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

[bunnyphoenix1]

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).

According to which article? Link please? The only paragraph I saw about that was the SA saying they weren't suggesting JB would do it...I've not seem them say they don't think the As would do it.

 

[Chilly Willy]

I agree.

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

That is not at all true. The accusations that the A's have received money from the sale of photos and that this motion is being filed to keep the A's from profiting from the photos of the remains are rumors. That's what belongs in the rumor thread. I think I was very clear.

 

[elfie]

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 motion, not that it didn't make sense before.

All of the photos/videos that were licensed before were while the Anthony's were still looking for Caylee alive.

I have to agree, its very responsible to go to whatever lengths necessary if there is any question at all.

 

[JustanotherJane]

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.

I absolutely believe they are capable of such deplorable behavior.

 

[elfie]

I absolutely believe they are capable of such deplorable behavior.

I don't think so.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

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?

Link please??

I saw a reporter say "it has been reported", and I understand the SA say it has happened, not that it is a rumour. I am sure they have investigated it and are not basing it on rumour. Why are you so sure it is rumour??? I think we can drop this. I will never be convinced that an SA in these circumstances would base a motion on rumours. I really don't see the point in you and I debating this further. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Well...someone DID TAKE the money for all of these licensing agreements which have been paid because we DID see the videos and photos on their shows and the SA Office says it DID HAPPEN. So who is it and how do we go about finding out?

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

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.

Very interesting...our laws are quite different, though obviously intended to achieve basically the same results. Thanks for answering my questions on this...I think it's going to become quite relevant law in this matter!

 

[JustanotherJane]

Of course the A's wouldn't sell those pictures, I doubt very much that they would even want to see the pictures themselves. People seem to forget that regardless of whatever mistakes they may have made, they completely loved and adored little Caylee.

Do you have a link for that? Seriously, though, why do people always say they know the a's adored her? She was bathed, clothed and fed, yes, but what have they done that makes you and others so certain she was loved?

 

[countzero]

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!

I don't care if we don't know, immediately. I would think the SA's office knows now and can back it up to the judge if and when he asks for it.

Not being snarly; chilly and others aren't on the list of "need to know" and neither am I. We are but voyeurs into the case. Observers, if you like. But that doesn't give us the right to demand to see what LE and SA have as evidence for trial or for the motions.

If SA performs unethically during the trial, the judge will know it and take care of it. So far he has done a darn good job and I am not about to think I know more than he does.

If SA is simply making this up as has been suggested, then the judge will admonish SA properly. He has many options available to him to do this.

 

[ThoughtElf]

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

No such luck... I didn't find a way to turn it off. Now I want polls on every darn thread; thought; shred of thought; thread of shredded thought.

You get it.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

No such luck... I didn't find a way to turn it off. Now I want polls on every darn thread; thought; shred of thought; thread of shredded thought.

You get it.

Hahahahaha~
Thanks for trying anyway, Potato!!

 

[Chilly Willy]

Link please??

I saw a reporter say "it has been reported", and I understand the SA say it has happened, not that it is a rumour. I am sure they have investigated it and are not basing it on rumour. Why are you so sure it is rumour??? I think we can drop this. I will never be convinced that an SA in these circumstances would base a motion on rumours. I really don't see the point in you and I debating this further. We will have to agree to disagree.

I give up. You obviously refuse to read the second article with the quote taken directly from the motion. It's dropped.

 

[Chilly Willy]

No such luck... I didn't find a way to turn it off. Now I want polls on every darn thread; thought; shred of thought; thread of shredded thought.

You get it.

NO! I hate polls. They bring the thread back to the top and make it look like their are new posts every time someone votes.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

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.

ITA...but they have already come out and issued a statement that this was just a delaying tactic on the part of the SA. I've been involved in more than 1 case where access to evidence was limited...I don't get why Baez doesn't simply agree to it, unless of course he was counting on the cash from selling those pics to keep paying his firm's fees.

 

[ThoughtElf]

Well...someone DID TAKE the money for all of these licensing agreements which have been paid because we DID see the videos and photos on their shows and the SA Office says it DID HAPPEN. So who is it and how do we go about finding out?

Someone or something is paying for the D Team. I would think that would take a substantial amount, yes?

No significant family income, plus already behind in bills and house near foreclosure once already, plus donations have likely (finally) dried up... leads one to believe that there must be a new source of income to pay for the 'KC Carnage Committee'.

Every other dignity Caylee deserved was lied about, stolen and sold to date, why not take it just that one abhorrent step further?

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

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.

What I heard was that at least "some" of the money went to JB? Why do you think it all went to him?

As for "directly to Baez"...I never heard anyone say that and I doubt very much it went directly to him. Only the owner of those pics could sell them, he couldn't just directly sell them unless he was given or stole them.

 

[JustanotherJane]

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.

IMO, the money was used for the personal wants, and "needs" of the a's and it will probably come out soon exactly how they've misappropriated these funds.

Unless they were paying people to phone in false leads.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

That is not at all true. The accusations that the A's have received money from the sale of photos and that this motion is being filed to keep the A's from profiting from the photos of the remains are rumors. That's what belongs in the rumor thread. I think I was very clear.

I think the SA is a good enough source for it not to be considered a rumour.

 

[countzero]

IMO, the money was used for the personal wants, and "needs" of the a's and it will probably come out soon exactly how they've misappropriated these funds.

Unless they were paying people to phone in false leads.

No doubt the state will do a forensic accounting of the A's very soon, if they haven't already. They don't need the A's permission to do it either.