maybe i misunderstood. I was understanding that it was her testimony in court that she said, over the past 18 months, and it was noted, that she was contradicting her own affidavit.
re: giving the jewels - didn’t a former manager pipe up and say not too long ago he had some expensive jewelry ANS had given him to safekeep still in his safe? perhaps ANS was confused on who she had given it to? (of course, one must wonder why said manager-type didn’t say anything in ‘95 when it must have been in the press, and instead, waited until ‘07...)
From trial coverage:
~~~~
“ ... Vickie’s lawyers filed an affidavit in Los Angeles outlining her financial condition after her husband died.
Within a few days of her husband’s death, Vickie told the court that her debts included a $350,000 lien on the California home Howard Senior purchased for her in cash. Vickie said she owned nine lawyers or law firms another $350,000. What about the millions of dollars of jewelry Vickie received? “I don’t have my jewelry, my jewelry is all gone,” Vickie told the jury. The 1995 affidavit offered this explanation as to why she doesn’t have it anymore:
“Although it is commonly known that my husband gave me a large amount of jewelry that cost him several million dollars, all of this jewelry has been stolen from me over the past 18 months, I suspect by relatives, former bodyguards, former friends, and my son’s former nanny. The only jewelry I have left are the two pieces I wear constantly - my wedding ring and my inexpensive watch.”
Asked to explain how she managed to lose a king’s ransom in jewelry Vickie answered, “I used to be a real ditz.” ...”
~~~~
>>>I don’t recall that about jewelry safekeeping, but I’m only about 1/3rd of the way thru reviewing my notes for the Case Name List, so I may run across it. It doesn’t ring a bell with me right now.