Source: Casey's Attorney Marketing Photos To Media

[Truthwillsetufree]

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

It is quite simple, doesn't take a degree in morality, ethics or law. It is plain ole, down right wrong to benefit in any way shape or form, guilty or not to use the pictures of the victim to provide payment to the attorneys defending the accused. It is wrong on so many levels I can not believe there has to be justification for the argument.

 

[cyberborg]

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

BBM. Apart from KC.

 

[Mystic]

IMO KC was indigent from get go. An ethical lawyer would not have taken on the case as JB did and have her sell Caylee's pictures and videos in such a way that his 'hands' look clean legally (hope I'm wrong & they can get him on this). This was not in his clients best interest and he knew it by dodging the source of the monies for all this time. She would have been better off with a Public Defender.

 

[gamom]

IMO KC was indigent from get go. An ethical lawyer would not have taken on the case as JB did and have her sell Caylee's pictures and videos in such a way that his 'hands' look clean legally (hope I'm wrong & they can get him on this). This was not in his clients best interest and he knew it by dodging the source of the monies for all this time. She would have been better off with a Public Defender.

I made the exact comment on another thread. Glad to see I am not alone in my thinking. The girl has not worked for years...where did they think she was going to get the money?

 

[Baznme]

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?

Well........yes.......that LE's job. There is a vast difference. The media is looking for the "sensational" headlines and LE is looking for the guilty party. It what their job is. The media is about "revenue".

 

[Baznme]

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.

Yet it's illegal for someone charged with drug trafficking to use money for their own defense because it's suspected to be associated with the crime. How is that different? They haven't been convicted yet either.

 

[notthatsmart]

BBM. Apart from KC.

In your opinion I presume. Because in my opinion, she did not know.

 

[Baznme]

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

The "accused" drug dealer is not guilty until proven guilty. Same here with a charge of murder. I don't see how they are different. Both "accused" are innocent until PROVEN guilty. It is illegal to assume anyone is guilty under our justice system until they've been tried in a court of law no matter what the crime so, I'm not getting how it's OK for KC to profit from Caylee's pic's and video's to fund her legal representation in court and someone accused of drug trafficking, it is not. She has profited from the death of her only daughter to fund the defense for herself? Seems unethical to me. Who knows, maybe after this, our legal system will take a long hard look at what has transpired here. As a matter of fact, Baez may be answering a lot of those questions before this is over. Seems unethical to me for him and his legal cronies to have accepted any of those monies associated with the sale of pic's and video's of the victim regarding this case that his accused client acquired in exchange for his services.

 

[cyberborg]

In your opinion I presume. Because in my opinion, she did not know.

The fact that KC applied the $200K to her future Defense needs and not to the search for Caylee says it all. Nuff said.

 

[notthatsmart]

The "accused" drug dealer is not guilty until proven guilty. Same here with a charge of murder. I don't see how they are different. Both "accused" are innocent until PROVEN guilty. It is illegal to assume anyone is guilty under our justice system until they've been tried in a court of law no matter what the crime so, I'm not getting how it's OK for KC to profit from Caylee's pic's and video's to fund her legal representation in court and someone accused of drug trafficking, it is not. She has profited from the death of her only daughter to fund the defense for herself? Seems unethical to me. Who knows, maybe after this, our legal system will take a long hard look at what has transpired here. As a matter of fact, Baez may be answering a lot of those questions before this is over. Seems unethical to me for him and his legal cronies to have accepted any of those monies associated with the sale of pic's and video's of the victim regarding this case that his accused client acquired in exchange for his services.

I respectfully disagree. Perhaps you should give me a link to this law that says drug dealers can not defend themselves so I can read it. How would you know it is drug money? I think you are comparing apples to oranges here. This is not a drug deal. If the mother is innocent, the victim would want to support her mother all she could. IMO at least I know i would want to support my mother if she was wrongfully accused of premeditated murder. Moo

 

[Trapshooter]

I respectfully disagree. Perhaps you should give me a link to this law that says drug dealers can not defend themselves so I can read it. How would you know it is drug money? I think you are comparing apples to oranges here. This is not a drug deal. If the mother is innocent, the victim would want to support her mother all she could. IMO at least I know i would want to support my mother if she was wrongfully accused of premeditated murder. Moo

BBM: The VICTIM in this case is Caylee, a three year old child that had yet to form an opinion of her mother, grandmother, et al. For the life of me, I cannot see Caylee wanting her mother to sell pictures of her to the highest bidder if indeed her mother was innocent! :furious::furious::furious:

 

[Gypsy Road]

The fact that KC applied the $200K to her future Defense needs and not to the search for Caylee says it all. Nuff said.

Well said! Really says it all!!! If my child went missing and I came into some money - it would be a no brainer! Put the money towards finding my child!!! But nope....Casey put that money towards her defense. THAT was more important to her.

 

[Brattigirle]

Were the pics sold after the dogs hit in the backyard and on the trunk? Were they sold after decomp was found in the car? Was it after LE found searches for neck breaking and homemade chloroform on the home PC?.... I was just wondering.

 

[TakeNote]

The fact that KC applied the $200K to her future Defense needs and not to the search for Caylee says it all. Nuff said.

yes...yes...yes....a mother whose child had been stolen would use the money from the sell of photos and video to find her stolen daughter.....period!...you are to give your life for your child...not put your life before your childs....KC chose her self!

 

[JBean]

Could you guys get off the OJ case and back to topic? We have enough to debate about with this case so we don't need to borrow any controversy.


thanks

 

[impatientredhead]

Yet it's illegal for someone charged with drug trafficking to use money for their own defense because it's suspected to be associated with the crime. How is that different? They haven't been convicted yet either.

You won't like the answer, but the drug laws put the government in the role of the injured party which can lock up the funds until the person is proved guilty or not.

In most cases like this, say in the cases where the husband kills his family, the living family members of the victims file a civil suit for wrongful death that won't be heard until the criminal case is done. But they, as the "wronged party" in that case asks the court to take any assets held or gained by the accused to be held in escrow until the court hearings are complete. And that is not always successful.

In this case Caylee does not have a family member that is going to sue Casey for wrongful death and Son of Sam laws do not apply because she is neither convicted nor selling her story of a crime being committed.

Being accused does not sever your legal rights. My MIL was murdered by the man she was attempting to divorce. Didn't change his legal rights as her spouse one iota. We had to have his permission to get her body from the morgue since he was the next of kin. It sucks, but it is the way it works. Other people on this forum have said the same thing about when their loved ones were murdered.

 

[Baznme]

I respectfully disagree. Perhaps you should give me a link to this law that says drug dealers can not defend themselves so I can read it. How would you know it is drug money? I think you are comparing apples to oranges here. This is not a drug deal. If the mother is innocent, the victim would want to support her mother all she could. IMO at least I know i would want to support my mother if she was wrongfully accused of premeditated murder. Moo

I must not have made myself very clear. I never said drug "dealers" cannot defend themsleves. Everyone under the consititution has the right to proper representation in a court of law in our country, money or no money. We are assured that under our the laws of our constitution. When dealers/traffickers are arrested for crimes associated with drugs under Fla. law, all assets are frozen and are inaccessible for use of payment for legal services until a verdict on the case is in. Often times, if the person is convicted, all their assets are sold at auction and that money goes to the State of Florida for use in further law enforcement. If the person is found innocent, all assets are released back to the owner after trial.

IMO there is no comparison between the two cases but, if the same rules were applied here in this case, no monies for profit of the victims pic's and video's would have been allowed for legal services until the trial was over and she was found innocent. Ideally, I can't see a grieving mother doing this but, we do what we must do at times. Legally, it may be a case here as explained by other posters that are far more savvy when it comes to the law, that it IS legal to do this so it doesn't matter much what I think in that regard. It's just the way it is. I just don't happen to agree with it.

 

[Baznme]

You won't like the answer, but the drug laws put the government in the role of the injured party which can lock up the funds until the person is proved guilty or not.

In most cases like this, say in the cases where the husband kills his family, the living family members of the victims file a civil suit for wrongful death that won't be heard until the criminal case is done. But they, as the "wronged party" in that case asks the court to take any assets held or gained by the accused to be held in escrow until the court hearings are complete. And that is not always successful.

In this case Caylee does not have a family member that is going to sue Casey for wrongful death and Son of Sam laws do not apply because she is neither convicted nor selling her story of a crime being committed.

Being accused does not sever your legal rights. My MIL was murdered by the man she was attempting to divorce. Didn't change his legal rights as her spouse one iota. We had to have his permission to get her body from the morgue since he was the next of kin. It sucks, but it is the way it works. Other people on this forum have said the same thing about when their loved ones were murdered.

How awful for you. So sorry you had to endure this. Thanks for setting me straight but it just isn't right somehow IMO.

 

[kbl8201]

alli i can say is i hope jaycee and her family got a lot more then this for there home videos, they need it.

casey dont need it where she's going.

 

[lauriej]

IMO KC was indigent from get go. An ethical lawyer would not have taken on the case as JB did and have her sell Caylee's pictures and videos in such a way that his 'hands' look clean legally (hope I'm wrong & they can get him on this). This was not in his clients best interest and he knew it by dodging the source of the monies for all this time. She would have been better off with a Public Defender.

..kc HERSELF claimed to be indigent , at her very 1st hearing:
..( how she ended up with baez is anyone's guess...):

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS-qSflO43c[/ame]