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.