Lindsay Lohan: Wanted Fugitive

What has happened to "innocent till proven guilty"?

I'm no Lohan fan, but you all seem frighteningly quick to conclude that she stole the necklace, without seeing/hearing/reading any evidence of the alleged crime.

What gives, fellow skeptics?
 
Dragonrock said:
She should move to Austin. Her behavior would be completely normal there.
Click to expand...

And what is this supposed to mean? That Austin is a hotbed of drug addiction and alcohol abuse? Can you cite some evidence to back this up, or were you just insulting an entire city based on your own irrational prejudices?
 
Vortigern99 said:
What has happened to "innocent till proven guilty"?

I'm no Lohan fan, but you all seem frighteningly quick to conclude that she stole the necklace, without seeing/hearing/reading any evidence of the alleged crime.

What gives, fellow skeptics?
Click to expand...

Well, generally people do not plea bargain unless the prosecution has some pretty strong evidence against them.......

And we are not discussing the criminality of what Lohan did, as it's stupidity. And even if it was not intentional theft, walking out of a jewelry store with a necklace without paying for it is really,really, stupid.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Hell, she is trying to out do Ryder. Ryder was only a Misdeameanor bust, but Lohan has managed A Felony.
Click to expand...

dudalb said:
Well, generally people do not plea bargain unless the prosecution has some pretty strong evidence against them.......

And we are not discussing the criminality of what Lohan did, as it's stupidity. And even if it was not intentional theft, walking out of a jewelry store with a necklace without paying for it is really,really, stupid.
Click to expand...

One of these things is not like the other.
 
Vortigern99 said:
What has happened to "innocent till proven guilty"?

I'm no Lohan fan, but you all seem frighteningly quick to conclude that she stole the necklace, without seeing/hearing/reading any evidence of the alleged crime.

What gives, fellow skeptics?
Click to expand...

This is not a court of law. We can assume that she probably did it unless you think it is equally probable that the jewelry store/LAPD made up the whole thing to frame poor Lindsay Lohan.
 
Dtugg:

Fair point, but this is a skeptics' forum. This community looks unfavorably upon assuming anything without solid foundation in fact, as opposed to supposition or accusation.

What evidence do you have, apart from that a charge has been filed, that she committed the crime?

(Also, I noted that you initially wrote "jury store" instead of "jewelry store". Freudian slip, much? ;))
 
Last edited:
Isn't summer the Lindsey Lohan implosion season? These scheduling liberties are going to make my whole year wonky.
 
Vortigern99 said:
Dtugg:

Fair point, but this is a skeptics' forum. This community looks unfavorably upon assuming anything without solid foundation in fact, as opposed to supposition or accusation.

What evidence do you have, apart from that a charge has been filed, that she committed the crime?

(Also, I noted that you initially wrote "jury store" instead of "jewelry store". Freudian slip, much? ;))
Click to expand...

Granted, we don't know anything besides new reports, but given the nature of the alleged crime (either she walked out of the store with the necklace or not, probably not hard to prove with the almost certainty the store has security cameras), that somehow the necklace miraculously materialized right before the search warrant was executed, and that I found it doubtful that the LAPD/DA would pursue charges against a rich celebrity without evidence, I think that Occam's Razor suggests that she probably did it.

Now, if I was on the jury, I wouldn't convict unless the state proved the case. I found it doubtful that it will go to that though. I bet she plea bargains to a misdemeanor.
 
Fair enough. I think the point has been worth raising, at least, given that earlier posts on the matter were not making those kinds of distinctions.

And while it might be valid that "Occam's Razor suggests she did it", we certainly don't have all the facts to be able to sift what is plausible from what is not.

One possibility that springs to mind is that Lohan meant to apply the price of the necklace to her store account, or else intended to have her assistant do so, but one or both of them forgot to follow through with this.

There might have been some miscommunication, or other snafu, which the store is exploiting to its advantage in the media.

Again, I'm not a Lohan fan, I only think it's prudent to reserve judgment until we have the facts of the case.
 
dtugg said:
Granted, we don't know anything besides new reports, but given the nature of the alleged crime (either she walked out of the store with the necklace or not, probably not hard to prove with the almost certainty the store has security cameras), that somehow the necklace miraculously materialized right before the search warrant was executed, and that I found it doubtful that the LAPD/DA would pursue charges against a rich celebrity without evidence, I think that Occam's Razor suggests that she probably did it.

Now, if I was on the jury, I wouldn't convict unless the state proved the case. I found it doubtful that it will go to that though. I bet she plea bargains to a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

I heard a lawyer say that a conviction in a theft case requires the prosecution to show that the suspect intended to steal the necklace. If L.L. were simply absent minded and did walk out with the necklace (which is possible in that she walked in with some necklaces and took them off to try on this necklace) then she did not commit felony theft.
 
Ladewig said:
I heard a lawyer say that a conviction in a theft case requires the prosecution to show that the suspect intended to steal the necklace. If L.L. were simply absent minded and did walk out with the necklace (which is possible in that she walked in with some necklaces and took them off to try on this necklace) then she did not commit felony theft.
Click to expand...

Her lawyer is free to argue this in front of a jury, I dunno if I would buy it though. If you accidentally took a necklace from a store would you keep until the cops were about to bust down your door?
 
Vortigern99 said:
What has happened to "innocent till proven guilty"?

I'm no Lohan fan, but you all seem frighteningly quick to conclude that she stole the necklace, without seeing/hearing/reading any evidence of the alleged crime.

What gives, fellow skeptics?
Click to expand...

The necklace was no longer in the store. The store owner did not have the money for it. If it was some sort of misunderstanding, surely Lindsay can point to the contract they had that allowed her to borrow it. Can't she? Ooops!
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
The necklace was no longer in the store. The store owner did not have the money for it. If it was some sort of misunderstanding, surely Lindsay can point to the contract they had that allowed her to borrow it. Can't she? Ooops!
Click to expand...

Theoretically, it might have been a case where a third party unknowingly put the necklace on L.L. before she walked out. That would account for all the facts in evidence and still allow her to be innocent.

I am going to somewhat agree with Vortigern99. It would be more appropriate to use the word allegedly when discussing the matter.
 
Last edited:
dtugg said:
Her lawyer is free to argue this in front of a jury, I dunno if I would buy it though. If you accidentally took a necklace from a store would you keep until the cops were about to bust down your door?
Click to expand...

This. It is possible she was trying one on and forgot and walked out with it. If this is the case, then she would have noticed it, at the latest, when she was taking her jewelry off at bedtime. In which case, she should have been at the front door of the store the nest morning when they opened. She did not do that.
 
It is also possible that LL had a verbal agreement with someone that she believed to be authorized to allow the necklace to be borrowed.

Or that she believed she was in a verbal agreement due to a miscommunication.

The light fingers scenario is also plausible, but in court it must be proven and even in general discussion it is far from the only reasonable scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom