Casey Anthony

[JimH52]

Jacob Shalmo is offering $5 million for a Casey Anthony interview?

LOS ANGELES (LALATE) – Schalmo Productions and Jacob C. Schalmo of Columbus, Ohio have offered Casey Anthony a $5 million deal. Schalmo Productions claims Casey Anthony and Jose Baez have his offer for a television interview. Anthony and Baez have yet to confirm the news. If true, this would mark Anthony’s highest claimed offer to date since her release from jail Sunday.
Schalmo Productions, Jacob Schalmo Offer Casey Anthony $5 Million

In a Shepard Smith segment tonight, a short clip of Schalmo had him saying he offering $5 million because it will take $5 million to get the interview with Anthony and Baez that he wants.

I'm guessing she will take it. There are hundreds of thousands of outstanding legal bills and civil suits being threatened.

Schalmo Productions and Jacob C. Schalmo of Columbus, Ohio will be the next boycott victim then.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Ole Jose is gonna be stuck to her like flies on shit. I am sure he figures that now that he is finished raping the State of Florida with his fee's, he can move on to get a piece of the Casey Anthony pie. That's not the only pie he's getting from her. ~BH

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Ole Jose is gonna be stuck to her like flies on shit. I am sure he figures that now that he is finished raping the State of Florida with his fee's, he can move on to get a piece of the Casey Anthony pie. That's not the only pie he's getting from her. ~BH

There's my little Bolshi Hu! Where ya been? Boring without you.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Ole Jose is gonna be stuck to her like flies on shit. I am sure he figures that now that he is finished raping the State of Florida with his fee's, he can move on to get a piece of the Casey Anthony pie. That's not the only pie he's getting from her. ~BH

There's my little Bolshi Hu! Where ya been? Boring without you.

Kik, Spending time in the outdoors. I need a break every now and then away from this circus side show. ~BH

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Ole Jose is gonna be stuck to her like flies on shit. I am sure he figures that now that he is finished raping the State of Florida with his fee's, he can move on to get a piece of the Casey Anthony pie. That's not the only pie he's getting from her. ~BH

There's my little Bolshi Hu! Where ya been? Boring without you.

Kik, Spending time in the outdoors. I need a break every now and then away from this circus side show. ~BH

Sounds good. Too hot here to be outdoors. Ok, now get busy time to set us all straight.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

There's my little Bolshi Hu! Where ya been? Boring without you.

Kik, Spending time in the outdoors. I need a break every now and then away from this circus side show. ~BH

Sounds good. Too hot here to be outdoors. Ok, now get busy time to set us all straight.

Yeah, It's hot out here in California too. Seems to be hot everywhere in the States lately. ~BH

 

[Gadawg73]

She was declared indigent at one point and he was court appointed.
I do not see her owing any legal bills to date.
None of the civil suits have any merit.

 

[Liability]

It amazes me that JUST because we are unhappy with a trial's outcome so many folks insist that the prosecutor is a fuck up or that the jury consisted of idiots.

The reality is quite different.

The prosecution had a piss-poor case. It's clear they BELIEVED that Casey Anthony was a murdering bitch (and I kind of agree with that conclusion); but it's not at all clear that they had nearly enough legally admissible evidence to PROVE it beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution may have mis-analyzed what they had, but that doesn't mean they were fuck-ups for failing to have sufficient evidence to prove it.

Similarly, the jury took an oath. This is precisely what the system demands of juries. Take an oath to use common sense and apply the law as you get instructed ON the law by the judge. That's what the Casey Anthony jury did. And given the lack of EVIDENCE that proved (beyond a reasonable doubt) how the child died or who might have been responsible for her death if it was a murder, the jury acknowledged their perfectly REASONABLE doubt.

That is not the same as them saying "Casey Anthony is innocent." That's not even a question put to them. The only questions they had to answer, in the end, were WHETHER or not the evidence PROVED (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the little girl WAS even murdered and whether or not the evidence proved (beyond a reasonable doubt) that it was Casey Anthony who killed that poor little girl. Their conclusion that the evidence failed to reach that fairly high standard means only that they took their oath seriously and did what they were sworn to do.

 

[Gadawg73]

It amazes me that JUST because we are unhappy with a trial's outcome so many folks insist that the prosecutor is a fuck up or that the jury consisted of idiots.

The reality is quite different.

The prosecution had a piss-poor case. It's clear they BELIEVED that Casey Anthony was a murdering bitch (and I kind of agree with that conclusion); but it's not at all clear that they had nearly enough legally admissible evidence to PROVE it beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution may have mis-analyzed what they had, but that doesn't mean they were fuck-ups for failing to have sufficient evidence to prove it.

Similarly, the jury took an oath. This is precisely what the system demands of juries. Take an oath to use common sense and apply the law as you get instructed ON the law by the judge. That's what the Casey Anthony jury did. And given the lack of EVIDENCE that proved (beyond a reasonable doubt) how the child died or who might have been responsible for her death if it was a murder, the jury acknowledged their perfectly REASONABLE doubt.

That is not the same as them saying "Casey Anthony is innocent." That's not even a question put to them. The only questions they had to answer, in the end, was WHETHER or not the evidence PROVED (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the little girl WAS even murdered and whether or not the evidence proved (beyond a reasonable doubt) that it was Casey Anthony who killed that poor little girl. Their conclusion that the evidence failed to reach that fairly high standard means only that they took their oath seriously and did what they were sworn to do.

Quit wasting your time. Your post is accurate and reflects the way the best judicial system in the world works.
None of that matters to those that watch TV and form their opinions on what a talking head commentator instructs them to believe.

 

[WillowTree]

Once upon a time in AMerica before TV, before DNA, and before even a body was discovered people were convicted of murder on strong circumstantial evidence. The prosecution did not fuck up in this case. Based on what they presented I could vote guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There was compelling evidence there for me including the fact that Casey lied to her mother and purposefully tried to throw her off the track when her mom was actively looking for her little girl. Casey wasn't looking, know why? cause she knew she'd already killed her.

She's lucky I wasn't on that jury.

 

[Gadawg73]

Once upon a time in AMerica before TV, before DNA, and before even a body was discovered people were convicted of murder on strong circumstantial evidence. The prosecution did not fuck up in this case. Based on what they presented I could vote guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There was compelling evidence there for me including the fact that Casey lied to her mother and purposefully tried to throw her off the track when her mom was actively looking for her little girl. Casey wasn't looking, know why? cause she knew she'd already killed her.

She's lucky I wasn't on that jury.

WTF does that have TO DO WITH THIS CASE?

NO case has the same circumstantial evidence.
How would you or I know if the evidence was enough to convict?
WE WEREN'T THERE!!

 

[Liability]

Once upon a time in AMerica before TV, before DNA, and before even a body was discovered people were convicted of murder on strong circumstantial evidence. The prosecution did not fuck up in this case. Based on what they presented I could vote guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There was compelling evidence there for me including the fact that Casey lied to her mother and purposefully tried to throw her off the track when her mom was actively looking for her little girl. Casey wasn't looking, know why? cause she knew she'd already killed her.

She's lucky I wasn't on that jury.

Circumstantial evidence is a powerful tool and could warrant a conviction in many cases. But just because you might have thought it sufficient in the Anthony case does not mean that it was invalid (or stupid) when the Anthony jury concluded that there was still a lack of sufficient proof.

In that case, the circumstantial evidence warranted concern and genuine suspicion. It remains a judgment call, however, whether it sufficed as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Normally, the jury gets a charge in "circumstantial evidence" cases that instructs them that the INFERENCE that flows from the circumstances must be consistent ONLY with guilt. They get further directed that any inference OTHER THAN "guilt" MUST be granted to the defendant....

Either way, I still say it is unfair to attack the intelligence of that jury OR the professionalism of the prosecution.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

They should drown every Jury member for not giving Justice to little Caylee.

Then, The bottomfeeding child killer tot mom Casey should be beat with a rubber hose dipped in Olive oil for a few months while only being given bread and water, and then she should be drowned as well, only repeatedly for a couple of weeks. Slapped awake, drowned again. Slapped awake, drowned again, slapped awake, drowned again. Another night of Olive oil bashing, then woke up at 4:30am to be drowned and slapped awake, and drowned again. Slapped awake, drowned aGAIN! slapped awake, drowned aGAIN!!!

That is my idea of a BH World of Paradise and justice for the victims of evil. We should eradicate all evil blood from the human gene pool. Completely wipe it out. Anyone who harms a child should be ruthlessly takin out of this world by Natural Law. What a dream eh? ~BH

~BH

 

[ABikerSailor]

To borrow a bit from Bill Maher's show this evening...........

"Wouldn't it be ironic if Casey Anthony were found wrapped up in a plastic bag, and dumped in a swamp"?

 

[Article 15]

bump

 

[Foxfyre]

Once upon a time in AMerica before TV, before DNA, and before even a body was discovered people were convicted of murder on strong circumstantial evidence. The prosecution did not fuck up in this case. Based on what they presented I could vote guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There was compelling evidence there for me including the fact that Casey lied to her mother and purposefully tried to throw her off the track when her mom was actively looking for her little girl. Casey wasn't looking, know why? cause she knew she'd already killed her.

She's lucky I wasn't on that jury.

Circumstantial evidence is a powerful tool and could warrant a conviction in many cases. But just because you might have thought it sufficient in the Anthony case does not mean that it was invalid (or stupid) when the Anthony jury concluded that there was still a lack of sufficient proof.

In that case, the circumstantial evidence warranted concern and genuine suspicion. It remains a judgment call, however, whether it sufficed as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Normally, the jury gets a charge in "circumstantial evidence" cases that instructs them that the INFERENCE that flows from the circumstances must be consistent ONLY with guilt. They get further directed that any inference OTHER THAN "guilt" MUST be granted to the defendant....

Either way, I still say it is unfair to attack the intelligence of that jury OR the professionalism of the prosecution.

It was a really tough one. You know in your gut that Casey killed Caylee. I know in my gut that Casey killed Caylee. But at the end of the day there was no murder weapon found, no DNA, no finger prints, or any other absolute evidence tieing anything at the scene to Casey, no eye witnesses; no cause of death, time of death, or place of death established. All we have is an unlikable, probably sociopathic, and clever liar of a mother that we wanted very much to be found guilty and to be punished for what most of us believe she did. But did the prosecution prove she did it beyond any reasonable doubt. I don't think they did. And the jury didn't have benefit of all the stuff we all were seeing on TV during the trial.

So, after thinking it through and hearing the comments of some of the jurors, including the foreman, since, I think they followed the law even though I think most of them also believed she was guilty.

It's one of those terrible conundrums in which justice was not served, but the system worked.

 

[Gadawg73]

Once upon a time in AMerica before TV, before DNA, and before even a body was discovered people were convicted of murder on strong circumstantial evidence. The prosecution did not fuck up in this case. Based on what they presented I could vote guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There was compelling evidence there for me including the fact that Casey lied to her mother and purposefully tried to throw her off the track when her mom was actively looking for her little girl. Casey wasn't looking, know why? cause she knew she'd already killed her.

She's lucky I wasn't on that jury.

Circumstantial evidence is a powerful tool and could warrant a conviction in many cases. But just because you might have thought it sufficient in the Anthony case does not mean that it was invalid (or stupid) when the Anthony jury concluded that there was still a lack of sufficient proof.

In that case, the circumstantial evidence warranted concern and genuine suspicion. It remains a judgment call, however, whether it sufficed as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Normally, the jury gets a charge in "circumstantial evidence" cases that instructs them that the INFERENCE that flows from the circumstances must be consistent ONLY with guilt. They get further directed that any inference OTHER THAN "guilt" MUST be granted to the defendant....

Either way, I still say it is unfair to attack the intelligence of that jury OR the professionalism of the prosecution.

It was a really tough one. You know in your gut that Casey killed Caylee. I know in my gut that Casey killed Caylee. But at the end of the day there was no murder weapon found, no DNA, no finger prints, or any other absolute evidence tieing anything at the scene to Casey, no eye witnesses; no cause of death, time of death, or place of death established. All we have is an unlikable, probably sociopathic, and clever liar of a mother that we wanted very much to be found guilty and to be punished for what most of us believe she did. But did the prosecution prove she did it beyond any reasonable doubt. I don't think they did. And the jury didn't have benefit of all the stuff we all were seeing on TV during the trial.

So, after thinking it through and hearing the comments of some of the jurors, including the foreman, since, I think they followed the law even though I think most of them also believed she was guilty.

It's one of those terrible conundrums in which justice was not served, but the system worked.

I have worked 3 dozen murder trials. Most of them are like this, not a who done it like on Perry Mason where some one stands up during the trial and admits they did it. Most juries the bailiffs say the men are arguing with the women if there is a split on the first ballot. But not in this one.
Your post is the best one in the thread. Beliefs are not evidence. The state has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt 100% and they didn't.

 

[JimH52]

Casey pulled off the perfect murder. She kept the kid's body in her trunk until the head even fell off the torso. She taped the head on the body, which was double plastic bagged, and she thew it into a swamp, which was flooded several times in the following weeks. By the time the body was found, all evidence had be washed away. The only thing left was bones.

She partied with someone else's money for over a month, all the while she knew where the body was. She rolled the dice and won. If she is going to write a book, it should be titled, "How to get away with Murder."

Her plan will be examined and duplicated by many phychopaths, such as she, in the coming years. She ignored the disappearance of her child for over a month, and yet, she wasn't even found guilty of child neglect. That is very sad.

Her fate may be years away, like OJ, but justice will be done. Until then, there are literally millions of people in this country who don't want her to become rich, as a results of, pulling off the perfect murder. They will do everything possible to see that she does not see that big payday. That is the way it is....Live with it.

 

[JimH52]

Casey pulled off the perfect murder. She kept the kid's body in her trunk until the head even fell off the torso. She taped the head on the body, which was double plastic bagged, and she thew it into a swamp, which was flooded several times in the following weeks. By the time the body was found, all evidence had be washed away. The only thing left was bones.

She partied with someone else's money for over a month, all the while she knew where the body was. She rolled the dice and won. If she is going to write a book, it should be titled, "How to get away with Murder."

Her plan will be examined and duplicated by many phychopaths, such as she, in the coming years. She ignored the disappearance of her child for over a month, and yet, she wasn't even found guilty of child neglect. That is very sad.

Her fate may be years away, like OJ, but justice will be done. Until then, there are literally millions of people in this country who don't want her to become rich, as a results of, pulling off the perfect murder. They will do everything possible to see that she does not see that big payday. That is the way it is....Live with it.

 

[JimH52]

Larry Flint has offered the murderer $500,000 to Casey Anthony to pose nude.