L.A. NOW

Southern California -- this just in

« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »

Lindsay Lohan case: Authorities looking at earlier incident at jewelry store, possible motive

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2011-02/lindsay-lohan_59315445.jpg

Detectives investigating allegations that Lindsay Lohan stole a $2,500 necklace from a Venice jewelry store also examined claims that the actress tried to leave that same store with a pair of earrings, according to a law enforcement source.

Lohan was not charged in that earlier incident, which was cited in a police report, according to the source. A clerk the store noticed Lohan had the earrings on before the actress left the store, said the source.

Lohan Wednesday pleaded not guilty to felony grand theft charges of stealing the necklace in Airport Courthouse in Los Angeles before Superior Court Judge Keith L. Schwartz.

PHOTOS: Lindsay Lohan charged with felony grand theft

She posted a $40,000 bond and was released.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Danette Meyers asked that Lohan and her "agents" stay away from the store, which reported being "somewhat alarmed" at receiving flowers after the incident. The judge agreed and told the actress to stay away.

The judge on Wednesday admonished Lohan.

"You're in a different situation now that a felony has been filed against you," Schwartz told Lohan in court. "If you violate the law, I will remand you and set no bail and your attorney won't be successful this time. ... You need to follow the laws just like everybody else. ... You're no different than anyone else, so please don't push your luck."

PHOTOS: The trials and tribulations of Lindsay Lohan

The source said detectives have been trying to theorize why Lohan would want to take the necklace, which appears to be far less valuable than other jewelry the actress has worn. The court documents did not make reference to a motive.

RELATED:

Lohan gives DNA sample, posts bail

Lindsay Lohan pleads not guilty to felony grand theft

-- Richard Winton

Photo: Photographs and reporters swarm the Airport Courthouse as Lindsay Lohan arrives for a hearing on felony grand theft charges. Credit: Liz O. Baylen / Los Angeles Times

 
Comments () | Archives (33)

Thieves steal because they are thiefs. The value can be secondary.

So the 80 year old jewelry thief gets 5 years and Lindsay gets "boohoo"??

Quite a few comments in these recent LiLo articles suggest that she has already been given a pass in this latest incident. Why not wait until she has gone through the entire court process before you condemn the system? I agree that she has had more than her share of chances, but the legal process doesn't suddenly speed up for famous people just so the ravenous public can see an immediate result to satisfy their need for whatever they think justice is. ~ Oh, and if you don't think she's worth all the attention, what are you doing here, reading and possibly commenting about her? Yep, for the same reason everyone else is. She has your attention, whether you admit it or not. This circus is annoying, and it is her circus - but we're all eager to see the show.

Something is wrong with that girl.

She should be in jail! What an unfair justice system!

She did it because she knows her days as an actress are numbered (or already over!?!) She's just trying new things. Maybe she always wanted to be a jewelry thief...

This is classic sneak-thief behavior. If she is absent-minded she should have immediately admitted as much instead of concocting a preposterous story that the store loaned the necklace to her.

What a dufus this woman is, she can't even steal the top of the line stuff for heaven's sake. She should have consulted Winona first.

Tacky dress, tacky woman. No respect for the Court, or herself.

She would look better in a white prison jump suit! Wait, she is a hollyweird celebrity so that won't happen!

dingbat.

Ms. Lohan told the press that she wore that white dress to signify purity. She's kidding . . . right????

If everyone would simply realize that this gal is a classic "scatterbrain," nothing she does would come as a surprise. Lucky for her the California law for celebrities is "30 Strikes and You're Out."

Metro Mike: Blah-blah-blah! Easy dude. Don't get your panty's in a twist. The comments are merely entertainment.

It's simple - she's bored. Being an addict is exciting; you're either getting high, or looking for that next high. There's danger, there's chaos, there's drama. Sober life is boring - you have to go to work, you have to be responsible, you have to live an ordinary life.

She's an addict. She steals for the drama, for the thrill of it. Well, she's got drama now.

She's already getting leniency...

Consider the fact that she's already on probation. This charge would normally be considered a probation violation - enough for a judge to order jail time with no bail. The fact that she's being allowed free on bail is already a huge show of leniency by the judge. Any ordinary (non-celebrity) criminal would probably be sitting in county holding awaiting his/her trial.

Thats Hot

A sense of entitlement is a motive without morals.

Admittedly, I am a bit mystified by the facts. Obviously, Lohan had possession of the necklace and did not pay for it. Those facts do not create a per se felony. The question is whether there is any evidence at all that Lohann believed that the necklace was given or loaned to her.

Has or does this jewelry shop ever give or loan jewelry to celebrities? Of course, that does not answer the specifics of Lohan's case but if it is a common practice for them to give/loan jewelry to celebs it would seem a plausible possibility. If they never, ever, give/loan jewelry to a celeb -- well, some inferences can be drawn there.

The fact that Lohan had the necklace on her neck when she walked out of the strore (at least that is what i read) shows at least it was not hidden in a pocket or purse but COULD indicate Lohan's belief that her possession was legitimate. On the other hand, leaving with the necklace on could have been a shrewd attempt at theft because Lohan could then argue -- "but i had it on my neck - it was not hidden and was in plain cite". Under this scenario Lohan would hope no one noticed that Lohan had the necklace (a clean get away in Hollywood lingo) but if they did notice the theft in plane cite- Lohan had a defense).

Ah, what tangled webs LiLo weaves.

re: "but the legal process doesn't suddenly speed up for famous people" - umm, yes it does, from someone who knows

I bet you the jewelry store owner cant make the rent. Now they will get the rent money from Lohan.

killers get less attention from the law than this girl

it appears she's addled. her thinking process, such as it is, is skewed. sad in a way. crying out for help. no real parents to help her. she has to be held accountable for this, but sheesh, can't something be done to get her on the right road?

She may be whacky but she's still hot.

Why did she do it? Ask Winona Ryder.

 
1 2 | »

Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video

About L.A. Now
L.A. Now is the Los Angeles Times’ breaking news section for Southern California. It is produced by more than 80 reporters and editors in The Times’ Metro section, reporting from the paper’s downtown Los Angeles headquarters as well as bureaus in Costa Mesa, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, Ventura and West Los Angeles.
Have a story tip for L.A. Now?
Please send to newstips@latimes.com
Can I call someone with news?
Yes. The city desk number is (213) 237-7847.

Categories




Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: