Source: Casey's Attorney Marketing Photos To Media

[okiedokietoo]

Yeah, maybe, your right. Rummage sale tax? I mean these are used items. So, 6 Percent? 12000.00? but then again, that may mean she technically worked for Disney who owns ABC. Just kidding but technically isn't Disney world right next to Universal? Maybe she did work in 2008 afterall?

nah, no, think that is was proven in LE released evidence that she didn't work in 2008

 

[momtective]

There is absolutely nothing ABC airs that I can't live without. So I miss The Bachelor...big deal. I for one will not be tuning in to ABC again, as a matter of fact I'm calling my satellite provider and having ABC removed from my local programing.

 

[juicedog23]

True. I guess he could of gotten a free trip and dropped of a cd/dvd. If I had $200,000 worth of digital media, I would not risk transmitting over the internet no matter how secure the connection.

 

[okiedokietoo]

Thank you for that explanation. So he has not broken the law, nor has Kc. Now that the money from the Pictures are used up, he is offering to work pro bono for Kc. I think that does serve his clients best interest. He has also assembled a good team. Good Job, jb imo

Good points. Does appear that the money from the pictures is used up. But where did the rest of the money go after JB and AL got the money, they are reporting?
Wow I wondered if you quit WS, you've been gone for about a week.

 

[RR0004]

To me it is not the fact that it can be done, it is the fact that people would actually pay it.
She can't sell them if no one will buy them. If we believe someone has the ability to kill their own child then why the shock that they would sell the image of the child they may have murdered?
The shock is that they would be bought. Unfortunately they are bought because the buyer has a market for them and the market is us.

...so can they bring up the fact that she sold pics of her daughter at trial? I just find it all so repugnant.

PS- and we didn't have to pay any media outlet (indirectly) to see the pics

 

[RR0004]

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.

...add to this their extrememly inappropriate presence at the Ritz the day Caylee's remains were found and I think you have one heckuva bottom feeding network. JMHO

 

[OKaraMia]

Id give her $1,000,000 for a photo of the Nanny.

 

[LambChop]

Id give her $1,000,000 for a photo of the Nanny.

Hey, good point OKaraMia. Not one picture of the Nanny was sold. Bet they would have paid big bucks for that one. All the pictures KC has of everyone....every person she has met probably in the last five years....no Jeff, no Julia, no pictures of Nanny's roommates, sister, mother, etc. Not a one. Amazing. JMO

 

[lisalei321]

Id give her $1,000,000 for a photo of the Nanny.

I have a dime to contribute to that fund!

 

[RR0004]

Help me out here. Not trying to be snarky. Just want to know where your coming from on this. Why would Abc news disclose their own trade secrets? or any other network for that matter? Is it against the law for Kc to sell her family photos to ABC? Or anyone else for that matter? Is it against the law for ABC to buy Kc family pictures? What is wrong with Jb helping Kc make this transaction to help pay for her defense? Is that somehow against the law? These are laws that I have not heard of.

I see nothing wrong with it. If someone wants to give me 200 thousand dollars for my family photos right now, I will sell them in a New York minute.

I just don't get it. I don't see anything unethical or illegal here at all. Just a defense trying to raise money to support their belief. IMO

I thought we had discussed that there was an ethic's issue with Jose brokering the deal.
So now, you no longer want an accounting of where this $200,000 went to?

Ya know what I don't get...it's ok that JS keeps Jose's secrets to himself, but we shouldn't expect a network that closely aligns itself with "family values" to be ethical? Maybe it's a trade secret amongst legal beagles: let's protect each other's g-d almighty dollar. When it comes to finances, there's no doubt in my mind that these folks have each other's backs. I don't think you'll ever get your accounting NTS.

 

[cecybeans]

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.

If none of the money that JB acquired has actually been spent on a tangible defense (other than a few depos and an expert or two) - then the state of FL is still out of money because not only do they have to start from scratch but they have housed her and had to pay for officers of the court to listen to frivolous, poorly written motions ad nauseum. I'd bet the judge and the state would have to have scheduled less than half the time they've wasted in court hearing them if she'd had a PD, and paying for her to be transported each time from jail because no one could trust JB to be above-board enough to represent his client without her presence to insure she might actually catch on to how badly he was mismanaging things.

This case might have gone to trial within a year of her indictment if her PD had invoked her right to a speedy trial and got a gag order. Instead, JB blew through $250K he can't account for, worked on all kinds of irrelevant issues and spent most of his time doing media tours and yachting with Geraldo trying to use this to boost his career. Except, when asked, he doesn't have much "work product" to actually show for his efforts.

 

[elementary]

Thank you for that explanation. So he has not broken the law, nor has Kc. Now that the money from the Pictures are used up, he is offering to work pro bono for Kc. I think that does serve his clients best interest. He has also assembled a good team. Good Job, jb imo

Although I am not a lawyer, I think that "conflict of interest" breaks some sort of lawyerly law. If a judge were to be found with "a conflict of interest", they would be removed at the very least, their reputation destroyed. "Conflict of interest" also smacks of corruption. There is something in it for them that hinders the cause of justice or fairness.

You may split hairs about it, but it is wrong on so many levels. And as rhornsby stated, Baez can be disbarred for it if it is proven that he was not acting in the best interests of his client or if he has perjured himself, that is, lied. Baez may not go to jail, but neither will he be allowed the privilege of being an attorney ever again. And maybe there's a fine too. Unless he has done something that is completely against the law as well. Then we can only hope for jail.

Btw, has Baez ever uttered that he is working pro bono? I'm curious, because I don't recall him ever saying that.

 

[elementary]

Help me out here. Not trying to be snarky. Just want to know where your coming from on this. Why would Abc news disclose their own trade secrets? or any other network for that matter? Is it against the law for Kc to sell her family photos to ABC? Or anyone else for that matter? Is it against the law for ABC to buy Kc family pictures? What is wrong with Jb helping Kc make this transaction to help pay for her defense? Is that somehow against the law? These are laws that I have not heard of.

I see nothing wrong with it. If someone wants to give me 200 thousand dollars for my family photos right now, I will sell them in a New York minute.

I just don't get it. I don't see anything unethical or illegal here at all. Just a defense trying to raise money to support their belief. IMO

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?

 

[sunsetbeach]

Ya know ... about those pictures and the media ... Isn't it ironic that the ONE picture Ricardo sold to the NE just so happened to be the one that had the shirt poor Caylee died in? Is that the only photo he sold to them?? Why did he try to "clean" his computer before LE took it? Did he have something to hide? I'm not saying he did it but did he know something that the rest of the people didn't? Don't get me wrong, I think KC did it but did someone else know something. Why was that photo cropped in the NE? Was it really a fluke?? AND how long did it take for the NE to let LE know they had that picture?

 

[Baznme]

Just to play devil's advocate, would you feel similarly about a person that proclaimed innocence and then used the money to fund her defense in order to prove it?

IOW, if a person is innocent and wants to prove it, should they be allowed to sell images of the murdered child in order to finance an adequate defense ?

is it the perceived guilt that makes it wrong ? or is it selling the images in general under any circumstances?If the person is found innocent is it ok that they sold what they had to cover costs while incarcerated?

You raise a great question here. If it's illegal to use monies for an alleged crime that was obtained and associated with drugs, how is this any different from the sale of video and photos of Caylee,the victim? Both are cases with charges not yet proven in a court of law, so why the double standard? Maybe the law should be changed that IF the person being charged is found "innocent", the monies can be paid at end of trial. If they are found guilty, no monies paid to the attorney's. (If the funds are at the expense of victims). Maybe then not everything presented in the courts as to guilt or innocence wouldn't have the "God almighty dollar" attached to it and the real criminals would get their just due. They wouldn't be waiting for 2 plus years to get to trial either. Slam, bam, thank you, dust their hands off and on to the next.

 

[elementary]

Since JB stated yesterday in court and under oath that kc brokered the deal, can anything happen to him now that ABC is saying he was part of the deal making? Plus, awhile back when the "conflict of interest" stuff was going on, didn't he testify to JS that there was no deal making going on and no money being profited?

[
Ahhh....and herein lies the technicality.

When Baez was before JS, and according to the affidavit signed by Casey herself, there were no past, pending or future deals to sell "her story"...(key: story).

Her statement, as well as those made by Baez, did NOT include IMAGES or VIDEOS...

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?

 

[Baznme]

Ya know ... about those pictures and the media ... Isn't it ironic that the ONE picture Ricardo sold to the NE just so happened to be the one that had the shirt poor Caylee died in? Is that the only photo he sold to them?? Why did he try to "clean" his computer before LE took it? Did he have something to hide? I'm not saying he did it but did he know something that the rest of the people didn't? Don't get me wrong, I think KC did it but did someone else know something. Why was that photo cropped in the NE? Was it really a fluke?? AND how long did it take for the NE to let LE know they had that picture?

Just a guess on my part but I think maybe the common curiosity between KC and Ricardo on "chloroform" would have become obvious with a search of his computer. Although I think it was some kind of novelty experiment on his part, KC may have gotten the idea for her own purposes from him. JMO

 

[elementary]

Just to play devil's advocate, would you feel similarly about a person that proclaimed innocence and then used the money to fund her defense in order to prove it?

IOW, if a person is innocent and wants to prove it, should they be allowed to sell images of the murdered child in order to finance an adequate defense ?

is it the perceived guilt that makes it wrong ? or is it selling the images in general under any circumstances?If the person is found innocent is it ok that they sold what they had to cover costs while incarcerated?

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.

 

[OKaraMia]

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'.

 

[Baznme]

Help me out here. Not trying to be snarky. Just want to know where your coming from on this. Why would Abc news disclose their own trade secrets? or any other network for that matter? Is it against the law for Kc to sell her family photos to ABC? Or anyone else for that matter? Is it against the law for ABC to buy Kc family pictures? What is wrong with Jb helping Kc make this transaction to help pay for her defense? Is that somehow against the law? These are laws that I have not heard of.

I see nothing wrong with it. If someone wants to give me 200 thousand dollars for my family photos right now, I will sell them in a New York minute.

I just don't get it. I don't see anything unethical or illegal here at all. Just a defense trying to raise money to support their belief. IMO

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?