Schapelle Corby - Innocent or Guilty?

schu · 4 January 2009

Calliope said:
Her apologists always refer to Corby as Schapelle. What a sweet innocent musical sounding name it is. But with trashy origins. In time the name will become synonymous with "someone whose evil belies their innocent looks.'

The Corbys obviously thought they were on a good thing when they selected her for their mule.

The guys who selected a more obvious roughie like Renae Lawrence for a mule must have rocks in their heads.

Appearance has nothing to do with it and neither does her name. Whatever Schapelle looked like or was called, my position would still be the same because it is related to the facts of the case and the circumstances. It was the media who jumped on things in part motivated by her appearance. I have campaigned for many people with varying names and appearances.

As for mules, there are generally particular aspects that organisations look at, which include their family situation, socio-economic status, intelligence and appearance. It is not simple restricted to one element.

schu · 4 January 2009

pilots said:
Good morning Zacko, Lets look at the real FACTS, one her dad, been in trouble, two, her brother,been in trouble, three, her sister, known user, four, Schapelle is X Japan bar girl. I rest my case.

Only 16 years to go.

1. Her dad was fined for possession of marijuana decades ago. He was at a party where people were smoking and when the police turned up, he couldn't run due to an injury. We're talking about being in the presence of a joint or something. No conviction was recorded. It's about the equivalent of a speeding fine. The Queensland Police confirmed all this publically.

2. Her brother James was in trouble long after Schapelle's arrest. He broke into a place after someone had told him they might be people associated with the marijuana and he thought he might be able to get evidence to help get her released. Her brother Clinton is a bad sheep in the family. Many families have them - that doesn't mean they're traffickers. And Clinton has not been convicted of drug supplying offences.

3. Her sister had a couple of joints or bongs over the years as well as a couple of pills. This was discussed and accepted in open court. So she is the same as over 50% of the population.

4. Schapelle met a Japanese man named Kimi while he was in Australia for 12 months. They fell in love. He couldn't get his Visa renewed so she went to Japan with him. Eventually the strain of constant Visa renewal became too difficult so they got married. During her time in Japan, Schapelle worked in the hospitality industry occasionally, NOT the 'girl bars' that you refer to.

All these are fully checkable facts, not like what you have said which is a deliberately misleading representation.

pilots · 4 January 2009

Schu, some years ago we had two Japanese exchange students staying with us, one night on our way home from Nothbridge I spotted two hookers working, I asked the students do you have this at home, yes was the reply, we call it the HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY.

mayk · 4 January 2009

pilots said:
Schu, some years ago we had two Japanese exchange students staying with us, one night on our way home from Nothbridge I spotted two hookers working, I asked the students do you have this at home, yes was the reply, we call it the HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY.

Haha, sorry but it was a nice joke...

ColB · 4 January 2009

Originally posted by Schu:

1. Her dad was fined for possession of marijuana decades ago. He was at a party where people were smoking and when the police turned up, he couldn't run due to an injury. We're talking about being in the presence of a joint or something. No conviction was recorded. It's about the equivalent of a speeding fine. The Queensland Police confirmed all this publically.

So what are you saying here Schu? If Schapelle's dad had been able to run away Queensland Police would be able to confirm he's an angel. Schapelle's dad to quote you was in the "presence of a joint or something" so he's just another innocent party is he? The marijuana in his pocket was for personal use or was he going to sell it? Next thing you will be telling us he was just going to give it to a friend. No conviction recorded! Hardly anyone gets convicted for a first offence of this nature but it doesnt mean they're not guilty does it. But your most ridiculous comment (It's about the equivalent of a speeding fine is trying to compare a criminal indictable offence of Possess Marijuana with the summary offence of a speeding matter. You'll have to do a lot better than this Schu if you intend to practise law.

2. Her brother James was in trouble long after Schapelle's arrest. He broke into a place after someone had told him they might be people associated with the marijuana and he thought he might be able to get evidence to help get her released. Her brother Clinton is a bad sheep in the family. Many families have them - that doesn't mean they're traffickers. And Clinton has not been convicted of drug supplying offences.

Once upon a time........Up until Schapelle's arrest her brother James was a very good boy and then one day he decided to break into someones house, not to steal their marijuana! but to try and find evidence that would help get Schapelle released. I'm sure most people believe that Schu. It almost sounds too clever a defence that a Corby could make up for themselves.

3. Her sister had a couple of joints or bongs over the years as well as a couple of pills. This was discussed and accepted in open court. So she is the same as over 50% of the population.

Her sister is obviously only half a druggie Schu but putting her in the 50% of the population category is really stretching things a bit far don't you think but then if 50% do it it must be alright.

mayk · 4 January 2009

I think Santa (ZackW) got his helpers during Christmas (Schu and Ado). Or are they just figments of my imagination...

The reasons are getting ridiculous. On the one hand Schu is saying that the sample could not be tested, because no one will believe the results. But on the other hand thinks that her brother was trying to get evidence by breaking into another person's house, like that would be admissible to court and help her case.

I think when many things don't add up it is time to tell the truth. Just like Mark Twain said "When in doubt, tell the Truth".

schu · 4 January 2009

ColB said:
So what are you saying here Schu? If Schapelle's dad had been able to run away Queensland Police would be able to confirm he's an angel. Schapelle's dad to quote you was in the "presence of a joint or something" so he's just another innocent party is he? The marijuana in his pocket was for personal use or was he going to sell it? Next thing you will be telling us he was just going to give it to a friend. No conviction recorded! Hardly anyone gets convicted for a first offence of this nature but it doesnt mean they're not guilty does it. But your most ridiculous comment (It's about the equivalent of a speeding fine is trying to compare a criminal indictable offence of Possess Marijuana with the summary offence of a speeding matter. You'll have to do a lot better than this Schu if you intend to practise law.

Actually, the marijuana was not in his possession. It was at the party at which he was attending and he was the one left there when the police got in there. As far as I know he was not even partaking in it. He was, essentially, only guilty by association. Legally it is different to a speeding fine, but morally I don't think there is much distinction; indeed, I would say that it was less because the marijuana had nothing to do with him. How many people, non-smokers, have been to parties where marijuana is present? To somehow draw a link between this incident, decades ago, and Schapelle being caught with 4kgs in Bali is absolutely ludicrous, as it the suggestion that such an incident reflects on his character. That was the point I was making.

ColB said:
Once upon a time........Up until Schapelle's arrest her brother James was a very good boy and then one day he decided to break into someones house, not to steal their marijuana! but to try and find evidence that would help get Schapelle released. I'm sure most people believe that Schu. It almost sounds too clever a defence that a Corby could make up for themselves.

Have you ever had your sister locked up in a foreign jail for a crime she didn't commit and had your family scrutinised and slandered across the media? How would you know what sort of psychological impact that has on someone? How desperate would you be to do something? The point here is that Schapelle's arrest can be seen to have a direct impact on his actions. Had she not been arrested, he would never have been in that position. His version of events was backed up by the person who gave him the information.

ColB said:
Her sister is obviously only half a druggie Schu but putting her in the 50% of the population category is really stretching things a bit far don't you think but then if 50% do it it must be alright.

According to research, marijuana has been tried by 70% of the population and other, harder drugs, by 60%. I never said that this made it OK. My point was that having a few puffs and taking a couple of pills does not indicate any connection to dealing or supplying, much less trafficking. What percentage of the people who have done what Mercedes had done would fall into the more serious category? Or do you think that over 50% of the population are drug smugglers?

schu · 4 January 2009

mayk said:
The reasons are getting ridiculous. On the one hand Schu is saying that the sample could not be tested, because no one will believe the results. But on the other hand thinks that her brother was trying to get evidence by breaking into another person's house, like that would be admissible to court and help her case.

They are two very separate issues.

What James did was absolutely stupid and pointless. I have never said otherwise. Clearly whatever evidence he found would have been irrelevant and inadmissible. It is obvious he was not thinking straight. But there are thousands of people pushed to the brink every day who do stupid things without thinking.

That is entirely separate from the understanding by people who are thinking clearly that testing the drugs without an official sanction would be pointless.

ColB · 4 January 2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColB

So what are you saying here Schu? If Schapelle's dad had been able to run away Queensland Police would be able to confirm he's an angel. Schapelle's dad to quote you was in the "presence of a joint or something" so he's just another innocent party is he? The marijuana in his pocket was for personal use or was he going to sell it? Next thing you will be telling us he was just going to give it to a friend. No conviction recorded! Hardly anyone gets convicted for a first offence of this nature but it doesnt mean they're not guilty does it. But your most ridiculous comment (It's about the equivalent of a speeding fine is trying to compare a criminal indictable offence of Possess Marijuana with the summary offence of a speeding matter. You'll have to do a lot better than this Schu if you intend to practise law.

Originally Posted by Schu:

Actually, the marijuana was not in his possession. It was at the party at which he was attending and he was the one left there when the police got in there. As far as I know he was not even partaking in it. He was, essentially, only guilty by association. Legally it is different to a speeding fine, but morally I don't think there is much distinction; indeed, I would say that it was less because the marijuana had nothing to do with him. How many people, non-smokers, have been to parties where marijuana is present? To somehow draw a link between this incident, decades ago, and Schapelle being caught with 4kgs in Bali is absolutely ludicrous, as it the suggestion that such an incident reflects on his character. That was the point I was making.

Zack, I mean Schu, it is good you wish to pursue a career as a human rights lawyer and I sincerely mean that, however, your knowledge of criminal law is lacking and does you no service in this debate regarding matters pertaining to criminal law.

In this country possession of marijuana, means in his/her actual possession and/or exercising some control over it or having exclusive access to it or officially as follows.....

Without restricting the meaning of the word possession, any substance shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be in the possession of a person so long as it is upon any land or premises occupied by him or is used, enjoyed or controlled by him in any place whatsoever, unless the person satisfies the court to the contrary.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/dpacsa1981422/s5.html

Fact One: He was found guilty without conviction of possession of a drug of dependance. So it was in his possession contrary to what you say.

Schu, you start off your story with what would be seen to be intimate knowledge of the circumstances of the arrest until it comes to issues like and I quote " As far as I know he was not even partaking in it." because you wouldn't want to acknowledge marijuana use by the father to prevent sullying this model family. You spend the rest of your post trying to water down the issue of drug use comparing same with motor vehicle offences.

Lets stick to known facts and where possible provide a source that will corroborate your assertions.

pilots · 4 January 2009

Zack/Scku, you know a lot about the Corby's, I suspect that you are very close to the Corby's, come on, how close are you to the DRUG MULES FAMILY are you??

What is the next STUNT the Corbys are going to pull???

Now we have had the photo shoot, that was a dud.
How about the MULE gets pregnant, now that would be a good twist, you know, you could say she should have to go out of jail to have the baby, then you could say she should stay at home to look after it.
I just hope the MULE won't use any of the Bali nine as the farther, god what hope would the kid have then.:

schu · 4 January 2009

ColB said:
Zack, I mean Schu, it is good you wish to pursue a career as a human rights lawyer and I sincerely mean that, however, your knowledge of criminal law is lacking and does you no service in this debate regarding matters pertaining to criminal law.

In this country possession of marijuana, means in his/her actual possession and/or exercising some control over it or having exclusive access to it or officially as follows.....

Fact One: He was found guilty without conviction of possession of a drug of dependance. So it was in his possession contrary to what you say.

Schu, you start off your story with what would be seen to be intimate knowledge of the circumstances of the arrest until it comes to issues like and I quote " As far as I know he was not even partaking in it." because you wouldn't want to acknowledge marijuana use by the father to prevent sullying this model family. You spend the rest of your post trying to water down the issue of drug use comparing same with motor vehicle offences.

Lets stick to known facts and where possible provide a source that will corroborate your assertions.

I am well aware of and understand the law of possession of drugs. That law is why he was convicted, with no conviction recorded. But the point that was being made by pilots, which I was refuting, was that Schapelle's father's actions in this matter were indicative of a history of drugs that was evidence in suggesting the Corbys are involved in supply and/or smuggling. And, on the basis of what actually happened, the whole thing is insignificant. That was the point I was making.

And my comparison is perfectly valid from a philosophical perspective. There are many experts who don't think that marijuana use is any more serious than going a couple of kilometres over the speed limit. And the point I was getting at was that Schapelle's father being at a party with marijuana present was in no more related to Schapelle's current circumstances and no more relevant than if someone had a speeding fine.

I was not making the analogy from a legal perspective, but from the position of common sense. Just because I know how the law works - and I do - does not mean I cannot discuss something without reference to it or from the perspective of common sense.

As for me saying, "as far as I know, he did not partake", that is because that is what has been said by him in the past. But I wasn't there, so I can't make a firm judgement. So I wasn't going to say conclusively that he did not partake and have someone come out and say, "What, were you there?", which is precisely what would have happened.

pilots · 4 January 2009

Schu, I seem to remember that dads best work mate got busted for growing dope, he then sold up and moved miles away, then when the DRUG MULES farther retired he moved and bought a farm next door to the grower, come on, that tells you something is wrong.
Your best mate is busted for growing dope, you retire and still want to live next door to him. I rest my case.

ZackW · 4 January 2009

Do you know why I post this, repeatedly?

ZackW said:
An so back to this:
because it explains why so many people in Australia run around in circles repeating endless smears and lies. It has given confidence to seriously twisted people to post their hatred on forums like this one.

Is twisted the wrong word? I don't think so. How else do you explain someone who makes DOZENS of posts telling the world to walk away and leave this poor woman to suffer? How else do you explain the cruel terminology used, which exhibits relish and satisfaction at her misery? Examples?

Look at this:
Originally Posted by knocker:
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.

and this:
Originally Posted by pilots
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.

and this:
Originally Posted by Calliope
Hopefully Corby won't be able to corrupt the gene pool while she is incarcerated. So that's a plus.

This thread is full of sick posts like them. Would YOU be happy if your mother or your wife/husband were posting stuff like this, and were posting again and again and again trying to argue to have someone’s pain continue? Would you not be seriously questioning WHY? What motivates someone to be like that? What is wrong with them?

When the real issues and facts are presented, in this case superbly well by Schu, they squirm. They throw back low level sound bytes they have been fed by the media over the years. Sound bites and smears which in fact have all been totally discredited by research from people like Schu and others.

But they can't cope with it, so back we go around the circle. Repeat the smears yet again, because a few pages later they have already forgotten the answer they were provided with.

Largely, they don't even understand the issues in the first place. They don't grasp the concept of human rights. They don't understand the gross abuses which occurred with respect to Schapelle Corby, and they have no chance of understanding the implications of them.

They tell us to walk away and that she will never be free. They almost urge us to be like them. Personally, but seriously, I would rather not exist at all than be like that.

Because every time I come here it is appropriate to posts of the twisted and sick, which have appeared since my last visit.

Look at the contributions by those I quote above since the last time I posted. Read them. You can SEE the same vile motives: to hurt someone suffering misery.

It isn't just the callous and foul terminology, it is the content. Some of the answers Schu provides have been provided to the SAME posters previously! Yet the same smears are re-produced again. WHY? Work it out.

Then there are constant attempts to somehow present anyone stating the truth as connected with the Corbys, or drugs, whatever. Anything really to try to justify their foul motives and paper thin intellect.

The REAL issues? The human rights abuses? The future implications of this for Australians? The obscene political sentence? The media campaign? Hardly surprisingly they avoid these like the plague: look at the topics they choose to discuss! The smears which they have been fed by the media and long since de-bunked.

The real issues are massive. They are an affront to civilization. Yet their response is simply unsubstantiated smear and lie fed by some trashy media rag. The media orchestrators will actually be LAUGHING at them, not that they will ever realize that. They mention the Corby family, but I just wonder what their OWN families would think of them if they knew what they were posting.

They are on a sick and perverted ride of self satisfaction derived from third party misery, and they aren't going to allow truth, reality or serious issues to de-rail it.

slim pickins · 4 January 2009

zack,

most of us who do not have a crush on corby believe she is guilty by the overhwleming evidence against her and by common sense. by the real world and how it works. we dont belive we are sick or twisted. just normal raitonal individuals.

but yes.. i am pretty happy when life destroying criminals get what they deserve. compare her pain to the pain of a father whose daughter prostituted herself to pay for her addiction before she deied form an overdose.

and most of australia agrees with us. the aussies are pretty good at spotting frauds. i notice that when i am overseas.... the europeans often get conned while the aussies spot a scam from a mile off.

how do you feel about the bali nine just out of curiosity?

pilots · 4 January 2009

Zacko, You keep posting your lame duck video of seven facts. Zacko, the first fact is correct. the next six facts are WRONG, zacko all of my family agree with me about the drug mule, in fact Zacko, we don't know anyone who thinks she is Innocent. Yes Zacko, what about the Bali nine, what about the father who dobbed in his son to find he still gets to serve time, what do you think about that>>

Julia · 4 January 2009

schu said:
Have you ever had your sister locked up in a foreign jail for a crime she didn't commit and had your family scrutinised and slandered across the media? How would you know what sort of psychological impact that has on someone? How desperate would you be to do something? The point here is that Schapelle's arrest can be seen to have a direct impact on his actions.

How do you know this? Seems like pure assumption on your part. How do you know he wasn't just another maladjusted teenage criminal, the break and enter having nothing whatsoever to do with his sister's incarceration.
Your reasoning here is without any basis in fact as far as we know.
Looking for some evidence to exonerate his sister sounds ridiculous imo, though he (and his advisers) might have thought it would tug at a few heartstrings.

According to research, marijuana has been tried by 70% of the population and other, harder drugs, by 60%.

What research? Please post a link to this.
Maybe the percentage for the marijuana might be about right, but I would absolutely dispute that 60% have tried hard drugs.
You can't post statements like this without backing up your facts.

schu · 4 January 2009

Julia said:
How do you know this? Seems like pure assumption on your part. How do you know he wasn't just another maladjusted teenage criminal, the break and enter having nothing whatsoever to do with his sister's incarceration.
Your reasoning here is without any basis in fact as far as we know.
Looking for some evidence to exonerate his sister sounds ridiculous imo, though he (and his advisers) might have thought it would tug at a few heartstrings.

Well, James claimed that it was to do with her incarceration and the person who told him that the house in question might have evidence supported this. So I'm only going on the basis of that. It is certainly possibly that he was a teenager acting out. But what I was refuting was the idea that it was in any way indicative of the family having associations with marijuana. There are multiple explanations, such as being psychologically affected, that have nothing to do with drug supplying. I posted in direct response to the suggestion that it was indicative of this with an alternative.

Julia said:
What research? Please post a link to this.
Maybe the percentage for the marijuana might be about right, but I would absolutely dispute that 60% have tried hard drugs.
You can't post statements like this without backing up your facts.

The information was in the book Shattered: A history of Ice in Australia, published in 2008. I too was shocked when I read the statistics. I can't post a link to a book, but I have emailed the organisation referred to as having that data and asked them for a link, which I will post when they send to me.

schu · 5 January 2009

pilots said:
Schu, I seem to remember that dads best work mate got busted for growing dope, he then sold up and moved miles away, then when the DRUG MULES farther retired he moved and bought a farm next door to the grower, come on, that tells you something is wrong.
Your best mate is busted for growing dope, you retire and still want to live next door to him. I rest my case.

That's not accurate.

The man you are referring to is Tony Lewis, who was Mick Corby's neighbour. They were not best mates in any sense of the word and had little to do with each other in a personal sense. Tony Lewis was well-known to police as a marijuana grower and it was firmly stated by Queensland Police that Mick Corby had no association with him in that manner. According to Tony, Mick didn't even know that he grew marijuana. Further according to Tony, the marijuana found in Schapelle's bag, which he saw on television, looked nothing like the marijuana he grew.

schu · 5 January 2009

slim pickins said:
most of us who do not have a crush on corby believe she is guilty by the overhwleming evidence against her and by common sense. by the real world and how it works. we dont belive we are sick or twisted. just normal raitonal individuals.

but yes.. i am pretty happy when life destroying criminals get what they deserve. compare her pain to the pain of a father whose daughter prostituted herself to pay for her addiction before she deied form an overdose.

and most of australia agrees with us. the aussies are pretty good at spotting frauds. i notice that when i am overseas.... the europeans often get conned while the aussies spot a scam from a mile off.

What overwhelming evidence? The point is that there isn't much evidence at all.

As for most of Australia agreeing and being able to spot a fraud, it's interesting you bring that up. For a very long time, the vast majority of Australia believed she was innocent. It was not until the media started running a smear campaign and misrepresenting things that the perspective changed. Australia DID make their judgement on what they saw: and what they saw was an innocent woman in a terrible situation. When Australians judged Schapelle on her demeanor and body language, they saw innocence.

pilots · 5 January 2009

Schu, you must be on drugs when you say some one can look at a TV, and tell that drug is not the same as mine. After reading your post some people would think that Tony could have had some thing to do with it. Why would any one ask him about the drugs the Corby mule was caught with???. And Schu,, dad was good friends with tony, why would you move so for and buy the farm next door if would was not mates. Schu/Zacko, the hole you are digging is so deep be careful the sides don't fall in.

Schapelle Corby - Innocent or Guilty?

Considering the latest news, do you believe Schapelle Corby is innocent?

No, not any more

No, never have

Yes, always have and still do

I don't care. Show me the stocks!

schu

schu

pilots

mayk

ColB

mayk

schu

schu

ColB

pilots

schu

pilots

ZackW

slim pickins

pilots

Julia

In Memoriam

schu

schu

schu

pilots

Similar threads

Schapelle Corby - Innocent or Guilty?

Considering the latest news, do you believe Schapelle Corby is innocent?

No, not any more

No, never have

Yes, always have and still do

I don't care. Show me the stocks!

In Memoriam

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency