Quote:
Originally Posted by Dion
I find it hard to believe that a defence lawyer would lie. At the same time i'm scratching my head as to why documents were leaked.
You have the govts view and her lawyers view. Some where in between is the truth. It's that truth that i would like to see.
Martin herself was convicted on infered evidence as there was no direct link to her and the crime. Add to the fact the onus is on the defence to prove innocence, it's no wonder the judge sided with the prosecution. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt doesn't seem to apply to mexican law.
As for her working illegally, get her for back taxes owed.
|
trout already posted snippets of Mexican law that differ from Canadian law. One of them is the guilty/innocence issue.
As for truth, there is some pretty damning evidence against her. In a Canadian court, she might be found Not Guilty, but she was convicted in the country that the offences took place. I understand why you doubt the Mexican legal system (to an extent), but this particular case just reeks of media exposure and heartstring-pulling.
As previously mentioned, the huge difference between our legal systems (besides the assumption of guilt) is that circumstantial evidence can get you convicted. Frankly, with all the obvious criminals that walk free in Canada because the Crown's case is mostly/purely circumstantial, I'm glad to see a prosecution.
I find it hard to believe that she was as 'in the dark' as she claims.