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

[bunnyphoenix1]

Just say, for instance, that the 3rd party backing this defense team is an entity which would love to get their hands on such pictures. The SA may have figured out who is behind this dream team and realized they better address it at this juncture BEFORE JB could show THEM the photos and somehow allow the evidence to be "leaked, stolen, or hacked".

They may have even done a deal months ago and signed away the rights to some media group for crime scene, dead body photos etc.

 

[BonKai]

I am wondering just how much money this 3rd party backing the defense is willing to spend before they throw in the towel and say that it just isn't worth it? Limitless deep pockets? Whomever it is has a very deep interest in this case. I hope it leaks out as to who it is. I do not mind admitting that I would REALLY like to know.

Disclaimer (sigh): Only joking and being sarcastic ~ the question below is NOT fact.

Lifetime Movie Network? :floorlaugh:

 

[LaLaw2000]

It's always been standard practice for friends and neighbors to pitch in and bring food for the family, and do what they could for the family. But, I don't remember anyone just quitting work and letting others take care of their day-to-day existence through donations.

What the Anthonys have done is terrible and I hope that others in future situations such as this will act appropriately and not allow this to become a trend.

And, IMO, any other family would not want licensing fees for pics shown via media for getting Caylee's pics out there especially as they were saying she was still alive. I believe your average family would be thankful to any media outlet and TV show that would keep Caylee's face in front of the country, and would provide as many pics as they could for FREE.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I understand that.

Of course you do!:clap:

 

[TURBOTHINK]

Disclaimer (sigh): Only joking and being sarcastic ~ the question below is NOT fact.

Lifetime Movie Network? :floorlaugh:

Lifetime had negotiated with them according to one news report, but they backed out because of the negative emails they received about it.

 

[kh1967]

They may have even done a deal months ago and signed away the rights to some media group for crime scene, dead body photos etc.

I agree, I would like nothing better than to give the A's the benefit of the doubt.....but I have been burned too many times before.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I am wondering just how much money this 3rd party backing the defense is willing to spend before they throw in the towel and say that it just isn't worth it? Limitless deep pockets? Whomever it is has a very deep interest in this case. I hope it leaks out as to who it is. I do not mind admitting that I would REALLY like to know.

Whoever it is, must be banking on things like pics, books etc being sold. It's not like this is a financial investment, it's a criminal trial, and unless there have been some deals done, they wouldn't have a hope of seeing a cent on their return. And we are not talking small money, this could cost millions.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

And, IMO, any other family would not want licensing fees for pics shown via media for getting Caylee's pics out there especially as they were saying she was still alive. I believe your average family would be thankful to any media outlet and TV show that would keep Caylee's face in front of the country, and would provide as many pics as they could for FREE.

Not that family.............for FREE to them is not paying a house payment.

 

[BonKai]

Lifetime had negotiated with them according to one news report, but they backed out because of the negative emails they received about it.

REALLY?! I was just kidding. I didn't know that.
Guess I should do a little research.

Edit - addition: And here are some links: http://www.wftv.com/news/17550330/detail.html ; http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2008/09/lifetime-denies-movie-deal-for-casey.html
I totally missed that story.

 

[Chilly Willy]

REALLY?! I was just kidding. I didn't know that.
Guess I should do a little research.

Research will show you that a deal between Lifetime and the A's was just a rumor to start with. Funny how so many WFTV rumors include unnamed sources and comments from Leonard Padilla.

 

[BonKai]

Research will show you that a deal between Lifetime and the A's was just a rumor to start with. Funny how so many WFTV rumors include unnamed sources and comments from Leonard Padilla.

You are correct.

 

[doogiesgirl]

Someone was "shopping" them. That is for sure.

I am just shaken at this thought. And so sad for Caylee.

 

[essies]

For the life of me, I can not think who could have such a deep interest except for the A's. But there is no why that they could be financing this dream team.

I feel sure this will be asked in court, and I am not convinced anymore there is a 3rd person. I am now questioning if Baez has been the one and wanted to keep it hidden.

Just as we have been wondering how the A's are paying their bills without working-the same is true for JB. He has his own personal bills to pay and it seems that KC is his only client at the moment. If JB is the 3rd party, then he is dead broke! Even if someone got $200,00.00 way back in the summer-that can't last too long.
If there isn't some 3rd party behind a curtain financing this-then they're all screwed! Cause their moneytrain is gonna crash soon! This trial will be horrific and mind-blowing. Yes, I will buy a book and see a movie. BUT-the only book or movie I will spend money on will those that come from an approach of respect and love for the little Angel. I will not spend money on anything does not uphold the memory of an innocent who left us much too young!! I certainly don't need or want to see any photos or x-rays-but, I know there are those out there who, for whatever reason, will want to and probably pay money to see them.
Caylee cannot be hurt anymore-but, those who profit from her demise by making money off the sale of photos of bones only hurt their own soul.:furious:

 

[tangerinemoon]

According to the cnn/nancy grace website the second "autopsy" has been completed today.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/nancy.grace/

 

[doogiesgirl]

According to the cnn/nancy grace website the second "autopsy" has been completed today.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/nancy.grace/

Ot oh.....does that mean "someone" could already have the photos they need to sell?

 

[Bev]

This is a waste of time trying to explain this, but I'm going to try one more time -

First, read the motion.
Second, I did not claim that the prosecution is making a motion to withhold evidence, in fact, I said just the opposite.
Third, what this motion is doing in effect, is placing undue restrictions and a burden on the defense to prepare a proper defense for their client. In the real world, both defense and prosecution send reports and copies of reports to agencies to seek expert opinion. This happens every single day of the week. Evidence in this case was sent to various outside entities to seek expert opinion. This evidence is still being evaluated by outside entities and reports written. By restricting the right of the defense in any way in seeking expert advice, reports or evaluation is to set a precedent that the state is entitled to dictate to the defense who he can call as a witness, who he can claim is an expert witness and how he can disseminate that information to those expert witnesses. Now I'm not making this up, this is a constitutional matter which has established a body of rulings establishing this right. The confrontation clause of the 6th amd. has been interpreted broadly by the USSC to include physical evidence and the right of the defendant to a zealous defense.
Fourth, this isn't anything remotely like protecting the identity of the victim as they do in sex abuse cases and/or . The victim's identity is known. The release of the photos to the public may be distasteful, but it doesn't meet the exception rule of protection of the victim's identity.
Fifth, the burden is placed inordinately on the defense to protect the restrictions on this evidence - it could be just as easily passed from the prosecution to the press or others by their dissemination of evidence and information. The defense has no ability to protect this evidence when it is in the possession of others, including prosecution witnesses.
Sixth, there is zero evidence to support the claim by the prosecution that any photos were sold by the defense or anyone else for that matter. There has to be some basis for making an extraodinary motion to prevent something that may happen in the future without providing evidence that it happened in the past and will happen in the future. The prosecutor may suspect that it has been done, but the state needs more than suspicion with which to establish a precedent in the restriction of evidence or placing undue burdens and responsiblities on the defense which they themselves do not share.

Now I know that you hate KC, you hate Jose Baez, you hate the As, you hate the P.I. or anyone else for that matter who happens to be connected in any way, shape or form with the defense, but this is the reality of our system - we are ALL entitled to the best defense and in the centuries of common law, constitutional and legislative law we are all entitled to the same zealous defense on behalf of the client that the defendant would do for himself. This has been our common law since the Greek states and the days of the Roman empire. If one person's rights are abridged, that means that a precedent has been set that allows the state to abridge ALL our rights. This is the true reality of the law.

 

[Carrington]

According to the cnn/nancy grace website the second "autopsy" has been completed today.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/nancy.grace/

Now I am really confused.

 

[Paintr]

According to the cnn/nancy grace website the second "autopsy" has been completed today.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/nancy.grace/

But! But! But! How could they possibly do the exam without the info from the M.E.? JB said they couldn't!

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Do you remember hearing this too SS?

Sorry, I thought you were talking about Casey.

 

[Chilly Willy]

This is a waste of time trying to explain this, but I'm going to try one more time -

First, read the motion.
Second, I did not claim that the prosecution is making a motion to withhold evidence, in fact, I said just the opposite.
Third, what this motion is doing in effect, is placing undue restrictions and a burden on the defense to prepare a proper defense for their client. In the real world, both defense and prosecution send reports and copies of reports to agencies to seek expert opinion. This happens every single day of the week. Evidence in this case was sent to various outside entities to seek expert opinion. This evidence is still being evaluated by outside entities and reports written. By restricting the right of the defense in any way in seeking expert advice, reports or evaluation is to set a precedent that the state is entitled to dictate to the defense who he can call as a witness, who he can claim is an expert witness and how he can disseminate that information to those expert witnesses. Now I'm not making this up, this is a constitutional matter which has established a body of rulings establishing this right. The confrontation clause of the 6th amd. has been interpreted broadly by the USSC to include physical evidence and the right of the defendant to a zealous defense.
Fourth, this isn't anything remotely like protecting the identity of the victim as they do in sex abuse cases and/or . The victim's identity is known. The release of the photos to the public may be distasteful, but it doesn't meet the exception rule of protection of the victim's identity.
Fifth, the burden is placed inordinately on the defense to protect the restrictions on this evidence - it could be just as easily passed from the prosecution to the press or others by their dissemination of evidence and information. The defense has no ability to protect this evidence when it is in the possession of others, including prosecution witnesses.
Sixth, there is zero evidence to support the claim by the prosecution that any photos were sold by the defense or anyone else for that matter. There has to be some basis for making an extraodinary motion to prevent something that may happen in the future without providing evidence that it happened in the past and will happen in the future. The prosecutor may suspect that it has been done, but the state needs more than suspicion with which to establish a precedent in the restriction of evidence or placing undue burdens and responsiblities on the defense which they themselves do not share.

Now I know that you hate KC, you hate Jose Baez, you hate the As, you hate the P.I. or anyone else for that matter who happens to be connected in any way, shape or form with the defense, but this is the reality of our system - we are ALL entitled to the best defense and in the centuries of common law, constitutional and legislative law we are all entitled to the same zealous defense on behalf of the client that the defendant would do for himself. This has been our common law since the Greek states and the days of the Roman empire. If one person's rights are abridged, that means that a precedent has been set that allows the state to abridge ALL our rights. This is the true reality of the law.

If it helps any, I totally understand and agree.