Kim Kardashian’s Two Cents’ Worth on Casey Anthony

And more from our Liz: Elizabeth Taylor’s Christmas gift to New Yorkers … Is Gwyneth Paltrow a “bad mother?” … “Monty Python” returns

CASEY ANTHONY not guilty? I’m speechless!”

That’s what Kim Kardashian tweeted on Tuesday, when word came down that Anthony had beaten the rap on murdering her two year-old daughter, Caylee.

She’s speechless? Aside from the obvious blessing of that phenomenon, is Kardashian unaware of her own family history? Her father, Robert Kardashian, was a member of the O.J. Simpson “dream team” that got O.J. off for allegedly butchering his wife Nicole Brown Simpson and young Ron Goldman. She should use discretion when commenting on murder trials and/or their outcome.

Then again, Kim and her sisters seem quite happy sharing one brain cell, so it is entirely possible she knows nothing of the Simpson case.

As for Casey? Reality TV looms. I don’t see her going back to live with her mother and stepfather — the stepfather whom Casey’s defense team tapped as a monster who molested Casey as a child. This was broached in the opening remarks, but never picked up on during the trial. The somber matter-of-fact manner in which Cindy and George Anthony took the verdict and the swiftness of their exit from the courtroom spoke volumes.

* * *

DECEMBER IN New York will more glittery than usual. Competing with the Christmas lights and the tree in Rockefeller Center and the fabulous store windows will be The Collection of Elizabeth Taylor. Elizabeth’s jewels, clothes, furs, art and furniture go up for auction at Christie’s.

The jewelry sale will probably attract the most attention. Who will come to own the fabulous La Peregrina pearl … the mammoth Krupp diamond, a little trinket from Richard … the fabled emeralds … the rubies from Mike Todd (not to mention the 29 carat diamond ring, also from Todd. At the time Elizabeth remarked, “Mike said 30 carats would be vulgar.”) There is a massive sapphire, the gorgeous Taj Mahal diamond, and mountains of other baubles. It should be quite a spectacle. Well, Elizabeth loved her jewels, but she always said “They are in my keep now, but someday others will appreciate their beauty, as I do.”

However, I expect the sale of the star’s massive wardrobe of couture to be pretty exciting too. Everything from Chanel to Versace. And all those wild and crazy accessories — turbans and scarves and ponchos and endless pairs of the spike heels Elizabeth adored.

Some of the money will go to her family. But the majority benefits The Elizabeth Taylor Aids Foundation. Just as Elizabeth found a way to use her fame properly, she must have been rather wickedly delighted to know that all those filmy Halston caftans from her plump, unhappy Sen. John Warner period would be put to good use!

* * *

A WRITER named Rose Prince has been busy selecting Great Britain’s “most embarrassing mother.” At first, this writer selected Elle Macpherson and then questioned whether she should have named the Duchess of York, Fergie?

Then she went on to name our own Gwyneth Paltrow – although I thought for sure Gwynnie was an American who merely lives in England. She says the Oscar winner for “Shakespeare in Love”-turned-country-western singer should be named because she wears hipster fishnets and baubles, appears coyly nude in Vanity Fair and has a “wacky, nurturing style. She is rapidly becoming a full-time poseur.

I wish I knew what all that means. My own impression is that Gwyneth is newly popular and loved — and whether she is or not, she is a full-fledged celebrity with some minor background to the credentials that go to make up a star. She’s not just one of those 15 minute wannabes.

* * *

WHAT’S going on? Well, there’s always Monty Python even though many members of that sketch show are dead or have dropped out.

Now, in the first effort since “The Meaning of Life,” which bowed in 1983, the zany Monty Python gang is returning. We will get a 2D and 3D movie in the spring of 2012 to astound longtime fans and those who never heard of those wild and crazy guys.

The new film will be titled “A Liar’s Autobiography.” It is an animated production based on the memoir of the late Graham Chapman, who died in 1989 at age 48. The film will offer the historic Monty Python comic’s life in chapters that range from three to 12 minutes in length, each in a different style.

The late Chapman has already had his life analyzed through his stint in medical school, his alcoholism, his homosexuality and efforts in surreal comedy. John Cleese, who has suffered through recent tabloid headlines over his expensive divorce, has recorded new dialogue which will be matched with Chapman’s voice. Michael Palin will do the voice of Chapman’s mother. Terry Gilliam plays various roles and, asked if he is being accurate, says: “Nothing. It’s all a downright, absolute, blackguardly lie.”

Frankly, I don’t know if you want to wait for this revival of Monty Python or not. And I see that Eric Idle, the only Python I ever knew, has not signed off on appearing, although they are working on him.

“Monty Python” was first seen on the BBC in 1969 and ran for 45 famous episodes. We are “in” for more, it seems. Wait for it!

25 comments so far.

  1. avatar Belinda Joy says:

    First of all, that is a very odd photo of Kim isn’t it? How strange. Her head looks small and her body large. :-D

    Anyway, Liz when I first read your comments about Kim I thought “Geesh, do we really want to condemn someone for the actions of their father?” It’s bad enough Bernie Madoff’s son took his life because of the sins of his dad.  But then my second thought was, you’re right.

    She should be sensitive to this situation given her father’s role in helping to defend a man that was clearly guilty of murder. She can think it, but she should not have made her thoughts public. By mere virtue of who her father is, she lost the right IMO of ever being able to make a comment based on this type of situation.

    I understand that even those that are only guilty in the court of public opinion have a right to be represented. I get it. However, those that choose to represent these people have to understand they aren’t going to be loved or admired because of it. And the same harsh feelings the public may have for these lawyers spreads to their respective families as well. It may not be fair, but it is fact.

    • avatar Lila says:

      You know, Belinda… I was thinking the same thing initially, that we should not hold her father’s history against her. But you got me to thinking: what would the Kardashian sisters be today, had their father NOT been a famous attorney? And… he did not have a long or prominent law career; his fame stemmed DIRECTLY from the OJ case.

      Wiki says “best known as one of the attorneys for, and a friend of, OJ Simpson.” Kardashian got his law degree in 1967 and only practiced about 10 years, then quit to go into business. But OJ was his friend, he allowed OJ to stay in his house following the murders, and he reactivated his license to assist in the defense… where he was seen daily at OJ’s side. Dingdingding! Fame.

      So… if not for the OJ case, would there have been ANY interest in the “famous” Kardashian sisters? Indirectly, OJ’s association with their father gave them their initial boost into the limelight and all of their empire has flowed from that.

      So… yeah.. Better form to remain silent on this one. And if Casey Anthony makes a ton of money and gets a reality show, Kim should be even MORE silent, if that were possible.

    • avatar careyvick says:

      HER HEAD IS SMALL, HER BOOBS ARE HUGE, HER STOMACH IS THIN, HER FACE IS BEAUTIFUL, BUT HER ASS IS BIG. YOU WISH YOU WERE HER DON’T YOU? COME ON, ADMIT IT.

      AS FOR HER FATHER BEING INVOLVED WITH OJ. IT WAS HER FATHER, NOT HER.

  2. avatar tuttibelle says:

    While I don’t think too much of Kim, she is right. She also has no relationship to what her father did or did not do. So if she wants to comment on anything, that is her right.
    Additionally, there is no “stepfather” in the Anthony drama. George Anthony is Casey Anthony’s biological father.
    Reality show? She needs to step off into obscurity.

  3. avatar Laura Ward says:

    I don’t understand why they couldn’t charge her with some kind of child abuse for not reporting her missing.

    • avatar Lila says:

      Grrrr…. because Florida does not have a law specifically requiring people to report others missing. Several states are now enacting “Caylee’s Law” to change that.

      Yet another example of how we have to have written laws to cover every single possible permutation of everything, even common-sense stuff, because in today’s society no one is responsible for anything unless it is spelled out in giant red crayon letters. How can it NOT be neglect to go partying while your kid is “missing” for 31 days? And as it turned out… Miss Anthony admitted she KNEW her daughter was dead all that time, because she admitted to burying her.

      What this trial has taught us is that you can be irresponsible, a liar, you can admit to burying your dead kid with duct tape on her face, and nothing will happen to you because that’s not enough to be guilty of anything, apparently. Just don’t lie to police or you will get a wrist slap.

      Grrr….

    • avatar wilmah1217 says:

      She didn’t report her missing because SHE knew exactly where she was (and where she had left her).

  4. avatar Baby Snooks says:

    Perhaps if Kim Kardashian had commented first on her father’s complicity in the OJ circus her comments wouldn’t seem so hypocritical. Or so offensive. 

    As for Christmas at Christie’s I suspect no one will receive an accounting so no one will ever really know who got what but I also suspect the majority will go to the family and some of the money will go to the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation and none to amfAR which surprises no one who watched as Dorothy watched as Toto pulled the curtain back and Dorothy found Arnie Klein behind the curtain and realized Oz wasn’t so hot in the end.  At least she made it back to Kansas.  As for the loot, well, there’s a lot of loot from Oz.  And it will remain in Kansas so to speak. The prize will be the Krupp-Taylor diamond as it is already being referred to.  I personally believe it will set a record simply because of the quality in addition to the history. The rest, well, comparatively speaking it will be just so much junk.  That diamond in the end may prove to be her real legacy.  And possibly the most fitting one.

    • avatar rick gould says:

      ET had a pretty amazing jewelry collection.
      And the lesser and personal items/mementos may add up too, since they belonged to her and were often given by fellow famous celebrities…

      The way I understand it, the bulk of the estate is divvied up between her kids and her AIDS foundation. The grandchildren got a flat cash amount, according to a friend of mine, with the idea their parents pass on their inheritance with their passing…

      Whatever the case, it will be interesting to see what sells and hopefully lots of money will go to ET’s AIDS Foundation. I am also waiting to see what younger star is going to pick up the AIDS fundraising torch.

      • avatar Mr. Wow says:

        Dear Rick…

        For many years, Elizabeth carried a crazy handbag that looked like a folded magazine–about the size of Vogue. 

        I wonder if she kept it.  It would be cool to see it on display.  No, I won’t bid.  I have little interest in the personal belongings of the stars.  Owning them. 

    • avatar Count Snarkula says:

      @Baby Snooks: But I am still looking for 3 Lalique fishes that you gave to the Earth Mother, right?

      • avatar Baby Snooks says:

        I would imagine the little fishes are not major enough to warrant Christie’s but you never know.  She had a Lalique collection so the little pieces may be auctioned off as well.

        Lots of conjecture about “who gets what” but most likely it’s all retained in one trust which will now “feed” the trusts she set up for her children when the money started rolling in after Cleopatra and create new ones for the “successive generations” which is how many similar trusts are set up. Among other advantages there is no probate. So no public record. I doubt anyone will ever really know for sure unless someone decides to disclose it which is highly unlikely. She may not have done well with husbands but did do well with attorneys and accountants none of whom have ever said a word publicly about the private life of their client.  Many wondered through the years how much she was worth and the ballpark was always around $50 million. But that was her “cash value” and didn’t include the loot. The ballpark for the loot is $100-250 million. It depends on the market so to speak at auction which will determine what the art and jewelry bring in. Those are not usually items that sell on “sentimental” value although the exceptions may be the Warhol and the Krupp-Taylor diamond.  But some estimate it may be closer to around $500 million which may be where the extraordinary figure may have come from when she and Larry Fortensky divorced.  But what you have on the walls, and in the jewelry box, and what you have in the bank are two different things.   She attempted to sell the van Gogh and obviously it wasn’t because she was redecorating and it no longer fit in with the decor. She wanted the cash.  One of the unpleasant things about when she died was the possibility that the family that sued once over it may sue again.  And she may have borrowed against the other art when she couldn’t sell the van Gogh. She wasn’t ever in danger of ending up homeless but Elizabeth Taylor Inc  had a lot of overhead. It will not be a simple estate. Mainly because of the “Inc.” Richard Burton was big on the “Inc” as well to avoid the taxman, which is why he is buried in Switzerland rather than Wales, and she no doubt was as well.  As for the trusts she had already been married four times and found herself with very little financial security and so she very wisely decided to make sure she and her children finally had that security.  She got nothing from Nicky Hilton, she and Michael Wilding sort of “went dutch” in the marriage, Mike Todd left her a lot of debts, and Eddie Fisher demanded, and got, his half of the community property most of which was actually hers.  And honestly probably wasn’t too sure about Burton. So she set up the trusts. To protect herself but also her children. And in the end her children are what mattered. But then they always had mattered.  They were just part of the private life that few saw. By design.

        The reference to the unhappy marriage to Warner is really not reflective of the reality and those years probably lent a little sense of stability finally for her children who became and remained friends with his children. And she remained friends with him. They had a normal marriage. The problem was “Elizabeth Taylor.”  And Elizabeth Taylor, Inc.  As I put it once before, she was finally in Kansas with Warner. The problem is everyone around her preferred Oz. So back to Oz she went.  But as Earth Mother rather than Elizabeth Taylor.

  5. avatar Rho says:

    How dare they set Casey Anthony free?  What a world, she is now going to become very rich, you’ll see.  Watch, there will be a movie and a book, and many appearances on TV talk shows. 
     

    • avatar David Bolton says:

      No she won’t. She’s going to have numerous judgments against her for wasting time and resources looking for her daughter. Plus, Zanny-not-the-Nanny is going to have a field day with her in court for slander.

      I think Ms. Anthony’s life is going to head in a downward direction from here, not up.

  6. I am seriously disappointed in this piece from Liz Smith. The OJ Simpson trial was in 1995 – 16 years ago. Kim Kardashian was a teenager. It is completely irrelevant that her late father was part of the Simpson defence team and/or whether Kim spoke out against it at the time. She is now a young woman entitled to express an opinion on a matter that has dominated the US media and talk shows for weeks (and don’t get me started on that point). Women like myself (and I would have thought Liz Smith given her long career in a male dominated domain) have fought hammer and nail for woman’s right to (a) hold an opinion and (b) express it. Ms Smith it does you no glory to write such a snarly anti-woman piece about a young woman that the American entertainment industry and media have catapulted to great fame, infamy and wealth.
    If you don’t want people to gain such wealth and notoriety then work to change the way your entertainment industry and media operates. But don’t deny a young woman the right to express an opinion because of (a) the ‘sins’ of her father; and (b) she is exploiting for her own benefit the voice those industries have given her. A final point – part of woman’s struggle since at least the 1960′s is to not be seen a chattel of her father, husband or a male generally but an individual with a voice.

    • avatar Lila says:

      I can see your point about not holding Kim’s family history over her head, but I don’t see how Liz’s piece is “anti-woman.”

      If daughter Kim was instead a son named Ken, Liz could have written the exact same article, and people might have thought “Ken’s” family history irrelevant, but no one would have thought the article “anti-male.”

    • avatar careyvick says:

      BRAVO NOELINE……..YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT “NOBODY” BEFORE OJ’S TRIAL BELIEVED HE WAS GUILTY. ROBERT KARDASHIAN IS THE ONE THAT MET OJ AT LAX, THEN TOOK THAT ONE MISSING PIECE OF LUGGAGE MARCIA CLARK SPOKE ABOUT IN COURT. WHAT WAS IN THAT PIECE OF LUGGAGE? WE’LL NEVER KNOW.  

      BRUCE JENNER WAS ALSO A FRIEND OF OJ’S. (NOW KIM’S STEPFATHER). SOME SAT ON THE OJ SIDE DURING COURT, SOME SAT ON THE PROSECUTORS SIDE.

      KIM KARDASHIAN IS DROP DEAD GORGEOUS. MANY WOMEN HATE OTHER WOMEN THAT ARE MORE MORE APPLEALING THAN THEM. IF KIM WAS AN INFANT DURING THE OJ TRIAL, MS. SMITH WOULD’VE SAID THE SAME.

      ITS TOUGH WHEN YOUR ENTIRE “HOPE AND CHANGE ” WORLD TURNED OUT TO BE A FRAUD.

  7. avatar Jody says:

    “Kim’s Generation”…. meaning those youngsters that follow her on twitter….. weren’t even born when OJ went to trial. I would say most of them don’t know who her father was. In fact, I wonder how many of them know who OJ Simpson is. lol

    Kim having her opinion out there is natural to her generation. Even if her fans Google search her background and her father’s history, they won’t care. This generation doesn’t care about stuff like that. She stands on her own merit with them. What that merit is…. well, I’m not sure. But, you’d have to ask one of them.

  8. avatar Liz Smith says:

    Dear Noeline…

    Wow…please point to the section of my post that “anti-woman?”  Nor did I say Miss K. has “no right” to speak her mind.  Only that she might use more discretion, considering her family connections to an infamous murder trial.  That’s my opinion.  Which I have every right to express.

    I can’t think of a so-called “gossip column” that has  highlighted women’s issues as this one has.   You are way off base.

    I think Miss Kardashian’s show is ridiculous and has helped coarsen the culture.  But I wouldn’t dream of denying her a right to be ridiculous or earn a lot of money for having absolutely no talent and no shame.  God bless America! 

    Have a great weekend. 

  9. avatar Liz Smith says:

    Dear careyvick…

    I am 88 years old.  Do you really think Kim Kardashian’s “appeal” is a threat to me?! 

    Liz Smith 

    • avatar Baby Snooks says:

      Actually your “appeal” is probably a threat to her – some men do like a little brain to go with the body.  With men and women.  As do some women. With men and women.  Even at 88 you’re far more attractive than Kim Kardashian. And much easier on the eyes to be honest. She looks like a Barbie doll after too much collagen and silicone. 

      And would someone explain “internet etiquette” to careyvick particularly the part about ALL CAPS IS THE SAME AS SCREAMING AT SOMEONE?

  10. avatar bjkellerh says:

    Go Liz!

  11. avatar John Dillon says:

    It would be too hopeful to ask that both Casey and all of the Kardashians drop off into obscurity. But, one can hope.

  12. avatar carol grzonka says:

    i gotta say, kim has aright to express her opinion on this matter, without be tarred by her parentage.   she was around 12 y.o.  i don’t see her appeal, but fair is fair.  she had nothing to do with her father’s celebrity chasing.

  13. avatar TheTexasMom says:

    While Kim K. may or may not have been too young  to know what the OJ trial was all about I did hear her say once (don’t ask me why I was listening to her as I have no clue) that the trail tore her already divided family apart.  As she told it, her parents were good friends of Nicole and OJ and her mom and Nicole had even gone away on a trip just before the murders. 

    With her father defending OJ the kids felt they had to take sides in a house already divided.  Perhaps she took the “other” side and this is why she tweeted what she did?  I dunno and neither does anyone beside Kim. 

    Whatever her father did he is answering for it.