BobbyD 2 Report post Posted February 9, 2011 Nancy Grace Can't Believe Lindsay Lohan Isn't in Jail By Rob Shuter Posted Feb 9th 2011 11:31AM Nancy Grace may not be surprised that Lindsay Lohan isn't behind bars right this second, but that doesn't mean she isn't infuriated by it. The 'Swift Justice' host and no-nonsense prosecutor tells me there's a "two-tier justice system" in place that affords celebs with a whole different set of rules. "I believe celebrities get into so much trouble because they think the rules don't apply to them," Nancy said. "It think it becomes instinct that they can do, say whatever they want, and there's no repercussions." The 'Mean Girls' star may actually have bitten off more than she can chew this time, and she's being charged with felony grand theft for allegedly swiping a $2,500 necklace from a jewelry store last month. A couple weeks after taking the necklace, a friend dropped it off at a police station, and Lindsay's dad told me he thought she was loaned the merchandise. Sketchy! "She's on video! She goes in the store without the necklace. She comes out with the necklace," she said, amazed. "I don't know about you, but when I make a return, it's directly to Target. I usually don't send it to the LAPD!" Nancy said the fact that Lindsay wasn't immediately "thrown down on the asphalt" outside the store and prosecuted within days of the incident is directly tied to her being a celebrity. "Let's just say you send a black girl into that same jewelry story, or an educated person or a poor person, they come away with a $2,500 necklace, honey, and they would be thrown down on the asphalt and dragged by their feet back into the store and prosecuted." If convicted, LiLo could be sent to a California state prison with a maximum sentence of three years behind bars. She's currently on supervised probation for a past drunk driving conviction, and the judge overseeing her case told her in October that she would be sent to jail for 180 days if she violated her probation rules before her next court appearance, which is set for Feb. 25. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alpierce 9 Report post Posted February 9, 2011 I believe she will avoid jail time, even if she did actually steal the necklace. This is LL and she gets out of this stuff all the time, often with the associated pr blitz that TMZ and other media outlets do to cover this. I'd be curious to know if this would affect her negatively or not in the eyes of fans not associated with fanchitchat (I think we can be pretty jaded when we hear this stuff). Anyone think she will get a tv show or possibly a movie out of this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fykeylicious 1,099 Report post Posted February 9, 2011 I believe she will avoid jail time, even if she did actually steal the necklace. This is LL and she gets out of this stuff all the time, often with the associated pr blitz that TMZ and other media outlets do to cover this. I'd be curious to know if this would affect her negatively or not in the eyes of fans not associated with fanchitchat (I think we can be pretty jaded when we hear this stuff). Anyone think she will get a tv show or possibly a movie out of this? I don't think she'll get a show or movie out of this -- I don't think anyone in Hollywood takes her seriously anymore -- but I do think she'll avoid prison YET AGAIN. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maxiemom 623 Report post Posted February 9, 2011 My understanding of what it means to be on probation is that you can't even get caught jaywalking without being in a buttload of trouble. The February 25th hearing should be interesting. I have become super jaded after watching her walk over and over and over again. Even the "harshest" punishment wasn't very harsh. I'll believe it when I see it - money really can buy everything. See, that's where I'm getting confused where Lindsay's concerned. What money does she have at this point? And what (other than getting arrested) has she really done of late to remain relevant? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alpierce 9 Report post Posted February 9, 2011 Nancy Grace Can't Believe Lindsay Lohan Isn't in Jail By Rob Shuter Posted Feb 9th 2011 11:31AM Nancy Grace may not be surprised that Lindsay Lohan isn't behind bars right this second, but that doesn't mean she isn't infuriated by it. The 'Swift Justice' host and no-nonsense prosecutor tells me there's a "two-tier justice system" in place that affords celebs with a whole different set of rules. "I believe celebrities get into so much trouble because they think the rules don't apply to them," Nancy said. "It think it becomes instinct that they can do, say whatever they want, and there's no repercussions." The 'Mean Girls' star may actually have bitten off more than she can chew this time, and she's being charged with felony grand theft for allegedly swiping a $2,500 necklace from a jewelry store last month. A couple weeks after taking the necklace, a friend dropped it off at a police station, and Lindsay's dad told me he thought she was loaned the merchandise. Sketchy! "She's on video! She goes in the store without the necklace. She comes out with the necklace," she said, amazed. "I don't know about you, but when I make a return, it's directly to Target. I usually don't send it to the LAPD!" Nancy said the fact that Lindsay wasn't immediately "thrown down on the asphalt" outside the store and prosecuted within days of the incident is directly tied to her being a celebrity. "Let's just say you send a black girl into that same jewelry story, or an educated person or a poor person, they come away with a $2,500 necklace, honey, and they would be thrown down on the asphalt and dragged by their feet back into the store and prosecuted." If convicted, LiLo could be sent to a California state prison with a maximum sentence of three years behind bars. She's currently on supervised probation for a past drunk driving conviction, and the judge overseeing her case told her in October that she would be sent to jail for 180 days if she violated her probation rules before her next court appearance, which is set for Feb. 25. I'm pretty sure Grace has said this to LL at some party or club only the specials can get into and both agreed yeah that will make for a good magazine or web article. Both get their name out there and everybody wins! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
annabeast 24 Report post Posted February 9, 2011 As far as her career, it's GOT to be over, unless someone is, as Neil Patrick Harris so aptly put it, "stunt casting." She's a circus act now. She would be hired for the mere purpose of attracting gawkers. She couldn't even hold onto her soft-porn gig! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobbyD 2 Report post Posted February 9, 2011 Sadly...I don't think her career is over. Even if she goes to jail, even if she continues this deviant behavior. Someone will step in and still hire her...indie projects. But she will be hired. It's a business where having a prison record, drug problems, don't matter. She's also young. I have to repeat what I hear from my co-workers when they say, look at RDJ and Charlie Sheen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
annabeast 24 Report post Posted February 9, 2011 Sadly...I don't think her career is over. Even if she goes to jail, even if she continues this deviant behavior. Someone will step in and still hire her...indie projects. But she will be hired. It's a business where having a prison record, drug problems, don't matter. She's also young. I have to repeat what I hear from my co-workers when they say, look at RDJ and Charlie Sheen. I dunno, Bobby. It's the old double-standard. Charlie Sheen is on a television show that basically glamorizes his behavior, and RDJ has a human appeal that Lindsay entirely lacks. And I doubt indies pay what Lindsay needs. I've said it before: look at Dana Plato. You legal eagles out there: any chance LL could be tossed in the slammer today? Or will it have to wait until Feb 25 if it happens? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
annabeast 24 Report post Posted February 9, 2011 You know, it's easy to forget the sequence of events. Was it failed drug test- UCLA - failed drug test - jail - failed drug test - Betty Ford - felony? They need to test her ass daily. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobbyD 2 Report post Posted February 9, 2011 I dunno, Bobby. It's the old double-standard. Charlie Sheen is on a television show that basically glamorizes his behavior, and RDJ has a human appeal that Lindsay entirely lacks. And I doubt indies pay what Lindsay needs. I've said it before: look at Dana Plato. You legal eagles out there: any chance LL could be tossed in the slammer today? Or will it have to wait until Feb 25 if it happens? Great analogy about Dana Plato..but her career was over long before she got put in the slammer and eventually succumbed to her demons (not in the prime of her career). She only had Different Strokes. Lindsay has more credits...the experts constantly say she has more talent and was very marketable as well...not just a TV actress with one hit show. She was in Mean Girls and Freaky Friday...with decent performances. There are directors/producers out there who are still willing to put her in movies(Tarantino admitted it...Joel Silver, Robert Rodriguez (Machette) Sure she may have to take a pay cut for indie flicks and get some heavy insurance...but that doesn't mean she's done. She also can do Dancing With The Stars or a Reality show (Dr. Drew)...don't forget those werer actual offers she had gotten. So it's a much wider media base then what Dana Plato had during her time...if she was still alive today, she probably would've wound up on Celebrity Rehab. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dixiedoodah 1,004 Report post Posted February 9, 2011 And... despite a lot of tough talk from the judge, she is already out on bail. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobbyD 2 Report post Posted February 10, 2011 Judge CRUSHES Lohan -- 'Don't Push Your Luck!' 2/9/2011 2:07 PM PST by TMZ Staff Lindsay Lohan was just remanded into custody -- following a STRONG warning from Judge Keith Schwartz -- "You're no different than anyone else ... please don't push your luck." Moments after Lohan entered a not guilty plea in her felony theft case -- the judge came down on her like a ton of bricks ... telling her "things will be different" this time around because she's on the hook for a felony. During the hearing, Judge Schwartz said Lindsay's lawyer, Shawn Chapman Holley, and prosecutor Danette Meyers, were going to meet to possibly reach a plea bargain. Lohan -- alongside attorney Holley -- was then remanded into custody ... and is currently being booked. Judge Schwartz set her bail at $20,000 -- but warned, "If you violate the law, I will remand you and there will be NO BAIL." The judge also revoked Lindsay's probation in the DUI case and set bail at $20,000 -- so total bail is $40,000. Lohan was also ordered to refrain from contacting the jewelry store during the case, after Meyers said someone had sent the store owners flowers, which kind of freaked them out. UPDATE 2:48 PM PT: Lindsay has posted bail. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobbyD 2 Report post Posted February 10, 2011 The arrival and hearing: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kath 153 Report post Posted February 10, 2011 please don't push your luck." Ummmm... Isn't it a bit late for that warning?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobbyD 2 Report post Posted February 10, 2011 Lindsay Police Report Pokes Holes In Jeweler's Story 2/10/2011 6:08 AM PST by TMZ Staff -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The police report detailing how Lindsay Lohan allegedly stole a $2,500 necklace from an L.A. jewelry store shows two puzzling inconsistencies in the jeweler's story -- inconsistencies that could help Lindsay beat the rap. According to the report, obtained by TMZ, the jeweler first told cops Lindsay had been in the store three times before the alleged theft -- looking at the necklace in question. The next day, the jeweler changed her story and said it was actually a ring Lindsay had been eyeing on previous visits and never looked at the necklace. And there's another inconsistency. According to the report, on January 23, the owner told cops, "The surveillance video revealed that as Kaman [owner] was talking to Lindsay's male friend, Lohan reached up to her neck area with both hands, removed the store necklace, and placed it inside her black Chanel bag." But the next day, the owner changed her story, saying Lindsay walked out of her store with the necklace around her neck. The reason for the inconsistency -- the owner claims she reviewed the video on a different monitor the second time and saw it differently. The jewelry store owner's credibility is crucial because Lindsay claims the owner loaned the necklace to her. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
annabeast 24 Report post Posted February 11, 2011 Lindsay Police Report Pokes Holes In Jeweler's Story 2/10/2011 6:08 AM PST by TMZ Staff -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The police report detailing how Lindsay Lohan allegedly stole a $2,500 necklace from an L.A. jewelry store shows two puzzling inconsistencies in the jeweler's story -- inconsistencies that could help Lindsay beat the rap. According to the report, obtained by TMZ, the jeweler first told cops Lindsay had been in the store three times before the alleged theft -- looking at the necklace in question. The next day, the jeweler changed her story and said it was actually a ring Lindsay had been eyeing on previous visits and never looked at the necklace. And there's another inconsistency. According to the report, on January 23, the owner told cops, "The surveillance video revealed that as Kaman [owner] was talking to Lindsay's male friend, Lohan reached up to her neck area with both hands, removed the store necklace, and placed it inside her black Chanel bag." But the next day, the owner changed her story, saying Lindsay walked out of her store with the necklace around her neck. The reason for the inconsistency -- the owner claims she reviewed the video on a different monitor the second time and saw it differently. The jewelry store owner's credibility is crucial because Lindsay claims the owner loaned the necklace to her. Okay, there may be a REMOTE possibility that she accidentally forgot to take the necklace off. BUT she had to have realized she had it at some point. And there had to have been at least one, but most likely several, attempts by the jewelry store to contact her to get it back. I think it will be interesting to see if she sticks with the "my stylist forgot to return it." That would require someone (other than just Hohan) to perjure themselves in court. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
schumibabe 0 Report post Posted February 13, 2011 From TMZ: Lindsay Lohan: Bad Jewelry = Good Defense to Felony 2/12/2011 1:00 AM PST by TMZ Staff -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lindsay Lohan's bad taste in jewelry could be the key to her defense, because according to TMZ's research, the necklace in question may not have enough value to constitute felony grand theft. In order to charge a defendant with a felony, the item in question must have a fair market value of more than $950. Kamofie & Company was selling the necklace for $2,500. But we checked with three prominent jewelers in L.A., and they claim the price tag is grossly inflated. The jewelers asked us not to identify their stores by name, but here's their assessment of the item. We gave them information from the necklace designer, who told TMZ it was comprised of 8.84 carats of natural, untreated yellow diamonds. -- A Santa Monica jeweler told us the necklace is "a dime a dozen," and he wouldn't think of selling it for more than $1,000. -- A downtown L.A. jeweler says if the item is retailing for $2,500, it means "the stone is cheap," adding, "It's most likely an industrial-type diamond, not gem quality." He says the necklace is worth no more than $900. -- A San Fernando Valley jeweler says, "I don't believe this necklace has 8 carats of diamonds. It's so thin." She says the chain would sell in the jewelry district of downtown L.A. for $800 tops -- and probably less. Under California law, if the necklace is worth $950 or less, Lindsay could only be charged with petty theft, a misdemeanor. The maximum penalty is 6 months in L.A. County Jail -- and with jail overcrowding she's looking at a short stint. If Lindsay's lawyer, Shawn Chapman Holley can convince the judge that the necklace is cheap, Lindsay could dodge the biggest bullet yet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alpierce 9 Report post Posted February 13, 2011 I'd be willing to bet there is alot more to this then we know about, but that it suits TMZ's purposes to call LL a thief. Far be it for me to actually defend the girl. It's just that we hear a bit more of the story as time goes on and my cynical brain is calling bulls&*t. I think there was a business relationship between these two and it somehow fell through. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hihomumio 168 Report post Posted February 13, 2011 (edited) What seals it for me is that this isn't the first time she's been called a thief, nor the second time. It's at least the third time, maybe there are other times too that I don't know about nor care to search out. Where there's smoke, there's fire...and just because you are a celebrity and feel it's okay to take whatever you want, it's not. It's still theft. I don't care if the necklace is worth thousands of dollars or not. She's a thief, she willfully took something that didn't belong to her. Even if she isn't charged with a felony, she's still once again gotten herself into trouble and that's yet another probation violation. This girl needs some jail time IMO. It's the only way to treat criminals like herself. Edited February 13, 2011 by Hihomumio Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maxiemom 623 Report post Posted February 13, 2011 "Fair market value" is defined as the price that a reasonable buyer would pay to a reasonable seller without force of duress. I would think that if the jewelry store can demonstrate that they had sold an identical necklace for $2,500 that they can defend $2,500 as an appropriate fair market value, though I add my usual disclaimer that I am not an attorney nor do I play one on TV. The challenge with this particular case is that inflated price tags are standard industry practice and things rarely sell for retail, as the three quoted jewelers point out. I expect that Kamofie & Company's sales records are being audited with IRS precision in order to settle that question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
annabeast 24 Report post Posted February 14, 2011 Great. The victim gets victimized. Nice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fykeylicious 1,099 Report post Posted February 14, 2011 I just read that the judge just got removed from the case...Shawn Chapman Holley must be a friggin MAGICIAN, man. Lindsay better give up her firstborn as payment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hihomumio 168 Report post Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) Well, apparently there are many in Hollywood who also think she's a thief given the laughter after David Letterman read his Top 10 Surprises at the Grammy Awards. No. 10? "Lindsay Lohan seen leaving the Staples Center with a Grammy-shaped bulge" . Edited February 14, 2011 by Hihomumio Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
annabeast 24 Report post Posted February 15, 2011 Well, apparently there are many in Hollywood who also think she's a thief given the laughter after David Letterman read his Top 10 Surprises at the Grammy Awards. No. 10? "Lindsay Lohan seen leaving the Staples Center with a Grammy-shaped bulge" . Except that wouldn't be a surprise! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
princess 1,712 Report post Posted February 15, 2011 Lindsay Prosecutor: We Believe It's a $2,500 Necklace 2/15/2011 12:45 AM PST by TMZ Staff The prosecutor in the Lindsay Lohan shoplifting case believes the necklace in question is worth $2,500 ... but she's open to hearing arguments from Lindsay's lawyer that the price tag is grossly inflated. TMZ broke the story ... several jewelers claim the market value of the necklace is anywhere between $800 and $1,000. Under California law, if the item in question is worth $950 or less, the case must be filed as a misdemeanor, not a felony. Deputy D.A. Danette Meyers tells TMZ, "If Shawn (Lindsay's lawyer) presents me with credible evidence of value, we will take a look at it. But based upon what's in front of us -- what the store owner and designer said -- the necklace is worth $2,500." Meyers adds, ultimately "It's a battle for the jury." So if everyone is freaking out about the value of the necklace, they know she stole it.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
