Peru drug smuggling case - READ OP BEFORE POSTING

For Forks Sake

Allyall wrote: »

As far as i am aware, this is their first offence. Therefore, i take it, they weren't heavily involved in crime.

They were caught with 11kg of cocaine in an airport attempting to smuggle it. That is what they will be charged and tried for.

Past record, or mitigating circumstances (of which I don't believe a word of their story fwiw) don't come into it.

constance tench

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Indeed, and the fact that I flushed the crusty toilet paper would mean I had no proof! Guilty according to the court, I accept that. But again, it still does not mean it didn't happen.

...if they could even prove a quarter of their story they'd be doing well...

Merkin

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I had a **** this morning, nobody was there to see it happening. Does that mean it didn't happen?

So you're admitting you're a wanker then?

Chris Dolmeth

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I actually do think it is appropriate for the family to raise money to maintain visits and such like. That page is about getting her home where she 'belongs'

He's talking about the comments section, not the whle site.

Amazingfun

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I actually do think it is appropriate for the family to raise money to maintain visits and such like. That page is about getting her home where she 'belongs'

I think you misunderstood me. The page is fine, I said the family ought to disable the comments feature since there are so many negative comments and I am sure it doesn't make for pleasant reading for them. There are loads of places online to have a go at them, surely there doesn't need to be one on there too?

A Dub in Glasgo

Chris Dolmeth wrote: »

He's talking about the comments section, not the whle site.

I know, people are commenting because the fund raising page is not about helping the family maintain visits but to bring her back home where she 'belongs'. This sends out all the wrong messages especially when asking people for money

chickcharnley

Trigger Happy wrote: »

It was reported on his return from peru, fcked if I am going to search through the newspaper archive for you.

Try calling their offices directly.
http://www.madden-finucane.com/english/partners.aspx

why dont you call them?

Chris Dolmeth

Why do people feel sorry for them?

Awh sure they were just smuggling a bit o' coke, and sure didn't they say they were forced!
Ah who needs proof, they're grand girls and that's all there is to it.

IF they were rough-looking or from a rough area with implications that they may not be completely wholesome (even though they were), they'd be crucified in the court of public opinion long ago.

It amazes me what a sob story does to people.

Like someone else said, where's the collections and media coverage and sympathy for the other 30 or so Irish caught smuggling in Peru?

Amazingfun

Chris Dolmeth wrote: »

Why do people feel sorry for them?

Awh sure they were just smuggling a bit o' coke, and sure didn't they say they were forced!
Ah who needs proof, they're grand girls and that's all there is to it.

IF they were rough-looking or from a rough area with implications that they may not be completely wholesome (even though they were), they'd be crucified in the court of public opinion long ago.

It amazes me what a sob story does to people.

Like someone else said, where's the collections and media coverage and sympathy for the other 30 or so Irish caught smuggling in Peru?

This has been answered many times.

People feel sorry for them because some have children themselves and just can't bear to think of their families suffering so, , some have a past that includes drugs/ petty crime or the like and can perhaps see how this drugs culture seduced the girls into taking such a stupid risk. Others hold the bigger drug dealers more responsible and think these low level mules aren't who we should be putting away for years......etc etc.

Most of all, the sympathy is for the families rather than the girls, far as I can see.

Mercy is just that; mercy. It's not always rational.

chickcharnley

Chris Dolmeth wrote: »

Why do people feel sorry for them?

Awh sure they were just smuggling a bit o' coke, and sure didn't they say they were forced!
Ah who needs proof, they're grand girls and that's all there is to it.

IF they were rough-looking or from a rough area with implications that they may not be completely wholesome (even though they were), they'd be crucified in the court of public opinion long ago.

It amazes me what a sob story does to people.

Like someone else said, where's the collections and media coverage and sympathy for the other 30 or so Irish caught smuggling in Peru?

spot on pretty much sums it up i wonder will the family be on the late late on friday?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Grayson

chickcharnley wrote: »

spot on pretty much sums it up i wonder will the family be on the late late on friday?

i do feel a bit sorry for them. The crime wasn't done with malice. they were probably involved with drug use themselves and had probably not seen the negative side of drug use. they probably thought it was a victimless crime.

They were fcuking stupid to think that.
Just as they were fcuking stupid to think they could just pop over to Peru and grab 11kb.

Just like they are fcuking stupid to keep this charade up.

they're in a foreign country, in a ****ty prison and are probably scared witless.

that doesn't mean i think they should be sent home. Or that they should get donations. Or anything like that. It just means I do feel sympathy.

Oryx

I am sorry for them on a human level. I also know their families are living through a complete nightmare right now. But it is infuriating to see facebook campaigns and charity funds set up to bring them home, as if they were victims of some awful injustice.

Ash.J.Williams

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.

well if you have time you could trawl through every other mule case and see how that turned out, many of them have the same story.

Allyall

Oryx wrote: »

I am sorry for them on a human level. I also know their families are living through a complete nightmare right now. But it is infuriating to see facebook campaigns and charity funds set up to bring them home, as if they were victims of some awful injustice.

I'd say that's more the family not being able to cope, and wanting to do as much as possible.
Which is understandable. If i had an idiotic sister who was daft enough to do the same, i would try to get funds to help her as much as possible.

I can't even fathom what i would do if i had a daughter like that.

Menas

chickcharnley wrote: »

why dont you call them?

You are the one who wants to check the fact, not me. I was answering your question on whether we know that the solicitor did his work pro bono and offered you a channel to verify the fact if you so wish.

Menas

Allyall wrote: »

I'd say that's more the family not being able to cope, and wanting to do as much as possible.
Which is understandable. If i had an idiotic sister who was daft enough to do the same, i would try to get funds to help her as much as possible.

I can't even fathom what i would do if i had a daughter like that.

Agreed, if it was my daughter and I needed to start a fundraiser then it would be to visit her, to give her money for food and water and the other essentials to life in a Peruvian prison.
Not to fund a 'bring her home where she belongs' campaign.

MonaPizza

prizefighter wrote: »

So, if three men were arrested for gangraping a woman, the men can act as witnesses on each others behalf? They can all claim no wrongdoing and obviously its their three stories against her one. They have a common interest. Do you not see the huge deficit in logic put forward when you assume Melissa and Michaela can vouch for one another. If that was the case, every criminal would act with an accomplice so if they get arrested they can just deny any wrongdoing and have their partner by their side acting as a reciprocal witness. You've asked a few people are they mentally slow, yet you came out with this brainwave???

I didn't fcuking say that!
I didn't mention anything about vouching as you casually implied. And for your information, I was asking whether it was possible, not stating that it was, got that?
I asked if indictees could proffer witness testimony. The scumbag who beat that student girl in Chicago was testified against by the girl he was with. She was implicated too and received, I don't know, 20 years or something but she could just as easily have testified that he had nothing to do with it and was trying to stop a third guy who doled out the beating...if that was the case.
Maybe I just think in broader terms than you and when I verbalise it or write it down you just focus in on some tiny narrow segment because that's all your horizon will allow.

Menas

MonaPizza wrote: »

I didn't fcuking say that!
I didn't mention anything about vouching as you casually implied. And for your information, I was asking whether it was possible, not stating that it was, got that?
I asked if indictees could proffer witness testimony. The scumbag who beat that student girl in Chicago was testified against by the girl he was with. She was implicated too and received, I don't know, 20 years or something but she could just as easily have testified that he had nothing to do with it and was trying to stop a third guy who doled out the beating...if that was the case.
Maybe I just think in broader terms than you and when I verbalise it or write it down you just focus in on some tiny narrow segment because that's all your horizon will allow.

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?

But you stated the above?

guttenberg

The Mirror used a lovely quote from former Boardsie Tallon regarding the fundraiser:

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/world-news/peru-drugs-arrests-fundraising-page-2250149

Irrespective of the charges, all that family are trying to do is raise money to help a loved one fund legal aid. Even if they're guilty(which hasn't been proven yet) they are still entitled to a fair trial/decent legal representation.

Toto Wolfcastle

Targeted by internet trolls my arse.

Oryx

Bobblehead Panda wrote: »

Targeted by internet trolls my arse.

Makes it sound like a vendetta, when in fact its simply normal people responding with their feelings on the thing.

Toto Wolfcastle

Oryx wrote: »

Makes it sound like a vendetta, when in fact its simply normal people responding with their feelings on the thing.

The word trolling used to actually mean something. Now the media have grabbed hold of it and they seem to use it when anyone disagrees with anything.

constance tench

I see the target has been dropped from 24,000e to 10,000e...so where did they get this 24,000 figure from? [I wonder]

jack presley

MonaPizza wrote: »

Maybe I just think in broader terms than you.

Yeah, like that 'daily occurance' story you told about earlier in the thread about blacks in America. We're still waiting on evidence to make the story even the slightest bit credible by the way.

jack presley

Bobblehead Panda wrote: »

The word trolling used to actually mean something. Now the media have grabbed hold of it and they seem to use it when anyone disagrees with anything.

Off topic but the same thing had happened to the word 'begrudger'.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

chickcharnley

Trigger Happy wrote: »

You are the one who wants to check the fact, not me. I was answering your question on whether we know that the solicitor did his work pro bono and offered you a channel to verify the fact if you so wish.

grand cool you just come across a bit narky is all

Menas

chickcharnley wrote: »

grand cool you just come across a bit narky is all

That was me in a good mood!!!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Paddy Cow

Bobblehead Panda wrote: »

The word trolling used to actually mean something. Now the media have grabbed hold of it and they seem to use it when anyone disagrees with anything.

Same with bullying and racist. Words get overused and lose their meaning.

prizefighter

Trigger Happy wrote: »

But you stated the above?

Thanks for that, you saved me a few minutes.

chickcharnley

Trigger Happy wrote: »

That was me in a good mood!!!

relax:D

prizefighter

MonaPizza wrote: »

I didn't fcuking say that!
I didn't mention anything about vouching as you casually implied. And for your information, I was asking whether it was possible, not stating that it was, got that?
I asked if indictees could proffer witness testimony. The scumbag who beat that student girl in Chicago was testified against by the girl he was with. She was implicated too and received, I don't know, 20 years or something but she could just as easily have testified that he had nothing to do with it and was trying to stop a third guy who doled out the beating...if that was the case.
Maybe I just think in broader terms than you and when I verbalise it or write it down you just focus in on some tiny narrow segment because that's all your horizon will allow.

I won't bother addressing the first bit of this post as Triggerhappy has already addressed the blatant contradictions in your posts leading up to this point.
It seems you have a habit of looking down your nose at people, questioning their mental ability and general skills of perception. From what you've shown of yourself thus far, you should spend less time throwing around judgement and more time thinking about what points you're TRYING to make. Other people that counter your flimsy and vague arguments should not become targets for your vitriol and tantrums. You've embarrassed yourself, let that be that.

MonaPizza

People are constantly looking at this like it black and white and people do that far to often. So much so that it stifles their ability to think.

Everyone know they were apprehended at the airport with a load of coke. Everyone knows that they are saying they were coerced. From this people are taking one of two sides...1. the did it willingly and are lying or 2. they really were coerced.
Well there are other possibilities.
Someone earlier gave anecdotal evidence that their 19 year old sister wouldn't shoplift because she knows it's wrong and knows the consequences. That's great and all but you can hardly use your own law-abiding sister as the yardstick to determine how everyone else should behave and how any deviation from that is completely intolerable and unfathomable. How many teenagers do you know who have been complete paragons of virtue until some point when they start hanging around with new people. Suddenly their attitude changes. Their willing to be more cavalier, less respectful of authority (and I'm not just talking about talking back to their parents or giving the teacher some lip because they're going through puberty), I'm talking about how they are somehow idolised or respected by others for breaking the law. A kid smashes a car window and all of a sudden the group tells him he's a great fellow and look up to him.
Teens are impressionable.....and females certainly are. Now these two were most likely told that this Peru drug run was a joke, a piece of piss and that nobody ever got caught. You can imagine the snakes telling them this and saying that they would never be stopped. 999 out of 1000 guys get through and 1000 out of 1000 girls get through. One of them probably even said "The only reason I'm not doing this run is because I was the 1 in a 1000 who got caught the last time but I just said Colombians threatened to kill me and cut up my family. After a few days in the cells the police let me go. Piece of piss. You won't get caught but if you do just you were threatened. They'll let you go!"

Sweet talk and assure a naive girl and she'll believe anything. ("Course I'll love you in the morning. I'll take you on my yacht tomorrow and you'll meet all the celebs. Just suck this!")

It's my contention that the "we were coerced" nonsense was fed to them NOT to get them off but to convince them to go ahead with the job in the first place. And clearly they believed that.

It's like getting a kid to break into someone's house. He knows it's wrong so you have to manipulate him into thinking it's ok and it'll be even ok if he is caught (as long as you yourself get away). Tell him it's your cousin's house and that you lost the key but are too big to get in the window. Get him to believe that and he thinks it's grand. He's breaking the rules but has a good explanation when he gets caught by the owner of the house who is no more your cousin than attilla the hun.

So we have two really gullible girls who did this because they were convinced by the guys who used them that in the event of them getting caught they would be released after a short while.

That's why they're spitting out this excuse. They actually believed it.

Ash.J.Williams

MonaPizza wrote: »

People are constantly looking at this like it black and white and people do that far to often. So much so that it stifles their ability to think.

Everyone know they were apprehended at the airport with a load of coke. Everyone knows that they are saying they were coerced. From this people are taking one of two sides...1. the did it willingly and are lying or 2. they really were coerced.
Well there are other possibilities.
Someone earlier gave anecdotal evidence that their 19 year old sister wouldn't shoplift because she knows it's wrong and knows the consequences. That's great and all but you can hardly use your own law-abiding sister as the yardstick to determine how everyone else should behave and how any deviation from that is completely intolerable and unfathomable. How many teenagers do you know who have been complete paragons of virtue until some point when they start hanging around with new people. Suddenly their attitude changes. Their willing to be more cavalier, less respectful of authority (and I'm not just talking about talking back to their parents or giving the teacher some lip because they're going through puberty), I'm talking about how they are somehow idolised or respected by others for breaking the law. A kid smashes a car window and all of a sudden the group tells him he's a great fellow and look up to him.
Teens are impressionable.....and females certainly are. Now these two were most likely told that this Peru drug run was a joke, a piece of piss and that nobody ever got caught. You can imagine the snakes telling them this and saying that they would never be stopped. 999 out of 1000 guys get through and 1000 out of 1000 girls get through. One of them probably even said "The only reason I'm not doing this run is because I was the 1 in a 1000 who got caught the last time but I just said Colombians threatened to kill me and cut up my family. After a few days in the cells the police let me go. Piece of piss. You won't get caught but if you do just you were threatened. They'll let you go!"

Sweet talk and assure a naive girl and she'll believe anything. ("Course I'll love you in the morning. I'll take you on my yacht tomorrow and you'll meet all the celebs. Just suck this!")

It's my contention that the "we were coerced" nonsense was fed to them NOT to get them off but to convince them to go ahead with the job in the first place. And clearly they believed that.

It's like getting a kid to break into someone's house. He knows it's wrong so you have to manipulate him into thinking it's ok and it'll be even ok if he is caught (as long as you yourself get away). Tell him it's your cousin's house and that you lost the key but are too big to get in the window. Get him to believe that and he thinks it's grand. He's breaking the rules but has a good explanation when he gets caught by the owner of the house who is no more your cousin than attilla the hun.

So we have two really gullible girls who did this because they were convinced by the guys who used them that in the event of them getting caught they would be released after a short while.

That's why they're spitting out this excuse. They actually believed it.

that makes them guilty. If i was coerced into doing something and i honestly believed it was right...then i'm guilty.

prizefighter

MonaPizza wrote: »

People are constantly looking at this like it black and white and people do that far to often. So much so that it stifles their ability to think.

Everyone know they were apprehended at the airport with a load of coke. Everyone knows that they are saying they were coerced. From this people are taking one of two sides...1. the did it willingly and are lying or 2. they really were coerced.
Well there are other possibilities.
Someone earlier gave anecdotal evidence that their 19 year old sister wouldn't shoplift because she knows it's wrong and knows the consequences. That's great and all but you can hardly use your own law-abiding sister as the yardstick to determine how everyone else should behave and how any deviation from that is completely intolerable and unfathomable. How many teenagers do you know who have been complete paragons of virtue until some point when they start hanging around with new people. Suddenly their attitude changes. Their willing to be more cavalier, less respectful of authority (and I'm not just talking about talking back to their parents or giving the teacher some lip because they're going through puberty), I'm talking about how they are somehow idolised or respected by others for breaking the law. A kid smashes a car window and all of a sudden the group tells him he's a great fellow and look up to him.
Teens are impressionable.....and females certainly are. Now these two were most likely told that this Peru drug run was a joke, a piece of piss and that nobody ever got caught. You can imagine the snakes telling them this and saying that they would never be stopped. 999 out of 1000 guys get through and 1000 out of 1000 girls get through. One of them probably even said "The only reason I'm not doing this run is because I was the 1 in a 1000 who got caught the last time but I just said Colombians threatened to kill me and cut up my family. After a few days in the cells the police let me go. Piece of piss. You won't get caught but if you do just you were threatened. They'll let you go!"

Sweet talk and assure a naive girl and she'll believe anything. ("Course I'll love you in the morning. I'll take you on my yacht tomorrow and you'll meet all the celebs. Just suck this!")

It's my contention that the "we were coerced" nonsense was fed to them NOT to get them off but to convince them to go ahead with the job in the first place. And clearly they believed that.

It's like getting a kid to break into someone's house. He knows it's wrong so you have to manipulate him into thinking it's ok and it'll be even ok if he is caught (as long as you yourself get away). Tell him it's your cousin's house and that you lost the key but are too big to get in the window. Get him to believe that and he thinks it's grand. He's breaking the rules but has a good explanation when he gets caught by the owner of the house who is no more your cousin than attilla the hun.

So we have two really gullible girls who did this because they were convinced by the guys who used them that in the event of them getting caught they would be released after a short while.

That's why they're spitting out this excuse. They actually believed it.

Where is the evidence for ANY of the above?
Lots of definitive statements there, no real backing for any of them.

The comparison between the idea of tricking a child into committing a crime and a drug dealer assuring these girls they wouldn't get caught is nonsensical. The child IS breaking the law by entering the house and allowing the individual access, BUT not knowingly as the child has been led to believe the person has every reason to access the premises. These girls knowingly broke the law, and from what you purport to have happened were reassured and cajoled (not coerced) into committing the act.

That's like comparing a bank teller who misreleases a sum of money in good faith to a fraudster OR a bank robber who has been convinced they can't get caught. Intention is key.

Paddy Cow

MonaPizza wrote: »

People are constantly looking at this like it black and white and people do that far to often. So much so that it stifles their ability to think.

Everyone know they were apprehended at the airport with a load of coke. Everyone knows that they are saying they were coerced. From this people are taking one of two sides...1. the did it willingly and are lying or 2. they really were coerced.
Well there are other possibilities.
Someone earlier gave anecdotal evidence that their 19 year old sister wouldn't shoplift because she knows it's wrong and knows the consequences. That's great and all but you can hardly use your own law-abiding sister as the yardstick to determine how everyone else should behave and how any deviation from that is completely intolerable and unfathomable. How many teenagers do you know who have been complete paragons of virtue until some point when they start hanging around with new people. Suddenly their attitude changes. Their willing to be more cavalier, less respectful of authority (and I'm not just talking about talking back to their parents or giving the teacher some lip because they're going through puberty), I'm talking about how they are somehow idolised or respected by others for breaking the law. A kid smashes a car window and all of a sudden the group tells him he's a great fellow and look up to him.
Teens are impressionable.....and females certainly are. Now these two were most likely told that this Peru drug run was a joke, a piece of piss and that nobody ever got caught. You can imagine the snakes telling them this and saying that they would never be stopped. 999 out of 1000 guys get through and 1000 out of 1000 girls get through. One of them probably even said "The only reason I'm not doing this run is because I was the 1 in a 1000 who got caught the last time but I just said Colombians threatened to kill me and cut up my family. After a few days in the cells the police let me go. Piece of piss. You won't get caught but if you do just you were threatened. They'll let you go!"

Sweet talk and assure a naive girl and she'll believe anything. ("Course I'll love you in the morning. I'll take you on my yacht tomorrow and you'll meet all the celebs. Just suck this!")

It's my contention that the "we were coerced" nonsense was fed to them NOT to get them off but to convince them to go ahead with the job in the first place. And clearly they believed that.

It's like getting a kid to break into someone's house. He knows it's wrong so you have to manipulate him into thinking it's ok and it'll be even ok if he is caught (as long as you yourself get away). Tell him it's your cousin's house and that you lost the key but are too big to get in the window. Get him to believe that and he thinks it's grand. He's breaking the rules but has a good explanation when he gets caught by the owner of the house who is no more your cousin than attilla the hun.

So we have two really gullible girls who did this because they were convinced by the guys who used them that in the event of them getting caught they would be released after a short while.

That's why they're spitting out this excuse. They actually believed it.

So you fall into category 1. they did it willingly and are lying. That makes them guilty.

kylith

MonaPizza wrote: »

People are constantly looking at this like it black and white and people do that far to often. So much so that it stifles their ability to think.

Everyone know they were apprehended at the airport with a load of coke. Everyone knows that they are saying they were coerced. From this people are taking one of two sides...1. the did it willingly and are lying or 2. they really were coerced.
Well there are other possibilities.
Someone earlier gave anecdotal evidence that their 19 year old sister wouldn't shoplift because she knows it's wrong and knows the consequences. That's great and all but you can hardly use your own law-abiding sister as the yardstick to determine how everyone else should behave and how any deviation from that is completely intolerable and unfathomable. How many teenagers do you know who have been complete paragons of virtue until some point when they start hanging around with new people. Suddenly their attitude changes. Their willing to be more cavalier, less respectful of authority (and I'm not just talking about talking back to their parents or giving the teacher some lip because they're going through puberty), I'm talking about how they are somehow idolised or respected by others for breaking the law. A kid smashes a car window and all of a sudden the group tells him he's a great fellow and look up to him.
Teens are impressionable.....and females certainly are. Now these two were most likely told that this Peru drug run was a joke, a piece of piss and that nobody ever got caught. You can imagine the snakes telling them this and saying that they would never be stopped. 999 out of 1000 guys get through and 1000 out of 1000 girls get through. One of them probably even said "The only reason I'm not doing this run is because I was the 1 in a 1000 who got caught the last time but I just said Colombians threatened to kill me and cut up my family. After a few days in the cells the police let me go. Piece of piss. You won't get caught but if you do just you were threatened. They'll let you go!"

Sweet talk and assure a naive girl and she'll believe anything. ("Course I'll love you in the morning. I'll take you on my yacht tomorrow and you'll meet all the celebs. Just suck this!")

It's my contention that the "we were coerced" nonsense was fed to them NOT to get them off but to convince them to go ahead with the job in the first place. And clearly they believed that.

It's like getting a kid to break into someone's house. He knows it's wrong so you have to manipulate him into thinking it's ok and it'll be even ok if he is caught (as long as you yourself get away). Tell him it's your cousin's house and that you lost the key but are too big to get in the window. Get him to believe that and he thinks it's grand. He's breaking the rules but has a good explanation when he gets caught by the owner of the house who is no more your cousin than attilla the hun.

So we have two really gullible girls who did this because they were convinced by the guys who used them that in the event of them getting caught they would be released after a short while.

That's why they're spitting out this excuse. They actually believed it.

1) They're not children, they're grown women. 19 and 20 year olds are running households and rearing children. They know that drug smuggling is illegal, and they still chose to do it.

2) Even if what you said above were true then they would be guilty of extreme stupidity as well as drug smuggling.

Ash.J.Williams

what's monapizza's point anyway?

chopper6

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

what's monapizza's point anyway?

No idea...something about being caught with cocaine isn't a reason to be charged with cocaine as something may have happened to negate the criminality of it all

Oh yeah,and shadowy forces are behind the whole sorry caper and we as proles have no concept of the 'true' story behind thier attempt to smuggle cocaine onto a plane at lima airport.

Something like that anyway..

jack presley

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

what's monapizza's point anyway?

It depends on when you're asking

Ash.J.Williams

if anything the peru legal system makes an allowance for the possibility they were coerced, by allowing them to confess and get a lighter sentence.

(not like bali and thailand)

kylith

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

what's monapizza's point anyway?

That they can't be guilty of drug smuggling because the guys who put them up to it said it'd be grand, as far as I can tell.

Menas

jack presley wrote: »

It depends on when you're asking

Can you prove that? :-)

chopper6

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

if anything the peru legal system makes an allowance for the possibility they were coerced, by allowing them to confess and get a lighter sentence.

(not like bali and thailand)

The crux of a succesful plea of coercion is co-operation.

IF they were coerced they can provide names,contact numbers,physical appearances,known associates,hang outs,favourite cigarettes,speech and movement mannerisms etc etc of the so-called coercers.

This information would be acted upon by the authorities and if the story checked out even partially the chances are they'd be freed.

As it is they seem to have provided no information over and above what they stated atthe first press conference and this unwillingness to co-operate is making them look more and more guilty in the eyes of the Peruvians(and us)....bearing in mind the anti drug units in Peru have a very high success rate in apprehending smugglers like these two.

Realistically they're nothing special..a couple of party girls out to make a quick buck on a kamikaze mission...it's happened a hundred times before.

Menas

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

if anything the peru legal system makes an allowance for the possibility they were coerced, by allowing them to confess and get a lighter sentence.

(not like bali and thailand)

I have no problem with the principle of "confess your guilt and get a lighter sentence" .

But the fact that if refused bail and you plead guilty your trial and sentence will be over before your trail would have began had you pleaded not-guilty is unfair.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

brandon_flowers

chopper6 wrote: »

Realistically they're nothing special..a couple of party girls out to make a quick buck on a kamikaze mission...it's happened a hundred times before.

This. I can't believe anyone else believed anything else from the start.

MajorMax

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Tayto is from Northern Ireland. FACT:P

So all you peeps who refuse to acknowledge Northerner's as Irish must consider Tayto to be British too if your gonna be consistant about it.;)

Tayto Ireland, was formed in 1954 by Joe "Spuds" Murphy.
Tayto Norn Iron was formed in 1956 by The Hutchinson family who robbed licensed the name and recipes of Tayto in the Republic of Ireland