1920's Australian criminals, lady charged with stealing a fur coat
Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten
I've got a sneaking suspicion she's guilty...
(15 posts) (9 voices)
-
rikkor
offlineMemberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttering
She apparently had an utter disregard for the law. Better than muttering.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The All New Jeni B
offlineMemberFur coat and no knickers...
On a more serious note, never, ever, attempt to steal a fur coat from a department store, unless you look like you can afford it. The sight of a scruffy, unwashed, dishevelled street urchin in a full length sable is a bit of a give-away.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Son of Barnabas
offlineMemberIt might just have been that she was brought up by dingoes, who dressed her in the pelt of one of their victims. Then, when challenged by the store detective, she just couldn't explain herself (having not been taught to speak by the aforementioned dingoes) and simply made garbled vocal sounds, leading to a charge of stuttering. In short, this is a trumped up charge; there is no case to answer and she should be acquitted at once. I rest my case for the defence, M'lord.
Posted 1 year ago # -
waylandsmithy
offlineMemberI love that the court passed judgement on whether the women were currently, or had previously been, attractive.
That's just a little bit creepy, isn't it?
Amazing photography, though. A bit too good. Again, that's a bit creepy.
Posted 1 year ago # -
waylandsmithy
offlineMemberWere they not convicted of being 'a bit more criminal than normal'?
I haven't seen a test match on the telly. Or in real life.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.