Jump to content

Hustler offers Casey Anthony $500k to appear in magazine.


iNOOB

Recommended Posts

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43948331/ns/today-entertainment/?gt1=43001

 

But Flynt said in addition to the $500,000, he offered Anthony a percentage of whatever he earns from her pictures.

 

"You could make millions," he said.

 

But even he acknowledged he's a little skeezed out.

 

"You've got men who say, hey, I want to see her in her birthday suit," he said of the Anthony offer. "There may be some sick individuals ... but that's what life is all about."

 

Will she do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way she does it. She will get $1 million for an exclusive interview without taking her clothes off.

 

Just because she makes $1m from an interview doesn't mean she won't want to make an additional $500k+.

 

Who stops wanting to make money after their first million??

 

Besides, if sales on that issue skyrocketed, the total earnings for showing some skin could exceed $1m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because she makes $1m from an interview doesn't mean she won't want to make an additional $500k+.

 

Who stops wanting to make money after their first million??

 

Besides' date=' if sales on that issue skyrocketed, the total earnings for showing some skin could exceed $1m.[/quote']

 

People who don't want to pose nude in a magazine. Maybe she's one of those people.

 

Just because she killed her kid and was ****ting it up for a month doesn't mean she doesn't have standards.:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who don't want to pose nude in a magazine. Maybe she's one of those people.

 

Just because she killed her kid and was ****ting it up for a month doesn't mean she doesn't have standards.:D

 

This could be true. Personally, I don't want to pose nude in a magazine. But, if $500k was offered theres no way I would turn it down. She already rejected the **** offers.

 

Just gonna have to wait and see. Maybe her party instinct will drive her to do it lol.

 

Also, maybe if she does it, less people will want to kill her and more people will want to give her a baby haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could be true. Personally' date=' I don't want to pose nude in a magazine. But, if $500k was offered theres no way I would turn it down. She already rejected the **** offers.

 

Just gonna have to wait and see. Maybe her party instinct will drive her to do it lol.

 

Also, maybe if she does it, less people will want to kill her and[b'] more people will want to give her a baby haha[/b].

 

you are sick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wtf is wrong with this ****in world?

 

this lady got away with murdering her beautiful little girl and now shes making huge money

shes gunna have books' date=' maybe some movies, interviews

 

and shes gunna make millions off of this

 

this is some ****ing bull ****

 

makes me ****ing sick[/quote']

 

what goes around, comes around = karma (never seen it fail)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are sick

 

Nahhhh.

 

I hear of hundreds of these kinds of stories every year. Why should everybody be so sensitive about this one?

 

Because the media blew it up?

 

Because she walked away innocent because the prosecutors are incompetent?

 

She got away free for now. But, who's to say it won't catch up to her eventually? I mean, look at O.J. He's behind bars right now if I recall correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's already karma for the people who think someone is guilty of something but have no proof.

 

if she was innocent, then she could answer this question correctly, instead of

being convicted on 4 counts of misleading law-enforcement -

 

"When was the last time you saw Caylee & where were you" ?

 

she was fortunate enough to get 12 dysfunctional liberals with no concept

or knowledge of "murder convictions by circumstantial evidence"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if she was innocent' date=' then she could answer this question correctly, instead of

being convicted on 4 counts of misleading law-enforcement -

 

"When was the last time you saw Caylee & where were you" ?

 

she was fortunate enough to get 12 dysfunctional liberals with no concept

or knowledge of "murder convictions by circumstantial evidence"[/quote']

 

Honestly i think they did the right thing based on the evidence alone of which there wasn't enough to convict her of murder.

 

Sure the circumstantial evidence was very obvious she was guilty but you can't convict people of circumstantial evidence alone.

 

BTW im one of the people that thinks she's guilty and should fry but based purely on the evidence i'd say it's just not enough no matter how much circumstantial evidence there and no matter how much everything points to her being guilty.

 

You need hard evidence to convict someone not a gut feeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She should get her own reality tv show.

 

They could show her watching Nancy Grace rant about her.

 

I honestly don't know who I like less- Casey Anthony or Nancy Grace. They should have a real life Celebrity Deathmatch to rid the world of one of these *****es for good. I was going to say "I've got Anthony via murder," but I think it's too soon. Oops! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know who I like less- Casey Anthony or Nancy Grace. They should have a real life Celebrity Deathmatch to rid the world of one of these *****es for good. I was going to say "I've got Anthony via murder' date='" but I think it's too soon. Oops! :rolleyes:[/quote']

 

interesting idea.

 

But, I don't think either of them qualify as celebrities. Just call it Deathmatch lol. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She won't do it right away...she'll milk the mainstream media first, she can pull in that kind of money from a single in-depth exclusive television interview with Oprah or Barbara Walters, as well as hundreds of thousands for interviews with the tabloids and gossip mags. She's also talked about a book deal that will surely pay her a disgusting amount of money. Then perhaps when those offers begin to dry up and the media has moved on to their next "Tot Mom" baby killer, she'll spread her legs for Larry Flynt.

 

I also predict that we'll see her on some sort of reality television show before all is said and done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly i think they did the right thing based on the evidence alone of which there wasn't enough to convict her of murder.

 

Sure the circumstantial evidence was very obvious she was guilty but you can't convict people of circumstantial evidence alone.

 

BTW im one of the people that thinks she's guilty and should fry but based purely on the evidence i'd say it's just not enough no matter how much circumstantial evidence there and no matter how much everything points to her being guilty.

 

You need hard evidence to convict someone not a gut feeling.

 

People are convicted on circumstantial evidence hundreds of times a day in courtrooms around the country. In fact circumstantial evidence is usually the strongest evidence a prosecutor has as it's based entirely on factual evidence rather than witness testimony that can be discredited for many reasons.

 

The whole "the case is weak because it's based entirely on circumstantial evidence" line is a product of badly written television courtroom dramas in which, for some inexplicable reason, hack writers feel the to include at least half a dozen times in any trial scene. In reality it's completely inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are convicted on circumstantial evidence hundreds of times a day in courtrooms around the country. In fact circumstantial evidence is usually the strongest evidence a prosecutor has as it's based entirely on factual evidence rather than witness testimony that can be discredited for many reasons.

 

The whole "the case is weak because it's based entirely on circumstantial evidence" line is a product of badly written television courtroom dramas in which' date=' for some inexplicable reason, hack writers feel the to include at least half a dozen times in any trial scene. In reality it's completely inaccurate.[/quote']

 

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence which leads to, but does not prove as specific conclusion.

 

The only hard facts they had on her was she lied about Caylee being missing for thirty days. That doesn't prove she killed her.

 

There was no dna evidence, no witness, no text messages, emails or anything at all really actually linking her to the death or murder of Caylee.

 

There was enough reasonable doubt to not convict her. Not saying i agree with the verdict from a point of view on wheather i think she's guilty or not but if people just went on gut feeling and inconclusive evidence there would be alot more innocent people in jail for crimes they didn't commit.

 

Im glad our system doesn't work like that but unfortunately every so often someone who is guilty slips through the cracks and sometimes even people that aren't guilty are convicted.

 

The sadest thing about our system is without hard conclusive evidence the slickest lawyer that can steal the show wins.

 

This is better than just convicting people with no conclusive evidence but gut feeling and the power of persuasive argumentation which you seem to suggest is the way it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...