Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Galapagos Islands -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (15734)	12/7/2002 3:01:31 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57110

hi lizzie.. my personal opinion is the judge was harder on her because she to this day has not accepted one bit of responsibility. not because she is wynona ryder, but because the defendant was arrogant in light of overhwhelming evidence. i mean for christ's sake, she signed a "confession" at the time, they have her on tape, witnesses....etc... let's face it....joe schmoe would have plead in light of the overwhelming evidence....but BECAUSE she is wynona ryder, and she has celebrity and money she went to the wall, costing tax payers who knows what. i think because of that the judge decided she deserved the full force of the law. and i agree with him. but most importantly for her sake...he ordered that she get some help with her drug addiction and counseling for whatever type of compulsive self destructive condition which drives her to steal. the quote that you cited is exactly right....she was "sensitive" about having a felony on her record...well you know what? you steal thousands of $$$ of merchandise..it is a FELONY...we have legal definitions for what constitutes the dollar amount for felonies. the prosecutor calls it "glorified".....well that was because of the dollar amount involved...i wonder if he would feel the same way about a "glorified" burglary in his home where thousands of dollars of his stuff was stolen? what she did was a felony. she could have plead and avoided this past year, but she chose to take her chances..... maybe, just maybe, she will get the help she truly needs from the counseling she will be required to have. will that happen? i don't have no idea....obviously if she is in denial surrounded by enablers, it's doubtful. and btw.. the reason that mosts shoplifting cases do not go to trial is that most people when caught plead guilty. she was quite poorly served by her attorney, imo.... maybe he was more interested in publicity for himself than the best interests of his client....obviously he knew the contents of her purse and the fact that all that information would become public should he lose. total hubris.