Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Okay, now I'm seriously ticked. . . .

by Kathryn Casey

Okay, like the headline says, now I'm seriously ticked. I was about ready to go to bed Tuesday night, already worried about that darn Hadron Collider in Europe destroying the world, when I decided to check the Internet one last time before turning off the computer. There it was, the headline I half expected but could barely believe:

Casey Anthony offered more than $1 million to tell her story.

Has the world gone mad?

Let's back up. I have a newspaper editor friend who reminds me that I should recap cases, to make sure readers have the nuts and bolts. So, in case you haven't watched television, read a newspaper, perused the grocery store tabloids or checked the net since July 17th, Casey is the mother of Caylee Anthony, an absolutely darling 3-year-old. Little Caylee was first reported missing by her grandmother, Cindy Anthony, in mid July. At the time, mom Casey said the little girl had been taken by her nanny. Now we seriously question the existence of the nanny, plus we know Caylee's DNA was found in Mommy Dearest's trunk along with signs of human decomposition. So, the buzz on the street is that it appears that this cute little girl with the big brown eyes is dead. And all the while, Casey Anthony, concerned mom that she is, has refused to help police. Guess cooperating with police attempting to find your missing daughter isn't as much fun as hitting the clubs and partying just days after your little girl disappears?

(You can tell I'm fuming about this, can't you? Sorry. I try, but sometimes I just can't help myself.)

Anyway, what set me off tonight is that, according to the
article on the WESH website, an Orlando television station, Casey, who may or may not have murdered her daughter but at the very least is in line for a "Monster Mother of the Year" designation, is being offered big money for interviews, starting at $350,000 and up to $500,00 per sit down with a reporter. The article doesn't say who's offering the cash, just that it's on the table.

"We've had an offer come in from an overseas company that specializes in pay-per-view, and those offers can exceed $1 million," Jose Baez law firm (Casey's attorneys) spokesman Todd Black told WESH.

Does anyone else feel like vomiting?

What has happened to this world that we're willing to pay a woman who may have killed her little girl big bucks to get on camera and tell us what she won't tell police? The very idea that anyone would consider this is.... I'm so disgusted, I'm sorry, I can't even think of a word harsh enough.

Geesh. Let's face it: the only thing Casey Anthony had that was worth that kind of money was little Caylee, and she was priceless.

After reading the WESH article, I thought back to my
blog from last week, the one where in the comment section, on rumors this might happen, I suggested we join together to boycott anyone who paid the Anthonys money for interviews. You know, I thought, that could be a really good idea. Why the heck not?

So, here's my plan: I propose that we start a worldwide Internet campaign against any outlet that pays Casey Anthony anything, even a single dollar, for an interview. We do this by monitoring the news to find out who the offenders are and then sending out e-mails to all our friends, asking them to tell all their friends, and so on, so on, warning everyone of this disgusting behavior, urging them not to watch whatever television program Anthony appears on. If there's money involved, turn the TV off! Maybe keep it off that channel/program even after the interview airs, just for good measure. Let these lowlifes know we mean business.

If it's true, this is checkbook journalism at its absolute worst. I don't know who is vying for the interviews, but it has to be someone without conscience much less ethics. How can anyone pay a mother suspected of being involved in her little girl's death? Sure, we don't know what happened with Caylee yet, maybe we never will, but there are certainly grounds for suspicion.

Are you with me?


Anonymous said...

With you on that. Whoever offered up that kind of money we should also not watch the interview and not buy any publication of her. She already makes me sick, wondered how she kept any "friends" being the liar they say she is. I think Casey Anthony thinks she can get away with anything because "don't hate me cause I'm beautiful" thing.

Anonymous said...

If it happens, and this blog finds out who paid, I'll blog and social link your boycott whoever rewards "alleged" baby killers (assuming we have power this weekend).

joypath said...

Absolutely with you on this! And let's not leave out those who PAY the dynamic duo, George & Cindy, aka the Bobsey twins with a new story du jour, a hammer, signage & tape to go! Now Mr "high five" aka Lee isn't exempt from the stench of making $$ from the Casey Crisis, either.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

"Let these lowlifes know we mean business"

Uh ... by changing the channel? That'll teach them. Afterward maybe everyone should water their houseplants in protest!

Frankly, I wonder if you're doing more to promote her compensation with blog posts like this one than you discourage it. In the world of checkbook journalism, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Plus, what if she didn't commit the crime? I'd think after the Duke lacrosse and Jonbenet Ramsey debacles, folks would learn that hyping blame in unsolved cases is fraught with danger. Perhaps it would be better to wait for more facts before tossing around terms like "monster mother" and beating the drums over every unsubstantiated rumor in cases like this.

Anonymous said...

I think we can all agree "monster mother" is very appropriate for any mother who would put off reporting her child missing, who refuses to cooperate with anyone in attempting to locate her child, and who would even CONSIDER making money over the demise of her child. Let's not forget the caring and concerned attorney who will also profit from the checkbook journalism.

Leah said...

I have wanted to ask this question for a long time:

What unemployed 22 year old unwed mother has a freaking NANNY????

Why in the world does she refer to a babysitter as a nanny. Which BTW she didn't have either a [babysitter]. This sociopathic witch is so out of touch.

Anonymous said...

If you wanted to crank up the protest, write to the program's producer or editor, the sponsors, the cable providers, or anyone that is truly providing the money for these kinds of interviews. Sadly, we do create this kind of media everytime we sit and watch. Casey almost seemed to enjoy the attention she was getting early on but that has turned ugly of late. Making money, even for legal fees, from the harm or death of a loved one, especailly a child, is repulsive.

Leah said...

Oh, as for the interview, I think we should see if Diane Saywer would do it. Maybe she can illicit a few crocodile tears with CA like she did with Scott Peterson.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

To 8:06 - we can agree that "monster mother" is suitable if one accepts the media caricature you've laid out and assumes there are no unreported mitigating factors.

Though this blog post doesn't mention it, for example, the linked story said the money would go for legal fees, which is not exactly the same as "making money over the demise of her child." Would you rather the demise of a child send its parents into bankruptcy because of lawyer bills?

When Jonbenet Ramsey's parents lawyered up the world assumed they were guilty. How many times did we hear critics crowing about there being no footprints in the snow, or that the parents weren't emotionally distressed at their daughter's death. It was all lies, but at the time it came out, outraged people seized on such salacious tidbits to condemn the Ramseys. Those who did, IMO, greatly contributed to the injustice that happened to that family. I hope that's not what's happening here.

Regan said...

Aren't there laws against this type of thing? There should be!

Could a civil case be brought against Casey for murdering her child by an outside party?

If this is like O.J. Simpson's book "If I Did It" The Goldman's fought that and won 90% of the proceeds.

Could an independent advocate group do the same or does it have to be a relative?

This may sound strange but could a class action case be brought against her for murdering her child?

Could the public join in the suit? Who's allowed to bring civil suits?

Anonymous said...

I felt the same way about this at first until one of the attorneys on TV last night mentioned that no one is going to pay that kind of $$$ to hear the same old nanny kidnapping stories (sawgrass or the park). Casey will have to produce Caylee or tell them where her body is located. Maybe we should be encouraging these offers as the last hope of finding Caylee and giving her a proper burial.
Every dime she would be paid would go to her defense and she would still spend the rest of her life behind bars.

Kathryn Casey said...

Thanks for all those joining in the debate. Grits, glad to have you here. Love your blog. But I disagree.

Yes, by changing the channel. If we don't watch pay-per-view the producers don't make money. With other outlets, if you have a better suggestion for getting our point across, I bet everyone here would be delighted to consider it.

Actually, there can be bad publicity. For example, O.J.'s book. Before the Goldmans won the right to collect the royalties, it wasn't selling well. Why? Because folks all over, in the media and on the Internet, voiced disgust at the prospect that he'd make money off the murders.

As to prejudging: I said at the end of the blog, "we don't know what happened with Caylee yet, maybe we never will, but there are certainly grounds for suspicion."

I've never said that Casey murdered her little girl. I don't know that. But the reality is that, at this point, evidence suggests the toddler is dead, and the one person who knows what happened, the little girl's mom, is willing to go to jail rather than help police find her daughter or her remains. In my opinion, that places Casey Anthony high in the list of nominees for Monster Mom of the Year.

Finally, I'm not talking about Anthony lawyering up. I don't believe I mentioned that in a negative context in the blog. In Casey's circumstances, I'd suggest anyone have a lawyer. But why should the general public be concerned about helping her pay her legal bills?

You know, presuming she's done nothing to be worried about, there's an easy way to stop the legal bills from mounting. All Casey has to do is stop all the nonsense and tell the police where to find Caylee.

Kathryn Casey said...

Regan, there are Son of Sam laws that prevent folks from profiting from crimes, but they only kick in when someone has been convicted. I don't know about who has standing to file a civil suit. Perhaps one of the lawyers can weigh in on that.

Anon, good point, but do you really believe Casey will get on TV and tell the truth if the truth will put her away for the rest of her life? Somehow, I'm not buying that.

Didn't OJ have a pay-per-view interview that went bust when folks boycotted it? Just asking.

Anonymous said...

O.J.'s version of "If I Did It" was successfully kept from publication and the book's publisher was fired. Networks make money from advertising. If you turn off your TV during a program, ratings drop and advertising dollars dwindle. Right?
The network can air the interview, but "if a tree falls in the woods but no one's there to hear it, does it make any sound?"

Kathryn Casey said...

My point exactly, anon. Thank you!

Rae said...

I have to point out that, in OJ's case, the Goldman family acted with the authority of a civil judgment that was already in place when Simpson wrote the book, and they were granted the rights to the book under that judgment.

In Anthony's case, no civil judgment exists, therefore, no one can stop her from publishing or appearing on anything. Nor has she been convicted in a criminal case, so the Son of Sam law wouldn't apply here.

Leah, I think Casey referring to a babysitter as a nanny is just Casey being pretentious.

KC, I'm with you on this.

Kathryn Casey said...

Very true, Rae. The Godmans do have a civil judgment against O.J. that allowed them to collect the royalties and the rights to the book.

In the Anthony case, I'm not sure who could sue except maybe one of Caylee's other relatives? As I said, maybe one of the lawyers can weigh in on this.

Rae said...

Well, I'm curious, and I'd like to see a lawyer weigh in on this as well - I know that DCFS has instigated an investigation of Casey Anthony, and I'm willing to bet that the primary reason behind it is to ultimately sever her parental rights and appoint a guardian to protect Caylee's interests.

My question is: if the court removes Casey's parental rights, and if the court deems that there was a wrongful death here at Casey's hands - can a guardian ad litem bring a wrongful death lawsuit against Casey Anthony? Or, barring that, can the attorney general, acting on behalf of the State of Florida, file such a lawsuit?

After all, a civil lawsuit doesn't have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt-just by a preponderance of evidence-which would be an advantage if they never recover the child's body. I'm wondering if this might not be a means to bring Casey to some justice, in the event that they are unable to build a criminal case against her. And, a civil judgment would, as it did for the Goldmans, prevent Casey from profiting from her (alleged) crime.

Daphne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Daphne said...

What makes anyone thing this sociopath is going to tell the truth now, when she hasn't yet? I honestly don't think she knows what the truth is, like Diane Downs, she's created her own reality and it keeps shifting. She's seriously mentally ill, and the public has a fascination not only with violent crime, but those twisted minds who perpetrate those crimes. Why else would the name Charles Manson still draw the viewer and readership numbers that it does? Just don't reward the creeps who create trash publications around these criminals by buying their junk. As another poster mentioned, public pressure worked with the recent OJ publication.

Anonymous said...

Public outcry led to the suppression of the OJ Simpson book. If enough people object to this, I think the same thing could happen.
The entire Anthony clan is beyond odd. None of them really seem to care about the child. They want and have used up their 15 minutes of fame.

D said...

Count me in on anything that will deprive the Anthony family money or attention.

Leah said...

KC I remember something about OJ and a PPV interview - with Larry King, I believe. But it was nixed when people cried out against it and said they wouldn't watch it. If I am not mistaken, they were going to do the PPV becuase OJ knew he couldn't make any money from a book but he thought he could circumvent that problem by using TV as his outlet.

I am not familiar specifically with Florida laws but most states require a family member to be the Petitioner of a wrongful death suit. Too bad we don't know who Caylee's dad is. I wonder if anyone even knows and that is why the Anthony's have said he was deceased.

Anonymous said...

Caylee just turned 3 not 4 you might want to fix that, her birthday was about 3 weeks ago.I cant believe nobody caught that.

Kathryn Casey said...

Thanks, Anon. Good catch. I'll fix it. It was late last night when I wrote that blog. LOL

Leah, yeah, that's kind of what I remember about the OJ PPV program. (Isn't it weird that he's on trial again. It's a major dejavu attack.)

I read yesterday that LE is testing DNA from one of Caylee's boyfriends, who is deceased. For some reason, they still have some of the guy's blood.

I believe Cindy Anthony has said the guy isn't the dad. If he is, I wonder if his parents, as grandparents, could file suit? I actually hate to see anyone make money off of this. It's all so upside down. How can the emphasis be cash when there's a little girl missing? Sigh.

There was also a bizarre article on the WESH website about a woman who is taking the Anthony's garbage and plans to blog about what she finds in it. A group of printed blog posts on the case was in her first haul. Hmmm. Maybe the Anthonys are reading WCI?

If you are, Anthonys, just tell the police where Caylee is (dead or alive) and move on....please!

luvmypeanut said...

No we can't say Casey did it, but what mother in her right mind (which I believe is the very problem here) wouldn't tell everything they knew in order to find their child? What mother would not call police for over 30 days after their child is missing? Sometimes if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a is a duck.....I'm just sayin.....

As for the money part... disgusting.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

The only place that this woman's guilt should be decided is a court of law. That is irrelevant to the problem. The real question here is one of American Culture. We Americans have become a blood thirsty lot. We feed of violence and the misery and suffering that results.The news is more about entertainment than it is information. The violence simulated or real that is fed to the average American brain through the media is damaging the fabric of our civilization. It feeds violent crime for sure, the science is there to support that. But much worse is the desensitization of the public to the suffering of others which leads to a democracy's worst enemy, apathy. Democracy does not work in a narcissistic society. We have to be concerned for the rights and well being of others or it all falls apart.
The common answer is, "Turn the TV/Internet/Ipod off" but unless one is willing to become Amish that doesn't really work in todays society.
The chicken or the egg problem of whether it is the media versus what the people want to see is just that, an irrelevant chicken or the egg problem.
The real question is how can we prevent our most cherished law, the first amendment, from being used to pervert and destroy our society without doing irreparable damage to the foundation upon which our government is built?
Are constraints even possible? Must we sit in this movie house with the words "Fire, Fire" constantly ringing in our ears to protect our way of life? Are constraints not possible? Is there another way? Must we go the way of Rome and the Republic?

Leah said...

Huh??? The first amendment refers to religion and freedom of speech to that.

Rae said...

"The only place that this woman's guilt should be decided is a court of law."

Wrong. The only place that this woman's guilt and subsequent punishment should be legally decided is a court of law. That doesn't prohibit the wider public from forming their own conclusions.

I agree-the freedom of the press is often abused-and, certainly, tabloids and checkbook journalism are not what our founding fathers had in mind when they constructed the 1st Amendment.

But, don't condemn the American (and very human) right to separate the wheat from the chaff and reach our own individual determination about any subject. The right to think for oneself should never be suppressed.

Leah, the 1st Amendment states that the government will make no laws abridging the establishment and free exercise of any religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to petition the government.

Kratesis said...

I am with you on this, maybe a petition that is signed and sent to all the bidders.... I've been watching this case from day 1 on dreamindemon and I am SICK that anyone would pay this to talk to this monster! How about, we'll give you this money IF YOU TELL US WHERE CAYLEE IS?????

Leah said...

I understand that Rae but I think The Bill of Rights is what guarantees and protects freedom of speech.

Rae said...

"I understand that Rae but I think The Bill of Rights is what guarantees and protects freedom of speech."


Kathryn Casey said...

Thanks all for weighing in and thanks especially to those who are joining in the boycott. Let's keep a watch on this and see what happens. We'll pass the word if this becomes a real deal and not just talk.

Anonymous said...

I do not condemn "the American (and very human) right to separate the wheat from the chaff". Unfortunately they rely on the modern media to see the "wheat or chaff". They do not have access to all the facts a jury will have.If you ever read the media prior to a big trial and then review the actual facts presented in the trial there is little in common.
I condemn the lack of professionalism, the sensationalism of the media and the lack of privacy sympathy, and respect for the victims of violent crime that this story reflects.
The "Son of Sam" Laws only prevent the convicted criminal from profiting from their crime. They do not protect the victims from the tabloid press. Even child victims are subject to this.

Anonymous said...

In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.

Rae said...

"n the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known."

Thanks, I am aware of that-only confused by Leah's seeming assertion that the 1st Amendment does not allow for freedom of the press, but the Bill of Rights does.

"If you ever read the media prior to a big trial and then review the actual facts presented in the trial there is little in common."

Well, yes and no. Recalling certain recent big cases-the Simpson case, Scott Peterson, Mark Hacking-the media did provide quite a few accurate details, along with scandalous tidbits and inaccuracies. A discerning reader could certainly weed out what was accurate and what wasn't, and reach a reasonable conclusion. For example, is it reasonable, given their violent history, that OJ Simpson murdered his former wife? Yes. Is it reasonable that the LAPD entered into a massive conspiracy to frame him on the basis of race? No. Is it logical that Laci Peterson was killed by a Satanic cult for her child? No. And so on. One simply has to apply cold logic to any media story.

"I condemn the lack of professionalism, the sensationalism of the media and the lack of privacy sympathy, and respect for the victims of violent crime that this story reflects."

Well, we're definitely on the same page there.

Kathryn Casey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
frangi said...

Katheryn said : His/or/her posts remind me of Palonius, that Shakespearean character who was always mumbling platitudes. When you looked beneath what sounded intelligent, there was nothing of substance.

Now THAT is really offensive!

What he was saying is that it is a cultural epidemic. People don't CARE about each other anymore and we have become a society hungry for the sensational, and that have lost the compassion for each other that is the ultimate feedom.

The irony of YOUR insult was not missed.

Kathryn Casey said...

Thanks for the interpretation, Frangi. You're absolutely right, it was offensive, but not meant that way. Occasionally we have folks who intentionally post incredibly obscure things.

Didn't mean to be offensive but I, in all honesty, couldn't follow the posts last night. I've reread them today, and I agree. I guess I was just tired last night. Long day to say the least. On top of everything else, we have a hurricane bearing down on us (in Houston), so it's been even nuttier than usual.

Cicero, I apologize. Glad you dropped in, and I hope I haven't insulted you. We'd love to have you drop in often. It was my befuddled brain last night after a trying day, not you!

Regan said...

Rae...thank you for answering my question. I do think there are special advocate groups out there especially for children who assist DCFS.

I know the Becca McEvoy family looked into it for her. It doesn't look like anyone else is looking out for Caylee's rights.

They should sever Casey's parental rights as she is not doing anything to help Caylee, could possibly be the one responsible for her death and is obstructing justice.

My question is the same as Rae's and I'd appreciate a legal opinion (lawyers?):

Can a guardian ad litem bring a wrongful death lawsuit against Casey Anthony? Or, barring that, can the attorney general, acting on behalf of the State of Florida, file such a lawsuit?

Remember Jeb Bush in the Terri Schiavo case inspired in part by the e-mails and letters from thousands of Floridians. Bush passed statute giving him the authority to overrule a court decision.

Could the governor do something in this case?

Maybe we should be writing the Governor?

Anonymous said...

Florida does have a Son of Sam law on the books, but it only applies to CONVICTED felons. Casey Anthony has not been arrested or tried. Here is the law in Florida:

Citation: FLA. STAT. Ch. 944.512 (2000)
History: Enacted in 1977.


Fla. Stat. § 944.512 (2000)

944.512 State lien on proceeds from literary or other type of account of crime for which convicted.

(1) A lien prior in dignity to all others shall exist in favor of the state upon royalties, commissions, proceeds of sale, or any other thing of value payable to or accruing to a convicted felon or a person on her or his behalf, including any person to whom the proceeds may be transferred or assigned by gift or otherwise, from any literary, cinematic, or other account of the crime for which she or he was convicted. A conviction shall be defined as a guilty verdict by a jury or judge, or a guilty or nolo contendere plea by the defendant, regardless of adjudication of guilt. The lien shall attach at the time of the conviction in county or circuit court. In the event of an appeal, the funds will be held in the Revolving Escrow Trust Fund of the Department of Legal Affairs until the appeal is resolved.


Anonymous said...

"Son of Sam" laws explained in plain language:

Anonymous said...

Actually the works of Cicero were thought to be derivative and lacking in original thought by the philosophical community, but on later inspection found to be insightful in application since he was taking Greek philosophy and applying it to very practical Roman Politics. So the irony is appreciated. No matter he lost the Republic and his head in the end.
I take no offense since I speak in platitudes by intent knowing I risk sounding like a pompous ass. I speak in platitudes because in a world of billions I doubt if I say anything original or ever had. That does not mean it is not the truth. It is just very old truth and not original.
I assure you what lies underneath is the deepest sympathy for the victims and great sorrow to see them further exploited.
Also I did not mean to imply there are not responsible members of the media who show respect for the tragedy of the situation and the victims. They however are most certainly the unheard minority.

Kathryn Casey said...

Thanks for being so understanding, Cicero. It's appreciated.

Don't know how many of you are on the Texas Gulf Coast, but it's a little nervous here at the moment. Hurricane Ike is bearing down, and half our neighbors are on the road, trying to get out of Dodge. My family is staying but stocking up and trying to be prepared.

Hurricanes are odd. You know they're out in the Gulf stalking the coastline, but it's almost unreal. Today's actually a beautiful day, with blue skies and just a bit of a wind.

Still, it's an anxious time. People are walking around looking a little dazed. A woman came close to running over me in her SUV at the grocery store. She was so preoccupied, I don't think she ever saw me as I walked through the parking lot.

All heck is gonna break loose here tomorrow, I gather! Wish us luck!

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Getting back to Kathryn's reaction to my earlier comments, she writes, "But why should the general public be concerned about helping her pay her legal bills?"

I say they should not, and neither should the general public concern itself with IMPEDING her paying her legal bills. What business is it of yours, frankly? If it turns out she's not culpable and the flaky behavior you attribute to guilt turns out to be something else, like mental illness, it would be embarrassing to be the person who had hounded a crime victim into bankruptcy. I'd encourage you not to do it, just on the off chance your intuition is wrong.

Once the police and media start accusing her, no one can blame her for not cooperating. I don't know why she didn't cooperate immediately, but with the torch-bearing mobs lining up to go after her, I damn sure know why she's not cooperating now! best,

Kathryn Casey said...

Hey Grits,

You know, as I said above, I don't know what happened to Caylee. I don't know that she's dead. Even if the toddler is dead, we don't know that Casey's responsible or that it's murder. Perhaps the little girl died accidently and Casey panicked and hid the body? I don't know. Those questions remain to be answered.

On the other hand, there's certainly reason for suspicion. And when someone is a suspect in what could be a murder, IMHO, the public has the right to object to that person profiting from the crime. While it may not be illegal to pay Casey scads of cash for an interview, it certainly smacks of being highly unethical.

This bothers me. I believe it bothers a lot of people. Does Casey have the right to do the interview? Sure. Do I have the right to say this is unethical and urge folks not to tune in? I believe I do.

If you're in Houston, I hope you're somewhere safe to ride out the storm!

D said...

KC, please leave Houston! That is one bad storm heading your way.

Rae said...

"Once the police and media start accusing her, no one can blame her for not cooperating."

In other words, no one should blame a mother for not doing everything she can to aid police-who haven't formally accused her of anything other than check kiting and identity fraud-in finding her missing toddler? It's more important to protect Casey Anthony from the censure of the press and public than to find out what happened to a defenseless toddler?


Stay safe, Kathy!

LadySheila said...

ABSOLUTELY...YES...Have already boycotted ABC and subsidiaries for paying licensing fees reported to have been paid to one of the four in the Anthony family. Now, I'm sure ABC is doing this under the guise of "trying to get the word out to find her," excuse me, Ms. Casey (and thank you for letting me associate that name with such a lovely lady as yourself) yes, oh no, oh dear, I'm gonna throw up again.....

Kathryn Casey said...

I didn't know about the ABC thing, ladysheila. Geez. It's already started. Can you post a link here with info on it?

I thought more about what Grits said above, about what happens if it turns out that Casey is innocent.

You know, if that is the way this case comes down, book offers etc., will flood in, and that's fine. She'll be free to make a fortune and pay off the attorneys. My objection is for now, when she's a suspect in her daughter's disappearance, perhaps her death. It would be awful for Casey to be financially rewarded.

Mary said...

I'm praying you'll be safe, Kathy.

Kathryn Casey said...

Thanks, Mary. Galveston is already flooding and the storm isn't going to hit until tomorrow morning. This is an incredible hurricane. But we live far north of the city, so, fingers crossed, we should be okay! Thanks for the prayers! I can always use them!

LadySheila said...

Ms. Casey, I sure apologize for being slow. As luck would have it,some pc problems have decided to hamper now you probably have gotten the news about ABC paying for licensing fees, but I will go and try to find it and better late than never, post it. Thank you again!

Mary said...

You're very welcome! Power outages permitting, please post as soon as possible after the worst of the storm passes so we'll all know you're all right. The pictures from Galveston already look awful.

Anonymous said...


Let's see, if your daughter was supposedly Kidnapped, and you get a substantial money for her pictures or for an interview, you think it's ok to use that for your "defense fund" as opposed to the search for your daughter? While perfect strangers are putting up a reward for her? Are you serious?

Kathryn Casey said...

Hey All,

I'm alive. No power. Crazy time, I'm afraid. I'm on a borrowed computer. Hope everyone made it through the storm okay! I'll check back when life gets back in shape again....


Mary said...

Thank God! I'm so glad!

FleaStiff said...

Absolutely darling?
These are your views and quite clearly were not the mother's views at all. Inescapable poverty and inescapable child care duties can lead to rather extreme acts.
Checkbook journalism is not likely to be an instrument for eliciting the truth; only more lies! While it is possible that the mother gave the child away it is more likely that the mother made a final attempt to achieve freedom.
Caylee now represents a source of income to reporters, bartenders and motel owners. I wonder how many women secretly harbor resentment at being imprisoned by child care responsibilites?