Schapelle Corby - Innocent or Guilty?

[pilots]

Australia is the same, if you say sorry or guilty you get a reduced sentence, go against the system and you get more.
Our Aussie mule got twenty years, some other woman only get 15 years, had the Corby lot shut up she would have got only 15 years, go for a retrial and you may get the death penalty.
Only 16 years to go Schapelle.
Come on Zacko, we all saw the Corby's lawyer on TV with the sample of the drugs for testing, WHAT STOPPED HIM FROM GOING AHEAD??

 

[schu]

I am really interested in knowing the nature of this case, and your analysis of it.

I am a bit confused. Isn't that what I gave? Or do you mean my analysis of the death penalty and the issues relating to rape in Congo? In the case of the latter, I think that would be hijacking the thread quite significantly. Both those issues are enormously complex and would take hours and thousands of posts to discuss.

 

[schu]

Nope.

People just care more for those Australians that will be killed in other country's prisons.

In comparison to those situations, this issue is meaningless.

Every injustice is IMO equally important. To say that one is worse than another is perhaps a personal preference, but it is no an all-encompassing one. I personally don't believe in the death penalty and will address the issue on behalf of anyone - guilty or innocent. But if you want to get into moral relativism, one could argue that an innocent person stuck in a hell-hole is actually worse than a guilty person being executed. I don't believe that, but someone else might.

Irrespective of that, though, Schapelle's situation is not just one about guilt or innocence. Even if you believe in her guilt, there are many issues relating to her trial, which further raise general questions about the Indonesian justice system. This is not basing anything on international fair trial standards, either, but on an analysis of their own criminal code. Such issues pave the way for the possibility that an innocent person could at some point be executed. That to me is a very serious and far reaching issue.

 

[pilots]

Schu, don't blame the Indonesians for bad justice, we have just let Mallard out of jail here in Perth who was convected for murder he did NOT COMMIT, I think he was in the slammer for about ten years.

 

[schu]

what fariness are you talking about.... its indonesia. people are starving there. there is no fairness in indonesia.

People are starving all over the world. That doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to other issues that are problematic. I don't expect this particular issue to interest everyone because everyone has personal preferences on what they feel is important, but I do think that even if you don't have a personal interest in this, there should at least be some acceptance of the fact that it has importance on a global level on the basis that it is about human rights.

Human rights encompass many different aspects. They are not just about people being tortured or physically interfered with, but also about the issues that protect freedoms, rights and dignity. The legal system in any country is an enormous part of that because it is the very thing that underpins and protects these aspects. If you accept that trials can be unfair and do not even have to conform to the requirements set out in a country's own criminal code, then that is basically an acceptance of anarchy. There may as well be no laws. Further, international standards have been set up under the Geneva Conventions to protect all manner of human rights - from the physical to the abstract - and it is important to encourage countries to adhere to them.

The issues in Schapelle's trial have a broader context within Indonesia. By addressing them, and perhaps by exposing certain things, there can be a positive impact on what is happening elsewhere in Indonesia. Discrimination of one particular group of people is often the cause of starvation amongst a particular group. So too is corruption. So considering that these may have had a hand in what happened to Schapelle has the potential to bring a focus to the matters for the rest of the general population.

broken handle and changed zipper position.... hmmm... better get theat through customs qucik smart and check whats inside after we pass customs.

It is possible for baggage to be damaged in transit without someone having planted something in the bag. I don't think that most people who notice something different about their bags would automatically jump to the conclusion that someone had put drugs in there. It could have just been opened for checking at some point. At the very worst, not automatically jumping to the conclusion is just naivety. It doesn't indicate knowledge of what's in there.

vacum seled bag was cut and you could smell nothing whilst carrying the the bag to customs? and then the customs open the bad and you say... holly cow.... look that marijuana is not mine! well how do you know its marijuana.

it could be grass.... i wouldnt not knwo what marijuana smells like. i never tried it. she said they werent my drugs, becasue she knew the bag contained drugs. maybe becasue she put them there.

As I stated, Schapelle didn't carry the bag to customs. Her brother James dragged it across the floor. Have you been to Bali? The smells there are quite overpowering; in fact, it is one of the first things a lot of people comment upon. When in the airport, amongst all of that, it is perfectly plausible that you wouldn't smell the marijuana until the bag was opened close to you and the smell exposed to great degree. Otherwise, they just mingle. Consider also that you wouldn't be assuming something was in the bag and it wouldn't be until it directly hit you that it would be noticed.

As for knowing whether or not it's marijuana, Schapelle admitted to having a few puffs on a joint years ago and to being around friends who had the occasional smoke. That is a perfectly reasonable explanation for how she knew what it was. I think many of my friends would have known what it was, too, and that doesn't make them traffickers. It doesn't even make them regular smokers. That is a very long bow to draw. Of course not everyone is going to know what it is, but that doesn't mean that just because you do, you are automatically seriously involved with the drug

fingerprinting the bag?.. why do that?... if there are no fingerprints it means they just wiped the bag. if i was trafficing drugs i would wipe all my prints just in case i was caught.... so i could say... they arent mine.. there are no fingerprints. i would knwo there are no prints because i would have wiped them.

It is standard practice in most cases to fingerprint the bags. Not finding Schapelle's prints would not have conclusively demonstrated her innocence, but it should have been done anyway. The Indonesians refused to do it even though the judges could have just disregarded it the way they did with all the other evidence presented by the defence. At the very least it could have shown if someone else was involved. It is odd that they didn't.

And why would the family have begged for it over and over again? If they were indeed guilty in some way, even if they were confident there were no prints, they would have asked for it and when the Indonesians refused, they would have breathed a sigh of relief and shut up. Instead, they asked on multiple occasions, including in open court.

Besides which, the fingerprints are only one aspect that help form a pattern.

indonesian police dotn care where the drugs were meant to go.. they just care that they found something. its indonesia not CSI

That demonstrates guilt of importation NOT guilt of trafficking. The law in Indonesia requires evidence of dissemination (or at least intended dissemination) to prove trafficking. This was confirmed by the individual who drafted the laws. He stated that if there was no evidence directly demonstrating intended trafficking, she should not be found guilty of that. If Schapelle had been found guilty of just importation, that would have been one thing, but she was found guilty of trafficking despite there being no evidence presented to support that.

I'd also note that the Indonesians did not charge her with trafficking until the day before the trial was supposed to start. They had the case for months and then at the last minuted added another unsupported charge with no more evidence. Does that not strike you as odd?

the AFP are a bunch of morons. they couldnt find a drung ring if it fell on them. furtehrmore... there is probably a governemnt directive tellign them not to interfere in the drugs trade too much. after all if we put away all the drugies and their associates... there would be very few people to enjoy australia. ... example, ever hear on the news.... "a well known member of sydney's underworld was shot today and is recovering in the hospital" and you wonder...... if the press knows he is a crim.. why isnt he in jail.... well he isnt becasue the AFP and cops in general probably have a directive not to interfere in the drugs trade too much.

if you knwo any drug dealers etc... go to the cops and tell them everythign... where they sell drugs..who they sell it to ect... they will laugh at you whilst taking your statement. noone will touch the drug dealers.

i can go to sydney and score coke in a matter of minutes. buy a gun for $1,000 within 24 hours, and you are telling me cops cant find these people.

Irrespective of how useless the AFP are, it has been noted by many professionals in this area that it is extremely odd that they never even questioned the Corbys.

However, even if you take out the AFP, how do you explain that Channel 7 with all their resources couldn't find any evidence when spending $5 million on the defence of the defamation? Further, how do you explain, that with all the media scrutiny over the years and the digging and checking, none of the organisations has been able to come up with anything more than the fact that Mercedes had a couple of puffs at some point and her father was fined for possession decades ago? The family has been ripped to shreds and every acquaintance looked at and there's practically nothing; certainly no more than hundreds of thousands of other families have in their history.

BTW.... as for your last statement i dont have any relatives that have even tried drugs.. and neither have i... i couldnt tell marijuana from grass clippings, coke from powdered sugar.

But there are millions of people in Australia who COULD. The research indicates that something like 70+% of the Australian population has tried marijuana in their lifetime and that 60+% have tried a 'harder' drug (such as speed, cocaine, ice, heroin). That doesn't make them all traffickers.

 

[schu]

schu,

although i am no expert in police or security matters,
the "missing" security videos from brisbane and sydney airport are proably sitting on some police officers desk. selaed and classified by either the airport authority or ASIO.

they would have watched them. found them to be either damning or inconclusive and decide not to release them. either to leave an element of doubt so she avoids the death sentence. or becasue they are reluctant to show potential terrorists their airport surveilance capability. which i amsure is significant.

id say its very very high resolution, and would not be surprised if they even recorded sounds as well. maybe to pick up faint murmurings of (god is great, death to america, paradise shall be mine )

maybe its a good test.... go to the airport and repeat those words over and over again.. and watch what happens. id say you wil be tacked tot he gorund by 5 guys in oakley shades.

Maintenance records obtained show that the cameras were not working that day. And the cameras don't record sound.

If you want to believe that that is a cover-up for some reason, fair enough, but that is an assumption based on your own personal opinion and there could be many other explanations, none of which indicate guilt on Schapelle's part. If it was a case of the AFP/ASIO not wanting to demonstrate their surveillance to a potential terrorist threat, that is indeed one possibility that doesn't support Schapelle being guilty. There are many others, too.

And don't you think that it is a bit unrealistic to base a concept of guilt beyond reasonable doubt on an assumption for which there is no direct evidence? Legally, reasonable doubt and a presumption of innocence require that when evidence exists that could go either way (as in, an assumption made could infer either guilt or innocence), such an inference must be made in favour of innocence. But irrespective of the legal element, making interpretations like that is quite far-fetched to come up with guilt.

I genuinely believe that given any circumstance, one could make a series of assumptions that indicate guilt, even if innocence was obvious.

 

[michael_t_f]

Slim you have a wild imagination, maybe you should lay off the CSI shows a bit mate.Talk it up, buy a gun in 24hrs You wouldn't know where to start.

 

[schu]

SCHU, some facts for you. I have lived and worked in Bali. We had up to twenty young men working for the company that I was working for, we had Men from New Zealand, America, and Australia working for us, a lot of the men did smoke pot, they told me many times that they would ONLY buy from ex pat, if you buy from a local you have a good chance you have been set up and will have to pay a bribe to a local copper who soon knocks on your door.
Now this Schu, they all said the local grass from Bali was weed, they was all ways on the look out for the imported drugs as they gave you a bigger high for your $$. (imported cost up to twenty times more)

Now Schu, you like Zacko say they would not test the drugs, first the police/customs would not release a sample for testing, at this time the Corby's was screaming blue murder about not having a sample to test. Then the remarkable happened the lawyer for the Corby's got a sample, Schu, why when they now had a sample did they not have it tested. Zacko seems to have trouble with this question as well.

I have equal evidence that indicates that this is untrue. So which position is the accurate one?

Further, even if you assume that there are ex-pats selling pot for 20 times more, that doesn't mean that the Corbys were involved. Not one person was ever found who knew of the Corbys as dealers, and the local dealing scene is well-understood by all those involved. Everyone spoken to said that if the Corbys were involved they would have known about that, and they didn't. Indeed, the police never even came up with a skerrick of evidence to demonstrate that. And once again, it is well understood that the police in Bali know of the drug dealers. Yet they didn't know of the Corbys.

Further, just because you are buying pot from an ex-pat does not mean it comes from Australia or indeed from overseas. The majority of Indonesia's high quality pot comes from Aceh.

A simple test would have confirmed this and it was the Indonesians who refused over and over again. When the defence requested it in court, they were refused. This is an important point when answering your question about why, when the defence had a sample, they didn't get it tested.

The only organisation that could reputably test the marijuana is the AFP (or another law enforcement agency). But they couldn't and certainly wouldn't do it without official permission from the Indonesians, which they wouldn't get. So even if the defence had a sample, there was no way to get it reputably tested. There was no WAY any law enforcement agency would tread on the toes of another country like that, and certainly not in this situation when it is abundantly clear the importance of the Australian-Indonesian relationship. Such an action would have had incredibly far-reaching consequences. Can you imagine the AFP testing a sample on the sly and then releasing the results?

So the alternative was to go to some shady organisation to have it done. Had the defence gone to some shady organisation for testing, would anyone have believed the results? Furthermore, would anyone have even believed that the marijuana was from the same lot as the one Schapelle was caught with? Would you believe that it was all legitimate?

It HAD to be done officially for it to have any benefit and it couldn't be done that way.

 

[slim pickins]

Schu,

the finer nuanced points of your legal argument make for some compelling reading. i am sure the indonesian graduates of jakarta legal school in the year 2108 will look back at what you have said and appreciate your incredible forsight.

until then these nuances are uesless. their justice system is not a legal textbook. in fact the legal system even here is not a textbook. its the real world. you cant just let someone with bag of drugs walk. its never happened.

the precedent set would open the floodgates. this way the duty of care clearly sits with the owner of the bag. to have the onus on the customs personel is just too difficult financially.

as a consequence of this i wll check my bag evey time. not fair .. but practical froma civilisation perspective

 

[schu]

Schu, you also complain that she was charged with trafficking, if she was not trafficking the dope, was for own personal use then??

Given that I don't believe that Schapelle had anything to do with the drugs in her bag, I don't think it was for her or anyone associated with her use at all.

But the point isn't about whether or not it was for personal use. Indonesia has two separate laws, one relating to importation and one related to trafficking. The former simply requires bringing the drugs into the country; the latter requires evidence relating to dissemination and supply in the sense of distribution. It is not enough, under their laws, to simply say, "well the quantity is such that it is going to be distributed and/or sold". There has to be direct evidence of that, such as a chain of distribution. So my complaint is that they leapt to a trafficking charge and conviction without any evidence of that, in contradiction to their own laws and requirements.

It is worth noting that this is the only time this has happened. Normally, a person is charged only with importation or there is evidence of actual trafficking.

This point is to highlight the questions and relating legal issues surrounding the case and the broader context of the Indonesian justice system. Schapelle was singled out for unusual treatment and, in addition to this, the legal aspects of the case were not handled properly.

 

[schu]

Schu, don't blame the Indonesians for bad justice, we have just let Mallard out of jail here in Perth who was convected for murder he did NOT COMMIT, I think he was in the slammer for about ten years.

I don't think, for one second, that the Indonesians are the sole perpetrators of injustice. There are issues all over the world and Australia is far from exempt. But that is hardly the point or relevant. Each injustice is relevant, as is each system that has issues relating to justice.

 

[schu]

Schu,

the finer nuanced points of your legal argument make for some compelling reading. i am sure the indonesian graduates of jakarta legal school in the year 2108 will look back at what you have said and appreciate your incredible forsight.

until then these nuances are uesless. their justice system is not a legal textbook. in fact the legal system even here is not a textbook. its the real world. you cant just let someone with bag of drugs walk. its never happened.

the precedent set would open the floodgates. this way the duty of care clearly sits with the owner of the bag. to have the onus on the customs personel is just too difficult financially.

as a consequence of this i wll check my bag evey time. not fair .. but practical froma civilisation perspective

That's a fair argument in terms of the practicalities of the situation. And I have no problem with it on principle. I personally disagree with it, but you're absolutely entitled to that perspective and it's not an unreasonably one in the scheme of things.

However, that does not mean that Schapelle was guilty in the situation. It simply means that she was an unfortunate individual who should have locked her bags. And that is not the position held by most people.

Furthermore, such a perspective still only supports an importation charge, not a trafficking one, and should only have led to 3-4 years in prison, not a 20 year sentence. Had there only been a 3-4 year sentence handed down, I do believe that my perspective on this would be a bit different. I would, based on my own personal interests, still have been concerned about the situation, but I would not be so concerned that there were so many aspects that were uniquely unfair in her circumstances.

 

[slim pickins]

schu, fair enoigh. but again practicality.
3-4 years for $50,000 shipment. thats about $10,000 profit per year of prison. considering average wage in indonesia.... thats 250million indonesians ready to be drug mules.

next time it will be 8kg of heroin for personal use. and thats $50,000 per year of prison. the law has to make crime unattractive.

in a country where life is cheap, like indonesia... death has to be the main deterrent. sad but true.

law is all about comon sense. you know that. her sentence is appropriate for indonesia. again sad but true.

certainly put me off trafficking. why risk 20 years prison for something i can make in a year sweeping the streets.

you see her motivation might not have been to import drugs.. she might have seen the renee zelwiger movie about the girl who is caught with a massive amount of drugs and because it was sooooo obvious it wasnt her she got off free. by her barrister human rights lawyer boyfriend.

and her aim was to get "rescued" and sell her sotry to "new idea" or "a curent affair" and perhaps get a few big brother gigs. you never knwo this is a gold coast beauty therapist girl. some people are just insane.

whent he push comes to shove you just cant get away with a bag full of drugs. tried and proven.

 

[schu]

schu, fair enoigh. but again practicality.
3-4 years for $50,000 shipment. thats about $10,000 profit per year of prison. considering average wage in indonesia.... thats 250million indonesians ready to be drug mules.

next time it will be 8kg of heroin for personal use. and thats $50,000 per year of prison. the law has to make crime unattractive.

in a country where life is cheap, like indonesia... death has to be the main deterrent. sad but true.

law is all about comon sense. you know that. her sentence is appropriate for indonesia. again sad but true.

certainly put me off trafficking. why risk 20 years prison for something i can make in a year sweeping the streets.

you see her motivation might not have been to import drugs.. she might have seen the renee zelwiger movie about the girl who is caught with a massive amount of drugs and because it was sooooo obvious it wasnt her she got off free. by her barrister human rights lawyer boyfriend.

and her aim was to get "rescued" and sell her sotry to "new idea" or "a curent affair" and perhaps get a few big brother gigs. you never knwo this is a gold coast beauty therapist girl. some people are just insane.

whent he push comes to shove you just cant get away with a bag full of drugs. tried and proven.

But the point is that no other person, foreigner or Indonesian, in the equivalent circumstance, was charged with and convicted of trafficking and received a 20 year sentence, or anything close to it. Schapelle's situation was commensurate with an importing charge only and a 3-4 year sentence maximum. So even if you argue that 3-4 years is not much for the amount, under the Indonesian system, that was what should have happened and it didn't. She was treated and got a punishment that was unique and inconsistent. That is the point on the legal/political side.

And there is still a vast difference between being guilty just because you have it in your bag and actually being guilty of importation. Even if the Indonesians take the view that having it in the bag is enough, which is yet another issue, that does not necessarily demonstrate genuine guilt (that the person with it in their bag put it in their bag).

Are you saying that she had to cop the penalty because it was in her bag or that she was responsible for it being in her bag? Because they are two different issues.

On and Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason was released on 11 November, 2004, which was AFTER Schapelle's arrest.

 

[slim pickins]

Even if the Indonesians take the view that having it in the bag is enough, which is yet another issue, that does not necessarily demonstrate genuine guilt (that the person with it in their bag put it in their bag).

On and Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason was released on 11 November, 2004, which was AFTER Schapelle's arrest.

clearly, for the indonesians, this particular possession was one of intent. hence they found her guilty.

i mean there is reaosnable doubt in pretty much every case, if your reasoning is particularly biased in favour of the accused. by that logic noone would ever be convicted of anything.

the movie did come out a few months after the corby event. BUT the novel that the movie was based on was published in 1999 by Helen Fielding. and it was common knowledge that the movie was based on the book.

who knows.. if she got out it might have been the prefect crime.

 

[schu]

clearly, for the indonesians, this particular possession was one of intent. hence they found her guilty.

i mean there is reaosnable doubt in pretty much every case, if your reasoning is particularly biased in favour of the accused. by that logic noone would ever be convicted of anything.

the movie did come out a few months after the corby event. BUT the novel that the movie was based on was published in 1999 by Helen Fielding. and it was common knowledge that the movie was based on the book.

who knows.. if she got out it might have been the prefect crime.

The suggestion that Bridget Jones' somehow encouraged Schapelle's actions is one of the more absurd things I've heard. But let's take a look at it anyway. The book and the movie are quite different in the way they handle that particular incident. In the book, the actions of the British Embassy and Government are far more significant than that of Mr Darcy; it is in the movie that Mr Darcy plays the more significant role. In addition to this, the incident occurred in Thailand, not Indonesia. On top of which, the circumstances were such that Bridget's friend was befriended by a drug smuggler who planted the items in her bag for them to export from Thailand to the UK unwittingly. Aside from the lack of similarities, the circumstances in both the book and the movie were played up as completely farfetched and entirely fictional. Do you really think that a newly released prisoner has the time to go back and give her prison friends Wonderbras?

And what would make this particular film more significant to Schapelle than Brokedown Palace, Bangkok Hilton or Return to Paradise? All of these films make clear the dangers of being caught with drugs in an Asian country irrespective of whether they are yours or not. Why would Schapelle have taken notice of what happened in a book that was clearly very fictitious and unrealistic and based upon the actions of the British, yet ignored those other films that are more realistic? What makes you think that Schapelle has even read the book in the first place? You are prepared to suggest that guilt is possible on the basis of this? How? That makes absolutely no sense.

As for the concept of reasonable doubt, I think perhaps you should do some reading on what that actually means and involves. We have the concept in Australia to quite a significant degree and there are plenty of people who have been found guilty, so it doesn't prevent such a finding. 'Reasonable doubt' does not mean 'beyond all doubt'. It means that you don't have to be 100% certain, just certain beyond a point of reasonable query.

In Schapelle's case, guilt was determined on two factors, as required by Indonesian law. The first was that the drugs were in her bag, which is clear. However, the second was on the testimony of the customs officer, which she disputed, who didn't speak English even well enough to have a rudimentary conversation, and who was supported by someone who didn't even witness the exchange in the first place. The prosecution presented no other evidence to support their claim that the drugs were hers. Do you not have questions on the validity of the customs officer's testimony? Does it not strike you as odd that they had nothing else to support their position? Is that not reasonable doubt?

It is worth noting that when the police gave Schapelle a copy of her statement to sign, they had added in a statement from her in which she stated that the drugs were hers, despite the fact that during the formal interview she never made such a comment. Fortunately her lawyer picked it up and it was removed. Why would they try to sneak through a false confession?

There were no fingerprints on the bags to indicate she had touched them because no testing was done; there was no evidence that the marijuana came from Australia because no testing was done; there was no evidence supporting her being a drug trafficker or supplier - in fact, to the contrary; there was no evidence of family involvement in drug trafficking or supply - in fact, to the contrary; there was no demonstration that the drugs were in her bag in Brisbane based on the weight, which could have been checked.

Furthermore, there was evidence presented by the defence to support the fact that drugs had been unwittingly placed in her bag in Sydney. There was the testimony of John Ford, who claimed he had heard people in prison talking about it. There was evidence of a drug smuggling operation going on in Sydney airport at the very time Schapelle's bags were in the baggage handling area. There was evidence from airport and QANTAS employees that it would have been impossible for her to get that amount of drugs through the airport in the manner they were suggesting. There was also the question of why someone would book a flight that required a changeover if they were importing drugs when a direct one would make more sense.

The defence was placed in a position where they had to prove her innocence beyond any doubt, which flies entirely in the face of 'innocent until proven guilty', not to mention presents an entirely unrealistic standard whichever way you look at it. They could only have done that IF the person who owned the drugs came forward and said, "Yes, they were mine and I can prove that they were 100%". Who is going to do that and how is it going to happen?

There was never any question of intent; the Indonesians didn't even consider that aspect. Schapelle was convicted on the basis of questionable testimony of a customs official, with no other supporting evidence and flying in the face of all the evidence supporting her innocence and presenting other options. That's it. She was further convicted of trafficking without ANY evidence supporting that notion. And this not only raises questions about her circumstances, but it totally flies in the face of what is required under the Indonesian system itself, as detailed in their criminal code.

 

[Ado]

as a consequence of this i wll check my bag evey time.

I think its quite funny how Slim thinks Schapelle is guilty, yet will check his luggage every time. Can guarantee, each time he checks his luggage, he'll be thinking - what if Schapelle was innocent.

Same goes for those who think Schapelle is guilty, yet still get their luggage wrapped anyway.

 

[Ado]

Schapelle is the first person ever in Australia's history to be arrested for drug trafficking after directly leaving Australian shores. By her conviction Australia's proud track record as a non drug exporting nation has been tarnished. Yet the AFP aren't willing to investigate how she did this crime.

Perhaps they have already worked out that she never did it, but never stood a chance.

 

[slim pickins]

Schapelle is the first person ever in Australia's history to be arrested for drug trafficking after directly leaving Australian shores. By her conviction Australia's proud track record as a non drug exporting nation has been tarnished. Yet the AFP aren't willing to investigate how she did this crime.

Perhaps they have already worked out that she never did it, but never stood a chance.

just because i am paranoid does not mean she is innocent.

well as i have said the police are not interested in drugs. if i was given a $1000 for each drug deal that i was able to enter into and record on film.... i would be a very rich man and would not have to follow stocks. i get people asking me to buy drugs on the street, in nightclubs. ive seen police do drugs.

what the police do is keep a track of everything and i think they knwo everyone involved in everything. what they dont do is take action against anyone probably becasue they are told not to.

they are too busy following government deirectives to catch domestic violence offenders and people speeding. things that win votes and things that raise revenue.

i had a mate who wanted to get back at this girl. so he told the cops she was a hooker, a drug dealer and illegal immigrant. all 100% true. the cops just laughed and said... hehe.. take a number. we havent got time for this.... there is no evidence. nothing we can do sorry. we can take your statement and get back to you in 8-12 months but only if we need more info.

the next day he remembered she had hit him about 8 months ago. the police gave him a 4 our interview took 2 statements, tracked her via mobile phone (as she was an illegal and had no known address) and arrested her.

when they do arrest someone for drugs ive heard its becasue they want more funding or have had a tip off from DEA in the US. but i personally think they pick the victim out of a hat.

but if they knew schapelle was innocent they would certainly contact the indonesians with a wink and a nudge and say.... guys...better let her go.. we know who's behind this. and she would be free.

 

[chops_a_must]

Yeah, we had a few DMT busts in WA recently.

It's an almost completely harmless drug, so they don't care about it.

But the person who supplies most of it in Perth is linked to the Police, and new supply was undercutting prices.

So they took out the new manufacturing chain, as they knew it pretty well. Easy as, made a lot of publicity.

Prices go up by about 300% instantly.