Schu, My point was to show how wrong Zacko facts are, local drugs in Bali ARE cheaper, the Corby's lawyer got a sample of the drugs, but they did not test it. Zack has seven facts listed only the first one is correct, Corby was found at the air port with drugs. She now will do the time.
Schapelle Corby - Innocent or Guilty?
- Thread starter reichstag911
- Start date
-
- Tags
- schapelle corby
Vasu took a sample without approval and told Mercedes what he had done and what he was going to do with it. Mercedes told him not to go ahead with the testing as this would have no credibility in the court. Without it being an authorised sample, the court would dismiss any findings/analysis/report.
This is a separate issue from Schapelle's request in November 2004 to have the drugs tested. Schapelle signed a consent with Australian Consulate Officer Brent Hall and he passed it onto the AFP, who contacted the INP. The INP declined the request, saying that they had already tested it and it was marijuana. But they never botanically tested, pollen tested it, nor tested it for trapped human hair to do dna testing.
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.
None of which explains why the media has never been able to dig up anything to indicate the Corbys are even remotely involved in drug trafficking, despite scouring every inch of their lives. The best Channel 7 could do in the defamation case was a woman who claimed to have seen marijuana growing at the father's place. Under cross-examination it became clear she'd never even been to his house. This is all there is despite an investment of apparently $5 million on Channel 7's behalf to defend themselves against defamation. Not to mention all the other media organisations looking for dirt. Surely, if the Corbys were somehow involved there would be something.
Queensland police even came out and said that they had looked into Mick Corby when his acquaintances were dealing drugs and had decided he was not a person of interest at all.
And do you really think that the government would have acted on Schapelle's behalf thereby compromising their relationship with Indonesia or at least embarrassing Indonesia? This is the same government that tried to rewrite Asylum-Seeker legislation to exclude the West Papuans at the request of the Indonesians. This is the same government that exposed people to the death penalty, and specifically Australians with the Bali 9 when they passed on information to the Indonesians to have them arrested in Indonesia. Irrespective of the guilt of those individuals, this goes against international covenants the Australian government has signed. Documentation obtained under FOI shows that the government was aware of this but decided to reinterpret their position on the matter.
The inaction of the AFP and the government is a huge part of this that is a concern. Whilst you are saying that they would have acted if she'd been innocent, as noted above, evidence points to the contrary. Which suggests that they let an innocent Australian get locked up rather than even have a quiet word with their Indonesian counterparts. To me that is as much an issue as anything else.
I explained the situation with regards to the testing of the drugs in an earlier post, in quite significant detail. Any testing done by the lawyer would have been unofficial and would not have been credible. The only testing that would have been credible would have been that done officially by an organisation such as the AFP and the Indonesians refused that. While the sample could prove something, it would not and never would have been accepted in court and I hardly think the public would believe the results anyway.
And the point is that Schapelle is doing time that she shouldn't be doing and certainly much more than she should be doing for simply being caught at the airport with drugs.
If anyone is still having difficulty understanding that Schapelle is not guilty of drug trafficking and is consequently suffering a gross miscarriage of justice, then the following is for you:
Have a think about what motivated Schapelle to obtain evidence (this is funadamental basics of criminology)!
Denpasar airport is plastered with signs saying "Death to Drug Smugglers". When Schapelle was apprehended at the airport, the first thing she demanded was that the luggage be reweighed. Why would a trafficker do this? Was Schapelle on a suicide mission? Did she want the customs officers to have comprehensive proof that she was a smuggler if the luggage weight didn't change from check-in to arrival?
Why did she want the luggage re-weighed: because she knew that doing so would clear her name.
The courts have said she is guilty, yet she is still maintaining her innocence. Guilty people pleading not guilty do not request evidence that they cannot control. And here is Schapellle requesting a plethora of evidence, the outcome of which she could not control: CCTV footage in Brisbane, Sydney and Bali (she could not control what these cameras showed and probably more importantly what they didn't show); x-ray images from Brisbane and Sydney; fingerprinting, dna analysis of the MJ, forensic analysis of the MJ and plastic bags... etc, etc. It would only take one piece of requested evidence to return an unfavourable outcome and her defence would collapse. So requesting multiple pieces of evidence would multiply the possibilities of an unfavourable outcome! So why do this if she was guilty? As it turned out a lot of the evidence/information she requested was not forthcoming, but that is not something she could have controlled.
Schapelle's motivation to obtain evidence leaves no doubt in my mind that she is not guilty.
And after 4 years, we have just learnt that at the EXACT same time she was in transit the plane carrying the cocaine landed. Put this in front of those judges and ask them if this is just an extraordinary coincidence, or whether this adds doubt to the safety of the conviction.
Have a think about what motivated Schapelle to obtain evidence (this is funadamental basics of criminology)!
Denpasar airport is plastered with signs saying "Death to Drug Smugglers". When Schapelle was apprehended at the airport, the first thing she demanded was that the luggage be reweighed. Why would a trafficker do this? Was Schapelle on a suicide mission? Did she want the customs officers to have comprehensive proof that she was a smuggler if the luggage weight didn't change from check-in to arrival?
Why did she want the luggage re-weighed: because she knew that doing so would clear her name.
The courts have said she is guilty, yet she is still maintaining her innocence. Guilty people pleading not guilty do not request evidence that they cannot control. And here is Schapellle requesting a plethora of evidence, the outcome of which she could not control: CCTV footage in Brisbane, Sydney and Bali (she could not control what these cameras showed and probably more importantly what they didn't show); x-ray images from Brisbane and Sydney; fingerprinting, dna analysis of the MJ, forensic analysis of the MJ and plastic bags... etc, etc. It would only take one piece of requested evidence to return an unfavourable outcome and her defence would collapse. So requesting multiple pieces of evidence would multiply the possibilities of an unfavourable outcome! So why do this if she was guilty? As it turned out a lot of the evidence/information she requested was not forthcoming, but that is not something she could have controlled.
Schapelle's motivation to obtain evidence leaves no doubt in my mind that she is not guilty.
And after 4 years, we have just learnt that at the EXACT same time she was in transit the plane carrying the cocaine landed. Put this in front of those judges and ask them if this is just an extraordinary coincidence, or whether this adds doubt to the safety of the conviction.
Schu, just found a transcript between investigators and some local drug dealers…..
Investigator: “We are conducting an investigation into a large quantity of Marijuana which was seized from an Australian tourist at the Denpasar Airport the other day. You natives know anything about it?
Drug Dealer Katut: “You mean from that Shapelle Corby! I seen her with her friends a year ago down at Kuta surfing on a boogie board. She had the biggest boogie board I’ve ever seen, still had the plastic on it, she wouldn’t let it go like she was in love with it or something. She had a great ass bro!”
Investigator: “Could you describe any of her friends for me?”
Drug Dealer Katut: Yeah, one of the girls had a head like a horses ****, might'd been a sista. There were a couple of blokes with her that looked like dopeheads.
Investigator: “Have any of these people tried to sell drugs to you?
Drug Dealer Wayan: ‘Bro, we control the drugs round here not them skippies. They’re f#*kin amateurs, couldn’t even get the s#*t into the country!”
Investigator: “Have you seen any of these people try to sell drugs to anyone else?
Drug Dealer Wayan: The day I seen her at the beach I remember there were heaps of people swarming around her. I guess maybe they thought she had a great ass too. Strange bro when I seen her walking home that boogie board looked a lot smaller than I thought.
Investigator: “You got any S#*t for me?”
Drug Dealer Yoman: “Nah, but I bought this cheap boogie board the other day if you’re interested, only one owner!
explod
explod
- Joined
- 4 March 2007
- Posts
- 7,341
- Reactions
- 1,197
Good post. Disbelievers ought to have a good read over this post of Ado and think it through. If you cant fathom the simple truth then print it off and discuss it with someone with a legal background.
I am disgusted with the bottom of the gene pool armchair hangem judges on this forum. Should round em up and deport to Indonesia, would change some attitudes real quick. But you are fellow Aussies and have the benefit of the doubt.
- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
Good post ColB. That explains a lot.
Hopefully Corby won't be able to corrupt the gene pool while she is incarcerated. So that's a plus. The gene pool would be considerably enhanced if the whole Corby gang was in there with her.
Hopefully Corby won't be able to corrupt the gene pool while she is incarcerated. So that's a plus. The gene pool would be considerably enhanced if the whole Corby gang was in there with her.
- Joined
- 28 May 2006
- Posts
- 9,985
- Reactions
- 2
Tell me this, when the customs officer asked her if it was her bag she said I AM IN TROUBLE AIN'T I, now if she had nothing to hide, why would she say that??
Tell me this, when the customs officer asked her if it was her bag she said I AM IN TROUBLE AIN'T I, now if she had nothing to hide, why would she say that??
She admitted ownership of the bag straight away. In fact, the customs officer initially thought it was her brother's bag because he was the one who dragged it over to the customs counter and Schapelle claimed ownership. She never said anything along the lines of "I am in trouble" at all.
So the source of those threats to Schapelle if I don't stop posting has now tracked me down personally? Gosh. I'm honored, but in view of the inferred threat to my safety, I am so frightened. I am guessing that you are deluded, but if not (and I am addressing intelligent people here and not you) is this acceptable to ANYONE? A foreign regime attempting censorship of an Australian forum via this proxy guy?
Fortunately, you can see from the Tara Hack video, which has been hidden from the Australian public, that there are an increasing number of Brits who are concerned about the gross abuse of Schapelle Corby's human rights:
In fact that was even produced by a Brit. So in the interests of British security, I'll contact one of them and ask them to pass the details on to their government. I feel sure they will be interested to know that a member of staff there is operating in this manner and passing privately obtained information to a member of the public.
Who knows, maybe they will be less sycophantic than the Australian government, and do something about it.This is a fact of course, Schu. As such he will have trouble grasping it, as evidenced by his appalling posting history. The history is worth looking at as a study of what 4 years of media smear can do to the minds of certain susceptible people, of which there are a number on here. It's scary that some people are motivated like that, and must derive some twisted satisfaction from the misery and suffering of others.
For the new year, I hope on hope that someone gets her out of there very very soon. I hope as well that all those implicated in her suffering, are eventually exposed.
chops_a_must
Printing My Own Money
- Joined
- 1 November 2006
- Posts
- 4,636
- Reactions
- 3
I liked that clip. It had party music.
Do you honestly think she is the only Australian not to have been dealt with harshly? Ever thought she may have taken responsibility for the crime of a member of her family?
Why wasn't there such an outcry for Van Nguyen? Why has this attracted all the groupies when there are arguably many many more worse injustices carried out within our own system, and in other countries?
I hope you got some Schu. It would give me a chuckle to know Zack has had his lunch cut.
Seriously, join Amnesty, deal with some real injustices, and get the **** out.
Do you honestly think she is the only Australian not to have been dealt with harshly? Ever thought she may have taken responsibility for the crime of a member of her family?
Why wasn't there such an outcry for Van Nguyen? Why has this attracted all the groupies when there are arguably many many more worse injustices carried out within our own system, and in other countries?
I hope you got some Schu. It would give me a chuckle to know Zack has had his lunch cut.
Seriously, join Amnesty, deal with some real injustices, and get the **** out.
Tell me this, when the customs officer asked her if it was her bag she said I AM IN TROUBLE AIN'T I, now if she had nothing to hide, why would she say that??
Pilots have a good read of post #465.
To answer the above, she never said "I AM IN TROUBLE AIN'T I". She was asked in very poor English if the marijuana was hers. From My Story:
(in the customs office): A man in a suit walked up to me and pointed to the plastic bag, saying, "This is yours?"
"No!"
"What is it?" he asked me.
I didn't want to be tricked into anything so I said, "I don't know what it is."
Again he asked, "Is it yours?"
Pointing to the bag of marijuana, I told him: "That's not mine. The boogie board's mine, the boogie-board bag is mine, but that is not mine." He walked off.
In court this man claimed that I said the bag of marijuana was mine. It was my word against his. But why would anyone in my situation claim it as their own, whether it was or not?
Pilots can I suggest that you get hold of a copy of My Story and have a read. It will sort out a heck of lot of questions you have. If you think its going to be biased, then get a copy of Tony Wilson's book, Schapelle, the facts, the evidence, the truth. Tony admits he initially had doubts about her innocence and takes you through a journey to see why and how he changed his mind.
Even I initially thought she was a stupid woman who got caught... but doing some research and asking questions, I too ended up changing my mind.
- Joined
- 14 November 2008
- Posts
- 128
- Reactions
- 0
I'd say it's just human nature. People see a terrorist sympathiser and think, oh no he he is being tortured, I have terrorist sympathies too, that could be me one day too. Better try and stop this.
Others just associate Corby with their little sister or some girl they had a crush on. Many actually have a crush on corby, it's evident from their illogical emotion filled posts.
Imagine renee Lawrence got busted doing what corby did. There would be not a peep from these activists.
There is no justice in the world, never was never will be. These activists are just trying to limit the injustice to the ugly, weak and the unpoular.
Noone ever walked free who was caught with a bag of drugs on their possession whilst crossing an international border. Neither will corby.
explod
explod
- Joined
- 4 March 2007
- Posts
- 7,341
- Reactions
- 1,197
Never worked traffic in my entire career. Rose to high rank and commanded very large numbers of personnell.
A close friend is a Barrister and we have discussed Corbey case. It has more holes than a wire netting canoe.
lol have a crush on corby? mate I think you should get off the choof as well.
So the source of those threats to Schapelle if I don't stop posting has now tracked me down personally? Gosh. I'm honored, but in view of the inferred threat to my safety, I am so frightened. I am guessing that you are deluded, but if not (and I am addressing intelligent people here and not you) is this acceptable to ANYONE? A foreign regime attempting censorship of an Australian forum via this proxy guy?
Fortunately, you can see from the Tara Hack video, which has been hidden from the Australian public, that there are an increasing number of Brits who are concerned about the gross abuse of Schapelle Corby's human rights:
In fact that was even produced by a Brit. So in the interests of British security, I'll contact one of them and ask them to pass the details on to their government. I feel sure they will be interested to know that a member of staff there is operating in this manner and passing privately obtained information to a member of the public.
This is a fact of course, Schu. As such he will have trouble grasping it, as evidenced by his appalling posting history. The history is worth looking at as a study of what 4 years of media smear can do to the minds of certain susceptible people, of which there are a number on here. It's scary that some people are motivated like that, and must derive some twisted satisfaction from the misery and suffering of others.
For the new year, I hope on hope that someone gets her out of there very very soon. I hope as well that all those implicated in her suffering, are eventually exposed.
How sad she is locked in a cage lol maybe she is vying for an acting career. Or maybe she had a rough night with the wardens.
