- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
I never knew this (from 2008)...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/corby-truth-is-out/story-e6frg72o-1111116714603
It seems pretty obvious doesn't it that if you are found with drugs in your case when you enter a country they were yours ?
Unfortunately there are some very, very clever drug smugglers who have successfully conned people into unwittingly bringing drugs into the country. In the cases that have surfaced the "marks" were found to clearly not at fault in any way.
There is also a case coming up in America where a couple of drug smugglers manged to get copies of car keys from Ford and stashed bags of dope in students cars. It's very clever and far safer for the smugglers.
________________________________________________________________________________________
By the way I do not think in a month of Sundays that Schapelle Corboy was set up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/26/free-vacation-drug-mule_n_4166263.html
http://www.vancouverdesi.com/news/n...-s-border-may-be-unwitting-drug-mules/397289/
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/news/ci_23751049/college-student-who-was-unwitting-drug-mule-sues
The defence was a costly sham for Australia
THE real tragedy of the Schapelle Corby saga is that misguided people have risked Australia's good relations with Indonesia by pushing claims about a conspiracy involving baggage handlers - claims they knew were false. We now know there was never any substance to stories of an inside job involving baggage handlers, because Corby's dumped Australian lawyer, Robin Tampoe, has admitted he made it up. Australian authorities wasted a lot of time co-operating with this charade, including sending a convicted criminal from prison in Australia to Bali to give evidence.
Confirmation that the baggage handler defence was a lie does not establish who, if anyone, in the Corby family knew about the marijuana before it was found. But it does establish with certainty that the Corby family is prepared to play with the truth in a bid to mislead authorities and garner sympathy from the public. Indonesian customs staff had every reason to believe someone was up to no good when they intercepted the package of drugs Ms Corby admitted were concealed in luggage that belonged to her. After making that admission, Ms Corby appears to have badly miscalculated by publicly questioning the competence of her accusers and the host country. She wasted her efforts trying to win support in the court of public opinion at home rather than with the legal system in Bali, where it really mattered.
Indonesian judges were obviously correct to reject the baggage handler fantasy, unlike the many Australian tourists who, for a period, refused to travel without encasing their luggage in plastic film. Indonesian authorities have every reason to be displeased at the way their judiciary was portrayed as incapable of doing its job.
Schapelle's is young and has much to contribute to Australia.
I see no reason why she should not one day take her place in the Senate, for the Greens.
A mini-series could be her stepping stone to respectability with our Green Senators.
Stranger has occurred.
gg
ATTORNEY-GENERAL Jarrod Bleijie will take steps to block convicted drug smuggler Schapelle Corby from profiting through a $2 million deal with Channel Seven to tell her story.
Queensland Premier Campbell Newman today said he had asked Mr Bleijie to investigate whether state laws to block criminals profiting from their crimes could be applied to the Corby interview deal.
“I am deeply concerned, in fact I’m dismayed that a convicted drug criminal has benefited it appears from a criminal activity and I am asking the Attorney-General to see whether the Queensland legislation, the proceeds of crime legislation, may have some application,” Mr Newman said.
“What we are seeing here is a convicted criminal apparently benefiting from the criminal act,” he said.
I never knew this (from 2008)...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/corby-truth-is-out/story-e6frg72o-1111116714603
It sounds like that article was written by a devoted Indonesia-phile!I never knew this (from 2008)...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/corby-truth-is-out/story-e6frg72o-1111116714603
Indonesian judges were obviously correct to reject the baggage handler fantasy, unlike the many Australian tourists who, for a period, refused to travel without encasing their luggage in plastic film. Indonesian authorities have every reason to be displeased at the way their judiciary was portrayed as incapable of doing its job.
The content of those articles is unsurprising. The only thing that amazes me is that more people didn't wake up to the deception earlier. That tall tale about the missing video footage was hysterical! (Did everyone truly forget about the elevated vigilance post 9/11?)
However, I do believe that basilio was raising a valid concern regarding the potential for innocent people to be wrongfully convicted of serious crimes.
The presumption of innocence may result in such criminals "getting away with it" for a time, thereby contributing to the demise of those partaking of illicit substances, but I can imagine nothing worse than the destruction visited upon inncocent people by wrongful convictions.
Which is preferable?
Allowing a criminal to continue to profit from the exploitation of other criminals' weaknesses
or
risk incarcerating some innocent people in efforts towards prevention of aforementioned criminal activities?
So we can have absolute confidence that Indonesian authorities will administer justice competently, honestly and fairly, can we?
Chris45 said:Robin Tampoe may have made up that particular story, but is the general idea of baggage handlers smuggling drugs in people's luggage such a fantasy?
I don't know whether she's guilty or not. I didn't take any interest in the event in the first place and only comment now because it's everywhere, unavoidable.
She was found in possession of drugs. She couldn't prove that she didn't have knowledge that they were in her bag. That's case closed, in Australia or Indonesia.
It seems pretty obvious doesn't it that if you are found with drugs in your case when you enter a country they were yours ?
Unfortunately there are some very, very clever drug smugglers who have successfully conned people into unwittingly bringing drugs into the country. In the cases that have surfaced the "marks" were found to clearly not at fault in any way.
There is also a case coming up in America where a couple of drug smugglers manged to get copies of car keys from Ford and stashed bags of dope in students cars. It's very clever and far safer for the smugglers.
________________________________________________________________________________________
By the way I do not think in a month of Sundays that Schapelle Corboy was set up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/26/free-vacation-drug-mule_n_4166263.html
http://www.vancouverdesi.com/news/n...-s-border-may-be-unwitting-drug-mules/397289/
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/news/ci_23751049/college-student-who-was-unwitting-drug-mule-sues
I don't know whether she's guilty or not. I didn't take any interest in the event in the first place and only comment now because it's everywhere, unavoidable.
Just a question on the above, McLovin, how would one prove that one did not have knowledge of any item when it was found in one's bag?
Say I checked in my packed bag at a US airport, then picked it up at Sydney. Customs found some illicit substance in it. I have no idea how it got there, I just know I didn't put it there. How could I prove that?
I'm also vaguely surprised at the assurance that the Indonesian justice system is deemed entirely OK.
Given the reported bribes paid in so many instances, I wouldn't it find it all that hard to believe it was corruptible.
Alan Saunders: This was the Australian prisoner who overheard her being discussed in prison?
Tim Lindsey: Yes. His evidence is in an Australian system, the courts would wait for one of the parties to put him forward as a witness, it would then conduct an inquiry into whether or not the evidence that he was proposing to adduce was acceptable within the framework of the laws of evidence of this country, or make a decision as to whether it would hear him or not, and as that then proceeds, parties can object and narrow down what evidence the court can take into account. And that evidence, once it is in front of the judges, is more or less binding on them.
Now in a European or civil law system, it's quite different. The judges will generally allow the parties to put more or less what evidence they choose in front of them, and may actually seek evidence themselves to supplement it, and would allow most things in. What they then do is they weigh up the merits of all that evidence in their deliberations and decide what weight they will attach to it, and then in their judgment, indicate whether they think it's significant or insignificant, or whether they will take it into account at all. In other words, in the British-derived Australian system, we decide whether the evidence is any good before we hear it, in their system they hear it, and then decide whether it's any good. There's certainly, as you can guess, some pretty good arguments for the European system. It allows much more information to come before the courts than our system, but it certainly is different.
In the Schapelle Corby case, Ford has given his evidence, but I don't think we should assume that it will be given any weight at all by the court.
Alan Saunders: Well in this case, given the evidence that's been presented, would Schapelle's case have got this far under our system, or imagine that she were being tried in former British colonies like Singapore and Malaysia, would it have got very far under that sort of system? Is there sufficient evidence for us, let's say?
Tim Lindsey: I think that as it stands now in the Indonesian court, it is likely that Schapelle Corby will be convicted, and I think that she would find herself in a similar position if she was being tried in a common law system such as ours. The reason for that is that her defence hangs largely on the evidence of Ford.
What Ford said is that while in prison he heard two prisoners talking, who indicated that a third person had been responsible for placing the cannabis in her luggage, and when cross-examined in the court by the judge, he refused to name that person incidentally. Now that evidence is what we would call here in Australia hearsay. Usually in our courts, that sort of hearsay evidence would not be admitted in the first place. She was caught with 4.1 kilograms of cannabis in her luggage and that creates a prima facie case really for the prosecution. Her defence is it was somebody else. There are many hypotheses about what happened that might well be true, but none of that evidence has been put before the court in Bali. Her evidence is based on a flat denial. 'They're not my drugs, I didn't put them there, I don't know who put them there'. That denial is of course quite consistent with innocence, but it is also what you might expect a guilty person to say. That's the problem, it's a real dilemma for her. If she is innocent, (I have no views as to her guilt or innocence) but if she's innocent, that is what she would say; if she's guilty, that's what she would say.
The problem is here, what we're coming back to, this is nothing to do with an inadequate legal system, it's nothing to do with there being something inherently flawed in the European legal system, yes there are problems in developing countries in any system, whether it's British or European. The problem is really you can't expect to succeed in court without hard evidence.
My thoughts also. Corby was asked to prove that she didn't put the drugs in her bag but the Indonesians didn't allow finger printing of the bag or DNA testing of the marijuana, and they burned all of the evidence immediately after the judgment was handed down. Just exactly how was she supposed to do that under those circumstances?I don't know whether she's guilty or not. I didn't take any interest in the event in the first place and only comment now because it's everywhere, unavoidable.
Just a question on the above, McLovin, how would one prove that one did not have knowledge of any item when it was found in one's bag?
Say I checked in my packed bag at a US airport, then picked it up at Sydney. Customs found some illicit substance in it. I have no idea how it got there, I just know I didn't put it there. How could I prove that?
I wonder where they'd be now if they had passed through an Indonesian airport and had voiced their concerns to an Indonesian customs official?There's a link above to the Canada trip won by a couple. Personally I wouldn't have believed any such prize would include provision of luggage, but can understand some older naive folk just being thrilled about their good luck. Their account of what had happened was believed.
I agree and it just doesn't pass the common sense test. Just as the accusation that Lindy Chamberlain murdered her baby and tried to blame it on a dingo didn't, and it was appalling how people were so quick to believe it and judge her guilty!To be honest, I really can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to take such a quantity of such a low potency drug concealed with a body board.
Agree.I'm also vaguely surprised at the assurance that the Indonesian justice system is deemed entirely OK. Given the reported bribes paid in so many instances, I wouldn't it find it all that hard to believe it was corruptible.
My sentiments also.Again, not suggesting Corby is innocent or guilty. No idea. Just a little alarmed at the absolute rigid conviction by so many that she did it, and if she didn't, well then it doesn't much matter anyway.
How can a system that believes that mere possession is proof of guilt without the need for supporting forensic evidence, possibly be relied on to deliver a fair verdict when it expects an accused to prove her innocence but denies her access to basic forensic testing of the evidence being used against her?I don't think anyone is saying the Indonesian system is entirely OK, I just don't believe that it is so broken that it cannot deliver a fair verdict.
My thoughts also. Corby was asked to prove that she didn't put the drugs in her bag but the Indonesians didn't allow finger printing of the bag or DNA testing of the marijuana, and they burned all of the evidence immediately after the judgment was handed down. Just exactly how was she supposed to do that under those circumstances?
Mr Rasiah, interviewed on the Seven Network, said Corby's Australian legal team had advised the family to participate. "But it was never done. They would never do it."
The Australian reported last February how Corby's Bali lawyers had rejected an offer from the Australian Federal Police to DNA test the bag and marijuana after police had told them the result would be reported to the Bali police.
AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty confirmed the Corby defence team had approached his officers about conducting the tests, but said it was the same lawyers who later backed away.
"I think the reality was if it was tested and the tests didn't come up with what the defence counsel expected, then it may, in fact, assist the prosecution and not the defence," Mr Keelty said.
Chris45 said:How can a system that believes that mere possession is proof of guilt without the need for supporting forensic evidence, possibly be relied on to deliver a fair verdict when it expects an accused to prove her innocence but denies her access to basic forensic testing of the evidence being used against her?
"If a person enters Australia carrying a suitcase which has narcotics concealed in it, and offers no convincing explanation of the presence of the narcotics, I should be surprised if a jury would draw any inference other than that he knew that the narcotics were in the case".
Just a question on the above, McLovin, how would one prove that one did not have knowledge of any item when it was found in one's bag? Say I checked in my packed bag at a US airport, then picked it up at Sydney. Customs found some illicit substance in it. I have no idea how it got there, I just know I didn't put it there. How could I prove that?
I agree it's a very difficult question to answer. It does, however, roughly mimic Corby's situation if she was telling the truth.It's impossible for me to answer that, Julia. It's so hypothetical and there could be a myriad of ways to prove it (locks tampered, security camera footage of the bag being opened etc)
I agree it's a very difficult question to answer. It does, however, roughly mimic Corby's situation if she was telling the truth.
Yet you have absolutely no hesitation in believing she is 100% guilty.
You travel a good deal. Suppose, just suppose, some clever scammer set you up and planted something in your luggage, out of sight of security cameras (or disabled them) and you only found out about it at your destination. If it was an item like a board cover, maybe ski covers et al, which I imagine just zip up and down quickly and easily, how are you going to prove you did not put the stuff there yourself?
On the point about the cameras, I have some vague memory of security cameras being disabled at Sydney airport, or am I thinking of some other case?
If a dopey family member put the stuff in there, the arrangement having been agreed with the sister, is that another possibility?
I agree it's a very difficult question to answer. It does, however, roughly mimic Corby's situation if she was telling the truth.
Yet you have absolutely no hesitation in believing she is 100% guilty.
Julia said:You travel a good deal. Suppose, just suppose, some clever scammer set you up and planted something in your luggage, out of sight of security cameras (or disabled them) and you only found out about it at your destination. If it was an item like a board cover, maybe ski covers et al, which I imagine just zip up and down quickly and easily, how are you going to prove you did not put the stuff there yourself?
Julia said:On the point about the cameras, I have some vague memory of security cameras being disabled at Sydney airport, or am I thinking of some other case?
Julia said:I understand the principle of "it's your item and you can't explain how the drugs got there, so obviously we can't let you off". Just feel some residual concern about possible miscarriage of justice plus the fact that she has been at least in part judged by association with her odious family.
Plenty of decent people are afflicted with family members who do not reflect their own philosophy and morals.
My understanding of Australian law is that an accused is deemed innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The accused doesn't have to prove their innocence. Is that not correct?She was found in possession of drugs. She couldn't prove that she didn't have knowledge that they were in her bag. That's case closed, in Australia or Indonesia.
Note: "there is a case to answer". Do you understand the significance of those words?And here's what the Chief Justice of the High Court said, which was the majority view...
"As Gibbs CJ put it (pp.536-7, the majority adopting his position on this), ’ "If a person enters Australia carrying a suitcase which has narcotics concealed in it, and offers no convincing explanation of the presence of the narcotics, I should be surprised if a jury would draw any inference other than that he knew that the narcotics were in the case"."
And from the same case...
Dawson J. observed (at p.597) that
"... the fact that an accused has been found bringing narcotic goods into the country may ordinarily found an inference that the goods are being imported intentionally, notwithstanding protestaions by the accused that he was unaware of their presence or of their nature or quality. At the very least, proof that the goods were brought into the country by the accused will ordinarily mean that there is a case to answer".
Was that recent Ch9 movie incorrect? I remember a scene where the judge asked Corby to prove that she didn't put the drugs in her bag, or didn't know they were there, or similar.She was asked nothing of the sort.
Isn't that the major difference between their system and ours?She was charged with importing marijuana into Indonesia. Her only defence is if she was not aware that she had been carrying it, which she is required to prove.
"In 2004, Alexander Downer, the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, announced that the Australian Government would be requesting permission from Indonesia to test the cannabis and help determine its point of origin. It was argued that testing of the cannabis would have strengthened Corby's defence if it could have been shown that the drugs were grown in Indonesia, or potentially weakened it if they were grown in southern Queensland. However, shortly thereafter the Australian Consul General in Indonesia informed Corby that the AFP had no jurisdiction in the case, and in early 2005 the AFP was advised that the Bali police would not be providing a sample. Downer acknowledged that Indonesia had denied the request, but clarified that as the case was in Indonesia, it was their sovereign right to do so.FWIW, her lawyers asked for the marijuana not to be tested to determine its source.
My understanding of Australian law is that an accused is deemed innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The accused doesn't have to prove their innocence. Is that not correct?
...
PS. If you want a good example of the lengths our prosecutors go to to establish their case against an accused, have a look at the Daniel Morcombe trial. Their efforts are impressive!
http://www.news.com.au/national/que...-daniel-morcombe/story-fnii5v6w-1226825957059
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?