Peru drug smuggling case - READ OP BEFORE POSTING

Menas

MonaPizza wrote: »

You can't seem to get it into your damn head that NOBODY is saying that they are innocent. Why do you keep suggesting that people are saying so?

They have pleaded guilty because they were given no choice.

If a guy confesses to something after torture and somebody expresses concern about the veracity of such a confession are you going to come out and say "how can you believe he's not guilty?? He confessed!"

No need for personal insult, you have been warned about that before. Now reread the post I responded to and then my response and make a reasoned argument.

Menas

MonaPizza wrote: »

. But my problem lies with those who seem to have no qualms about declaring someone guilty without a trial.
.

There will be no trial in this case as they have pleaded guilty. Straight to sentencing on the first of october.

Grandpa Hassan

This was quite an illuminating report. Shows why the coercion defence that it was looking they were inadvisedly going to use is just not believed by anyone in Peru. With this many people prepared to be mules for a bit of cash, why would any coercion be needed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24228723

chopper6

MonaPizza wrote: »

You can't seem to get it into your damn head that NOBODY is saying that they are innocent. Why do you keep suggesting that people are saying so?

They have pleaded guilty because they were given no choice.

If a guy confesses to something after torture and somebody expresses concern about the veracity of such a confession are you going to come out and say "how can you believe he's not guilty?? He confessed!"

Well if you think they're guilty why are you spinning this tedious web of unlikely scenarios full of "if"s and "what"s?

LuckyLloyd

If they believed they were genuinely not guilty and had a clear case they would not be pleading guilty. Everyone in a position to offer them advice would tell them to stick the course no matter how painful and fight it to the end for a full vindication within four years would be a far superior outcome to a sentence of ~6 - 8 with years suspended.

There's some mealy mouthed stuff going on here with the 'I'm only pleading guilty so I can go home' nonsense. They want to go home and have the matter resolved quickly, sure; but the real story here is that media attention has dissipated and reality is setting in and they know they have no case and no shot of a not guilty verdict following a trial. Caught red handed, irrespective of the context which may be them getting flung to the authorities as bait as part of a wider play.

Rack 'em and pack 'em - two more girls looking for an easy way to keep the dream alive.

Kidchameleon

Trigger Happy wrote: »

What more do you need?

1) They were caught with 11kg of coke in their bags attempting to get on a plane.
2) They had a cock and bull story that no one believes not least because there are pictures of them having a good time and posing with a police man and walking in Lima on their own.
3)Their cock and bull story goes completely against the modus operandi of the smugglers. Why kidnap someone and force them to smuggle when you could just keep using stupid people by promising them cash as has been done for the last 30 years?
3) They have pleaded guilty to smuggling.

And you still believe they may be innocent? Tell me why?

I feel they MAY be innocent. Do you think they may be innocent or do you have 100% proof that they are guilty?

Chris Dolmeth

Lots of people in this thread being mealy mouthed about this case.
"I never said I thought they were innocent" but yet insinuating that very thought throughout their posts.

Probably time to stop replying to them.

Kidchameleon

Chris Dolmeth wrote: »

Lots of people in this thread being mealy mouthed about this case.
"I never said I thought they were innocent" but yet insinuating that very thought throughout their posts.

Probably time to stop replying to them.

Whats wrong with thinking that? Wheres your proof that they are lying?

greenflash

MonaPizza wrote: »

You can't seem to get it into your damn head that NOBODY is saying that they are innocent. Why do you keep suggesting that people are saying so?

They have pleaded guilty because they were given no choice.

If a guy confesses to something after torture and somebody expresses concern about the veracity of such a confession are you going to come out and say "how can you believe he's not guilty?? He confessed!"

You don't seem to understand that the reason they're pleading guilty is because they're guilty.

They have a choice of pleading guilty and receiving a reduced sentence or pleading innocent and being found guilty because that's what they are. If they are innocent and were forced to carry drugs by threat of violence to themselves or their families, they had ample opportunity to seek help both in Spain and Peru and in transit. They did not because they were doing it for the money and the promise if living it up a bit longer on the Ibiza party scene. They do not have a dedence to prove their innocence, other than the flimsy coercion story trotted out by every mule that gets caught.

They are guilty whichever way you look at it so pleading guilty is their only option. The reduced sentence is a lot better than the death sentence they'd get in many Asian countries so they can count themselves lucky.

jack presley

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Whats wrong with thinking that? Wheres your proof that they are lying?

Their pants were on fire.

MonaPizza

Trigger Happy wrote: »

There will be no trial in this case as they have pleaded guilty. Straight to sentencing on the first of october.

You love stating the obvious don't you.
People declared these two guilty LONG before they pleaded that way.

MonaPizza

greenflash wrote: »

You don't seem to understand that the reason they're pleading guilty is because they're guilty.

They have a choice of pleading guilty and receiving a reduced sentence or pleading innocent and being found guilty because that's what they are. If they are innocent and were forced to carry drugs by threat of violence to themselves or their families, they had ample opportunity to seek help both in Spain and Peru and in transit. They did not because they were doing it for the money and the promise if living it up a bit longer on the Ibiza party scene. They do not have a dedence to prove their innocence, other than the flimsy coercion story trotted out by every mule that gets caught.

They are guilty whichever way you look at it so pleading guilty is their only option. The reduced sentence is a lot better than the death sentence they'd get in many Asian countries so they can count themselves lucky.

Again this is conjecture. Were you with everystep of the way? Were you a fly on the wall during this entire episode?

Chris Dolmeth

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Whats wrong with thinking that? Wheres your proof that they are lying?

Nothing wrong with thinking they're innocent. Misguided maybe, but at least it's straight up.

I mean the people (who shall remain nameless) on this thread who SAY one thing explicitly, but imply another.

It's disingenuous, and smells like trolling to me.


As for proof that they're lying. Why do I need any? They need to prove that their story is legit.

Even if it was true, they were STILL guilty of smuggling.

Possession of 11KG of coke (and knowledge of same) kinda blows the innocence claim out of the water.

I am pie

MonaPizza wrote: »

You love stating the obvious don't you.
People declared these two guilty LONG before they pleaded that way.

Because they were caught red handed

Because their story is incoherent

There is clearly no doubt they were smuggling drugs through the airport. The only doubt is whether they were coerced, nothing they did in Peru or in the airport suggests they were. The company they were keeping in Ibiza doesn't do much to help their claims either.

All circumstancial, but since we are not actually sentencing anyone here it is fair game to call it as we see it based on what we know

Since there is no doubt they were caught, the court would only rule on that. They would have to prove their coercion claims, they clearly had no evidence to do so. The circumstancial evidence was clearly not supportive of their claim either.

Kudos to the father of the scottish girl for calling it early, doubting the daft claims and telling her to plead guilty.

kylith

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I feel they MAY be innocent. Do you think they may be innocent or do you have 100% proof that they are guilty?

They are not innocent of smuggling, which is what they are being charged with. I am 100% convinced of this due to the drugs being found in their bags and their acknowledgement that the drugs were in their bags. These facts would preclude innocence of the charges.

They may have been coerced. I don't believe that they were, but I accept that it is possible.

chopper6

MonaPizza wrote: »

Again this is conjecture. Were you with everystep of the way? Were you a fly on the wall during this entire episode?

What do you think happened?

Bearing in mind there's been hundreds of identical cases to this...same MO,same excuses,same concealments etc etc.

Ash.J.Williams

chopper6 wrote: »

What do you think happened?

Bearing in mind there's been hundreds of identical cases to this...same MO,same excuses,same concealments etc etc.

fact!

Paddy Cow

MonaPizza wrote: »

You love stating the obvious don't you.
People declared these two guilty LONG before they pleaded that way.

People declared them guilty of smuggling cocaine when they were caught trying to smuggle cocaine. It's not rocket science.

Menas

Paddy Cow wrote: »

People declared them guilty of smuggling cocaine when they were caught trying to smuggle cocaine. It's not rocket science.

Such a simple statement but some posters still want to raise doubt. They were caught redhanded and pleaded guilty when they realized their tall tale would not be believed.

meemeemee

After reading this, they are bloody lucky. Stupid. But bloody lucky.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2431831/Andrea-Waldeck-British-teacher-faces-death-penalty-smuggling-crystal-meth-Indonesia-underwear.html

Ash.J.Williams

meemeemee wrote: »

After reading this, they are bloody lucky. Stupid. But bloody lucky.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2431831/Andrea-Waldeck-British-teacher-faces-death-penalty-smuggling-crystal-meth-Indonesia-underwear.html

bag of pills in thailand carries 80 years or death!

MonaPizza

Paddy Cow wrote: »

People declared them guilty of smuggling cocaine when they were caught trying to smuggle cocaine. It's not rocket science.

It's not rocket science.
Look, I don't believe their excuse that they were coerced either BUT it's possible.

I'd hate to have you on the jury in a capital case. Seems reasonable doubt wouldn't mean sh1t to you and the guy would fry even if much of the evidence was contradictory.
You'd be like the last guy in 12 Angry men.

What I'm saying is that there is a slim, very slim, possibility that they were coerced but it's not being entertained.

I'll give the example of IRA bomb mules as well. A guy is engaged by gunmen. He's told to drive a car bomb to a certain location or his family will be shot. He doesn't know whether there is someone at his house at that moment but the gunmen list his address and names of his wife and kids. He is also told that if on his journey he attempts to alert anyone to his plight his family will be hit.
He drives the car, gets intercepted and searched, and gets arrested. His excuse for being in possession of a carbomb is that he was coerced.
Further investigation shows that nobody was at his family's house and nobody threatened them. He can't describe who threatened him as he was accosted, hooded, thrown into a van and later given his order by masked men. Nobody witnessed the abduction.

The authorities have heard this excuse before from IRA gofers and don't believe him.

So here you have a guy caught red-handed with a bomb. He has an excuse of coercion that he can't backup. He's not on the police radar as an active member but he is a Catholic and isn't very bright so he easily fits the description of a low-level operative.

He is told to plead guilty and accept an explosives conviction of 4 years or stick to his story, get locked up without bail and wait a year for a trial date where he will most definitely be convicted, since nobody can corroborate his story, and receive 15 to 20 years.

Terrifed and further coerced (much like the Guildford 4) he accepts the plea bargain and sets up camp for the next few years at her majesty's pleasure in The Maze.

The IRA have pressured/threatened people into this situation before. And all the same questions apply....."why would they coerce someone if they could just as easily pay someone?" "He thought he'd get away with it and is now making cock and bull stories", "He was caught red-handed, therefore he's guilty.....it's not rocket science!"

chopper6

MonaPizza wrote: »

It's not rocket science.
Look, I don't believe their excuse that they were coerced either BUT it's possible.

I'd hate to have you on the jury in a capital case. Seems reasonable doubt wouldn't mean sh1t to you and the guy would fry even if much of the evidence was contradictory.
You'd be like the last guy in 12 Angry men.

What I'm saying is that there is a slim, very slim, possibility that they were coerced but it's not being entertained.

I'll give the example of IRA bomb mules as well. A guy is engaged by gunmen. He's told to drive a car bomb to a certain location or his family will be shot. He doesn't know whether there is someone at his house at that moment but the gunmen list his address and names of his wife and kids. He is also told that if on his journey he attempts to alert anyone to his plight his family will be hit.
He drives the car, gets intercepted and searched, and gets arrested. His excuse for being in possession of a carbomb is that he was coerced.
Further investigation shows that nobody was at his family's house and nobody threatened them. He can't describe who threatened him as he was accosted, hooded, thrown into a van and later given his order by masked men. Nobody witnessed the abduction.

The authorities have heard this excuse before from IRA gofers and don't believe him.

So here you have a guy caught red-handed with a bomb. He has an excuse of coercion that he can't backup. He's not on the police radar as an active member but he is a Catholic and isn't very bright so he easily fits the description of a low-level operative.

He is told to plead guilty and accept an explosives conviction of 4 years or stick to his story, get locked up without bail and wait a year for a trial date where he will most definitely be convicted, since nobody can corroborate his story, and receive 15 to 20 years.

Terrifed and further coerced (much like the Guildford 4) he accepts the plea bargain and sets up camp for the next few years at her majesty's pleasure in The Maze.

The IRA have pressured/threatened people into this situation before. And all the same questions apply....."why would they coerce someone if they could just as easily pay someone?" "He thought he'd get away with it and is now making cock and bull stories", "He was caught red-handed, therefore he's guilty.....it's not rocket science!"

Yet another unlikely flight of fancy...

Yet you open by saying you think they're guilty...can i just ask you what is the point of all this?

greenflash

MonaPizza wrote: »

Again this is conjecture. Were you with everystep of the way? Were you a fly on the wall during this entire episode?

That they did not seek help at any stage after supposedly being forced into carrying drugs is not conjecture, it is cold hard fact.

That they tried to check in for a flight from Peru to Spain knowing they were carrying a substantial quantity of cocaine is also fact.

That they lied about being forced into carrying the drugs is my opinion based on the facts I know about these girls and the hundreds of similar mules who have been caught.

No I wasn't with them every step of the way but I do know people who have been made similar offers and turned them down by saying thanks but no thanks and there were no repercussions.

It is my opinion that they were offered a heap if cash to do the run, they got caught and they are trying to use the story they were told to use in such an event. They knowingly smuggled and there is no evidence whatsoever suggesting they did so under threat of death or violence to the girls or their families. They are as guilty as can be.

snubbleste

They were told if they did not plead guilty, they'd be sent to Dungannon. So they pleaded guilty

For Forks Sake

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I feel they MAY be innocent. Do you think they may be innocent or do you have 100% proof that they are guilty?

Oh for crying out loud.

They were stopped in an airport with 11 kilos of cocaine attempting to smuggle it out of the country on a flight. That makes them guilty of drug smuggling.

Nothing else, not their supposed coercion, not their nonsensical kidnap story changes that.

I am pie

I wish someone would kidnap me and force me to spend a week sunning myself on a beach before giving me the opportunity to shop them in at the airport, local police, embassy, by contacting my parents etc etc....

We are hardly talking about the fvcking yakuza here are we, a handful of low lever dealers in Spain looking to get small shipments through on international flights. They aren't going to be turning up ready to whack someone in Dungannon....not by a long shot.

This was the dumb and dumber and dumberer of drug smuggling by the look of it. It is a shame that the 2 dopiest smugglers are the mules who got caught and not the ones who tried to run the operation.

Paddy Cow

MonaPizza wrote: »

I'd hate to have you on the jury in a capital case. Seems reasonable doubt wouldn't mean sh1t to you and the guy would fry even if much of the evidence was contradictory.

We are not talking about cases in general. This is a very specific case and there is no reasonable doubt or evidence to the contradictory here.

The analogy with the IRA is ridiculous. For it to have even any resemblance to the Peru case, the IRA would have to go half way around the world to a young persons holiday resort and kidnap two people at gunpoint. Fly them to Ireland, put them up in a hotel for a week and give them money to go off sight seeing (on their own).

If someone had been told that their family would be killed unless they drove a car bomb somewhere and then that person was left off on their own for a few days, with a mobile phone and bumped into a policeman, do you really think that person wouldn't make any attempt to see if their family was in danger or alert the policeman to their predicament?

jack presley

http://www.herald.ie/news/michaella-gives-up-names-of-drug-gang-29610200.html

Surely even the biggest doubters of their guilt can't really believe that these statements were just made to get a lighter sentence?

"Each of the defendants detailed the circumstances in which they prepared and transported the drugs, as well as the contacts who coordinated the transaction with them."

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Menas

MonaPizza wrote: »

You love stating the obvious don't you.
People declared these two guilty LONG before they pleaded that way.

Obvious is the key word there. It was obvious to most people from page one in the original thread that they were guilty. The facts that have emerged since then have only backed that up. And they have pleaded guilty. No amount of abuse on this thread, no conspiracy theories that you can conjure up can take away from those facts. So why are you trying to debate this?

Menas

And now their guilty plea has been rejected. If they want their plea to hold they need to give a more frank statement of the facts.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0925/476466-peru-drugs/

cornee

If you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas

homemadecider

Peruvian authorities not letting them off so easy... this story just got far more interesting.

--
Prosecutor Juan Rosas said that he will ask for a new hearing to give Michaella McCollum and Melissa Reid the chance to offer a more complete confession.


The women pleaded guilty on Tuesday to drug trafficking charges. If the plea is accepted, they face six years and eight months in prison without possibility of parole. Otherwise, they would go to trial and face a minimum of eight years if convicted.


Rosas said on Wednesday that the women, both 20, need to explain why they initially claimed they were coerced by a gang of armed men into trying to spirit the drugs out of Peru's main international airport on 6 August hidden in mayonnaise packets. "The prosecution thinks the charges have not yet been completely embraced. They have simply accepted transporting drugs, but what has not yet been examined is their original version that they were kidnapped or were transporting the drugs against their will," Rosas said in an interview.


"As far as the prosecution is concerned, these citizens were never kidnapped, were never threatened or coerced," he said. "If they stick to that unbelievable story the prosecution is not going to allow them the benefit of a guilty plea."


(Source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/25/peru-british-drug-smuggling-plea)

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

drunkmonkey

How's that going to play out, they admitted being guilty and it's been rejected so what now?
I don't like the fact the media said they gave up their contacts, that's not really going to go well for them when they make it back outside.

And what's the penalty if they reject the guilty pleas, way more than 6 years i'm guessing?

wp_rathead

drunkmonkey wrote: »

How's that going to play out, they admitted being guilty and it's been rejected so what now?
I don't like the fact the media said they gave up their contacts, that's not really going to go well for them when they make it back outside.

..plus their contacts prob gonna have people on the inside too...

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

drunkmonkey

wprathead wrote: »

..plus their contacts prob gonna have people on the inside too...

100 Guards to 10,000 prisoners and some ticked off drug dealers, there fcuked.

JustAThought

Fred Swanson wrote: »

There will be no easy out for them. They are going to have to spill their guts and take full responsibility for their actions.

Pleading guilty as an easy way out will not be accepted.

I feel sorry for them, they were wrong & will pay a heavy price. Interesting thou that the Peruvians will not let them ride the system for a quick get out of jail easily card. Pity we don't take the same hard lined approach in this county where cliched formula are misused daily to gain easier sentences or to get off free.

It's a hard ride for them - what was their lawyer thinking of to let them plead not guilty in the first place . Caught, twice. Very unlucky.

quarryman

drunkmonkey wrote: »

there fcuked.

Where?

prizefighter

MonaPizza wrote: »

You love stating the obvious don't you.
People declared these two guilty LONG before they pleaded that way.

You incessantly declare that before a trial ALL people are considered innocent. These two having pled guilty will not be put on trial, just sentenced directly. Does this mean they are still entitled to the benefit of the doubt indefinitely? If so one could state that anyone that puts in a plea of guilty is still afforded the benefit of the doubt and still 'innocent' in the eyes of the public. I see you've reverted to kind and started attacking people because you're incoherent illogical ramblings are being shown to be just that.

Stheno

I think the problem is that they are both complicit in the volume less and they would have gotten the 6 year sentence, but the sheer amount is an issue

constance tench

Stheno wrote: »

I think the problem is that they are both complicit in the volume less and they would have gotten the 6 year sentence, but the sheer amount is an issue

No. Them consistently insulting human intelligence is the issue.

chickcharnley

i'll give my 50 cent on the whole thing:
1. its good to see that the Peruvian authorities don't give a hoot about the media spin and BS that was spouted by certain quarters in the Irish media; nobody could seriously believe their cock and bull story.
2. the one from the norths solicitor; does he think people are idiots;
a. putting on a show like hes going to show the Peruvians how legal matters are carried out-that backfired.
b telling the media that they were coerced-total rubbish
c asking people to "donate money"-nice try

in a way it shows up a certain type of young foolish, arrogant and self-entitled yokes who are not too uncommon in this part of the world who will not accept responsibility for their actions of which the one with the double barrelled name is a good example

aloyisious

I don't know where this story is heading. It seem's the girls have done a plead-guilty deal with the Peruvians to ensure a shorter sentence than that from a full Not-Guilty trial. However, there are reports that the prosecutors have objected to the girls guilty pleas. Personally, I have no pity or respect for the girls, regardless to whether or not they were pressured into attempting the drug-smuggling. They were smuggling goods which would have resulted in bringing misery to others, results which they could not reasonably claim to be unaware of.

redtapestyl

was their guilty plea rejected because they didn't supply enough evidence or some other reason and can they attempt another plea before the final trial date?

MonaPizza

chopper6 wrote: »

Yet another unlikely flight of fancy...

Yet you open by saying you think they're guilty...can i just ask you what is the point of all this?

The POINT of all this is that people like you get to determine guilt regardless of circumstances and mitigation.
Regardless of proof of mitigation.
I don't believe they were coerced BUT I can't be sure. You seem to be VERY sure despite the fact that no proof or lack thereof is available.

And that, my friend, is a dodgy mindset to have. Despite the fact that they look guilty, completely, on the face of things, you have chosen to refuse, FLATLY, to consider any alternative set of circumstances.

Please don't parrot the fact that they were caught "red handed" with a load of snow. I'm sick of hearing the obvious.

I don't doubt that they did this for a quick buck. What doesn't sit well with me is the ease with which they were "found" guilty and their excuse was discarded by the all-knowing pestilence stricken multitudes, not the authorities, but the mob.

Paddy Cow

MonaPizza wrote: »

The POINT of all this is that people like you get to determine guilt regardless of circumstances and mitigation.
Regardless of proof of mitigation.
I don't believe they were coerced BUT I can't be sure. You seem to be VERY sure despite the fact that no proof or lack thereof is available.

And that, my friend, is a dodgy mindset to have. Despite the fact that they look guilty, completely, on the face of things, you have chosen to refuse, FLATLY, to consider any alternative set of circumstances.

Please don't parrot the fact that they were caught "red handed" with a load of snow. I'm sick of hearing the obvious.

I don't doubt that they did this for a quick buck. What doesn't sit well with me is the ease with which they were "found" guilty and their excuse was discarded by the all-knowing pestilence stricken multitudes, not the authorities, but the mob.

So let me get this straight,

• they were caught red-handed
• they trotted out the same tired excuse that most drug mules use until they realise it won't do them any good
• there is no evidence to back up their story
• you think they are guilty
• any person with normal reasoning abilities would think they are guilty

yet somehow you are up in arms because people put 2 and 2 together straight away and didn't entertain their cock and bull story?

It's insulting to people's intelligence to go on some sort of a crusade trying to shame us all because we didn't believe them. And there is no point dreaming up some extreme situation that has no relevance to this case or sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I'm sick of hearing the obvious". That you admit yourself that it's obvious what happened completely destroys your own "argument". If there was any evidence or credibility to their story I would entertain it but there simply isn't.

castie

prizefighter wrote: »

You incessantly declare that before a trial ALL people are considered innocent. These two having pled guilty will not be put on trial, just sentenced directly. Does this mean they are still entitled to the benefit of the doubt indefinitely? If so one could state that anyone that puts in a plea of guilty is still afforded the benefit of the doubt and still 'innocent' in the eyes of the public. I see you've reverted to kind and started attacking people because you're incoherent illogical ramblings are being shown to be just that.

Innocent until proven guilty.
By admitting guilt it is therefore proven and they are no longer considered innocent.