Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Casey Anthony Trial Verdict

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The suit I'm talking about is being considered by a private entity, Texas Equusearch, who alleges they spent $112,000 looking for the "missing" child. I would assume they would also seek legal fees as well. What effect? It's hard to tell. Casey Anthony would not be the first person in her position to profit considerably from a book deal following a high profile case like this. It is only right that the private company have the opportunity to pursue civil damages based on the liability she incurred on them with her lies.

Thanks for this, RB. I don't know much about this, but I did a little searching with what you said and found this:

Miller says that Texas Equusearch didn’t just voluntarily call up and volunteer its services. Rather Miller said that Cindy Anthony called his company, hired his company, and had George Anthony treat his employee(s) disrespectfully. Miller wants to know at what time did Jose Baez and Casey Anthony first know that Caylee Anthony was never missing.

During the criminal trial, Baez told the jury that Caylee was “never missing”. But Miller wants to know when did Baez’s firm personally become aware of that. Miller said on HLN tonight that he was hired by Cindy Anthony for the Anthony family; he did not state that he was hired by Casey nor by Baez.But Miller says his company hopes to pursue any person or entity who retained his company knowing, going into the contract, that the retention of services was based upon a fraud.

“We spent a lot of time with my attorney today. I will be with him again… The money we spent was looking for a missing girl that was not missing” Miller told news. “It is only fair that we try to recover this money if possible.”

When asked how much money did you spend to look for Caylee, Miller said “$112,000.” Miller added “If Jose Baez knew this four months ago [i want to know]… We have no choice but to look at these options.”

Miller said his company’s purpose is to look for missing people, not for people who are never missing. “We are an organization that searches for missing people. We got called by Cindy Anthony. They [the Anthony family] called asking us for our help”. He added “I was used! We were lied to in the Anthony House!”

[source: http://news.lalate.c...it-anticipated/ ]

Another article:

Casey Anthony, her family and her attorney may soon get a lawsuit from [Texas Equusearch] that spent thousands looking for Caylee Anthony.

[source: http://www.click2hou...030/detail.html ]

Uhhhh... Okaaaaay, that all said, I don't see how Casey would pay or even be involved in such a case if filed. Plus, how were they "hired"? Was there contract/paperwork? The last article says this:

he went to Orlando because Caylee's grandmother, Cindy Anthony, called him and asked him to come.

"Basically crying and saying, 'Can you help find my granddaughter?'" Miller said.

Is that hiring, or was there more than just asking?

I wonder if a case like this would ever be filed. Wouldn't that possibly cost even more money when they may very well lose?

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There are virtually no criminal cases that are completely beyond doubt. If all else fails, someone can always claim an elaborate conspiracy by an evil corporation to frame the defendant. If "beyond

Posted Images

So they really had a hard won fight against emotionalism and such, in order to deliver a just verdict in this case. Looks like they really wanted her to be found guilty, but could not find enough evidence to, according to this juror, and it sickened them.Good thing they didn't let their stomachs or emotions get in the way of their minds in rendering a just verdict.

I think you misinterpreted the statement that juror made. She was saying that she believes that Casey Anthony is guilty, but that there wasn't enough evidence to be able to render a guilty verdict. And apparently, that is the case for everyone on the jury. They all think she is guilty. So does basically everyone in the country. There is no reasonable explanation for her behavior except that she killed her daughter. That may not be enough evidence to convict her of murder, but that certainly is enough for me and most other people to view her as a murderer and want nothing whatsoever to do with her.

It's hard for me to understand the view that "well, she was found 'not guilty' so she didn't do it" or whatever, which I've seen around the 'Net. I really think the US needs to adopt the Scottish verdict- not proven, colloquially known as "not guilty, and don't do it again." Legally, there is no difference between "not guilty" and "not proven", however the social stigma that would come along with "not proven" ("We're pretty sure you did it, we just can't quite prove it") would be quite effective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhhhh... Okaaaaay, that all said, I don't see how Casey would pay or even be involved in such a case if filed. Plus, how were they "hired"? Was there contract/paperwork? The last article says this:

I doubt that Casey was entirely uninvolved in the process upon which they acted on information, but that would likely come out in the trial, not necessarily a news article that is going to be far less exhaustive in reporting ALL of the facts, conversations, etc.

Wouldn't that possibly cost even more money when they may very well lose?

That's always a possibility in a civil suit I imagine. I'm sure Texas Equusearch will talk to attorneys versed in civil law (if they haven't already) to examine the strength of their case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no reasonable explanation for her behavior except that she killed her daughter.

I tend to agree with this except that it is possible that she acted the was she did to help protect someone else (another family member perhaps) who killed the girl. I think either way, she was explicitly involved in her daughter's death in some way.

I also agree that the legal verdict in no way has to supplant other people's judgement of her guilt or innocence. The jury verdict only determines whether or not formal legal sanctions can be placed on the defendant. 12 different people may well have found her guilty had they been in the trial. It is well considered that trials are often won or lost based on jury selection.

What happens to her socially is well within the rights of each individual who decides what she does or does not deserve short of committing some crime against her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that Casey was entirely uninvolved in the process upon which they acted on information, but that would likely come out in the trial, not necessarily a news article that is going to be far less exhaustive in reporting ALL of the facts, conversations, etc.

I think I heard that how Cindy found out was overhearing Casey saying she's been missing for 31 days or something. But Cindy still was the one that had asked for their services.

I think you misinterpreted the statement that juror made. She was saying that she believes that Casey Anthony is guilty, but that there wasn't enough evidence to be able to render a guilty verdict. And apparently, that is the case for everyone on the jury. They all think she is guilty.

No, I interpreted it in that way exactly. Whatever they feel or believe was left out of their decision and it was based solely upon the case presented, it seems.

There is no reasonable explanation for her behavior except that she killed her daughter.

There very well could be MANY different explanations. How about her cloroforming her and her accidentilly died as a result of it? how about Casey not paying attention and her daughter drowned accidentally? that is not murder in the first degree. Several different ways, including what RB said, too, that ran through my mind as well. But I need to look at more of the defense side of this case, see what they have claimed and so forth. I have been looking primarily at the side bringing the case, which is of primary importance since they have the burden of proof.

Though perhaps she might be self-centered, a narcissist, heartless, sociopath, pathological liar, or whatever - but murderer? she has not been proven to the degree in this case to have murdered her daughter, so one just cannot call her a murderer. A liar, yes. For the things she's lied about, yes. Why she did, is also another matter.

That may not be enough evidence to convict her of murder, but that certainly is enough for me and most other people to view her as a murderer and want nothing whatsoever to do with her.

I cannot view her as a murdered with what has been presented.

It's hard for me to understand the view that "well, she was found 'not guilty' so she didn't do it" or whatever, which I've seen around the 'Net.

I agree, it's just like the other side of it to me. "She's innocent!" "She's a baby killer!" I can't say either for sure. Though others can apparently...

That's what I have a problem with.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also agree that the legal verdict in no way has to supplant other people's judgement of her guilt or innocence. The jury verdict only determines whether or not formal legal sanctions can be placed on the defendant. 12 different people may well have found her guilty had they been in the trial. It is well considered that trials are often won or lost based on jury selection.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. My quarrel is not with people who think she killed her child. My quarrel is with people who think that "thinking someone is guilty" is enough to render a guilty verdict. It's irritating to hear people claim that the jury has committed some gross travesty of justice, without stopping to think that a jury has to abide by a different standard than does the average observer. Most people (including the overzealous, formerly misconduct-committing prosecutor Nancy Grace) seem unable to differentiate the two. Anyone who has ever watched a courtroom thriller (not to mention attained a college education) should be able to explain the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this wholeheartedly. My quarrel is not with people who think she killed her child. My quarrel is with people who think that "thinking someone is guilty" is enough to render a guilty verdict. It's irritating to hear people claim that the jury has committed some gross travesty of justice, without stopping to think that a jury has to abide by a different standard than does the average observer.

Thank you! When discussing the trial verdict IRL, I encountered nothing but "She did it". I of course argued the way that I have been and was interested in what people here thought about it as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Texas Equusearch has now filed suit:

[source http://www.wesh.com/r/28525235/detail.html ]

Search group Texas EquuSearch, which aided in the search for Caylee Anthony in 2008, has filed a lawsuit against Casey Anthony.

The lawsuit alleges Anthony made numerous misrepresentations to the group and its founder, Tim Miller.

"Casey Anthony never corrected or otherwise disagreed with any statements made by Cindy Anthony and George Anthony that Caylee was still alive," the lawsuit reads.

During the search for Caylee, the organization received more than 15 requests from other families seeking help in searching for a missing loved one.

I guess they think they have a case... with that. :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There very well could be MANY different explanations. How about her cloroforming her and her accidentilly died as a result of it?

That is still her killing her daughter, just accidentally. The distinction is this, I think she probably killed her daughter, but I don't think she necessarily murdered her daughter. The difference was her intent. Murder is a premeditated killing with malice aforethought. Killing is a much broader species which can include accidental.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is still her killing her daughter, just accidentally. The distinction is this, I think she probably killed her daughter, but I don't think she necessarily murdered her daughter. The difference was her intent. Murder is a premeditated killing with malice aforethought. Killing is a much broader species which can include accidental.

I was totally unaware of that, but I will have to think more about accidental death as a killing, whether or not it should or should not be considered a killing, what is considered a killing now, etc. Thank you for pointing this out.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was totally unaware of that, but I will have to think more about accidental death as a killing, whether or not it should or should not be considered a killing, what is considered a killing now, etc.

Not to sound snide, but there isn't much to think about in the example you gave. Remember, "killing" does not have to infer intent. That is why the law distinguishes murder from manslaughter. Your example;

How about her cloroforming her and her accidentilly died as a result of it?

IF this is the case, she applied the chemical and as a RESULT OF HER ACTIONS, the child died. She was directly responsible for the death. It is no different to say she was responsible for her death than it is to say she killed her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IF this is the case, she applied the chemical and as a RESULT OF HER ACTIONS, the child died. She was directly responsible for the death. It is no different to say she was responsible for her death than it is to say she killed her.

Perhaps and maybe I'm just overthinking it or have certain connotations of something associated with "killing". In that case though, I'd say she accidentally killled her daughter.

Cindy Anthony is not going to face purjury charges:

State prosecutors do not plan to pursue perjury charges against Cindy Anthony for her controversial testimony about computer searches in her daughter, Casey Anthony's murder trial, says a report.Pictures: Casey and Caylee Anthony, personal photos

During trial, Cindy Anthony told jurors she was the one who used her family computer to search the Internet for "chloroform" in March 2008, not Casey Anthony.

Earlier in the trial, prosecutors had suggested that the searches were conducted by Casey and were evidence that she premeditated to kill her 2-year-old daughter Caylee.

Cindy Anthony's testimony was challenged during the prosecutions rebuttal by a computer expert and by coworkers who said Cindy Anthony had not gone home early on the days that the searches were made, as she had testified.

The office of Orange County Sheriff Jerry Demings said on Tuesday the State Attorney's Office would determine whether to bring perjury charges. Hours later the office said it has no plans to do so, reports the Orlando Sentinel.

"Our office is not pursuing perjury charges," said Danielle Tavernier, a spokeswoman for the Orange-Osceola State Attorney's Office, in an email, the Sentinel reports.

Cindy Anthony's attorney, Mark Lippman, has rejected any suggestion that his client lied to protect her daughter.

[source: http://www.cbsnews.c...048-504083.html ]

I am not sure what all is still going on on Facebook that was brought up by others in the thread, but I have looked to youtube, and found some interesting songs that people have associated with Casey and the trial, I don't know how to embed them here:

Creed - My Own Prison

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=1e86fsBhNfw

The Beatles - I Me Mine:

A Sevendust song (I'm not familiar with the band):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWEXhwl3pls

Pretty Woman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cpaAVJcw9E

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now supposedly she is considering taking drastic measures to protect herself, maybe having surgery to change her look, who knows?

Just days away from freedom, Casey Anthony is considering taking dramatic steps in order to hide from the world. Star magazine's David Perel says, "Casey wants plastic surgery to change her looks so no one can find her."

Renowned Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Dr. Randal Haworth explains how Anthony can get her eyes, nose, lips, cheeks and brow redone so she can disappear behind a surgical disguise. "No one would know who you are with these procedures," the doctor says, adding, "Cheek implants drastically change a look and face structure."

"Extra" goes coast-to-coast to gather reactions from the Casey Anthony trial watchers, many of whom are angry with the not guilty verdict. "A new identity is just another lie... facial plastic surgery... just another lie, upon lie, upon lie," an "Extra" friend points out.

[source: http://extratv.warne..._a_new_face.php ]

She has had porn offers already, too, not sure how many and from whom or what part of the industry. I thought I read somewhere or heard about $500,000.00 for something like that. But 1million for an interview. If she did porn, that would really outrage people, just like her behavior (party pics) did before, if not to an even higher degree.

So she can take her clothes off for money, interview for money, do a book or documentary on her own and probably make money, or keep her clothes on shut up and disguise herself, and so forth. It's all guesswork right now, but looking at what's all on the table is indeed interesting, at least to me. Get her body out there, her story out there, etc. will be interesting what she actually does choose to do.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

The suit I'm talking about is being considered by a private entity, Texas Equusearch, who alleges they spent $112,000 looking for the "missing" child. I would assume they would also seek legal fees as well. What effect? It's hard to tell. Casey Anthony would not be the first person in her position to profit considerably from a book deal following a high profile case like this. It is only right that the private company have the opportunity to pursue civil damages based on the liability she incurred on them with her lies.

I didn't know about this prospect when I posted, but I have since caught a quick blurb about it on the radio. I wouldn't have a problem if they attempted to recoup that money; maybe they should get with some others, like volunteers who participated, so they can increase the claim. I have also, since my last posting, slightly changed my outlook regarding the idea of the state and other local government bringing claims against Anthony. A few mornings ago I was watching Mike and Mike on ESPN and they were responding to viewers' statements asking why congress was wasting money on the Roger Clemons perjury case. Their response was along the lines that, even though money would be spent on the trial, and wouldn't resolve much of what Clemons was brought to testify about, the government must maintain justice as best they can, and that means going after perjury when they think it has occurred. In that light, I think that it would be great for who ever was negatively affected by Anthony, and has a fairly strong case, to go after her with as much effort as is possible.

Edited by RussK
Link to post
Share on other sites

Her attorney's filed today plans to appeal the convictions of lying to investigators:

Casey Anthony is appealing her four convictions on charges of lying to law-enforcement officers. Her attorneys filed a notice just after 8 a.m. today at the Orange County Courthouse about plans to appeal last week's convictions.

The attorneys also filed a motion for the court to continue to consider Anthony insolvent and unable to pay attorney fees and court costs in connection with her case, as well as an affidavit declaring her inability to pay the costs.

[source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/os-casey-anthony-notice-of-appeal-20110715,0,1668298.story ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about her cloroforming her and her accidentilly died as a result of it? how about Casey not paying attention and her daughter drowned accidentally? that is not murder in the first degree.

You're right, that's not murder in the first, it's manslaughter. When people commit manslaughter, it is said that they have killed thier victims. I tend to think that this is the crime (manslaughter) that should have been used to convict Anthony. There is reasonable doubt that she didn't intend to kill her daughter, I don't believe the same about manslaughter. My suspicion is that the jury was confused about that standard when the wighed in. But of course, I didn't have access to all of the info they did, so I may be wrong.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to post
Share on other sites

Information has come out today, more about what's planned for her release which could be as early as midnight tonight:

(Reuters) - Casey Anthony is scheduled to exit a Florida jail on Sunday and resume the life on the outside interrupted three years ago when she was charged with the murder of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee.Anthony was acquitted by a jury on July 5 of culpability in Caylee's death. Since then, her future has been the subject of much speculation, but with no publicly known facts beyond her jail departure date.

Her release has been planned with the same precision that marked her high-profile murder trial followed by audiences around the world.

In recognition of the massive media coverage expected of the release, which could occur any time after midnight Saturday, media representatives and jail managers negotiated a plan which, much like modern war coverage, will allow embedded pool reporters and photographers to document her departure from inside the jail facility.

But the plan is for images and eyewitness accounts of her release to be under wraps until corrections officials determine the 25-year-old has traveled far enough down the road to relinquish the jail's responsibility for her safety.

The jail then will issue a one-line confirmation Anthony is gone.

Her safety is no small matter. Her trial revealed gruesome details of Caylee's death and the disposal of the toddler's remains in trash bags in swampy woods. There was also plenty of evidence of Casey relishing her life, partying and shopping, after Caylee died.

Even her lawyer Jose Baez acknowledged Casey Anthony's outward lack of emotion over the death was "bizarre."

Her acquittal was met with shock and derision by much of the public, egged on by outraged television commentary.

Charles Greene, Anthony's defense lawyer in a related civil defamation lawsuit, told a judge on Friday that he had received seven threats against Casey that day.

EVALUATING THREATS

Orange County (Orlando) Sheriff Jerry Demings said in a news conference last week that his intelligence officers were evaluating threats as they became known.

Much speculation focuses on whether Anthony will try to live quietly out of the public eye, or seek out attention, and just what sort of person she is.

She stopped accepting jail visits from her parents long ago. An attempt by her mother Cindy Anthony to visit her both right before the trial began and just after the verdict were rejected.

Lawyer Greene told a judge that psychologists who examined Anthony at the jail this week found her mentally unstable after the ordeal of the trial, according to opposing lawyer Keith Mitnik.

Mitnik is suing Anthony on behalf of Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez, whose life the suit says was ruined after Anthony initially lied to detectives that a woman by that name had kidnapped Caylee.

Prosecutors called Casey Anthony a pathological liar.

Numerous people who spent time with her soon after Caylee's death, including her friends and a psychologist who examined her, were struck by her lack of reaction to the death.

Computer crimes detective Sandra Osborne read every email, instant message, MySpace and Facebook entry on the Anthony family's home computer in preparation for the murder trial.

"I know Casey better than her parents do," she told Reuters recently, describing details not presented at trial.

Osborne said she learned the pattern of computer use at the Anthony house. Someone logged onto the family computer every morning and, again, every afternoon, spending hours at a time on Casey's social networking sites.

Instant messages, emails and comments left on those social network sites during Caylee's life created a picture of Casey as a disinterested mother who rarely mentioned her daughter and never in a positive light, Osborne said.

In one of only two instant message in which Caylee was mentioned, Osborne said, Casey asked a friend whether she should "bring the little snot-head" to a get-together. In the other instant message, she told a friend that "spending a day with Caylee was harder than a 10-hour day at work."

Based on computer usage on the day Caylee died, Osborne said, "there was no reaction (from Casey) that day." Osborne said the same sort of social networking continued as if nothing had happened.

[source: http://www.reuters.c...E76E4NJ20110716 ]

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

She's FREE!

At 12:09 a.m., Anthony, in a pink shirt, walked out the front door. Defense attorney Jose Baez was with her, and viewers could hear protesters screaming at Anthony.

There were journalists inside, 3, and we will get a chance soon of seeing video and photos of what all went on inside.

Just found video of her walking right out the door:

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

63297764.jpg

ap_casey_free_110717_wg1.jpg

She's gone! The SRT's on hand at the jail, the mounted police blocking the road so they could make it onto a highway with no trouble, the media then lost track of her once she arrived at a parking garage, I think the office of one of her defense attorneys. From there they though maybe the Orlando Airport to Ohio, but she was not seen to board it, nor coming off of it. Vanished into the night. Good job for all those invovled that HAD TO protect her. Actually you can thank the death threats that came in for that level of protection. If she wasn't in imminent danger, she may very well have not gotten that kind of protection. Now whatever happens is all in her hands.

Prosecutors sought the death penalty, but they lacked any direct evidence demonstrating how Caylee died. They also lacked any direct evidence linking Anthony to the death.

[source: http://www.csmonitor...-kind-of-prison ]

So glad they reached the verdict that they did, because it would have been a GRAVE injustice, she could have been dead on a Sunday morning and not free.

As it goes:

"Better 10 Guilty Men Go Free than to Convict a Single Innocent Man"

Meaning "The essence of this quote forms the very cornerstone of the system of justice that separates the United States from virtually every other civilized nation. Think about the presumption of innocence; the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt; the requirement of a unanimous jury verdict. These core elements of our system of criminal justice all flow directly from the premise that the wrongful conviction of a single innocent person is ten times worse than a guilty person going unpunished."

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

So glad they reached the verdict that they did, because it would have been a GRAVE injustice, she could have been dead on a Sunday morning and not free.

There is no chance they would have executed her that quickly. Had she been convicted, the penalty phase would have come some time after the trial. If during the penalty phase she was given the death penalty, there would have been an automatic appeal to the Court of Appeals. If the Court of Appeals upheld the case and the punishment, it would probably also have been considered by the US Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. I may have even missed a step or two in there. Suffice to say, if she eventually did get capital punishment, it would likely be 6-7 years after the offense.

"Better 10 Guilty Men Go Free than to Convict a Single Innocent Man"

Better, yes. A good thing? no. One can praise the system without praising the particular result. And as I alluded to before, 12 other jurors may have decided differently.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no chance they would have executed her that quickly.

I was thinking of the lyrics to the Creed song I linked to earlier when I said that, but thanks, I didn't know much more is invovled as well as time after such a guilty verdict.

One can praise the system without praising the particular result.

True, and this would be what I would be doing had the result/verdict been different. But I am praising botht the sytem, but ESPECIALLY the jury from what I can gather about them as a whole, but particularly Juror No. 3. This is the kind of juror I think that is examplary of what a juror should really be like inside the courtroom, at least from what i gather from her interview in my signature.

Without her being the media, in the public eye right now, hopefully things will cool down, for her, for the jury, those invovled, etc.

I think Playboy gave a definately NO to a pictorial of her, this is what Hefner said:

Forget about any offers to Casey Anthony to pose in Playboy.Hugh Hefner gave a definite no in a discussion with CNN’s Piers Morgan on Thursday night.

“It is amazing the number of people that have Tweeted me immediately afterward, asking whether or not we would do a pictorial on her,” Hefner told Morgan. “And the answer is simply no. I wouldn’t reward someone like that for what has happened.”

[source: http://blogs.orlando...efner-says.html ]

And maybe the offers to her are drying up? a porn offer was taken back apparently Vivid Entertainment I think it was:

http://abcnews.go.co...prison-14043936

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Baez did an interview with Geraldo:

In an exclusive interview Sunday with Geraldo Rivera on Fox News' "Geraldo at Large," Casey Anthony’s attorney, Jose Baez discussed his reaction to the public outrage surrounding the verdict.

"We need to start respecting the jury verdict and decisions that the juries make," Baez told Rivera.

"If she decides she wants to speak publicly about it, she'll make that decision," he said.

"Pundits and media personalities have no right to try and alter the life of any individual because of what they think may or may not have happened," added Baez.

"She's gone, she's safe and elaborate plans had to be made to keep the people away from her," Mason said. "Her life is going to be very difficult for a very long time as long as there are so many people of the lynch-mob mentality."

[source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/18/casey-anthonys-attorney-need-to-start-respecting-verdict/ ]

Greene said, "She is a virtual Hester Prynne of our society with a scarlet letter, a well-known face. So she is still in many ways confined."

[source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/18/earlyshow/main20080269.shtml ]

Also I saw this just now in Forbes:

Because of her acquittal, so-called Son of Sam laws fashioned to keep criminals from earning money from their crimes do not apply. But can she turn her infamy into a fortune?

It looks like her legal team is already giving it a whirl. Word has leaked that defense attorney Jose Baez has hired a powerful public relations agency to shop Casey’s story. Wouldn’t it be a kick to be a fly on the wall in those negotiations, with Baez and a PR representative vying for top dollars for their client – a convicted liar – for her first interview, first book and first movie? Baez told a TV pundit that he didn’t want to say too much about Casey because her team was saving details of her story for later. Smart PR move.

[source: http://blogs.forbes.com/shenegotiates/2011/07/18/money-in-crime-as-casey-anthony-negotiates-her-first-week-of-freedom/ ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a load of bull. If the jury had found her guilty he would be saying the jury was wrong and would be appealing it in a heartbeat. He wouldn't be "respecting" the verdict.

But he could still be respecting the process as well as the jury decision when appealing.

More on the "Blood Money" as it's been dubbed:

But can we all please please please stop with the moral outrage about blood money?

Especially you, Nancy Grace.[...]

Grace also told ABC News: “She’s going to make a lot of money out of this, end of story.”

And you haven’t, Nancy? Anyone who has reported on this story has made money off it. It has been a huge ratings bonanza and everyone knows it. In June, when the verdict came in, Nancy Grace saw her HLN show’s highest ratings ever. Perhaps Grace doesn’t get a bonus for high ratings (I haven’t seen her contract, after all), but she certainly just guaranteed herself a raise during renewal negotiations.

And it wasn’t just Grace. Virtually every media outlet relentlessly covered the trial and accordingly saw huge ratings, traffic, and clicks. Money came into every medium imaginable. Hearst Television was selling Casey Anthony updates on iTunes for .99 a pop. It was one of iPhone’s best sellers.

Perhaps, for a while, the media could get away with saying this wasn’t about money, which we know it was, but about justice for Caylee. But nothing is going to bring the toddler back, and nothing is going to put her mother in jail. Unless she pulls her own The Postman Always Rings Twice scenario like O.J. Simpson did.

So what is the purpose of any reporting on this story now? Money. That’s it. Anyone who continues to report on this story is benefiting financially from Caylee Anthony’s death. That includes me for writing this blog.

Granted, I didn’t kill Caylee Anthony. Neither did Nancy Grace or ABC News or Apple. Therefore, legally, we all have every right to profit from her murder. In my case, the profit would hardly cover my monthly Internet bill. In Nancy Grace’s case, it would cover quite a bit more.

[source: http://blogs.forbes....d-money-outcry/ ]

One thing said I really take issue with in this blog on Forbes, is the end where she says, "profit from her murder" treating what happened as a murder, as if that is a fact, it is not.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...