Source: Casey's Attorney Marketing Photos To Media

[lauriej]

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

..from what i read today, this "deal" was done sometime in aug.2008.

..kc was arrested mid-july ( the 17th.) there was QUITE a bit of information out there between then and august.

..i think MOST people, her own parents included, pretty much knew that caylee was dead.

..i think ABC knew as well------as you say----"making money off of bad events".

..i do disagree--"-that ABC will be able to sell these videos and pics in the future". why ? they've been seen already. and------are over the internet.

 

[lauriej]

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.

.....exactly. in fact, in one of the first jail visits with her parents, kc says:

.................."WHEN this goes to trial......."

..excuse me ? your child, per YOU, is missing----1/2 the state is out looking for her...lucky you! to have such an outpouring of support ! SURELY she will be found!

..so, why, assume this will be going to trial ?

 

[RR0004]

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

At this place in time, I don't see how selling the pics has helped anyone but JB. Considering he's doing the work pro bono, why even go this route if not to profit from it personally? Could JB have known that whatever was "earned" through the sale of the photos wouldn't be sufficient to sustain the defense's "pot"? Absolutely! How could he not? It has nothing to do with putting the DP back on the table...but IMO has everything to do with dragging one's feet for almost 2 years with very little work product to show for it. Personally, I think that he hoped to broker even more deals. Being the astute attorney that he is, he never factored in the backlash he'd receive. The negative publicity killed his dream of fame and fortune. For now.

 

[DairyGirl]

I just don't get it. If my child were missing I would be paying anyone I could to get their picture out there so they could be found. That would be my motive. I would never dream of selling those pictures, I would want them out there for everyone to see. But to kill you own child and then sell pictures of her to pay for you defense, there has to be something wrong here.

 

[Melly53]

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.

I thought ABC did the deal for the pics for the interview Diane Sawyer did with George and Cindy! Anybody remember the date of that interview?

 

[OKaraMia]

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.

Thats just sad.
Considering the incredible writings recently from The Dali Lama.
Not "sexy or juicy" though.

There should be a sexy n juicy award...the Bootylicious Prize for digging up dirt :dance:

 

[jamiect]

I thought ABC did the deal for the pics for the interview Diane Sawyer did with George and Cindy! Anybody remember the date of that interview?

I believe the money was for the Sept 5,2008 20/20 special w/Elizabeth Vargas. The title was "Missing Florida Toddler Caylee Anthony".

Pretty interesting to watch again.

pt1 [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGosFlxaPA0[/ame]
pt2 [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdaNDGMoNsw&feature=related[/ame]
pt3 [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehRwF5ehz9o&feature=related[/ame]

 

[jamiect]

Also, extra home video not shown.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5727546&page=1

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

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.

Maybe they could have used the RICO law to stop Inmate Anthony from selling Caylee's photos..but she wasn't arrested for any crime that would include attaching RICO...What was done is morally wrong not legally wrong but you're dealing with a narcisis, sociopath and pathological liar...it's all about me, me, me..when dealing with Inmate Anthony..

Florida RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) Act

RICO is a catch all charge. If you have been arrested for a serious crime such as illicit money lending, drugs, or prostitution, the police, or the State may also tack on a RICO charge. It is a very serious charge that should not be taken lightly. If you are charged with a RICO violation contact an experienced attorney as soon as possible.


895.03 Prohibited activities and defense.—

(1) It is unlawful for any person who has with criminal intent received any proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt to use or invest, whether directly or indirectly, any part of such proceeds, or the proceeds derived from the investment or use thereof, in the acquisition of any title to, or any right, interest, or equity in, real property or in the establishment or operation of any enterprise.

(2) It is unlawful for any person, through a pattern of racketeering activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt, to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property.

(3) It is unlawful for any person employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt.

(4) It is unlawful for any person to conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsection (1), subsection (2), or subsection (3).



895.04 Criminal penalties and alternative fine.--


(1) Any person convicted of engaging in activity in violation of the provisions of s. 895.03 is guilty of a felony of the first degree and shall be punished as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) In lieu of a fine otherwise authorized by law, any person convicted of engaging in conduct in violation of the provisions of s. 895.03, through which the person derived pecuniary value, or by which he or she caused personal injury or property damage or other loss, may be sentenced to pay a fine that does not exceed 3 times the gross value gained or 3 times the gross loss caused, whichever is the greater, plus court costs and the costs of investigation and prosecution, reasonably incurred.

(3) The court shall hold a hearing to determine the amount of the fine authorized by subsection (2).

(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), "pecuniary value" means:

(a) Anything of value in the form of money, a negotiable instrument, or a commercial interest or anything else the primary significance of which is economic advantage; or

(b) Any other property or service that has a value in excess of $100.
http://www.miamitrafficticket.net/floridaricoact.html

 

[The World According]

.....exactly. in fact, in one of the first jail visits with her parents, kc says:

.................."WHEN this goes to trial......."

..excuse me ? your child, per YOU, is missing----1/2 the state is out looking for her...lucky you! to have such an outpouring of support ! SURELY she will be found!

..so, why, assume this will be going to trial ?

Yes Laurie, I stopped dead in my tracks when I heard Cindy explaining to Casey that the whole world is looking for Caylee and asked her did she know that the reward money was up to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.....to which Casey answered "That is half of my bond". That is when I knew without question she had no remorse.

 

[Macushla]

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

this forum is one way "We wll remember them" and no one from this forum paid any money to have the pictures of children here - it was done because this forum cares about missing and murdered people.

I am not going to list the names of murdered children that have been in the news lately. I don't think ONE of the parents, no matter what else they may or may not have done, has SOLD their child's picture. All those pictures were given freely, especially when the child was just 'missing' first, to LE Media and everyone else that might, just might, put the picture out there in the public eye. Yes, even the A's did this at first. We all remember the first heartbreaking picture of Caylee - those big eyes. You are right that no one knew Caylee was dead when KC made this deal. What we did know was that she was missing, KC was lying through her teeth, and selling photos to to pay for her defense.

I agree with you that the media will continue to do this. ABC made the deal first, that's all. I would find it interesting to see if the media made deals in perhaps Halaigh's case? Of course, that family did not 'present' as well as the A's did, did they? Image, and what might sell drives the media, sad to say. The era of 'vulture journalism' has arrived and we, the public must share the blame in this.

Can something good come out of this? Yes, if the negative publicity that has hit ABC and it's parent company makes even one other media outlet think twice about doing something like this in the future, that is a good thing.

NTS, I understand what you are saying - although I don't agree with it. Can you understand the outrage some people are feeling, even if you don't agree with it?

 

[shotgun09]

I think ABC's theme song should now be The Eagles "Dirty Laundry"...
".....Get the widow on the set...we need dirty laundry"

 

[Chiquita71]

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

Respectfully Quoted notthatsmart
BBM

There's a lot more to a Grand Jury ruling to go forward with a trial. If I understand the process correctly, the GJ and the SA don't say, "take it to trial and see." It's not how they feel about the case: there has to be enough evidence to take a case to trial and the SA has to have enough evidence that they feel they can get a conviction.

Now, that is my current understanding of this process. If I am wrong, please correct me. I just didn't think the GJ has a "well, let's see" attitude toward any case? There are specific rules as to which cases go to trial, yes?

Again, please correct me if I am mistaken. TIA.

...JS...

 

[Chiquita71]

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.

Quote Respect Truthwillsetufree
BBM

ITA. :clap:

:twocents:

 

[notthatsmart]

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

No, not nuff said. How do you know that? How do you know what the 200 k was spent on? Do you have some kind of inside information?

 

[AZlawyer]

No, not nuff said. How do you know that? How do you know what the 200 k was spent on? Do you have some kind of inside information?

I believe the defense attorneys explained at the recent hearing that the $200,000 was spent on Casey's defese.

 

[sleutherontheside]

No, not nuff said. How do you know that? How do you know what the 200 k was spent on? Do you have some kind of inside information?

According to Jose Baez in the indigency hearing.....that money went to defense "costs".

 

[notthatsmart]

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.

I think the difference is drugs vs pictures. It is illegal to sell drugs and not illegal to sell pictures. That is where I am seeing apples and oranges. I would never support a bill that stopped people from defending themselves. IMO

 

[AZlawyer]

Respectfully Quoted notthatsmart
BBM

There's a lot more to a Grand Jury ruling to go forward with a trial. If I understand the process correctly, the GJ and the SA don't say, "take it to trial and see." It's not how they feel about the case: there has to be enough evidence to take a case to trial and the SA has to have enough evidence that they feel they can get a conviction.

Now, that is my current understanding of this process. If I am wrong, please correct me. I just didn't think the GJ has a "well, let's see" attitude toward any case? There are specific rules as to which cases go to trial, yes?

Again, please correct me if I am mistaken. TIA.

...JS...

In Florida, a grand jury is instructed to return an indictment if they find "a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious person in the belief that a particular person is guilty of a particular crime."

 

[kbl8201]

i knew she had no remorse when i heard it took 31 days to report her missing