Corrupt Australian Government Sells Innocent Schapelle Corby For Political Expediency

OK. Simple question Has anyone in this thread actually ever had anything to do with the legal system either in this country or Indonesia? Forget about quoting nutjob blog sites or inventing fantastic stories, just answer that one question.

 

The Balinese are Hindu, not Muslim. Lol. Massive fail.

 

Ive just shown that your "facts" are fabricated. Not sure what youre crowing about.

 

Her sentence is indeed racist, sexist, and religionist.

Hindus are not White...and by description not 'Christian'.

The Supreme Court is 'Muslim'.

 

So does she, in your opinion, deserve to be punished more harshly than a terrorist?

I gave you a idea of what may have happened to her. Put yourself in her shoes, and answer my question.

You shows nothing to prove that. Islam is the dominant religion in Indonesia, I believe. The Bali terrorists were Muslims.

 

In my opinion she should have been shot or hung, just as all convicted drug smugglers should be.

I believe i already have, but i will do it again. The theory you put forward is pure fantasy and therefore is not really worth exploring further.

 

So you have no argument afterall efjay, you just simply have a position you cannot even be bothered supporting.

 

So, your basing your whole defence of Corby on the fact she was convicted by a non white court. The reality is that special concessions were made for Corby simply because she was a Westerner and special concessions are still being made for her while she is in prison, this is the main reason why many Indonesian people are upset about the case, she was treated far more leniently than any Indonesian would have been in the same circumstances. Many Indonesion people have been executed for possession of a far less amount of drugs than she had in her possession.

Incorrect. Again. Lol. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but your ignorance besides being appalling is quite amusing, so Ill play with you a while longer.

 

Im sorry, you appear to have a comprehension problem . There is no reason for Efjay to respond to bizarre theories which have already been completely discredited.

 

Drug smugglers are not the problem. Addicts are.

Why? It is possible the exact same thing happened to Schapelle and you won't even consider it!

 

I have put forward my argument mate, its pure and simple. She was CONVICTED in a court of law. She is a drug smuggler and as such does not deserve to live.
The theory that someone else put the drugs in her bag is pure fantasy, something that was made up to try get her out of the mess she got herself into. There has not been ANY CREDIBLE proof of it and there never will be and therefore its NOT WORTH wasting time discussing it.

 

If the bag was fingerprinted it would have gone a long way into proving her guilt - or her innocence.

 

The whole chain is as bad as one another, producer, smuggler, seller and the end user.

It has been considered, and anyone that truly believes in such rubbish probably believes in fairies too.

 

Addicts are the worst. Get rid of the addicts, and there is no need to smuggle. The drug smugglers are simply earning a living.

You did not consider it at all.

 

As i have said before, what you or I think or the case is irrelevant. She was proven guilty in a court of law, sentence handed down ( a soft one IMO ) and now she must face that.

 

So using the example I gave you earlier, you would accept being convicted of something you didn't do? Remember, what I think about your innocence is irrelevant!

 

same can be said the other way round, no smugglers no users. Best way to not have users is a total 0 tolerance to all matters concerning drugs.

Mak you are in no position to tell me what i have or have not considered...

 

as i have said Mak, the theory that "someone" put the drugs in her bag is pure fantasy and not worth the time discussing.

 

How do you know it is fantasy? They never tested the bag for fingerprints so how do we know if she even touched the bag?

 

her bag, she packed it, she put in into check in, she collected it ...she did it all. To say that "someone" else did it you must be able to prove it...and she never came close. She could've packed it with gloves on...there would be no fingerprints then either..

 

You don't know if she packed her bag with the marijuana because you don't know if her fingerprints are on the bag.

 

No fingerprints on the bag would NOT PROVE a thing Mak, as i have said she could have packed it with gloves on

 

Dont you have it backwards? The fact that its a possibility means it should be proven that it couldnt or didnt occur... you know the whole innocent until proven guilty. Thats why Mak is asking you to consider the situation first hand, because it was never proven not to have happened or to have been impossible to happen - therefore its still a possibility = resonable doubt.

 

More like = clutching at straws...
the court made its finding and she was convicted...simple. She must now face the truth of what SHE HERSELF did. She has no one but herself to blame for those drugs being in her bag bud.

 

no, it would not and thats exactly why the Indonesion authorities didnt bother to test the bag for fingerprints. Lack of Corbys fingerprints would have proved nothing and they didnt need to prove she handled the marijuana because they found it in her possession. Indonesion courts as Australian courts dont need to disprove public opinion, thats not the way the justice system works.