Premium
This is an archive article published on November 10, 2002

Did her dress kill her case?

One has to wonder if Winona Ryder’s stylish courtroom appearances worked against her. The moral distinction between right and wrong apa...

.

One has to wonder if Winona Ryder’s stylish courtroom appearances worked against her. The moral distinction between right and wrong apart, Ryder looked splendid throughout the trial.

Yet, with her style so self-assured, with her clothes so obviously of-the-moment, with her public presentation so clearly of the pampered-princess ilk, could it be that even for a Beverly Hills jury Ryder was just a tad too well put together? Did they sense in her an attempt at manipulative wardrobing so slick that it backfired?

Ryder favoured softly flowing skirts — nothing tight or too fitted — and delicate details such as lace and embroidery. Her ensembles announced — loudly and repeatedly — her delicacy, fragility and innocence.

Story continues below this ad

Over time such declarations can become off-putting and suspicious. The list of stolen items was filled with curiosities and revelations.

At $80 a pair, Donna Karan’s cashmere socks are overpriced. Selling a headband by celebrity hairstylist Frederic Fekkai for $140 is highway robbery. Even if Ryder preferred not to address the accusation that she happened to have a pair of scissors that had mysteriously wiggled its way into her bags, she should have been required to explain why anyone would bother with purple Calvin Klein socks or a $350 beret. There were four handbags on the list of stolen goods.Not surprising, given that at each court appearance Ryder carried a different handbag. (LATWP)

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement