Should have said I guess, that I am one of the few who believe Casey didn't do it. I have my own idears about who did.
I think Casey could be paid for an interview sometime this year. I think the major media outlets have been chomping at the bit to interview her for years but have avoided it because even though they think the ratings will be decent they also think negative backlash might scare advertisers away. But now they think people might have a more nuanced view on the case and more interest in what Casey has to say, especially if she doesn't do some stupid "If I Did It" angle like OJ did. Even if she's lying and everyone knows she's lying people will be interested. Robert Durst admitted in The Jinx that "no one tells the whole truth" and people still ate that up.
Obviously, they aren't stupid enough to write Casey a check for one million or however much she wants. What will happen if this goes forward is that a large "finders fee" or payment for "media rights" will go to a third party who will then pass the money along to Casey, taking a cut for themselves in the process. My guess would be Cindy, if Casey is still in touch with her, because she comes off a more sympathetic figure, or Cheney Mason who I'm sure will expect a cut either way. See, they aren't technically paying for the interview, they're paying for the rights to photos/video and/or paying someone to help organize the interview on Casey's end and help represent her best interests during the negotiation stage.
That way they can ask Casey during the interview if she's being paid and she'll say no, and the interviewer will back her up and they can cross their fingers and hope people believe them. People are saying it'll be Matt Lauer but I suspect Geraldo Rivera because he gave a blurb for Baez's book; if I were Casey I would ask my attorneys (who have done a lot of interviews during and after the trial) who they interviewed with that seemed most sympathetic to the defense and go with that person.
I think Casey could be paid for an interview sometime this year. I think the major media outlets have been chomping at the bit to interview her for years but have avoided it because even though they think the ratings will be decent they also think negative backlash might scare advertisers away. But now they think people might have a more nuanced view on the case and more interest in what Casey has to say, especially if she doesn't do some stupid "If I Did It" angle like OJ did. Even if she's lying and everyone knows she's lying people will be interested. Robert Durst admitted in The Jinx that "no one tells the whole truth" and people still ate that up.
Obviously, they aren't stupid enough to write Casey a check for one million or however much she wants. What will happen if this goes forward is that a large "finders fee" or payment for "media rights" will go to a third party who will then pass the money along to Casey, taking a cut for themselves in the process. My guess would be Cindy, if Casey is still in touch with her, because she comes off a more sympathetic figure, or Cheney Mason who I'm sure will expect a cut either way. See, they aren't technically paying for the interview, they're paying for the rights to photos/video and/or paying someone to help organize the interview on Casey's end and help represent her best interests during the negotiation stage.
That way they can ask Casey during the interview if she's being paid and she'll say no, and the interviewer will back her up and they can cross their fingers and hope people believe them. People are saying it'll be Matt Lauer but I suspect Geraldo Rivera because he gave a blurb for Baez's book; if I were Casey I would ask my attorneys (who have done a lot of interviews during and after the trial) who they interviewed with that seemed most sympathetic to the defense and go with that person.
I think Casey could be paid for an interview sometime this year. I think the major media outlets have been chomping at the bit to interview her for years but have avoided it because even though they think the ratings will be decent they also think negative backlash might scare advertisers away. But now they think people might have a more nuanced view on the case and more interest in what Casey has to say, especially if she doesn't do some stupid "If I Did It" angle like OJ did. Even if she's lying and everyone knows she's lying people will be interested. Robert Durst admitted in The Jinx that "no one tells the whole truth" and people still ate that up.
Obviously, they aren't stupid enough to write Casey a check for one million or however much she wants. What will happen if this goes forward is that a large "finders fee" or payment for "media rights" will go to a third party who will then pass the money along to Casey, taking a cut for themselves in the process. My guess would be Cindy, if Casey is still in touch with her, because she comes off a more sympathetic figure, or Cheney Mason who I'm sure will expect a cut either way. See, they aren't technically paying for the interview, they're paying for the rights to photos/video and/or paying someone to help organize the interview on Casey's end and help represent her best interests during the negotiation stage.
That way they can ask Casey during the interview if she's being paid and she'll say no, and the interviewer will back her up and they can cross their fingers and hope people believe them. People are saying it'll be Matt Lauer but I suspect Geraldo Rivera because he gave a blurb for Baez's book; if I were Casey I would ask my attorneys (who have done a lot of interviews during and after the trial) who they interviewed with that seemed most sympathetic to the defense and go with that person.
Can't wait to watch!! We will finally hear the truth and not just the version of her mother, eh.. and those other family parrots.
Just curious, if she's innocent, who put Caylee in fca's trunk? And then took her out of it and put her in the swamp? I'm not being snarky - no one ever answers that, even jbaez dodges it... But, if you have a theory, can you explain how it happened when there's proof fca, and only fca, had possession of her car throughout all the days in question? That's undisputed. She's the one who dumped the car when the smell became too much. Just a few days prior, she even confessed to the smell and tried to blame it on a squirrel. The smell was also detected by a cadaver dog and handler, the fbi, all police/investigators who were in the vicinity of the trunk, the crime scene investigator, a tow yard operator, and several others... So, the facts put Caylee, deceased, in the trunk, with fca behind the wheel. Why? If she's innocent, why did she do that? And, since we know fca had possession of the body, how did Caylee get put in the swamp?
The answer to these questions is really just about getting down to the basics of the crime, yet, seem to be seldom answered, or just skipped entirely in theories of her innocence...
All jmo.
what makes you think she will tell the truth now? She had the opportunity to tell the truth at her trial, at the police station, with her parents.... she didn't. in fact she never has. Her interview would be worthless. Duct tape, Google searches, not reporting her daughter missing EVER. She has no other choice but to lie because there is no other way to explain her behavior. It is consistent with the actions of a murderer. Pretty simple when you think about it.
Just curious, if she's innocent, who put Caylee in fca's trunk? And then took her out of it and put her in the swamp? I'm not being snarky - no one ever answers that, even jbaez dodges it... But, if you have a theory, can you explain how it happened when there's proof fca, and only fca, had possession of her car throughout all the days in question? That's undisputed. She's the one who dumped the car when the smell became too much. Just a few days prior, she even confessed to the smell and tried to blame it on a squirrel. The smell was also detected by a cadaver dog and handler, the fbi, all police/investigators who were in the vicinity of the trunk, the crime scene investigator, a tow yard operator, and several others... So, the facts put Caylee, deceased, in the trunk, with fca behind the wheel. Why? If she's innocent, why did she do that? And, since we know fca had possession of the body, how did Caylee get put in the swamp?
The answer to these questions is really just about getting down to the basics of the crime, yet, seem to be seldom answered, or just skipped entirely in theories of her innocence...
All jmo.
I agree.
Whoever thinks this pathological liar is going to tell the 'truth' will be sorely disappointed.
What she will say would be more like soap opera - melodramatic and intended to appeal
to the gullible.
I believe Baez's comment after the trial was... "We will NEVER know how Caylee got into the woods". hmmm how would he know that we would NEVER know unless FCA convinced him that she would never spill her guts. Maybe it is just wishful thinking on Jose's part. If it was someone else besides FCA, how could he know they would never come forward and confess.
I believe Baez's comment after the trial was... "We will NEVER know how Caylee got into the woods". hmmm how would he know that we would NEVER know unless FCA convinced him that she would never spill her guts. Maybe it is just wishful thinking on Jose's part. If it was someone else besides FCA, how could he know they would never come forward and confess.
I agree.
Whoever thinks this pathological liar is going to tell the 'truth' will be sorely disappointed.
What she will say would be more like soap opera - melodramatic and intended to appeal
to the gullible.