Corrupt Australian Government Sells Innocent Schapelle Corby For Political Expediency

Well, I never said you couldn't complain, I just said that you can't stop them from searching your bags.

Also, there is NO CCTV footage, and the fact that she resisted is NOT hearsay, there was more than one witness testifying that she pushed Winata's hand away.

Also, I don't have a prejudice against drugs, so it's not clouding my judgement. If I did have a prejudice, half of my group of friends wouldn't be my friends.

 

The prejudice remark was not aimed at you, but others like this

As stated earlier, the other 2 witnesses were some distance away, monitoring the whole process. It would be fairly natural for them to confirm their work mates statement though.

If this is the proof, wow, your easily convinced.

 

Why would it be fairly natural for them to confirm their workmate's statements? It's not like anyone of them got anything out of this.

 

Well what do you expect, she was caught committing the crime in Indonesia not Australia. Would you expect an Indonesian who commits a crime in Austraia to face trial in Indonesia?

 

Because people stick together, it's quiet natural. One would expect the same in return sometime. Hey this was a big bust for them, a historic occasion.

Look I am only asking you all to look at it this way. If it was you, or your daughter, wouldn't you want more PROOF. I would, a lot more.

 

Did they know that when the testified?

I would know myself or my daughter, or my friends. If I know what they're like, well, that would determine my response to whether or not they deserved it.

 

Right. Say now you said "You know your daughter", so lets say she was caught, wouldn't you doubt the word of the three Indonesian officials as good enough for you daughter to spend life in gaol or worse? Wouldn't the "Interstate Transport" theory, which is widely recognised, sound reasonable?

I mean that is easy to believe, and that it was missed in Sydney and shipped on. A lot easier to believe then the 3 testimonies. And hey, that's where the crime was, why don't you want to solve the crime?

 

I would, but again, that also depends upon the character of my daughter. If she was a habitual drug user, then I don't think there's an argument. If she's a saint, well, my daughter wouldn't put herself in a position to make herself look guilty. Whilst Corby is neither of those, there is enough doubts cast upon her character to not put it past her.

 

Wouldn't put it past her, doubts, looked like, probably, appears, all these words and you all say it's proven. wow

 

Well, it was proven. In a court of law, no less. So, unless you have problems with the law and the way court systems work, then stop scrutinising that which has already been scrutinised.

 

and how many people have been let out of gaol, even here in Australia, we got it wrong lots of times. Often with much more evidence than was presented here and when DNA came into being the wrongly imprisoned have been released, sometimes decades later, and the real murderer found.

Just because a court finds you guilty does not mean you are guilty if that's all you have to go on.

But if your happy with the verdict, why follow this thread?

 

And just because that does happen, doesn't mean it will happen to Corby. You can't doubt the incarceration of every convicted criminal who pleaded innocent.

Because then it would just be a bunch of people all arguing the same view point of how Corby was 'wrongly incarcerated'. Then of course, a lot of the lies would continue unabated, such as the one where they say that there was CCTV footage and the court didn't allow it as evidence (which is false, because there was no CCTV footage).

 

No, it wouldnt. If you examine the theory it sounds incredible, not credible.

So you are saying that an unproven theory holds more credence than the testimony of 3 eyewitnesses?

 

The law gets it right 99.999 percent of the time. There is nothing so special about the Corby case that she deserves all this support, there are countless other convicted drug smugglers in Asian jails, most of whom probably proclaimed their innocence loudly. Corby fits right in.

 

Where, not here I hope, God I would be searched daily, hourly.

 

Where, not here I hope, God I would be searched daily, hourly.

 

I am well aware of the "Planted in Bali" theory, and to those who push it, they have a strong argument. I don't personally subscribe to it because there is a far stronger case for the bungled interstate delivery scenario.

However, those pushing the "Planted in Bali" theory have never said it was top grade Australian hydro that was inserted. They say it was Indonesian marijuana.

Regardless, no one can say with certainty what type of marijuana it was, or where it came from, because it was never tested for its THC content or country of origin. No police force, in either Australia or Indonesia, has ever conducted an investigation to find out where the marijuana came from.

 

Just because Robert McJannett was convicted under Bali's supposedly "totally fair and uncorrupted judicial system", doesn't mean that his assessment of the graft and corruption that he encountered has no validity.

 

The only difficulty with fingerprinting is that Customs Officers and Police Officers handled the outer bag without gloves on, thus contaminating that bag. The inner bag was untouched, and Schapelle and her lawyers asked for fingerprinting well before the inner bag was likewise contaminated, in court, when one of the Judges, the Prosecutor and the Customs Officer touched it without gloves on. So really, there was no difficulty in getting fingerprints, it's just that the Indonesians chose to contaminate the evidence, rather than doing what was asked of them, namely, to check for fingerprints before both bags had been contaminated.

Regarding the camera footage, we only have Sugiarto's word that there was no footage. Furthermore, when he said this, did he mean there was no footage, or did he mean that the prosecution had simply failed to obtain it, because they knew it would not support their case?

Additionally, when Schapelle and her lawyers asked for this footage, on numerous occasions, why were they never directly informed that there was no footage, if indeed there was none? Why did the Judge initially agree to look into it? Why did he not later say, "Sorry, there is no footage"?

When the Bali 9 (clearly guilty) were arrested, a significant amount of CCTV footage from Denpasar airport was obtained to support the prosecution’s case. Evidence was handled by Officials, with gloves on, and proper fingerprinting of the evidence was undertaken.

Doesn't anyone on this forum, other than myself, find it rather suspicious that, on the day Schapelle Corby flew, passing through 4 airports (Brisbane Domestic, Sydney Domestic, Sydney International and Denpasar International), NOT ONE FRAME of CCTV footage could be provided to assist with her defence??

 

a. is indisputable.

b. was NOT proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Even if b had been proved, she would only have been guilty of importation, which carries a maximum sentence in Indonesia of 10 years.

The prosecution, however, chose to add a trafficking charge, which they never attempted to prove in any way shape or form, yet the Judge (who had never acquitted a defendant in over 500 previous drug related cases), chose to find Schapelle guilty of this as well, thereby allowing him to impose a longer sentence.

So, in those 500 previous drug related cases, do you think that every one of the defendants was guilty? By the law of averages, the chances of it being so are very slim. I wonder, how many other innocent people has he found guilty?

 

I notice, Ian, that you have chosen to ignore this post. No flippant dismissal of this one. I guess this means that I will not be getting an apology, huh?

 

Now this is an interesting point, I have seen many times about the lack of testing done. On what grounds do we even know that it was in fact marijuana, if it has never been tested then it has never been formally identified except by sight.

Now I am not in any way suggesting that it was NOT marijuana, but I find it hard to believe that a prosecutor would go on such flimsy evidence if he didn't know he had an ace (or 3 of them I think) up his sleeve.

 

It is very odd. You would think that, after 9/11, there would be cameras working in all major airports, but apparently they weren't working the day that Schapelle passed through.

 

It was never proven that she knew the marijuana was in her bag.

I never said that.

 

No, he meant that there was NO CCtV footage. Stop trying to extrapolate from what is as clear as (*)(*)(*)(*)ing day.