Schapelle Corby - Innocent or Guilty?

[pilots]

All we need now is for Wacko Zacko to return, I miss his post.

 

[nulla nulla]

In normal legal jurisdictions the actual possessionis a matter which involves the need for the prosecution to prove knowledge to some degree but the big one is continuity; and , in doing that the Court needs to be shown that the defendant on reasonable grounds had sealed and placed the bag into the luggage department on departure and that there was unlikely to have been opportunity for outside tampering till she picked it up on arrival at her distination. There are so many holes in this prosecution it goes to the bottom at the speed of light.

So Nulla Nulla go to a thread where you know what you are talking about.

Of course the law in this other place does not have a law as we know it. If you dont pay you go to jail.

What a crock. "Empty your pockets" "what is this in your pockets?" is the same as "Is this your bag?" "Yes". Please open it for inspection". "What is this in your bag?"
End of story, apprehended in possession. Guilty as charged. You can bleat all you like but it doesn't change a thing.

 

[explod]

What a crock. "Empty your pockets" "what is this in your pockets?" is the same as "Is this your bag?" "Yes". Please open it for inspection". "What is this in your bag?"
End of story, apprehended in possession. Guilty as charged. You can bleat all you like but it doesn't change a thing.

Not so, in your pocket is on the person and yes that is actual possession ; the corby circumstance very different, even though she made comment when gaining it.

You are very good at what you do know in a trading concept, so go there champ, this thread is a can of worms and in the fair go criteria a tragedy.

Hope nothing ever goes wrong for you or your family in a kangaroo jurisdiction nulla nulla.

 

[nulla nulla]

Not so, in your pocket is on the person and yes that is actual possession ; the corby circumstance very different, even though she made comment when gaining it.

You are very good at what you do know in a trading concept, so go there champ, this thread is a can of worms and in the fair go criteria a tragedy.

Hope nothing ever goes wrong for you or your family in a kangaroo jurisdiction nulla nulla.

Nothing personal but in my opinion you appear to be too emotionally involved to look at this objectively. No matter how hard you try, you can't get arround the possession aspects of this matter.
The Corby circumstance is no different to the countless others that get caught, then deny knowledge as to how it came to be in their possession. Whether in Australia, Indonesia, Thailand or Singapore.

 

[explod]

Nothing personal but in my opinion you appear to be too emotionally involved to look at this objectively. No matter how hard you try, you can't get arround the possession aspects of this matter.
The Corby circumstance is no different to the countless others that get caught, then deny knowledge as to how it came to be in their possession. Whether in Australia, Indonesia, Thailand or Singapore.

Not so, possession is a particular issue that has many interpretations at Common Law and a lot of legislation in all jurisdictions in Statute Law. Why?, because it (possession) is a difficult connundrum.

I do not and did not know of Corby till the case hit the radar screen of us all. I put my arguments up on the technical aspects of law only. Have practised and remained interested in Law for its own sake both professionally and since retirement and only too pleased to take it as far as you wish.

What we have here is a stalemate between, I think a misunderstanding at the philosophical and also perhaps the sociological sphere.

At grass roots, a court in this land would need to be persuaded that on the ballance of probabilaties there was little doubt that Corby placed the grass in the bag. On what we know of the case it would fail here in Australia but maybe not in a jurisdiction such as the one she found herself in.

No it is not emotion but a general feeling for a fair go, ........ basic human rights.

 

[nunthewiser]

yawns.

 

[explod]

yawns.

And that is a wonderful thing, to relax and know that you are protected by a caring administration.

To not give a damn about others distubs me.

But yawn on ole Son and be glad

 

[nunthewiser]

And that is a wonderful thing, to relax and know that you are protected by a caring administration.

To not give a damn about others distubs me.

But yawn on ole Son and be glad

Im actually yawning because im bored stoopid with the same unfactual crap that is being posted here over and over again.

But me and you have already discussed this in the past.

Geeeez this thread shiits me.

But i still look !! geez aint i the silly one.

 

[Julia]

To not give a damn about others distubs me.

I'm not sure that's fair, explod. We can't all feel sympathy or empathy for every person, animal, country, whatever that enjoys a less than perfect existence.
And if Nun is yawning, it's quite possibly because this thread has gone on for so long without ever making any progress, just goes round and round and round.

For you to suggest that because you feel sympathetic towards Ms Corby, everyone else should feel likewise isn't reasonable. Think about some individual you know of who has committed some act which to you is the last word in heinous behaviour. There will be someone somewhere who is sympathetic to that person, but you are unable to feel anything but disgust.

We all have different thresholds of where we see truth and responsibility.

The other factor is that most of us have various anxieties and irritations in our own lives and simply run out of capacity to demonstrate compassion to people whom we feel don't really deserve it.

(None of the above should indicate any judgement from me on Ms Corby's guilt or innocence. I have no idea.)

 

[explod]

For you to suggest that because you feel sympathetic towards Ms Corby, everyone else should feel likewise isn't reasonable. Think about some individual you know of who has committed some act which to you is the last word in heinous behaviour. There will be someone somewhere who is sympathetic to that person, but you are unable to feel anything but disgust.

The other factor is that most of us have various anxieties and irritations in our own lives and simply run out of capacity to demonstrate compassion to people whom we feel don't really deserve it.

(None of the above should indicate any judgement from me on Ms Corby's guilt or innocence. I have no idea.)

It is not about Corby, it is about the rough justice. Sure it is another place and their law is different. Corby is an Aussie and on the law as applied here she has been treated wrong. Yawn or not, we need to ensure that our own laws do not erode to the same level. The threat to the principlas for a fair go for all individuals ought to strike a cord of alarm Julia and I am surprised that the implications allude .

And yes we do all have our own day to day problems and perhaps we need to look at bigger pictures to see what is driving these harder times. Schapelle is held in a regime of many more millions on our doorstep. Should we not be concerned to press and encourage, through instances such as this case for a more civilised approach to law and order.

On the one hand just a druggie, on the other a human being who should be treated in a fair manner and as we would want one of our own to be treated on a relapse.

 

[Tink]

I just cant understand why we just zone in on this one person when there are so many others around the world in the same situation.

I have a question for you Honourable please, since you say that you are so close to this family.

Since you keep going on that Schapelle is innocent, is she covering up for her brother?

Thats not so innocent in my book either, making out the Australian public are that stupid.

Someone has to be responsible for their actions so which one is it?

Were they hoping that she would get off and no one would pay the price?

 

[nulla nulla]

Not so, possession Have practised and remained interested in Law for its own sake both professionally and since retirement and only too pleased to take it as far as you wish. [/B]

So now you advise that you practise law as well as being an ex police officer?

 

[nulla nulla]

I just cant understand why we just zone in on this one person when there are so many others around the world in the same situation.

I have a question for you Honourable please, since you say that you are so close to this family.

Since you keep going on that Schapelle is innocent, is she covering up for her brother?

Thats not so innocent in my book either, making out the Australian public are that stupid.

Someone has to be responsible for their actions so which one is it?

Were they hoping that she would get off and no one would pay the price?

In possession and/or an accessory after the fact?

 

[pilots]

Had she arrived here in Australia with that much grass and told the same story would she been charged. YES. GUILTY AS CHARGED.

 

[nulla nulla]

Had she arrived here in Australia with that much grass and told the same story would she been charged. YES. GUILTY AS CHARGED.

Admitedly the difference if she had arrived in Australia and been apprehended would be, the sentence would probably have been 5 or so years then she would have been deported.

 

[Honourable]

It seems that you are conveniently overlooking the key aspects of her being apprehended "in possession" of 4 kilograms of marijana. It is not the responsibility of the court to establish whether or not another party owned the marijuana.
It is a fact that the boogie board bag was hers, it is a fact that she was aprehended "in possession" of a large quantity of an illegal substance.
There was no way she was ever going to be found not guilty of this crime.

There is nothing different in this case to the numerous people comming into Australia that are aprehended and charged with importing illegal substances when "someone else must have put it in my bag". They get sentenced on the most incriminating aspect of the evidence, they were aprehended with the illegal substance in their possession.

No, Nulla Nulla, after 3 years of studying this case, I am not conveniently overlooking anything. I have considered EVERYTHING.

Unfortunately, it is the people who choose to believe that Schapelle Corby is guilty who conveniently overlook most things. They hang on doggedly to the one fact they have, that she was caught red handed with drugs in her boogie-board bag. They back it up with the flimsy assertion that everyone caught with drugs in their bag will deny that the drugs belong to them, and claim that someone else put them in there.

Yes, logically, everyone will make this claim, and it is then up to the Prosecution to establish whether the defendant is lying, or not. Even Indonesian Law will not accept possession alone as a grounds for conviction, and requires at least one further piece of incriminating evidence.

Schapelle was not a drug user, her blood and urine tests proved it, so they couldn't use this.

Despite two attempts to trick Schapelle into signing a confession, they were unsuccessful, so they couldn't use this.

They never tested the plastic bags for fingerprints, choosing instead to contaminate them with their own fingerprints (Customs Officers, Police Officers, Judges, Prosecutors), so they couldn't use this.

They never weighed her baggage to determine whether there had been a change in its weight on the checked-in weight (to establish whether the drugs had been inserted after check-in, or not), so they couldn't use this.

They never allowed forensic testing of the drugs to determine their quality or place of origin. During these tests any hair or skin fragments found in the drugs could have been checked for DNA and compared with Schapelle's DNA to determine guilt (or innocence). However, as the tests were not conducted, they couldn't use this.

No investigation was undertaken in either Australia or Bali to establish whether Schapelle had connections with a drug dealing network, so they couldn't use this.

With nothing left to provide secondary evidence, they chose to rely on the testimony of their 4 witnesses, two Customs Officers and two Police Officers.
Their principle witness was Gusti Winata, the Customs Officer at the counter, and their 3 remaining witnesses were used to back up his 'story.'

Schapelle denied owning the drugs, as you would expect anyone to do, innocent or guilty (as stated in your post above), and yet, she was convicted on the strength of the testimony of these four men, who all stated that she ADMITTED OWNING the drugs!

Would Schapelle admit owning the drugs to these men who, at the time, were the most critical people in her life, upon whose testimony her life or death would be determined, yet deny owning the drugs to the rest of the World?? Not unless she was hell bent on committing suicide in a very bizarre way!!

It is obvious that the testimony of these men was contrived to bring about the desired result, namely, a conviction. They would have been briefed by a senior Police Officer in exactly what they were going to say, and they would have obeyed.

So, essentially, when Schapelle denied owning the drugs, they did not attempt to prove she was lying. They merely concocted an alternate story that she had admitted owning the drugs, and dismissed her sworn statement.

They did not attempt to support their story with CCTV footage and they denied Schapelle the opportunity to support her story with CCTV footage.

Add to this scenario a panel of Judges who had never acquitted a defendant, ever, and you can see that Schapelle never stood a chance.

All the things I mentioned earlier (which Schapelle begged for), fingerprinting, baggage weight comparison, forensic testing, and an investigation to determine if Schapelle had any links to a drug dealing network, could have favoured either the Prosecution or the Defense. Why were these things not done? - Too risky! Might have proven innocence! Stick with something safe. Make up a story, dismiss Schapelle's story, dismiss the testimony of all her witnesses, thrown in a panel of Judges who always convict, job's done!!

If what I have said in this post does not convince you that Schapelle did not receive a fair trial, and was not given the opportunity to adequately defend herself, then I guess nothing will.

Can you people not see that there are so many things about this case that do not add up?? She is Innocent, yet you all appear to be totally blinded to this fact!

 

[moXJO]

Unfortunately, it is the people who choose to believe that Schapelle Corby is guilty who conveniently overlook most things. They hang on doggedly to the one fact they have, that she was caught red handed with drugs in her boogie-board bag. They back it up with the flimsy assertion that everyone caught with drugs in their bag will deny that the drugs belong to them, and claim that someone else put them in there.

Yes, logically, everyone will make this claim, and it is then up to the Prosecution to establish whether the defendant is lying, or not. Even Indonesian Law will not accept possession alone as a grounds for conviction, and requires at least one further piece of incriminating evidence.

Schapelle was not a drug user, her blood and urine tests proved it, so they couldn't use this.

Despite two attempts to trick Schapelle into signing a confession, they were unsuccessful, so they couldn't use this.

They never tested the plastic bags for fingerprints, choosing instead to contaminate them with their own fingerprints (Customs Officers, Police Officers, Judges, Prosecutors), so they couldn't use this.

They never weighed her baggage to determine whether there had been a change in its weight on the checked-in weight (to establish whether the drugs had been inserted after check-in, or not), so they couldn't use this.

They never allowed forensic testing of the drugs to determine their quality or place of origin. During these tests any hair or skin fragments found in the drugs could have been checked for DNA and compared with Schapelle's DNA to determine guilt (or innocence). However, as the tests were not conducted, they couldn't use this.

No investigation was undertaken in either Australia or Bali to establish whether Schapelle had connections with a drug dealing network, so they couldn't use this.

With nothing left to provide secondary evidence, they chose to rely on the testimony of their 4 witnesses, two Customs Officers and two Police Officers.
Their principle witness was Gusti Winata, the Customs Officer at the counter, and their 3 remaining witnesses were used to back up his 'story.'

Schapelle denied owning the drugs, as you would expect anyone to do, innocent or guilty (as stated in your post above), and yet, she was convicted on the strength of the testimony of these four men, who all stated that she ADMITTED OWNING the drugs!

Would Schapelle admit owning the drugs to these men who, at the time, were the most critical people in her life, upon whose testimony her life or death would be determined, yet deny owning the drugs to the rest of the World?? Not unless she was hell bent on committing suicide in a very bizarre way!!

It is obvious that the testimony of these men was contrived to bring about the desired result, namely, a conviction. They would have been briefed by a senior Police Officer in exactly what they were going to say, and they would have obeyed.

So, essentially, when Schapelle denied owning the drugs, they did not attempt to prove she was lying. They merely concocted an alternate story that she had admitted owning the drugs, and dismissed her sworn statement.

They did not attempt to support their story with CCTV footage and they denied Schapelle the opportunity to support her story with CCTV footage.

Add to this scenario a panel of Judges who had never acquitted a defendant, ever, and you can see that Schapelle never stood a chance.

All the things I mentioned earlier (which Schapelle begged for), fingerprinting, baggage weight comparison, forensic testing, and an investigation to determine if Schapelle had any links to a drug dealing network, could have favoured either the Prosecution or the Defense. Why were these things not done? - Too risky! Might have proven innocence! Stick with something safe. Make up a story, dismiss Schapelle's story, dismiss the testimony of all her witnesses, thrown in a panel of Judges who always convict, job's done!!

If what I have said in this post does not convince you that Schapelle did not receive a fair trial, and was not given the opportunity to adequately defend herself, then I guess nothing will.

Can you people not see that there are so many things about this case that do not add up?? She is Innocent, yet you all appear to be totally blinded to this fact!

Tell you what get all the Corby supporters to pay for a legit professional polygraph test from a respected authority. And if she passes I am sure you will have all of Australia backing her with renewed interest.
I'm not interested in all your facts about bag testing and the like, after so many conflicting stories from others. I don't have the reasoning of the prosecutions actions
I also don't care about excuses that other prisoners don't have to be subjected to polygraph test to prove innocence. You want her supported, then try something new that will change people’s perceptions of her guilt. Then renew a media blitz without offending the Indonesians and backing them into the wall once again.

No wait, bring in more shrinks to say she is losing her mind because that sure as $hit helped

This $hit will go on another 10 years in forums before anything is done.

 

[Julia]

I just cant understand why we just zone in on this one person when there are so many others around the world in the same situation.

This is what gets me too. What is it about Schapelle Corby that makes her so much more worrying about than any of the others?

 

[gordon2007]

No, Nulla Nulla, after 3 years of studying this case, I am not conveniently overlooking anything....

Just a few quick questions honourable one.

Have you joined this board solely for the purpose of contributing to this thread? I ask because I notice you have not posted anything related to shares or in any other threads.

You have stated that you've known the family for 25yrs, but only have been studying this case for 3 yrs?

They would have been briefed by a senior Police Officer in exactly what they were going to say, and they would have obeyed.

This is only an assumption on your part. You cannot possibly know if this is fact.

 

[nulla nulla]

This is what gets me too. What is it about Schapelle Corby that makes her so much more worrying about than any of the others?

Maybe all her supporters have fallen in love with her and want to win the fair maidens hand by freeing her from her tower imprisonment. All they need now is a white charger to ride up on and call out "Schapelle, Schapelle, let down your golden hair".