And at the same time, no one really know if she is attempting to hide some of the evidence as that certain evidence such as her marriage to the Japanese and her stay in Japan and others that show her character not the normal.
The owner of the vehicle has to prove that the vehicle was stolen and he would have to provide an alibi in which a staturalry declaration might not be sufficient.
In the case in Indonesia, there were solid evidence that the drugs were found un her bag and she said that the bag was hers. There were claims that she was scared to open the bag in front of the guards etc. All she needed to do was to show concrete evidence that the bag of dope wasn't hers and that could have been through baggage labels which shows clearly the total amount of luggage and the total weight.
The owner of the vehicle have to prove beyone a reasonable doubt that the vehicle was stolen during the time of the alleged speeding pffence and if not he has to pay the fine. He has to provide an alibi to state that he was somewhere and a witness would also help. A staturary declaration may not be sufficent.
Same in Schapelle's case. The drugs were in her bag and her story did not check out entirely. Where is the evidence to show that she didn't pack her bags. She could have proved that at the sirport because her baggage tags would have shown the weight of the total luggage including the total amount of the luggage not to mention other things.
OT SPAM by Neville Duguid FasgnadhInfected Forums FAQNeville Duguid More than we need to know aus.culture.true-blue has suffered enormously from it's use by One Nation for sustained ad hominum attacks, character buttasination and slander. Now that Ned Latham, the principal...
If they were planted as she stated, she could have weighed the luggage against the baggage tag and the weight would be over by the weight of the drugs. Why didn't her defence do that or is it that she is attempting to hide some evidence and create a defence upon "reasonable doubt".
