S.A. Concerned Defense will Sell Pics of Caylee's Remains

[tangerinemoon]

The only person who allegedly received monies from NBC was the old PR guy ...can't recall his name at this time....he was fired or he quit or whatever....I believe it was for the first few appearances of Cindy on the Today show. Or, for licensing photo fees of Caylee

 

[SuziQ]

Perhaps they're concerned about some unscrupulous 'expert' hired by the defense selling the photos, which is what I'm gathering from the article posted by tangerinemoon.

ITA. The request is towards Baez. The SA has always expressed his concern that the defense appear on too many talk show and share's too much info. I've lost count of how many shows Baez and Kobe have done. Lee did a flurry of interviews immediately after inspecting the car. And Mrs Baden invited Geraldo to the crime scene while they did their work.

http://www.wesh.com/caseyanthony/18422273/detail.html

(snip)
In court documents prosecutors say they have three discs ready to hand over, but they want the judge to order Baez not to reproduce those images in any way. They also want restrictions placed on whom Baez can show the images.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

It has not been established that they sold other photos, let alone what the money was used for. Perhaps this discussion should be moved to the rumors thread.

I am referring to the papers filed by the SA...it's the SA that says substantial licensing fees for photos and video have been paid. I don't think the SA would put a rumour before the Court like that. Why in the world do you think they are doing that?

 

[eddeva]

Perhaps they're concerned about some unscrupulous 'expert' hired by the defense selling the photos, which is what I'm gathering from the article posted by tangerinemoon.

this is also how i read it, however based on the anthony's words and actions since last july i don't think anyone can be blamed for being suspicious about what they're capable off.
i'm getting a little paranoid myself actually

 

[countzero]

I respectfully disagree with you. The Anthony's have been devastated by the loss of their granddaughter. She was obviously a very loved child. If the A's had sold rights to particular pictures and video prior to the discovery of her remains, it is my opinion that the money received was used towards the private investigators and other means they used to search for little Caylee. I would bet my life on the fact that both Cindy and George would give their own lives to have Caylee back if they could. They are victims of their own love they had for their child... a child that lied and manipulated them and ultimately killed their granddaughter.

That is one heavy bet you have made.

CA&GA wouldn't consider sacrificing their lives for Caylee to be returned. They have made a deal with the devil to do anything using any means to get KC back.

That alone tells me volumes that Caylee's life meant very little to them.

 

[passionflower]

money is the root of all evil............you never know what someone will do for money.......IMO

 

[Chilly Willy]

Since the information came directly from the SA Office, it isn't a rumor nor is it speculation that someone has made a "substantial profit" from Caylee's photos/videos. The SA Office would also be required to have proof of this to back up such a claim in court when asking for this type of motion, wouldn't they?

The second article posted says ""It has been widely reported the major media outlets have paid substantial sums of money for 'licensing fees'....." That sounds like rumor and speculation to me.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Who made the $200K off Caylee's photos/videos from one of those shows then? I thought I recalled there being a huge payment which was denied by the A fam, but not by the show.

The spokesperson, L. Garrison, only made $6,000.00 IIRC.

 

[impatientredhead]

Very interesting...where I come from, it's not just money that is seized from drug dealers pre-conviction, they will also seize their homes, cars or anything else they think was bought from the proceeds of crime, then will return them if acquitted, or if someone else can prove title, or they can prove they were paid for other than through proceeds etc.

Asset forfeiture under drug and racketeering is a different set of laws and does not require conviction. Only reasonable suspicion of it being the proceeds/profit from illegal activity. They only need to reach the level of a search warrant or arrest, not conviction. The supreme courts aren't holding these up either as they are way to broad and innocent people get tagged in them.

 

[anastacia129]

Ok, I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that the A's did sell photo/video rights to 20/20. A big deal was made about them being paid for interviews, the a spokesman from abc said they don't pay for interviews, however they did pay for pics. mk? Im sure there are numerous articles posted on ws b/c it was discussed at great length.

Also, considering the sides we have seen of this disfunctional family, I would not put anything past them. Probably not a good idea to compare their thinking with normal, compassionate people and make comments that you just can't imagine someone doing something like selling photos of Caylee's remains. So, unless you know the A's personally I wouldn't bet they didn't have something in the works. You don't know, neither do I, but some people are just pure evil.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

The second article posted says ""It has been widely reported the major media outlets have paid substantial sums of money for 'licensing fees'....." That sounds like rumor and speculation to me.

I think you are confused...the SA has put it in their paperwork before the Court...we are not talking about what the press said. If you read the linked article, you will see it.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

The second article posted says ""It has been widely reported the major media outlets have paid substantial sums of money for 'licensing fees'....." That sounds like rumor and speculation to me.

Funny...I read the same article and it states quite clearly:

In this motion, the state argues that substantial licensing fees have been paid for pictures and video of Caylee taken while she was alive. That is why prosecutors want the judge to place special restrictions on digitized images of the remains before they hand them over to attorney Jose Baez and his defense team.

http://www.wesh.com/caseyanthony/18422273/detail.html (Bolded by me) This is NOT speculation or rumor.

 

[anastacia129]

The second article posted says ""It has been widely reported the major media outlets have paid substantial sums of money for 'licensing fees'....." That sounds like rumor and speculation to me.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/nbc/more_caylee_anthony_photos_more_licensing_98181.asp

 

[SuziQ]

It has not been established that they sold other photos, let alone what the money was used for. Perhaps this discussion should be moved to the rumors thread.

Isn't that what Larry G supposedly was fired and quit over? That he took a fee for licensing rights of pics he negotiated? IIRC, CA never denied that in her emails, she was merely PO'd that Larry got a piece of the pie without her knowledge? The SA in the article do refer to the licensing rights:

http://www.wesh.com/caseyanthony/18422273/detail.html

(snip)
In this motion, the state argues that substantial licensing fees have been paid for pictures and video of Caylee taken while she was alive. That is why prosecutors want the judge to place special restrictions on digitized images of the remains before they hand them over to attorney Jose Baez and his defense team

ETA: I think the state is taking this route because legally they can't prevent Casey or the A's choosing to sell the photos. But they can try to stop them from getting any further than Baez.

 

[Chilly Willy]

I think you are confused...the SA has put it in their paperwork before the Court...we are not talking about what the press said. If you read the linked article, you will see it.

I'm talking about a direct quote taken from the paperwork filed by Assistant State Attorney Linda Drane Burdick. Did you read the 2nd article? It makes things much clearer.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Asset forfeiture under drug and racketeering is a different set of laws and does not require conviction. Only reasonable suspicion of it being the proceeds/profit from illegal activity. They only need to reach the level of a search warrant or arrest, not conviction. The supreme courts aren't holding these up either as
they are way to broad and innocent people get tagged in them.

I think our forfeiture laws may be broader than yours...ours include "proceeds of crime" and are not limited to drugs or racketeering. So, does that mean in Florida, a murderer can make and spend a fortune off a book and interviews etc before conviction??

 

[anastacia129]

NBC News told Eyewitness News late Wednesday that it "does not and will not pay for interviews" and said it paid a "nominal fee" to license photos, which is standard practice. ABC also told Eyewitness News it paid licensing fees for videos and photos that aired on the network's 20/20 program.

http://www.wftv.com/news/17965652/detail.html

 

[passionflower]

how sick would it be to make money of those pix? BUT money IS the root of all evil and who knows what anyone will do for money!!! IMO

 

[impatientredhead]

I should have asked...does that mean a person facing charges can gift all the property before conviction? Nothing to stop them from doing that I presume?

Jointly held property and homestead can be considered excluded from the lien (so the spouse doesn't lose everything too if they are innocent). In the situation you reference above they would probably pursue getting the assets back if they can show that the intent was for the receiving party to shield the convict's assets.

Of course in this case, Casey owns nothing.

 

[impatientredhead]

I think our forfeiture laws may be broader than yours...ours include "proceeds of crime" and are not limited to drugs or racketeering. So, does that mean in Florida, a murderer can make and spend a fortune off a book and interviews etc before conviction??

No, it just means that they cannot prevent you from making the deal, they can still go after the money post conviction. And they could go after anyone who receives them for the convict's benefit.