I agree with you. I think her mom should have her remains. So what, if she hasn't seen her since 1995, I'm sure that wasn't her mothers decision. As far as the baby, I think her grandmother should get custody of her too since no one know who her father is and even when they do find out, he'll only want her because of the money and will probably hire a nanny to raise her. I feel so sorry for this baby, she will never have a normal life.
2007-02-20 01:27:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by curiousnktown 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
Legally, the mother should have her remains as she is the only adult releative. However, morally is a different question. Anna was estranged from her mother for years. If that were you,would you want the person that you despised most in the world to be responsible for your remains and your child. The mother is just as bad as everyone else. She is looking for a piece of the $ pie if ANS estate were to ever win the fight for J Howards money. However, right now there is no $, other that the little she earned from Trimspa. ANS was completely indebt with lawyers bills. Between that and an addiction to drugs, there cannot be much left over. And the case for her husbands cash could drag out another 10 years...
2007-02-20 09:25:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by techyspice 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think the state should have everything! Everyone knows that her mother was a strange for her. A person who never care about her. Her husband, lawyer, boyfriend or wherever, seems to me to be the murder because he knew he wasn't the father of the little girl and she, Nicole Smith, had just decided to do the DNA test, that it will result the change of the father in the baby's birth certificate. I have seem so many strange things about all this case, that it seems to be having the collaboration of many powerful corrupted people, and the press has reported the whole thing in a very strange way, suggesting very lightly Howard's involvement on her death and insisting that she was addicted to drugs...when the drugs has already been proved not being the cause of her death.
I am so stunt about this whole thing. I feel the same way I felt when Princess Diane die. People like Diane and Nicole don't die for nothing or a ridiculous car accident, there are interest of powerful people on her death. Sometimes, this people worth more dead than alive, and that's what ends up counting most.
2007-02-20 09:32:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
She should be able to be buried by her son. I don't think that she would have wanted him to be buried alone in a different country. The money should go into a trust for the baby until she is old enough to handle it herself.
2007-02-20 09:29:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
not her mother she needs to be bury by her son .Anna wanted out of Texas,why should she be buried there.her motherjust wants to get her last dig into anna.she knows how much anna loved her son.
2007-02-20 09:46:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by luv babygurl 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Who cares? I say cremate her, and divide her among everybody. That way, everybody is happy.
And put the money in a trust fund that the baby can't touch until she's 25. That way, there's no questions.
Famous people sure can be stupid.
2007-02-20 09:23:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by tinkerbell24 4
·
2⤊
3⤋
They should cremate and seperate the ashes. That way the mother could have half and then they could put the other half next to her son!
2007-02-20 09:23:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by Sunshine 3
·
2⤊
3⤋
She should be buried alongside her son. Her mother is being ridiculous.
2007-02-20 09:33:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by Lirrain 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think howard stern should have the body and thats what Anna would have wanted.
2007-02-20 09:26:57
·
answer #9
·
answered by scottsmith20 3
·
1⤊
3⤋
her body should be burried, and yes her baby should get the money
2007-02-20 09:22:50
·
answer #10
·
answered by livinia 4
·
1⤊
2⤋