borat
Bench
- Messages
- 3,511
Carcharias,
I quoted channel 9 because in between their biased commentary and popluarity based opinion I got to hear the customs officer directly. By watching that story I got to hear it directly, from his mouth, his wonderful grasp of the English Language.
As they also have an exclusive contract with the family and are therefore the only source of Schapelles own versioin of events.
I am not the only one who thinks they are biased.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1374687.htm
Now, on the issue at hand I think this sums it up pretty well.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15354777%5E28737,00.html
For the defence to introduce this in their closing statement is very damning. Do you notice that her so called version of events on the interview with 60 minutes makes no mention of this.
This is a very interesting article and worth looking at. For the record its neither for or against Corby. I'll let you read it for yourself but it sums up that the defnce team tried to question his his english. As Tighthead has pointed out, and I have posted previously, she discusses with this customs officer whose body board bag it is. All in English. You can't have it both ways.
Now as far as a coumunication breakdown, the only point Corby has on this is with the second customs officer who coroborated the story. He claimed, in the article, she had said "Its mine, I own it". To me thats unlikely.
But to me their is no denying the testimoney of the Customs Officer that caught her and absolutely no evidence that he does not understand English.
And all of this aside, Millers point is spot on the money. Both customs officers and 2 police testified that she tried to prevent the first customs officer from opening the bag.
And her response to this
To me this is where her story completely falls apart
IMO there is no way possible, whether it is being dragged or not, not to notice 4.1kg or a bulging sack inside the bag.
I quoted channel 9 because in between their biased commentary and popluarity based opinion I got to hear the customs officer directly. By watching that story I got to hear it directly, from his mouth, his wonderful grasp of the English Language.
As they also have an exclusive contract with the family and are therefore the only source of Schapelles own versioin of events.
I am not the only one who thinks they are biased.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1374687.htm
Now, on the issue at hand I think this sums it up pretty well.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15354777%5E28737,00.html
In their last statement to the court, Corby's lawyers averred she had said, in a startled fashion, "There is something" rather than "I have some" to Winata, the first time this version of events was related. The lawyers said Winata's ability to speak fluent English was in doubt. Corby's brother and her friends supported her testimony.
For the defence to introduce this in their closing statement is very damning. Do you notice that her so called version of events on the interview with 60 minutes makes no mention of this.
This is a very interesting article and worth looking at. For the record its neither for or against Corby. I'll let you read it for yourself but it sums up that the defnce team tried to question his his english. As Tighthead has pointed out, and I have posted previously, she discusses with this customs officer whose body board bag it is. All in English. You can't have it both ways.
Now as far as a coumunication breakdown, the only point Corby has on this is with the second customs officer who coroborated the story. He claimed, in the article, she had said "Its mine, I own it". To me thats unlikely.
But to me their is no denying the testimoney of the Customs Officer that caught her and absolutely no evidence that he does not understand English.
And all of this aside, Millers point is spot on the money. Both customs officers and 2 police testified that she tried to prevent the first customs officer from opening the bag.
And her response to this
Corby flatly denied she had tried to avoid opening the main zip of the bodyboard bag. "Well, firstly he didn't ask me to open the bag, he just asked whose bag it was," she told the court. "I opened the bag and I don't remember saying anything or hitting anyone's hand. I opened the bag and then I closed it."
To me this is where her story completely falls apart
Regarding her failure to notice the bag's extra weight, Corby told the court the bag's handle had somehow been broken en route to Bali, meaning she had to drag it.
Asked if that was why she failed to notice the added 4kg, she replied: "Well, I had my suitcase and another bag and I had never dreamed there was anything else in my boogie board bag than what I had just packed."
IMO there is no way possible, whether it is being dragged or not, not to notice 4.1kg or a bulging sack inside the bag.