Peru drug smuggling case - READ OP BEFORE POSTING

MonaPizza

Trigger Happy wrote: »

The police caught the two girls at the check in desk with 11kg of coke in their bags. That will not be too challenging to prove.

The girls have a story of how they were coerced in to doing this and thus are not responsible for the coke been in their bags and not responsible for the crime they have been accused of. Thus the girls will have to prove this.

FFS, are you mentally slow? Will people please stop stating the bloody obvious? That they were apprehended with drugs!!
Nobody is denying that, I repeat, nobody is denying that!!!!!

You seem to think that people are stating "how can it be proven that the girls were stopped with drugs?"

They are not stating that. People are weighing up whether the girls voluntarily acted as couriers or whether they, as they claim, were coerced.

Can you not get that into your head?

MonaPizza

chopper6 wrote: »

In a case where the evidence is slightly more than circumstantial then the defendents must prove they're not guilty.


In this case i reckon they havn't a prayer.

Since when did the burden of proof shift according to the circumstances of the case?

MonaPizza

Grayson wrote: »

The crime is smuggling drugs. They were caught in possession with them. They will be sentenced guilty unless they can prove that they were coerced. That is why the burden of proof is on them.

If the police had to prove in every single case that the person wasn't coerced then everyone from bankers to murderers would use it as an excuse and then get off the charge when the cops couldn't prove they weren't.

Well there is witness testimony.
Michaela can testify that Melissa was threatened and coerced. Likewise Melissa can testify that Michaela went through similar coercion.
How is that any different from a witness in the street coming forward and stating that he witnessed the girls be threatened?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

MonaPizza wrote: »

FFS, are you mentally slow? Will people please stop stating the bloody obvious? That they were apprehended with drugs!!
Nobody is denying that, I repeat, nobody is denying that!!!!!

You seem to think that people are stating "how can it be proven that the girls were stopped with drugs?"

They are not stating that. People are weighing up whether the girls voluntarily acted as couriers or whether they, as they claim, were coerced.

Can you not get that into your head?

You asked about burden of proof - but that only refers to proof that the law has been broken. If the defense claims the law has not been broken, then yes - the prosection still has work to do. If the defense accepts that the law was broken, then task of explaining why the law was broken falls on them.

Chris Dolmeth

MonaPizza wrote: »

FFS, are you mentally slow? Will people please stop stating the bloody obvious? That they were apprehended with drugs!!
Nobody is denying that, I repeat, nobody is denying that!!!!!

But the girls themselves are pleading innocence based on the fact that they claim they were acting under duress.

Now they can't expect to be found innocent considering they were caught in possession.

Their only hope as far as I can tell is to plead guilty with extenuating circumstances and hope they authorities believe their story. Bang, 7 years, out in 2 and a bit.

If, however, they were willing mules in the hope of making a fortune with their haul (and the authorities already suspect that their story is BS) and stil claim innocence, they could be facing 15 years in prison.


Personally, I have no sympathy for them. They deserve justice (like anyone), not sympathy.

Grandpa Hassan

MonaPizza wrote: »

FFS, are you mentally slow? Will people please stop stating the bloody obvious? That they were apprehended with drugs!!
Nobody is denying that, I repeat, nobody is denying that!!!!!

You seem to think that people are stating "how can it be proven that the girls were stopped with drugs?"

They are not stating that. People are weighing up whether the girls voluntarily acted as couriers or whether they, as they claim, were coerced.

Can you not get that into your head?

They were caught smuggling drugs! I am not sure what part of that you don't get. That is a fact. Prosecution need to do nothing

Your question relates only to why they were smuggling drugs, and it is for the girls to prove that it isn't "what it clearly says on the tin" (to paraphrase the old Ronseal ad).

It is not for the prosecution to prove their story is false....it is for them to prove it is true. Which is the right thing. Otherwise every drug smuggler ever caught would get off by saying they didnt know they were drugs, or someone slipped them into their bag, or someone made them do it. Things that would be practically impossible for a prosecution to disprove

An

Chris Dolmeth

MonaPizza wrote: »

Well there is witness testimony.
Michaela can testify that Melissa was threatened and coerced. Likewise Melissa can testify that Michaela went through similar coercion.
How is that any different from a witness in the street coming forward and stating that he witnessed the girls be threatened?

Oh FFS.

A third-party independent witness has nothing to gain.

chopper6

MonaPizza wrote: »

Well there is witness testimony.
Michaela can testify that Melissa was threatened and coerced. Likewise Melissa can testify that Michaela went through similar coercion.
How is that any different from a witness in the street coming forward and stating that he witnessed the girls be threatened?

So the co-accused can act as witnesses for each other yeah?

I think your grasp of reality is a tad shaky.

Menas

MonaPizza wrote: »

FFS, are you mentally slow?

That is very very insulting. More so than you know. I was attempting to demonstrate to you why the police do not have a heavy burden of proof.

frankythefish

monapizza are you for real haha

humanji

People are starting to get a little too personal. There's no need for it, so calm down.

jack presley

frankythefish wrote: »

monapizza are you for real haha

He/she did previously state that every day in America, black people plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit because they were promised light sentences by doing so only for those promises to be lies and they end up getting long sentences. A 'daily occurrence' apparently.

* might not be exact word for word of the claim but that is the general gist.

Cunning Stunt

aidan24326 wrote: »

Are they still going ahead with a plea of not guilty? If so, they must be mad as they will almost certainly be convicted and receive a much harsher sentence. 2 years in a hellhole prison would be survivable if you can tough it out but 10+ would destroy you.

I have seen quotes from the solicitor and one of their Dads which are leaning towards the girls giving a guilty plea (only to speed up the process of cours, according to them) so I would be surprised if they plead not guilty.

chopper6

MonaPizza wrote: »

People are weighing up whether the girls voluntarily acted as couriers or whether they, as they claim, were coerced.

Can you not get that into your head?

I think most "people" know what the true answer is...no amount of coercion would make anybody with a brain and no criminal tendencies attempt to board a plane in peru whilst carrying cocaine in your luggage.

They had multiple,yes multiple opportunities to get help before they reached the Europa desk and they didnt avail of them....that would tend to indicate they were more than a little dishonest in thier story of coercian.

I actually can't believe you believe thier story...almost nobody else seems to.

castie

Never mind Peru.

What about on the flight over?
Probably the safest place to get help would be on the dam plane out of Madrid.

jackal

castie wrote: »

Never mind Peru.

What about on the flight over?
Probably the safest place to get help would be on the dam plane out of Madrid.

Oh god I love it when people discuss the practicalities of the situation like it was actually a plausible scenario. Go on... go on... sure sure... with the threats and the cajoooooolin... jaysus, tedible.. .

castie

jackal wrote: »

Oh god I love it when people discuss the practicalities of the situation like it was actually a plausible scenario. Go on... go on... sure sure... with the threats and the cajoooooolin... jaysus, tedible.. .

Im not exactly saying its real.

People seem to be using the threat of people in Peru being bribed as to why they wouldnt go to the authorities in Peru.
Plane in madrid not even left the tarmac and id be singing like a canary!
Hence why my belief is that the story is absolute crap.

MonaPizza

Chris Dolmeth wrote: »

But the girls themselves are pleading innocence based on the fact that they claim they were acting under duress.

Now they can't expect to be found innocent considering they were caught in possession.

Their only hope as far as I can tell is to plead guilty with extenuating circumstances and hope they authorities believe their story. Bang, 7 years, out in 2 and a bit.

If, however, they were willing mules in the hope of making a fortune with their haul (and the authorities already suspect that their story is BS) and stil claim innocence, they could be facing 15 years in prison.


Personally, I have no sympathy for them. They deserve justice (like anyone), not sympathy.

I completely agree with you. But I also can't help but feel that they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Let's just say that they were definitely threatened/coerced and were afraid to blow the whistle at the airport for fear of reprisal and/or that they wouldn't be believed and would definitely be locked up. Let's just assume for a moment that that is true. What do they do? Protesting their innocence is not going to help them. It's natural for someone to stick to their guns when they feel aggrieved. But in this situation they are given the choice of pleading guilty and being punished or pleading not guilty and being punished more harshly.

It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" job for them. This rotting in jail for 2 to 3 years awaiting trial caper doesn't exactly serve to promote a system of fair and speedy trials and certainly doesn't promote someone's right to plead not guilty to a transgression even is one is 100% innocent. It appears that if you are charged for some crime in Peru....even if there is no way you could have committed the crime then you are fcuked.

Menas

castie wrote: »

Im not exactly saying its real.

People seem to be using the threat of people in Peru being bribed as to why they wouldnt go to the authorities in Peru.
Plane in madrid not even left the tarmac and id be singing like a canary!
Hence why my belief is that the story is absolute crap.

And that is exactly the problem these girls have. There are hundreds of questions to ask about this case that will be very hard to answer...a few basic ones would be...

1) Why, in the 7-10 days from your kidnapping to your arrest, did you not take one opportunity to seek help? Even when you had your picture taken with a Peruvian police man? Even when you had a blackberry in Peru?

2) Why would the drug runners change their modus operandi that has worked with relative success for the last three decades (get a gullible and greedy person to be a mule) and move to a high risk method (kidnapping, coercion etc)

3) What proof is there of this coercion?

4) You stated that you were relieved to get caught by the authorities, but why did you try to avoid the sniffer dogs in the airport terminal building?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

MonaPizza

Chris Dolmeth wrote: »

Oh FFS.

A third-party independent witness has nothing to gain.

I didn't allude to that. People are trying to state that the burden of proof is upon them to prove they were coerced. How exactly is one supposed to do that? As far as I can tell there would only be witness testimony, unless there's some paper trail of threatening letters/emails or recorded phone conversations revealing that they were put under duress. Absent that there is only testimony

kylith

castie wrote: »

Im not exactly saying its real.

People seem to be using the threat of people in Peru being bribed as to why they wouldnt go to the authorities in Peru.
Plane in madrid not even left the tarmac and id be singing like a canary!
Hence why my belief is that the story is absolute crap.

Nah, wait till it's off the ground so that the guy keeping an eye on them couldn't use his phone, then have a quiet word with the cabin crew and have the police waiting for their 'handler' at the other end. Hells, give them the addresses and they could have the place they were taken to in Ibiza searched and a bunch of cops at their parent's doors before the plane touched down in Peru.

Menas

kylith wrote: »

Nah, wait till it's off the ground so that the guy keeping an eye on them couldn't use his phone, then have a quiet word with the cabin crew and have the police waiting for their 'handler' at the other end. Hells, give them the addresses and they could have the place they were taken to in Ibiza searched and a bunch of cops at their parent's doors before the plane touched down in Peru.

And if their story were true then they would have had about 4 days to figure that little plan out. Its a no brainer really.
That is why drug runners use the gullible and greedy as opposed to forcing someone against their will.

MonaPizza

chopper6 wrote: »

So the co-accused can act as witnesses for each other yeah?

I think your grasp of reality is a tad shaky.

I don't know. I don't know who qualifies as a witness in a criminal case and who doesn't. If 3 guys are arrested for kicking the sh1t out of someone surely each one of them could take the witness stand and tell their version of events, no?

humanji

MonaPizza wrote: »

I don't know. I don't know who qualifies as a witness in a criminal case and who doesn't. If 3 guys are arrested for kicking the sh1t out of someone surely each one of them could take the witness stand and tell their version of events, no?

I think you're not counted as a witness if you actively took part in an incident.

I am pie

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Amount of people of who would believe there story if they were English, American, Chinese or any other nationality other than Irish?

Zero would be my guess. Because one of the girls is one of our own we suspend all rational thinking.

jack presley

MonaPizza wrote: »

I didn't allude to that. People are trying to state that the burden of proof is upon them to prove they were coerced. How exactly is one supposed to do that?

If you think that'd be hard, imagine how difficult it would be if the prosecution had to prove that they weren't coerced? Luckily, in the real world that'd never happen.

hatrickpatrick

The world's legal systems have had this problem for quite some time now and it causes no end of miscarriages of justice because "I didn't want to risk getting falsely convicted and getting a higher sentence". It's a bit like how sometimes when you're fined unfairly it's easier to just pay it instead of going to court and risking getting a conviction on the off chance that you don't win.

You can see it in the United States in particular, the entire legal system seems to be geared towards threatening unbelievably disproportionate sentences and then saying "Look, you might be innocent, but let's face it it's easier to just take the plea deal and avoid potentially spending half your life behind bars".

Not much of a "justice" system if you ask me. I mean I can understand the value of plea deals in a lot of cases, don't get me wrong, but lately it seems that the entire system is designed to pressure people into pleading guilty regardless of whether they actually did it or not.

Grandpa Hassan

jack presley wrote: »

If you think that'd be hard, imagine how difficult it would be if the prosecution had to prove that they weren't coerced? Luckily, in the real world that'd never happen.

Quite. If the burden of proof was on the prosecution, every drug smuggler ever caught would get off. How can the prosecution prove conclusively that someone didnt have the drugs planted, or that they were coerced?

It's only right that, having been caught red handed trying to smuggle the stuff, then the girls have to prove that things aren't what they seem

MonaPizza

chopper6 wrote: »

I think most "people" know what the true answer is...no amount of coercion would make anybody with a brain and no criminal tendencies attempt to board a plane in peru whilst carrying cocaine in your luggage.

They had multiple,yes multiple opportunities to get help before they reached the Europa desk and they didnt avail of them....that would tend to indicate they were more than a little dishonest in thier story of coercian.

I actually can't believe you believe thier story...almost nobody else seems to.

I can't say that I do believe it. But that doesn't mean the possibility shouldn't even be considered.
I don't believe that Oscar Pistorious thought he was shooting a burglar when he wasted his girlfriend. That doesn't mean that it's not a possibility and shouldn't be investigated either.

Of course he isn't faced with the stark choice of pleading guilty and receiving a reduced sentence or pleading not guilty and rotting in a South African jail for 3 years awaiting trial so he's pretty free to plead anyway he wants and go about his life until the case comes up.

MonaPizza

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nobody is "falling" for anything. There seems to be two types of people viewing this case:

a. The closed-minded who don't want to hear anything other than "Screw a trial. Screw them. They're lying scumbags. Throw away the key!"

b. The open-minded who want to explore all the circumstances surrounding the whole affair.

MonaPizza

kylith wrote: »

Nah, wait till it's off the ground so that the guy keeping an eye on them couldn't use his phone, then have a quiet word with the cabin crew and have the police waiting for their 'handler' at the other end. Hells, give them the addresses and they could have the place they were taken to in Ibiza searched and a bunch of cops at their parent's doors before the plane touched down in Peru.

But what exactly are you going to arrest someone for? What are the police going to arrest the handler for? Waiting at the airport?

MonaPizza

humanji wrote: »

I think you're not counted as a witness if you actively took part in an incident.

You think or you know?

jack presley

MonaPizza wrote: »

You think or you know?

There's a clue if you read the sentence that you quoted.

kylith

MonaPizza wrote: »

But what exactly are you going to arrest someone for? What are the police going to arrest the handler for? Waiting at the airport?

Suspected kidnapping?

MonaPizza

jack presley wrote: »

There's a clue if you read the sentence that you quoted.

So what if the hypothetical 3 weren't involved in the incident yet were all charged with it?
Are they not allowed to testify to try and exonerate each other?

Amazingfun

MonaPizza wrote: »

IF you know this as you are claiming then could you present us with your evidence please?

You have an 'interesting' tone for someone who made wild baseless claims about "daily arrests of innocent Blacks" in the American prison system, and when we pressed YOU for supporting evidence, all that came back was silence.

Practice what you preach.

I am pie

MonaPizza wrote: »

Nobody is "falling" for anything. There seems to be two types of people viewing this case:

a. The closed-minded who don't want to hear anything other than "Screw a trial. Screw them. They're lying scumbags. Throw away the key!"

b. The open-minded who want to explore all the circumstances surrounding the whole affair.

Ridiculously close minded black and white statement you have made there. There are a number of people who are saying that their story is suspicious but for their own good they shoiuld plead guilty. Not out of lust for locking them up but for practical reasons. They will do the same time in either case and will most likely serve less in the case they plead guilty.

I challenge you to find one person who actually said what you have quoted in you point a. You have quoted it, so I assume you are quoting from someone somewhere on thread or are you pigeon holing again? Me good you bad? In the style of a playground discussion...

jack presley

MonaPizza wrote: »

So what if the hypothetical 3 weren't involved in the incident yet were all charged with it?
Are they not allowed to testify to try and exonerate each other?

I don't know why you're quoting me there. All I did was try and help you decipher that sentence you quoted.

chopper6

MonaPizza wrote: »

Nobody is "falling" for anything. There seems to be two types of people viewing this case:

a. The closed-minded who don't want to hear anything other than "Screw a trial. Screw them. They're lying scumbags. Throw away the key!"

b. The open-minded who want to explore all the circumstances surrounding the whole affair.

That'll be the cops and the prosecutors...if the cops believed thier story of duress they would'nt have proceeded with the prosecution as thier story would've added up,there would have been people to co-oroberate it,CCTV footage,names and addresses etc.

Grandpa Hassan

MonaPizza wrote: »

Nobody is "falling" for anything. There seems to be two types of people viewing this case:

a. The closed-minded who don't want to hear anything other than "Screw a trial. Screw them. They're lying scumbags. Throw away the key!"

b. The open-minded who want to explore all the circumstances surrounding the whole affair.

That is a disingenuous statement.

If they can prove they were coerced, then fair play....they deserve to get off. And I am sure, in the event that they plead not guilty, that their legal representatives are looking for all the proof they can get. And I hope they uncover the truth

But what I am others are saying is that it is right that the burden now be on them to prove they were coerced, and that they are not guilty. If it were not that way, every drug smuggler ever caught trying to get the merchandise through the airport would get off on the back of saying they were coerced or the drugs were planted, as it would be nigh on impossible for a prosecution to prove beyind a reaonable doubt that they were not.

And that is not just a Peruvian issue. It would be the same if you were caught bringing drugs through Dublin airport. if you were caught red handed, and it would be up to you to prove that things are not what they seem. Otherwise you're going down

humanji

MonaPizza wrote: »

So what if the hypothetical 3 weren't involved in the incident yet were all charged with it?
Are they not allowed to testify to try and exonerate each other?

They can't be both involved and not involved in a crime. If they witnessed a crime, then they're witnesses. If they are the victims or suspected culprits of a crime, then they're not witnesses. They can give statements, but these aren't counted witness statements.

Menas

It is a nonsense to believe that in this case the judges will accept a defence of coercion based solely on the testimony of the two accused. Can we accept that and move on?
Unless they can produce some evidence or witnesses to back up their story then they have no hope....their story is just too fantastical.
They need to get to that realisation and plead guilty, try to give more detailed statements and show contrition. Then hope they get a fair sentence.

Amazingfun

http://www.independent.ie/videos/irish-news/peru-drugs-case-melissa-reids-father-on-jail-conditions-29545131.html

Melissa's poor dad

He says the conditions at their present prison are not as bad as what he had heard possible, but said that could change if they are moved.

Stench Blossoms

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/michaella-fund-raises-just-600-to-pay-legal-fees-in-peru-29547661.html

Michaella fund raises just €600 to pay legal fees in Peru

I'm surprised they even got that much.

jester77

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/michaella-fund-raises-just-600-to-pay-legal-fees-in-peru-29547661.html



I'm surprised they even got that much.

Probably friends, neighbours and family guilted into it. Looks like they are going for the pity approach now.

osarusan

MonaPizza wrote: »

So what if the hypothetical 3 weren't involved in the incident yet were all charged with it?
Are they not allowed to testify to try and exonerate each other?

They could testify as defendants, not witnesses.

Even if one plead guilty and decided to testify against the other two, their testimony would be considered accomplice testimony, and would not alone be enough to convict (accomplice testimony needs corroboration).

beazee

Her family set up an Internet pledge to raise 20K pounds to cover legal costs. They've already raised £766!
http://www.thejournal.ie/michaella-peru-fundraising-1066647-Sep2013/

Support a drug mule instead of a child in need. They got some cheek.

BTW. Why is all the fuss about the Micky Mouse girl and not the other? Is it the looks?

jackal

beazee wrote: »

. Why is all the fuss about the Micky Mouse girl and not the other? Is it the looks?

In a word, yes.

Its like when a pretty young girl dies in a car crash or something and strangers are upset because she was so pretty, whereas a homely girl would not really elicit the same reaction from those not close to her.

jack presley

I'd imagine its because she's Irish and most of the articles quoted are from Irish newspapers. I haven't followed the coverage on the UK and specifically the Scottish press but I'd imagine it's the opposite over there.