Source: Casey's Attorney Marketing Photos To Media

[Baznme]

I dont understand why Caylees photos hold such monetary value.
Its not exactally difficult to find pictures of her.
I dont mean that in a snarky way...just sayin'.

That's true but there was a time in the beginning that the pic's and videos were not that plentiful. It was a story that was getting hotter and hotter as time went on and every new picture or video were seemingly showing tell tale signs of what she may have been going through while spending so much time with her mother in that car.

 

[OKaraMia]

:woohoo:

I have a dime to contribute to that fund!

Make that $1,000,000.10!

Lets extend this offer to ANYONE who can provide a photo of the Nanny

:camera::deal::hourglass:oke:

 

[Baznme]

You are assuming here that a public defender is less than other lawyers. You are also assuming that the innocent person charged has little faith in the justice system and that it would take a "dream team" to get them exonerated.

I cannot imagine ever using photos of my murdered child to fund my defence. I would put those photos out there for free to find her murderer. I would feel desperate. I would feel love. I wouldn't be thinking about me.

Amen. Therein lies the difference between KC and most others.

 

[OKaraMia]

That's true but there was a time in the beginning that the pic's and videos were not that plentiful. It was a story that was getting hotter and hotter as time went on and every new picture or video were seemingly showing tell tale signs of what she may have been going through while spending so much time with her mother in that car.

Thats a really good point. Buuuuut...

The media pays absurd amounts of money for photos that the LE has the right to just take...and look for tell tales?

 

[elementary]

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.

You know, I'm beginning to think that they all pay lip service to this. All the "appallment" in the world is not going to change anything.

 

[Searchfortruth]

My question is does anyone know of a person charged with murder who sold pictures/videos or anything of the victims, to pay for their defense ? I don't remember a case, but that doesn't mean there isn't one out there.

 

[OKaraMia]

My question is does anyone know of a person charged with murder who sold pictures/videos or anything of the victims, to pay for their defense ? I don't remember a case, but that doesn't mean there isn't one out there.

I thought it was illegal!:blushing:
Son of Sam law or something?

 

[BB12]

Interesting.........tick tock...........in my opinion a house build with cards falls very easy when it simple blow of the wind comes along.

 

[Searchfortruth]

I thought it was illegal!:blushing:
Son of Sam law or something?

I believe it's only illegal after they have been convicted of the murder. I meant persons that are charged, not yet convicted, of murder.

 

[denjet]

Here's my question to you: why did Baez want in camera for both hearings? Why was he hesitant to divulge the info? Why, if it is no big deal?

And ABC's secret payment for exclusive rights is not remotely a "trade" secret. Everyone knows or suspects that this happens with media. So again my question is, why is it secret considering that everyone does it?

Because, I believe, there was more to come from ABC and he needed to keep his dealings with them on the down low ... why not disclose sooner how the defense was being paid ... I mean if it's all on the up and up ... I thought well maybe he was keeping it secret because of how it would make his client look selling pictures of the victim and all ... but I think it's safe to say Baez is more motivated by money than defending KC ... JMO

 

[denjet]

I believe it's only illegal after they have been convicted of the murder. I meant persons that are charged, not yet convicted, of murder.

This is my big gripe about Son of Sam Laws ... they need revamping ... like how about inmates awaiting trial and not just convicts ?? Moneys made by inmates awaiting trial be put in a state trust and if they're acquitted they get their money, if they're not, the state gets it and puts it in a victim's fund ... how about that ... I think that's fair ...

There is really something wrong with the laws they way they are if someone who's accused of murdering someone and awaiting trial can sell pictures and videos of their victim and then, to make it even worse, pay their defense !! Shouldn't that have to wait until AFTER they're tried ... ?????

 

[OKaraMia]

Maybe purchasing pictures of dead children that should be outlawed.

 

[OKaraMia]

no deals... my :butthead:

 

[cyberborg]

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.

I was Director at Disney in Burbank for 3 years and saw the inner workings. Nuff said.

 

[elementary]

Interesting.........tick tock...........in my opinion a house build with cards falls very easy when it simple blow of the wind comes along.

I wish you were right, but it seems to me that an edifice of lies seems to go from strength to strength. I'm thinking it would take a tornado.

 

[mikeysmommom]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/19/dan-gainor-abc-news-casey-anthony-paid/


Ultimately, it shows how rapidly the media landscape is changing. The National Enquirer is being considered for a Pulitzer Prize for its work exposing John Edwards's affair and out-of-wedlock child. Meanwhile, ABC is accused of paying a woman accused of murdering her 2-year-old daughter.

 

[notthatsmart]

I'll try to help you out here. Not trying to be snarky but what is ethical or right about selling photos and videos of the very child that is the victim to pay for your defense when that child is the one that has not only been killed, you are the accused of that killing? Does that sound right to you? If it were a person arrested for drug use and one person died as a result of you providing them with that drug, is it right that you would take the money that victim paid you for those drugs to pay your attorney that may represent you? No, it's absolutely illegal. So, how is this different?

Its different because you are only accussed. You are not guilty. The Grand Jury only said to take it to trial and see. Just because you are accussed does not mean you did it.

As far as your drug deal scenario, it assumes the drug dealer is guilty.

Once a defendant is convicted, then yes I agree, they should not be able to profit from the victim. We are not anywhere near that situation here. IMO

 

[MD MOMMY]

I'll try to help you out here. Not trying to be snarky but what is ethical or right about selling photos and videos of the very child that is the victim to pay for your defense when that child is the one that has not only been killed, you are the accused of that killing? Does that sound right to you? If it were a person arrested for drug use and one person died as a result of you providing them with that drug, is it right that you would take the money that victim paid you for those drugs to pay your attorney that may represent you? No, it's absolutely illegal. So, how is this different?

ITA 110% with you Baznme. KC continued to use and abuse Caylee even after her death. God Bless Caylee's soul, she deserved so much more.

 

[notthatsmart]

I thought it was illegal!:blushing:
Son of Sam law or something?

I think son of sam is a law for the guilty. I agree with it.

 

[notthatsmart]

Maybe purchasing pictures of dead children that should be outlawed.

Maybe a good point. How will we remember them then? Maybe you should change that to pictures of murdered children. Of course Ng would be out of business though.

Keep in mind though, that when this deal was done, no one knew Caylee was dead. So, as far as ABC was concerned, they were buying pictures of a live Caylee. Also, I believe if ABC wouldn't have done it, one of the others would have. I wouldn't doubt it if ABC is able to sell these pictures and videos to other networks in the future. The networks make money off of bad events. Good news travels slow. IMO