August 15, 2005 | celebrity | editor | 0 Comments

In 2002, Winona Ryder was convicted for shoplifting over 4000 dollars in clothes and merchandise from the Fred Segal store in Beverly Hills. And now, allegedly, she’s at it again. The source article for this seems to have been written a thousand years in the future when all languages on earth have melded into some insane gibberish, and since I can barely read to begin with, I’m basing this on a translation.

"(Ryder) walked out of the Los Angeles boutique Shabon with clothes worth 1100 dollars. 80 dollar boots were already on her feet, as well as a brand new belt around her waist. Just a few minutes earlier, she had pestered the shop assistant about a discount … when the discount was denied, she went without paying. Because of the security cameras, they could verify that the star had left the store without paying. Rie Fujii, the owner of Shabon, set up a deal with Ryder: the store would not report the incident to the police if Ryder herself paid the 1100$ within eight days. But she never did. Instead, Ryder's assistant contacted Shabon and paid the bill with her own credit card."

This is retarded for a billion different reasons, and I’ll let you decide on your favorite, but I’m going to settle on trying to be a shoplifter when you’re an instantly recognizable celebrity who people stare at wherever you go. And that doesn't even factor in her past. As far as attracting attention, Winona Ryder in a posh Los Angeles boutique would be like one of us going into a Wal-Mart in a fire suit, fully engulfed in flames, kicking and flailing our arms and then trying to steal a bike. 


Disclaimer: All rights reserved for writing and editorial content. No rights or credit claimed for any images featured on unless stated. If you own rights to any of the images because YOU ARE THE PHOTOGRAPHER and do not wish them to appear here, please contact us info(@) and they will be promptly removed. If you are a representative of the photographer, provide signed documentation in your query that you are acting on that individual's legal copyright holder status.


Related Post