|
Post by stagetec on Aug 20, 2003 0:36:58 GMT -5
VENTURA, Calif. (AP) — Andrew Luster faces civil lawsuits from three women who say they were sexually assaulted by the cosmetics heir, including one who was not among the victims in the three rapes for which he was convicted.
Prosecutors said Wednesday that law enforcement officials are investigating whether the woman was a fourth victim.
Trials are scheduled next month for two of three women who Luster was convicted of knocking out with sedatives and raping in front of a video camera at his home northwest of Los Angeles.
Luster, 39, jumped his $1 million bail and spent nearly six months on the run until he was captured by bounty hunters last week in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. He was returned to California to begin serving a 124-year prison sentence.
Another woman also filed a lawsuit last month, saying she was drugged and raped by the great-grandson of cosmetics magnate Max Factor. She said she learned five months ago that detectives found sexually explicit photographs of her during a July 2000 search of Luster's home.
The pictures were shown to jurors during Luster's trial, but the woman had not yet been identified. The woman, who seeks $10 million in damages, now believes Luster drugged, raped and photographed her
|
|
|
Post by TheTruth on Aug 20, 2003 12:58:53 GMT -5
You posted that 3 times in the last 2 mos. ST. Get new material. Why are they still investigating after all this time? You are trying to pull a fast one by reposting that as if it's new. It's not, and from what I understand the D.A. declined to pursue her charges. Just one more gold-digger out for a buck.
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Aug 20, 2003 14:21:05 GMT -5
truth The pictures were shown to jurors during Luster's trial, but the woman had not yet been identified. Are you sure the D.A. did't file charges already?
|
|
|
Post by TheTruth on Aug 20, 2003 14:25:44 GMT -5
And where was she during the 2 year trial? Funny she only comes forward when the lawsuit hit the news. I'm pretty d**n sure the D.A. hasn't brought charges. If you can prove otherwise, go for it. Just because she was added to the suit doesn't mean she has any credibility. That bloodsucker Novack would add a ham sandwich if it would get him another dollar.
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Aug 20, 2003 14:32:12 GMT -5
truth my ?? did they show all 10 victims to the jury,or just the 3 women that came foward.Also was it a legale wire tap that brought luster down? lmao
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Aug 20, 2003 14:54:11 GMT -5
VENTURA, Calif. - Convicted rapist and Max Factor heir Andrew Luster wired money from a trust fund and had removed the hard drive from his computer in the days before he fled the country, according to law enforcement documents.
Seven search warrants released by prosecutors Tuesday also show that investigators focused on Luster's mother and at least one friend whom he contacted just before he fled.
Luster was required to remain under house arrest prior to his trial, but allowed to leave his home a few hours every day. After he left and never returned Jan. 3, investigators searched his beach house in Mussell Shoals and obtained warrants for Luster's phone records and credit card and investment accounts.
The warrants show Luster wired an unspecified amount of money from his trust fund to an undisclosed location. They indicate investigators tracked phone calls at the Malibu home of Luster's mother, Elizabeth. Also tracked was a 19-minute call placed by Luster to a friend in Massachusetts, Vincent Gillespie.
Luster, who jumped $1 million bail during his trial, was convicted in absentia of drugging and raping three women and sentenced to 124 years in prison. He was captured by bounty hunters in Mexico six months later and returned to the United States in June to begin serving his sentence.
Prosecutors say the 39-year-old great-grandson of cosmetics legend Max Factor lured women to his home where he used the date-rape drug GHB to render them unconscious, then videotaped himself sexually assaulting them.
Last week a judge ordered him to pay $19 million to one of his victims, who sued him.
|
|
|
Post by Sherry on Aug 20, 2003 16:24:59 GMT -5
I'd like to know what you're laughing about ST?. :confused: If they did show all those tapes to the jury, that in itself is grounds for dismissal-"assuming facts not in evidence" or something, not? I don't know if the wiretaps were any more legal than anything else they did. As far as the subpoena's, I don't know how far-reaching their subpoena power will be, given this is not a federal case. If his assets and the transactions took place offshore, can they even take action if they were to get the documentation? I also think they'll have an uphill battle trying to convict a guys mother of aiding and abetting. That's unheard of. A wife can't be compelled to testify againt their husband and I'm not sure that the law doesn't protect a parent as well. Then again, it's California and they don't call it the land of fruit and nuts for no reason. I think the prosecution is getting worried so they keep releasing a trickle here and a trickle there to try to keep the headlines and further mislead the media and the public because they know we're onto them. I think a lot of people are starting to ask questions. I hope Mrs. Luster will try to get on Greta Van Susteran or Catherine Criers show next.
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Aug 20, 2003 19:40:38 GMT -5
sherry on the wiretap was it legal? California law does not allow tape recording of telephone calls unless all parties to the conversation consent (California Penal Code 632), or they are notified of the recording by a distinct "beep tone" warning (CPUC General Order 107-B(II)(A)(5)). However, tape recordings can legally be made if an individual or members of one's family are threatened with kidnapping, extortion, bribery or another felony involving violence. The person receiving the threats can make a tape recording without informing the other party. (California Penal Code 633.5) Both federal and California law enforcement officials may eavesdrop on and record telephone conversations without a court order under the so-called "one party consent provision" (18 USC 2511(2)(s); California Penal Code 633). In other words, if state or federal authorities have the consent of one party to a conversation (such as a government informant), the conversation may be monitored. This provision applies only to eavesdropping by law enforcement officials.
|
|
|
Post by TheTruth on Aug 20, 2003 19:47:55 GMT -5
But that only applies if a violent felony is imminent or something like that. I read what you posted the other day, can't remember right now. I want to hear that tape in its' entirety. They shouldn't be able to use little snippets like that.
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Aug 20, 2003 20:00:03 GMT -5
truth rape is a violent felony.
|
|
|
Post by TheTruth on Aug 20, 2003 20:04:09 GMT -5
He wasn't threatening her. She called him, remember. Read it again. You are fond of taking things out of context and only posting what is favorable to your spin.
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Aug 20, 2003 20:08:20 GMT -5
yes but the rape had already taken place,the tape telephone call proved that.Dose the one party concent law applie to a violent felony that already happen?
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Aug 20, 2003 20:58:26 GMT -5
sherry the wired money trace was only to find out where luster took of to.Plus don't think anyone is after liz luster,or do they have any case against lis .
|
|
|
Post by Sherry on Aug 21, 2003 12:43:45 GMT -5
ST I think they wanted to know where the money IS, as well as who may have helped him. If the cops are helping Novack find his assets, that is a conflict and it shouldn't be allowed, but it looks like there was a lot of open collusion going on from day one. The whole thing with Chapman and the "victims" and the police blurred that line a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Aug 21, 2003 19:30:20 GMT -5
sherry if luster money is in a trust fund,then hes ok nothing the does can do to get at that money,if its set up right it will go to his kids.
|
|