Source: Casey's Attorney Marketing Photos To Media

[magic-cat]

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.

Point taken. But to me, and this is just me, this option of funding a defense from the sale of images, etc. is NOT an available or viable option for MOST defendents-even innocent ones. You have to be "high profile" for your pictures to even matter. Since it is not available to ALL defendents to travel that route, and completely obscene for some to be allowed to do so, then it should not be available to ANY defendent-innocent and guilty alike. There have to be some kind of boundaries in justice, and it is INJUSTICE when one person, who happens to be involved in a mega high profile case, is allowed to profit from their alleged crime, UNTIL they ARE exonerated. If they are found innocent, then at THAT point is when they should be able to do whatever they want-having been judged and found innocent. As we NOW see, public funds ARE available to EVERY defendent, innocent and guilty alike, and Public Defenders are available to everyone.

 

[shufly]

That's a good question. Wonder if she violated the terms of her probation in any way by doing so?

Playing devil's advocate here. Everybody is getting upset about KC selling the photos and videos to the media but maybe she didn't. Maybe GA and CA did. I mean wouldn't they, as grandparents, have their own pictures and videos other than the ones KC actually had? I know I have tons of pictures and videos of my grandaughter that her parents do not have and they are mine. Not saying I would ever do anything like this, but the way I see it is these photos and videos are mine to do with as a I please. Perhaps GA and CA got the money and paid legal fees and now the money is gone and that's why KC is claiming indigent. I mean honestly, wasn't she indigent the day this whole mess started? She had no job, the only money she had was a couple hundred dollars stolen from friends and family, no assets other than new clothes and push up bras bought at Target on AH's dime. And since she is an adult, her parents' income shouldn't come into play here. So she's really been indigent all along. I think CA and GA were paying legal fees and that's the only reason JB had not brought this to court earlier. He wanted every dime he could get but when the well ran completely dry, he had no choice but to bring it up and go pro bono. I bet he has not been pro bono from the first day he entered the picture.

 

[magic-cat]

Also, if one is innocent, and the photos help PROVE innocence, then presenting them IN trial is an opportunity for those photos to assist. I cannot imagine an innocent person, who has lost their child, even considering selling images OF that child for their own gain...It is just sick to me, regardless of what the public is clammoring for by way stories. If the story is good enough to be broadcast, sources will talk...if they have to be paid to talk? Everything they say is suspect after that. Unless they are a police informant, persons being interviewed for the "news" should not be paid for their story. And why the secrecy if there is nothing wrong with it? Why is it shrouded in secrecy if it's on the up and up?

 

[Chiquita71]

Updated March 19, 2010
ABC Is Guilty of Checkbook Journalism
By Dan Gainor - FOXNews.com
"Snip" http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/19/dan-gainor-abc-news-casey-anthony-paid/

The revelation that ABC News paid Casey Anthony $200,000 demonstrates how rapidly the media landscape is changing.
The term checkbook journalism has always referred to sleazy outfits so desperate to put some scandal in front of the public that they paid to get the story. That accusation now lands squarely on the desk of ABC News and the network is denying it lamely.

Baez, testified in court on Thursday that his client had been paid $200,000 by ABC, but that money was now gone.

ABC denies using checkbook journalism, but according to a FoxNews.com report the network "released a statement confirming it paid for licensed exclusive rights to an extensive library of photos and home video, but that no use of the material was tied to any interview."

Not that it matters. ABC is still admitting it paid $200,000 that aided the defense of a woman accused of murdering her 2-year-old daughter. All that to get exclusive photos and video -- an appalling step into ghoulish, tabloid journalism for a major news network. The network has done at least 30 separate stories on the murder case since 2008.

Of particular note are the images of the Casey Anthony the defendant and her now-deceased child Caylee Anthony.

On Sept. 5, 2008, ABC released "Never-Before-Seen Images of Casey Anthony and Missing Florida Toddler." The images included photos and video showing a seemingly happy family.

More at link!

Quote Respect MADJGNLAW

I'm not speaking of whether JB or Casey or anyone else should or shouldn't have or get money for any of this: I am very confused on all of that and do not have enough information to have a strong or together opinion.

Thank you for this post. Wow. I tend to be on the cynical side when it comes to big business/money/media but this still shocks me. I do remember a time when media that wanted to be respected looked down on these types of tactics. People saw them as the tactics of "rag mags" and their credibility was to be in serious question. Now, there is proof that ABC has done this.

I have to agree this comes across as heartless and money gubbing at best. And, evil at worst. :devil:

And, it's ABC/Disney! What would Hanna Montana say?

If people want information, they should research it themselves, imho. The "news" is for entertainment. It is becoming more and more obvious, our media is not unbiased. Boo! ABC! Boo!

:twocents:

 

[magic-cat]

I agree with your post. Actually , I think it did quite some character damage to KC that a jury will not forget. JB did not do her any favors.The only benefactors are JB and cohorts. Besides ABC did save Fla some money. Without the ABC deal, KC would have been declared indigent many moons ago.
Only if KC is acquitted , could she make money of her notoriety.

Without the ABC deal? This would have already been tried over and done with and they would not have had all this time to muddy the waters and play their little games. :banghead:

 

[rotterdam]

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.

I doubt if JB ever bought Kc's BS. KC was already much despised by the general public. JB just put the icing on the cake with brokering those disgusting deals.
It is obvious , he is only in it for himself. Anybody who would pick him as an attorney in the future is a fool. He is a real life Svengali.

 

[strawberry]

If I had to guess I would say GA and CA maybe even LA who knows. Well if there were more than one deal (several owners of copyrighted content), what was the other deal, how much did it pay, to whom was it paid and where is that money now. BY the way I thought an attorney could not broker deals for a client. he said in the hearing today he went through someone else that did the deal but it sounds like ABC is saying JB made the deal.

I doubt Lee did. One of the things I liked from him was his vehemence in the State depo that he has never made money off this case. He took it upon himself to add "and I never will." It rang true and made me glad. Even if he believes everything his sister says lol.

 

[Oakley]

Playing devil's advocate here. Everybody is getting upset about KC selling the photos and videos to the media but maybe she didn't. Maybe GA and CA did. I mean wouldn't they, as grandparents, have their own pictures and videos other than the ones KC actually had? I know I have tons of pictures and videos of my grandaughter that her parents do not have and they are mine. Not saying I would ever do anything like this, but the way I see it is these photos and videos are mine to do with as a I please. Perhaps GA and CA got the money and paid legal fees and now the money is gone and that's why KC is claiming indigent. I mean honestly, wasn't she indigent the day this whole mess started? She had no job, the only money she had was a couple hundred dollars stolen from friends and family, no assets other than new clothes and push up bras bought at Target on AH's dime. And since she is an adult, her parents' income shouldn't come into play here. So she's really been indigent all along. I think CA and GA were paying legal fees and that's the only reason JB had not brought this to court earlier. He wanted every dime he could get but when the well ran completely dry, he had no choice but to bring it up and go pro bono. I bet he has not been pro bono from the first day he entered the picture.

I believe Casey provided them to Baez in her bulging backpack. But if George and Cindy sold them, is it any less deplorable, and perhaps even more so. MOO.

 

[magic-cat]

Playing devil's advocate here. Everybody is getting upset about KC selling the photos and videos to the media but maybe she didn't. Maybe GA and CA did. I mean wouldn't they, as grandparents, have their own pictures and videos other than the ones KC actually had? I know I have tons of pictures and videos of my grandaughter that her parents do not have and they are mine. Not saying I would ever do anything like this, but the way I see it is these photos and videos are mine to do with as a I please. Perhaps GA and CA got the money and paid legal fees and now the money is gone and that's why KC is claiming indigent. I mean honestly, wasn't she indigent the day this whole mess started? She had no job, the only money she had was a couple hundred dollars stolen from friends and family, no assets other than new clothes and push up bras bought at Target on AH's dime. And since she is an adult, her parents' income shouldn't come into play here. So she's really been indigent all along. I think CA and GA were paying legal fees and that's the only reason JB had not brought this to court earlier. He wanted every dime he could get but when the well ran completely dry, he had no choice but to bring it up and go pro bono. I bet he has not been pro bono from the first day he entered the picture.

Jose admitted that he had paid himself eighty nine thousand dollars-his FEE. He admits he is not pro-bono...at least he has not been til now.

 

[magic-cat]

September 5, 2008...Caylee had not even been FOUND-that money should have gone to reward to help find Caylee-not to fund an, at that time, child abuse and neglect case. Casey KNEW Caylee was dead and she was going to need BIG BUCKS to get out of it...Caylee was found December 11, 2008.

 

[magic-cat]

I recall this as well, but again recall that he referenced selling KC's "story"....

A "story" is one thing...

Photos and videos are another...

I think Baez knew exactly what he was doing in constantly interjecting "story" into his court documents and testimony....

To date, we are NOT aware of Baez, KC, CA, GA or anyone else selling "their story"...

apart from the mistress of course! :dance:

:furious:It's all coming back to me now...her little handwritten scrawled note that was attached to the motion stating she had not authorized anyone to sell her story. We all knew THEN that was word-play and they got away with it, because it was not a story that was sold, it was rights to broadcast pictures and video of a missing (DEAD and MURDERED) child...ARGH!!!!:banghead:

 

[magic-cat]

Those pictures must have been sold in July or August for them to come out Sept 5-isn't that WAY before she was charged with murder? Did the murder charge not materialize on Oct 14, 2008? Seems like the State knew they were dealing with a murder then as well, so Casey and the State were on the same page weren't they?

 

[magic-cat]

Kind of makes you wonder if she planned to sell her daughters images all along, since she was busy removing them from the public domain???

 

[rotterdam]

:furious:It's all coming back to me now...her little handwritten scrawled note that was attached to the motion stating she had not authorized anyone to sell her story. We all knew THEN that was word-play and they got away with it, because it was not a story that was sold, it was rights to broadcast pictures and video of a missing (DEAD and MURDERED) child...ARGH!!!!:banghead:

Yep, I remember that too. Ah, semantics. Why did not one of the prosecuting attorneys elaborate on that note. To the average public, stories includes pictures, pictures tell stories.

 

[LambChop]

I believe Casey provided them to Baez in her bulging backpack. But if George and Cindy sold them, is it any less deplorable, and perhaps even more so. MOO.

If GA and CA sold them....than they lied on their depositions.

 

[affinity]

Great point Cecy. Even Susan Smith and Diane Downs didn't sell items (pictures/videos) of their deceased children to raise money for their defense...as low as these "women" are, they didn't sink to that level.

Yes...but "news" wasn't handled like it is now for those two! There used to be a time when "news" was simply reporting what happened ....not "entertainment" like it is now. There weren't these goofy news graphics or slogans that we get now.

Canada, if I understand it right, has a "gag order" on every trial--so that people are not able to wade through information before the facts are put to the jury. You and I should not make a ripple one way or another..it is all for 12 people and a couple of alternates to decide.

I do hate that the photos made it so JB is her lawyer! I wish they would give her a public defender. Everyone would be better off.

 

[The World According]

What other news outlets think about the $200,000 payment, from NPR:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124913007&sc=emaf

'Unethical'

Reaction in journalism circles Friday was swift and unforgiving.

"I regard it as a totally unethical journalistic practice to pay people for access that way," former NBC News President Lawrence K. Grossman said.

"This is the worst example of what has become a common practice," former ABC News anchor Aaron Brown, the Walter Cronkite professor of journalism at Arizona State University, said by e-mail. "Even if you are OK with skirting the ethical edges some of the time by buying pictures from principals, this seems way over that line."

All the major networks' news divisions have rules against paying people for interviews. Yet many of them bend those rules as they chase big stories. For example, NBC News recently flew a man back from Brazil with his son on the jet of its corporate owner after an international custody battle. He soon appeared on NBC's Today show.

But Anthony's $200,000 payout was remarkably large and undisclosed to viewers. Several ABC News staffers speaking to NPR on condition of anonymity said they were just as appalled as journalists outside the network.

 

[juicedog23]

Was it ever discovered why JB was in New York during the last A's jailhouse taped visit? I wonder if he was dropping off a suit case of pictures.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Was it ever discovered why JB was in New York during the last A's jailhouse taped visit? I wonder if he was dropping off a suit case of pictures.

On the topic of the pictures........I doubt that a backpack / suitcase of photos was offered to ABC. Having knowledge of "how selling photos" works.....IMO there would have to have been someone that edited those photos to media ready standards.

One can't just send in a copy of their photos, but rather photos would need to be submitted in electronic format, edited in a professional photo software program such as Photoshop Pro, Gimp, etc.....

I suspect that many of the hours KC spent at JB's office were in fact for the purpose of assisting with the editing process, approving their final result etc....

Hmmmmmmmmm...did JB have anyone on staff around that time that was capable of handling that task??? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I'll have to check.

 

[okiedokietoo]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124913007&sc=emaf
March 19, 2010

The npr article goes on to say:

Lack Of Disclosure
"In September 2008, ABC had its chance to be transparent"

(more at link and above quoted from article)