Peru drug smuggling case - READ OP BEFORE POSTING

Muahahaha

bajer101 wrote: »

The Sunday Times are reporting that the Irish Independent offered to pay Michaella McCollum for an interview, but she refused. They then ran a few articles from unsubstantiated "sources" in Peru. The cynic in me suspects that they went to the expense of sending a journalist out to Peru and when the journalist didn't get the interview they just made up stories.

yeah I'm pretty sure INM had or have a hack out there because they ran an article with picture of her in the back of a car. It looked like they didn't want to engage but they shoved a camera in her face and took the picture. I think then she threatened legal action but that will go nowhere in a pace like Peru. Todays Sindo had police reports on her visiting a major drug dealer in Lima in the lead up to the smuggling so they must have a hack out there and if she is not going to talk to them they still gotta get stories to justify the editor sending them out there.

bajer101

Muahahaha wrote: »

yeah I'm pretty sure INM had or have a hack out there because they ran an article with picture of her in the back of a car. It looked like they didn't want to engage but they shoved a camera in her face and took the picture. I think then she threatened legal action but that will go nowhere in a pace like Peru. Todays Sindo had police reports on her visiting a major drug dealer in Lima in the lead up to the smuggling so they must have a hack out there and if she is not going to talk to them they still gotta get stories to justify the editor sending them out there.

Yep. And today's Sunday World had a simulated picture of her bare arse with the headline "Bum Deal", intimating about how the police search would have gone. Gutter journalism at its worst.

Rattser

Mr E wrote: »

Rumour that she has been confirmed for Celeb Big Brother. I thought a Peruvian prison for drug smuggling was pretty low, but it seems she wants to go even lower.

http://theliberal.ie/reports-coming-through-michaella-mccollum-has-been-confirmed-for-celebrity-big-brother/

Is she not on parole in Peru for another six years? I hope she's not planning on absconding!

SEPT 23 1989

Big brother live in Peru this year?

ohnonotgmail

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Big brother live in Peru this year?

gran Hermano?

Berserker

Just watched this interview. I have to say that she was prepared brilliantly by whatever PR company is working with her. Even had the customary NI Nationalist persecution whinge to play to the RoI audience. She'll make a fortune out of the book/s and celebrity TV appearances.

armaghlad

Berserker wrote: »

Just watched this interview. I have to say that she was prepared brilliantly by whatever PR company is working with her. Even had the customary NI Nationalist persecution whinge to play to the RoI audience. She'll make a fortune out of the book/s and celebrity TV appearances.

And her from county Monaghan...lol

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ScumLord

bajer101 wrote: »

Yep. And today's Sunday World had a simulated picture of her bare arse with the headline "Bum Deal", intimating about how the police search would have gone. Gutter journalism at its worst.

I'm pretty sure I saw the journal flip flopping all over the place last week. In one report they went on about how she was a nasty person showing no remorse, the very next day they set their sights on the drug gangs here in Ireland so she had to become the victimised drug mule being taken advantage of by the local drug gangs.

HensVassal

Paulownia wrote: »

Now that she is out on bail, I worry that she will have enough money to live on. I assume the dole is not great in Peru, nothing like here anyway.
Maybe the poor girl was visiting that guy for a dig out rather than a job interview

I think she's out on parole, not bail. Bail is set when you are released before a trial.

Rhea Rose

I really think people are launching an unnecessary attack on her. She made a mistake and she's done her time. She isn't solely responsible for drug addiction nationwide; everyone has a choice.

I've no real opinion on her either way, but I see no reason to launch a tirade against a young woman who's trying to get her life back together. She'd have been thrown into the public eye after this, regardless, so I have no issue with her trying to present the best possible version of herself and to move on with her life.

I don't think anyone has a right to judge how 'emotional' she was in that interview, that has nothing to do with it. None of us have any idea what she's been through or what how she is feeling. People deal with things in different ways and trauma can completely make a person shut down, to the point where they're on auto-pilot and unable to express any real emotion without completely breaking down. Maybe she didn't want to do that on television. Maybe she didn't want the sympathy vote. You don't know. None of us do and, quite frankly, it's none of our business.

Leave the girl be to get on with her life.

GiftofGab

Rhea Rose wrote: »

I really think people are launching an unnecessary attack on her. She made a mistake and she's done her time. She isn't solely responsible for drug addiction nationwide; everyone has a choice.

I've no real opinion on her either way, but I see no reason to launch a tirade against a young woman who's trying to get her life back together. She'd have been thrown into the public eye after this, regardless, so I have no issue with her trying to present the best possible version of herself and to move on with her life.

I don't think anyone has a right to judge how 'emotional' she was in that interview, that has nothing to do with it. None of us have any idea what she's been through or what how she is feeling. People deal with things in different ways and trauma can completely make a person shut down, to the point where they're on auto-pilot and unable to express any real emotion without completely breaking down. Maybe she didn't want to do that on television. Maybe she didn't want the sympathy vote. You don't know. None of us do and, quite frankly, it's none of our business.

Leave the girl be to get on with her life.

I think the reason why a lot of people are pissed off is the fact that she didn’t take responsibility for her actions. I don’t care that she tried to smuggle a few million worth of cocaine into Spain. If she didn’t smuggle it in, someone else would have. But she has to put her hand up and say “I took a chance, I knew what I was doing, I was stupid, I got caught and it will never happen again”. Instead, she played the sympathy card. She sat down for an interview and said she was a young naive little girl, who was targeting by drug dealers. She said she was up partying all night and jumped on a plan that she taught was going to Mallorca but somehow ended up in Peru. Then before she knew it she was caught with a few million worth of drugs. That’s not taking into account all the other victim cards that she pulled – like she was held at gunpoint by drug dealers and her family were in danger. She wanted the public to have sympathy for her. The bottom line is that she knew exactly what she was doing and simply got caught. She needs to own up to the fact that was she done was wrong and that she’s the criminal not the victim.

Paulownia

Rhea Rose wrote: »

I really think people are launching an unnecessary attack on her. She made a mistake and she's done her time. She isn't solely responsible for drug addiction nationwide; everyone has a choice.

I've no real opinion on her either way, but I see no reason to launch a tirade against a young woman who's trying to get her life back together. She'd have been thrown into the public eye after this, regardless, so I have no issue with her trying to present the best possible version of herself and to move on with her life.

I don't think anyone has a right to judge how 'emotional' she was in that interview, that has nothing to do with it. None of us have any idea what she's been through or what how she is feeling. People deal with things in different ways and trauma can completely make a person shut down, to the point where they're on auto-pilot and unable to express any real emotion without completely breaking down. Maybe she didn't want to do that on television. Maybe she didn't want the sympathy vote. You don't know. None of us do and, quite frankly, it's none of our business.

Leave the girl be to get on with her life.

She would be well advised to not be so publicity seeking then

Kidchameleon

GiftofGab wrote: »

I think the reason why a lot of people are pissed off is the fact that she didn’t take responsibility for her actions

She's on parole. She probably cant say too much at the moment.

Kidchameleon

Paulownia wrote: »

She would be well advised to not be so publicity seeking then

How exactly is she seeking publicity? She done one interview for her national broadcaster. Thats it.

ohnonotgmail

Kidchameleon wrote: »

She's on parole. She probably cant say too much at the moment.

didnt seem to stop her doing a major television interview? she had ample opportunity in that interview to take responsibility for what she did. instead she just made up another tissue of lies.

The flying mouse

Kidchameleon wrote: »

How exactly is she seeking publicity? She done one interview for her national broadcaster. Thats it.

And pissed of Independent newspapers because she wouldn't give them one and that's why there out for her, its nothing to do about her telling lies etc etc as independent newspapers couldn't give a monkeys about drug dealing muleing or scoring, Its all down to the business of selling there erm newspapers.

Bacchus

Kidchameleon wrote: »

She's on parole. She probably cant say too much at the moment.

Why's that? They already convicted her and consider her responsible for her actions. Now, she'd be a bit silly to start naming names on public TV but admitting guilt and responsibility (instead of hiding behind excuses) isn't going to get her into more trouble with the authorities over there... they already know she's guilty.

Rhea Rose

Paulownia wrote: »

She would be well advised to not be so publicity seeking then

Is she, though? She did an interview with RTE, that's it.

Christy42

Rhea Rose wrote: »

Is she, though? She did an interview with RTE, that's it.

Err surely that is seeking publicity.

Kidchameleon

Bacchus wrote: »

Why's that? They already convicted her and consider her responsible for her actions. Now, she'd be a bit silly to start naming names on public TV but admitting guilt and responsibility (instead of hiding behind excuses) isn't going to get her into more trouble with the authorities over there... they already know she's guilty.

Yes but she is still on parole. Its quite possible she will not spend the whole 6 years and 8 months in Peru. She will be reviewed by the parole board at some stage (source: every article written about her since release) and probably be let go home. Publicly stating that "I lied to the Peruvian authority's to chance my arm" would be embarrassing for Peru and wouldn't exactly endear her to the parole board.

Kidchameleon

Christy42 wrote: »

Err surely that is seeking publicity.

Do you have any evidence that she sought the interview? I'd imagine the media were falling over themselves to get that interview.

Berserker

Kidchameleon wrote: »

How exactly is she seeking publicity? She done one interview for her national broadcaster. Thats it.

And Celeb Big Brother.

armaghlad wrote: »

And her from county Monaghan...lol

Never realised Dungannon upped sticks and moved to Monaghan.

Kidchameleon

Berserker wrote: »

And Celeb Big Brother.

If you believe that then you have a lot to learn

Muahahaha

Rhea Rose wrote: »

I really think people are launching an unnecessary attack on her. She made a mistake and she's done her time. She isn't solely responsible for drug addiction nationwide; everyone has a choice.

I've no real opinion on her either way, but I see no reason to launch a tirade against a young woman who's trying to get her life back together. She'd have been thrown into the public eye after this, regardless, so I have no issue with her trying to present the best possible version of herself and to move on with her life.

I don't think anyone has a right to judge how 'emotional' she was in that interview, that has nothing to do with it. None of us have any idea what she's been through or what how she is feeling. People deal with things in different ways and trauma can completely make a person shut down, to the point where they're on auto-pilot and unable to express any real emotion without completely breaking down. Maybe she didn't want to do that on television. Maybe she didn't want the sympathy vote. You don't know. None of us do and, quite frankly, it's none of our business.

Leave the girl be to get on with her life.

I largely agree with this except for one thing- she made the bad mistake of doing the interview with the media in the first place. If she wanted to be left alone then she shouldn't have done it and issued the usual press statement 'The McCollum family appeal to the media for privacy at this time' and left it at that. Her problem now is that she has engaged with the media and now they see it as open season on her. After all she's a convicted criminal so they can say pretty much anything about her and she can't sue for defamation because our defamation laws speak about people being of good character. Her character was lost once she was found guilty by the courts.

Just an aside I find it funny when I think back to how the Irish media portrayed Katy French and Gerry Ryan with how they're portraying McCollum. French was a coke user whose use created the demand for smugglers like McCollum. But to the Irish media French was a victim, probably because all the coke sniffing hacks were disgusted that they too might get killed by an overdose of their habit. They treated Gerry Ryan's death as a tragedy too but no-one in the media ever dared mention that he was a raging coke addict who was lining the pockets of criminals. No one in the media pointed out that he even released a video warning youngsters that cocaine was bad, his infamous "Coke, you're going to be a joke" campaign. But go one step up the cocaine chain from users like Katy French and Gerry Ryan to the smugglers and suddenly they're the scum of the earth. The hypocrisy of the media can be pretty astounding at times and Katy French's and Gerry Ryans deaths illustrate this perfectly.

Or how the world media portrays Howard Marks.
Just a nice guy, doing his bit for legalising of cannabis!

melissak

Muahahaha wrote: »

I largely agree with this except for one thing- she made the bad mistake of doing the interview with the media in the first place. If she wanted to be left alone then she shouldn't have done it and issued the usual press statement 'The McCollum family appeal to the media for privacy at this time' and left it at that. Her problem now is that she has engaged with the media and now they see it as open season on her. After all she's a convicted criminal so they can say pretty much anything about her and she can't sue for defamation because our defamation laws speak about people being of good character. Her character was lost once she was found guilty by the courts.

Just an aside I find it funny when I think back to how the Irish media portrayed Katy French and Gerry Ryan with how they're portraying McCollum. French was a coke user whose use created the demand for smugglers like McCollum. But to the Irish media French was a victim, probably because all the coke sniffing hacks were disgusted that they too might get killed by an overdose of their habit. They treated Gerry Ryan's death as a tragedy too but no-one in the media ever dared mention that he was a raging coke addict who was lining the pockets of criminals. No one in the media pointed out that he even released a video warning youngsters that cocaine was bad, his infamous "Coke, you're going to be a joke" campaign. But go one step up the cocaine chain from users like Katy French and Gerry Ryan to the smugglers and suddenly they're the scum of the earth. The hypocrisy of the media can be pretty astounding at times and Katy French's and Gerry Ryans deaths illustrate this perfectly.

Do you lose your good character by being found guilty of a crime legally regarding defamation?

Dave_The_Sheep

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If you believe that then you have a lot to learn

And the interview on the national broadcaster? Care to comment on that?

Not seeking publicity at all, right?

CaraMay

Rhea Rose wrote: »

I don't think anyone has a right to judge how 'emotional' she was in that interview

Yeah tbh I should she was very dead behind the eyes but then again i think you would need to be to do what she did. She's a hard nut.

Kidchameleon

Muahahaha wrote: »

I largely agree with this except for one thing- she made the bad mistake of doing the interview with the media in the first place.

It would have been a bad mistake NOT to do an interview. They'd still be hounding her right now if she hadnt.

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

And the interview on the national broadcaster? Care to comment on that?

Not seeking publicity at all, right?

I'm pretty sure I did comment on that?

HensVassal

Berserker wrote: »

And Celeb Big Brother.



Never realised Dungannon upped sticks and moved to Monaghan.

How is she going to appear in Big Brother if she is stuck in Peru for the next 4 years?

...And Justice

HensVassal wrote: »

How is she going to appear in Big Brother if she is stuck in Peru for the next 4 years?

She asked to be on it, I heard Ivan Yeats talking about it on newstalk this morning, apparently the producer has turned her down, she's trying to be famous, there was talk of her having an agent and trying to secure book deals and other stuff.

Paulownia

There is a danger with publicity of this sort that some misguided people might see these people as heroes or innocent victims and see their behaviour as acceptable and emulate them.

LorMal

...And Justice wrote: »

She asked to be on it, I heard Ivan Yeats talking about it on newstalk this morning, apparently the producer has turned her down, she's trying to be famous, there was talk of her having an agent and trying to secure book deals and other stuff.

Enjoy a good gossip? How about leaving her alone. You don't know her.

...And Justice

LorMal wrote: »

Enjoy a good gossip? How about leaving her alone. You don't know her.

Just listening to the radio........

HensVassal

...And Justice wrote: »

She asked to be on it, I heard Ivan Yeats talking about it on newstalk this morning, apparently the producer has turned her down, she's trying to be famous, there was talk of her having an agent and trying to secure book deals and other stuff.

Well to be honest, if there are people out there whose lives are so empty that they will spend money read whatever vacuous sh1t this girl puts in a book then what can I say?

armaghlad

Berserker wrote: »

And Celeb Big Brother.



Never realised Dungannon upped sticks and moved to Monaghan.

No, what happened is her family moved from Co Monaghan to live in Dungannon. Surely not a difficult concept to understand.

Muahahaha

melissak wrote: »

Do you lose your good character by being found guilty of a crime legally regarding defamation?

There's a few defences to defamation actions such as the truth and expressing an honest opinion-

Honest Opinion: For a person to successfully utilise this defence, they must display that they believed in the truth of the opinion, that the opinion was founded on allegations of fact and the opinion concerned a matter of public interest.

So any of us can shout from the rooftops that she's a convicted drug smuggler due to the fact of her being found guilty. What the media can't do though is make up complete lies on other things (eg she's a member of the IRA) and then use a defence of honest opinion without demonstrating how they arrived at that honest opinion.

Even then though people who have been through the mill tend to get short shrift in defamation cases if they already had a shady character. Nowhere is this better illustrated in the case of Albert Reynolds Vs the Sunday Times. The paper led with the headline (in reference to Reynolds) "Goodbye Gombeen Man-Why a fib too far was fatal for Mr Fix-It.'' The article went on to call him a liar and he sued. In the end he won but the jury awarded him the grand total of one penny in damages and he was left with a £1m legal bill. The judge in the trial remarked that pretty much all the Irish media had called him a liar and he hadn't sued them, only the UK based Sunday Times. Whatever was left of Alberts character and reputation by that stage was worth only a penny in damages, according to the judge and jury. If ever someone was getting told to fcuk off with their defamation case that was it, he sued the paper to defend his character and it ended up even worse for him than he could ever had imagined, he was roundly humiliated and made a laughing stock by the courts.

VinLieger

LorMal wrote: »

Enjoy a good gossip? How about leaving her alone. You don't know her.

If she wants to be left alone she should stop scrabbling for the limelight, everything happening she brought on herself and she deserves no sympathy from anybody when it hopefully goes tits up again

Rhea Rose

GiftofGab wrote: »

I think the reason why a lot of people are pissed off is the fact that she didn’t take responsibility for her actions. I don’t care that she tried to smuggle a few million worth of cocaine into Spain. If she didn’t smuggle it in, someone else would have. But she has to put her hand up and say “I took a chance, I knew what I was doing, I was stupid, I got caught and it will never happen again”. Instead, she played the sympathy card. She sat down for an interview and said she was a young naive little girl, who was targeting by drug dealers. She said she was up partying all night and jumped on a plan that she taught was going to Mallorca but somehow ended up in Peru. Then before she knew it she was caught with a few million worth of drugs. That’s not taking into account all the other victim cards that she pulled – like she was held at gunpoint by drug dealers and her family were in danger. She wanted the public to have sympathy for her. The bottom line is that she knew exactly what she was doing and simply got caught. She needs to own up to the fact that was she done was wrong and that she’s the criminal not the victim.

Were you there? I mean, who are you to say how she was or wasn't feeling at the time? The girl panicked and lied - bad call - but she's seriously paid the price for it. Two years in prison is no ride in the park, in fairness.

It's very possible that she wasn't thinking about the public or looking for sympathy at all. What's more likely, is that she was simply trying to figure out how the fcuk to get out of going to prison. I can't condone that, but I can sure as hell understand it. She messed up, panicked, and made a bad decision in the heat of the moment. We've all done that to varying degrees, although obviously not to this extent.

A bit of empathy wouldn't go amiss. I can't understand this fierce judgemental attitude that so many people are displaying towards a girl they don't even know. I just really hate the witch hunt mentality I've seen surrounding the girl and it's completely uncalled for.

BettePorter

Rhea Rose wrote:

What's more likely, is that she was simply trying to figure out how the fcuk to get out of going to prison. I can't condone that, but I can sure as hell understand it.

Yes that's all very well BUT ...... she's STILL doing it! Had she come out and said 'yep its a fair cop, I chanced my arm and failed. Don't do it kids'! I think she'd get a lot more credit!

The whole ' poor me ' stance is infuriating!

Rhea Rose

BettePorter wrote: »

Yes that's all very well BUT ...... she's STILL doing it! Had she come out and said 'yep its a fair cop, I chanced my arm and failed. Don't do it kids'! I think she'd get a lot more credit!

The whole ' poor me ' stance is infuriating!

Didn't she say why she did that? i.e. she didn't know what to do? I think that's a fair explanation.

KingBrian2

Paulownia wrote: »

She would be well advised to not be so publicity seeking then

Maybe the publicity is good. Would it be appropriate to say she is quite hot.

BettePorter

Rhea Rose wrote:

Didn't she say why she did that? i.e. she didn't know what to do? I think that's a fair explanation.

Did what?

bajer101

I have no problem with what she did except she is an idiot. Morally - what did she do wrong? For me, she is just the same as the person who drives a Guinness lorry.

Paulownia

armaghlad wrote: »

No, what happened is her family moved from Co Monaghan to live in Dungannon. Surely not a difficult concept to understand.

If I lived in Monaghan I'd probably move too but perhaps not to Dungannon oddly!!

Paulownia

bajer101 wrote: »

I have no problem with what she did except she is an idiot. Morally - what did she do wrong? For me, she is just the same as the person who drives a Guinness lorry.

Were they carrying narcotics too?

bajer101

Paulownia wrote: »

Were they carrying narcotics too?

They are transporting a drug which causes a lot more damage than all of the illegal drugs combined. Alcohol just happens to be legal. During prohibition in America, a bootlegger would have been in the same legal position as a drug smuggler. Legalities may change, but morality doesn't.

armaghlad

bajer101 wrote: »

I have no problem with what she did except she is an idiot. Morally - what did she do wrong? For me, she is just the same as the person who drives a Guinness lorry.

This is very much my standpoint. Looking at it objectively: she was smuggling cocaine. €1m+ worth. That dramatises it - but how much is it worth in Peru? A he'll of a lot less. The pitch fork brigade obviously think she's the biggest scumbag going - all the lives she would have "ruined" and all those "poor children" that would have been affected. When in reality, the people taking coke will be your neighbours, your plumber, your financial advisor, those lads watching the football in your local, the twenty - somethings queuing up for the local nightclub etc...

She broke the law, a serious law, has been caught and rightfully apprehended. She's a moron for doing it but I'm sure she's learned her lesson by now

Bacchus

bajer101 wrote: »

They are transporting a drug which causes a lot more damage than all of the illegal drugs combined. Alcohol just happens to be legal. During prohibition in America, a bootlegger would have been in the same legal position as a drug smuggler. Legalities may change, but morality doesn't.

Morality does come into it though when this smuggling of drugs funds crime.

You can argue the dangers of alcohol vs cocaine (legalities put aside) all you want but there's the bigger issue of smuggling drugs directly funding the objectives of criminal activities.

I agree with other points that she has paid for her crime, she's not a monster, etc. but I don't agree at all that her actions were, from a moral viewpoint, just fine.