Skip to main content
Search
Services


 

Return to Transcripts main page

NANCY GRACE

Anna Nicole Smith`s Troubles Continue

Aired November 3, 2006 - 20:00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, GUEST HOST: Tonight, controversial cover girl Anna Nicole Smith fighting efforts to evict her from a mansion in the Bahamas. A South Carolina developer, a one-time boyfriend of Anna Nicole`s, claims he owns the house and is taking her to court over that seaside property. Amid all the drama, she`s finally speaking out for the first time since the sudden death of her 20-year-old son, Daniel, and the paternity battle over her new baby girl. We have the very latest, including new information on a bombshell declaration by a so-called former friend.
Also tonight, NFL Hall of Famer and one-time murder suspect O.J. Simpson wins another court victory against the family of murder victim Ron Goldman. Is it blind justice all over again for the Goldmans?

But first to the Bahamas, the latest developments on international cover girl Anna Nicole Smith.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because of the events concerning residency issues, the inquest of her son`s death arising out of drug issues, applications, property issues, ongoing fraud and perjury allegations, as you can imagine, ladies and gentlemen, the walls are closing in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Good evening, everyone. I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell, in tonight for Nancy Grace. So many controversies swirling around Anna Nicole Smith tonight. An ex-friend of the former "Playboy" Playmate says he feels double- crossed by Anna Nicole and plans to take legal action against her, possibly serving Anna Nicole Smith as we speak, except that she`s still in the hospital, suffering from pneumonia.

For the very latest on all of this, we`re very happy to have with us tonight in studio Court TV correspondent Jean Casarez. Jean, things are developing so fast in this case. What`s the very latest?

JEAN CASAREZ, COURT TV: That`s right, Jane. Another lawsuit is the latest, that`s right. G. Ben Thompson -- he`s the real estate developer that says he owns that home that Anna Nicole has been living in and he says that he`s suing her for trespass and slander (ph) of title. He says that that is his home, it`s not hers, and he wants her evicted.

Now, here`s what he`s alleging. He`s alleging that when Anna Nicole decided that she wanted to move to the Bahamas to get away from the media, he said, Look, I`m a real estate developer. I will go to the Bahamas, find a home, get it for you, and then you can pay for the home. So that`s what he says he did. And then when she got there and started living in the home, he asked her to sign the note and to sign the mortgage, which would say, Yes, I will pay for the home. He says she didn`t do that. And he didn`t want to push her because she was having problem with her pregnancy. But he got a deed written up with her name on it, but didn`t file it with the government because she didn`t sign the note and the mortgage. She never signed it, he said. And now, Jane, he says he wants his home back and he wants her evicted.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And she, apparently, according to him, anyway, is claiming, Oh, it was a gift.

CASAREZ: That`s right.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`ll have to see who is telling the truth on this. Now, I got to tell you that he is trying to serve legal papers on her. Let`s go to defense attorney Kathleen Mullin for insight on this. She is in the hospital, suffering from pneumonia, apparently got some serious illness going on right now. Does it make it harder to serve legal papers on somebody when they`re in the hospital?

KATHLEEN MULLIN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes. It makes it -- not only does it make it harder, but it -- you know, it`s a little bit rude. I mean, she`s lying there in the hospital. I`m sure that whatever your fervor is to get back into, quote, "your house," another day or two until she gets out of the hospital will not make or break you.

I think that this one is going to be decided pretty quickly on the documents. The person who can produce a properly recorded deed for this property will take the presumption in this case. And we`ll see how she develops her claim of gift, whether or not there`s anything to substantiate that or support it. But I think a properly recorded deed is going to kick off this legal fight, and we`ll see what happens from there.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, you have a very interesting point because the government of the Bahamas right now is trying to decide whether or not to have a public inquest into the death of her son, Daniel, who, according to an independent pathologist, had up to seven drugs in his system, including methadone. So I`m wondering -- and let`s go to Paul Henderson, San Francisco deputy DA, on this -- is all this drama surrounding the house going to impact the decision of the government of the Bahamas as to whether or not have this mini-trial, in essence, this public inquest?

PAUL HENDERSON, SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, I think it is, actually, and here`s why. And while she`s in the house right now, all that really gives her is tenancy. Unless she can prove ownership -- ownership is what gives her status to stay in that country, and that`s how citizenship comes through the Bahamas, if you own a property there. If she doesn`t have that, that`s one less guard that she`s going to have to use in order to fight potential jurisdiction of the United States, if a family law court rules against her and actually orders a paternity test for her child.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And Jean Casarez, what I find fascinating is that all of these controversies seem intertwined. The house is intertwined with the paternity battle, the LA photographer, who says he`s the real father of her new baby girl. And that`s also somehow intertwined with the whole controversy over why methadone was found in her son`s system when he died in the hospital in the Bahamas.

CASAREZ: it`s amazing because if she does not have legal ownership of that home, she doesn`t have legal residency. What does that mean? She`s going to be deported. That means she comes back to this country. That means the paternity suit can possibly go forward, that suit in California, because there would be jurisdiction once she would get in this country.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let`s go to investigative journalist Art Harris, who`s been tracking all of this. Let`s say she does get deported and ends up in the United States. What happens to her? What`s the legal fallout? And does it depend on what state she goes to? If she goes to California, could she be in more trouble than if she goes to Florida, per se?

ART HARRIS, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: Well, you know, every state, Jane, does have -- not extradition, but they have, you know, an ability to get papers served. If she`s in the States, she does not have the immunity that she might enjoy in the Bahamas, as we know. But if she winds up in California, you know, she could be forced to take a paternity test.

We now have some indication that -- I don`t know, I talked to some real estate people down there, Jane, and if she goes to Florida, she could technically land and come back and be, you know, a temporary resident. That might afford her some immunity. But she can live in the Bahamas for up to eight months without being a permanent resident just by getting her visa or turnaround with a plane ticket.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But Kathleen Mullin, defense attorney, let`s try to nail this down. If she gets back to the United States, what does it take for Larry Birkhead, the Los Angeles photographer who said he is the father of her newborn baby girl, to drag her into court to get that child tested, a DNA test for paternity? What has to happen legally for him to get his way?

MULLIN: He wants to get jurisdiction over her. And you`ve seen it before in high-drama legal cases, right? What you`ve seen is the wanted celebrity type landing at the airport, and what has to happen is that Birkhead`s process server has to be standing at the airport gate. And when she walks through the gate, he`s got to slam her with some papers that order her to appear before the court.

Now, if she arrives in Florida and you`ve got a California court ordering her to appear, I don`t know that she`s going to be all that willing to abide that order. And if she doesn`t abide it voluntarily, I`m not really all that sure there`s too much anybody can do about it.

But the first step is for him to try to get some papers into her hand. And Like I say, in these high-drama cases, we`ve seen it before, the lurking service -- process server standing there in the airport, waiting for the victim of his service to come off of the airplane, and as soon as they come into the terminal, bam, you`ve got service of papers, and now at least you`ve got the star of the process.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Kathleen, it sounds like more drama. What a shock. More drama in the life of Anna Nicole.

MULLIN: Right.

(LAUGHTER)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let us go right now to Deborah Opri. She is the attorney in Los Angeles for Larry Birkhead.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEBORAH OPRI, ATTORNEY FOR LARRY BIRKHEAD: My firm has a very stellar reputation. I`ve been practicing a long time. And frankly, I`m livid. I`m angry, and I want to know who did it. And will I ever know? I don`t know. But I am not going to discuss private pleadings, which are sealed. And whoever is earning money or doing whatever they`re doing out there, they will be held accountable.

Because of a sealed court document being leaked to a media outlet, I have three individuals who are very hesitant to come forward to sign declarations now. It hurts my case. It hurts my client`s case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. She mentioned the word declaration. We`re going to get to that bombshell in just a moment. But first, let`s go to the phone lines. We`ve got Denise in Canada. Your question?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. Good evening, Jane. Love the show. I`m just wondering, with the passing of her son, being evicted from her home, now being hospitalized, you know, should child services be involved, you know, looking at the newborn? Is the new child receiving proper care? Considering she didn`t now the drugs that her son was one gives me an indication that maybe she`s not quite aware of what`s going on in her family life.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know what? You should be a reporter, or maybe somebody who works for child services. That is a very, very good point. Let`s go to Lillian Glass, psychologist. This caller raises a good point. Should child services be going in and seeing how this child is doing right now, especially with the mom in the hospital and all this controversy?

LILLIAN GLASS, PSYCHOLOGIST: The caller raises a great point because you really need to look at the whole picture. What`s going on with the baby? That`s the most important thing right now. And when you look at what`s happened to Anna Nicole Smith, any one of these things could put someone over the edge. But she has so much stress in her life, no matter what you`ve thought about her in the past, your heart really has to go out to her.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And you know, we have a close friend of Anna Nicole`s on the show tonight. We`re very happy to welcome Alex Goen, who is also the CEO of Trimspa. Hi, there. How`re you doing this evening, Alex?

ALEX GOEN, CEO, TRIMSPA: I`m great. How are you?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You`ve been listening to all of this. First of all, let me ask you, how is Anna Nicole doing tonight? She`s in the hospital. She`s been in for the whole week. I mean, how serious is this? What`s her condition?

GOEN: Well, it`s pretty serious. She had a collapsed lung. She had a procedure a couple days ago. She`s recovering. They`re asking her to do some kind of exercises in which she has to blow through some sort of tube and get this ball to lift up into the air. And it`s supposed to be somewhat painful, and it also makes her cough. And if she reaches a certain level, she should be released out of the hospital. And she`s working very, very hard to get out of the hospital so she can start seeing her baby on a regular basis.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, this is not in any way to doubt her illness, but I think we were all astounded -- maybe we can go to Ellie (ph) on the timeline for this. She looked gorgeous on her interview on "ET." And apparently, that wasn`t done so long ago.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. Well, you know, Mark Steines (ph), the reporter for "ET" who did the interview, on his blog said on October 30, I`ve just gotten back from the Bahamas. I`ve completed my interview with Anna Nicole. So it was within, you know, the last week or so that they shot that interview.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So let`s go to our toxicologist, pharmacologist and deputy medical examiner. We have with us Dr. William Morrone. Doctor, how does somebody deteriorate that quickly? I don`t know if you saw her on "ET," but she looked spectacular. She was tanned. She seemed very fit, even though there were reports on the show that she had a bad back. But then, apparently, a couple of days later, pneumonia.

DR. WILLIAM MARRONE, DEPUTY MEDICAL EXAMINER: Well, the capacity of the lungs can deteriorate quickly if you`re not treated right away. You have to get antibiotics and you have to evaluate it by a doctor right away.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So you think it`s very, very possible that she could be suffering pneumonia, even though she looked great just a couple of days ago?

MORRONE: Bronchitis can deteriorate into pneumonia very quickly.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. And we`re glad we asked the question and answered. Again, not to suggest that she`s not sick, but a lot of people were wondering how you get from looking that great to being that sick so quickly.

We want to talk about this bombshell declaration that has come in. And Jean Casarez, first of all, of course, we have to caution that, A, we have been able to confirm that the declaration itself is legitimate. In other words, that`s a confirmed copy. That was submitted to the court, and it was leaked. It was supposed to be sealed. But we have to caution, because it is such bombshell information, that we have no way of knowing whether anything that was said by the woman who made the declaration, gave it, is true. This is not said by the police. This is one woman who used to be a friend of Anna Nicole`s making really explosive allegations. What are they?

CASAREZ: True. But it is a sworn statement under perjury, and so she could be in a court of law herself if she`s lying. But what she, Lori Payne (ph), is saying, is that she has been a friend, a good friend of Anna Nicole. And during the time of her pregnancy, they were together a lot, they spoke a lot, and that she knows, and Anna Nicole told her, that Larry Birkhead, who is the man in California who has instituted the paternity suit, is the father of the child. And she knows that because of things Anna Nicole said and because of the fact that she wasn`t with Larry Birkhead -- or Stern, we should say, during the time the baby was conceived.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And you know, one of the interesting things about this declaration is there was so much speculation who leaked it because it`s supposed to be sealed because it involves a minor child, and it`s sealed to protect the interests of the minor child, and yet it got out. TMZ broke this story, big exclusive. Congrats to TMZ.

Now, my sources tell me that Birkhead`s people actually suffered as a result of this being leaked because three other people who apparently were supposedly going to give bombshell declarations that topped even this, backed out because now they`re saying, Hey, I don`t want my name in the papers. So apparently, it hurt Birkhead, it didn`t really help him. And isn`t that the way it sometimes goes with this?

CASAREZ: Well, that`s true. On the other hand, the leaking of this definitely helps Larry Birkhead because it is someone by the name of Lori Payne that says that she knows beyond a reasonable doubt that Birkhead is the father of the baby, and that`s what they are seeking to prove.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: If you had a team of Hollywood script writers, you couldn`t come up with this stuff if you worked them overnight. It`s just too absolutely astounding.

To tonight`s "Case Alert." A California school bus driver with easy access to young girls charged with multiple counts of child molestation, kidnapping and child porn. Fifty-one-year-old Terry Shields (ph) was arrested in October after an Internet cafe worker caught him viewing images of child porn. Shields allegedly used his bus routes to meet his victims as young as 4 years old.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Anna, I`m talking to you directly now. And I want you to listen to me and I want you to hear what I have to tell you. You are so certain -- if you are so certain that Larry Birkhead is not the father, then you have nothing, absolutely nothing to lose by submitting to this jurisdiction and allowing a paternity test.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell, in tonight for Nancy Grace. Where is the mushrooming scandal involving Anna Nicole Smith headed next, as Anna Nicole speaks out to "ET" for the first time since her 20-year-old Daniel`s drug-related death? Her battles continue on at least -- at least, minimum -- two other fronts. A former friend wants her out of her mansion in the Bahamas, and an LA photographer said he is the real daddy of her new baby girl. And I hope you`re taking notes on all this because it is hard to keep track.

Now, in this explosive declaration, this so-called former friend of Anna Nicole also said -- claims that she asked her, Hey, why don`t you just go out with Howard K. Stern? And this friend claims that Anna Nicole responded, Ooh, gross. No way. I would never.

I want to go to Alex Goen, CEO for Trimspa and a friend of Anna Nicole`s, and presumably Howard Stern, as well. What kind of impact is this having on them? This is such dirty laundry. This is so cruel. I can`t even imagine what it`s like to be on the receiving end of this.

GOEN: It`s very difficult. I mean, it really stresses Anna out tremendously. Howard`s working probably 20 hours a day, trying to be strong for Anna. Anna`s trying to be strong for Howard. Anna has to take care of her daughter, has to grieve, you know, the loss of her son. I mean, it`s just one thing after the other after the other. It`s incredibly difficult. You`ve got to figure that probably one reason she`s in the hospital is the toll that it`s taking on her immune system.

Now, as far as the interview before, she was interviewed on Saturday. And I`ll tell you, it took a lot out of her. She does not like to do interviews. She gets very, very nervous. And I bet you that probably had a lot to do with taxing her immune system.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, just doing an interview on TV is enough to make somebody nervous, much less having to deal with all of these lawsuits and all of these dramas. I mean, you have to wonder -- and I have wondered -- if Anna Nicole is actually keeping up with all the twists and turns because it takes a team of lawyers to keep up with it.

Let`s go to the phone lines. Betty in New Hampshire. Your question, ma`am?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. I`m just curious. Was there ever any mention of Daniel`s father?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: In what context?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Where he is now or if he`s -- how his death affected him.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, that is a good question. I believe that he`s been out of the picture for a very, very long time. And I think I`m going to go to my fact maven, Ellie. My understanding with the dad is that Anna Nicole and Daniel`s biological father have been split for many, many years.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: For a very long time, yes. It`s my understanding they were both teens when Daniel was born, and you know, were estranged quickly after that. But Daniel`s father`s family did have a memorial service of sorts for him in Texas about a couple of weeks ago.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Interesting. Of course, the love is still there, I`m sure.

You know, I want to go to psychologist Lillian Glass and ask about a question that Alex Goen raised, the psychological stress of having all this dirty laundry aired, how it could impact this relationship between Howard can a Stern and Anna Nicole Smith and each of them individually. I mean, imagine the pressure that they are under right now.

GLASS: Well, they`re under tremendous pressure, and especially if this is true and this was aired and the true, intimate feelings that Anna Nicole may have felt towards Howard has come out. This may have a very serious affect on Howard and their relationship.

But at this point, I think they`re so much stronger because he`s been a real rock for her. He`s been a real emotional support system for her. So I think whatever happened in the past was the past, and I think that now they`re in a situation where they`re really bonding together over all of this.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And we are just starting on this next subject. Jean Casarez, just give us a hint of the whole issue surrounding methadone, the claim in this declaration.

CASAREZ: Well, in addition to the paternity issue, Lori Payne in this sworn statement talks about methadone, saying that Nicole actually was taking methadone and Vanax when she was pregnant.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: On October 11, this office first learned of the existence of a Bahamian birth certificate bearing the name of Howard K. Stern as the father of Dannilynn. This office immediately began inquiries and an investigation into the veracity of this document and learned that as part of the application process to secure such a birth certificate in the Bahamas, affidavits under penalty of perjury had to be prepared by the party.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell, in tonight for Nancy Grace. Anna Nicole Smith continues to be perhaps the most talked-about person on the whole planet, with a paternity battle, a real estate battle and the tragic loss of her son to drugs and all this controversy about this new declaration. Now, again, we don`t know whether the declaration -- we know the declaration is true. We don`t know if what the woman`s saying in the declaration is true. But the bombshell allegation is that this woman is claiming that she saw with her own eyes that Anna Nicole Smith was taking methadone while she was pregnant, a very serious charge.

I want to go to Alex Goen, CEO of Trimspa and Anna Nicole`s friend. to respond to that because you`ve said publicly she has not been doing drugs.

GOEN: Well, I said publicly I`ve never seen her do drugs. I don`t believe she would do any drugs. And I`ll tell you one thing, when it comes to taking care of her baby, she -- this -- having this baby was her life. I mean, she was very, very focused. She had some challenges during the pregnancy, and she followed doctor`s orders to the T. I was incredibly impressed. She would never do anything to harm this baby girl.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And Dr. Morrone, speaking completely theoretically, what are the symptoms of methadone? What do you look like when you`re on methadone?

MORRONE: If methadone is given under strict guidelines from an experienced physician, you get pain relief. But at high doses, you would be subject to sedation and fatigue and dizziness.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOLDMAN: Twelve years ago, Ron and Nicole were murdered, murdered by a man whose name I still, to this day, refuse to use. To this day, he has never been punished for that act in any form.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell, sitting in tonight for Nancy Grace.

When will the family of murder victim Ron Goldman ever get justice? They have just lost again in court, as a California judge ruled the Goldmans are not -- repeat, not -- entitled to O.J. Simpson`s publicity rights, that, even though Simpson is supposed to pay them tens of millions of dollars because of the civil judgment against him in the deaths of his ex-wife, Nicole, and her friend, Ron Goldman.

For the very latest on this major ruling in the never-ending O.J. Simpson saga, let`s start with Court TV correspondent Jean Casarez and the bottom line on this ruling.

JEAN CASAREZ, COURT TV: Well, the bottom line is that Ron Goldman wanted the right of publicity of O.J. Simpson. He wanted to own that, so he could be in control of autographs or anything that O.J. Simpson could get money for, then he could get paid the money that he believes he is owed. And the judge ruled, "I`m sorry, we cannot award you that right of publicity, because, for lots of reasons, but there is a personal right, right there. It is a right of privacy in a sense, as well as being intangible property right. And O.J. Simpson should have some control as to his likeness in his life."

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Fred Goldman said to be deeply disappointed tonight. Let`s listen to what he`s saying.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOLDMAN: He has never been punished for one single violent act he has ever committed, most assuredly has never been punished or accepted responsibility for murdering Ron or Nicole. And we want to do the same thing that we`ve always wanted to do, and that is hold him accountable and force him to accept some punishment, some measure of punishment, never going to be enough for murdering Ron.

We believe we have a right to take away his right of publicity. It`s an asset; it`s his property. And we think we have a right to take it away. And if we`re successful, we`ll figure out the rest as we go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We want to go right out to a crime victim`s advocate, Andy Kahan. Thank you for joining us tonight, sir. I understand you run the crime victims` unit for the Houston mayor`s office. Before we get to the legal issues, which are many, what is your emotional reaction, as an advocate for crime victims, to the fact that, once again, the Goldman family is not getting justice?

ANDY KAHAN, DIRECTOR, VICTIMS CRIME OFFICE FOR HOUSTON MAYOR: Yes, the bottom line is Simpson continues to use his ill-gotten notoriety that he achieved, like it or not, for butchering Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson to death. And he continues to exploit his fame, his wealth, and, bottom line, to profit.

And I think it`s absolutely pathetic that the criminal justice system and the courts continually protect defendants. And like it or not, he was found civilly liable for murdering two human beings, yet, for some ignominious reason, he is allowed to appear at car conventions, slasher conventions, make money, and the Goldmans, again, are basically left sticking their nose at the system. And the system continues to protect him.

It makes it difficult for advocates like myself that continually preach to crime victims to file civil suits, let`s hit them in the pocket. And when they see this happens, it makes our job tougher.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And, Kathleen Mullin, as a defense attorney, I`m sure that you have another take on this and that you`re probably saying, "Well, there`s all sorts of constitutional issues here, and the ramifications would affect other people down the road."

KATHLEEN MULLIN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, let me say this at the outset. Mr. Goldman is the father of a murdered son; that`s something that everyone`s heart goes out to him. My heart goes out to him. Everyone`s heart goes out to him.

But let me remind everybody of this, that it is not the system that is protecting O.J. Simpson. Marcia Clark and Chris Darden tried this homicide case. And I`ve got to tell you, in my book, this case was not won by O.J. Simpson, but lost by the government in California for the failure of prosecutors to be able to present a coherent case with what amounted to a truckload of evidence.

Now, I know that we want some peace for the Goldman family. I know this. And I know that, as people, we look at Ron Goldman`s father -- and, you know, I`m a defense attorney, but I say to him, O.J. Simpson was found not guilty because Marcia Clark and Chris Darden failed in their responsibility to present the evidence.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Andy Kahan, what do you say? Because Vincent Bugliosi actually wrote a whole book based on this theme that basically they lost the case, and I want to get your reaction.

KAHAN: Yes, whether they lost the case is inconsequential right now. The bottom line is they took him to a civil court. He was found civilly liable by a jury that, in fact, that he did murder two human beings. So it doesn`t really matter about the court case right now.

There`s a judgment on him. They should be able to collect. And forces within the government should be working with the Goldmans to ensure they collect, whether he makes a dime from signing his autograph at a slasher convention, or a crime card convention, or whatever it is. They should be able to collect something.

MULLIN: But, Jane, they are able to collect. No one is saying...

KAHAN: They`re not collecting anything.

MULLIN: Right, but that`s not because O.J. Simpson is retaining his individual right of publicity.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, why is it? Because he owes them $38 million, and he hasn`t given them a cent.

MULLIN: Well, if you -- let`s step back one step from the emotional dialogue about the trial, right? And let`s look at this as a legal problem. The Goldmans have a civil judgment against O.J. Simpson. The question for them, the legal question presented, is how, Jane, how do we attach a civil judgment to an asset that is attachable under the law?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, you`ve raised some good questions, and I want to jump in here with Peter Haven. He is the Goldman family attorney handling the appeal.

You`ve been listening to the debate, sir. What do you make of the fact that the defense attorney is saying, essentially, that you didn`t deserve to win on this one?

PETER HAVEN, ATTORNEY FOR GOLDMAN FAMILY: Well, there`s a couple of comments to make. One comment has to do with the distinction between what was decided in the civil proceeding. And what was decided in the civil proceeding was, by clear and convincing evidence, guilt of intentional and malicious killing of two people. It was tantamount to a civil finding of guilt.

Secondly, the right of publicity that we`re talking about here is an intangible piece of property. It`s a passive right. It`s the right to go out and identify people who are using his name, image or likeness for profit and say to them, "If you`re going to continue to use that, we`re entitled to be compensated for it." And that`s plain and simple all we`re seeking.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. And I want to ask Paul Henderson, San Francisco deputy D.A., because I had read -- and I don`t have any independent confirmation of this -- that Muhammad Ali sold some of his rights of publicity for many, many millions of dollars to an investor who now has the right to do merchandising and advertising using his name and likeness. So why isn`t it a transferable property right if somebody else is doing it?

PAUL HENDERSON, SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, the courts determined that that right of publicity is so closely tied to identity that they are essentially the same thing. Now, what I think is important and what we really need to look at is, what is he doing to use that identity, and what is happening to those profits?

Because, to me, it is utterly reprehensible that he`s using his notoriety in the context that he`s using it. So he`s signing autographs, and using jerseys and helmets and things, but he`s doing that in the context of at slasher conventions and horror conventions. And really, to me, that is profiting from the notoriety associated with these homicides. And that`s what I find utterly reprehensible.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And I agree with you 100 percent.

And, Kathleen Mullin, defense attorney, I mean, he brought this on himself by going to the slasher conventions, by doing some called "Juiced," where he pretended to be a used car deal selling a Bronco, which was the same vehicle he used in the infamous slow-speed chase. And he said, you know, "It helped me get away." I mean, this is ghoulish behavior, and yet it seems to be rewarded by the courts tonight.

MULLIN: Jane, there is no accounting for bad taste. We see that over and over again. However, I go back to the legal problem, which is the Goldmans are entitled to collect on their judgment, for sure, 100 percent, every day of the week. But you have to find an asset which is legally attachable. And his right to publicity, his name, his likeness, he is not voluntarily, like Muhammad Ali, surrendering that right of privacy.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I got it. I got it, but we`re going to continue to probe this issue, because I don`t think that that`s the final word.

To tonight`s "Trial 101," publicity rights. Oh, well, that`s what we`re talking about, an individual`s right to control and profit from the commercial use of his or her name, likeness and persona. As illustrated by our O.J. Simpson discussion tonight, most cases about publicity rights tend to involve celebrities or public personalities.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We, the jury, find the defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, not guilty of...

GOLDMAN: Now, how do we fight against bitterness? I don`t know that I have to. The reality is: He murdered my son. He murdered Nicole. I`m going to be bitter; I`m going to be angry. And that`s never going to change, ever, ever, ever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell, in tonight for Nancy Grace.

The family of murder victim Ron Goldman deeply, deeply disappointed tonight as they hear they have lost again in court against O.J. Simpson. This time, they sought the former football star`s publicity rights to satisfy $38 million -- $38 million -- dollars he owes them from the famous wrongful death case. But a California judge says, "Sorry, can`t let you have O.J.`s name and likeness."

We want to go back to Fred Goldman`s attorney handling the appeal in this case, Peter Haven.

I know, and I think we all acknowledge, this was a tough case, but you have not given up the fight. I know Fred Goldman has said he`s never going to give up the fight for justice. Do you think you`re going to do better on appeal? And how far up might this go?

HAVEN: Well, we`ll take it as far up as we have to go and as far up as we can for a final resolution. I think that a trial court would understandably feel reluctant to extend the law or to interpret the law, as we have advocated that it should be interpreted. But we think that the court of appeal will have a much broader and better view of it, and we`re optimistic about the likelihood of success on appeal.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And, you know, Jean Casarez, you raised an interesting point, playing devil`s advocate, about opening the flood gates?

CASAREZ: That`s true, because never before has a right of publicity been taken away from a celebrity. So if they would have a victory in this case, can you imagine the celebrities that would suddenly owe a debt, couldn`t pay for it, and their right of publicity was taken away from them?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And there are so many of them in Hollywood, so many people who used to be stars, who have fallen on hard times, that don`t have a lot of money, or who, you know, their name is really what they`ve got going for them at this point.

And I want to go back out to Andy Kahan, director of the mayor of Houston`s office of crime victims, because, as I understand it, you`re telling us that this isn`t just a loss for Fred Goldman; it`s a loss for all crime victims who have been given these monumental awards that are essentially hollow, because they are not getting the cash from them.

I mean, what`s the point of getting many millions of dollars in a judgment if you don`t see a penny?

KAHAN: Well, you know, you`ve got to keep pushing. You know, victims` rights to the `90s is what civil rights was to the `60s. And that`s why we keep on fighting.

And, hopefully, what this does is it brings attention to the plight that crime victims face every day. And the bottom line is that the system, the criminal justice system, treats them with this institutionalized disinterest.

Crime victims are the only unwilling participants in the criminal justice system. And all entities should be out there ensuring that, if a civil judgment is awarded, which obviously it was in this case, that whether Simpson makes a dime -- and we should be squeezing any juice he`s got left out of his name -- and anything that he gets should go to the Goldman family.

And for whatever reason, we just sit back and look in apathy and say, "Well, OK. He goes and signs his name or he appears here." And by the time you track it down, you find out that money goes to a third party. So what this does -- yes, it`s a tough -- I give the attorneys a lot of credit. It`s a very innovative idea, what they`re doing. The bottom line is: You shouldn`t be able to profit from rob, rape and murder, and that`s what`s happening.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And investigative journalist Art Harris, as we try to track O.J. Simpson`s finances, it`s really like a Kafka novel. It`s very hard to keep track of.

Now, he says he`s really not making any money except a couple of grand on these autograph signings, yet he lives in a half-a-million dollar house in Florida and he has an NFL pension that`s estimated worth $300,000 a year. So why doesn`t he have the money to pay them?

ART HARRIS, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: That`s right, Jane. This NFL pension is sheltered. You cannot attach that under the law. Now, it seems like an outrage. And this is yet another knife in the back, as it was, to the Goldmans, to the crime victims.

You know, he makes money on his infamy. He`s a pariah who is profiting from this double murder. Now, the point is, that income should be attached, because it could be argued that it falls under the same Son of Sam statutes, where convicted criminals cannot profit from their crimes.

So civilly, there seems to be -- if there`s a loophole, it needs to be closed. And I would think there would be an outrage, an uproar for crime victims to introduce legislation in Congress to somehow close up this huge, gaping hole in the system.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s a good suggestion. And let`s go to the phone lines that are lighting up. Lee in Minnesota, your question? Hi, Lee.

CALLER: Hi.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hi.

CALLER: I`d like to know why the families can`t motion a higher court for a judgment against him?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Well, let`s go to Paul Henderson, San Francisco deputy D.A. I think what this lady is asking is, why is it that he`s slipping through the cracks in terms of the finances? Why can`t they -- the courts say, "Hey, any money you make has to go to the Goldmans, except for the NFL pension."

HENDERSON: Well, he`s working very hard to move around and jump between the laws to make sure that his lifestyle is secure. And one of the things that we talked about earlier is that specific pension, which is protected in California, and that`s what gives him some income that cannot be attached.

It`s no mistake or an accident that he ended up living in Florida, because in Florida, regardless of the size of his home, if it`s his primary residence, it cannot be attached to satisfy a civil judgment.

Now, what I think that the Goldman family should do is restructure their lawsuit and focus more on exactly what he`s doing is generating profits from his notoriety, because that`s the real issue. He, himself, admits through his attorneys that he`s only making a couple of thousand dollars. That couple of thousand dollars -- I don`t care if it`s 50 cents -- that needs to go back to the victims.

Every single penny that he earns and generates outside of his primary residence, which is protected in Florida, and outside of that pension, which is protected in California, everything else needs to be funneled directly back to those victims, and they have the right to be asserting themselves in court to demand payment.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Peter Haven, as the attorney representing Fred Goldman on this matter, what do you say to critics who say maybe it was too broad, maybe you should have focused in on specifics that we know about, like "Juiced," even though he claims -- and here I have to agree with you, before you even answer, is that he claims he`s not making any money off of "Juiced," that he did it for fun.

So I know you`re in this quandary where, OK, people are saying, "Limit it and name specific things where he made money," but doesn`t he always seem to say that he`s not making money on any of these things?

HAVEN: Oh, it`s more than that. Not long after we filed this motion, I received a phone call from an individual, who seemed very credible to me, who advised me that he was being paid in large cash amounts and that he had a surreptitious web of transferring these large cash amounts in suitcases from one individual to another to evade any attempt at judgment collection. And the Goldmans do not have the resources to track down all of these different transfers of money.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOLDMAN: Twelve years ago, Ron and Nicole were murdered, murdered by a man whose name I still, to this day, refuse to use. To this day, he has never been punished for that act in any form. Even though we were awarded a civil judgment, he has made it very clear, over all these years, that he will not honor that judgment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell, sitting in tonight for Nancy Grace.

Another blow for the Goldman family, as a judge denies them the right to own O.J. Simpson`s publicity rights. And, you know, we`re getting to closing thoughts, but I have to say, Peter Haven, attorney for Fred Goldman, I think you might have given us breaking news here on the NANCY GRACE show, because what you said is very intriguing. You`re saying you got word that cash, large sums have been exchanged. Is there evidence, in your mind, of illegal activity?

HAVEN: I think there is. And I think that people who have been following him have known for some time that this is the kind of behavior that he engages in, to be paid to get money under the table. And if he goes to one of these conventions or something, we`re informed and believe that he`s gotten, you know, a suitcase or something like that full of cash.

But it`s also important to emphasize, you know, hey, we can`t chase down all of those different kinds of leads and circumstances, and he seems to have an intricate web of people who help him avoid this kind of, you know, getting our hands on these assets.

But more importantly, what we`re trying to accomplish with this motion is overall control over the use for profit of his name, image or likeness, which would take us out of that constantly trying to chase down different leads and different suitcases full of money, and it would give us a property right of control to identify people who were using his name, image and likeness and say to them, "We need to be compensated."

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Peter, we`re just out of time. But Jean Casarez suggests you call the district attorney. I think it`s a good idea. You never know.

Tonight, we remember Marine Lance Corporal Nathan Elrod, just 20, from Salisbury, Maryland. On his second tour of duty, Elrod dreamed of serving in the military since he was young, enlisting straight from high school. Remembered for his strength and love of country, he leaves behind a grieving family. Nathan Elrod, an American hero.

Thanks to all our guests for their insights tonight. And thanks to you at home for tracking these very important cases with us. Please tune in right here tomorrow night, 8:00 sharp Eastern. Until then, have a terrific and safe weekend.

END

Search
© 2007 Cable News Network.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. Site Map.
Offsite Icon External sites open in new window; not endorsed by CNN.com
Pipeline Icon Pay service with live and archived video. Learn more
Radio News Icon Download audio news  |  RSS Feed Add RSS headlines