Source: Casey's Attorney Marketing Photos To Media

[magic-cat]

I m very anger over the fact that Casey could sit in Court and smile after knowing she killed her beautiful baby and then cause further indignity to her dead daughter by selling pictures to ABC !!!

OMG....she profited off her own baby girl she murdered to save her own arse from death !

Why isn't everyone else upset by this? ...Shame on ABC too!

I'll give Casey this much, she has good luck. Things seem to fall into place for her and Baez. I sure hope that luck runs out and she sits and faces her maker and not because of some accident but because somebody pulled the switch and knocked that ugly grin off her evil and selfish face:furious:

This stuff should be illegal !!!!
Charleyann

I am outraged with you. See my new siggy line for details of my outrage!

:furious:I look at it this way, because it is THE only way that I can deal with it, that the entire world will know this information and she will not go into trial with this as a secret. The world will KNOW that after she killed her child, even if by accident (and we all know THIS is NOT the case), she then turned right around and saved her own skin using the LIKENESS of the child that DIED. HER child...flesh of her flesh...DEAD and 31 or 40 DAYS later, she SOLD her image to pay for her MURDER defense. MY GOD!!! Once she IS found guilty? This information certainly will not work on her behalf!!!:furious:

 

[Spangle]

I hate to burst anyones bubble. But she has not made any profit.

The only ones who will be profiting, are the ones who would have profited anyway. Which would be her lawyers, their staff, etc. They would be paid no matter what. Our Dime or ABC's Dime.

The only difference is, that ABC didn't get the photo's for free, they had to pay for them. ABC is in the business to make money and they have made money off this story. They and all the other news media.

I believe it's right that they should pitch in and help pay for this 'entertainment news.'

The real issue is if the money was spent well, or wasted. After the money was spent, it seems like they haven't even started. NOTHING to show for the time and money. If the lawyer fees were FREE... Hmmm...

That all said, Grand - Ma and Grand Pa have gotten some free rides from the Death of their Grand Baby. They have not worked since they found out she died and have ridden her death for all it's worth. THAT is who has profited from her Death.

And possibly JB MIGHT have. No way to know until we see the accounting. But it's expected that he and his staff should get paid for their work. But there is such a thing as 'Milking the Clock."

 

[Spangle]

It's true....we don't know the whole truth. BUT.....can anyone name ONE other case of a missing child where the mother and family sold $200k worth of photos and videos to major networks? KC and her family never offered even $1.00 as part of a reward for info or the safe return of Caylee. If anyone put the cart before the horse...it was KC for planning a defense fund before "knowing" what happened to her daughter.

If a mother is innocent.......they would theoretically be more concerned with finding their child and wouldn't anticipate needing $big bucks to defend themselves.....It's not about what KC did or that she sold photos......IMO...it's about what she didn't do....offer assistance to police and offer money she raised to find her daughter. IMO she didn't offer because she couldn't admit her involvement.
But that is MOO.

OH my Gosh! Bamm! I didn't think of that. When this deal went down, the body had not been found. Yet she did not use that money for reward for information in finding her kidnapped baby and the Nanny.

Nor after the body was found, she didn't use that money as a reward for information leading to the arrest of the murder and/or missing Nanny.

 

[LambChop]

On the other hand, if the Mother is innocent, it would be justice for Caylee to help with her Mothers defense. We really don't know the whole truth here. This is putting the cart before the horse. IMO

The money was from ABC for what, I don't understand? Admitted by ABC the money bought pictures which were provided by her attorney JB. The State of Florida could rest it's case on just that fact alone. No mother who loved her child would do that. KC would have had a defense either way but chose to sell her child's pictures so she could have an attorney who would buy her BS. I think KC has told us what the truth is by selling Caylee's pictures. Now, this part is JMO.

 

[magic-cat]

On the other hand, if the Mother is innocent, it would be justice for Caylee to help with her Mothers defense. We really don't know the whole truth here. This is putting the cart before the horse. IMO

Only, the "mother", and I use that word in THE most general sense that exists, believe me, is not innocent. Innocent people do not throw their dead child into their trunk and then fail to report them missing. They also do not lie to the police when they finally DO discover the child is missing, after 31 days I might add, and the police are SEARCHING for said child.

And it is not any kind of justice for a dead child to help with ANYONES defense in my book, however, most especially in THIS case-knowing all we know. My God-she threw her away like trash, after she let her rot in the trunk, and then she SOLD her image to save her own self. There is NO justice in Caylee having any part in defending that. The trunk, the 31 days, the duct tape, the garbage bags, and HER LIFE are where justice ended for Caylee in regards to her mother. Now there is only justice in regards to herself. We may not know ALL of the truth, but we know enough of it to know this:

A baby died before her 3rd birthday.
She was missing for 31 days before she was reported missing to the police.
Her mother, who last had the custody of her, abandoned her car, which wreaked of human decomposition.
Her mother then lied to police on one thousand ocassions.
Her mother then SOLD her image to fund a defense for herself-SECRETLY.
THEN- Caylee was found, in garbage bags and a laundry tote, thrown away at the side of the road.
She had DUCT tape covering her face.
That's really enough for me to know...

 

[LambChop]

I have re-typed this post four times already. I have enough time and words invested in WS that I read the TOS every time I log on. For once, I am at an almost complete lack of words, barring obscenities. The victim is demonstrably paying for the alleged perp's defense. I think me friends are right, time to step back and take a break from this case.

Thommy, Thommy, Thommy...don't take a break now....we need you. Especially now with those letters. You provide us with valuable information. Just take a couple of deep breaths. Caylee needs a voice and that should include all of us here.

 

[blots]

When your loved one is missing you hand out all pictures for free. In fact, you beg for people to take the pictures and show them around.

As said above by some very smart posters, you would use the money as a reward for information...

unless you knew the child was dead.

 

[magic-cat]

I hate to burst anyones bubble. But she has not made any profit.

The only ones who will be profiting, are the ones who would have profited anyway. Which would be her lawyers, their staff, etc. They would be paid no matter what. Our Dime or ABC's Dime.

The only difference is, that ABC didn't get the photo's for free, they had to pay for them. ABC is in the business to make money and they have made money off this story. They and all the other news media.

I believe it's right that they should pitch in and help pay for this 'entertainment news.'

The real issue is if the money was spent well, or wasted. After the money was spent, it seems like they haven't even started. NOTHING to show for the time and money. If the lawyer fees were FREE... Hmmm...

That all said, Grand - Ma and Grand Pa have gotten some free rides from the Death of their Grand Baby. They have not worked since they found out she died and have ridden her death for all it's worth. THAT is who has profited from her Death.

And possibly JB MIGHT have. No way to know until we see the accounting. But it's expected that he and his staff should get paid for their work. But there is such a thing as 'Milking the Clock."

She most certainly has made a profit. She profitted a dream team of attorneys and a defense that MOST indigent persons never see. SHE profitted the entire amount. The money is for HER defense. I see no clearer profit than that.


And the lawyer fees weren't free. SOME of them were, but Mr. Baez paid himself 89 thou and change, and he stated, under oath, that was HIS fee, and how he could not take other cases, and blah blah blah.

The real issue of THIS thread is if she murdered and then sold her image to pay for her defense, and how can this be legal in this great nation in which we live. George and Cindy we can certainly discuss in a thread appropriate to that subject.

And personally, and this is just me, I do not feel entertained in the least by this tragic event nor in the commercialization of that tragedy, epsecially for the profit of the very one who likely took the life of her child. The news should not BE entertainment. They should report the news, and sell advertising to pay for it. Period.

 

[blots]

Just to play devil's advocate, would you feel similarly about a person that proclaimed innocence and then used the money to fund her defense in order to prove it?

IOW, if a person is innocent and wants to prove it, should they be allowed to sell images of the murdered child in order to finance an adequate defense ?

is it the perceived guilt that makes it wrong ? or is it selling the images in general under any circumstances?If the person is found innocent is it ok that they sold what they had to cover costs while incarcerated?

But, JBean aka devil's advocate for now, the body had not yet been found. To me, this implies knowledge of what the future holds. I think you cross a line when you sell pictures of your missing relative. If you are innocent, give an interview later to defend yourself and reap the rewards but don't sell the pictures of a child you claim to love.

 

[burbqueen]

Ok I'm gonna defend abc here. They are the media and the media, just like lawyers are frequently characterized as the villan. The media has no moral base or agenda. Theri job is to get viewers or readers. That's how they stay in business. If people wouldn't absorb the stories hook line and sinker then there is nothing to report. so in all fairness to the media we the mass consumer are guilty of reading stories and looking at the photos an videos if victims. You think the anthonys are the first or last people to sell their story or photos? No. They are not the last either. Without the media none of these cases would even be known or here to discuss on WS. I just don't know how anyone can over look that. We get our info from the media!!!!

I do feel CA is guilty as heck but if she is proclaiming her innocence then why wouldn't she or her parents sell their story. Especially her parents. They think she is innocent.

 

[magic-cat]

Just to play devil's advocate, would you feel similarly about a person that proclaimed innocence and then used the money to fund her defense in order to prove it?

IOW, if a person is innocent and wants to prove it, should they be allowed to sell images of the murdered child in order to finance an adequate defense ?

is it the perceived guilt that makes it wrong ? or is it selling the images in general under any circumstances?If the person is found innocent is it ok that they sold what they had to cover costs while incarcerated?

Love devils advocates! To me, if I were INNOCENT, then I would KNOW my child is missing and in jeopardy and every dime I put my hands on would go to finding that child. I would expect this from anyone else I knew as well. I need to find my child-to heck with my defense-I will worry about that when I find my child.

 

[affinity]

the real "villian" is JB. He serves as KC's "advocate". What clue would she have about what to do--her IQ is probably 90! So JB tells her--go get all Caylee's photos and videos and bring them to my office. done and done! JB is the scoundrel here. I hope that they can see that he has misused the funds and throw him out!

 

[sleutherontheside]

I think.....that I would be able to swallow this entire issue more easily IF KC had at least offered something for information relating to her daughter. In the absence of ANY visible support or concern.....I find it nearly impossible to see her POV.

That said.....I believe that as disgusted as many are about the media paying fees like this, it is really us that force them to do so. If one network out of 5 abstains from this practice......they will quickly become obsolete. We live in a world of instant gratification, demand for more, and a sense of entitlement. It is becoming an epidemic of EPIC proportion.

No longer is there a reward for doing the "right thing" when it comes to news. Here's an example.......During the Olympics....NBC aired (just prior to opening ceremonies) the video of the Luge athlete as he hit that metal pole. Sure, they warned the video was graphic, but they aired it AND they aired it when they KNEW they would have maximum exposure. Why did they do it???? Because if they didn't...someone else would have and it came down to the scoop NOT what was right.

I can't fault ABC any more than I can fault every other network, newspaper, or news outlet for getting a story. The public DEMANDS it and to survive.....they have no choice but to DELIVER.

Until the general population takes a stand against it.....WHY should we punish the media for giving us what we want??

In this case....my bigger concern is the money management thus far. Why did we want to know so badly "where" the money came from? Because IMO if people knew if KC sold those pics it would solidify their disdain for her and in some cases confirm her guilt.

That is exactly what the defense wanted to avoid. I think in this case....it is a lose lose for everyone.

 

[LambChop]

Just to play devil's advocate, would you feel similarly about a person that proclaimed innocence and then used the money to fund her defense in order to prove it?

IOW, if a person is innocent and wants to prove it, should they be allowed to sell images of the murdered child in order to finance an adequate defense ?

is it the perceived guilt that makes it wrong ? or is it selling the images in general under any circumstances?If the person is found innocent is it ok that they sold what they had to cover costs while incarcerated?

To me it was an admission of guilt. Why would it be necessary to sell pictures at a price of $200,000 for a DP trial you did not know you were going to have? She could have had a court appointed attorney who would have put their best effort in representing her on child abuse charges.

Another thing I have a problem with is KC waited until she was out on bond. How did she get out? What media connections did the person have who helped her get out, if any? Something is really wrong here. Her parents have a media coach who shows up in court with them and they have no money. This story is a book deal in the making with all the various players.

You know, JBean, if someone sold their property, home, car, jewerly, personal property it is one thing. You can see this child's soul in some of those pictures and videos, she was a person..not a possession as KC clearly thinks (i.e., I miss THAT little girl). So if it were material possessions, yes, I can see someone selling off their property for their defense. But not your child, not anything to do with your child. Selling your child's image is betrayal whether you are innocent or guilty. If you were innocent I do not think people would think well of you. Now if she sold pictures of herself, that would be a different story.

Now JB's admission that their was a deal presented to him is even more interesting. Big money offered before the remains were even found? Wow, ABC must have thought they had some story. JMO

 

[Murdock]

Love devils advocates! To me, if I were INNOCENT, then I would KNOW my child is missing and in jeopardy and every dime I put my hands on would go to finding that child. I would expect this from anyone else I knew as well. I need to find my child-to heck with my defense-I will worry about that when I find my child.

What if your child wasn't missing, but was already found dead before you were arrested? Would it be OK then?

What if it wasn't a child, but a co-worker, or neighbor & ABC wanted pictures you took at a party?

This is a hard one for me because my initial reaction is that it should never be OK, but I keep coming back to what notthatsmart said about justice. It's not justice if an innocent person goes to jail & the guilty remains free.

I think Casey is guilty as sin, but if I'm going to think about wanting laws changed then I want to consider every possible scenario.

 

[LambChop]

sleutherontheside: I think we can tell them we don't want this type of thing done in the future. I'm sure Walt Disney is doing backflips by now trying to get ABC's attention. This was never what he would have imagined his company would have it's name attached to. What I would want to know is who approached who first about the deal?????? JMO

 

[MADJGNLAW]

Why did ABC News wait two years to admit its $200,000 payment to Casey Anthony?
March 19, 2010

'Snip" http://blogs.tampabay.com/media/201...ose-its-200000-payments-to-casey-anthony.html

Let us allow that ABC News actually paid $200,000 just to get family photos and old home movies from accused murderer Casey Anthony. Let's also accept the ludicrous notion that this money was not part of an attempt to influence Anthony into sitting for an interview.

None of this answers the most troubling question: Why didn't ABC News disclose this payment publicly until the judge forced Anthony's attorney to fees up in open court Thursday?

I'm betting its because they knew how it would look -- a major news organization handing thousands of dollars to a woman police suspected of murdering her daughter. She wouldn't be officially indicted by a Grand Jury until about two months after ABC cut the check in 2008. But if the payment was ethical and above board, ABC at least had a duty to disclose it.

In Anthony's case, ABC News had the answer to a question: How does a woman who was unemployed for a year before her arrest pay a "dream team" of defense attorneys? But viewers never learned that information from ABC News, because it was already ethically compromised.

The fact is, news outlets will keep finding ways to pay sources for access -- and lie about it -- unless they are made to pay a price.

 

[sleutherontheside]

sleutherontheside: I think we can tell them we don't want this type of thing done in the future. I'm sure Walt Disney is doing backflips by now trying to get ABC's attention. This was never what he would have imagined his company would have it's name attached to. What I would want to know is who approached who first about the deal?????? JMO

If the public demands it then the media should listen. In the end any change in practices will come down to the demographics, ratings, ad $, and how many people prove they really don't want it . As far as Disney........I won't even get into that subject in this forum......but suffice it to say that much has been written about the business model of Disney. ( I actually know the authors that wrote an entire expose book.... Disney: The Mouse Betrayed.) Orlando is host to Disney and all it's associated theme parks and exhibits........a huge draw to the Orlando area. I would think that they see this as a positive.

 

[cluciano63]

maybe if people are really outraged with ABC they should boycott Disneyland...

 

[believe09]

ABC, I would like to introduce you to the term BLACK EYE. Should we connect the dots a little further? Does ABC have a piece of Geraldo?