Anna Nicole Smith | Howard K. Stern | Larry Birkhead | News

Larry Birkhead Responds to Gay Allegations on Larry King Live

Larry Birkhead appeared on Larry King Live last night to respond to a new bio of Anna Nicole Smith by Rita Cosby that alleges Birkhead and lawyer Howard K. Stern were involved sexually and made secret deals to split Smith's estate.

Check it out here.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Birkhead sounds very credible in this Larry King Live interview.

    Rita Cosby doesn't come off looking so good.

    If this non existent video tape ends up showing up, then all bets are off. Certainly Birkhead wouldn't be so stupid as to deny the existence of a video that he knows actually exists.

    For the sake of the little girl (who should be the ONLY concern in all of this) I hope to god that he’s telling the truth and this whole sordid tale will just go away.

    Posted by: Zeke | Sep 5, 2007 12:09:22 PM

  2. Seriously though, this all needs to just disappear. I'm all for scandals... when they're fun. This one is not fun, everything about it just turns my stomach.

    Posted by: David | Sep 5, 2007 12:27:08 PM

  3. If GLAAD, which some may recall stands for Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, has actually been doing the job all these years they were created to do, wisely applying those millions gays send them every year to something other than partying with B-celebrities, then why is virtually every MSM news/entertainment show approaching the assertions that Anna Nicole's men are at least Bi and have done each other as ....wait for it....."DEFAMATION"? Dickhead er Birkhead and Stern’s attorney both call the story “defamatory.” As usual, GLAAD hasn't even caught up to the story yet on their site.

    Maybe “The Insider” and “Entertainment Tonight”—who quoted Stern’s attorney also calling it “disgusting”—should assign their recently acquired reporter, out and proud Thomas Roberts, to, uh, straighten his bosses out.

    Boycott SAAD!

    Posted by: Leland Frances | Sep 5, 2007 1:56:31 PM

  4. Leland, it's "defamatory" because it involves two men. If it were Larry and any woman it would just be "untrue" but not "defamatory". I think that wording is very offensive.

    However, I am not Larry and am not in his shoes right now. He may feel that angry. But I also have no doubt left whatsoever that these Hollywood people are competent actors (read, liars) that know how to lie through their very teeth -- when pushed. Just because he looks sincere doesn't mean he is. The system may look harshly upon him re: his child. Sad but probably true given how backwards legal systems can be. He is probably fighting to keep his child.

    Posted by: Eoin Mark | Sep 5, 2007 2:34:37 PM

  5. These people (including Cosby and the deceased Anna Nicole) are all so sad and sleazy--I feel like I need to take a shower.

    Posted by: db | Sep 5, 2007 3:30:58 PM

  6. My guess is that Birkhead is in bed with Rita Cosby (metaphorically speaking). We would never have heard of this book had he not gone on CNN last night. She would never go on CNN because of the direct competition with MSNBC. Sales are directly proportional to publicity. Or maybe it should be sleeze=ca-ching. Just sad.

    Posted by: Rick | Sep 5, 2007 5:32:47 PM

  7. Well need to get out more. Cosby was the one who made the accusations and her publicity machine was who promoted it. I was watching a charity event when Birkhead was asked about the charges made by Cosby and he was visably angry and taken aback.....he had no idea this was coming.

    Cosby was a Fox news reporter before she went over to MSNBC, she has always been a sleeze bag and her contract with MSNBC was not renewed because of her questionable tactics in other stories and her ratings sucked big time. She's a grasping media whore(insert Lelands best friends name here)and nothing more.

    These charges are defamatory because anytime charges are made of a sexual nature and they are untrue, it's called defamation.(not just sexual, all untrue statements, just sexual ones are for the purpose of publicity only)
    The only reason Birkhead hasn't actually filed a suit yet is because the book hasn't been released for sale yet. Until it is, publicity teaser's can't be used to file defamation suits. But, Birkheads lawyers have given written legal notice to shows like Today and others that if they bring Cosby on and she makes these statements on air, Birkhead will sue them as well. They can have her as long as she dosen't make any statement or is not asked about these charges. The networks will tell her that, and won't ask , but they will ask her to provide **proof** of the charges, if their lawyers say it's real and foolproof, they will ask her, otherwise no way. Today was the first to disinvite her.
    But Birkheads assertions about the so called **collaborating** witnesses is true. Cosby will give her street corner interviews, because she knows that none of the regular shows will touvh her, she's a disgusting pig.

    Posted by: Joshua | Sep 5, 2007 5:51:40 PM

  8. Joshua said "These charges are defamatory because anytime charges are made of a sexual nature and they are untrue, it's called defamation.(not just sexual, all untrue statements, just sexual ones are for the purpose of publicity only)"

    No, that's not correct. Saying someone is left handed when they are in fact right handed and publishing it, is not, in fact defamatory. Under at least New York law, it's currently an open question as to whether stating someone is gay (who is straight) could be considered defamatory. Historically it could, but many think that is likely no longer the case, now.

    Posted by: crad | Sep 5, 2007 7:03:05 PM

  9. Joshua: You proved my point exactly. No one will touch Cosby for an interview, so I think Birkhead is doing the publicity for her. He's playing the disgusted victim while Cosby is the only one raking in cash? Doubt it.

    It looks to me like the book is already available. Oh, yeah, published Sept. 4, which just happened to be the day of the Larry King interview. What a coincidence!

    Posted by: Rick | Sep 5, 2007 7:22:48 PM

  10. And, yes, I do believe the Anna Nicole leftovers are that sleazy as to do something like this.

    Posted by: Rick | Sep 5, 2007 7:28:59 PM

  11. Why would it matter???? {I DON'T BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE!}...Rita in cahoots with "Dopey" and Virgie are out for slander and all belong in the gutter! Now Anna's trick cyclist is spending a week with HK$ because she is depressed and loosing her practice..hmmm.. follow the drugs..AN$ was murdered and "MOE's wife was set up to find her dead with faeces in the bed..Dr Perper did a disgraceful job of investigating this crime....WHAT A COVER UP!!!...WHY...MONEY...I truly hope that the Marshall Estate does not award Dannielynn ANY FUNDS...then maybe she can grow up with a normal life and a loving Dad!

    Posted by: Jill from Western Australia | Sep 6, 2007 12:10:59 AM

  12. After Anna Nicole's funeral, Rita slipped into a private reception and was spotted by Howard K. Stern who had her escorted out by security. This was all caught on tape and aired by many networks including Fox News - On The Record with Greta Van Susteren. Rita saw an opportunity to make some cash and deliver a payback. I saw her on O'Reilly last night and she looked quite pensive as Bill was grilling her about her two sources who claim to have seen the tape. She is banking that it is true because the two sources claim not to know each other. Rita also claims that she is indemnified by the publisher in the event of a lawsuit. Indemnifications can be challenged and nulled if the facts are not as represented. She is in for a rough ride. If the tape existed, it should have been stolen from the Horizons residence in the Bahamas by the Alabama developer who fronted the cash for its purchase. He and his business partner gutted the house within 24 hours after Anna died in Hollywood, Florida. So why is Howard K. Stern still in the house? The developer surely would have used the tape to get Stern to leave quietly. Rita claims her two sources say that Anna watched this tape over and over. Where is the tape? I am betting that Rita and her publisher have a major problem. Birkhead has come out of every legal entanglement on top and having told the truth. Why would this be any different?

    Posted by: Johnny Lane | Sep 6, 2007 1:08:10 AM

  13. The supposed sin is not that they're gay--who cares?--but if they were colluding behind the scenes to split Dannielynn's inheritance from the Marshall estate (an inheritance that most respectable legal pundits are saying will never happen anyway), THAT's the sin.

    Posted by: noodlemonkey | Sep 6, 2007 10:29:32 AM

Post a comment


« «News: Brazil, The Killers, Embryos, San Diego, Britney Spears« «