Her defence was that she didn't put it there. She provided no evidence of this though, so there was no reasonable doubt.
The prosecution case was that it was her bag, and she had possession of it. The provided evidence of this.
Ergo the guilty verdict.
Face it - the defence chickened up.
Or that she wore gloves. Lack of evidence isn't evidence to the contrary.
You've been watching too much CSI. Even in Australia DNA testing takes months, unlike CSI where it is done in hours. Accept the fact that CSI is a TV show, not reality. Or chip in & buy the Indonesian Customs department some rubber gloves.
Oz couldn't take it 2970I've already mentioned one way, but you keep ignoring it. Weight of bag at check-in for one. Rubbish - if she wore gloves there would be no prints. Correct, and it is up to...
I'm not interested in policy - I walked through Perth Customs on December 5th & I can butture you that Customs had their hands in my family's bags without gloves.
Evidence Evidence Evidence
The fact is that the defence didn't introduce this as evidence.
Irrelevant. Not introduced as evidence. sugar, not sugar.
Irrelevant to this case. Not introduced as evidence.
Dave
Oz couldn't take it 2969Dave Baker How can she? buttume (for the purpose of argument) that she is innocent. How can she prove she didn't put it there. The best chance of that was to print the plastic bag...
The email address used for sending these postings is not valid. All replies to the group please.
