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

[bunnyphoenix1]

A lawyer cannot be paid to defend someone with money gained from their crime. Maybe he is really self confident that he will get an aquittal? Or he is prepared to have the state come after him for those funds? Makes no sense at all.

I'm confused...I thought you said they could spend the money if they weren't convicted...that the law only stops people from receiving the assets for the purpose of shielding them? What law covers this? As I said, where I come from, we have general "Proceeds of Crime" legislation that would cover this situation.

 

[Recovering-Lurker]

Off Topic: Is it just me or is everyone getting that thanks for posting and redirect message every single time you post?! It is driving me nuts!

Yup. Strange. :waitasec:

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I don't see anyone arguing against the motion? Only the wording of the motion and the article. Our discussion is about money having already been paid or not and if it is rumor or not.

 

[countzero]

I am all for this motion!! I think the SA's Office is right to file it and I believe they are exactly right that the x-rays etc. need to be viewed there instead of flown all over the country which would allow opportunity for others to gain access, authorized or unauthorized.

Watching NG while reading this thread. The two attorneys both said it wasn't unusual for this type of motion to be filed.

While I don't like the bashing other threads have encountered, the arguing on this thread blows me away.

I just feel that anyone who objects to this motion isn't about Caylee. The SA is attempting to preserve her memory by way of legal motions and people are just tearing into it.

Time for me to do some knitting, self imposed time out before I say more.

 

[illinoismom]

I am just now getting back and starting to read.

I hope the SA's motion is granted. It is sickening to me that there should be pics of Caylee's remains for anyone to gawk over.

(Bolded by me)

I agree.

I see through out this thread there has been debate as far as who said what and what was filed. Reguardless of all of that it is SICK and DISRESPECFUL for anyone to even entertain the idea of releasing/selling the pictures of Caylees remains to the public!!!!:furious:

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Big time drug dealers and racketeers only source of income is generally money gained from their crimes. They pay their attorneys somehow. I'm not saying it's right or legal, but they do seem to get away with it.

Where I come from, a lawyer used to be able to apply to the Court to have their fees paid out of monies siezed as proceeds of crime, then they changed it here so that those persons now have to be represented by legal aid and can't access those funds to pay their lawyers etc. When you are talking about big drug dealers, the police often keep a very good eye on the lawyers representing them and can subpoena their files re payments etc....only the dumbest of lawyers would take the chance at getting locked up themselves to get paid out of proceeds of crime.

 

[elfie]

Does anyone seriously believe that any of the A family themselves (even KC) will really consider selling pictures of little Caylee's skull and disarticulated skeleton to the media for profit? Come on!

I think the motion is to prevent anyone else from obtaining them and using them for profit, i.e. as someone has already mentioned, unscrupulous experts etc. If such a thing did occur, it would not be the fault of any of the A's personally.

Its ludicrous. According to the article the SA stated that it was not to be inferred that anyone was considering this.

I do agree that it would be best if the material was kept within the jurisdiction and not sent/uploaded to anyone outside of the jurisdiction (where it could possibly be intercepted and/or exploited).

 

[SeriouslySearching]

The A's can sell the photos and turn the money over to the defense to pay for expert testimony.

Doesn't it depend on who took the photos as to who owns them legally? Since Casey obviously took the photos since Cindy was in the pool with Caylee...does this means she owns them being she is an adult? Doesn't it also mean she can give POA to Baez to sell them for her? She would have to turn over rights to said photos taken by her with her own camera for the A fam to sell, imo.

 

[Chilly Willy]

Watching NG while reading this thread. The two attorneys both said it wasn't unusual for this type of motion to be filed.

While I don't like the bashing other threads have encountered, the arguing on this thread blows me away.

I just feel that anyone who objects to this motion isn't about Caylee. The SA is attempting to preserve her memory by way of legal motions and people are just tearing into it.

Time for me to do some knitting, self imposed time out before I say more.

I've not seen anyone object to the motion.

 

[impatientredhead]

The A's can sell the photos and turn the money over to the defense to pay for expert testimony.

If she is convicted there would still be a problem with that. If the A's are not accused and convicted of anything they can profit from their story, BUT those funds cannot then be used for Casey's benefit. Of course if she is convicted she didn't really benefit from the defense or their experts and if she is aquitted the money thing is a moot point. This whole thing is just sickening.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

No, I believe they filed the motion over valid concerns, and stated the rumor to support those concerns. I see nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying that there is no proof in the parts of the motion quoted that the A's received any money from photos.

That is a very serious accusation. They apparently report it as a fact, and I can't imagine they'd lie about that, and I'm sure they've investigated it better than you have. What movies have you been watching where SAs put things in motions based on rumours as opposed to evidence?? What would be the SA's motive for doing what you are accusing them of?

 

[Chilly Willy]

That is a very serious accusation. They apparently report it as a fact, and I can't imagine they'd lie about that, and I'm sure they've investigated it better than you have. What movies have you been watching where SAs put things in motions based on rumours as opposed to evidence?? What would be the SA's motive for doing what you are accusing them of?

It's not an accusation at all. The state is saying that there have been many reports of pictures and videos being sold, they want to take steps to prevent that from happening with the photos of the remains. What's the big deal?

Why so rude?

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Off Topic: Is it just me or is everyone getting that thanks for posting and redirect message every single time you post?! It is driving me nuts!

I'm getting it too. I suppose we have to get used to it...looks like it's here to stay...lol.

 

[impatientredhead]

I'm confused...I thought you said they could spend the money if they weren't convicted...that the law only stops people from receiving the assets for the purpose of shielding them? What law covers this? As I said, where I come from, we have general "Proceeds of Crime" legislation that would cover this situation.

I was referring more to the procedure. The drug and racketeering laws allow seizure prior to conviction, the "son of sam" version (not called that anymore) requires conviction so the money trail will have to be dealt with afterwards. Most criminals do not have this type of interest in their cases and no one paying for photos. The state might be able to get the judge to freeze assets until the trial is done, but they can't take the funds prior to a conviction. With the drug seizure rules you don't get your things back even if they never file charges. Same intent and outcomes, but different procedures.

 

[elfie]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...-caylee-remains-photos-010609,0,6545675.story

Assistant State Attorney Linda Drane Burdick wrote in the motion. "It is imperative that this court take steps to prevent any image of her remains from being used for commercial gain. This request is not to suggest or infer that defense counsel will engage in such conduct."

I think the material could easily be viewed under supervision with no problem and it would look badly if the defense refused such a caveat.

 

[Chilly Willy]

I think the material could easily be viewed under supervision with no problem and it would look badly if the defense refused such a caveat.

Now that it's come out on NG that the prior money went directly to Baez, it makes even more sense that the state would file this montion, not that it didn't make sense before.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I don't see anyone arguing against the motion? Only the wording of the motion and the article. Our discussion is about money having already been paid or not and if it is rumor or not.

I agree.

Chilly thinks this thread should be in the parking lot because the SA is relying on just rumours.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I hope the reporters "track down" where all this licensing money has been going and determine the source/sources once and for all. It would be great to know who really is making a substantial profit from them, who paid them, and how much exactly they were paid.

Or, hopefully, when the judge hears this motion...it will all come out then! Woohoo!

 

[ThoughtElf]

Off Topic: Is it just me or is everyone getting that thanks for posting and redirect message every single time you post?! It is driving me nuts!

Maybe there is a new options setting we can use. Off to look...

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Maybe there is a new options setting we can use. Off to look...

Thanks for posting, Potato!!! Your post has been received and if you are using a poll you will be returned....:blowkiss: