Diaz Shutterbug: Guilty!
Thou shalt not cross an Angel.
Thus was the commandment violated by a photographer found guilty Monday of using topless photos of Cameron Diaz to try to leverage a multimillion-dollar payday from the star just prior to the release of her latest Charlie's Angels adventure.
The seven-woman, five-man panel deliberated for about four hours total before convicting John Rutter, 42, of forgery, perjury and attempted grand theft, all felonies. Rutter was deemed to be a flight risk and immediately taken into police custody. He faces up to six years in state prison at his Sept. 15 sentencing.
Diaz was not present for the proceedings. In a brief statement, the actress thanked prosecutors and her attorneys. "Although I wish that this unfortunate situation hadn't occurred in the first place, I am very gratified that justice has been served," she said.
Rutter's attorney, meanwhile, called the verdicts "the blackest day in John Rutter's life." "The last thing he expected was to be convicted, and on top of that, to be remanded [into custody] adds insult to injury," Mark Werksman told reporters.
The two-week trial pitted a "con artist"--the prosecution's take on Rutter--against a moneyed movie star bent on "crush[ing]" a working stiff--the defense's take on Diaz.
At issue was a 1992 photo session in which a pre-fame, 19-year-old Diaz doffed her top for Rutter's camera. Looking back, the actress, now 32, and among Hollywood's highest-paid stars, told jurors she "wasn't ashamed to be out there like that [in the nude]" and that she thought, My boobs looked good. But whatever fond memories Diaz had of the shoot turned sour when Rutter contacted her 11 years later on the eve of the opening of Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle.
According to Diaz, Rutter wanted $3.5 million from her in two days' time--or else. Specifically, she testified, the photographer threatened to sell the shots to "someone who could hurt me." Diaz said the episode left her feeling "violated" and "completely sick to my stomach."
While Diaz all but accused Rutter of extortion, prosecutors long ago dropped an extortion charge against Rutter. Instead, the case centered on a model release form that Rutter said gave him the right to take his disrobed Diaz photos public.
One problem: As the actress testified, and Rutter himself later conceded, the signature on the release form was not Diaz's. The defense was left to argue that Rutter had been duped into believing the autograph was legit. More to the point, it argued the prosecution never proved that it was Rutter who did the deed.
As for the photos, they've been under court-ordered wraps since a 2003 ruling permanently barred their sale.
Though the criminal case is now wrapped, the Diaz-Rutter saga is scheduled to resume Oct. 17, when Rutter's civil lawsuit against Diaz, alleging fraud and breach of contract, goes to trial.





0 Comments
Now loading...