She's gooooorne...

[millersnose]

well collum i enjoy discussion and others points of view

please post the flawed prosecution testimony

 

[strong_latte]

how dare those nasty slanty eyes find "our" schapelle guilty of a crime in their jurisdiction

aussies should be exempt from foreign laws

I hate to say it, but I totally agree with you mils...
If you go to these places you have to take every possible precaution or you'll get used as a mule... or if your stupid enough to try and take dope over yourself, then you deserve to go to gaol.
Still though, I would have thought trying to sell Marijuana over there would be like trying to sell sand to the Arabs... even if it was hydro.

 

[PJ]

Well I would hope that the investigative and judicial processes wouldn't be so icompetent in Eurpore or Britian. If simple forensic evidence was tampered with in a court case in those countries I am sure there would be a carry on. However, miscarriages of justice are not unheard of in British justice system. For example those wrongly jailed for IRA bombings.

Name one system where there aren't miscarriages of justice.

And prove there has been one here.

Again go and pick up a 4kg bag of oranges and tell me if you honestly think you would notice the weight.

 

[Willow]

sorry i didnt say what you wanted to hear Mr PC.

Mr PC? :lol: Surely you're not that thick.
You're hoping to see millions of innocent people die for no reason. That's not even remotely rational.

JoeD, I hope you're right about the age thing.

 

[Willow]

It wouldn't surprise me if the same judges heard the appeal.

Have you researched this? Or are you just guessing?

And if someone confessed to planting the drugs, I bet the Indonesian judges would ignore it and not release Schapelle.

Again, another piece of guesswork. Nothing to back it up.
Mind you, compared to some other Corby supporters, you almost sound half reasonable.

 

[Willow]

Bloke probably doesn't know where melbourne is.

Didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the interview corby's mother gave on a current affair. Was like something out of a bad stage show.

With friends like that, who needs enemies.

It was certainly bizarre. Hard to tell what she was on.

The family abused the judges and later the mum said they won't get a night's sleep and, "that'll make them tired!!"
Well... yeah....
And that thing El picked up on. What was that about sending in George Jnr to sort out Howard? Talk about poor theatrics.

Also, it was impossible to follow what the sister was saying outside the court, she was so hysterical. If they wanted to help her, making threats and sceaming isnt going to work. Even Schapelle told them to be quieten down. Then there's Crazy/Mad Ron in her corner as well.
What a circus.

 

[shadow grinder]

Have you researched this? Or are you just guessing?
Again, another piece of guesswork. Nothing to back it up.
Mind you, compared to some other Corby supporters, you almost sound half reasonable.

i actually heard that a new set of judges would hear the appeal...because it is off to the higher court...

 

[Willow]

Cheers Illuminati. I would expect that to be the case.

 

[Alex28]

Gee this thread's opening my eyes somewhat. Some of the most ill-informed rubbish I think I've ever read on this forum in here - and that's saying something!

Agree with your first paragraph. Everyone seems to be talking out of their arses with their own judgements without looking at all the facts. You'd all make good Indonesian judges!

Schapelle Corby is captured at Australian customs with a boogie board bag which contains 4.1kg of marijuana. It is her bag.

What's going to happen in the trial?

She's going to have to prove that she didn't put it there, otherwise she's guilty. Simple!

Did Schapelle Corby's defense identify the person who did put the drugs there beyond reasonable doubt? No. Given that it's her bag, and she has it, the obvious presumption is that she put it there. Common sense, not a corrupt legal system.

Let it go!

Did the proscecution prove that she did put it in there? Was the bag of dope fingerprinted? No.

If she is innocent, she's been let down by alot more than just the Indonesian "justice" system:

* The Australian Government let her down enormously for not looking into the claims quicker and more thoroughly back in Australia. The letter of support was sent way too late to have any affect;

* Qantas have chosen to save their reputation and protect the ones who run this drug transport scheme (bar a few sacrificial lambs to make them look as though they have taken a firm hand);

* The judges in this debacle - couldn't understand the english evidence, refused to do basic sh*t like fingerprint evidence, gave their own opinions of the case to international television in the middle of the case, admitted evidence that seemed to suit them and ignored evidence at their own whim. You would never ever see that happen in a western world court scenario.

I acknowledge that her case was weak and based on hear/say, but there is so many gaps in both sides that i find it hard to believe they could find her "absolutely and convincingly guilty".

 

[millersnose]

Did the proscecution prove that she did put it in there?

they dont have to

even in australia you have to prove someone else put it there

Was the bag of dope fingerprinted? No.

its hard to imagine what difference that would make anyway

* The Australian Government let her down enormously for not looking into the claims quicker and more thoroughly back in Australia. The letter of support was sent way too late to have any affect;

what are you saying they should have done?

interfere with another countries justice system?

* Qantas have chosen to save their reputation and protect the ones who run this drug transport scheme (bar a few sacrificial lambs to make them look as though they have taken a firm hand);

qantas have done nothing illegal

* The judges in this debacle - couldn't understand the english evidence, refused to do basic sh*t like fingerprint evidence,

judges are not hired to do police investigations or the defences work

admitted evidence that seemed to suit them and ignored evidence at their own whim. You would never ever see that happen in a western world court scenario.

nonsense

thats precisely what a judge is supposed to do be it here or in indonesia

I acknowledge that her case was weak and based on hear/say, but there is so many gaps in both sides that i find it hard to believe they could find her "absolutely and convincingly guilty".

i dont see that they had a choice

they, as are the australian judiciary, are bound by law

if she is caught in possesion it is up to her defence to prove that posession was without her knowledge

she would have been found guilty here as well

 

[Alex28]

millersnose - you are clearly not a legal mastermind. in Australia (and most other legal systems) you certainly have to prove guilt over innocence. the proscecution has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

what difference fingerprinting would make? if you found someone elses fingerprints on it and not hers - that is commonly known as a clue. the Indonesians didn't seem to want to look for them, you dont seem to have one.

i can assure you judges in Australia have to accept evidence even if it doesn't suit the judgement path that they look like they are following. thats what a balanced trial is all about.

the Australian Government could have done alot more than a rushed letter a week or so before the trial finishes, or offering legal assistance after she has gone through this ordeal (and will have to all over again). kinda all too late.

Qantas have not done anything illegal? Maybe not, but their staff certainly are. Their staff are assisting in the trafficing of drugs and they are doing absolutely nothing about stamping it out.

 

[millersnose]

millersnose - you are clearly not a legal mastermind.

well enlighten me oh master

in Australia (and most other legal systems) you certainly have to prove guilt over innocence. the proscecution has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

they did

let me post the relevant legislation for your education

s.233B Special provisions with respect to narcotic goods
(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person:
(i) possesses goods on board a ship or aircraft; or
(ii) brings goods into Australia; or

furthermore

(2) It shall not be lawful for any person to convey or have in his
possession without reasonable excuse (proof whereof shall lie upon
him) any smuggled goods or prohibited imports.


[/QUOTE]what difference fingerprinting would make? if you found someone elses fingerprints on it and not hers - that is commonly known as a clue.[/QUOTE]

no that is commonly known as inconclusive evidence

the Indonesians didn't seem to want to look for them, you dont seem to have one.

as far as they are concerned it was a routine drug bust and i am not aware of any procedure they unlawfully did not carry out

do you?

i can assure you judges in Australia have to accept evidence even if it doesn't suit the judgement path that they look like they are following. thats what a balanced trial is all about.

rubbish

they can decide to ignore evidence for dozens of reasons

how do you think they decide the differences in testimony?

the Australian Government could have done alot more than a rushed letter a week or so before the trial finishes

so you said before

and i ask again

what are you saying they should have done?

interfere with another countries justice system?

Qantas have not done anything illegal? Maybe not, but their staff certainly are. Their staff are assisting in the trafficing of drugs and they are doing absolutely nothing about stamping it out.

are you saying qantas is doing something illegal or not

 

[Alex28]

Federal Government - should have investigated claims once they were raised rather than hoping it would all go away. Mick Kealty shouldn't have been expressing his opinion on the case - should have been censored or disciplined but neither occured as his comments could have influenced the judgement in the case. No initial legal assistance offered.

I'm certainly not saying the government should have gone into Indonesia and interfered with their legal system, but they should have assisted Corby's legal team with trying to find evidence of their claims back in Australia - that would have assisted their case and maybe made her case stronger.

Is that not too much to ask?

Qantas - should have launched a full investigations into claims that their staff are involved in drug smuggling and luggage tampering once through customs and domestic luggage inspection - neither has happened. Police should have been brought in to investigate claims - still hasn't occurred.

(Qantas maybe hasn't done anything wrong, but if management has known about this and hasn't stopped it then they are implicated)

Fingerprinting - I thought this was pretty straight forward, but apparently not for you. I ran this past a mate of mine who is a solicitor - if others fingerprints were found and not hers, then they should have looked for the actual person/s who own the fingerprints and looked for a link to Corby to prove her guilt. That doesn't seem that hard does it? Maybe even the federal government/police/qantas could have co-operated with that?

Nice quoting of Australian laws - but as mentioned a number of times they are dramatically different to Indonesian law and she is not being tried under the laws quoted - so whats your point? Again, in Australian law there is the onus on the proscecution to prove guilt beyong reasonable doubt. In an Australian court there is more than enough doubt to prevent her being judged guilty.

Obviously Indonesia is very different. Corby's defence had massive weaknesses - lack of ability to communicate thoroughly to judges, lack of actual evidence. Clearly they needed more time and more co-operation from both the Indonesian and Australian authorities to build a stronger case (I would have thought 7 months is more than enough for both things to occur - maybe not). Hopefully this time they will have what they need to get the right decision to occur.

 

[NPK]

How exactly did she not get a fair trial NPK? I'm not trying to pick a fight, it's just that when you press for detail on these sorts of claims by Corby supporters, they usually can't provide you with much.

Well, the evidence was not processed properly. Lack of fingerprinting..that could very well have helped her case. eg. if they found a baggage handler's fingerprints on the bag of dope.
She didn't have a motive.
The judges were always going to give a guilty verdict. More than 500 guilty verdicts in a row for those judges now.

 

[PJ]

Fingerprinting - I thought this was pretty straight forward, but apparently not for you. I ran this past a mate of mine who is a solicitor - if others fingerprints were found and not hers, then they should have looked for the actual person/s who own the fingerprints and looked for a link to Corby to prove her guilt. That doesn't seem that hard does it? Maybe even the federal government/police/qantas could have co-operated with that?

If a baggage handler was planting the drugs do you seriously think that they wouldn't have taken a simple precaution of wearing gloves so as not leave evidence?

Similarly wouldn't Schappelle have done the same if she had put them there.

 

[millersnose]

Federal Government - should have investigated claims once they were raised rather than hoping it would all go away. Mick Kealty shouldn't have been expressing his opinion on the case - should have been censored or disciplined but neither occured as his comments could have influenced the judgement in the case.

pparently the govt did investigte claims and keelty was merely nswering questions

No initial legal assistance offered.

rubbish

this is the first thing the consulate does

I'm certainly not saying the government should have gone into Indonesia and interfered with their legal system, but they should have assisted Corby's legal team with trying to find evidence of their claims back in Australia - that would have assisted their case and maybe made her case stronger.

what evidence?

Is that not too much to ask?

i dont know

it is unclear what you wanted them to do

Qantas - should have launched a full investigations into claims that their staff are involved in drug smuggling and luggage tampering once through customs and domestic luggage inspection - neither has happened. Police should have been brought in to investigate claims - still hasn't occurred.

absolute poppycock

arrests have been made and people fired and the police do not claim obstruction from qantas

Fingerprinting - I thought this was pretty straight forward, but apparently not for you. I ran this past a mate of mine who is a solicitor - if others fingerprints were found and not hers, then they should have looked for the actual person/s who own the fingerprints and looked for a link to Corby to prove her guilt. That doesn't seem that hard does it? Maybe even the federal government/police/qantas could have co-operated with that?

you could find ivan milats fingerprints on the bag and it wouldnt have made any difference

Nice quoting of Australian laws - but as mentioned a number of times they are dramatically different to Indonesian law and she is not being tried under the laws quoted - so whats your point?

you were the one saying it wouldnt happen here

just demonstrating the same law principles apply

Again, in Australian law there is the onus on the proscecution to prove guilt beyong reasonable doubt. In an Australian court there is more than enough doubt to prevent her being judged guilty.

rubbish


let me quote the law once again

s.233B Special provisions with respect to narcotic goods
(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person:
(i) possesses goods on board a ship or aircraft; or
(ii) brings goods into Australia; or

furthermore

(2) It shall not be lawful for any person to convey or have in his
possession without reasonable excuse (proof whereof shall lie upon
him) any smuggled goods or prohibited imports.

Obviously Indonesia is very different.

the same principles apply in respect to her possesion of the drugs

Corby's defence had massive weaknesses - lack of ability to communicate thoroughly to judges,

she had indonesian lawyers

lack of actual evidence.

you got something right

Clearly they needed more time and more co-operation from both the Indonesian and Australian authorities to build a stronger case

what non cooperation occurred?

(I would have thought 7 months is more than enough for both things to occur - maybe not). Hopefully this time they will have what they need to get the right decision to occur.

what is the "right decision"

 

[NPK]

So Millers, how could Schapelle's defense team possibly prove her innocence? It is so easy to frame someone and put drugs in someone's bag, and if they can't prove they didn't put it there they get 20 years jail. Ridiculous.
It's like a perfect crime (except for the real druggie losing his/her stash), with the victim paying dearly for it.

I haven't heard of anything from the trial that proves Schapelle did it, have you?

 

[PJ]

Well she was found with them in her possession wasn't she.

And their law, and ours, in those circumstances requires her to prove that she was not responsible for them being there.

Not real difficult to understand the concept is it? You disagree with it but if that wasn't the case and the prosecutors had to prove that you had put it there it would be near impossible to get a conviction wouldn't it. Just rock on up with whatever in your unsecured luggage and if caught say I didn't put it there, you prove I did. Would be very difficult wouldn't it.

So did she prove she wasn't responsible, the judges didn't think so.

 

[Alex28]

Millers - you are being very selective in what you are quoting - such as laws that dont relate to the case for instance.

I'll ask you - if you were in her shoes, how would you be feeling about spending 20 years in jail for something you didn't do? Would you be feeling so cavalier about the situation? It's easy to be so opinionated from behind a computer screen, but what we are talking here is real life - someones life that could very well be locked up for 20 years for something she didn't do.

My guess you'd be sh*tting bricks...

Why don't you show me evidence that she did do it?

 

[NPK]

Exactly, their laws make it easy for someone to get set up. Someone could put something in a poor victim's bag, and they can't explain how it got there.

The judges made a huge unfounded assumption that just because the drugs were in her bag, they were hers and she put them in there.