Wynona Ryder in court 10/28/2002 (1 Viewer)

[RobertR]

What's up next tuesday?

(stated gingerly) Election Day.

 

[Patrick_S]

They had 8 lawyers working on this case as it approached trial.

With the number of lawyers they have working on this case you would have thought she had taken state secrets.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

you would have thought she had taken state secrets.

Only if the state was Victoria... ba da bing!

 

[Chris Tsutsui]

Wynona Ryder is kinda cute I think I want to Ryder. (SNL)

She obviously is a newbie when it comes to shoplifting. The educated shoplifter (hehe) not only doesn't get caught, but also will have a plan to get away even if they are caught. Then they add a Plan "B" if the above fails and perhaps have enough money saved to cover bail.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Not exactly the situation for her to have had a happy 30th birthday 10/29.....

 

[Ted Todorov]

There has been a lot of speculation that in this case her celebrity status is actually hurting her. After such famous failures as the Simpson case the DA really wants a win against a celebrity.

And of course with such boneheaded moves as allowing Peter Guber on the jury, the famous failures will only continue... What a joke -- the 2001 crime statistics for LA just came out an the murder rate is way up. Lets bust some movie stars for shop lifting -- that'll distract people from the real problems...

Ted

 

[Brian Perry]

Uh, in our system of justice Ryder doesn't have to present evidence to "cast doubt on her guilt" - the prosecution has to present evidence to PROVE her guilty. Until the jury rules otherwise she is innocent.

Even if the jury finds her not guilty, she is guilty in the court of public opinion based on the facts that have been presented thus far. I think it's better for us as a society to be able to call things as we see them rather than hide behind the nonsense of "innocent until proven guilty." That concept exists only in our legal system, and while it definitely serves a valid purpose, it should not limit our ability to think and have opinions. As someone mentioned in another thread, if we really presumed everyone to be innocent, no one would ever be arrested.

I agree that this case seems to be a waste of time when compared to other issues plaguing society, although it would be great if it put some fear into celebrities who seem to think they are above the law. There may or may not be other agendas at work. All I'm saying is that based on everything we've heard so far, it's impossible for her NOT to be guilty. She is not disputing that she left the store with unpaid items, which is the definition of shoplifting as far as I know. All the other crap about unfriendly security guards, directors instructing her to do it, credit card on file, etc. has nothing to do with whether she is guilty.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

rather than hide behind the nonsense of "innocent until proven guilty."

I disagree. This is the very basis of our society. If we throw this notion out the window, then we should have no problem with simply punishing anyone based on an accusation, true or not. Do we really want people just roaming around punishing anyone they think could be doing something they object to? I hope not. There is a reason we have a legal system.

If you need a reminder, perhaps you should visit the recent case of a driver in South Africa who was stoned to death and set on fire after running into a crowd of people and killing several of them. While the driver was surely guilty of his crime, those who killed him are just as guilty of criminal behaviour. It should be the courts and the rule of law that determine guilt, not some mob who don't have all the facts.

 

[Don Black]

I believe that the current DA won his election on a platform of "no special treatment for celebs." With the OJ fiasco compounding things, the whole case stinks of politics. My guess is that one of her jury peers will enable an acquittal and no one will be happy. The whole thing should have been plead out a long time ago.

 

[Brian Perry]

If you need a reminder, perhaps you should visit the recent case of a driver in South Africa who was stoned to death and set on fire after running into a crowd of people and killing several of them. While the driver was surely guilty of his crime, those who killed him are just as guilty of criminal behaviour. It should be the courts and the rule of law that determine guilt, not some mob who don't have all the facts.

Jeff,

The mob who killed the driver should definitely be punished to the max. Likewise, if Winona had been raped by the security guards after they caught her shoplifting, the guards would be in deep trouble. However, it wouldn't (or shouldn't) affect the question of her guilt.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

However, it wouldn't (or shouldn't) affect the question of her guilt.

No, it wouldn't - if she were proven guilty in a court of law. Trial by media is not a very good way to establish the truth. We'll see what the facts turn out to be. I do believe this charge is trumped up for someone in the DA's glory, rather than in the interests of serving the public good, guilty or not.

 

[Brian Perry]

Trial by media is not a very good way to establish the truth. We'll see what the facts turn out to be.

Jeff,
My point is that absent any new evidence or "facts," there is really nothing else to know. Ryder left the store with several expensive items that she had not paid for. She is not disputing this. I will even give her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't remove the pricetags (which is a huge benefit). If someone can suggest any possible reason to find her not guilty based on this evidence, I'd like to hear it. The "credit card on file" alibi seems pretty easy to either verify or shoot down.
I'm not saying she should get the electric chair if the jury finds her guilty. For all I care, they can find her guilty and she can be given 2 months of probation. But if they find her not guilty out of sympathy for how the guards may have treated her after the crime, that is just plain wrong.

 

[Don Black]

It may be wrong but the guards should be prosecuted as well then.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Why do I envision this getting finished next Monday? The headlines will say that she's guilty, just in time for the elections the next morning!

This is just way, way too funny. Can you see someone in the jury stalling so that it wil make Monday's headlines?

What a riot!

Glenn

 

[Adil M]

and she can be given 2 months of probation

(raises hand to volunteer)

 

[RobertR]

This whole thing is becoming a circus. I read a news report that focused on the see-through dress she wore to court, with details of the color of her underwear and one lawyer's fixation on her bra.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

This whole thing is becoming a circus.

Becoming? This was a sideshow from the get go. Any other similar case would have plea bargained for a lesser charge and be done with.

 

[Ted Todorov]

She is not disputing this.

Until and unless the prosecution proves something in a court of law Wynona isn't required to dispute squat, and indeed most defense lawyers prefer not tip their hand to the prosecution by presenting their case ahead of time.

Conversely, the prosecution is required to show their evidence to the defense before the trial, so they have nothing to gain by not talking to the press. They have done so in this case, trouble is they keep making untrue claims, like what was on the security video.

Ted

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I also find that for such a high profile case, the prosecution's witnesses are being made to look like complete idiots. First is the chief guard who is being made out to have a vendetta against Ryder, then the peeping investigator who can't keep her facts straight. Add this to the taped evidence (or lack thereof), and this looks to be heading for an aquittal.

 

[Brian Perry]

Until and unless the prosecution proves something in a court of law Wynona isn't required to dispute squat, and indeed most defense lawyers prefer not tip their hand to the prosecution by presenting their case ahead of time. Conversely, the prosecution is required to show their evidence to the defense before the trial

I could be wrong, but I believe the discovery process applies to both prosecution and defense. If, for example, the defense had some video tape of a security guard planting the price tags, I have a pretty good feeling that tape would have been shown to the DA already.

If there were reasonable, legitimate arguments in favor of Ryder, wouldn't it have been in her best interests to air them by now to avoid a trial? Or at the very least get some public sympathy? I don't know anyone who feels sorry for her (other than for possible kleptomania), primarily because she is refusing to admit the obvious. Put yourself in her position. Let's say that you indeed had an agreement with Saks that allowed you to "demo" any items of clothing at home, without getting prior permission, and that you were on your honor to return them or pay for them later. If there were ANY possibility of this being true, the DA wouldn't dare touch this case with a 10-ft. pole, because they'd be setting themselves up for huge embarrassment and a multi-million dollar countersuit.

In my eyes, the only way she is found not guilty is if her Hollywood friends on the jury, who shouldn't be there in the first place, decide to totally ignore the facts.

But I guess I'll take everyone's advice and wait until I hear all the surprising new "evidence" the defense is going to present.