Skip to comments.
WINONA'S LAME EXCUSE-Was 'researching' role for director in upcoming film, No such film exists...
NY Post ^
| December 15, 2001
| Michael Starr
Posted on 12/14/2001 8:40:07 PM PST by umbra
Winona Ryder claimed her five finger discount at a posh Beverly Hills department store was really just reasearch for an upcoming movie role sources told the Post yesterday.
After security guards nabbed Ryder the moment she left Saks Fifth Avenue without paying on Wednesday night, the world-famous actress apparently tried to pawn off her sticky fingered antics on work.
'She said a director of an upcoming movie suggested she do this for research,' a source close the investigation told the Post yesterday.
Ryder has not been reported to work on any new films, and her defense lawyer Mark Garagos, did not return calls from the Post. But Garagos has said the incident was a 'misunderstanding' between Ryder and store managers.
TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-106 next last
To: umbra
"Winona Ryder claimed her five finger discount at a posh Beverly Hills department store was really just research for an upcoming movie role, sources told the Post yesterday." Let's hope Ryder is never asked to play the role of Kathleen Soliah, a.k.a. Sara Jane Olson, d.k.a. "Our Little Terrorist."
21
posted on
12/14/2001 9:10:08 PM PST
by
Silly
To: Silly
I'm worried about a Lizzie Borden biographical movie, or "My Love, My Fuehrer: The Life of Eva Braun."
To: umbra; dighton
Therapists said Ryder's arrest could signal a desperate cry for help from an emotionally fragile and lonely woman. Aw, gee whiz. I thought it was stealing.
Ryder - who owns a $3 million mansion in Beverly Hills - removed anti-theft tags from the stolen Saks items and stashed some of her ill-gotten goods in a shopping bag from nearby Barneys New York, the sources said.
This is very strange. First, those tags appear to be impossible to remove unless you have one of the devices that the salespeople use, and second, I thought there was a fail-safe device on the tags that contained an inky substance that would stain the item if the tags were broken off.
23
posted on
12/14/2001 9:14:06 PM PST
by
Orual
To: umbra
The news has since reported that according to her lawyer, she has receipts for the clothes which was purchased in other departments and that she can produce "evidence" of a prescription for the pills (although I question the use of the words "evidence of a precscription" vs. simply saying "prescription." Rather than simply assuming she was guilty merely because she was arrested like some here, I will withhold judgement.
And to counter the ridiculous picture above:
24
posted on
12/14/2001 9:15:56 PM PST
by
bluefish
To: bluefish
...sources told the Post yesterday. Oh yeah... and so far, we have heard from her lawyer and from an unnamed "source" "close to the investigation." I'm hoping she is innocent b/c I find her very attractive. The one interview I saw, I found her sweet and humble. I also feel for her given that her idiotic parents raised her on a commune. I knew a girl who grew up under the same circumstances and she was a mess. That girls parents eventually left her and her brother to fend for themselves at a young age and she is a psychological mess as a result (my thought is severe abandonment issues). Some here wish evil on somebody simply b/c they are from hollywood, or simply b/c they are wealthy. Like I said in my previous post, I will withhold judgement until she gives me reason to hate her.
25
posted on
12/14/2001 9:21:45 PM PST
by
bluefish
To: bluefish
according to her lawyer, Oh, well, it's the gospel truth then. Maybe when this horrible miscarriage of justice is rectified it will revive her career. According to Craig Kilborn, it hasn't been going so well lately. Even the videotape of her shoplifting has gone straight to video!
26
posted on
12/14/2001 9:24:26 PM PST
by
Amore
To: bluefish
Well shoot, I guess the picture above has been blocked somehow. Must be some kind of software to prevent leaching.
27
posted on
12/14/2001 9:24:29 PM PST
by
bluefish
To: bluefish; dighton
28
posted on
12/14/2001 9:27:51 PM PST
by
Orual
To: Orual
Some security tags are those little foil coils that are stuck to carded items or boxes. Those can be peeled off.
To: bluefish
I don't care for her one way or the other (a little negative I suppose), but no matter what you think of her, statements like the following are becoming hard to stomach.
"It had nothing to do with money, and everything to do with getting relief from all her troubles," said New Jersey-based psychiatrist Patricia Farrell. "She was feeding her hurt emotions. She was unable to make good judgment. She acted irrationally because she was in great pain and feeling lonely."
Everybody famous seems to have an excuse for their moronic behavior. Everybody attached to Hollywood Liberalism, anyway.
To: Amore
Craig Kilborn tells jokes, so you have stated something even more credible than her lawyer or the Post's "anonymous source." No, I did not say that her lawyer's statement constitutes gospel. However, some here seem to think an anonymous source is just that themselves. If there is video released and she is clearly guilty, then I wouldn't call her arrest a miscarriage of justice either. I am fair and am willing to judge evidence and draw a conclusion, unlike many here who convicted her the second the news came out. Funny how the news is incredibly untrustworthy to so many people until they hear something they want to it becomes unimpeachable, even when the "news" is merely quoting a "source close to the investigation" or a relatively crappy comedian. I would agree that her career hasn't gone great, but would suggest she did better than the thousands of wannabe actors and actresses that show up in Hollyweird each year and never make it past waiting tables or getting suckered into doing porn.
31
posted on
12/14/2001 9:30:58 PM PST
by
bluefish
To: Orual
I don't get it.
32
posted on
12/14/2001 9:32:04 PM PST
by
bluefish
To: bluefish
You'd give the prescription to the druggist. So she wouldn't have it anymore. "Evidence" is what a court would care about. Probably the receipt and patient package insert printout from when she had it filled, or a copy of the drugstore's records. If it's on the up and up, some police and prosecutors should be very embarrassed, that at the least they didn't check with the drug store where she went before accusing her of this crime.
To: phillibuck
I don't like those kinds of excuses either. Especially when spewed by a psychobabblist who knows nothing of Wynona, the case or anything else. Sure, a sympathetic Hollywood / Leftist worshipping journalist is going to seek something like this out. I admit I know little of the case b/c I only heard a "no comment" from Wynona and a "she has receipts" from her lawyer. Everything else I have heard is speculation and heresay. As I said, I will wait and if she is guilty, it will sadden me. Unlike many here, I will not take joy in somebody doing something wrong, but I will not provide an unjustified defense either.
34
posted on
12/14/2001 9:36:04 PM PST
by
bluefish
To: phillibuck
This shrink may be crazy, but she also sounds like she isn't even close to the case.
To: umbra
I'm currently researching the role of a fat, unemployed bum...
To: HiTech RedNeck
Seems as if Saks would have a better system than that. It costs $500 just to walk into that place.
37
posted on
12/14/2001 9:40:09 PM PST
by
Orual
To: Tony in Hawaii
Heh heh... I thought you were cracking on me for a moment there and was trying to figure out how the heck you knew who I was!
38
posted on
12/14/2001 9:40:26 PM PST
by
bluefish
To: umbra
Throw. The. B*tch. In. Jail. At least for a night or two, to make sure she gets the hint she is NOT above the law.
39
posted on
12/14/2001 9:43:21 PM PST
by
Timesink
To: bluefish
Lighten up, it was just a joke. But since you're being so serious, there IS more than "an unidentified source." The security people observed her commit the crime or they wouldn't have had her arrested. You really think they needlessly arrest stars on no evidence, so that they can be sued for millions of dollars for false arrest, slander, etc.? I don't think so. Care to bet some real money on the outcome?
40
posted on
12/14/2001 9:50:23 PM PST
by
Amore
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-106 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson