Schapelle Corby - Innocent or Guilty?

[pilots]

ADO, I got my info from the transcript of the trials, not from a book some do gooder wrote, (and made money from).
You lame ducks can cry all you like, I would suggest that you stock up on tears, you will need them, as you still have 16 YEARS TO GO.

I say good on you Indonesia, all you bleeding harts get a life, you are NEVER GOING TO GET HER OUT. Want to know WHY, she is GUILTY.:

 

[ColB]

Quote:Originally Posted by ColB
What! You mean someone like a 'Traffick Cop'?

Originally posted by Explod: '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."

On the basis of the above I retract my earlier comment. Given the case allegedly 'has more holes than a wire netting canoe' don't we have an independant international court for some type of appeal process or is that being a tad idealistic?

Are the holes in the case something that can be proven to be legally inadequate such as evidence continuity or are we talking about what conversation Corby or a customs officer allegedly had?

If a large part of the prosecution case hinged on the latter then we will probably never know the truth unless it was all tape recorded.

It surely would be nice to know what a scientific analysis would indicate about the origin of the drugs and depending on whose version of events you want to believe who knows why this was never allegedly done.

 

[Calliope]

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.

Yes. Doesn't it just tug at your heartstrings? The usual bleeding hearts and Corby groupies have fantasies about getting on a white charger and riding to the rescue of the fair maiden in the tower, for which she will be forever grateful.

And it can't be just because they are attracted to drug traffickers. There are also several other convicted Australian drug mules locked up there too, whom they couldn't care less about. No bleeding heart threads opened over them. And one of them is a woman. But she doesn't fit the fair maiden mould, and they certainly don't want her undying love and gratitude.

Another odd thing is that some of these groupies, on other threads, claim to be mature thinkers.:headshake They live in Never Never land.

 

[pilots]

Calliope. If they are so sure of the case they have on her, why not get some money together and go up and have a retrial.(if you have the money you can do any thing) Mind you when you are on welfare it would be hard to do.

 

[schu]

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.

Of course there are other Australians, and many other people suffering badly and suffering injustice. 200,000 woman raped and mutilated in Congo in the past decade; innocent people detained without charge and tortured; women stoned to death when they're raped; innocent civilians in Zimbabwe caught in the midst of a corrupt regime; innocent people on death row; asylum seekers locked in detention centres in Australia......the list goes on. But is Schapelle Corby's life worth any less than those people's? Is the injustice dealt to her any less of an injustice. The irony to me is that people who have suffered in those ways are the first to show compassion and concern and demonstrate their support of others suffering injustice. Meanwhile people with nothing like that in their lives try to twist and squirm out of caring.

I am a member of Amnesty and volunteer for them, amongst a number of other organisations. I campaigned for Van Nguyen's life. There are many, many issues around the world that need attention. They are ALL important. No-one can address all of them. It is ridiculous to put value on each one. Some people will campaign for Schapelle due to personal interest; equally there will be people who will campaign for people on death row in the US because they feel that's important. Injustice and human rights do not discriminate the way you are and people who genuinely value them don't discriminate. They deal with what they can in the time they have available.

I'd love to know which causes you get out and fight for seeing as you seem to have such a clear concept of what is important and what isn't.

 

[schu]

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.

There is no doubt that the media furor in part resulted due to Corby's appearance.

However, the way she looks is totally irrelevant. It is the injustice, the issues regarding her trial and the broader context of the Indonesian legal system and Australian government that are important. I have never met a person in support of her who comments one iota on her appearance. They care about these issues.

And actually, there have been people who have been caught with drugs in their luggage when crossing international borders who have gone free. Besides which, making such a statement like that does not automatically justify having her take responsibility for something that was not her fault.

Imagine what sort of a place the world would be if everyone just turned around and said, "life's not fair, so forget it". Chances are we wouldn't be sitting at our computers now being able to have this discussion. Our freedoms and rights exist because people battled for them. I don't mean in the sense of fighting in wars, but in the sense of protesting and challenging the status quo.

 

[michael_t_f]

I can't believe this is still in discussion, it doesn't matter what your view is on the subject nothing can be done she is now just a story you will one day be reminded of when she gets out. Some thing to tell the kids or grandkids.
I am undecided but the bottom line is she doesn't deserve 20 years, but that's their law and we have to respect it.

bottom of the gene pool armchair hangem judges

I would place a career copper and a barrister in this same catagory.

 

[schu]

ADO, I got my info from the transcript of the trials, not from a book some do gooder wrote, (and made money from).
You lame ducks can cry all you like, I would suggest that you stock up on tears, you will need them, as you still have 16 YEARS TO GO.

I say good on you Indonesia, all you bleeding harts get a life, you are NEVER GOING TO GET HER OUT. Want to know WHY, she is GUILTY.:

You couldn't possibly have gotten your information from the trial transcripts. How do I know this? First because none of what you are saying was in the trial transcript. Second because if you had read it you would know full well already some of the things I have said, including why they never tested the marijuana. Third because there are about three copies in the whole of Australia. I have one of them in my possession. Oh, and for the record, it isn't a transcript as such, but the judgement. They don't do transcripts in Indonesia in the manner in which we do in Australia. The judge takes notes and fleshes it out in the judgement.

But, I'll give you a chance to prove me wrong. Schapelle's Queensland street address is on the first page of the judgement. What is it? You can PM it to me so as not to show it publically.

 

[schu]

On the basis of the above I retract my earlier comment. Given the case allegedly 'has more holes than a wire netting canoe' don't we have an independant international court for some type of appeal process or is that being a tad idealistic?

Are the holes in the case something that can be proven to be legally inadequate such as evidence continuity or are we talking about what conversation Corby or a customs officer allegedly had?

If a large part of the prosecution case hinged on the latter then we will probably never know the truth unless it was all tape recorded.

It surely would be nice to know what a scientific analysis would indicate about the origin of the drugs and depending on whose version of events you want to believe who knows why this was never allegedly done.

Unfortunately there is no international court where appeals on individual cases from domestic jurisdictions can be heard. There is the International Criminal Court (ICC) that deals with crimes such as those against humanity and war crimes. It is a concept that is frequently discussed amongst human rights and legal groups, but it is not likely something that will eventuate in the near future. One issue in the way is the fact that countries have sovereignty and to have such a court would undermine that concept. Another is simply the practicality - everyone who thought they had been unfairly done by would want to appeal and it would be impossible.

The legal issue with the holes in the case is that they amount to very clear reasonable doubt; one could argue they go beyond even reasonable doubt to substantial doubt. In addition, the fact that a conviction occurs in spite of these goes to the heart of the concept of innocent until proven guilty; it demonstrates that it was a case of guilty until proven innocent. By Indonesia's own legislation (the criminal code - KUHAP), innocent until proven guilty is the mandatory foundation and all cases must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. By international standards (under the ICCPR), these exist as well. That is where the legal significance in the holes lies. Nearly every lawyer I have spoken to (and I have spoken to a LOT) - and in my own studies (of law) - agrees that there was clearly reasonable doubt, as it is understood legally.

There is also the separate legal issue of the fact that no evidence was presented to demonstrate trafficking, as opposed to mere importing. The individual who drafted this legislation gave a clear explanation of what was required for trafficking and stated that, on what was presented in Schapelle's case, she should NOT have been found guilty of trafficking. I genuinely do not know of a more reliable person to confirm that.

Indonesian law requires that there are two pieces of evidence to support a conviction. The first was that the drugs were found in Schapelle's bag, which was indisputable. The second was the testimony of the customs officer saying that Schapelle claimed ownership of the drugs, which she disputed. Now, on a basic level that makes it her word against his. But there were a number of other reasons why his testimony should not have been accepted. The first is that he didn't speak English well enough even to carry on a rudimentary conversation. He struggled with understanding "how are you?". The second is that his version of events was supported by another customs supervisor who didn't even witness the conversation. Further, from a legal perspective, Schapelle should never have been questioned outside the presence of an interpreter and any such questioning had to be disregarded. This is also provided for under KUHAP. So the testimony of the customs officer was shaky at best.

And this was the entire spectrum of the prosecution's evidence. They actually had nothing else. They didn't test the marijuana for its origin or for DNA evidence connecting it to Schapelle; they didn't fingerprint the bags; they didn't call up anyone to support Schapelle being a drug importer or trafficker; they didn't weigh the luggage collectively to get a comparison. Indeed, despite requests from the defence, this was all refused. So Schapelle was convicted on the basis of very tenuous testimony from a customs officer.

Meanwhile, the defence presented a substantial amount of other evidence to demonstrate reasonable doubt. There was evidence by John Ford about overhearing two guys discuss the fact that someone else's drugs had ended up in Schapelle's bag; evidence by QANTAS and airport personnel that there was no way she could have gotten that bag through with the drugs already in it; evidence that baggage handlers are used to smuggle drugs; evidence from friends who had seen her pack the bag; and evidence that the Corbys were not involved in drug supply and never had been.

That is all very, very clear reasonable doubt. In addition, the head judge publically said that Corby would have to prove the drugs weren't hers and what had happened in order to be found not guilty. This is in direct contradiction to what the legal system that he presides over requires.

 

[schu]

Calliope. If they are so sure of the case they have on her, why not get some money together and go up and have a retrial.(if you have the money you can do any thing) Mind you when you are on welfare it would be hard to do.

The Corbys and defence teams tried to get the evidence we are talking about here that they needed at every level of trial and appeal, repeatedly, and were denied by the Indonesians. The appeals are over. It doesn't matter how much money anyone has - there is no legal avenue left.

 

[sails]

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.

I am undecided on this one. I remember the Lindy Chamberlin case well as I had three young children of my own at the time. It seemed incomprehensible to me that, without a severe mental disturbance, a young mother could do such a thing to her own baby.

Just like the Corby case, many hard lined people were quick to judge and write Lindy off. Shapelle may be guilty and certainly her family history doesn't help her cause. Haven't read all of this thread, but it appears that there are some very conflicting arguments as it was in Lindy's case. For these reasons I prefer to keep an open mind.

 

[Ado]

ADO, I got my info from the transcript of the trials, not from a book some do gooder wrote, (and made money from).
You lame ducks can cry all you like, I would suggest that you stock up on tears, you will need them, as you still have 16 YEARS TO GO.

I say good on you Indonesia, all you bleeding harts get a life, you are NEVER GOING TO GET HER OUT. Want to know WHY, she is GUILTY.:

I also said if you believed the book to be biased, read Tony Wilsons book.

Reading your post makes me realise there is much truth in the saying

"Intelligent people have a greater sense of justice"

I dislike drug traffickers, I really do. But above that is their right to a fair trial and if you cant recognise that at the very least Schapelle didn't get a fair trial, then clearly it says a lot about wich side of the 'saying' you belong.

 

[slim pickins]

And actually, there have been people who have been caught with drugs in their luggage when crossing international borders who have gone free.

Imagine what sort of a place the world would be if everyone just turned around and said, "life's not fair, so forget it". Chances are we wouldn't be sitting at our computers now being able to have this discussion. Our freedoms and rights exist because people battled for them. I don't mean in the sense of fighting in wars, but in the sense of protesting and challenging the status quo.

what people have gotten off...... what were the circumastnaces and when?

as for freedom.. i agree. without wanting so sound like some cheesy yank... i do think that:

"From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots"

people that havent fought for their freedom take it for granted. but thats another thread.

 

[slim pickins]

Reading your post makes me realise there is much truth in the saying

"Intelligent people have a greater sense of justice"

there is an element of injustice in a clever criminal destroying lives with their drugs and getting away with it.

there is an injustice in people being free of any individual responsibility. like the responsibility to secure their property. the responsibility of ensuring you are not an unsuspecting drug mule.

justice works both ways .. and with freedom comes responsibility.

if she gets away with it.. can you imagine how many unsuspecting drug mules there would be? everyone would be an unsuspecting drug mule!

 

[Calliope]

I can't believe this is still in discussion, it doesn't matter what your view is on the subject nothing can be done she is now just a story you will one day be reminded of when she gets out. Some thing to tell the kids or grandkids.

Just imagine that it had been Corby's brother, with her at the time, who had been nabbed at the airport instead of her.

Today few people would even remember his name. He would have been forgotten in the same way as the other drug mules doing time there don't make headlines, in spite of their families' attempts to get help for them.

 

[pilots]

Schu, at the time of the case I was living and working in Jakarta, each day the Jakarta post would print the highlights of the case, we was well informed of the case this way.
Now Schu back then, and now you won't find ONE expat in Indonesia that thinks she is Innocent. Time for you to get over it, she has lost. Let me ask you this, if you spend as much time on all the injustices that we have going on now, you must be very busy. Only 16 years to go.

 

[chops_a_must]

Of course there are other Australians, and many other people suffering badly and suffering injustice. 200,000 woman raped and mutilated in Congo in the past decade; innocent people detained without charge and tortured; women stoned to death when they're raped; innocent civilians in Zimbabwe caught in the midst of a corrupt regime; innocent people on death row; asylum seekers locked in detention centres in Australia......the list goes on.

But is Schapelle Corby's life worth any less than those people's?

Nope. But why is it worth any more? Especially when she isn't at risk of being killed.

I'd love to know which causes you get out and fight for seeing as you seem to have such a clear concept of what is important and what isn't.

If you had been here long enough, you would have had a fair idea.

 

[schu]

what people have gotten off...... what were the circumastnaces and when?

as for freedom.. i agree. without wanting so sound like some cheesy yank... i do think that:

"From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots"

people that havent fought for their freedom take it for granted. but thats another thread.

I will give you two examples that I am familiar with that have the most similarity with Schapelle's circumstances. One was male and one was female. One was caught coming into Thailand; the other was caught coming into Malaysia. Both had harder drugs than marijuana (cocaine and heroin). They were both within 5 years of Schapelle's age at the time she was arrested and both situations transpired within the last decade. The circumstances almost mirror Schapelle's in terms of the type of people and the situation they found themselves in and the evidence against them (ie none). Both were interrogated and charged and the charges were later dropped for lack of evidence.

There have been other cases where a person has received only a very minimal sentence, to the extent that with credit for time served they are released almost straight away.

In context, this is rare in South East Asian countries due to the issues with trial standards. It is worth considering that Schapelle's case represents an opportunity to address overarching justice issues within the region, or even just specifically Indonesia. There are many innocent people languishing in those jails that could be helped if the spotlight on what goes on was switched on. What I find most disturbing is that the governments in these countries know full well that they are locking up innocent people in atrocious conditions, yet that is of no apparent concern.

That said, Schapelle's circumstances are very unique within Indonesia. She had added to the importing charge a trafficking one and was convicted of that with no evidence. That is very unusual. And as I have explained, her sentence was much higher than others in commensurate situations; it was very inconsistent.

 

[schu]

Schu, at the time of the case I was living and working in Jakarta, each day the Jakarta post would print the highlights of the case, we was well informed of the case this way.
Now Schu back then, and now you won't find ONE expat in Indonesia that thinks she is Innocent. Time for you to get over it, she has lost. Let me ask you this, if you spend as much time on all the injustices that we have going on now, you must be very busy. Only 16 years to go.

So you lied to try to give your comments more credibility? What other things are you lying about with respect to this then?

All media organisations have an agenda and the Jakarta Post is no different. I - and others - have looked at what was printed in the Jakarta Post over that period extensively and much of it is as biased, inaccurate and convoluted as what has been printed in Australia. It is hardly a trustworthy source. And certainly not anywhere near the accuracy of firsthand letters, the judgement and genuine facts.

And your comment about the expats is entirely inaccurate. I have spoken to expats who believe in her innocence. Indeed, many of them believed right from the beginning that she was set-up by someone for the very reason that it was non-sensical for anyone to bring marijuana into Bali from Australia. But the opinions of expats is hardly the point anyway: the judgement should be based on facts; not rumour, innuendo or suggestion. Consider the FACTS as they have been outlined countless times. Take the FACTS to an objective person with a proper understanding of the law and ask them to give an analysis.

I spend time on a number of issues. That's what I DO with my life and what I intend to do for as long as I am able. Obviously I don't work on every single one that exist: as I explained in my first post here, it is a great frustration to me that there are too many things and not enough time to go around. I choose different ones for various reasons, just as people choose their careers and interests for various reasons. I don't understand why you are being snide about that at all. It's how people work: they choose to do things that are of interest to them.

 

[schu]

Nope. But why is it worth any more? Especially when she isn't at risk of being killed.

If you had been here long enough, you would have had a fair idea.

So people should just sit on their hands and ignore the situation then? Turn a blind eye to the injustice because it isn't, in your opinion, significant enough?

I do not know anyone with a real and genuine interest in human rights who makes value judgements on which issues are more important. To do so goes against the principles that underpin such interests and the compassion that those people have. And I don't know anybody with a genuine interest who would have a problem with other people fighting the causes that they believe are important.

Nobody is saying Schapelle's situation is worth more than others at all. As I have said on countless occasions, I fight for many causes, not just this one. I have never even remotely said that anything other people care about is less worthy.

If you don't care about Schapelle, that's fine. Nobody is forcing you to. But it seems absurd to me that if you don't care and have no interest you would come along and try to dissuade everyone else from having an interest. If you don't care, you would be indifferent.