Peru drug smuggling case - READ OP BEFORE POSTING

fishy fishy

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

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

nobody knows how drug smugglers operate (hopefully) - they are dealing in millions of dollars - not pennies - two young ones out on holiday would mean nothing to them I imagine - they don't care where they end up - they could have been set up as a decoy (bright purple suitcase, told how to dress etc) so that a bigger shipment could by pass customs. Who knows how these guys operate - to try and think that you know how they do is way off the mark.

chopper6

Phoebas wrote: »

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

Then why were they attempting to board an aircraft with bags full of cocaine?

You see the scottish bint contradicted herself at the initial press conference...she said:

"we were forced to carry these bags"

thn she was asked did she know they contained drugs and she said

"No we did not know they contained drugs"

She was then asked to indicate which bag was hers whereupon she patted the large black suitcase and said "this one"....that one being the one the drugs were found in.

Give a guilty person enough rope and they'll usually hang themselves.

Phoebas

chopper6 wrote: »

Then why were they attempting to board an aircraft with bags full of cocaine?

You see teh scottish bint contradicted herself at teh initial press conference...she said:

"we were froced to carry these bags"

thn she was asked did she know they contained drugs and she said

"No we did not know they contained drugs"

She was then asked to indicate which bag was hers whereupon she patted the large black suitcase and said "this one"....that one being the one the drugs were found in.

Give a guilty person enough rope and they'll usually hang themselves.

I don't see anything contradictory at all in that.
She said she was forced to carry the bags but didn't know that they contained drugs.
She later added to this that she 'suspected' it was drugs, but didn't 'know' it.

chopper6

Phoebas wrote: »

I don't see anything contradictory at all in that.
She said she was forced to carry the bags but didn't know that they contained drugs.
She later added to this that she 'suspected' it was drugs, but didn't 'know' it.

What did she think was in the bags then that she was "forced" to carry?

Maybe a few sets of rosary beads and a load of dirty magazines?

Maybe six kilos of Peruvian Ready Brek?

Do me a favour.

tipptom

chopper6 wrote: »

Then why were they attempting to board an aircraft with bags full of cocaine?

You see the scottish bint contradicted herself at the initial press conference...she said:

"we were forced to carry these bags"

thn she was asked did she know they contained drugs and she said

"No we did not know they contained drugs"

She was then asked to indicate which bag was hers whereupon she patted the large black suitcase and said "this one"....that one being the one the drugs were found in.

Give a guilty person enough rope and they'll usually hang themselves.

I think it has to be beyond the realms that they did not know what was in the bags but if I was in their situation I would be very cagey in to admitting that I knew what was in the bags or perceived to be in the bags and then get told later by my lawyer that admitting to having a fair idea what was in them has got me another 5 on top or something like that.

What I find strange about their story is when they met up for the first time after being kidnapped in the apartment in Spain is that they never seemed to entertain any other fate for themselves, I would say most young attractive women in this situation would have firstly feared the slave trade.

Phoebas

chopper6 wrote: »

What did she think was in the bags then that she was "forced" to carry?

Maybe a few sets of rosary beads and a load of dirty magazines?

Maybe six kilos of Peruvian Ready Brek?

Do me a favour.

I'm simply saying that we can't say it is an established fact.

You need to try and seperate out what you know and what you suspect.

Think of it this way - if the Peruvian prosecution submit the packages as evidence to the court, will the court accept that it is cocaine or will they require a forensic test to establish it as a fact?

fishy fishy

chopper6 wrote: »

Then why were they attempting to board an aircraft with bags full of cocaine?

You see the scottish bint contradicted herself at the initial press conference...she said:

"we were forced to carry these bags"

thn she was asked did she know they contained drugs and she said

"No we did not know they contained drugs"

She was then asked to indicate which bag was hers whereupon she patted the large black suitcase and said "this one"....that one being the one the drugs were found in.

Give a guilty person enough rope and they'll usually hang themselves.

if you watch the video she says "i was forced to take these bags IN MY LUGGAGE" - she is refereeing to the quaker oats bags that was put into her luggage - not her actual luggage bag (which I think was a case, not a bag). She knew there was bags in her luggage but she may not have known what was in these bags, it could have been anything.

chopper6

Phoebas wrote: »

will the court accept that it is cocaine or will they require a forensic test to establish it as a fact?

They would have stablished the fact that it was cocaine at the airport...it's a very basic field narcotics kit that reacts to the prescence of drugs..in the case of cocaine the liquid turns blue.


And if you think Peru is so backward they would'nt bother to check before proferring charges of drug importation you must be living in some sort of dream world.

chopper6

fishy fishy wrote: »

if you watch the video she says "i was forced to take these bags IN MY LUGGAGE" - she is refereeing to the quaker oats bags that was put into her luggage - not her actual luggage bag (which I think was a case, not a bag). She knew there was bags in her luggage but she may not have known what was in these bags, it could have been anything.

It doesnt matter.


If she was knowingly in possesion of contraband then she is guilty of possesion...it doesnt matter if she was in possesion and believed it to be baking soda...the same stands for smuggling...if you have the bags and know you have the bags then it is your responsibility.

Here in ireland you can be charged with posession of drugs if you knowingly have them on your person regardless of what you believe them to be...you can have two pills in your pocket thinking them to be sweets but you're still guilty of posession.

fishy fishy

chopper6 wrote: »

It doesnt matter.


If she was knowingly in possesion of contraband then she is guilty of possesion...it doesnt matter if she was in possesion and believed it to be baking soda...the same stands for smuggling...if you have the bags and know you have the bags then it is your responsibility.

Here in ireland you can be charged with posession of drugs if you knowingly have them on your person regardless of what you believe them to be...you can have two pills in your pocket thinking them to be sweets but you're still guilty of posession.

I don't see where she contracticted herself tho. She seemed to have been very straightforward, saying that she was forced to take the bags in her luggage and she didn't know what was in them.

we all know the drugs were found in the bags - its the story that goes along with why they were there that is the important thing. The whole basis of this case is why did they end up with the bags in their luggage - nobody is saying that the bags were not in their luggage.

Phoebas

chopper6 wrote: »

They would have stablished the fact that it was cocaine at the airport...it's a very basic field narcotics kit that reacts to the prescence of drugs..in the case of cocaine the liquid turns blue.


And if you think Peru is so backward they would'nt bother to check before proferring charges of drug importation you must be living in some sort of dream world.

ffs. Would you at least attempt to respond to what I actually post before making stupid assumptions!

BUT, at least you accept the need for some kind of test before accepting 'as a fact' that it was cocaine. Obviously Melissa Reid didnt carry out a forensic test, so she can claim that while she suspected it was drugs, she didn't know it was cocaine.
Whether or not we believe her is beside the point.

Ash.J.Williams

tipptom wrote: »

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

yeah doesn't really matter what happened outside the airport, the fact is forced or not they were caught with illegal goods that they knew they were carrying.

Menas

Phoebas wrote: »

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

They had 11kg of cocaine in their bags and presented themselves at the Europa check in desk.
If they were not attempting to smuggle then what were they doing?

chopper6

Phoebas wrote: »

so she can claim that while she suspected it was drugs, she didn't know it was cocaine.

Ignorance is no defence...she had the bags and admitted the fact...she will be found guilty and convicted.

Allyall

chopper6 wrote: »

Ignorance is no defence...she had the bags and admitted the fact...she will be found guilty and convicted.

Neither girls defence is denying that they had cocaine in their luggage. They are sayinf they were forced to carry it, and had no alternative, and could not possibly alert anyone anywhere.

fishy fishy

chopper6 wrote: »

Ignorance is no defence...she had the bags and admitted the fact...she will be found guilty and convicted.

not so straighforward. There could be mitigating circumstances involved depending on what gets unearthed relating to their defense.

what about somebody who is found to have drugs on them at an airport - where somebody unknowns to them dropped them into their luggage to get them through customs. Should they be found guilty and convicted?

Phoebas

chopper6 wrote: »

Ignorance is no defence...

... which Peruvian statute are you referring to?

Bacchus

Isn't this half the reason why they ask you "Did you pack your bags yourself?" "Has anyone asked you to carry anything on this flight?" "Have your bags been unattended at any time?"

You accept responsibility for what is in your bags.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

fishy fishy

Bacchus wrote: »

Isn't this half the reason why they ask you "Did you pack your bags yourself?" "Has anyone asked you to carry anything on this flight?" "Have your bags been unattended at any time?"

You accept responsibility for what is in your bags.

I don't think they got to that stage at the airport - they were picked up because their luggage "stood out" and they looked nervous.

Phoebas

Trigger Happy wrote: »

They had 11kg of cocaine in their bags and presented themselves at the Europa check in desk.
If they were not attempting to smuggle then what were they doing?

I think they were attempting to smuggle it, but just because I think it doesn't make it a 'fact'.
They are, after all, denying the charges.

Allyall

Bacchus wrote: »

Isn't this half the reason why they ask you "Did you pack your bags yourself?" "Has anyone asked you to carry anything on this flight?" "Have your bags been unattended at any time?"

You accept responsibility for what is in your bags.

Yeah, but that's their defence. That they knew what was in the bags, but they had no choice.
Also, as Fishy Fishy sait, they hadn't got that far.

There are (Apparently) 8 - 10 checkpoints between Spain and Peru.
The girls didn't get past the first two in Peru, yet Kidnappers with Guns holding threatening them, made it all the way. And escaped.

Bacchus

Allyall wrote: »

Yeah, but that's their defence. That they knew what was in the bags, but they had no choice.

I thought their defence (from reading the last few pages here) was that they did NOT know what was in the bags but that they were forced to take them.

This of course is leaving out the whole "how they got here in the first place" question. Are they still claiming kidnap from Europe?

Allyall

Bacchus wrote: »

I thought their defence (from reading the last few pages here) was that they did NOT know what was in the bags but that they were forced to take them.

This of course is leaving out the whole "how they got here in the first place" question. Are they still claiming kidnap from Europe?

Michaella's Statement

Meanwhile, Enrique called me and told me to fetch my suitcase and take it to Melissa’s room, which I did.
One bag had 16 packages, the other 18. They were wrapped in newspaper. While Enrique was speaking with us, we told him we did not want to go on with this. He told us we had to because his friends were waiting for us downstairs and they would be following us on our way to the airport.
He told us it was a ‘sure thing’, that the packages were a ‘sure thing’, that he had someone, some kind of contact at the airport, and that it was all right, that we would only get caught if we revealed nervousness and that would be our fault.

Melissa's Statement

He gave me a plastic bag containing small packages which I took back to the hotel. He sent me a message telling me to go out again and fetch another bag which I did.Back at the hotel, Michaella and me started to suspect we were being used to carry drugs back. Enrique called to give us instructions on how to pack the drugs inside our suitcases. He told us to wrap them with our clothes. I started to cry and told him I couldn’t do it and he threatened us. He said his friends were constantly watching us and we would be killed if we didn’t do exactly as he said. I couldn’t sleep that night.

chopper6

fishy fishy wrote: »

not so straighforward. There could be mitigating circumstances involved depending on what gets unearthed relating to their defense.?

Do you think?

I tell you what..let's have a sporting wager...i bet you 100 euro that they will be convicted after thier trial.

fishy fishy wrote: »

what about somebody who is found to have drugs on them at an airport - where somebody unknowns to them dropped them into their luggage to get them through customs. Should they be found guilty and convicted?

That didnt happen and everybody knows that didnt happen.

You dont sneak an extra 6 kilos of packages into somebodys luggage at an airport without them or anybosdy else noticing...they might as well say the tooth fairy planted them.

Menas

Phoebas wrote: »

I think they were attempting to smuggle it, but just because I think it doesn't make it a 'fact'.
They are, after all, denying the charges.

They are denying guilt on the basis of coercion.
Better to plead guilty with mitigating circumstances. Two different things.

Grandpa Hassan

fishy fishy wrote: »

what about somebody who is found to have drugs on them at an airport - where somebody unknowns to them dropped them into their luggage to get them through customs. Should they be found guilty and convicted?

Well, whether rightly or wrongly, they normally are. Otherwise everyone would use that story

Prisons in S America and SE Asia are full of those who said 'I was forced to' or 'they aren't mine' or 'I dont know how they got there'

The girls would do well to remember that when deciding whether to plead guilty

Phoebas

Trigger Happy wrote: »

They are denying guilt on the basis of coercion.
Better to plead guilty with mitigating circumstances. Two different things.

All we know is that they have entered a plea. If it goes to trial, I'd imagine they'll attempt to challange the prosecution on every possible ground.

nelly17

So, whos made a donation then??

Phoebas

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Prisons in S America and SE Asia are full of those who said 'I was forced to' or 'they aren't mine' or 'I dont know how they got there'

The girls would do well to remember that when deciding whether to plead guilty

What we don't know is how many people sucessfully play the ignorance or coercion card.

Not many I'd suspect, but then again, these people wouldn't be turning up on the prison stats or on Banged Up Abroad

ArmaniJeanss

chopper6 wrote: »

Ignorance is no defence........

You misunderstand this legal concept.

All it means is that you can't plead that you did not know that an act was illegal, i.e., 'ignorance of the law is no defence'.

However ignorance of the act itself is generally a perfectly valid plea (in most jurisdictions, I don't know the ins and outs of the Peru system to the expert level of some here). It would be a terrible defence in this case though.

MonaPizza

Paddy Cow wrote: »

What has being brought up on criminal charges in Peru got to do with needing a doctor in Spain or a lawyer in Germany? Chances are that in any country you go to if you need the services of a doctor/lawyer they will most likely speak the language of their country.


I worked in a solicitors office for three years and I never once heard a solicitor speak "legalese" to a client. It is a solicitor's job to explain to the client in plain english where they stand with the law. It's like when I went to the doctor and had a blood test done. I wasn't told that I was suffering from insufficient ferric levels which leads to a low level of erythrocyte production, inducing poor O2 distribution, potentially reducing the efficiency of my renal and hepatic systems, which left untreated could accumulate in cardiac arrest. I was simply told that I was anemic, which mean low on iron and if I followed the doctor's advice I would be fine.

Any professional worth their salt knows their "legalese" inside out but also knows how to "translate" that knowledge into a language that the lay person understands and isn't overwhelmed by. Only cowboys/as$holes try to confuse people with unnecessary terminology.


Silly anology for two reasons.

1 Neither of the girl's families were kidnapped and had guns pointed to their heads. Neither of them were living in a conflicted Ibiza where such a fear was an actual threat of everyday life.

2 Can you name the gang that allegedly orchestrated the plot in Peru or even have any vague notion of who it maybe? Has a google search turned up anything of interest? The evidence (and a lot of testimonies of convicted mules who admit their guilt) shows that people are attracted by the easy money, think not many others are doing it and they will get away with it. They maybe coerced once they go on the trip but most willing go in the first place.


Without knowing why you needed to see a lawyer in Germany your point is invalid. If you were brought up on criminal charges then at best I would expect you to be appointed a lawyer would could speak english or second best, a lawyer and a translator. If it was simply you needing legal advice then it is up to you to find an english speaking lawyer or have a translator. I would expect the same treatment for a non english speaker caught up in the Irish legal system - either provide them with a lawyer who speaks their language or a lawyer and a translator.

There are a lot of foreign nationals up on charges in Peru and while I know that going by world population, english isn't the most spoken language, it is one of the most used languages per country and to suggest that Peru wouldn't be able to provide a lawyer who speaks english is quite frankly, absurd.

You know, I was going to respond in detail to your post but after thinking about it I decided "what is the point?" If you can't understand how analogies are used to enforce or contradict a way of thinking then I'm not going to try and enlighten you.

Fcuk it I can never resist. I'll give you an example.
A kid gets reprimanded by his dad for throwing eggs at cars.
He pleads "but everyone else was doing it"
Father demands "If everyone else was jumping off a cliff would you do the same??"



And then YOU come along and ask "what has throwing eggs at cars got to do with jumping off cliffs?"

fishy fishy

chopper6 wrote: »

Do you think?

I tell you what..let's have a sporting wager...i bet you 100 euro that they will be convicted after thier trial.



That didnt happen and everybody knows that didnt happen.

You dont sneak an extra 6 kilos of packages into somebodys luggage at an airport without them or anybosdy else noticing...they might as well say the tooth fairy planted them.

Im not saying it happened with these two. I am giving an example of "you get caught with drugs, you pay the price" As a hypothetical, what if somebody drops drugs into a pocket of your bag at the airport and you don't know about it - does the same "rule' apply.

chopper6

Phoebas wrote: »

If it goes to trial, I'd imagine they'll attempt to challange the prosecution on every possible ground.

Yeah?

Like "Did you have the bags in your luggage?"

"no"

"Did you know you had cocaine?"

"no"

"What were you doing in peru?"


"Sightseeing"

The judge will throw the book at them....the best thing thier councill (if they have one) can advise them to do is plead guilty,express remorse and appeal for leniancy.

"challanging the prosecution" when all the evidence is stacked against them could well result in them receiving double-figure sentences.

This is not an episode of Perry Mason.

Phoebas

chopper6 wrote: »

Yeah?

Like "Did you have the bags in your luggage?"

"no"

"Did you know you had cocaine?"

"no"

"What were you doing in peru?"


"Sightseeing"

The judge will throw the book at them....the best thing thier councill (if they have one) can advise them to do is plead guilty,express remorse and appeal for leniancy.

"challanging the prosecution" when all the evidence is stacked against them could well result in them receiving double-figure sentences.

This is not an episode of Perry Mason.

You're really not paying any attention to this case at all, are you?

chopper6

fishy fishy wrote: »

what if somebody drops drugs into a pocket of your bag at the airport and you don't know about it - does the same "rule' apply.

Well there's doubtless be CCTV footage of the mystery person doing the deed...they'd also have to be on the same flight as you in order to retrieve thier contraband,they'd test positive for narcotics swabs and you wouldnt and you'd want to be one hell of an idiot to leave your bags unnatended for long enough for somebody to sneak 6 kilos of drugs "into the pocket of your bag at the airport and you dont know about it".

fishy fishy

chopper6 wrote: »

Well there's doubtless be CCTV footage of the mystery person doing the deed...they'd also have to be on the same flight as you in order to retrieve thier contraband,they'd test positive for narcotics swabs and you wouldnt and you'd want to be one hell of an idiot to leave your bags unnatended for long enough for somebody to sneak 6 kilos of drugs "into the pocket of your bag at the airport and you dont know about it".

in a perfect world ya - but we don't live in a perfect world. It has yet to come out about CCTV cameras in Peru in connection with these two - we have already seen them being put into a van with two men watching them heading to the airport. What more is going to be uncovered?

Why do you say they would have to be on the same flight - logically They wouldn't have to be on the same flight - a phone call to the end destination and a description of the person (say...... a purple suitcase) is sufficient enough for a person at the other end to follow and retrieve.

Also you don't have to leave your bag unattended. A rug sack on your back provides the perfect opportunity for somebody to come up, open a pocket and deposit whatever they want. Haven't you ever seen this being done to people being robbed and they knew nothing about it.

But back to the question - if this did happen to somebody is it fair for them to be thrown into jail and told to plead guilty even though they are not.

prizefighter

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'

Hasn't her father come forward and said they had their 'suspicions' that they were carrying drugs???

Grandpa Hassan

fishy fishy wrote: »

in a perfect world ya - but we don't live in a perfect world. It has yet to come out about CCTV cameras in Peru in connection with these two - we have already seen them being put into a van with two men watching them heading to the airport. What more is going to be uncovered?

Why do you say they would have to be on the same flight - logically They wouldn't have to be on the same flight - a phone call to the end destination and a description of the person (say...... a purple suitcase) is sufficient enough for a person at the other end to follow and retrieve.

Also you don't have to leave your bag unattended. A rug sack on your back provides the perfect opportunity for somebody to come up, open a pocket and deposit whatever they want. Haven't you ever seen this being done to people being robbed and they knew nothing about it.

But back to the question - if this did happen to somebody is it fair for them to be thrown into jail and told to plead guilty even though they are not.

Whether it is fair or not is an irrelevance. The fact is that you likely will be thrown in jail, absent clear CCTV footage of the planting of the drugs.

The burden of proof is on the defendent, given that they've been caught in possession of the drugs. It is up to the defendent to prove beyind a reasonable doubt that the drugs were planted (or they were coerced etc), not the prosecution to prove they were not. If that were not the case, every drug smuggler would use that story to get them off the hook

So given that that the burden of proof is on you, and that the ramifications of you not proving it are so huge, how would you plead?

prizefighter

fishy fishy wrote: »

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.

I've read your response to what is FACT several times now and you always seem to refute that the girls were caught with cocaine in their bags. You should stop pulling people up about assumptions they are making when you seem to believe the potential mitigating factors (coercion) negates the FACT that these girls were caught with drugs in their luggage which is and of itself an assumption. I'm not making assumptions or casting aspersions about their character or their intended pleas. The FACT is that they were arrested for drug smuggling.

fishy fishy

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Whether it is fair or not is an irrelevance. The fact is that you likely will be thrown in jail, absent clear CCTV footage of the planting of the drugs.

The burden of proof is on the defendent, given that they've been caught in possession of the drugs. It is up to the defendent to prove beyind a reasonable doubt that the drugs were planted (or they were coerced etc), not the prosecution to prove they were not. If that were not the case, every drug smuggler would use that story to get them off the hook

So given that that the burden of proof is on you, and that the ramifications of you not proving it are so huge, how would you plead?

and that is what they are doing - with the Irish lawyer traveling to Spain and heading over to liaise with the peruvian lawyer. Yet people don't seem to understand this and just want them to get thrown into jail for as long as possible and ignore what they have to say and slate them for hiring an irish lawyer to aid them. Every case is different so lets wait until the actual facts come out in this one before condemning them.

chopper6

fishy fishy wrote: »

in a perfect world ya - but we don't live in a perfect world. It has yet to come out about CCTV cameras in Peru in connection with these two - we have already seen them being put into a van with two men watching them heading to the airport. What more is going to be uncovered?

Why do you say they would have to be on the same flight - logically They wouldn't have to be on the same flight - a phone call to the end destination and a description of the person (say...... a purple suitcase) is sufficient enough for a person at the other end to follow and retrieve.

Also you don't have to leave your bag unattended. A rug sack on your back provides the perfect opportunity for somebody to come up, open a pocket and deposit whatever they want. Haven't you ever seen this being done to people being robbed and they knew nothing about it.

But back to the question - if this did happen to somebody is it fair for them to be thrown into jail and told to plead guilty even though they are not.

I really have no idea what you're talking about at this stage

Phoebas

prizefighter wrote: »

Hasn't her father come forward and said they had their 'suspicions' that they were carrying drugs???

Yes, they said it themsevles in their subsequent statements.
suspicion != knowledge

prizefighter

fishy fishy wrote: »

nobody knows how drug smugglers operate (hopefully) - they are dealing in millions of dollars - not pennies - two young ones out on holiday would mean nothing to them I imagine - they don't care where they end up - they could have been set up as a decoy (bright purple suitcase, told how to dress etc) so that a bigger shipment could by pass customs. Who knows how these guys operate - to try and think that you know how they do is way off the mark.

ALOT of assumptions in that post.

fishy fishy

prizefighter wrote: »

I've read your response to what is FACT several times now and you always seem to refute that the girls were caught with cocaine in their bags. You should stop pulling people up about assumptions they are making when you seem to believe the potential mitigating factors (coercion) negates the FACT that these girls were caught with drugs in their luggage which is and of itself an assumption. I'm not making assumptions or casting aspersions about their character or their intended pleas. The FACT is that they were arrested for drug smuggling.

I have never refuted the fact that the drugs were in their bags. I am willing to wait and see what the facts are, surrounding the case. I am not going to condemn or call for their heads without waiting for the facts (the real facts from the people involved - not the tabloids) to come out - I will then make up my mind, but not before then.

fishy fishy

prizefighter wrote: »

ALOT of assumptions in all our posts .

fyp

Grandpa Hassan

fishy fishy wrote: »

and that is what they are doing - with the Irish lawyer traveling to Spain and heading over to liaise with the peruvian lawyer. Yet people don't seem to understand this and just want them to get thrown into jail for as long as possible and ignore what they have to say and slate them for hiring an irish lawyer to aid them. Every case is different so lets wait until the actual facts come out in this one before condemning them.

If they can prove their incredible story I'll eat my hat.

No, not just my hat, my entire wardrobe

prizefighter

fishy fishy wrote: »

I have never refuted the fact that the drugs were in their bags. I am willing to wait and see what the facts are, surrounding the case. I am not going to condemn or call for their heads without waiting for the facts (the real facts from the people involved - not the tabloids) to come out - I will then make up my mind, but not before then.

For someone so concerned with preconceptions and assumptions you seem to be happy to entertain the ideas of decoys,duress,coercion,kidnapping yadda yadda yadda ad nauseum. The only FACTS we know are that they were arrested with cocaine, have been jailed pending trial and have released a statement that would be seen to show they were forced into committing this crime. The statement itself can't be seen as fact as there is no actual proof to show that any of their sequence of events occurred and of course it is in their interest to lie to receive a pardon/leniency.

prizefighter

fishy fishy wrote: »

fyp

Zing.......

chopper6

fishy fishy wrote: »

I have never refuted the fact that the drugs were in their bags..

fishy fishy wrote: »

I am willing to wait and see what the facts are, surrounding the case. I am not going to condemn or call for their heads without waiting for the facts (the real facts from the people involved - not the tabloids) to come out - I will then make up my mind, but not before then.

First fact negates all other facts.

FACT.