Schapelle Corby - Innocent or Guilty?

slim pickins · 7 January 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Gener...has-new-meaning/2005/05/13/1115843364951.html

BUT the commissioner is clear: he believes the idea that Corby is the unwitting victim of drug smugglers is flimsy. "There is very little intelligence to suggest that baggage handlers are using innocent people to traffic heroin or other drugs between states," he said this week. "We can only go by the intelligence we've got. If I was to give evidence in a case like Corby's I would have to be honest and I would have to say that's what the intelligence produces."

what he is trying to say is. .if i present the evidence against her... she would have been executed in indonesia. i dont want to do that.

suehprom1 · 7 January 2009

So if the value of the marijuana is more valueable in Indonesia, why were they so quick to destroy the evidence before testing it. Why wouldn't the prosecution test it anyway? Or perhaps they did and didn't like the results?

knocker · 7 January 2009

nunthewiser said:
sorry but according to the "mullers and packers union"of australia it is valued at from 5- 10 times its worth in indo compared to oz hence the attractiveness of ppl smuggling it to bali .

this info can be verified at any bali bar OR from a link provided further back in this thread

No need to go to bali to verify this. Just ask zacko and his merry cohorts here on this very thread lol

varekai · 7 January 2009

pilots said:
No mate, they can charge me with being in possession of stolen property.

Exactly right!! They can charge you with possession of stolen property but can't convict you unless they can prove that you stole it!

nulla nulla · 7 January 2009

So following on from the last thread, she should have been charged with being in possession of a trafficable quantity of a prohibited drug, to which she would have pleaded guilty (?) and been sentence to.......

knocker · 7 January 2009

We should rename this thread to Drug Mules Anonymous lol

pilots · 7 January 2009

suehprom1 said:
So if the value of the marijuana is more valueable in Indonesia, why were they so quick to destroy the evidence before testing it. Why wouldn't the prosecution test it anyway? Or perhaps they did and didn't like the results?

Sue, you read more like a Corby with each post you make, the police destroy all drugs, what they cost don't matter to the police.
Perhaps they did test the drugs, and yes they did not like what they found, the drugs came from Queensland, that means the death penalty, the way it has worked out now is the mule is still alive.

nunthewiser · 7 January 2009

varekai said:
Exactly right!! They can charge you with possession of stolen property but can't convict you unless they can prove that you stole it!

actually darl ....being in posession is the crime , not the theft ,they dont have to prove anything except that it was in your posession at the time. now please stop clutching at straws to try and impress a forum as honestly ya just plain embarrasing yourself

haveaniceday

pilots · 7 January 2009

varekai said:
Exactly right!! They can charge you with possession of stolen property but can't convict you unless they can prove that you stole it!

Mate what law school did you go to, the police CAN AND WILL charge any one for being in possession of stolen property, they DON'T HAVE TO PROVE YOU STOLE IT, now something more for you, the sentence for being in possession of stolen property, is more than the sentence is for theft.

pilots · 7 January 2009

FPSS said:
thanks AgentM... i'm actually going to go and have a look around the forum... considering I do have an investment portfolio and my shares are looking quite dismal.

You have two PMs.

varekai · 7 January 2009

pilots said:
Mate what law school did you go to, the police CAN AND WILL charge any one for being in possession of stolen property, they DON'T HAVE TO PROVE YOU STOLE IT, now something more for you, the sentence for being in possession of stolen property, is more than the sentence is for theft.

Never went to any law school at all...actually, I left school the day I turned 15 but it didn't stop me from acquiring common sense, something that is lacking here, that's for sure...and I certainly hope you didn't go to law school, because if you did, I'll defend myself in court if you're any hint of a lawyer!
But I don't think I'm getting through to you lotSO PAY ATTENTION; IF I AM CHARGED WITH AN OFFENCE, BUT I DENY THE CHARGES, THE POLICE AND PROSECUTORS HAVE TO PROVE THAT I COMMITTED THE OFFENCE THAT I AM ACCUSED OF DOING!!

explod · 7 January 2009

varekai said:
:SO PAY ATTENTION; IF I AM CHARGED WITH AN OFFENCE, BUT I DENY THE CHARGES, THE POLICE AND PROSECUTORS HAVE TO PROVE THAT I COMMITTED THE OFFENCE THAT I AM ACCUSED OF DOING!!

Sorry, but the law says that if you are found in sole possession of something (specific to certain things of course, ie. drugs, stolen goods etc) then the onus is on you (you alone) to prove to the court that it belonged to someone else (you were coerced for example) or you had a lawful reason for having it (Doctor carrying drugs for lawful purpose)

In the statute it is words along the lines of, "..found in possession without just cause...(etc etc) shall be guilty of an offence"

However in the Corby case it was not in her actual physical possession ( a test at law is "to the exclusion of all others") From the time she got on the plane to the gate whee she was stopped it could be demonstrated that many others could have had possession. In an Aussie Court she would have got off on this fact alone. There are very many others which we have previously discussed.

slim pickins · 7 January 2009

varekai said:
Never went to any law school at all...actually, I left school the day I turned 15 but it didn't stop me

now this coment had got me thinking.

i am interested to know...... how many people here think schapelle in inncoent that also have a tertiary degree form an australian univeristy that does not involve the study of humanities or social sciences.

varekai · 7 January 2009

explod said:
Sorry, but the law says that if you are found in sole possession of something (specific to certain things of course, ie. drugs, stolen goods etc) then the onus is on you (you alone) to prove to the court that it belonged to someone else (you were coerced for example) or you had a lawful reason for having it (Doctor carrying drugs for lawful purpose)

In the statute it is words along the lines of, "..found in possession without just cause...(etc etc) shall be guilty of an offence"

However in the Corby case it was not in her actual physical possession ( a test at law is "to the exclusion of all others") From the time she got on the plane to the gate whee she was stopped it could be demonstrated that many others could have had possession. In an Aussie Court she would have got off on this fact alone. There are very many others which we have previously discussed.

Article in the Indonesian code of criminal procedure states; "The defendant/accused shall not be burdened with the onus of proof"
IE; It is the prosecution that must prove guilt...the accused does not have to prove his or her innocence!
IE; In Schapelle's case, the prosecution has to satisfy the court that she knowingly imported the drugs from Australia into Indonesia, and prove they were Australian as they claimed it was...and Schapelle was legally entitled to have an investigation and testing of the evidence to prove her innocence. The Bali police refused. JUSTICE DENIED!

Agentm · 7 January 2009

slim pickins said:
now this coment had got me thinking.

i am interested to know...... how many people here think schapelle in inncoent that also have a tertiary degree form an australian univeristy that does not involve the study of humanities or social sciences.

i think your shooting for too high a sample here, lets make it a bit tougher..

why not add that they have to be able to spell innocent and university?

IFocus · 7 January 2009

FPSS said:
thanks AgentM... i'm actually going to go and have a look around the forum... considering I do have an investment portfolio and my shares are looking quite dismal.

Thanks Kay for your comments on this thread your rationale is a breath of fresh air, don't mind some of the some of the guys here emotions and bias do come forward even if its a trading forum.

Good luck with your investments

pilots · 7 January 2009

varekai said:
Article in the Indonesian code of criminal procedure states; "The defendant/accused shall not be burdened with the onus of proof"
IE; It is the prosecution that must prove guilt...the accused does not have to prove his or her innocence!
IE; In Schapelle's case, the prosecution has to satisfy the court that she knowingly imported the drugs from Australia into Indonesia, and prove they were Australian as they claimed it was...and Schapelle was legally entitled to have an investigation and testing of the evidence to prove her innocence. The Bali police refused. JUSTICE DENIED!

OK Varekai, lets say justice denied, what can you do about it, you like the rest of your family must wait for 5840 more sleeps before she will set foot on Australia soil again.
Now the real said part about this is that when the MULE gets home in 16 years time all the money that has been made by the family, about her, will have been spent, she will get SFA.

knocker · 7 January 2009

slim pickins said:
now this coment had got me thinking.

i am interested to know...... how many people here think schapelle in inncoent that also have a tertiary degree form an australian univeristy that does not involve the study of humanities or social sciences.

Oh no. Look just mull up again and problem solved ok. lol:

knocker · 7 January 2009

slim pickins said:
now this coment had got me thinking.

i am interested to know...... how many people here think schapelle in inncoent that also have a tertiary degree form an australian univeristy that does not involve the study of humanities or social sciences.

Oh no. Look just mull up again and problem solved ok. lol: Actually just get some chimp too shoot you in the head because he would be doing us all a favour.

pilots · 7 January 2009

varekai said:
Never went to any law school at all...actually, I left school the day I turned 15 but it didn't stop me from acquiring common sense, something that is lacking here, that's for sure...and I certainly hope you didn't go to law school, because if you did, I'll defend myself in court if you're any hint of a lawyer!
But I don't think I'm getting through to you lotSO PAY ATTENTION; IF I AM CHARGED WITH AN OFFENCE, BUT I DENY THE CHARGES, THE POLICE AND PROSECUTORS HAVE TO PROVE THAT I COMMITTED THE OFFENCE THAT I AM ACCUSED OF DOING!!

I have not been to law school, you pay attention, if the police catch you with stolen property, and you deny the charges, won't matter, they found you with stolen property, you will Be charged and found GUILTY.

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!

slim pickins

suehprom1

knocker

varekai

nulla nulla

Positive Expectancy

knocker

pilots

nunthewiser

pilots

pilots

varekai

explod

explod

slim pickins

varekai

Agentm

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

pilots

knocker

knocker

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!

Positive Expectancy

explod

You are arguing with a Galah

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency