Corrupt Australian Government Sells Innocent Schapelle Corby For Political Expediency

She failed the first test, and was also sued over her 'claims' as was Today Tonight.

And just because someone smokes pot doesn't make them a smuggler.

 

she failed the first test due to them asking questions about her own drug use that she didnt want to answer...

 

LOL! So she refuses to answer questions about her own drug use, but is happy to spill all about someone else's alleged drug use! What a hypocrital cow!

 

SHE wasnt the one CAUGHT smuggling though was she...

 

We only have Channel 7 Today Tonight's word that Jodie Powers passed 2 lie detector tests. The media have lied before in relation to the Schapelle Corby case, they no doubt lied on this occasion.

Furthermore, Jodie Powers and Today Tonight were subsequently sued for defamation in relation to Powers' claims, by Mercedes Corby, and Mercedes won the case convincingly.

Interestingly, despite the claims by Powers, on national television, about the Corby family, the Corby family home was never raided by police looking for drugs, or evidence of marijuana cultivation. No Corby family member in Australia has ever been questioned by the police in relation to the drugs found in Schapelle's bag. It appears that the police have no interest in the source of the marijuana whatsoever. When asked why the AFP had not investigated the Corby's for a crime committed here, Commissioner Mick Keelty replied, "It is not the job of the Australian Federal Police to clear people". When he made this statement, was he admitting that he knew Schapelle Corby was innocent?

 

If you get caught with that CD in your back, does that mean you were CAUGHT stealing it, even if you didn't put it in your bag?

 

No she didn't. There's no evidence for her either having opened the bag willingly or her resisting, since there was no CCTV footage. However, more than one Indonesian officer attests to her resisting. And, as far as I'm concerned, they have no reason to lie.

 

I don't believe the word of the Indonesian officer, especially as he made the claim she was resisting only AFTER they'd discovered the drugs. He wasn't going to tell the truth and let her go, was he?

 

First off, Winata alleged that she resisted him opening it, that's not after the drugs were discovered, that's before. Why would he lie about that? If it's a routine search on someone who did not realise that they had drugs, she would have been detained, questioned and then released (or possibly charged on a minor offence). There's no reason to escalate this on an innocent victim.

 

Yes, more than one Indonesian officer did attest to her resisting, that is correct. Two anti-drug squad officers at the airport did testify that Schapelle tried to push Winata's hand away. They also testified, along with Winata, that she admitted owning the marijuana.

These two men were 30 metres away from the Customs Counter where Winata was stationed, in a busy airport. They could not have been certain that Schapelle pushed Winata's hand away unless they were looking straight at her at the time. Furthermore, they could not speak English (an established fact), so would not have known what Schapelle did or did not say.

Would they lie? They would if they were told to. Under Indonesian law, two pieces of evidence are required for a conviction. The first and primary piece of evidence was the marijuana. However, the prosecution did not have a second piece.

They had no weight comparison of Schapelle's luggage, to prove that the marijuana was in her bag at check-in, because no weight comparison was undertaken by the police. They did not have Schapelle's fingerprints on the plastic bags, because fingerprinting was never done. They had no proof that the drugs actually came from Australia, because no forensic tests were conducted to establish the country of origin. Schapelle was not a drug user, as blood and urine tests confirmed. They had no confession, despite trying twice to trick Schapelle into signing one. They had NOTHING.

The only thing left to them (the prosecution), was to manufacture secondary evidence by getting their witnesses to lie about Schapelle's demeanour, her actions and her words, at the time when the marijuana was discovered.

Of course, had their witnesses been telling the truth, the CCTV footage from the camera above the Customs Counter would have corroborated their version of events and given credibility to their testimony. Indeed, you would have expected the prosecution to ask for this footage to be introduced into court as evidence, since the onus was on them to PROVE guilt. But no! How odd??

The only ones who asked for this footage were Schapelle and her lawyers. If she was lying, and the Indonesian officers were telling the truth, this footage would have proved it. It therefore beggars believe that she would ask for it, unless SHE was the one telling the truth, and they were lying.

The judge initially agreed to look into the request, but in the end it was denied. I firmly believe that had this footage been introduced, it would have shot the Indonesian officers' testimony down in flames. The prosecution would then have had NO secondary evidence and NO conviction.

 

Look mate, this thread is a war of attrition. Its not about facts or logic or anything remotely resembling proof. Its about wearing the other posters out by repeating the same totally discredited theories over and over again.

 

So true, I stopped following this a few days back, saw it today thought I would have a look. Same old same old nothing has changed. I'll come back in a week or so and see if anyone has anything new and constructive to say.

Oh and I still do not believe it has been proven that she is guilty. I personally have no idea whether she is or not, I personally have no thoughts either way.

I just know this, I would not allow any of my family to go there. Period ... end of story.

 

I would like to see this back on track ... Proof

The real question is this ....

Is the FACT that the drugs were found in Schapelle's luggage, combined with the testimony of non-English speaking foreign officials enough to PROVE ....

1) That a whole series of events took place before the event. Purchases, packaging, hiding etc, all committed and planned but no evidence of anything.

2) That she had planned a series of events afterwards, of selling drugs, in a foreign country, where the laws are very strict, and the same drug is easily available at a price lower than what the cost price is in Australia. Based on the FACT that her sister lived there.

Doesn't seem like much proof to me....

 

Hypothetical and irrellevant to the charges against her.

 

To those who harbour the mistaken notion that Schapelle received a fair trial, I invite you to watch this three part interview with Robert McJannett, exclusive to 'The Expendable Project': http://www.expendable.tv/2011/10/robert-mcjannet-interview.html

 

There is no dispute amongst legal experts that Corby received a fair trial. Case closed.

 

I never said anything about what Corby SAID, only what she DID. So, thank you for admitting that there was MORE THAN ONE witness to admitting to Corby pushing Winata's hand away.

Ok, but to what end??? This is what you CAN'T come up with. What's the point in putting away an innocent victim? IF it wasn't hers and she was just as astounded at it being there, she never would have pushed Winata's hand away and I'm certain that the Indonesian Drug Authority would have told her to be more careful next time. There's no point in blowing this way out of proportion, none whatsoever. They have no reason to lie if Corby was setup, because it happens.

 

Stand by for conspiracy theories. i.e. the Indos hate Australians and concocted an elaborate scheme to frame a random australian by first clandestinely purchasing 4 kilos of top grade hydro in australia, taking it to indonesia and planting it in Corbys luggage on arrival at Denpasar airport. Dont laugh, its already been suggested.

 

A fair trial according to the Indonesian system. NOT according to ours.

 

Next lot of leaks will be released on Monday afternoon - have you got your email informing you yet?
I'm going to print out the transit report and send it to my local MP.

 

So? She got a fair trial which you now admit.

 

Huh? I'm sorry but thats not an answer to the argument presented against you.

I think the point was Corby contests that the pushing ever happened and that the CCTV would have proved that.... hence Corby's request and the Indonesian denial to look at it. Wasnt it?

I can't believe you'd be happy for your relatives to get Corby's treatment just becuase you cant think of a reason why the Indonesians might not want to lie about mistakes they might have made in handling it, LOL yea right.

 

The Indo's gave the Bali bombers a fairer trial than Schapelle.

 

Uuuuhhhh, I wasn't responding to you, that was a response to Simbainoz.

There was no CCTV footage available. It's not that the court didn't accept it, it's that it did not exist in the first place.

If my family got caught doing something wrong then they got what was coming to them. If they're stupid enough to resist an officer of the law, then they have to accept the consequences of that.

 

Thats a facile statement, either there is a fair trial or there isnt. There are no degrees in between.