Peru drug smuggling case - READ OP BEFORE POSTING

fishy fishy

prizefighter wrote: »

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.

finally, we are getting somewhere. Everything is based on stories - nobody knows the facts except the girls. the girls lawyers will now defend them and will follow up on the facts (that is the facts that the girls give to them). It has still come to pass whether there is proof there to back them up - until then I will hold my judgement on them. I won't be calling for their heads. I would rather give them the benefit of the doubt at this stage - after all it was those girls that went through the events, not us.

Slow And One Sided

fishy fishy wrote: »

It has still come to pass whether there is proof there to back them up - until then I will hold my judgement on them. I won't be calling for their heads. I would rather give them the benefit of the doubt at this stage - after all it was those girls that went through the events, not us.

Exactly, I agree that the whole thing does seem very suspicious but at the end of the day they are innocent until proven guilty!

constance tench

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'

[I know I've made this point before but just to be clear]

That's all very well as a statement of fact on that particular question [apparently that would imply some coaching on the matter] but seconds after, apparently Melissa reiterates 'I didn't' to Michaella...why would she do that if she wasn't aware Michaella had something contrary on her mind when that question was asked?

prizefighter

fishy fishy wrote: »

finally, we are getting somewhere. Everything is based on stories - nobody knows the facts except the girls. the girls lawyers will now defend them and will follow up on the facts (that is the facts that the girls give to them). It has still come to pass whether there is proof there to back them up - until then I will hold my judgement on them. I won't be calling for their heads. I would rather give them the benefit of the doubt at this stage - after all it was those girls that went through the events, not us.

You do realise that by accepting their drug smuggling as fact you must in turn accept that they have committed a crime? To put forward coercion would be to ASSUME they're telling the truth.....simple really.

chopper6

As the judge said "Why didn't they ask for help at Lima airport?"


They are guilty and they are liars.

fishy fishy

prizefighter wrote: »

You do realise that by accepting their drug smuggling as fact you must in turn accept that they have committed a crime? To put forward coercion would be to ASSUME they're telling the truth.....simple really.

it's called ' innocent until proven guilty ' - nothing has been proven yet. I will wait until the case comes up. Depending on what these facts are will determine WHO was committing the crime and if they were accessories or forced.

prizefighter

constance tench wrote: »

[I know I've made this point before but just to be clear]

That's all very well as a statement of fact on that particular question [apparently that would imply some coaching on the matter] but seconds after, apparently Melissa reiterates 'I didn't' to Michaella...why would she do that if she wasn't aware Michaella had something contrary on her mind when that question was asked?

As I said earlier in the thread her father has stated the girls had their suspicions that the packages were cocaine. I've been told that their own statements say they suspected the packages contained cocaine. To claim suspicion isn't knowledge is all good and well but as such ,suspicion would be enough for them to be aware they could potentially be breaking the law. With this in mind its interesting to think that two girls were held at gunpoint to carry odlums flower or Quaker oats in their luggage. The two stories negate one another.

Staff Infection

SyntonFenix wrote: »

If you take, deal or smuggle drugs you are supporting the illegal narcotics trade. 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.

What about someone who grows a cannabis plant or two for personal use at home? Would that be ok as they're not supporting the narcotics trade?

prizefighter

fishy fishy wrote: »

it's called ' innocent until proven guilty ' - nothing has been proven yet. I will wait until the case comes up. Depending on what these facts are will determine WHO was committing the crime and if they were accessories or forced.

Innocent until proven guilty is a fine basis for law. But law as it stands doesn't necessarily mean that if someone is acquitted they are innocent. If the girls got the case dismissed let's say for a technicality and then wrote a book stating they in fact were knowingly involved and guilty, in the eyes of the law they would be CONSIDERED innocent but to society they would be guilty. Guilt in a societal sense is based on facts while in a legal sense is reliant on factors that fall outside of fact and hinge on circumstances etc.

constance tench

prizefighter wrote: »

As I said earlier in the thread her father has stated the girls had their suspicions that the packages were cocaine. I've been told that their own statements say they suspected the packages contained cocaine. To claim suspicion isn't knowledge is all good and well but as such ,suspicion would be enough for them to be aware they could potentially be breaking the law. With this in mind its interesting to think that two girls were held at gunpoint to carry odlums flower or Quaker oats in their luggage. The two stories negate one another.

Which is apparently what is revealed in that video section...that's my point!:)

fishy fishy

prizefighter wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty is a fine basis for law. But law as it stands doesn't necessarily mean that if someone is acquitted they are innocent. If the girls got the case dismissed let's say for a technicality and then wrote a book stating they in fact were knowingly involved and guilty, in the eyes of the law they would be CONSIDERED innocent but to society they would be guilty. Guilt in a societal sense is based on facts while in a legal sense is reliant on factors that fall outside of fact and hinge on circumstances etc.

everyone can be "guilty" of some wrongdoing in Society depending on individual's moral compasses - however we are dealing with the prison/legal entities here where it is "innocent until proven guilty" That's the law.

prizefighter

fishy fishy wrote: »

everyone can be "guilty" of some wrongdoing in Society depending on individual's moral compasses - however we are dealing with the prison/legal entities here where it is "innocent until proven guilty" That's the law.

Simple, in the hypothetical scenario I put forth would you still consider the girls innocent if after acquittal they admitted their guilt? I'm interested to see how blinkered someone could become by assuming that law will win out and societal moral compasses are a subjective gauge of guilt.
I'm afraid that by harping on about guilt or innocence in a legal sense you've treated the terms in a very reductive manner and have disregarded that guilt or innocence can be ascertained through facts and evidence while legally circumstances/technicalities can deem a person innocent while evidence says otherwise.

Grandpa Hassan

Slow And One Sided wrote: »

Exactly, I agree that the whole thing does seem very suspicious but at the end of the day they are innocent until proven guilty!

They are not. they were caught in possession of 11kg of cocaine. They are guilty until they prove their innocence

HeidiHeidi

prizefighter wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty is a fine basis for law. But law as it stands doesn't necessarily mean that if someone is acquitted they are innocent. If the girls got the case dismissed let's say for a technicality and then wrote a book stating they in fact were knowingly involved and guilty, in the eyes of the law they would be CONSIDERED innocent but to society they would be guilty. Guilt in a societal sense is based on facts while in a legal sense is reliant on factors that fall outside of fact and hinge on circumstances etc.

As a slight aside, the law here (can't answer for Peru) finds you "not guilty", not "innocent". Big difference!

fishy fishy

prizefighter wrote: »

Simple, in the hypothetical scenario I put forth would you still consider the girls innocent if after acquittal they admitted their guilt? I'm interested to see how blinkered someone could become by assuming that law will win out and societal moral compasses are a subjective gauge of guilt.
I'm afraid that by harping on about guilt or innocence in a legal sense you've treated the terms in a very reductive manner and have disregarded that guilt or innocence can be ascertained through facts and evidence while legally circumstances/technicalities can deem a person innocent while evidence says otherwise.

by law, they would be innocent if a court found then innocent - they would have no tarnished records and that is the law of the land. Let them first get to their case - at least allow them that. but lets just agree to differ shall we. we are going around in circles.

prizefighter

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

As a slight aside, the law here (can't answer for Peru) finds you "not guilty", not "innocent". Big difference!

A fair point I will concede,but surely the term should be 'not guilty until proven guilty' then? If the law is stated as innocent until proven guilty it shows there to be two definite outcomes, innocence or guilt with myriad factors that create the shades of grey that lawyers and criminals love so very much.

prizefighter

fishy fishy wrote: »

by law, they would be innocent if a court found then innocent - they would have no tarnished records and that is the law of the land. Let them first get to their case - at least allow them that. but lets just agree to differ shall we. we are going around in circles.

Well with an untarnished record and a legal standing of innocence I'm sure they would then be treated like any other passenger in an international airport....? Agree to disagree?...sure.....

HeidiHeidi

prizefighter wrote: »

A fair point I will concede,but surely the term should be 'not guilty until proven guilty' then? If the law is stated as innocent until proven guilty it shows there to be two definite outcomes, innocence or guilt with myriad factors that create the shades of grey that lawyers and criminals love so very much.

I would interpret it more along the lines of "innocent until proven something".

The State makes a case to find you guilty, if they can't then all that can be said is that you're not guilty, not that you're innocent (something in the back of my head says that can only come with the overturning of a conviciton, but maybe I just made that up).

You are innocent until a court makes a ruling, I would have thought, so that phrase does stand. IMO.

*awaits an onslaught of actual legal knowledge to disprove all of the above

prizefighter

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I would interpret it more along the lines of "innocent until proven something".

The State makes a case to find you guilty, if they can't then all that can be said is that you're not guilty, not that you're innocent (something in the back of my head says that can only come with the overturning of a conviciton, but maybe I just made that up).

You are innocent until a court makes a ruling, I would have thought, so that phrase does stand. IMO.

*awaits an onslaught of actual legal knowledge to disprove all of the above

But if the ruling is 'not guilty' is that to given the same consideration as innocence? Or is not guilty a way of saying that legally a case could not be proven and thus the person was not found guilty but this IS NOT to be considered innocent. If this is the case then the legal system in many respects while proposing innocent until proven guilty is in fact a system whereby you will NEVER be found innocent but 'not guilty' is the best you can hope for. If this is the case as soon as you're accused of a crime while purporting to maintain your status of innocence it is in fact waiting for the trial conclusion where if you're lucky the best you'll get is to be found not guilty due to an inability to prove guilt.

HeidiHeidi

prizefighter wrote: »

But if the ruling is 'not guilty' is that to given the same consideration as innocence? Or is not guilty a way of saying that legally a case could not be proven and thus the person was not found guilty but this IS NOT to be considered innocent. If this is the case then the legal system in many respects while proposing innocent until proven guilty is in fact a system whereby you will NEVER be found innocent but 'not guilty' is the best you can hope for. If this is the case as soon as you're accused of a crime while purporting to maintain your status of innocence it is in fact waiting for the trial conclusion where if you're lucky the best you'll get is to be found not guilty due to an inability to prove guilt.

That's my (layman's) understanding of it.

fishy fishy

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I would interpret it more along the lines of "innocent until proven something".

The State makes a case to find you guilty, if they can't then all that can be said is that you're not guilty, not that you're innocent (something in the back of my head says that can only come with the overturning of a conviciton, but maybe I just made that up).

You are innocent until a court makes a ruling, I would have thought, so that phrase does stand. IMO.

*awaits an onslaught of actual legal knowledge to disprove all of the above

:D

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

chopper6

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thank God somebody at last with some sense.


Correct...there is a plea of innocence and if that is upheld the verdict is Not Guilty with a presumption of innocence.

Jesus it's hard work round here sometimes.

aloyisious

chopper6 wrote: »

Thank God somebody at last with some sense.


Correct...there is a plea of innocence and if that is upheld the verdict is Not Guilty with a presumption of innocence.

Jesus it's hard work round here sometimes.

Even if the jury can see the holes that the prosecuter is leaving in his/her prosecution of the case, or the defence is leaving by not asking the obvious of prosecution witnesses, they have to keep silent (while biting their tongues) and consider only the evidence laid before them by both sides to reach a verdict. You have to be like the lady with the scales, blind to the adult pink elephant in the room.

Rightwing

Bad and all as Peru jails are, it could be a whole lot worse:

There are unconfirmed reports that a three-judge panel at the Supreme Court in Jakarta unanimously rejected Lindsay Sandiford's appeal.
They have agreed with the decision taken by Bali's Denpasar district court, which sentenced her to death, and the island's high court, which rejected her first appeal.
Sandiford, 56, from Cheltenham in Gloucestershire, was sentenced to death by firing squad after being found with cocaine worth an estimated £1.6 million as she arrived on the Indonesian island on a flight from Bangkok, Thailand, in May last year.

chopper6

Rightwing wrote: »

Sandiford, 56, from Cheltenham in Gloucestershire, was sentenced to death by firing squad after being found with cocaine worth an estimated £1.6 million as she arrived on the Indonesian island on a flight from Bangkok, Thailand, in May last year.

Absolutely mind-boggling stupidity...

prizefighter

chopper6 wrote: »

Thank God somebody at last with some sense.


Correct...there is a plea of innocence and if that is upheld the verdict is Not Guilty with a presumption of innocence.

Jesus it's hard work round here sometimes.

How does that differ from what Heidi Heidi and myself said in our last posts?

constance tench

These girls are full of 'mens rea'...they'd better start pleading!...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

constance tench

...or they're simply flushing their life away!

Grandpa Hassan

Rightwing wrote: »

Bad and all as Peru jails are, it could be a whole lot worse:

There are unconfirmed reports that a three-judge panel at the Supreme Court in Jakarta unanimously rejected Lindsay Sandiford's appeal.
They have agreed with the decision taken by Bali's Denpasar district court, which sentenced her to death, and the island's high court, which rejected her first appeal.
Sandiford, 56, from Cheltenham in Gloucestershire, was sentenced to death by firing squad after being found with cocaine worth an estimated £1.6 million as she arrived on the Indonesian island on a flight from Bangkok, Thailand, in May last year.

She claimed that she was coerced as well. That her family had been threatened

kylith

prizefighter wrote: »

As I said earlier in the thread her father has stated the girls had their suspicions that the packages were cocaine. I've been told that their own statements say they suspected the packages contained cocaine. To claim suspicion isn't knowledge is all good and well but as such ,suspicion would be enough for them to be aware they could potentially be breaking the law. With this in mind its interesting to think that two girls were held at gunpoint to carry odlums flower or Quaker oats in their luggage. The two stories negate one another.

That's it, isn't it? If the girls actually thought that they were abducted, threatened with guns, flown abroad, threatened some more, forced to pack something in their bags and, just for good measure, threatened again and still never realised (or had nothing more than a suspicion) that there were drugs in their bags they would have to be such total jelly-brains that they couldn't be let out of the house unsupervised. "He pulled a gun and threatened my family. I thought he just really liked Ready Brek''.

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

As a slight aside, the law here (can't answer for Peru) finds you "not guilty", not "innocent". Big difference!

Interestingly in Scotland there's also a verdict of 'not proven' which means that they're pretty certain you did it, they just don't have the evidence to prove it. IIRC it stops the double jeopardy clause that you can't be tried twice for the same crime because at no point are you declared 'not guilty'.

lukesmom

Michaella has been advised to cut her hair short for fear of bring choked.

wishwashwoo

Lets not forget if these girls got true with these drugs the misery it would have cased to untold amounts of people. The black and white of it they had the drugs they got caught they took there chances. They pay the piper guilty . Many many chances to run to a guard for help. Does the term Liffey and banana boat sound familiar. Here end it the lesson if your going to do it don't get caught !!!!!!!!!

aidan24326

wishwashwoo wrote: »

Lets not forget if these girls got true with these drugs the misery it would have cased to untold amounts of people. The black and white of it they had the drugs they got caught they took there chances. They pay the piper guilty . Many many chances to run to a guard for help. Does the term Liffey and banana boat sound familiar. Here end it the lesson if your going to do it don't get caught !!!!!!!!!

Enough of the moralising bullsh1t. Even if guilty they are no more than two random pawns in a much bigger game. The drug industry is the ultimate in hypocrisy because the players involved run all the way from naieve patsies like these two on one end of the spectrum right through to police, lawyers, judges and politicians on the other end, all complicit to varying degrees.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ArmaniJeanss

wishwashwoo wrote: »

Lets not forget if these girls got through with these drugs the misery it would have caused to untold amounts of people.

A load of twenty somethings on Ibiza would have had a slightly better buzzier summer holiday than the one they are already having?

wishwashwoo wrote: »

Here end it the lesson

Also you really need to google to see what this phrase actually is, you are having a damp squib/squid misunderstanding!

chopper6

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

A load of twenty somethings on Ibiza would have had a slightly better buzzier summer holiday than the one they are already having?

Drugs business is always enforced by violence...any firm of coke dealers on Ibiza would be backed up by a bunch of GBH merchants on the payroll in case somebody decidees not to pay thier debts.

There are moroccans on Ibiza who will kill you stone dead for 1000 euro,they colombians will kill you for fun as will the scousers and only a madman would end up getting involved with russians,turks or chechens.

At home the Drimnagh fued which cost what,13 dead was fueled by cocaine dealing....anybody who thinks dealing kilos of charlie is all good clean fun needs to wake up and smell the gunsmoke.

Grayson

fishy fishy wrote: »

I would rather give them the benefit of the doubt at this stage - after all it was those girls that went through the events, not us.

You realise how silly that reasoning is. You're stating that we should assume someone is telling the truth because they will know if they are lying or not.

dundalkfc10

chopper6 wrote: »

Drugs business is always enforced by violence...any firm of coke dealers on Ibiza would be backed up by a bunch of GBH merchants on the payroll in case somebody decidees not to pay thier debts.

There are moroccans on Ibiza who will kill you stone dead for 1000 euro,they colombians will kill you for fun as will the scousers and only a madman would end up getting involved with russians,turks or chechens.

At home the Drimnagh fued which cost what,13 dead was fueled by cocaine dealing....anybody who thinks dealing kilos of charlie is all good clean fun needs to wake up and smell the gunsmoke.

Anyone buying these drugs, Holidaymakers there for 1 or 2 weeks would not be getting them on credit and id imagine this is where 99% of the drugs smuggled into Ibiza go

Grandpa Hassan

chopper6 wrote: »

Drugs business is always enforced by violence...any firm of coke dealers on Ibiza would be backed up by a bunch of GBH merchants on the payroll in case somebody decidees not to pay thier debts.

There are moroccans on Ibiza who will kill you stone dead for 1000 euro,they colombians will kill you for fun as will the scousers and only a madman would end up getting involved with russians,turks or chechens.

At home the Drimnagh fued which cost what,13 dead was fueled by cocaine dealing....anybody who thinks dealing kilos of charlie is all good clean fun needs to wake up and smell the gunsmoke.

Drug takers in Ibiza are overshelmingly holidaying twentysomethings buying small amounts for cash. Ive been a twentysomething Ibiza holiday maker myself and seen it openly

Though I don't disagree with what you say about drug dealing fuelling violence, you are massively overegging the pudding with respect to the nature of the consumption of cocaine in Ibiza.

People on a weeks holiday dont run up credit of £1000

chopper6

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Anyone buying these drugs, Holidaymakers there for 1 or 2 weeks would not be getting them on credit and id imagine this is where 99% of the drugs smuggled into Ibiza go

Have you any idea how the system works?

The guys that sell to holidaymakers buy it by the ounce,step on it with lignocaine and deal it on in grams cut to buggery whilst keeping some of the lesser cut stuff for themselves.

The ounce dealers buy it from kilo dealers,the kilo dealers buy it from ten-kilo dealers and they get it from people moving 100 kilos in a shipment.

The two party girls smuggling 5 kilos each arent working for big movers and shakers,they're doing it for mid-level dealers who've gotten together to pay for the shipment and the airfare with a few of thier mates on board...it was not a sophisticated operation and the girls were sussed imediatly as being obvious mules.

Guys moving 100 kilo loads do it by speedboat,trawler or freight with the coke concealed in legitimate loads such as lead ingots,car parts or furniture etc.

Only a fool would attempt to smuggle drugs in luggage through an airport...the people who put this deal together were in the ounce-dealing category and it is at this level that the most common-or-garden violence occurs....be it a tourist getting glassed for complaining about the quality or two ex-pats going missing over a 10k debt.

chopper6

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

People on a weeks holiday dont run up credit of £1000

You wont get credit if you're on a week's holiday unless you're personally known to the dealer...however if you're a serouis bugle-head you and two mates can blow £1000 on coke in a few days very easily...i witnessed a friend of mine spent 600 euro in a weekend on heavily-cut charlie for himself and "for his girlfriend"...in reality he was running off to the toilets every few minutes and "keying" it up his nose n the sly.

Three people with a gram of coke between them are like something out of an old-style western move...they dont trust each other not to take too much,nobody wants to be left the last bit and alll they can think about is getting more.

fishy fishy

wishwashwoo wrote: »

Lets not forget if these girls got true with these drugs the misery it would have cased to untold amounts of people. The black and white of it they had the drugs they got caught they took there chances. They pay the piper guilty . Many many chances to run to a guard for help. Does the term Liffey and banana boat sound familiar. Here end it the lesson if your going to do it don't get caught !!!!!!!!!

what?

MonaPizza

lukesmom wrote: »

Michaella has been advised to cut her hair short for fear of bring choked.

Choked? What has long hair got to do with whether or not you get choked?

redtapestyl

MonaPizza wrote: »

Choked? What has long hair got to do with whether or not you get choked?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

MonaPizza

aloyisious wrote: »

Even if the jury can see the holes that the prosecuter is leaving in his/her prosecution of the case, or the defence is leaving by not asking the obvious of prosecution witnesses, they have to keep silent (while biting their tongues) and consider only the evidence laid before them by both sides to reach a verdict. You have to be like the lady with the scales, blind to the adult pink elephant in the room.

Thanks Atticus, but there's no jury system in Peru.

aloyisious

For what it's worth, I suppose that the girls did run the risks they faced through their minds and decided for whatever reason top go ahead with attempting the cocaine-smuggling. What's being put forward so far as mitigating circumstances are allegations that threats were made against their families lives. Until some-one independently step's forward and corroborates the allegations, then it's simply their word that threats were made and that's what any court would have to consider, mere allegations without any specific independent evidence to give them credence.

aloyisious

MonaPizza wrote: »

Thanks Atticus, but there's no jury system in Peru.

Oh shi.....it (put's on long face)

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.