Peru drug smuggling case - READ OP BEFORE POSTING

Chris Dolmeth

Trigger Happy wrote: »

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.

But that's common enough in other jurisdictions too afaik.
Pleading guilty negates the need for a trial and there is just a sentencing hearing. It just so happens that the sentence minus remission for good behaviour/PR/whatever can mean that time behind bars is less than time spent on remand awaiting trial.

Not unfair, just ****ty really.

Teagwee

Trigger Happy wrote: »

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.

I accept that this seems unfair - in normal situations, where the perpetration of a crime is in any doubt, particularly so. A longer delay to be heard while kept incarcerated is inexcusable if there's any possibility of innocence.

In this case, however, I believe it's correct. Caught in possession and admitting to the aim of attempting to smuggle drugs = Guilty. Any 'buts' after that, including being forced into it, falls into the realm of extenuating circumstances and doesn't remove the guilt. So pleading guilty is the right option, even if they were genuinely under threat.

Bogota

MonaPizza has been pure comedy gold in this thread. That is all.

dr.bollocko

Bogota wrote: »

MonaPizza has been pure comedy gold in this thread. That is all.

mod:
don't post in this thread again.

weldoninhio

Trigger Happy wrote: »

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.

But if you plead guilty there is no need for a trial, just sentencing.

If you plead not guilty, the state has to gather all the evidence, make sure all the details are correct etc. That takes time.

wishwashwoo

I would like to start a collection to send a drug addict for treatment in Thailand .

Now i would not have had to do this if drug mules didn't bring the drugs into our country in the first place . Does it make sense no it doesn't its sad on all sides and i hope I am wrong but the justice system in Peru is going to roast these two as the world is watching and they don't want to send out any weak messages to every drug runner in the world. Time is a great healer mm

MonaPizza

Trigger Happy wrote: »

But you stated the above?

Well, they can testify...can they not?

prizefighter

MonaPizza wrote: »

Well, they can testify...can they not?

The odefendants testimony will be seen simply as that,testimony, it won't be seen as PROOF. You seem to be chopping and changing what you're trying to say at every turn.

Paddy Cow

MonaPizza wrote: »

Well, they can testify...can they not?

I don't know but I don't think it will do them any good. The Peruvians catch a high volume of smugglers every year. I doubt it will help Michaela and Melissa's circumstances if they are the only witness's in each others cases.

MonaPizza

kylith wrote: »

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.

Are you proud for putting forth that superlative gem of wisdom?
Perhaps you could elaborate as to what you meant or were you just tapping the keyboard and sticking your head up to see who would gleefully chirp along with your contribution?

Prove me wrong.

Paddy Cow

MonaPizza wrote: »

Are you proud for putting forth that superlative gem of wisdom?
Perhaps you could elaborate as to what you meant or were you just tapping the keyboard and sticking your head up to see who would gleefully chirp along with your contribution?

Prove me wrong.

He doesn't have to prove you wrong. He was referring to your post

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..........

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.

You seem to accept that the girls were dumb enough to go on a drugs run but you come up with random beside the point stories that have nothing to do with the girl's case. What exactly is your point?

I am going to ask you straight out. Do you or do you not believe that the two women took the risk of doing a drugs run, believing that if they got caught they could claim they were coerced into doing it and if they were believed they would get off.

If you don't believe this, what exactly do you believe?

Merkin

MonaPizza wrote: »

Are you proud for putting forth that superlative gem of wisdom?
Perhaps you could elaborate as to what you meant or were you just tapping the keyboard and sticking your head up to see who would gleefully chirp along with your contribution?

Prove me wrong.

Pot, it's Kettle on Line 2 there for ya!

end of the road

brandon_flowers wrote: »

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

why? the only way we could definitely know what happened is if we were there ourselves

constance tench

Peru drug suspects Melissa Reid and Michaella McCollum could be back in front of a judge as early as tomorrow.
It comes as prosecutor Juan Mendoza Abarca accused them of lying that they were mules for a gang who had threatened their families...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/peru-drug-arrests-melissa-reid-2244436

Menas

end of the road wrote: »

why? the only way we could definitely know what happened is if we were there ourselves

Of course no one here knows what actually happened. But what Brandon has said is what most here believe...that their story is the biggest fantasy since the brothers Grimm.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Allyall

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

1/10000000000000

Mr. Chrome

Allyall wrote: »

1/10000000000000

I'd put a euro on that :-)

Allyall

Mr. Chrome wrote: »

I'd put a euro on that :-)

I'd take it

A Dub in Glasgo

Very likely if the women had any sense

drunkmonkey

It's all a but Irish, you weren't speeding but the Garda says you were, 2 choices (1) pay the fine and take a little punishment (2) try and prove your innocence and get a worse fine. Where's the justice for the innocent?

A Dub in Glasgo

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's all a but Irish, you weren't speeding but the Garda says you were, 2 choices (1) pay the fine and take a little punishment (2) try and prove your innocence and get a worse fine. Where's the justice for the innocent?

What if the Gardai can prove you were speeding rather than say you were speeding?

Allyall

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's all a but Irish

What does that mean? I've never heard that phrase before..

drunkmonkey wrote: »

you weren't speeding but the Garda says you were, 2 choices (1) pay the fine and take a little punishment (2) try and prove your innocence and get a worse fine. Where's the justice for the innocent?

It's not quite as cut and dry as that.
In Peru they deal with those stories all the time, or as the article above says, similar ones. They know the girls are guilty. They aren't guessing, they are well experienced.
If you are caught speeding today, then there is probably CCTV, as their would be of the girls and gunmen.
They have released a bit of the footage that they have, not anywhere do they look like they are being forced at gunpoint.
The prosecution will have reviewed that before the court hearing. If the girls then choose to plead not guilty a case has to made, and with so many up on the same charges, with so many stories, there's a large backlog of cases.
As it stands, because of that (as has been repeated many times), They will spend longer in prison before their court case, than if they plead guilty.

drunkmonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

What if the Gardai can prove you were speeding rather than say you were speeding?

Garda and a speed gun can make your guilty, can he prove it was your car doing that speed, no but you'll still get hopped off by the judge.

I am pie

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's all a but Irish, you weren't speeding but the Garda says you were, 2 choices (1) pay the fine and take a little punishment (2) try and prove your innocence and get a worse fine. Where's the justice for the innocent?

Change speeding for smuggling and your analogy falls to pieces. They were caught, red-handed, trying to smuggle coke out of Peru. Suitcases were full of toot bagged up in food packaging. They can argue coercion, but their case seems to be flimsy heresay and fairly short on facts. So yes, no problem with helping them down the road on their decision.

If the lawyer turns up some compelling evidence, other than the farcical suggestion they testify for each other, for their story then they ought to have an accelerated court date. I hope that's what the forthcoming hearing relates to.

A Dub in Glasgo

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Garda and a speed gun can make your guilty, can he prove it was your car doing that speed, no but you'll still get hopped off by the judge.

A Garda witnessing your car possibly with back up of photographic or video evidence is what gets people.

I do not believe (although it is possible) that a Garda speed trap will see a speeding car and then pull over a random car to ticket it. Have you seen this happen?

JP Liz V1

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?

They are :P

drunkmonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

A Garda witnessing your car possibly with back up of photographic or video evidence is what gets people.

I do not believe (although it is possible) that a Garda speed trap will see a speeding car and then pull over a random car to ticket it. Have you seen this happen?

Yea i've been on the receiving end of it, he pulled the wrong car. My mistake was stopping for him, should have kept driving like everyone else.

constance tench

Allyall wrote: »

It's not quite as cut and dry as that...

If the girls then choose to plead not guilty a case has to made, and with so many up on the same charges, with so many stories, there's a large backlog of cases.
As it stands, because of that (as has been repeated many times), They will spend longer in prison before their court case, than if they plead guilty.

Yep, round two...a judicial investigation, scheduled to last four months.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/peru-drug-mule-accused-to-meet-trial-judge-1-3070657

Kidchameleon

Allyall wrote: »

They have released a bit of the footage that they have, not anywhere do they look like they are being forced at gunpoint.

You think if there were gunmen, that they would be walking around in public with the girls, holding guns for everyone to see?

Bogota

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You think if there were gunmen, that they would be walking around in public with the girls, holding guns for everyone to see?

I'd imagine it would be fairly easy to show through CCTV whether they were followed constantly by the same individual(s). If various footage from different cameras fails to show that the same individual(s) were trailing them on their travels around the city then its obvious that the entire story is ****.

drunkmonkey

That article says they'll get 6 years and 8 months not 2 years if they own up.

"Prosecutors say they will benefit from a sixth off the minimum sentence – and receive a sentence of six years and eight months – if they admit responsibility and spare the courts a trial."

carman2011

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That article says they'll get 6 years and 8 months not 2 years if they own up.

"Prosecutors say they will benefit from a sixth off the minimum sentence – and receive a sentence of six years and eight months – if they admit responsibility and spare the courts a trial."

The American girls got 8 years, but were let out after 2, it's standard that they don't serve anywhere near the sentence given.

drunkmonkey

carman2011 wrote: »

The American girls got 8 years, but were let out after 2, it's standard that they don't serve anywhere near the sentence given.

Even when they piss off the judge and lie to the world wide media. He could easily make an example of them.

Kidchameleon

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Even when they piss off the judge and lie to the world wide media. He could easily make an example of them.

Yeah the media wouldn't lie would they

Allyall

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You think if there were gunmen, that they would be walking around in public with the girls, holding guns for everyone to see?

You think they went from Malaga to Madrid to Peru and there's no footage of the same guy(s) behind them somewhere?

You may be a Chameleon, but i still think you'd appear on CCTV somewhere between those flights.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That article says they'll get 6 years and 8 months not 2 years if they own up.

"Prosecutors say they will benefit from a sixth off the minimum sentence – and receive a sentence of six years and eight months – if they admit responsibility and spare the courts a trial."

Read back, i think maybe two pages. There is a new law where they will officially benefit, after serving a third of their sentence, they will be let free.

They do it now anyway, but as of a few days ago, it was expected to be signed into law in the next 15 days.

I'd link to it, but right now it's a bit awkward for me.

Give me a couple of minutes, i'm typing on a half a keyboard and half a screen keyboard. Not handy.

constance tench

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You think if there were gunmen, that they would be walking around in public with the girls, holding guns for everyone to see?

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Yeah the media wouldn't lie would they

Apparently you believe them.

I'm genuinely curious as to why you do?

if you could be as detailed as possible that would be great.

Allyall

They already do this unofficially, but now it may become law.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/new-law-may-be-positive-for-irish-woman-in-peru-1.1510577

Michaella McCollum Connolly (20) from Dungannon, Co Tyrone and her co-accused Melissa Reid (20) from Glasgow are awaiting trial for drug trafficking in the Virgen de Fatima Women’s prison in the Peruvian capital.

The proposed legislation aims to reduce the sentence served by foreign prisoners for drug trafficking by one third.

If passed by congress president Ollanta Humala has 15 days to sign the bill into law.
This law will only apply to foreign prisoners who have been sentenced to no more than seven years in jail, who have completed one third of the sentence and who are entitled to conditional release.

Kidchameleon

constance tench wrote: »

Apparently you believe them.

I'm genuinely curious as to why you do?

if you could be as detailed as possible that would be great.

Can you highlight one post where I said I believed them?

osarusan

It was Syria coercing them!

The last piece of the jigsaw for Cameron and Obama. Bomb Syria and Peru too, for the laugh.

Kidchameleon

W. G. Grace wrote: »

wrong thread..lol

I'll keep it there for the craic

I think its a spam message, I got the exact same text on my site last nite

aloyisious

W. G. Grace wrote: »

wrong thread..lol

I'll keep it there for the craic

That's not cricket

one effect of any judicial decision will mean a shortened range of travel options for both of the accused

constance tench

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Can you highlight one post where I said I believed them?

From the direction of your posts, it appears that you do.
if you do, why?...just curious.

Allyall wrote: »

They must see, that at this stage, Guilty or not, they would be better off pleading guilty..
They could be out by 2017.
If they choose to stick with their bullshít story, then it could be 2015 before they go to court, and then 2025 before they get out early.
I would be screaming at them, "TELL THE F***ING TRUTH!!" if they were related to me.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Perhaps they are telling the truth?

Kidchameleon

constance tench wrote: »

From the direction of your posts, it appears that you do.
if you do, why?...just curious.

Nope, I don't believe them.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Amazingfun

09 SEPTEMBER 2013

THE IRISH model accused of trying to smuggle €1.7m worth of cocaine out of Peru is receiving medical treatment for insect bites.

Along with Scottish woman Melissa Reid (20), the former nightclub hostess is facing trial in connection to the drug smuggling allegations.

Both women were stopped as they tried to board a plane to Spain from Lima with 11kg of cocaine concealed in food packages in their luggage last month.

They face 15 years in jail if they are found guilty.

Both have claimed they were forced into carrying the drugs and were in fear of their lives.

Speaking today on ITV programme ‘This Morning’, Debra Reid, the mother of Melissa Reid, revealed that both women were receiving medical treatment for insect bites which led to severe swelling.

“They’ve actually been bitten by some bugs that are in the assessment unit they are being held in,” she said.

“I believe they’ve had an injection to try and stop them [from swelling up].”

Mrs Reid said she was pleased that both women were in the assessment centre and had not been split up as they had initially feared.

The language barrier is proving difficult for both, and Melissa has told her parents she is keen to learn Spanish “so she can speak to the guards and fellow prisoners”.

Last week, Melissa’s father William Reid said he wanted his daughter to plead guilty as their case is “indefensible”.

Speaking this morning, Melissa’s mother said she believed their explanation they had been threatened and coerced into carrying the drugs.

However, she also wants them to plead guilty in the hope they will get a lesser sentence

“I do believe they were definitely coerced into it,” she said.

“They didn’t do it willingly.

“They definitely did have drugs in their suitcases, that part they are guilty of, but I do believe they were coerced into it.

“If Melissa pleads guilty we’ll get her home earlier.”

If the women plead guilty ahead of their trial, it’s believed the sentence will be somewhere in the region of three years.

If they plead not guilty, and are subsequently found guilty, they could face 15 years in jail.

“It’s the best years of your life, from 20 to 35,” Mrs Reid said.

The pair are due to appear before a court in Peru next Tuesday.

They are expected to give full statements to a judge before entering a plea.

It could take up to two years before the case is fully heard.

ronan45

New pics :cool:

http://www.thesun.ie/irishsol/homepage/news/5127570/Mr-Big-financed-Peru-2-drug-run.html

chopper6

ronan45 wrote: »

New pics :cool:

http://www.thesun.ie/irishsol/homepage/news/5127570/Mr-Big-financed-Peru-2-drug-run.html

Jesus that haircut.

Amazingfun

ronan45 wrote: »

New pics :cool:

http://www.thesun.ie/irishsol/homepage/news/5127570/Mr-Big-financed-Peru-2-drug-run.html

Never mind the pics, what about the new story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow!

Teagwee

Amazingfun wrote: »

Never mind the pics, what about the new story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow!

I think I'd be taking that 'news' story with a pinch of salt ... or something else white and grainy. A bit like the original story we heard ... a tad implausible.