Winona trial

Bah, I could push MINE together and they’d look the same. There’s this neato thing out there now, it’s called a Wonderbra . . . .

See through? Matt Drudge is imagining things, as usual:

http://www.drudgereport.com/wr.htm

Unless that’s a bad picture.

Even if she was “researching” a role-that isn’t an excuse, is it? Sheesh!

Besides, it contradicts her story that she wasn’t shopllifting in the first place.

Yes, I think she’s clearly guilty but I also wonder why they are spending so much time and money to go through a trial instead of plea bargaining this thing out. I’ve read that the prosecutors wouldn’t accept a plea bargain and that seems a bit ridiculous to me. I mean, had this been her second offense, then throw the book at her. But for a first offense, I think they should treat her like they treat all other first offenders: let her make restitution to the store, some community service, commute a 30 day sentence, and hope she learned a valuable lesson.

I agree with PunditLisa. She’s guilty of theft, to hear the story, but If I did what she’s accused of doing they’d have offered me a deal by now for a fine and probation. The charges being levelled against her (BURGLARY?) are ridiculously overblown.

The only reason they’re throwing the book this hard is that she’s famous.

Is it actually her first offense, though? Maybe it’s her first offense for shoplifting, but not for other things? And would that matter? And are we certain the DA refused to plea bargain?

From a San Francisco Chronicle interview with Paul Westerberg (they dated):

Q: Is it hard living up to the myth you created around yourself?

A: I don’t walk around with the myth. I’m not even aware of what it may hold for two different people. I am always surprised when people meet me and are afraid of me in any way. That’s about the only thing that baffles me – this perception that Paul is tough or mean. I just have a low threshold for stupid people.

Q: Speaking of which, did Winona Ryder steal anything from you when you were seeing her?

A: Steal anything? My time.

Q: I guess that’s worth more than $5,000 at Saks.

A: Yeah, I guess so.

I’ve been following this a bit, and it’s really baffling why they’re going after her so hard. I read an article written a guy who dug up all of the felony shoplifting cases on file for amounts similar to Ryder’s - EVERY ONE was bargained down to a misdemeanor, but the court won’t entertain a plea bargain for Ryder.

Then I heard that they also charged her with felony drug posession. And why? Because she has a prescription for Percocet, but she was caught with generic Percocet, which technically isn’t covered by her prescription.

This all sounds pretty weird. Maybe it’s political?

That can’t be right, Sam. I’m pretty sure that when I lived in California, pharmacists would always dispense generic versions of prescribed drugs unless specifically asked not to.

I just can’t get over the fact that one of her purchases was socks for 80$!!!

Come now.
How different are they from the $5 I get?

I’m guessing they’re cashmere?

Sam, the possession charge was dismissed by the prosecution before the trial began.

Since it is taboo to speak of the plea negotiations during trial, I want to wait to see what was actually offered. My understanding, though, was that Winona’s attorney rejected both the State’s and the judge’s offer. She did commit Burglary though (entering a building Saks, with the intent to commit a felony (theft)). It is still an example of overcharging in my humble opinion though.

These socks come with trolls.

ruadh you are correct, but so is Sam. The DA did file possession charges against her for two reasons. Initially, they filed the charges because she had the pills in a fancy little jewellery-like pillbox rather than a prescription bottle which would have had some of the prescription info on it. So it just looked like “she’s carrying drugs!”

Originally, the charges were pending depending on whether or not she could produce a prescription. When she did produce a prescription, then the DA filed the possession charges based on fact that the prescription was for “Percocet” not “generic stuff”.

Absolutely ridiculous! In most juristictions, you fully have the right to ask a pharmacist for a cheaper, generic alternative. The judge also thought it was preposterous threw out the possession charges.

Still, it does seem to inidcate that they are aiming to be more punitive than they would normally be for any Sally, Jane or Mary who got caught for the same crime.

I don’t understand the defense. They are simulataneously claiming (a) she didn’t do it; and (b) she did it cuz she’s studying for a role.

Ummm… even for a “bad picture” it’s a pretty damn sheer little black dress, and any dress you can clearly see your underwear through is a stupid choice to make for a court appearance in front of a jury. I’m beginning to vote with the “she’s just an idiot” crowd.

I mean, it doesn’t look so sheer to me. That’s what I meant by bad picture-it doesn’t look sheer with the lighting.

Of course, I think Winona has proven herself lately to be a little off the beam.

If it wasn’t sheer though, it’d be cute-Audreyish.

Must…find…copy…of…this…tape…