This might be one of my favorite stories of the week. Or month. Or year! First, some back story. Last year, in Italy, one of the clubs that Elisabetta Canalis used to “frequent” (re: “work for”) was targeted in a large investigation of prostitution and drugs. An associate of Canalis’s went on the record about how she and other women were “paid” to be pretty girls at the club, encouraging rich men to spend their money on booze and coke, and that these girls were often paid in booze and coke. Elisabetta Canalis didn’t come up specifically as one of those cocaine-hookers (“coke whores” just feels harsh), but it was certainly implied, and given what we already know of Elisabetta, is it really so shocking to think that she simply sidles up to rich men and does whatever she needs to do to get them to spend money? Anyway, the scandal never really went mainstream in the American press, and Clooney stuck by Eli, for whatever reason (kinky sex, cocaine?).

Now, a NEW scandal, vaguely related to last year’s. For as long as I can remember, Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has been under investigation. He’s been accused of everything under the sun, and you know what? He’s probably guilty of most everything they throw at him. Currently, Silvio has been accused of paying a 17-year-old for sex at one of his many sex parties. Silvio is about to go to trial, and his defense has asked Clooney to testify. Why, you might ask? Because the 17-year-old girl claims that Clooney and Elisabetta were at one of Silvio’s sex parties, thus, they are potential witnesses. For the record, Clooney has told multiple outlets, “It seems odd since I’ve only met Berlusconi once and that was in an attempt to get aid into Darfur.” Notice he doesn’t say WHERE he was when asked for Silvio’s help. Like, did George lean over and ask Silvio as they made their way through a bed full of teenage girls? Oh, and Canalis has “reportedly denied attending the party.”

Silvio Berlusconi’s defense lawyers on Tuesday named George Clooney, the Italian foreign minister and a bevy of showgirls as witnesses at the premier’s upcoming prostitution trial, an attorney and news reports said. Prosecutors, for their part, have asked to hear from 136 witnesses, including the Moroccan teenager at the center of the scandal and 32 other women who allegedly worked as prostitutes during parties at Berlusconi’s villa, according to Italian news reports.

Both sides presented their lists of witnesses at the Milan tribunal where the trial opens next week. A judge must now decide which witnesses to admit. The 74-year-old Berlusconi is accused of having paid for sex with the Moroccan, who is known as Ruby and was 17 at the time, and then using his influence to try to cover it up. The premier denies wrongdoing.

Clooney was listed because Ruby once said she had seen the Hollywood star and his Italian girlfriend Elisabetta Canalis at one of Berlusconi’s parties, according to the law firm representing Berlusconi.

“We want to see if they confirm this fact or not,” said attorney Piersilvio Cipollotti.

Italian newspapers reported months ago that Ruby had said Clooney, who has a mansion on Lake Como north of Milan, and Canalis were guests at one of Berlusconi’s parties. According to a Feb. 22 report in leading Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, prosecutors talked with Canalis last month and she denied that she and Clooney attended any of the premier’s parties.

Berlusconi’s defense also listed Foreign Minister Franco Frattini and other Cabinet officials amid the 78 people named as witnesses, Cipollotti said. Mariano Apicella, the Neapolitan composer who performs for Berlusconi, as well as showgirls and TV personalities who frequented Berlusconi’s parties were also named, according to the ANSA and LaPresse news agencies.

Ruby, whose real name is Karima el-Mahroug, turned 18 in November.

Berlusconi is accused of having had several sexual encounters with her between Valentine’s Day last year through May 2, 2010 in exchange for money. The premier is also accused of abusing his influence when he called police in May to get Ruby out of custody in Milan, where she had been held for an unrelated theft. She was eventually released. Prosecutors say the premier wanted to keep his sexual relations with the girl secret. Berlusconi has said he intervened because he believed Ruby was the niece of now ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and wanted to prevent a diplomatic incident.

According to news reports, prosecutors have also cited as witnesses Milan police officials involved in Ruby’s brief detention, as well as three Berlusconi associates also under investigation in the scandal: an ex-showgirl and Berlusconi’s dental hygienist recently elected at a local post with the premier’s party; a TV agent; and TV newscaster and longtime Berlusconi friend.

Berlusconi says he plans to attend hearings of the trial, which opens April 6, as much as his official duties allow. He also faces two other trials and a possible indictment relating to his business dealings.

[From ABC News]

Man, Italian politics, huh? It’s funny and entertaining, but could you imagine if he was one of your elected officials?!? And yes, you know that Elisabetta totally partied with Silvio. At some point, I imagine all of those kinds of Italian hooker-esque girls partied with Silvio. At the end of the day, all this story does is just add yet another headline with the words “Elisabetta. Prostitute.”

As far as Clooney potentially testifying… I don’t even know. I have no idea how this sort of trial works in Italy, but I would guess that if Clooney is in Italy and he’s gotten some kind of subpoena, he would have to appear? But he’s not in Italy – he’s in America, filming in Cincinnati. So, probably not.

Oh, and here’s a photo of “Ruby”. She could be Elisabetta’s sister.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

This afternoon, TMZ was the first to report that Lindsay Lohan was definitely not taking a plea deal in her crack thievery case, and that she was now set to take this crack shenanigan all the way to trial. I didn’t write about it at the time because I thought it was just another BS Linnocent story, and I wanted to wait until tomorrow, the actual deadline for Linnocent to make her decision about taking the plea deal. Looks like TMZ was right, though. Radar reports that Shawn Chapman Holley, Linnocent’s long-suffering attorney, has notified the judge that no deal will be taken. Crack trial commence!

Lindsay Lohan’s attorney has formally notified Judge Keith Schwartz that she won’t be taking the plea deal that would have included jail time in connection with her grand theft charge, RadarOnline.com can report.

Lohan had to notify Judge Schwartz by today about her decision.

Contrary to reports, RadarOnline.com has learned that Lohan’s attorney only notified the Judge of Lohan’s decision at 3PM PT.

Lindsay will now appear in front of Judge Stephanie Sautner on April 22, 2011 for her preliminary hearing.

At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, Judge Sautner will determine if Lindsay violated terms of her probation. If Judge Sautner orders Lindsay to stand trial, she will likely sentence and remand Lohan to jail immediately, even before her trial begins, for parole violation, for a term of at least six months.

Lindsay is charged with Felony Grand Theft after allegedly stealing a necklace valued at $2,500 from Kamofie and Company, a Venice Beach area jewelers.

Lindsay is facing a bumpy ride if Judge Sautner does order the 24-year-old to stand trial.

As RadarOnline.com previously reported Deputy District Attorney Danette Meyers will include as part of her case, past incidents in which Lindsay has been accused of theft.

“There is very damaging information about Lindsay’s past evidence of thefts, including a stolen Rolex, which a friend of hers reported as stolen last April 2010, which will be made public,” a source close to the situation told RadarOnline.com exclusively.

“Lindsay was investigated by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department last spring after a friend reported that after leaving the Rolex at Lohan’s apartment, it wasn’t returned immediately. Actually, it was quite a bit of time later that the watch was returned to the person. The watch was valued at a whopping, 35k, and like the current theft case, Lindsay was photographed wearing the watch.

“Lindsay wasn’t charged in that case because the victim became uncooperative as soon as the watch was returned. The D.A. will be sending investigators out from the office to talk to the victim. Meyers wants to know if there was a financial pay off.”

Lohan was also accused of stealing a mink coat from Maria Markova in New York City in January 2008. Markova said at the time that Lohan took the coat at a nightclub, 1 Oak. The coat was valued at $12k. Markova claimed she was sitting next to Lohan at the club when the coat was allegedly stolen.

Markova said the next time she saw the coat, Lohan was wearing it in a magazine picture. Lindsay was not criminally charged in that incident either. “Meyers will be reviewing that information as well. It will absolutely be brought up either at the preliminary hearing or the trial,” our source said. “This will establish a pattern of behavior, that Meyers will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay is guilty in this case.

“It doesn’t matter that Lindsay wasn’t criminally charged in those previous incidents. Meyers can, and will subpoena police that investigated those, and as well as the accusers if she needs to. Lindsay has major entitlement issues, which have led her down this very dark road.”

[From Radar]

TMZ takes a much more Linnocent-friendly approach, noting that she was a “credible defense” for the crack thievery, but it’s the probation violations that will ruin her, and the judge will have discretion as to whether those two issues – the crack thievery and the probation violations – will be joined into one case. And as we know, Linnocent’s violations keep stacking up, like so many tequila shots chased with lines of coke. The preliminary hearing is set for April 22 – from what Law & Order has taught me, my guess is that the hearing will be a preview of the evidence against Linnocent, and her strategy for beating the rap.

Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame & Terry Richardson’s archives.

Here’s the lesson, boys and girls: if you’re a fine-looking dude who wants to offer some jailbait some lovely cunnilingus before heading off to the Jacuzzi to do blow off some stripper’s tittays, you can totally get away with all of it! Woohoo, John Stamos is still a rock star, bitches! The extortion case against a man and a woman accused of trying to blackmail John Stamos for $680,000 were found guilty on Thursday, July 15. Stamos even testified about the circumstances (his version) surrounding the incident in which he met Allison Coss, who was 17 years old when she met Stamos in Miami shortly after his split from Rebecca Romijn. Coss and her lawyer/co-conspirator Scott Sippola, were found guilty and could do up to nine years in jail:

A Michigan man and woman were convicted Thursday of trying to extort $680,000 from “Full House” actor John Stamos by threatening to sell compromising photos that prosecutors say didn’t even exist.

Scott Edward Sippola, 31, and Allison Lenore Coss, 24, could face up to nine years in prison for convictions of conspiracy and interstate communications to extort money, said assistant U.S. Attorney Maarten Vermaat. Sentencing is set for October 8.

“The case was made by the fact that these defendants made threats to damage his [Stamos'] reputation in order to have him pay them,” Vermaat said after the verdict in Marquette, Michigan. Jurors deliberated for about five hours Thursday.

According to CNN affiliate WLUC, prosecutors said that Coss and Sippola demanded $680,000 from the television actor or they would sell embarrassing pictures to tabloid publications of Stamos allegedly using drugs.

Vermaat said the defendants sent about 40 e-mails to Stamos threatening to sell the photos. FBI agents got involved and started monitoring Stamos’ e-mail account and “eventually communicated by cellular telephone with the defendants pretending to be Mr. Stamos’ business manager.” Sippola and Coss were arrested in December 2009 at an airport, a pre-arranged drop off spot for the money.

Defense attorney Sarah Henderson alleged at trial that Stamos had a fling with Coss when she was a 17-year-old vacationing on spring break in 2004. Prosecutors said Stamos met Coss during a trip to Disney World in Orlando, Florida. They developed a friendship and the two communicated by e-mail occasionally until November 2009, when the actor turned the phohtos matter over to the FBI.

According to WLUC, Coss testified there were several photos depicting Stamos using cocaine. She claimed the actor seemed interested in buying the photos. The actor testified that nothing inappropriate happened at a 2004 spring-break party and, accordingly, he didn’t believe compromising photos existed. Stamos said Thursday he wants to get back to work.

“I would like to thank the court, the FBI and the U.S .Attorney’s office for their swift and efficient dealings in connection with this case,” Stamos said in a statement Thursday afternoon. I am shocked and perplexed how individuals could fabricate so many false stories in an effort to defend a crime. I agreed to be a witness for a federal criminal prosecution and endured countless false accusations about my behavior and appropriateness. The allegations made regarding an inappropriate relationship are completely untrue. These slanderous allegations to smear my reputation were part of their defense to redirect attention away from the federal crime of extortion. There was no hot tub, no drugs, no nudity and nothing sexual in nature involved in my friendship with this woman. They lied about everything from a pregnancy to compromising photos.”

A call by CNN to defense attorney Sarah Henderson was not immediately returned.

[From CNN]

What do you want to bet that Stamos gets some work out of this? A nice character arc on one of the CSIs, maybe, or even something more high-brow, like Weeds or Breaking Bad? Because you know what? This whole thing actually helped his reputation. I always thought he was very pretty, but now he seems dangerous and naughty, even if the story about offering cunnilingus and the Jacuzzi, with the strippers and the tittays wasn’t true. Stamos’ virility and bad-boy appeal has given him an extra kick. Mama like.

Header: Stamos on Novemeber 13, 2008. Credit: WENN.

Stupid people make me happy. Because they make me feel superior, and thus better about myself. If you were one of the reasonably rational people who assumed David Letterman’s attempted extortionist would make a plea deal, you’d be wrong. Because he is stupid on so many levels, Robert “Joe” Halderman is proceeding straight ahead with his trial. Well, after his equally stupid lawyer tried to get his case thrown out because he claimed Halderman wasn’t trying to extort Letterman, but really was trying to sell him a screenplay about his affair. Thus, it was just a business transaction. Can you believe the judge didn’t go for that? Anyway, the trial is marching onwards.

Just when it was becoming possible to watch the “Late Show with David Letterman” without thinking about the host’s extortion scandal, the case is back in the news.

Robert “Joe” Halderman, the CBS news producer accused of attempting to extort $2 million from Letterman, is due to appear in a Manhattan court Tuesday for the first hearing in the criminal case against him. Before even entering the courtroom, Halderman (who will likely appear, although Letterman probably won’t) was making news.

The New York Observer reported that since his Oct. 2 indictment, he’s raised $100,000 for his defense fund, which would seem to indicate that he won’t be taking any plea deal from the prosecution. If Halderman is found guilty of attempted grand larceny, he could face up to 15 years in state prison. Tuesday’s hearing will likely tackle the mundane issues involved with scheduling future proceedings, but don’t rule out some headline-making from Halderman’s attorney, according to NBC legal analyst Dan Abrams.

“The judge will address any legal issues in front of him, like what sort of evidence the defense is entitled to and when,” said Abrams. “In large part, however, they will assess what the broader legal questions are that need to be resolved and likely set dates for future proceedings. Watch for defense attorney Gerry Shargel, however, to continue his public assault on Letterman’s character. He may also try to make it seem as if he wants to move forward with a trial whether that is true or not. So don’t expect any grand revelations but based on the way Shargel has behaved already, I would not be surprised to hear some theatrics from the defense.”

[From MSNBC]

The angle of it being a legitimate business transaction didn’t work with the judge in terms of getting the case thrown out, but I’d bet that’s still going to be the defense’s argument. I can’t imagine what else they could come up with: there’s only so much creative brainpower between these two. Frankly, from a purely tactical point of view, I’m sort of impressed two boneheads managed to come up with the legit business angle. I mean it’s obvious bull and no one will buy it for a second, but any angle whatsoever is pretty shocking to me.

It’s going to suck for Halderman when he ends up doing the full 15 years. I think he’s genuinely so angry at Letterman that he believes his anger justifies what he did, and the jury will agree with him. If he had any sense whatsoever, he probably could have pleaded out to just a few years.

Here’s Robert Halderman outside of Manhattan Criminal Court today. Images thanks to WENN.com .

The extortion trial of two Bahamians charged with attempting to blackmail John Travolta has ended in a mistrial. The judge in the case suspected inappropriate behavior by one of the jurors in the trial during the deliberation process. This means that Travolta and his family will most likely have to go through this process all over again with a new jury.

A mistrial has been declared in the trial of two people accused of attempting to extort millions from actor John Travolta after the death of his 16-year-old son, Jett.

Judge Anita Allen thought someone in the jury had had inappropriate communications outside of the jury room, where jurors had been deliberating for eight hours.

The judge received information that an announcement had been made at a local political rally that one of the defendants had been found not guilty.

Paramedic Tarino Lightbourn and former Bahamian Sen. Pleasant Bridgewater, who is also Lightbourn’s attorney, were accused of trying to extort money from Travolta.

Jett Travolta suffered a seizure on January 2 at the family’s vacation home on the island of Grand Bahamas, where the family was spending a New Year’s holiday.

Lightbourn and Bridgewater allegedly tried to get Travolta to pay them $25 million to not make public a medical document, declining to have Jett transported to a nearby hospital. Travolta refused a demand for money.

Lightbourn and Bridgewater had pleaded not guilty.

While lawyers and journalists awaited the verdict Wednesday night, they were inundated with calls from colleagues that someone at a rally for the Progressive Liberal Party had announced that party member Bridgewater was “free at last.”

When the courtroom doors opened to a packed crowd, the jury foreman said the jurors needed more time to deliberate. However, Allen opted to discharge the jury.

“About two hours ago, there was an announcement at a particular political party,” she said. “It leaves the impression that there may have been a communication in the jury room. I am going to discharge you from returning your verdict.”

Allen then ordered a retrial.

“We would have liked to have had a verdict so there would be closure in this case, but we prefer to have a new trial,” said Travolta’s lawyer Michael Ossi. “We believe the evidence was very strong and convincing. The jury was deliberating for about eight hours. … If, in fact, Tarino Lightbourn or Pleasant Bridgewater were found not guilty, a verdict would have been read hours before this announcement.”

Carlson Shurland, Lightbourn’s lawyer, expressed disappointment over the judge’s ruling, saying the case has been a “financial nightmare.”

“Unfortunately, after a lot of expenses, I’m very, very disappointed,” he said. “I’m confident that we would have had a favorable verdict.”

Earlier in the trial, Travolta had testified that his son was found unresponsive by a nanny.

Travolta said he initially told the ambulance driver to rush them to an airport where his private jet was parked. Travolta, who is a pilot, planned to fly his son to a West Palm Beach, Florida, hospital instead of driving him to one in nearby Freeport.

The actor testified that while he and his wife, actress Kelly Preston, were riding in the ambulance with their son, they decided to take the teen to the hospital, instead of flying to Florida.

At the hospital, Travolta was told his son “wasn’t alive,” he said.

During the ambulance ride, Lightbourn asked Travolta to sign a statement releasing the ambulance company from liability.

“I received a liability of release document. I signed it. I did not read it. Time was of the essence,” Travolta testified.

Travolta testified that he later learned about a demand for $25 million. If he didn’t pay, “stories connected to that document would be sold to the press,” the actor said. “The stories would imply the death of my son was intentional and I was culpable somehow.”

An attorney representing Bridgewater and Lightbourn asked Travolta whether the defendants had ever contacted or threatened him directly. Travolta said they had not and that he had heard specifics about the situation through his attorneys.

Travolta’s attorney, Michael McDermott, testified that Bridgewater had told him that the “document would show [Travolta] killed his son or was negligent in the death of his son.”

Also, McDermott told the court that Bridgewater had claimed that the form was evidence that Travolta was “trying to flee the country with his dead son.”

“I said to Mrs. Bridgewater, ‘What you are doing is a criminal offense — it’s extortion in the United States,” McDermott testified.

McDermott said he contacted authorities and later met with Bridgewater in a Nassau hotel room for a conversation secretly recorded by Bahamian police.

The price for keeping the document under wraps was dropped through subsequent phone conversations. McDermott said it went from $25 million to $10 million.

[From CNN]

This must be extremely disappointing for the family, and I hope this whole mess can be sorted out. It’s hard to know whether the person at the political rally was just making up stories to please the crowd or if there was something even more sinister going on. It certainly doesn’t speak well of the government in the Bahamas if it’s true. Anyway, it looks like Travolta and wife Kelly Preston will have to go through this entire ugly and painful process again if they want to see these two clowns put in jail.

I’ve never found Kirsten Dunst very impressive. She’s there and that’s fine, but for the life of me I can’t figure out why she’s famous. She’s not the worst actress ever but there’s nothing noteworthy about her. Except her consistently messy appearance. Kirsten’s never struck me as particularly bright or self-aware, and now there’s a court record to confirm it. Yesterday she testified against the man who stole her purse from a hotel suite two years ago. The New York Post referred to her as “Kirsten Dunce” (snicker). She didn’t have the slightest idea how to present herself in a court of law and came off as a complete airhead; giggling and interrupting herself and saying “like” a lot.

Maybe Spider-Man could have saved her — from herself. Actress Kirsten Dunst giggled her way through a half-hour on a Manhattan witness stand yesterday, apparently at sea when it comes to speaking in public without the help of a Hollywood script. Dunst, 27, who plays love interest Mary Jane in all three “Spider-Man” movies, was in court to do the kind of serious work usually left to her on-screen superhero sweetie — nailing a thief, in this case the Brooklyn car mechanic accused of swiping her handbag in 2007.

But the ditzy Dunst virtually fluttered into court in a black blouse, tight black pants and black stilettos, flipping her long blond hair and giving the judge a perky “Hi, how ya doin’?” even before sitting down in the witness chair.

Then — in oddly cheerful testimony punctuated by girlish chirps of “I mean,” and “OK,” and “Like,” and “Yeah!” — the actress de scribed how, two years ago, she returned to her swanky penthouse suite at the Soho Grand to find her $2,000 Balenciaga purse had vanished from where she’d left it on a bed.

“We realized — yeah! — somebody had taken it,” the ac tress told jurors, de scribing the moment she and British co- star Simon Pegg re turned to the pent house to find their “things” had vanished. The $3,500-a-night suite was being used as a green room as they filmed scenes for “How to Lose Friends & Alienate People” in the hotel lobby and on West Broadway.

“Like, it could have been five times, I can’t really remember,” the star laughed when prosecutor Patricia Stolfi asked how many times she’d been in and out of the penthouse that night. Asked the approximate time, she giggled again, “The sun was setting. I mean rising! Excuse me!”

For all her giggles, Dunst did what prosecutors needed — tell jurors that [defendant] Jimenez did not have permission or authority to either enter her suite or possess her handbag.

[From the New York Post]

I would totally be cheerful and too excited to remember the difference between a setting and rising sun if I were testifying against a thief. Talk about flighty. I actually think it’s good Kirsten’s an actress. If her career depending on coming up with words on her own and putting them together in a coherent manner, she might not get far. She’s good at mastering the flip of the hair and confused giggle. And being rescued by spiders and whatnot. The Post noted that Dunst did get her purse back – minus the $2,000. The robber left it in a dumpster in Brooklyn. Clearly no lasting psychological harm was done, and I’m assuming it’s safe to say he’ll be convicted. All thanks to Kirsten’s edge-of-your-seat testimony.

Here’s Kirsten leaving New York City Supreme Court after testifying yesterday. Images thanks to WENN.com .

Anna Nicole Smith’s lawyer and faux boyfriend Howard K. Stern has been arraigned on five additional charges in her death. All of the counts related to him helping her illegally obtain prescription narcotics. He’s pleaded not guilty, along with two of Smith’s doctors, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor and psychiatrist Dr. Khristine Eroshevich.

More charges were filed Wednesday against the lawyer-boyfriend of Anna Nicole Smith, with prosecutors claiming he helped obtain the drugs that killed the former Playboy model. Howard K. Stern was charged with five more felony counts in an amended complaint filed by the Los Angeles County district attorney’soffice, bringing the total number of charges against him to 11.

Smith died of a drug overdose on Feb. 8, 2007, in a Florida hotel room. Prosecutors call Stern an aider and abettor of two doctors, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor and Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, who are charged with improperly prescribing the drugs that killed Smith. All three pleaded not guilty in May to conspiring to illegally provide Smith with controlled substances. They re-entered their pleas Wednesday to the amended complaint. Outside court, Stern’s attorney said the additional charges were filed because prosecutors realized their case against him was weak. “They are using a shotgun approach,” Steve Sadow said. “They are throwing everything at him to see what sticks, and nothing will stick.” Sadow argues his client should not be blamed for Smith’s death because Stern was relying on the doctors to treat the former model, who he said was recovering from an illness at the time of her death.

“Anna Nicole was a very strong-willed woman,” Sadow said. “She took the prescription medications because she thought it was in her best interest to control her pain. A preliminary hearing is set for Oct. 5 but prosecutors asked for a delay until Oct. 13. A decision will be made following a scheduling hearing Oct. 1.

[From MSNBC]

There’s also the big issue of what kind of relationships Smith had with her doctors. There’s a photo of her with Kapoor at a gay pride parade and the prosecution is saying they had some sort of inappropriate personal relationship. His lawyer is arguing that’s not the case, since Kapoor is gay. She says they didn’t have a social relationship either, they just both happened to be at the same event. I can buy that. However I’d love to hear the excuses that come out of Dr. Khristine Eroshevich’s lawyer. Look what kind of photos are floating around of Eroshevich and Anna Nicole.

Anna Nicole Smith and her psychiatrist were captured on film in various contorted sexual positions, according to new legal docs.

We reported this morning that the legal docs describe Anna Nicole and Dr. Khristine Eroshevich naked in a bathtub together. Authorities claim the two women had a personal relationship “that crossed the boundaries of professionalism.”

The documents are very specific: “One photo showed both naked women embracing while looking at the camera. In another photo, Dr. Eroshevich is sitting between Anna Nicole Smith’s legs while Anna…was in a more reclined position.

In the third photo, Anna Nicole Smith has her ankles on each of Dr. Eroshevich’s shoulders while they are holding hands and their clasped hands are resting in the area of Anna Nicole Smith’s vagina posing for the camera.”

More than a year ago we saw a photo of Anna Nicole and Dr. Eroshevich, naked in a bathtub with a sex toy nearby. We did not publish the photo.

[From TMZ]

If even TMZ finds themselves in an ethical quandary over a photo, it’s got to be seriously bad. I can’t wait to hear how Eroshevich is going to explain those pictures. There’s no non-salacious and rational explanation I can think of. All of the defendants in this case are creepy, just different levels. Howard Stern is creepy because of his appearance and Svengali-like hold over Smith. But of the two doctors I find Eroshevich the worst. I mean presumably she also functioned as a psychiatrist to Smith. Yet… those photos. This woman must be seriously psychologically disturbed.

Anna Nicole was victimized from all sorts of people. It just goes to show the powerful way drugs can take over your life. In her case they made her so doped up that she agreed to all sorts of things she probably wouldn’t have otherwise. And they ultimately led to her death. Even though it’s been several years coming, hopefully she’ll get some justice soon.

Header photo credit: WENN. Photo below credit: Fame

John Travolta is currently in the Bahamas to potentially testify in the high profile extortion case against former Bahamian senator Pleasant Bridgewater and paramedic Tarino Lightbourne. Bridgewater and Lightbourne are accused of demanding $25 million from the actor in exchange for keeping quiet about a “refusal to transport” document for Travolta’s son, Jett, who died in the Bahamas in January after suffering a seizure and hitting his head. The background on the document is benign enough – Travolta initially wanted to fly Jett in his private jet to Florida for treatment instead of having him taken to hospital in the Bahamas. It could have taken the same amount of time, 45 minutes, to take Jett back to Florida as it would have to drive him to the hospital in the Bahamas. By signing the document, Travolta was releasing the hospital from legal liability in the event of complications. Travolta opted to take Jett to the Bahamian hospital instead, but apparently Lightbourne and his lawyer, Bridgewater, thought that the news that Travolta wanted to fly Jett to Florida was something that he would pay dearly to keep out of the press.

Yesterday a nine person jury with three men and six women was selected. Travolta is on the witness list with 13 other people, and is the first witness listed for the opening day of trial today:

John Travolta has traveled to the Bahamas and is prepared to be the first witness Tuesday in an extortion case linked to his 16-year-old son’s death, a source tells PEOPLE.

The actor is staying at an exclusive gated community west of Nassau, the source says. This is believed to be Travolta’s first visit to the Bahamas since Jett Travolta died last January after suffering a seizure at the actor’s vacation home on the island of Grand Bahama.

Paramedic Tarino Lightbourn and his attorney, former Bahamian Sen. Pleasant Bridgewater, are accused of conspiring to extort $25 million from Travolta for a document relating to Jett’s treatment. The pair have pleaded not guilty and are out on bond.

Supreme Court Judge Anita Allen swore in the six-woman, three-man jury Monday, with opening statements slated to begin Tuesday morning.

Travolta, who heads the 14-member witness list, was not among the four witnesses present in court during jury selection. But he is expected to testify – and likely will have to recount the painful memories of Jett’s death – since he filed the extortion complaint.

“If the prosecution doesn’t call him, we will,” Mary Bain, a lawyer representing Lightbourn, tells PEOPLE. “Of course, he’s a key witness.”

[From People]

There was speculation last month that Travolta and his wife of 18 years, Kelly Preston,were having trouble in their marriage after Jett passed. Kelly has been hard at work while Travolta took a trip by himself to Tahiti earlier this year and has cut a lonely figure since. John doesn’t need to go through the pain of having to recount his son’s death after two greedy people tried to take advantage of him. If these people did try to extort money from Travolta over a tragedy they deserve to have the book thrown at them.

John Travolta is shown in November, 2008 at the premiere of Bolt. Credit: PRPhotos. Other photos are of the two suspects, Bridgewater and Lightbourne, outside of court yesterday. Credit: WENN.com

After a very brief two day trial, Amy Winehouse has been acquitted of the assault charges against her. The judge didn’t necessarily believe Amy’s defense that she didn’t punch dancer Sherene Flash but merely pushed her away – but said he couldn’t rule it out since it very well could have been an accident. Amy was also drunk off her ass at the time, which could have contributed to it being an accident. In the U.S. court system she would still have been responsible for her actions, but I’m not sure if that’s the case in the U.K. Either way, Amy’s explanation was plausible, and she’s off the hook.

A refurbished Amy Winehouse is officially off the hook for punching a fan who wanted a picture with her.

Today in London, the judge found Amy not guilty on assault charges — for the incident that happened after a charity ball last September. While prosecutors claimed the hit was deliberate, Winehouse says she felt intimidated by the drunken fan, but was too short to actually smack the girl in the face.

Winehouse, who showed up to court smokin’ a ciggy, was free to go, go, go.

[From TMZ]

Amy had to miss her grandmother’s funeral due to the trial. Her 86-year-old maternal grandmother, Esther, passed away after a long fight with Alzheimer’s. According to Radar, Amy joined her family right after the trial let out. They also say that, despite all the drama, Amy is very close with her mom’s family.

Singer Amy Winehouse missed her grandmother’s funeral because she was on trial in London for allegedly assaulting a fan, RadarOnline.com can reveal.

While the singer was in court, she was unable to mourn at the graveside, but after the hearing was over, she joined family and friends to pay her respects.

Winehouse, 25, was said to be devastated by the death of her 86-year-old grandmother Esther, who had suffered from Alzheimer’s disease and lived in a care home.

The ‘Back To Black’ singer was determined to attend Shiva – the week long mourning in the Jewish faith – to support her grieving mom Janis Winehouse.

“The family enjoys a close bond, and Amy is very much at the center of it,” revealed Janis. “She couldn’t interrupt the court case, but was determined to be with me and her relatives at the first opportunity.

Amy is as close to them as they are to her, and it was wonderful seeing her in the garden with all her family and cousins, enjoying their company, the way it has always been.”

The assault case against the singer was dismissed Friday after Judge Timothy Workman said he couldn’t be sure the incident was not an accident after listening to evidence.

[From Radar]

Yesterday I mentioned (rather sarcastically) that Amy hasn’t punched anyone in months. With most people that’s nothing exceptional, but with her, that’s a big deal. Amy went through a long punching/headbutting/kicking phase last spring and summer. You know how toddlers go through a hitting phase? Amy relived hers twenty-some years later. Most toddlers aren’t drunk off their asses and beating up cab drivers, but hey, in Amy’s case you hit who’s around you. She seems to be making some progress on that front (if not others) – hopefully this is one particular issue she can wrap up now.

Here’s Amy Winehouse arriving at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court for the second day of her assault trial in London today. Images thanks to WENN.com .

Amy Winehouse took the stand in her defense today during her assault trial in London. Last year she punched a dancer, Sherene Flash, who’d asked to take a photo with her at the Berkeley Square charity summer ball. During her testimony, Amy essentially claimed that Flash was all up in her grill. But she put it the British way, noting, “‘She lent down all over me. She had her face down by me.’” Nothing she said sounded all that convincing or explained why she reacted with a punch – which she essentially denied was even a punch.

By the same measure, said Winehouse, Flash “was pretty much leaning on me. She’s a big girl. She was being overly presumptuous. I’m not Mickey Mouse. I’m a human being.”… In the dressing room area backstage, the singer, 25, said that as she moved her left hand across her face, she pushed her right hand upwards, towards Flash. “She’s there, she’s tall. I wanted her away from me,” she told the court. “I thought: ‘Do I get a choice in this? Hello?’ People are mad, people are rude.”

As if to emphasize the height differences, the 5′, 2½” Winehouse moved away from the evidence box and showed chief Magistrate Timothy Workman her flat pink ballet pumps. “And my hair does make a difference,” the often-beehived singer added.

Earlier, prosecuting lawyer Lyall Thompson told the court that there was “nothing accidental about Miss Winehouse’s actions. It may be that well-known figures find such requests tiresome, but they need to develop strategies” to deal with them. “She acted with deliberate and unjustifiable violence,” he said of Winehouse allegedly landing a “direct blow” to Flash’s face with her right hand.

Flash called the cops and later saw a doctor. She said she was left with a “slightly swollen” right eye after the incident. Flash told the court that she had been dancing at the event and then, later, went backstage with a friend to see if they could meet the Grammy-winner.

She said that she had not touched Winehouse. Asked by Winehouse’s lawyer Patrick Gibbs if she had “misread” the situation, Flash answered, “Even if I did, it doesn’t give someone the right to punch me in the face.”

Flash, who admitted she was “tipsy,” described Winehouse as seeming “drunk.” Other witnesses concurred, with Jack Jefferson saying of her performance earlier: “Her speech was slurred and she didn’t appear to be in control of her physical actions.”

[From People]

So Amy’s defense is essentially that she didn’t punch Sherene Flash but that she used her right hand to push her away. She also seems to be arguing that as a much smaller person, she felt physically intimidated by the way Flash was so close to her. The problem is that other witnesses saw Amy punch Sherene Flash. She also headbutted a photographer at the same event. And not a paparazzo – an official photographer for the fancy ball. She was also described as extremely inebriated – no eyebrow raising here.

It seems likely that Amy perhaps intended merely to push away Sherene Flash and may have felt that’s what she was doing. But most likely she was drunk and clumsy, and really did punch her. Nonetheless, it seems unlikely she’ll do any serious time (the max would be six months). I’m guessing she probably will be found guilty, but be given some kind of nominal probation. And to her credit – Amy hasn’t physically assaulted anyone in months.

Here’s Amy at Westminster Magistrates Court today. Images thanks to Fame Pictures .