Source: Casey's Attorney Marketing Photos To Media

[notthatsmart]

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?

I can understand the outrage of course. I know peoples feelings run deeply and it hurts. It hurts me too. The difference is that I just accept it. Walter Cronkite is dead and with him went the whole shaboom.. I mean think about it, Kb and Bs actually work for the same people as Baez. ABC...This is why Kb was not in Jb's face that day over the disclosure. The media is just dogs and you have to feed them once in awhile. I take any of it with a grain of salt. I believe the major networks more than I do NE, but I still take the Major networks with a grain of salt. I also take blame for it. I am just as guilty as anyone else of wanting to hear bad news on the news at night. I have no interest in good news, unless its the weather. Many people say they watch it for the good news. Its not me. I know its going to be bad news. Thats what sells. Just like going to the car races, your heart is holding out for that crash. IMO

 

[notthatsmart]

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...

Well I am not that smart, but I have heard that good prosecutor can convict a ham sandwhich in front of a grand jury. Their are hundreds of thousands of defense attorney's in this country, thats no accident. IMO

 

[autumnlover]

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...

You"re right, Chiquita. I sat on the GJ for a month and there had to be enough evidence to go to trial. Some cases were cut and dry and others we deliberated a long time over. The differences were that we only had to have a majority vote, we got to ask the witnesses questions through the prosecutor and of course, the reasonable doubt standard didn't apply. However, there absolutely had to be enough evidence to go to trial. No one ever said, "Well, let's see what happens if it goes to trial." I will tell you that mistakes were made. There was certain evidence we weren't allowed to hear that had we had known, we definitely would have returned a true bill in one particular case.

Hope this helps!
autumnlover

 

[kbl8201]

i dont know whats more disturbing.....the crime itself, the sociopath who committed it, the grandparents that helped her cover it up, the lawyers who represent her for nothing then cry poor house, or this. it's all sickening and to me if this case ends in an acquittal it will be the worst outcome since o.j

and like ron and nicole, poor caylee is all but forgotten

 

[Pondering Mind]

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

bbm~
Hi nts, long time no 'see', lol! Just out of curiosity (and if you don't mind answering ) can you give me a couple of examples as to why you feel that KC didn't know that Caylee was dead, besides just the fact that she said so? Like something you have observed her say or do to make you feel she didn't do this? Anything that you believe that most of us (including myself) have missed? Even though we are polar opposites in what we believe to be the truth, your posts still fascinate me and I honestly do respect your right to your opinion despite the fact that I'm usually shaking my head when I read them, lol! :shakehead:..I have to admire your willingness to stand up for your opinion, no matter how unpopular it may be. I always wonder if there's a reason you seem to be so sure of KC's innocence and ready to discount or doubt what the experts have said in this case? Just my normal pondering mind, no need to answer if you'd rather not..kinda o/t anyway..:innocent:

 

[kbl8201]

if casey really didnt kill caylee and everything she said was true, she'd still be a monster

 

[JBean]

please stay on topic. thanks

marketing photos to media is the topic

 

[notthatsmart]

bbm~
Hi nts, long time no 'see', lol! Just out of curiosity (and if you don't mind answering ) can you give me a couple of examples as to why you feel that KC didn't know that Caylee was dead, besides just the fact that she said so? Like something you have observed her say or do to make you feel she didn't do this? Anything that you believe that most of us (including myself) have missed? Even though we are polar opposites in what we believe to be the truth, your posts still fascinate me and I honestly do respect your right to your opinion despite the fact that I'm usually shaking my head when I read them, lol! :shakehead:..I have to admire your willingness to stand up for your opinion, no matter how unpopular it may be. I always wonder if there's a reason you seem to be so sure of KC's innocence and ready to discount or doubt what the experts have said in this case? Just my normal pondering mind, no need to answer if you'd rather not..kinda o/t anyway..:innocent:

Your right, thats off topic. I have lots of reason, but there is no appropriate place to post it. All threads assume guilt. I realize that I am welcome to open a thread anytime I please, but you have to admit that no one would come in there so why bother. This is what I love about trial, the Jury will have to listen to the defense side. The jury will see anything that the SA has failed to mention. The Sa will not be able to throw the 31 day mountain of evidence everytime a witness says something exculpatory about Kc. Its a great format to get to the truth. Sorry about being off topic about being off topic.

 

[Pondering Mind]

Thanks for replying nts..and as far as opening up another thread, you would probably be surprised how many people would follow..like me who always seem to go somewhat off topic!

The reason I asked you the questions I did weren't completely OT as 'the marketing photos' were what I had in mind. IMO IF one were not guilty and their child had 'disappeared' under the circumstances in which KC described (no matter which one her stories one believes) I just can't imagine her not giving photos away fast and furious in order to find her daughter, as well as to clear her own name. And as others have said, IF KC thought for one second that Caylee was still alive, wouldn't you think if she was going to sell photos, it would have been to add to the reward? Why would she assume that early on that she would need big bucks for such a defense? Wasn't the 'nanny' supposed to be bringing Caylee back? So, for those reasons I do suppose at this late date, most threads do assume guilt because most, just like myself have never seen or heard one single tidbit of anything to make us believe otherwise. That's why I was asking what we could have possibly missed that you haven't or didn't anyway.

 

[notthatsmart]

Thanks for replying nts..and as far as opening up another thread, you would probably be surprised how many people would follow..like me who always seem to go somewhat off topic!

The reason I asked you the questions I did weren't completely OT as 'the marketing photos' were what I had in mind. IMO IF one were not guilty and their child had 'disappeared' under the circumstances in which KC described (no matter which one her stories one believes) I just can't imagine her not giving photos away fast and furious in order to find her daughter, as well as to clear her own name. And as others have said, IF KC thought for one second that Caylee was still alive, wouldn't you think if she was going to sell photos, it would have been to add to the reward? Why would she assume that early on that she would need big bucks for such a defense? Wasn't the 'nanny' supposed to be bringing Caylee back? So, for those reasons I do suppose at this late date, most threads do assume guilt because most, just like myself have never seen or heard one single tidbit of anything to make us believe otherwise. That's why I was asking what we could have possibly missed that you haven't or didn't anyway.

I believe photos were indeed given to the press and the media right away. I believe ABC and Jb came up with the idea of selling photos, Kc just agreed to it reluctantly and with not much of a choice. IMO

 

[AZlawyer]

I believe photos were indeed given to the press and the media right away. I believe ABC and Jb came up with the idea of selling photos, Kc just agreed to it reluctantly and with not much of a choice. IMO

This is an interesting observation. Did KC say or do something from which we could conclude that she sold the photos reluctantly?

 

[faefrost]

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

George explained it in one of his OSCO interviews (I think the one where he was throwing up in distress).

She Lied!

It's that simple. She lied to Baez about how much she could and would pay him.

 

[LC446]

I believe photos were indeed given to the press and the media right away. I believe ABC and Jb came up with the idea of selling photos, Kc just agreed to it reluctantly and with not much of a choice. IMO

You have definitely piqued my interest with this comment. Why would you come to the conclusion that ABC and JB came up with selling the photos and KC reluctantly agreed? Interesting.

 

[OKaraMia]

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 the time this was done. I honestly felt very sorry for the Anthonys. I justified the deal as a way to devote their time to searching and still get bills paid. I still to this day understand that they were doing what they feel Caylee would want (as far as standing by KC). However...as its already been mentioned several times in this thread...the money went to KCs defense...and Im just not down with that. :snooty:

So yes youre right....sorry ramble...I shouldve been more speciffic and say...Brokering in photos and videos of dead/missing children should be illegal. Give up the stuff for free or not at all :twocents:

 

[TallyHo]

The very picture of reluctance...

ETA - sorry but the link to the picture did not work for me. It is the picture of Casey with the short shorts and the (stolen) white sunglasses on walking with the huge notebook titled "MEDIA".

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

So, my question is, is the court failing justice by not probing in detail? It's a brave new world now, so is the court way behind the times?

Yes, I think so. I have very sickening feelings about Caylee ever getting justice. The Court, ie. JSS keeps letting the defense, ie. JB get bye with way too much. He lied under oath. He has hedged the truth (story vs pictures, etc.). Saying they would provide info and then ignoring deadlines that the Court ignores. The Court has a duty that they have abandoned.

Poor Caylee.

 

[Harmony 2]

Imperative word - RELUCTANTLY

KC sure didn't look too reluctant as she was bebopping to Baez office, sporting her famous white sunglasses and toting a large binder labeled MEDIA!
:furious:

Unless you are privy to certain information or media reports/interviews that state she was "reluctant"????

:waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

I see no signs of reluctance...

link for photo

 

[juicedog23]

You have definitely piqued my interest with this comment. Why would you come to the conclusion that ABC and JB came up with selling the photos and KC reluctantly agreed? Interesting.

It would have been nice if Casey would have relunctatly used atleast .000000000000000001 percent of all that money for a safe return of her then kidnapped daughter. Other parents and families of kidnapped or missing children I follow will put up everything they own.

 

[3doglady]

IIRC Tracy and Rob talked about how happy and talkative KC was on the drives to JB's office.

 

[magic-cat]

The deal was done with an attorney representing several owners of copyrighted content, ABC News spokeswoman Cathie Levine said. That attorney is Baez, she added.

The deal was done in the summer of 2008.

Several owners...

Hmmm...I don't know about you folks, but I know there are only a couple of people who would sell their rights to their family photos and then turn the money straight over into Casey Anthony's defense fund...George and Cindy Anthony...

So to me this statement that ABC issued says they did not only buy those rights from Casey ALONE...their were SEVERAL OWNERS and they were ALL being represented by none other than Jose Baez.

This says to me that Cindy and George have told some whopper lies through all of this. When they (and their mouthpiece-Brad Conway) say they have never PROFITTED I guess in their heads this is true because they gave the money immediately into Casey's defense fund. Still, to me, they profitted whatever portion was allotted THEM personally in the deal TO turn over...My God! This DEAL happened in August and Caylee was not even found yet and George and Cindy continued on interview after interview to report they were looking for LIVE Caylee...and their daughter was ONLY at that point charged with child abuse/neglect and check fraud so why oh why did they feel they needed THAT much money for a DEFENSE on THOSE charges which would dissolve as soon as a LIVE Caylee materialized?