Winona Ryder’s trial became even more embarrassing when the actress claimed she had been directed to shoplift to prepare for a role.
Is this a case of method acting gone horribly wrong, or yet another star using their status to gain leniency from a judge?
The facts point to the latter, and the jury agreed. Ryder was found guilty of grand theft and vandalism.
Ryder was on trial for stealing over $5,500 worth of merchandise from a Saks Fifth Avenue store in Beverly Hills.
The list of items that she stole reads like a “Twelve Days of Christmas” for kleptos: seven pairs of socks, four handbags, two tops, two hats, hair accessories and a Gucci dress.
If Ryder had actually been preparing for a role, then why didn’t she start out small?
How about a candy bar or some lipstick?
Why leave a heavily guarded store with pockets and bags bulging with clothes that are coincidentally in your size, with accessories to match?
There must be other ways to research shoplifting than actually committing the act.
Interviewing people who have been arrested shoplifting would have been easier than possibly spending three years in prison.
The fact is, Ryder is not that dedicated to her craft.
If director Joan Chen had asked her to contract a fatal illness to prepare for “Autumn in New York,” would she have done it?
Initially Ryder claimed that she assumed her assistant had paid for the merchandise.
I don’t know where she is accustomed to shopping, but if I buy something it is usually put into a bag before making the trip out of the store.
Not many people buy a handbag and leave the store with it around their neck and concealed by their coat.
Ryder’s excuses are nothing more that pathetic attempts to lay the blame on someone else.
It doesn’t change the fact that she was the one who committed the act of shoplifting.
The fact that Ryder is a celebrity does not permit her to neglect her responsibility to make sure that everything is paid for before she leaves a store.
Marea Kasten can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org