Peru drug smuggling case - READ OP BEFORE POSTING

SyntonFenix

Allyall wrote: »

First time offence (as far as i am aware of), and because i believe they were coerced, because they were easy targets.
In a way (I know what they knew they were doing was illegal, but) i believe they were scammed, different from the scammer that would call to your door and convince you to part with cash. But i'd say they feel stupid now.

I think 3 years in a foreign Prison would be more than enough for them. Maybe they could help others from falling into the same shíthole they fell in to, in the long run.
Maybe they could help the Police in future.

Nothing will be gained by them serving a decade or more, except the ongoing clogging up of Peruvian prisons.

I don't believe their lives should be destroyed because of the many things to take into account in this case.

I'll still go with the law of the land. Whether it's 3 years or 23 years.

Amazingfun

MonaPizza wrote: »

A daily occurrence in courthouses in America is a black kid totally innocent and falsely accused of some crime.

Absolute horse****.

Guy:Incognito

Allyall wrote: »

i believe they were scammed, different from the scammer that would call to your door and convince you to part with cash. But i'd say they feel stupid now.




.

Or the scammer that goes on television with his fancy law degree asking for people to give money to "poor unfortunate" drug smugglers.

Think ill keep what little money I have after being laid off from work again to look after my own kids.

Duck's hoop

SyntonFenix wrote: »

An industry where murders, beatings, drug related deaths and general suffering is all part of it on a daily basis. Anyone who chooses to be a part of that get what they deserve.

So...what are your concerns? If the people who are involved in it get what they deserve why do you care if they're beaten, murdered etc?

The whole 'drugs are bad because they're illegal' thing is a bit of a dead end too.

Some might say their prohibition is the very reason for the beatings and murders etc that you don't care about, but at the same time is your primary reason for wanting them prohibited.

SyntonFenix

Duck's hoop wrote: »

So...what are your concerns? If the people who are involved in it get what they deserve why do you care if they're beaten, murdered etc?

I've no concerns and I don't care. I was pointing out that if you are into drugs, selling, transporting or using, you're part of all that.

Duck's hoop wrote: »

The whole 'drugs are bad because they're illegal' thing is a bit of a dead end too.

No it's not a dead end. Governments throughout the world have a duty of care for their citizens. Making narcotics legal is not going to improve any society.

Duck's hoop wrote: »

Some might say their prohibition is the very reason for the beatings and murders etc that you don't care about, but at the same time is your primary reason for wanting them prohibited.

It's one of many reasons for wanting them prohibited. If you're giving me a choice to have illegal drugs prohibited or making them legal, I'll go for the prohibition. Making them legal, your're implying that there's nothing wrong with taking cocaine, cannabis etc.

Opiates were knocked on the head during the British Empire.

The Dutch are looking to end the cannabis coffee shops and related drug tourism for another example.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/05/dutch-cannabis-coffee-shop-owners-victory

Fr_Dougal

MonaPizza wrote: »

A daily occurrence in courthouses in America is a black kid totally innocent and falsely accused of some crime. Public prosecutor tells the kid to plead guilty to a lesser charge and get 6 months with fines and community service. Kid follows the advice only for the judge to hand down a 7 year sentence in some brutal state prison. Kid collapses in tears and has to be carried from the court room.

That's a pretty big claim. A poster has asked you for an example from yesterday, why have you ignored him?

I'll be easier on you, can you provide an example from this week? Last week even? I'll even settle for two examples from this month, you can discard the other 26 examples you have for August.

jack presley

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

That's a pretty big claim. A poster has asked you for an example from yesterday, why have you ignored him?

I'll be easier on you, can you provide an example from this week? Last week even? I'll even settle for two examples from this month, you can discard the other 26 examples you have for August.

I think Monapizza's confusing Hollywood with real life.

SyntonFenix

jack presley wrote: »

I think Monapizza's confusing Hollywood with real life.

You can add Fishy Fishy and Duck's Hoop to that fantasy land.

Grayson

SyntonFenix wrote: »

The Dutch are looking to end the cannabis coffee shops and related drug tourism for another example.

They're not. The link you provided doesn't even imply it either. Where in that link did it say they were trying to close the cafe's? they're not trying to. the dutch government brought in laws stating that individual areas could decided how to licence shops. Down in the south at maastrict they decided to go members only. This was under pressure from the german government because people were hopping over the boarder to buy.

SyntonFenix wrote: »

I would not be ok with that, it's illegal and is hazardous to your health. Other than medicinal use prescribed by a doctor, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to take illegal drugs.

http://www.hrb.ie/health-information-in-house-research/alcohol-drugs/adru-news/adru-press-release-story/release/169/

http://alcoholireland.ie/facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

They're great fun. fantastically great fun. And the only difference between legal and illegal is their status in a statute book. By your definition it's perfectly ok for anyone in the world to kill someone if it's legally sanctioned in the country their in. Because the law matters more than morality.
I think if someone grows at home and therefore removed criminals (many of whom will be scumbags) from the chain, fair play to them.

There's got to be a drug thread around here somewhere that you can have an auld rant about the refer madness.

SyntonFenix

Grayson wrote: »

They're not. The link you provided doesn't even imply it either. Where in that link did it say they were trying to close the cafe's? they're not trying to. the dutch government brought in laws stating that individual areas could decided how to licence shops. Down in the south at maastrict they decided to go members only. This was under pressure from the german government because people were hopping over the boarder to buy.

Apologies, that was laziness on my part about providing links. What I meant to get across that even in The Netherlands, with it's relaxed view on cannabis, it's regulated, however, there's opposition to it for the same reasons I outlined previously.

Grayson wrote: »

They're great fun. fantastically great fun. And the only difference between legal and illegal is their status in a statute book.

And is law for many good and necessary reasons.

Fun for you, but not fun or required by the majority of people.

Grayson wrote: »

By your definition it's perfectly ok for anyone in the world to kill someone if it's legally sanctioned in the country their in. Because the law matters more than morality. I think if someone grows at home and therefore removed criminals (many of whom will be scumbags) from the chain, fair play to them.

What if I told you, there's instances in Ireland where it is legally possible to kill someone?

You yourself have the basic right to defend yourself, this might actually involve you having to take someone else's life. You have to prove that it was acceptable to do so, but you are legal entitled to do so if required to protect yourself.

You think criminals would be removed if people start growing cannabis in their own homes?

What about all the other drugs that can't be grown in the attic?

Grayson wrote: »

There's got to be a drug thread around here somewhere that you can have an auld rant about the refer madness.

Just to remind you, we're talking about two women who were caught with 12kg of cocaine in Peru in this thread.

Bacchus

SyntonFenix wrote: »

And is law for many good and necessary reasons.

Fun for you, but not fun or required by the majority of people.

It is law because it is the status quo. If there was a reset on law and we had to, from a blank sheet, decide what substances were legal or illegal. Where would alcohol fall? Cigarettes? Cannabis? Cocaine?

I think that because of decades of these illegal drugs being in the domain of criminals, they are 'evil' by association. A properly regulated industry would diminish the criminal element. I'm not saying it would get rid of it entirely, I'm sure there is still a criminal side to alcohol (e.g. smuggling it across borders on the cheap).

SyntonFenix wrote: »

What if I told you, there's instances in Ireland where it is legally possible to kill someone?

You yourself have the basic right to defend yourself, this might actually involve you having to take someone else's life. You have to prove that it was acceptable to do so, but you are legal entitled to do so if required to protect yourself.

Is there a question there? Sounds legit to me. If I had to defend myself or my family to the point of taking someone else's life, I can accept that. Even on a moral basis that adds up if the alternative is to roll over let myself or my family come to harm.

SyntonFenix wrote: »

Just to remind you, we're talking about two women who were caught with 12kg of cocaine in Peru in this thread.

Actually, I think he was talking about the legality vs morality of certain drugs (i.e. cannabis).

SyntonFenix

Bacchus wrote: »

It is law because it is the status quo. If there was a reset on law and we had to, from a blank sheet, decide what substances were legal or illegal. Where would alcohol fall? Cigarettes? Cannabis? Cocaine?

Yes, the status quo. It's not going to change anytime soon.

Tobacco free Ireland in 12 years time?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/reilly-wants-tobaccofree-ireland-within-12-years-29448322.html

Bacchus wrote: »

I think that because of decades of these illegal drugs being in the domain of criminals, they are 'evil' by association. A properly regulated industry would diminish the criminal element. I'm not saying it would get rid of it entirely, I'm sure there is still a criminal side to alcohol (e.g. smuggling it across borders on the cheap).

Again, suggesting that there's no harm caused if you make cannabis legal, which is wrong. What happens when people pick up a related illness? The health service is then involved.

Bacchus wrote: »

Is there a question there? Sounds legit to me. If I had to defend myself or my family to the point of taking someone else's life, I can accept that. Even on a moral basis that adds up if the alternative is to roll over let myself or my family come to harm.

Sounds legit? It's law.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0026/sec0018.html#sec18

18.—(1) The use of force by a person for any of the following purposes, if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, does not constitute an offence—

(a) to protect himself or herself or a member of the family of that person or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act; or

(b) to protect himself or herself or (with the authority of that other) another from trespass to the person; or

(c) to protect his or her property from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or from trespass or infringement; or

(d) to protect property belonging to another from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of that other) from trespass or infringement; or

(e) to prevent crime or a breach of the peace.

Bacchus wrote: »

Actually, I think he was talking about the legality vs morality of certain drugs (i.e. cannabis).

It's legal for some users to use medicinally, which I don't have an issue with. Ireland doesn't need more drug users.

fishy fishy

SyntonFenix wrote: »

You can add Fishy Fishy and Duck's Hoop to that fantasy land.

id be careful with the personal references and other name calling etc. Remember this is what got the last thread closed down - your viscous name calling of these two women.

Penny Dreadful

goose2005 wrote: »

Yes, except that Madden most likely did his research on Peruvian criminal law on Wikipedia on the flight over.

Its a long flight in fairness

Bacchus

SyntonFenix wrote: »

Yes, the status quo. It's not going to change anytime soon.

Tobacco free Ireland in 12 years time?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/reilly-wants-tobaccofree-ireland-within-12-years-29448322.html

That would be wonderful. Cigarettes are a blight on the health of the nation. Doesn't really address what I was saying though, that drugs like alcohol are legal yet other drugs are not for no real reason other than historic ones.

I do appreciate though that changes the system now would be a tough battle as criminal organisations have a monopoly on the drugs trade.

SyntonFenix wrote: »

Again, suggesting that there's no harm caused if you make cannabis legal, which is wrong. What happens when people pick up a related illness? The health service is then involved.

I did not suggested there would be no harm. I made a point to say I did not believe regulation would stamp out all criminal aspects to drugs. I said it would diminish it.

Speaking of related illnesses, how is cannabis any worse than alcohol or cigarettes? Why one rule for cannabis and another for alcohol or alcohol.

SyntonFenix wrote: »

Sounds legit? It's law.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0026/sec0018.html#sec18

Sorry maybe I missed a bit there but I only see "force" being allowed. Nothing about lethal force. I guess that's how yer man who shot the two fellas on his farm a few years ago got off with no sentence. Doesn't seem clear cut to me anyway.... unless force equates to lethal force.

SyntonFenix

fishy fishy wrote: »

id be careful with the personal references and other name calling etc. Remember this is what got the last thread closed down - your viscous name calling of these two women.

Wrong.

I attack people's opinions, not them personally. There's a difference.

Part of the reason the last thread was closed was people calling me names. Check it out.

Bacchus

SyntonFenix wrote: »

It's legal for some users to use medicinally, which I don't have an issue with. Ireland doesn't need more drug users.

You mean other than the 90%* of adults in Ireland who already consume alcohol regularly, many to dangerous levels on a weekly basis.

* Statistic may have been made up on the spot

A friendly reminder that this thread is about the Peru drug smuggling case as per the title.....

fishy fishy

SyntonFenix wrote: »

Wrong.

I attack people's opinions, not them personally. There's a difference.

Part of the reason the last thread was closed was people calling me names. Check it out.

i have checked it out synton - in fact i don't think you actually give anybody else space to have an opinion - every time somebody does, you are all armed up to attack and don't offer any other board member the respect to actually let them have their own opinions - on that basis I won't be dealing with you anymore. You can rant and rave about how terrible these two are, and how you hope they rot in hell, and how brilliant you would be if you were in the same situation but I won't be listening - I'll be in the real world - where there are more colours than black and white. bubye

tipptom

I think Peter Madden is getting a bit of a raw deal on here.
Does anyone know for sure if he is charging the family for his work or is asking for donations for his defence work.

He could have told the girls from day one to plead guilty but if they were determined to stick to their story he would have to go with their story.

If I was in the girls situation I would have been very glad to get a legal expert from my home country to go out and pick the best lawyers from that country and liase with them and explain what the best way to go forward with the case to the girls.I would certainly pick him to come out over my father for my defence.

Ash.J.Williams

MonaPizza wrote: »

A daily occurrence in courthouses in America is a black kid totally innocent and falsely accused of some crime. Public prosecutor tells the kid to plead guilty to a lesser charge and get 6 months with fines and community service. Kid follows the advice only for the judge to hand down a 7 year sentence in some brutal state prison. Kid collapses in tears and has to be carried from the court room.

Would you plead guilty if there was no guarantee of you being freed in 2 years. Everyone on here was saying how the Peruvian authorities want to make an example of these two. What if they plead guilty and the Peruvian Authorities really do make an example of them with an 18 year stretch sans parole

They were caught red handed, hard to see why pleading not guilty will do them any good.

SyntonFenix

Bacchus wrote: »

That would be wonderful. Cigarettes are a blight on the health of the nation. Doesn't really address what I was saying though, that drugs like alcohol are legal yet other drugs are not for no real reason other than historic ones.

What drugs are not legal for no reason?

Bacchus wrote: »

I do appreciate though that changes the system now would be a tough battle as criminal organisations have a monopoly on the drugs trade.

Criminal organisations will always be there. Regulating and making narcotics legal isn't going to change their involvement.

Bacchus wrote: »

I did not suggested there would be no harm. I made a point to say I did not believe regulation would stamp out all criminal aspects to drugs. I said it would diminish it.

Doubt it, there's still a lot of illegal cigarettes being smuggled into Ireland.

Bacchus wrote: »

Speaking of related illnesses, how is cannabis any worse than alcohol or cigarettes? Why one rule for cannabis and another for alcohol or alcohol.

Because one of the main forms to ingest cannabis is to smoke it.

Bacchus wrote: »

Sorry maybe I missed a bit there but I only see "force" being allowed. Nothing about lethal force. I guess that's how yer man who shot the two fellas on his farm a few years ago got off with no sentence. Doesn't seem clear cut to me anyway.... unless force equates to lethal force.

You must be able to justify the use of lethal force in a court of law. Armed Gardai and soldiers have to abide by the same rules.

fishy fishy

tipptom wrote: »

I think Peter Madden is getting a bit of a raw deal on here.
Does anyone know for sure if he is charging the family for his work or is asking for donations for his defence work.

He could have told the girls from day one to plead guilty but if they were determined to stick to their story he would have to go with their story.

If I was in the girls situation I would have been very glad to get a legal expert from my home country to go out and pick the best lawyers from that country and liase with them and explain what the best way to go forward with the case to the girls.I would certainly pick him to come out over my father for my defence.

nobody knows if he is charging the family, or if it was him asking for donations or was it him following leads from the family, nobody knows how he is working the case, if he is heading off to spain to delve more into the investigation - but yet, it's okay for board members to slander and insult the fact that he is working for the two girls.

Allyall

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Or the scammer that goes on television with his fancy law degree asking for people to give money to "poor unfortunate" drug smugglers.

Think ill keep what little money I have after being laid off from work again to look after my own kids.

Well, yes, or him (them). .

But i don't think they are poor, unfortunate drug smugglers.
Part of me believes that they just got caught up in the smaller picture and were easily convinced to do this drug run.
I just don't think putting them behind bars for 20 years will achieve anything.

SyntonFenix wrote: »

I'll still go with the law of the land. Whether it's 3 years or 23 years.

If they plead guilty, it's believed they'll get around 7 and be out in 2-3 years.

fishy fishy

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

They were caught red handed, hard to see why pleading not guilty will do them any good.

people have been caught with "weapons" "smoking guns" in their hands before but are given the benefit of having a fair trial where evidence can be gathered and where they get to chose how to plead - what about a self defense case - should they be locked up and the key thrown away for defending themselves.

If we were to go along the lines of "caught red-handed" then a lot of innocent people would be locked up.

However this is what a trial is about. Let the people involved decide what way they want to go with this - nobody knows the facts here - it's all guesswork. I think people just want to see these two suffer hard while dismissing anything they say and do outright.

chopper6

fishy fishy wrote: »

- nobody knows the facts here - it's all guesswork. .

Eh..the facts are that they were caught attempting to smuggle 11kg of cocaine from Peru to Spain by concealing it in food packets hidden in thier luggage.

These are the facts...anything else is just window dressing.

Bacchus

Ok, I think you're taking the piss now. I say one thing, you pretty much ignore it and argue the same point I'm making.

Case in point...

SyntonFenix wrote: »

Bacchus wrote:

I did not suggested there would be no harm. I made a point to say I did not believe regulation would stamp out all criminal aspects to drugs. I said it would diminish it.

Doubt it, there's still a lot of illegal cigarettes being smuggled into Ireland.

Doubt what? I said several times that I don't think it'd stamp out criminal activities, just that it would diminish it. In my first post I even gave an example that alcohol, which is regulated, is likely still smuggled across borders. Yet here, you retort with an example that cigarettes are still smuggled I think you're just arguing for the sake of it.

I'm out of this 'debate' before whoopsadaisydoodles puts out a not so friendly reminder

Menas

Meanwhile over at the funny farm....https://www.facebook.com/freemichaellamccollumconnolly

SyntonFenix

Bacchus wrote: »

I'm out of this 'debate' before whoopsadaisydoodles puts out a not so friendly reminder

Sound.

tipptom

chopper6 wrote: »

Eh..the facts are that they were caught attempting to smuggle 11kg of cocaine from Peru to Spain by concealing it in food packets hidden in thier luggage.

These are the facts...anything esle is just window dressing.

But what if their story was proven to be true,is that still the facts.?

Phoebas

chopper6 wrote: »

Eh..the facts are that they were caught attempting to smuggle 11kg of cocaine from Peru to Spain by concealing it in food packets hidden in thier luggage.

These are the facts...anything else is just window dressing.

That 'fact' hasn't been established yet. Melissa Reid said in the original police interview that she didn't know it was drugs. If that is true then she wasn't 'attempting to smuggle cocaine'

Grandpa Hassan

tipptom wrote: »

But what if their story was proven to be true,is that still the facts.?

Yes. They are the facts

They had plenty of time to warn the authorties. Saying they didn't as they were scared for their families because bad people had facebook pictures of them isn't going to get them off the hook

Grandpa Hassan

Phoebas wrote: »

That 'fact' hasn't been established yet. Melissa Reid said in the original police interview that she didn't know it was drugs. If that is true then she wasn't 'attempting to smuggle cocaine'

And you actually believe that a Peruvian judge isnt going to laugh out loud at that defence?

Phoebas

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

And you actually believe that a Peruvian judge isnt going to laugh out loud at that defence?

How could you possibly have read that from what I wrote!!!

fishy fishy

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Yes. They are the facts

They had plenty of time to warn the authorties. Saying they didn't as they were scared for their families because bad people had facebook pictures of them isn't going to get them off the hook

sorry, the only people that know the actual facts are the girsll and their legal team - everything else are just stories for the rest of the world. nobody knows what the actual 'facts' are.

Mod

SyntonFenix since you are unable to stay on topic and continue to bait other posters, don't post in this thread again.

Grandpa Hassan

fishy fishy wrote: »

sorry, the only people that know the actual facts are the girsll and their legal team - everything else are just stories for the rest of the world. nobody knows what the actual 'facts' are.

The facts are that they were caught in possession of cocaine. And jails around the world are full of people who claimed that they 'didnt know it was cocaine' or 'they made me do it'. Sure, what else are you going to say

It is not a defence that works

tipptom

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Yes. They are the facts

They had plenty of time to warn the authorties. Saying they didn't as they were scared for their families because bad people had facebook pictures of them isn't going to get them off the hook

Oh I know its not going to get them of the hook because its not possible for the Peruvian authority's to accept their story or it would leave every drug mule open to have this as their default story.

But what if they and their familys were threatened,do you really know two 20 year old girls were not scared for their lives by this and felt that they had to do it?

Grandpa Hassan

tipptom wrote: »

Oh I know its not going to get them of the hook because its not possible for the Peruvian authority's to accept their story or it would leave every drug mule open to have this as their default story.

But what if they and their familys were threatened,do you really know two 20 year old girls were not scared for their lives by this and felt that they had to do it?

They may well have been scared, and got cold feet. But to be in that position, they had to have been playing the game to start with. And thus sympathy is limited

fishy fishy

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

The facts are that they were caught in possession of cocaine. And jails around the world are full of people who claimed that they 'didnt know it was cocaine' or 'they made me do it'. Sure, what else are you going to say

It is not a defence that works

we don't know what their defense is tho. We have to wait and see - the public are just guessing based on stories in rag mags. Lets wait until the actual people involved finds out the background and we can get a better picture then. I wouldn't blatantly dis-believe these two, while blindly believing what sensationalist rag mags say.

Menas

Phoebas wrote: »

That 'fact' hasn't been established yet. Melissa Reid said in the original police interview that she didn't know it was drugs. If that is true then she wasn't 'attempting to smuggle cocaine'

They stated in their police a week later that they suspected what was in the packages. Of course they never knew for sure what was in there and never opened the packages...but they also knew it was not porridge.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401511/Account-Ibiza-drug-mules-given-police-published-IN-FULL-time.html

Michaella and me started to suspect we were being used to carry drugs back.

Menas

It is also worth stating that ignorance is not a defence. They had the drugs in their bags. They admitted to packing the packages in their bags. They were caught with the bags. The packages were opened and had the drugs in them. These are facts and it will be a hell of a job to prove their innocence.

Allyall

Their statements are available to read online. What they said happened, and what the Police in Peru and Spain say couldn't have happened are the main points.

Nobody is questioning whether or not the girls had cocaine in their bags.
The main line of query is, were there men forcing them at gunpoint and with threats, to carry the drugs. Were their Families lives, and their lives in danger?
Were there men following them from Spain to Peru, sitting on the Aeroplane a few rows back, and in the Airport tailing them?

Or did the girls do it for money, or for their own benefit?

Phoebas

Trigger Happy wrote: »

It is also worth stating that ignorance is not a defence. They had the drugs in their bags. They admitted to packing the packages in their bags. They were caught with the bags. The packages were opened and had the drugs in them. These are facts and it will be a hell of a job to prove their innocence.

Do we 'know' that ignorance isn't a defence in Peru?
I read of an other case (in S. America, maybe not Peru) of a woman who brought her gormless boyfriend on 'holiday' (I think she told him she had won it or something), and packed cocaine in both of their bags. He was eventually cleared.

tipptom

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

They may well have been scared, and got cold feet. But to be in that position, they had to have been playing the game to start with. And thus sympathy is limited

What they are saying is they did not get themselves in that position in the first place but that they were kidnapped of the street and forced to do it through threats to them and their familys so there was no cold feet to begin with under their scenario.

Menas

Phoebas wrote: »

Do we 'know' that ignorance isn't a defence in Peru?
I read of an other case (in S. America, maybe not Peru) of a woman who brought her gormless boyfriend on 'holiday' (I think she told him she had won it or something), and packed cocaine in both of their bags. He was eventually cleared.

In this case they have both admitted that they packed the bags so they knew they were taking 'something' back and they suspected that something was drugs.
So that is very different to your example.

Grandpa Hassan

tipptom wrote: »

What they are saying is they did not get themselves in that position in the first place but that they were kidnapped of the street and forced to do it through threats to them and their familys so there was no cold feet to begin with under their scenario.

Which just sounds absolutely ridiculous. Why would drug smugglers go through all that extra hassle and risk do that when they can just pay someone a few grand to do it? After all, we do know that the Peru to Ibiza drugs run is a busy one according to Ibiza and UK police and there are plenty of willing volunteers amongst young Ibiza holiday makers wanting to extend their stay

The only fact we know is that they were caught in possession. If they get let off then it gives future smugglers a 'get out of jail' story to conconct. For this reason alone they will do time

Phoebas

tipptom wrote: »

What they are saying is they did not get themselves in that position in the first place but that they were kidnapped of the street and forced to do it through threats to them and their familys so there was no cold feet to begin with under their scenario.

Are they actually saying they were kidnapped off the street. Could they mean kidnapped in the broad sense of being detained unlawfully e.g. by coersion rather than by force?

Phoebas

Trigger Happy wrote: »

In this case they have both admitted that they packed the bags so they knew they were taking 'something' back and they suspected that something was drugs.
So that is very different to your example.

Its not really. We still can't say 'as a fact' that they were attempting to smuggle cocaine.

tipptom

Phoebas wrote: »

Are they actually saying they were kidnapped off the street. Could they mean kidnapped in the broad sense of being detained unlawfully e.g. by coersion rather than by force?

By my understanding of it that the Irish girl got a lift to the airport and was taken to an apartment and left with Pablo and his gun.