- Joined
- 27 February 2008
- Posts
- 4,670
- Reactions
- 10
thanks for that
I posted a question to you in relation to a comment you made earlier - see post 808. Just wondering if you have seen it.
so are you calling chapelle corby retarded or are you just trying to take focus off the fact that yet another drug trafficer been caught and unhappy with her sentence ?
do the crime do the time ...
hope she can knit
However, if the insults don't stop immediately (from both sides) I will be dishing out some infractions and/or account suspensions. Be warned, I have a bad case of the flu and I'm very cranky. So argue all you want, but do it without the personal insults.
Nobody has ever been able to satisfactorily explain to me how over nine pounds of hydroponic marijuana just appears in someone's boogie board bag. I've heard all the conspiracy theories and they all sounds like rubbish to me.
I came across this thread quite randomly when I was searching something regarding Schapelle Corby, and having read the whole thread through, I felt compelled to post. My goal is to work as a human rights lawyer. For a number of years now, I have been involved with many organisations and causes, everything from the death penalty to rape in the Congo to specific cases. Schapelle Corby is only one of those.
I first took interest in her situation with regard to the fairness of her trial and the broader context of Indonesia's legal system with respect to international standards. I did not initially concern myself with questions relating to her guilt or innocence. However, over time, with extensive research, including access to official court documents, I have become entirely convinced of her innocence.
I will try to answer some of the points raised in this thread and am happy to answer any questions that are thrown at me about the situation. I also strongly suggest that everyone posting here, with an interest, get a copy of Tony Wilson's book, Schapelle, as that is a very detailed account of everything that has transpired, with accuracy.
Schapelle never carried her boogieboard bag to the customs counter, so she could never have identified the difference in weight from what was normal. She noticed the bag sitting away from the other bags that were waiting for passengers to pick up and when she approached it, she saw that the handle had been broken. She was miffed about this because she had only just had it repaired before the trip. She also noticed that the zips were done up in a different place to where she had done them up. She was struggling with her other bags and one of her friends told James to help her. It was James who lugged the bag to the customs counter, not Schapelle.
Under the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHAP), two pieces of evidence are required for conviction. One of these was the fact that the mairjuana was found in her bag. The other was that the customs officer claimed she refused to open her bag because she said she had some marijuana. Schapelle disputes this: she says that she opened the bag for him quite willingly and reeled back at the smell (that emanated because the vacuum sealed bags had been cut) and that she only ever said that the bag was hers, not the marijuana itself; indeed that she denied that the marijuana was hers. Obviously this is a case of his word against hers. However, it is worth considering a few things. First, what person, guilty or innocent, would admit to having and owning the marijuana? That would seem a strange way to behave. Second, the custom's officer's English was incredibly rudimentary to the extent that he could barely communicate. It is perfectly plausible that he misunderstood what was said by her in terms of what she owned. He was backed up on his interpretation of events by a customs supervisor, but this supervisor was not even present when the bag was opened and did not actually witness the exchange.
Schapelle and her family were desperate to have the marijuana tested. She signed a release to allow the AFP to test the drugs. This release is in Tony Wilson's book and on record with the Australian Consulate in Indonesia and AFP; unfortunately I do not have access to a copy to attach or post online. It was the Indonesian prosecutors who refused to have the testing done, stating that it 'wasn't necessary'.
Schapelle and her family were also desperate to have the vacuum sealed bags fingerprinted. They were initially told that too many people had touched the bag so there was no point. It should also be noted that when Schapelle was arrested, a multitude of law enforcement officials handled the bags without gloves, making no attempt to preserve the evidence. Then it was discovered that there were two bags: an inner and an outer one. When they asked in open court for the inner bag to be tested, one of the judges reached across and touched the inner bag himself and said that he would 'consider it'. The request was subsequently denied.
At the very least, this raises two questions. One, why did the Indonesians specifically prevent the testing of the marijuana and the bags when to find that it was from Australia and that Schapelle's fingerprints were on the bag would have meant certain guilt? Two, if Schapelle was guilty, why would she and her family have repeatedly requested the tests?
In addition to this, Schapelle and her sister and friend, on the night she was arrested, requested that all the baggage be weighed. This was crucial. When they checked in at Brisbane airport, all the luggage was weighed and the total weight recorded on one ticket. Had they done this at the Bali end as well, the two weights could have been compared. If they were the same, the drugs were in there on check-in and she was likely guilty. But if there was a 4kg difference, the drugs were put in later, which would have raised serious doubts. The Bali authorities had no interest in doing this. Once again, why would Schapelle and her family and friends requested this if there was any chance she or they were guilty?
The Corbys also immediately requested that QANTAS and Brisbane airport provide them with security footage from the area and period in question. They did this within 72 hours and continued to do this when the footage was not forthcoming. They were originally told that it would be preserved and they would get it and then they were given all manner of reasons for not receiving it: that it was already wiped; that the cameras were being serviced; that the cameras were only on when a person of interest was going through the airport; that they needed to get permission from someone else. Eventually it was confirmed that the cameras covering the area in Brisbane airport where Schapelle's bags would have been visible were not working on the day in question. And there were no cameras on the area in Sydney airport where her baggage remained in an unlocked luggage container for several hours.
Schapelle was originally charged with only importation, but right before the trial started, they added the trafficking charge. There was no new evidence that had come to light in the intervening period to support the second charge. Furthermore, the prosecutors never presented evidence to support trafficking. During the trial, the individual who had actually drafted the drugs legislation testified that the trafficking charge required direct support and that merely importing the drugs (having them on you at the airport) didn't amount to trafficking. Yet she was still convicted on this count.
From an evidentiary perspective, the Prosecution never even came up with a suggestion of where the drugs were meant to go. In fact, they never even investigated the Corby family in Bali. If the drugs were meant to be disseminated to Schapelle's sister's family, why was this not made clear with evidence and, more to the point, why was there no attempt to even establish that was the case? A number of people involved in supplying drugs in Bali were questioned (by private individuals) and they said that if the Corbys were involved in drugs to that extent, they would have known about it, but they didn't.
Moreover, the Australian police never even investigated the Corbys. By this I mean they never even sat down to question any of them about the matter. Now, if a person in Australia is thought to be part of a drug-smuggling ring, which is the suggestion about the Corbys here, the AFP would be concerned about it. Yet they weren't concerned about the Corbys at all.
Yes, Mercedes smoked marijuana and maybe took a couple of pills over the years. But, at the end of the day, who hasn't done that or had a relative who has done that? It doesn't automatically translate that you are an international trafficker. Yes, she lied about that initially. But who wouldn't do that with a sister facing jail time? It is perfectly understandable and hardly significant. Bear in mind that she won the defamation trial against Today Tonight. Channel 7, with all their resources (apparently they spent $5 million on their defence) couldn't find a skerrick of evidence to support the claim that she was significantly involved with drugs.
Yes, Schapelle's father was fined for possession years ago. He was at a party that had marijuana and the police turned up and due to an injury he couldn't run away. This is all on record for anyone who wishes to investigate. Once again, if you looked into the history of most families, I think you would find something similar. He did have associations with people who were involved with drugs, including his neighbour, but police investigated that years ago and he was never even remotely connected to their activities. This is, once again, all on record and in fact, Queensland Police stated it publically after the ABC aired a report implicating him. I would strongly suggest that everyone in Australia has, at some point, had contact unwittingly with people associated with drugs, whether it be a neighbour, a work colleague or a friend of a friend.
continued............
……………..continued
It is true that the Corbys do not come across well to the public. They are not particularly well-educated and some members of the family, such as Clinton and James, have done some dodgy things. But there would be hundreds of thousands of families with similar histories. It is just that we don't hear about them because they are not scrutinised by the media to such an extent. In the case of James, it is apparent that he broke into the house he did because he had heard that they had some connection to the drugs found in his sister's bag and was hoping to find evidence to free her. It was an utterly stupid thing to do, but that doesn't automatically translate to him being a family of drug traffickers. In fact, it suggests the opposite. And once again, the Australian police have never suggested that the Corbys are a family of traffickers, nor indeed that this incident was somehow indicative of that.
There is also the question of why anyone would import marijuana into Bali. There have been a lot of stories about the relative prices and one such is the idea that Australian pot is highly sought after in Bali due to its higher quality and would therefore fetch a higher price than in Australia. This is untrue and it has been confirmed by people in the drug trade and suppliers living in Bali. It would fetch much less in Bali than in Australia and Aceh in Indonesia has some of the world's best pot. It would be entirely uneconomical to traffic pot from Australia to Bali and totally unnecessary. It was also confirmed by a number of suppliers that they had never heard of this happening and that it was unrealistic: they wouldn't be able to maintain the supply, which would anger people. The rumours about THC content are unfounded.
To my way of thinking, all this points conclusively to Schapelle being innocent. But at the very least, it amounts to reasonable doubt. KUHAP does actually require that cases in Indonesia are proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but this standard was certainly not applied in Schapelle's circumstances. It also provides for innocent until proven guilty, but once again, this standard was not applied in Schapelle's situation. Indeed, the judges stated that she needed to prove her innocence and find evidence to support that conclusively. Irrespective of international fair trial standards, Indonesia did not actually uphold the principles and requirements of its own justice system.
In addition to this, Schapelle received a penalty far harsher than was suggested by other cases. Her penalty was actually, by far, the harshest ever for such a situation. For example, a woman who tried to import 15.22kgs of marijuana was sentenced to 15 years while another who tried to import 5+ kgs of cocaine was also sentenced to 15 years. Comparable cases to Schapelle's suggested she should only have received 3-4 years.
In Schapelle's case, there are a number of issues that are concerning from a human rights perspective. First of all, there is the specific issue of her innocence. However, second, even if you don't believe in her innocence, surely the above points raise questions about the situation and the legitimacy of the trial. Third, there are issues regarding the fairness of her trial, which also have a broader context relating to the Indonesian justice system. Fourth, there is the question of why the media has orchestrated such an enormous smear campaign full of half-truths. All of the information I have given is confirmable from official records. It is not a case of my word against anyone elses.
Schapelle's situation is just one human rights issue in the world. There are many. Not a day goes by when I don't feel the burden of the fact that there are too many to deal with. But nobody can address every single one - each one has supporters who feel that a particular issue is important and deserving of their time. It isn't a matter of one being more important than another; it is a matter of personal passion or interest. I took an interest in this one because of its complexity and the relevance to our region, just as I have an interest in others for other reasons. I wish I could address them all, but there aren't enough hours in the day.
What do I think happened with Schapelle? I have thought about that on many occasions. There are a few theories that are equally viable: that she was the inadvertent victim in a drug transportation operation involving baggage handlers; that she was set up by Bali customs to be bribed; that she was a decoy while other drugs were going through Bali airport. I can't answer with any certainty which one it is. But that is precisely the point: it isn't up to the accused to come up with conclusive evidence about what happened; it is enough to demonstrate reasonable doubt as to what happened. Which has been done in this case. And in addition to that, the Corbys actually did everything they could to prove her innocence, but were denied the ability to do that.
Don't hate her, don't hate her family and don't care for posters refering to her and her family as "trash".
My thoughts on peoples individual afflictions/age have absolutely nothing to do with this thread and i am here to discuss the matter of chappele corby being convicted of being a DRUG trafficker .
No wonder there are so many brainwashed sickies on here. .
. Whether he is deluded or not, that is vile. It demonstrates what he is.
They have been brainwashed. Simple as:
When you combine the media minipulation process with a bunch of sick and twisted people, this is the result. .
Nunthewiser you are an extremely cowardly man. Your post that I questioned was not specifically in relation to Schapelle, it was in relation to all drug smugglers.
For the benefit of others, Nunthewiser is well aware that Indonesia passed down a sentence of 10 years to Sibel Yalvac a 21 year old Dutch national who has the mental age of a 12 year old. Sibel is unable to distinguish between cause and consequence and is unable to count to 12. Sibel was arrested in 2003 and sentenced in 2004.
Sibel was set up by her former employee to carry 4800 ecstasy capsules into Jakarta. Sibel was paid to carry the drugs, she wanted the money but lacked any ability to think beyond this. Indonesia still refuses to release Sibel.
Yes she is guilty. Her sentence and incarceration is unjust!
Rather than acknowledge the Indonesian flawed justice system. Nunthewiser has chosen to resort to inane nonsensical comments that provide far more insight into his character and the depth of his knowledge than any insult ever could.
Schapelle Corby is another example of the same unjust system that fails to recognise or allow for evidence beyond the drugs being in her bag and the word of a non-english speaking customs officer.
Someone has thrown up a link to this thread on a Schapelle Corby supporters forum and that's where all these Schapelle supporters are coming from.
There is no evidence of anyone using more than one user name.
However, if the insults don't stop immediately (from both sides) I will be dishing out some infractions and/or account suspensions. Be warned, I have a bad case of the flu and I'm very cranky.
So argue all you want, but do it without the personal insults.
Joe, my thoughts
Suggestions:
1. Can you not put a redirection link to send it back?
2. What most annoys me is the same old same just being reposted and appears the same people have that habit.
3. I have posted my 1 opinion regarding this post, and left it at that
4. Once posts become such as this: Only members with 250 posts or more can access, cut a lot of new ones out
5. Can you not make it so this type of post always goes to the last page, if you want to read it or post to it, go find it...
The crackdown in this thread has begun.
Personal attacks of any sort will be met with infractions. I have already handed out one infraction and there has been one banning (ZackW) due to multiple accounts (instant ban) and the posting of personal information of other ASF members on the forums. I don't care what side of the debate you are on, if you attack another participant in this thread you will cop an infraction.
Debate the issues all you want, but watch out if you attack others in this thread from this point on. I will have no mercy.
What makes our United Kingdom-inherited-thinking so great is the freedom of mind and the next-to-nil indoctrination.That predominantly being freedom of speech, a human right of the profoundest nature IF other peoples wishes/requests are respected.
Obviously (and you know you`re doing it) some posters overdo it and bring nothing creative to the discussion but repeated stuff on a subjects fate (be it stupid and stubborn) that has been decided.
Be rational please and win the hearts and minds of the Indonesians (even the ones with long fingernails) and your cause will stand a greater chance of being realised than riding a forum with your precious time and winning over nobody and changing nothing.
Thankyou.
So you don't like "grubby little drug traffickers" (your words) referred to as "trash".
Why?
1) Education. You have to start in the schools, and you have to start early. It works a lot like sex education. Teen pregnancies are lower where they have sex ed. Like it or not, that's the way these things work.
Here is Canada, we have courses about this stuff in the high schools. What's the story in Australia?
2) Poverty. Where there's poverty, there's drugs. When unemployment goes up, substance abuse and family violence goes up. Once again, that's the way the world works. Countries that invest in social services tend to have lower rates of poverty and violence - and they do better in combating drug use. Anyone for an economic stimulus package?
Pilot - where did you source this info from?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?