ADVERTISEMENT

Wednesday Mugshots

sdhoosier

All-Big Ten
Dec 21, 2001
4,242
8,939
113
So Calif
Don't worry AOTFer's, next time you are arrested you don't have to worry about that embarrassingly bad mugshot...this group shows that if you are naturally attractive or even just put a nice smile on your face, you too can have a mugshot to be proud of!

p.s. Ok, I did throw a couple of bad mugshots in there for entertainment value.



Pills

78VmG5Yl.jpg






















Theft






Drinking
6yaM1tLl.jpg






Bad teacher
hipAYNEmZEA0MHQfcgr2iI140Fl9wJwuGDMcsJneaRU.jpg






Grand theft
aym5rdovvpa01.png






Failure to appear
CUkbrRIl.jpg






K4opVx64qC1ux2mHmlsCTSp-OtasKTU8Dv1L0mPaec4.png







Old school
Tyfs7HAZgueq_ax5od--ky0-nzqVFOTYd3ZRSw0cm1c.jpg






Uhhh...fighting?
e07nkHAuAf6jhZcFp26Mu7zlQCVUYQYiZHfpV18Mrno.jpg






fo1lRPdyFVa2MEXfAIiTROP75hN0XhWWH6pByJT07FE.jpg






Phone sales
o4TcLlTgmzNjjn6-lgdp1Q84rP1ph_W0IhsEc3nivJY.jpg






Drugs?
DjE3wCfw-43z87sCMqGIdW-UvRPMvh7JrtkAaRGWEH8.jpg








G3Gr4pcOSNFz78fFJQO3ToA_7zPnAnq3D4PmU9Cbp_w.jpg








y1t3Ql1OQAYYCAuq1qvumATEmkfGprTAL8CH7aL38Hc.jpg









Prostitution and possession of marijuana
g7yVXH3hERnnAmefthlJKQBrKWwCyuN5KB41eZux8Sg.jpg








h-photo-u1








h-photo-u1






Hoping For A Hung Jury

h-photo-u1

 
Don't worry AOTFer's, next time you are arrested you don't have to worry about that embarrassingly bad mugshot...this group shows that if you are naturally attractive or even just put a nice smile on your face, you too can have a mugshot to be proud of!

p.s. Ok, I did throw a couple of bad mugshots in there for entertainment value.



Pills

78VmG5Yl.jpg






















Theft






Drinking
6yaM1tLl.jpg






Bad teacher
hipAYNEmZEA0MHQfcgr2iI140Fl9wJwuGDMcsJneaRU.jpg






Grand theft
aym5rdovvpa01.png






Failure to appear
CUkbrRIl.jpg






K4opVx64qC1ux2mHmlsCTSp-OtasKTU8Dv1L0mPaec4.png







Old school
Tyfs7HAZgueq_ax5od--ky0-nzqVFOTYd3ZRSw0cm1c.jpg






Uhhh...fighting?
e07nkHAuAf6jhZcFp26Mu7zlQCVUYQYiZHfpV18Mrno.jpg






fo1lRPdyFVa2MEXfAIiTROP75hN0XhWWH6pByJT07FE.jpg






Phone sales
o4TcLlTgmzNjjn6-lgdp1Q84rP1ph_W0IhsEc3nivJY.jpg






Drugs?
DjE3wCfw-43z87sCMqGIdW-UvRPMvh7JrtkAaRGWEH8.jpg








G3Gr4pcOSNFz78fFJQO3ToA_7zPnAnq3D4PmU9Cbp_w.jpg








y1t3Ql1OQAYYCAuq1qvumATEmkfGprTAL8CH7aL38Hc.jpg









Prostitution and possession of marijuana
g7yVXH3hERnnAmefthlJKQBrKWwCyuN5KB41eZux8Sg.jpg








h-photo-u1








h-photo-u1






Hoping For A Hung Jury

h-photo-u1

It's silly to tie up our court system with these types of cases. If I can have all cases involving hot women directed to me, I promise to give them a very stern and thorough bare-bottom over my knee spanking, again and again, until they apologize and do as I say for their punishment.
 
Last edited:
Better than the mugshot texted to me about half a dozen times this past weekend. Someone I knew from high school was arrested and was the scandal of the week. It didn't make the local paper, but people were sending the mugshot from a TV station report.

I'm curious.. If you take money ($20,000+) from a not for profit organization, can you avoid jail if you are able to make restitution? Does the organization have any input or does the legal system take over once the crime is reported?
 
Better than the mugshot texted to me about half a dozen times this past weekend. Someone I knew from high school was arrested and was the scandal of the week. It didn't make the local paper, but people were sending the mugshot from a TV station report.

I'm curious.. If you take money ($20,000+) from a not for profit organization, can you avoid jail if you are able to make restitution? Does the organization have any input or does the legal system take over once the crime is reported?
If you beat the crap out of someone, but graciously offer to pay his medical bills, do you think you could still be prosecuted for assault? Think about it and I think you'll have your answer. (A crime is a crime.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUgradman
If you beat the crap out of someone, but graciously offer to pay his medical bills, do you think you could still be prosecuted for assault? Think about it and I think you'll have your answer. (A crime is a crime.)

If you offer to pay their medical bills? No. If you offer to give them a pile of money to pay their medical bills out of and compensate them for their pain and suffering? Happens every day!
 
  • Like
Reactions: hookyIU1990
If you beat the crap out of someone, but graciously offer to pay his medical bills, do you think you could still be prosecuted for assault? Think about it and I think you'll have your answer. (A crime is a crime.)
I don't think it is the same. Money can be returned. You can't take back a beating or a murder.

It seems there are crimes that people spend little to no time in jail. House arrest and restitution seems reasonable
 
If you offer to pay their medical bills? No. If you offer to give them a pile of money to pay their medical bills out of and compensate them for their pain and suffering? Happens every day!
It happens the way you said to settle a lawsuit, but I'm pretty sure it remains a prosecutor's decision whether to prosecute the crime. The victim of the crime does not have final authority to prosecute, reduce charges, plea bargain etc. in the criminal case, though prosecutors sometimes listen to the victim's wishes.

Hell, there was a notable case in central Indiana about a month ago where the victim's family was mad because the prosecutor didn't prosecute the way they wanted.
 
I don't think it is the same. Money can be returned. You can't take back a beating or a murder.

It seems there are crimes that people spend little to no time in jail. House arrest and restitution seems reasonable
Sorry, but theft is theft. Paying it back doesn't change the fact that theft already occurred -- it's still offensive and repugnant to the victim. If the prosecutor wants to prosecute, I'm very sure the defendant can't just say, "I'm innocent of stealing that money last year, because I paid it back yesterday."
 
It happens the way you said to settle a lawsuit, but I'm pretty sure it remains a prosecutor's decision whether to prosecute the crime. The victim of the crime does not have final authority to prosecute, reduce charges, plea bargain etc. in the criminal case, though prosecutors sometimes listen to the victim's wishes.

Hell, there was a notable case in central Indiana about a month ago where the victim's family was mad because the prosecutor didn't prosecute the way they wanted.

who testifies?
 
who testifies?
Whoever gets subpoenaed.

There are been cases in the past involving battered wives who call the police and file charges against their husbands but then try to back out of testifying at trial only to find that the prosecutor is making them testify anyway after taking the time and effort arresting the husband and preparing for the trial. It's a tough situation but the prosecutor calls the shots, not the victim.
 
Old School chic...guessing she was in for murder? She looks crazy as hell.

You asked for it C&C, I found this:

The other day in my Facebook group, vintage mugshot photography, someone posted the 1967 mugshot of a woman identified on the photograph as “Carol L. Andrews.” The image has become a sort of Internet meme and digital photo tools were used, at some point, to change the name on her mugshot to “Donna Lethal.” Makes sense, because if looks could kill…

As Donna, she’s been accused of shoplifting at a dollar store, having a felonious Chiclets habit and being the teen victim of a pedophilic teacher, among other things.

What’s the true story behind the mugshot that’s captured the imagination of so many people? I did some research to try to find out why the Minneapolis police photographed Carol and what happened to her.

The unaltered mugshot is a real one that was taken in Minneapolis, Minnesota, when Carol was five days from turning 22. She was 5 feet 6 inches tall and a slender 125 pounds.

Carol and another woman, identified as “Sherrie La Mere” were arrested at 11:50 p.m. on October 17, 1967, in a Minneapolis parking lot on suspicion of being prostitutes. Apparently both women gave the police non-existent home addresses. Carol had been arrested previously — her mugshot is dated July 10, 1967.

The two ladies were held in jail without charge until 5 p.m. the following day. The women’s attorney argued at their hearing that a Minneapolis city law regarding prostitution, which carried a milder penalty — a maximum of 90 days in jail or $100 fine — should take precedence over a new, harsher state law. The 1967 state law carried a punishment of one year in jail or a $1000 fine.

“This new law is one of the tools I need to accomplish my job,” said James O’Meara, supervisor of the Minneapolis police morals squad. “Having it to back us up can make the difference as the whether or not we have an influx of prostitutes and panderers every year, who bring with them narcotics, assaults, forgeries and robberies. Prostitution breeds felonies.”

The Minneapolis Star, October 20, 1967

Carol and Sherrie were both charged with a “gross misdemeanor” under the state law. They were two of only five Minneapolis women who were charged under the harsher state law between July and October of 1967. During the same time period 31 women were charged under the milder city law.

Carol’s bond was set at $1,000 and her hearing was scheduled for November 8th. She was found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail, as was the woman she was arrested with, whose name was reported as “Sherrie L. Taylor.”

What happened to Carol after she got out of jail is anyone’s guess. Was Carol Andrews actually her name, or was it an alias? There was no subsequent newspaper reference to a “Carol Andrews” who was arrested in Minnesota for any reason.

The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the “get tough” prostitution law in June 1968. As part of the opinion, Justice Oscar Knutson, said that prosecutors could use “some selectivity” in deciding what charges to bring against a suspect, as long as they had “reasonable ground” for it.


And here's another one for the women:

elvis-presley-mug-shot-mugshot-denver-1970-police-badge.jpg
 
Whoever gets subpoenaed.

There are been cases in the past involving battered wives who call the police and file charges against their husbands but then try to back out of testifying at trial only to find that the prosecutor is making them testify anyway after taking the time and effort arresting the husband and preparing for the trial. It's a tough situation but the prosecutor calls the shots, not the victim.

I'm not saying it's not legal, but the lack of a cooperative witness I am guessing makes any chance of prosecution, far, far less likely, to the point I believe it rarely happens.
 
You asked for it C&C, I found this:

The other day in my Facebook group, vintage mugshot photography, someone posted the 1967 mugshot of a woman identified on the photograph as “Carol L. Andrews.” The image has become a sort of Internet meme and digital photo tools were used, at some point, to change the name on her mugshot to “Donna Lethal.” Makes sense, because if looks could kill…

As Donna, she’s been accused of shoplifting at a dollar store, having a felonious Chiclets habit and being the teen victim of a pedophilic teacher, among other things.

What’s the true story behind the mugshot that’s captured the imagination of so many people? I did some research to try to find out why the Minneapolis police photographed Carol and what happened to her.

The unaltered mugshot is a real one that was taken in Minneapolis, Minnesota, when Carol was five days from turning 22. She was 5 feet 6 inches tall and a slender 125 pounds.

Carol and another woman, identified as “Sherrie La Mere” were arrested at 11:50 p.m. on October 17, 1967, in a Minneapolis parking lot on suspicion of being prostitutes. Apparently both women gave the police non-existent home addresses. Carol had been arrested previously — her mugshot is dated July 10, 1967.

The two ladies were held in jail without charge until 5 p.m. the following day. The women’s attorney argued at their hearing that a Minneapolis city law regarding prostitution, which carried a milder penalty — a maximum of 90 days in jail or $100 fine — should take precedence over a new, harsher state law. The 1967 state law carried a punishment of one year in jail or a $1000 fine.

“This new law is one of the tools I need to accomplish my job,” said James O’Meara, supervisor of the Minneapolis police morals squad. “Having it to back us up can make the difference as the whether or not we have an influx of prostitutes and panderers every year, who bring with them narcotics, assaults, forgeries and robberies. Prostitution breeds felonies.”

The Minneapolis Star, October 20, 1967

Carol and Sherrie were both charged with a “gross misdemeanor” under the state law. They were two of only five Minneapolis women who were charged under the harsher state law between July and October of 1967. During the same time period 31 women were charged under the milder city law.

Carol’s bond was set at $1,000 and her hearing was scheduled for November 8th. She was found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail, as was the woman she was arrested with, whose name was reported as “Sherrie L. Taylor.”

What happened to Carol after she got out of jail is anyone’s guess. Was Carol Andrews actually her name, or was it an alias? There was no subsequent newspaper reference to a “Carol Andrews” who was arrested in Minnesota for any reason.

The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the “get tough” prostitution law in June 1968. As part of the opinion, Justice Oscar Knutson, said that prosecutors could use “some selectivity” in deciding what charges to bring against a suspect, as long as they had “reasonable ground” for it.


And here's another one for the women:

elvis-presley-mug-shot-mugshot-denver-1970-police-badge.jpg

What'd he do, murder a peanut butter and banana sandwich?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sdhoosier
Hell, there was a notable case in central Indiana about a month ago where the victim's family was mad because the prosecutor didn't prosecute the way they wanted.
That's nearly always the case when there's a plea deal that doesn't result in the maximum sentence.
 
Sorry, but theft is theft. Paying it back doesn't change the fact that theft already occurred -- it's still offensive and repugnant to the victim. If the prosecutor wants to prosecute, I'm very sure the defendant can't just say, "I'm innocent of stealing that money last year, because I paid it back yesterday."
It will be interesting how this turns out. There was an event that may have made taking the money an easy short term fix. Maybe he got caught before he could get the money back in. It would still be illegal, but a little less devious.

I would expect his lawyer to offer a plea that keeps him out of jail. I am assuming repayment is the biggest concern of the victim. I would think jail time would slow the repayment.
 
It will be interesting how this turns out. There was an event that may have made taking the money an easy short term fix. Maybe he got caught before he could get the money back in. It would still be illegal, but a little less devious.
That's what many "good" people caught stealing claim was their intention. I've been involved with this up close and personal with a family member. The truth is they were never going to repay.
 
That's what many "good" people caught stealing claim was their intention. I've been involved with this up close and personal with a family member. The truth is they were never going to repay.
This individual had a fire a few months ago at his business and I am told through a family member came out of the fire in very good shape with the settlement. I am speculating that he had a lot of costs to get back to business prior to the insurance settlement. My theory is he thought the money he had access to would allow him to recover faster and would be returned before anyone noticed. It would still be illegal and usually more than one person has access to the finances, but could explain what happened.

It is possible he did return the money, but someone reported the transactions If I had access to this account and saw something involving a lot of money, I am running to report it before someone tries to involve me in it.
 
This individual had a fire a few months ago at his business and I am told through a family member came out of the fire in very good shape with the settlement. I am speculating that he had a lot of costs to get back to business prior to the insurance settlement. My theory is he thought the money he had access to would allow him to recover faster and would be returned before anyone noticed. It would still be illegal and usually more than one person has access to the finances, but could explain what happened.

It is possible he did return the money, but someone reported the transactions If I had access to this account and saw something involving a lot of money, I am running to report it before someone tries to involve me in it.
I've gotten cynical and jaded in my old age. There was a time when I might have given the guy the benefit of the doubt in these kinds of situations, but no more. These type of thieves are no less reprehensible than your typical shoplifter or the desperate junkie holding up a liquor store. The thing is, these guys get a lot more lenient treatment than the shoplifter or the junkie.
 
Better than the mugshot texted to me about half a dozen times this past weekend. Someone I knew from high school was arrested and was the scandal of the week. It didn't make the local paper, but people were sending the mugshot from a TV station report.

I'm curious.. If you take money ($20,000+) from a not for profit organization, can you avoid jail if you are able to make restitution? Does the organization have any input or does the legal system take over once the crime is reported?

In my experience with clients whose bookkeepers stole from them, I’d guess odds are no jail time.
 
In my experience with clients whose bookkeepers stole from them, I’d guess odds are no jail time.
That was the outcome in this case from last year. He kept the case out of the local media. Lucky his business advertised in the paper. His ad stayed on the digital version throughout the ordeal.
 
That was the outcome in this case from last year. He kept the case out of the local media. Lucky his business advertised in the paper. His ad stayed on the digital version throughout the ordeal.

Personally I try to encourage clients to push prosecutors to send them to jail just like a bank robber. No difference in my mind.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT