Nurse: Tony and Charlene Marshall desperately eavesdropped on Brooke Astor session with lawyer
Melissa Grace/Corky Siemaszko
July 10, 2009
New York Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/07/10/2009-07-10_tony_and_charlene_marshall_desperate_to_listen_in_on_brooke_astor_session_with_l.html
While Brooke Astor met privately with her lawyer to discuss a change in her will, her son and daughter-in-law were skulking in a pantry “with their ear to the wall.”

The socialite’s former nurse, Pearline Noble, told jurors Thursday that after a while, Anthony Marshall’s wife “shoved him and said, ‘Get in there.’”

The shoves were “forceful,” Noble testified at Marshall’s fraud trial.

The Dec. 1, 2003, meeting at Astor’s apartment was to discuss a change to her will that would give Marshall control over half of his family’s $60 million charity fund, prosecutors said.

When the Marshalls walked in on Astor and lawyer Henry Christensen, Noble testified that she heard Anthony Marshall say, “Mom, are you sure you still want to give the money to charity?”

“Yes,” said Astor, who was 101 at the time.

When the meeting was over, Noble said Astor asked her, “Who was that man?”

“That’s your lawyer,” the nurse said she told Astor.

Seventeen days later, when Astor signed the update, “she was angry,” Noble said.

“I won’t be mixed up in business,” Astor said and slammed her cane, according to Noble.

Prosecutors put the Jamaican-born nurse on the stand to buttress their case that Marshall, 85, and lawyer pal Francis Morrissey, 66, took advantage of the senile socialite to plunder her $185 million fortune.

While Charlene Marshall is not charged with a crime, prosecutors contend her greed drove her husband to rip off his mother.

Both sides agree Astor loathed her daughter-in-law.

Noble, 48, who worked for Astor from 2003 until she died in 2007, said her boss was so out of it she was afraid of her own shadow. Her notes contradict Christensen’s earlier testimony that she was lucid when she signed over $5 million to her son in August 2003.

Noble is expected to testify today that she kept a diary in which she used code words like “Poor Little Rich Boy” for Marshall, “Miss Piggy” for Charlene, and “Tutor” for Morrissey.

Defense lawyers waged a bitter battle to prevent the diary from being introduced into evidence, but Noble will be allowed to testify to what she wrote.

Noble’s testimony came a day after Marshall wiped out and hit his head against the wall of a courthouse bathroom stall. It was the decorated ex-Marine’s third health scare in the 10-week trial.

Nursing a Grudge vs. Astor Son
Laura Italiano
July 10, 2009
New York Post
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07102009/news/regionalnews/nuring_a_grudge_vs__astor_son_178557.htm
Brooke Astor signed over $5 million cash to her son on Aug. 13, 2003 — the same day her nurse noted in her journal that the 101-year-old woman was “not sure that this is her home,” the caregiver testified yesterday.

The nurse’s notes also show that four months later, when Astor signed a will amendment creating a $30 million charity trust in her son’s name, the doyenne was again “disoriented” about time and place.

Jurors in the Astor swindle trial yesterday heard this and other damaging testimony by the nurse, Pearline Noble, who cared for the philanthropist during the seven months when prosecutors say her son, Anthony Marshall, strong-armed her into signing over to him more than $60 million worth of bequests.

Noble spent much of her testimony describing the depths of Astor’s dementia. But she was barred from telling jurors how she referred to Marshall’s wife, Charlene, as “Miss Piggy” in her more personal writings, and to Marshall himself as “golden boy” and “golden retriever.”

Removed Juror Speaks Out on Astor Case
John Eligon
July 7, 2009
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/nyregion/08astor.html?_r=2&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
A 73-year-old man who spent nearly 10 weeks as an alternate juror in the trial of Brooke Astor’s son before being removed from the jury last week said on Tuesday that he was unsure what his verdict would have been, but that he thought Mrs. Astor “knew what she was doing” when she made changes to her will.

The man, Frank Waring of Manhattan, a retired maintenance worker for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said he would have needed to hear more testimony and consult with fellow jurors before deciding whether to convict or acquit. But despite his uncertainty about the outcome, Mr. Waring said he was sure of two things: The trial was confusing, and it was exhausting.

“You don’t know who’s doing what or who’s telling the truth,” he said. “To me, it’s a very confusing trial.”

The reason for Mr. Waring’s removal was unclear. Justice A. Kirke Bartley Jr., who is presiding over the trial in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, removed him sometime last week but sealed the decision, meaning prosecutors and defense lawyers are prohibited from discussing it publicly. Mr. Waring, in a telephone interview, declined to elaborate.

With his departure, there are 12 regular jurors and 3 alternates.

Mrs. Astor’s son, Anthony D. Marshall, and Francis X. Morrissey Jr., a lawyer who did estate planning for her, are being tried on charges that they took advantage of Mrs. Astor’s Alzheimer’s disease to fool her into changing her will and funneling millions of dollars their way. Mr. Marshall, 85, also faces charges that he stole from his mother, and Mr. Morrissey, 66, is accused of forging Mrs. Astor’s signature.

Testimony was suspended on Tuesday morning after Justice Bartley learned that Mr. Marshall had an undisclosed illness. A lawyer for Mr. Marshall said he hoped his client would be able to attend the trial on Wednesday.

Although Mr. Waring said he did not know what his verdict would have been, his statements seemed to be leaning in Mr. Marshall’s favor.

“From the history of the woman — she’s a smart lady — that tells me she really knew what she was doing,” Mr. Waring said of Mrs. Astor. “The woman was no dummy.”

Mr. Waring said he did not know how his fellow jurors had been leaning because they did not discuss the case.

He said he could not believe that Mr. Marshall had sufficient motive to swindle his mother, because he stood to get a lot of her fortune anyway.

Part of the prosecution’s theory is that Mr. Marshall defrauded his mother to secure more money for his wife, Charlene. Mr. Waring said he did not accept that argument because Mr. Marshall did not seem like the kind of man who “would let his wife dominate or tell him, ‘Well, you do this, you do that.’ ”

One thing that made the case difficult to assess, he said, was that many of the witnesses seemed to have a financial interest in the outcome. He said he felt sorry for Mrs. Astor because he believed that people had been trying to take advantage of her.

As for the other people with a financial interest in the case, including the defendants, Mr. Waring said he did not feel sorry for them because “those people got money.”

Mr. Waring said he had been annoyed that lawyers for both sides at the trial kept “asking the same thing over and over.”