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...
Dave 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 of dope.
You have that backwards twice.
'Reasonable doubt' applies to proof of *guilt* ie guilty, beyone reasonable doubt. The concept of 'reasonable doubt' doesn't exist in Indonesian law.
It seems to me they have very little to work with. If she is innocent as they say, then she cannot point a finger to a definite individual who is responsible. Again, her best option would have been that her prints were not on the actual plastic bag of dope and the opportunity to demonstrate that was peeed away by mishandling of it.
Prebuttumes that NO prints were found on it. What if the prints of a third party were found on the dope, but none of her traces?
CSI??? Tv show? Don't think I'm familiar with it, I watch very little television to be honest. I prefer to read. The time needed for DNA testing would seem irrelevant. Are you suggesting that she do 20 years because they couldn't be bothered and-or stuffed up the evidence?
Oh so now it's up to us to make the Indonesians use proper evidence handling procedures? I suppose that's her fault too is it?
I think that is a breach of procedure. Next time you pbutt through customs *ask them*.
This and the rest will no doubt be part of the appeal.
The CO
