and tax. In which case, fraudulently obtaining drugs to give to another person would likely remain a crime.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.