Peru drug smuggling case - READ OP BEFORE POSTING

kylith

Phoebas wrote: »

Have they not done this?

fishy fishy wrote: »

I think that is what they are doing, and have done, isn't it?

If they have I haven't heard anything about it. Plenty of third parties telling the papers who these girls were allegedly hanging around with, but I can't recall seeing anything saying that they themselves were spilling everything to the authorities.

Phoebas

kylith wrote: »

If they have I haven't heard anything about it. Plenty of third parties telling the papers who these girls were allegedly hanging around with, but I can't recall seeing anything saying that they themselves were spilling everything to the authorities.

And why would you expect to have heard about what would be a confidential discussion with Peruvian police?

constance tench

Phoebas wrote: »

How do we know that?

From the police video... an unedited section.

gitane007

constance tench wrote: »

From the police video... an unedited section.

Unedited videos?.......i can only find the ones that everyone else has been watching form the papers. Any links?

Phoebas

constance tench wrote: »

From the police video... an unedited section.

What? Theirs an unedited police video of the all of the police questioning?

constance tench

Phoebas wrote: »

What? Theirs an unedited police video of the all of the police questioning?

oh!...did I say that?

constance tench

gitane007 wrote: »

Unedited videos?.......i can only find the ones that everyone else has been watching form the papers. Any links?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EESk9CS8Gf0

stoneill

Phoebas wrote: »

Nonsense.
A subsistence coca farmer growing coca to survive is no less reprehensible than a cartel boss?

No.

gitane007

constance tench wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EESk9CS8Gf0

EVERYONE'S seen that , for a minute there i thought you had some gold there. Pfff.

constance tench

gitane007 wrote: »

EVERYONE'S seen that , for a minute there i thought you had some gold there. Pfff.

watch again..

MonaPizza

Sarah Jane. wrote: »

Good. It's not a hotel they are in. Prison is where you are sent if you have broken the law. It's not meant to be nice. This will make these girls learn a valuable lesson. The Irish prisons could take a leaf out of their book. Think about who and where these drugs were going to.. then would you feel sorry for them

People constantly bang on about the law. They bleat about the evil of drug trafficker and the misery inflicted upon families as a result of the drugs trade.
The CIA created the Afghan heroin industry and freely facilitate it to this day. They and other government agencies are equally complicit in the Mexican and Latin American drug industries:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/11/cia-created-afghan-heroin-trade/

People wax high-and-mighty with their moral finger-pointing about locking up drug offenders forever and how the law is oh-so sacrosanct and have nothing to say (or perhaps they can't handle the uncomfortable truth) about official involvement in the narco-business for decades.

Kind of puts it all into perspective.

gitane007

constance tench wrote: »

watch again..

I thought you had more information on what they were telling or have told the cops in the 15 days since that video was made.

Thanks all the same .

Phoebas

constance tench wrote: »

oh!...did I say that?

You said that we know they haven't told 'the cops everything they can remember about who they met, where they met, names, descriptions' from a police video. Unless you've seen a police video comprising all of their questioning then you can't possible know that, can you?


Edit: I see you've posted the video of their initial questioning from two weeks ago, in which they aren't asked anything about anybody else involved in the plot. Is this seriously what you're basing your assertion on? Could they not possibly have given more information to the police since then?

LuckyLloyd

MonaPizza wrote: »

People constantly bang on about the law. They bleat about the evil of drug trafficker and the misery inflicted upon families as a result of the drugs trade.
The CIA created the Afghan heroin industry and freely facilitate it to this day. They and other government agencies are equally complicit in the Mexican and Latin American drug industries:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/11/cia-created-afghan-heroin-trade/

People wax high-and-mighty with their moral finger-pointing about locking up drug offenders forever and how the law is oh-so sacrosanct and have nothing to say (or perhaps they can't handle the uncomfortable truth) about official involvement in the narco-business for decades.

Kind of puts it all into perspective.

So, stern talking to and they are let home? Is this to be rolled out for all class A drug smugglers or just the feckless party girl types?

SyntonFenix

The judge questioned the pair – who claim they had been threatened at gunpoint and coerced into carrying the drugs – why they didn't ask someone for help as they carried the cocaine through the airport.

"They admit knowing about the drugs but did not inform an authority," he said.
The women looked drawn and sombre as they listened through a translator during the hour-long public hearing.

That goes against what Melissa said in the first video.

Can we start a poll on this thread?

They've been charged with drug trafficking. Do you think they are;

A) Guilty
Not guilty
C) I prefer to wait and see

constance tench

Phoebas wrote: »

You said that we know they haven't told 'the cops everything they can remember about who they met, where they met, names, descriptions' from a police video. Unless you've seen a police video comprising all of their questioning then you can't possible know that, can you?



Edit: I see you've posted the video of their initial questioning from two weeks ago, in which they aren't asked anything about anybody else involved in the plot. Is this seriously what you're basing your assertion on? Could they not possibly have given more information to the police since then?

ED...you seem to have omitted the whole shebang bit...so you have your doubts?

At 58s reid appears to qualify her previous statement moments before[to the police] to her friend...there is also another enedited section where she is questioned about anothers involvement...cant find it at the moment but when i do ill post...

Staff Infection

stoneill wrote: »

No.

Drugs in moderation are fine, alcohol is a drug and in moderation is quite pleasant. The damage is done to an individual through excessive use, addiction or overdose which can all occur with legal drugs too.
One of the main problems with illegal drugs is their illegality, which carves a niche tax free market out for criminals. Also because the drugs are illegal they can adulterate them with fe#k knows what which could at best do nothing or at worst kill the user. Finally because they are illegal there is no regulation so dealers can freely sell to anyone who has money including kids.

In 1920's America they tried banning drink and made it illegal, this led to the rise of powerful illegal alcohol sellers like Al Capone. In the end they decided it was better to legalise, regulate and tax the sale of alcohol. The legalisation allowed them to know who was selling it, the regulation ensured quality control and allowed the introduction of minimum age limits so kids couldn't buy alcohol. Finally a portion of the taxes were used to educate users on the risks, encourage moderation in alcohol use and direct those with problematic use towards rehabilitation and addiction services.

We will end up doing the same with drugs as the current system is not reducing use or demand. This is something that has been suggested by a number of South American politicians who have seen their countries ravaged by the illegal drug gangs. It's only a matter of when nations decide enough is enough.

ebbsy

A good place for their solicitor to start would be to stop attacking the jails and justice system in Peru, and start showing a bit more remorse. Everybody knows already its not the Ritz.

I doubt its going down well over there.

LuckyLloyd

Staff Infection wrote: »

Drugs in moderation are fine, alcohol is a drug and in moderation is quite pleasant. The damage is done to an individual through excessive use, addiction or overdose which can all occur with legal drugs too.
One of the main problems with illegal drugs is their illegality, which carves a niche tax free market out for criminals. Also because the drugs are illegal they can adulterate them with fe#k knows what which could at best do nothing or at worst kill the user. Finally because they are illegal there is no regulation so dealers can freely sell to anyone who has money including kids.

In 1920's America they tried banning drink and made it illegal, this led to the rise of powerful illegal alcohol sellers like Al Capone. In the end they decided it was better to legalise, regulate and tax the sale of alcohol. The legalisation allowed them to know who was selling it, the regulation ensured quality control and allowed the introduction of minimum age limits so kids couldn't buy alcohol. Finally a portion of the taxes were used to educate users on the risks, encourage moderation in alcohol use and direct those with problematic use towards rehabilitation and addiction services.

We will end up doing the same with drugs as the current system is not reducing use or demand. This is something that has been suggested by a number of South American politicians who have seen their countries ravaged by the illegal drug gangs. It's only a matter of when nations decide enough is enough.

We are a LONG way off legalising class A drugs such as cocaine. I would happily vote to legalisation of cannibus. Let's do it. But cocaine, heroin, etc? No way baby.

Phoebas

constance tench wrote: »

At 58s reid appears to qualify her previous statement moments before[to the police] to her friend...there is also another enedited section where she is questioned about anothers involvement...cant find it at the moment but when i do ill post...

Aw c'mon. At 58s the two cops are having a discussion in Spanish and Reid appears to mumble something, but its inaudible.

You're just spoofing now.

mikeym

I wonder is the system easily corrupted in Peru as in bribes to get out of prison early?

SyntonFenix

ebbsy wrote: »

A good place for their solicitor to start would be to stop attacking the jails and justice system in Peru, and start showing a bit more remorse. Everybody knows already its not the Ritz.

I doubt its going down well over there.

He advised three IRA terrorists in Colombia, so I have zero respect for him.

He's not doing this for the two women, he's a lawyer, not a social worker.

constance tench

Phoebas wrote: »

Aw c'mon. At 58s the two cops are having a discussion in Spanish and Reid appears to mumble something, but its inaudible.

You're just spoofing now.

No Im not...she clearly says ...'I didnt'

Staff Infection

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

We are a LONG way off legalising class A drugs such as cocaine. I would happily vote to legalisation of cannibus. Let's do it. But cocaine, heroin, etc? No way baby.

As would I given the chance.

I know it's a long way off but unless we can find another solution I think it will be considered somewhere down the line.
Another option is what they did in Portugal and decriminalise the use of drugs. This way the police leave the users alone freeing up their time to chase the dealers. Only problem is that by keeping the drugs illegal it maintains the black market sale of them in the first place.

As regards heroin the Dutch seem to have a very effective model. Essentially they have heroin clinics where they give medical grade heroin to addicts with clean needles but insist they use it there and then. This ensures they have clean needles reducing the risk of HIV, they can't sell on the heroin as it has to be used there, the user doesn't feel the need to steal etc. to fund their habit and it puts heroin users in contact with the medical service who can suggest supplementary treatment and help them quit. It has worked very well from what I remember reading heroin use is reducing, there are reduced heroin related crime, rates of HIV and other diseases have fallen and heroin users have been able to hold down jobs and contribute to society.
I'll get a link for the above now.


Ok here are three links about heroin clinics, two mention The Netherlands clinics and the other mentions Danish Clinics. They seem effective.
http://sciencenordic.com/heroin-clinics-improve-addicts-lives
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2219559/
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/free-heroin-brings-everyone-a-bit-peace

Allyall

mikeym wrote: »

I wonder is the system easily corrupted in Peru as in bribes to get out of prison early?

Allegedly it isn't the hardest thing in the world to do.
That's probably the best reason to have Peter Madden over there with them. Given what some say he allegedly helped achieve in Colombia..

1 August 2003 The trial judge returned a verdict which found the three men guilty of travelling on false passports and they were given varying sentences of up to 44 months.

In accordance with Colombian law, the prosecution had the right to appeal the verdict, which it did. While awaiting appeal, the three men were free to leave jail, but were instructed by a judge to remain within the country. The appeal court overturned the original trial verdict, and convicted the men of training the rebels, sentencing them to seventeen years in jail on 16 December 2004.

The day after their conviction, the Colombian Attorney General announced that the men had fled Colombia.On 5 August 2005, following an interview with Monaghan by RTÉ's Charlie Bird, it emerged that the three men had clandestinely returned to Ireland.The three men were subsequently questioned by Gardaí but no moves have been taken in relation to extraditing them to Colombia, despite the existence of an Colombian arrest warrant, since no extradition treaty or agreement exists between Colombia and Ireland

Something similar is probably their best bet right now..

marmurr1916

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Peru is a signatory of the American Convention on Human Rights.

Relevant extracts:

Article 7. Right to Personal Liberty

1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security.

2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto.

3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment.

4. Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him.

5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial.

6. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies.

7. No one shall be detained for debt. This principle shall not limit the orders of a competent judicial authority issued for nonfulfillment of duties of support.

Article 8. Right to a Fair Trial

1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.

2. Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees:

a. the right of the accused to be assisted without charge by a translator or interpreter, if he does not understand or does not speak the language of the tribunal or court;

b. prior notification in detail to the accused of the charges against him;

c. adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense;

d. the right of the accused to defend himself personally or to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing, and to communicate freely and privately with his counsel;

e. the inalienable right to be assisted by counsel provided by the state, paid or not as the domestic law provides, if the accused does not defend himself personally or engage his own counsel within the time period established by law;

f. the right of the defense to examine witnesses present in the court and to obtain the appearance, as witnesses, of experts or other persons who may throw light on the facts;

g. the right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself or to plead guilty; and

h. the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court.

3. A confession of guilt by the accused shall be valid only if it is made without coercion of any kind.

4. An accused person acquitted by a nonappealable judgment shall not be subjected to a new trial for the same cause.

5. Criminal proceedings shall be public, except insofar as may be necessary to protect the interests of justice.

http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/English/Basic3.American%20Convention.htm

Conditions in prisons for convicted people and for accused people held in custody (on remand) prior to and during trials are far from satisfactory, although whether they could be considered as violations of human rights are far from clear.

Overall, I find the tone of the media coverage of this case to be in stark contrast to the general tone of media coverage of people accused in Ireland of drug trafficking, especially when the accused are foreign nationals.

I wonder if the tone of media coverage would be as sympathetic if two Peruvian girls were accused of trying to smuggle drugs into Ireland?

Phoebas

At 58s reid appears to qualify her previous statement moments before[to the police] to her friend..

constance tench wrote: »

No Im not...she clearly says ...'I didnt'

It isn't all all clear what she says at 58s, but even if she does say 'I didn't', her preceding answer was 'I did not know that', so it was hardly qualifying anything - it confirms it if anything.
And its certainly not any evidence that since that questioning she hasn't told 'the cops everything they can remember about who they met, where they met, names, descriptions'.

So, how do you know that she hasn't since told the cops what she knows about the other people involved.

Cunning Stunt

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Funny I read that the media in Peru think the Irish girl looks like Amy Winehouse. I think she actually looks very like Boy George

Probably because of the big hair

DeadlyH83

What does everyone realistically think will happen these two girls?
What will the sentence be?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

DeadlyH83 wrote: »

What does everyone realistically think will happen these two girls?
What will the sentence be?

8 years maybe more

SyntonFenix

DeadlyH83 wrote: »

What does everyone realistically think will happen these two girls?
What will the sentence be?

Found to be telling lies, at least 15. Max is 25 years. I've a feeling there's more evidence coming that will nail the two of them to a cross.

constance tench

Phoebas wrote: »

It isn't all all clear what she says at 58s, but even if she does say 'I didn't', her preceding answer was 'I did not know that', so it was hardly qualifying anything - it confirms it if anything.
And its certainly not any evidence that since that questioning she hasn't told 'the cops everything they can remember about who they met, where they met, names, descriptions'.

So, how do you know that she hasn't since told the cops what she knows about the other people involved.

just because you can not grasp what im saying does it mean im a spoofer?

marmurr1916

Allyall wrote: »

Apparently not. Not nonsense,

It's not written into their law - "Guilty until proven innocent", but it is widely accepted that, that is how how it is practiced, or that there is a degree of "Guilty until proven innocent" in their corrupt/flawed system.
Media reports from cases inside Peru often refer to the "Peruvian Guilty until Proved Innocent system". It may not be factually correct, or the way Peru has written their law, but it has a name for that worldwide.

http://howtoperu.com/2012/03/27/drugs-in-peru-laws-of-possession/
http://www.maristmissions.com/Projects_Peru.html

"Napoleonic","Primitive" and "Archaic" are often words used to describe the Peruvian Justice system.

One advantage the Girls may have, is that is widely believed that the Judges are there to be paid off.
Even with the amount of media attention that this case is getting, it might be worth trying to find out how to do that, even if it means still going to prison, just for a much, much shorter sentence.

There is a presumption of innocence in Peruvian law. BTW, the 'Napoleonic' system as used in France today (better to call it 'Roman law' as compared to 'common law') also has a presumption of innocence.

No country which is a member of the Council of Europe and party to the European Convention on Human Rights (neither of these is part of the EU) can have a presumption of guilt for people accused of crimes.

marmurr1916

SyntonFenix wrote: »

Found to be telling lies, at least 15. Max is 25 years. I've a feeling there's more evidence coming that will nail the two of them to a cross.

The maximum sentence they face is 15 years under Peruvian law.

An early guilty plea, along with a high level of co-operation with the investigating authorities, might help them get a lower sentence.

As of now, of course, they're entitled to a presumption of innocence.

Phoebas

constance tench wrote: »

just because you can not grasp what im saying does it mean im a spoofer?

True. You're a spoofer solely due to your spoofing.

You said that you know they haven't told "the cops everything they can remember about who they met, where they met, names, descriptions, the whole shebang" and your reasoning was simply that they didn't on a two week old video of a police interview, in which they weren't asked anything about any of that.

A simple question that you've failed to answer:
How do you know that they haven't told the cops all of these details since that video was taken?

constance tench

Phoebas wrote: »

True. You're a spoofer solely due to your spoofing.

You said that you know they haven't told "the cops everything they can remember about who they met, where they met, names, descriptions, the whole shebang" and your reasoning was simply that they didn't on a two week old video of a police interview, in which they weren't asked anything about any of that.

A simple question that you've failed to answer:
How do you know that they haven't told the cops all of these details since that video was taken?

you left out the whole shebang bit before when it suited you...now you put it in when it suits you:rolleyes:

Phoebas

constance tench wrote: »

you left out the whole shebang bit before when it suited you...now you put it in when it suits you:rolleyes:

Can answer the simple question and stop playing games?

How do you know that they haven't told the cops all of these details since that video was taken?

Allyall

DeadlyH83 wrote: »

What does everyone realistically think will happen these two girls?
What will the sentence be?

From the Irish Times.

The women deny the drug trafficking allegations and claim they were forced to carry the bags by armed men.
If they contest the charges it is estimated that they will have to wait a year and a half if not longer if the before the case goes to trial.
If they plead guilty the case might come before the court in six months.

It has since emerged, that a not guilty plea, would mean it could be three years before their court case.

So if they plead guilty, they could be out by 2017.
If they choose to stick with their not guilty story, then it could be the end of 2016 before they even appear in court, and then it could be 2025 before they get out early.

SyntonFenix wrote: »

Found to be telling lies, at least 15. Max is 25 years. I've a feeling there's more evidence coming that will nail the two of them to a cross.

I'd say there's a load more evidence.
Maximum is 15 years though. The Judge agreed to that yesterday.

the girls were told they may have to wait up to three years for a trial.
The judge also accepted a prosecutor’s recommendation that they serve no more than 15 years and no fewer than eight if found guilty.

Sources say police want to make an example of them as they do not believe their story.

The bushman

SyntonFenix wrote: »

Found to be telling lies, at least 15. Max is 25 years. I've a feeling there's more evidence coming that will nail the two of them to a cross.

My own opinion is that they could get 15 years as well, the Peruvians will make an example of them especially with the shoddy story the girls are trying to spin. I cannot see why they do not plead guilty, they would be probably be out in the same length of time as this case will take to come to trial.
If they do fifteen years, they will be 35 by the time they get out, time is moving on quickly for them to try settle down and meet someone and start a family etc. their lives and the lives of their families will be completely ruined.

constance tench

Phoebas wrote: »

Can answer the simple question and stop playing games?

How do you know that they haven't told the cops all of these details since that video was taken?

It appears you may be playing games...

kylith wrote: »

Which is pretty much exactly what they would have done if they actually had been kidnapped: make sure their families are safe, then tell the cops everything they can remember about who they met, where they met, names, descriptions, the whole shebang.

Phoebas wrote: »

Have they not done this?

constance tench wrote: »

Apparently not...

Phoebas wrote: »

How do we know that?

constance tench wrote: »

From the police video... an unedited section.

Phoebas wrote: »

What? Theirs an unedited police video of the all of the police questioning?

constance tench wrote: »

oh!...did I say that?

[QUOTE=Phoebas;86164497]You said that we know they haven't told 'the cops everything they can remember about who they met, where they met, names, descriptions' from a police video. Unless you've seen a police video comprising all of their questioning then you can't possible know that, can you?


Edit: I see you've posted the video of their initial questioning from two weeks ago, in which they aren't asked anything about anybody else involved in the plot. Is this seriously what you're basing your assertion on? Could they not possibly have given more information to the police since then?[/QUOTE]

constance tench wrote: »

ED...you seem to have omitted the whole shebang bit...so you have your doubts?

At 58s reid appears to qualify her previous statement moments before[to the police] to her friend...there is also another enedited section where she is questioned about anothers involvement...cant find it at the moment but when i do ill post...

Phoebas wrote: »

Aw c'mon. At 58s the two cops are having a discussion in Spanish and Reid appears to mumble something, but its inaudible.

You're just spoofing now.

Just because you cant seem to grasp what im saying does that make me a spoofer?

Phoebas

Allyall wrote: »

If they choose to stick with their not guilty story, then it could be the end of 2016 before they even appear in court, and then it could be 2025 before they get out early.

I wonder, if they chose to change their plea now, would they be able / allowed to.

Phoebas

constance tench wrote: »

Just because you cant seem to grasp what im saying does that make me a spoofer?

Spoofing / trolling? I'm not too sure.
This is a fruitless discussion with you. I'm out.

The bushman

Phoebas wrote: »

I wonder, if they chose to change their plea now, would they be able / allowed to.

I was thinking the same thing
One other question-when is the next time these girls will appear in front of a judge,will it be next week or is that it now until their trial begins in what could take up to three years?sorry if it sounds like a stupid question!

Allyall

Phoebas wrote: »

I wonder, if they chose to change their plea now, would they be able / allowed to.

AFAIK yes, they can change their plea at any time before the trial.
Which, as it stands could be up to 3 years away.

I'd be changing it today, appear in court by Jan/Feb, and be as cooperative as possible, apologise etc..
And hopefully be out and living my life again by 2017, and which stage the two girls will only be 23 or 24.

It's not ideal, but unless they come up with another plan, they won't even appear in court, until the same time they would be released with a guilty plea.

I am pie

Is there anyone who thinks they are being well advised right now and are following the correct course of action?

Allyall

I am pie wrote: »

Is there anyone who thinks they are being well advised right now and are following the correct course of action?

Who knows. Right now i'd say they are in bits. I'd say the last couple of weeks has been too much to take in.
Maybe, Peter Madden is looking into every single possibility, before he gets back to them.
He's in the best position to do it right now, and may even have a few connections over there. May have to make contacts over there.

He may need a bit of time, or want to wait until the media interest has died down a bit.

I'd give it max two weeks, and if nothing has changed i'd imagine their plea will change.

Phoebas

I am pie wrote: »

Is there anyone who thinks they are being well advised right now and are following the correct course of action?

Unless there is some explosive bit of evidence that hasn't yet emerged then no.

Its hard to say how they are being advised. For all we know their lawyer may be begging them to plead guilty but they are sticking to the kidnapping story.

thalia_13

Why is it every picture or video clip you see, Michaella seems to be smirking, and like this is all a big amusement to her? A few people have commented on this while discussing it together, and I just am finding it hard to have sympathy for her.
Does she not realise the severity of this problem? Or is it a coping mechanism... Seeing her being led out this morning on sky news, she just looked so smug. I would be so terrified and I think the Scottish girl does look scared

LittleMissDiva

thalia_13 wrote: »

Why is it every picture or video clip you see, Michaella seems to be smirking, and like this is all a big amusement to her? A few people have commented on this while discussing it together, and I just am finding it hard to have sympathy for her.
Does she not realise the severity of this problem? Or is it a coping mechanism... Seeing her being led out this morning on sky news, she just looked so smug. I would be so terrified and I think the Scottish girl does look scared

I was thinking the exact same!

Phoebas

thalia_13 wrote: »

Why is it every picture or video clip you see, Michaella seems to be smirking, and like this is all a big amusement to her?

Well, really now! That's highly unlikely.
(Unless she's going to play the old 'diminished responsibility' card)