For those not in the know, Schapelle is an Aussie who was convicted of drug smuggling five years ago in Bali. She was sentenced to 20 years jail. She is now said to be mentally ill, and is not receiving the proper medical treatment she needs to recover. Early polls showed that 90% of Australians thought she was innocent! Some people still believe she is guilty. Another member, Ian, invited me to explain my reasons as to why I believe she is innocent, so I will do so here. First, you should read about the case, and Wiki is always a wonderful source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schapelle_Corby Now, here is my opinion as to why she is innocent: 1. Schapelle's sister, Merecedes, lived in Bali, and SC would travel to visit her. SC had been to Bali a few times before, so would be well aware of the laws on drugs. This would mean that if she was intending to smuggle drugs, she'd hide them. A boogie board bag is no hiding place. 2. The police and people at the airports can be bribed to look the other way - if given enough money. SC could simply have handed over a sum of money and walked off without a worry. Why didn't she bribe her way out of it - especially since she knew she could? 3. The bag of marijuana was not tested, nor weighed, nor was it examined for fingerprints. If it was tested, they could have determined where it came from - was it marijuana from Australia? If not, how could they accuse her of smuggling? If it were tested for fingerprints, you would expect SC's fingerprints, as she supposedly knew the marijuana was in her bag. There is no evidence she even touched that bag, let alone knew it was there. 4. No one bothered to review the security cameras at Bali airport to back up SC's account of things. How to know if she was telling the truth without watching that tape? 5. The drugs were destroyed after the second appeal - still not tested, nor weighed. 6. The baggage handlers have said that they would have noticed the weight difference in her bags had the drugs been present then. This means the drugs were planted when, or before SC arrived in Bali. How much time would she have had to stuff them in her bags (in secret - try lugging 4.1kgs of pot around with you!) before being caught by customs? Is it possible the baggage handlers knew the drugs were in the bag, but did nothing? 7. The bag of marijuana in her bag was heavier than the boogie board - it was obvious something was in those bags - was she so stupid as to think she could walk right past customs without them noticing? 8. In Indonesia, you are considered guilty, not innocent. The accused must prove their innocence - how could Schapelle prove her innocence? They were asking the impossible. 9. She would have been given a lighter sentence by the court if she admitted her guilt - why didn't she save her own ass and plead guilty, even if it was to a crime she didn't commit? 10. Five years on, she still insists she is innocent. After five years in a hell hole, why would she still hold on to that? And finally, even if she WAS guilty, she doesn't deserve to be in prison for 20 years. No fair trial, a corrupt country, she is mentally ill, and deserves to come home.
I don't know either way, but i feeel sorry for her now. Especially considering the pathetically easy treatment some involved with the Bali bombings have recieved.
Yes, they are easy on terrorism, aren't they? I will never visit Indonesia. Why would I want to support a country who has treated our Aussies so poorly.
Indonesia is a great place. I have travelled through many of the islands and totally love it. When I go though - I always remember to not smuggle illegal drugs. It is a pretty important thing to remember, but not unreasonable I don't think. I feel a bit sorry sometimes that our bogans are filling their prisons.
There is a few flaws in your argument Makk: 1. People know the laws in your country, and still break them. This is no argument to say someone is innocent, because they knew the law. She off course intended to smuggle the drugs. She hid it in a really silly place. Deciding to break the law, and stupidity is no defence. 2. Again, no defence. You can then say all criminals are innocent in Australia's jails, because why did they not just bribe the police, the judge, the correctional officials if they were guilty. That argument makes no sense. Maybe she had not money to bribe with. Maybe not all police are corrupt, maybe she did try, who knows, it is still not a defence. 3. What would it prove if it was not from Australia? Many countries serve as half way stops for drugs, it is how the original owners cover their tracks. They know Aussies go to Indonesia a lot, so it is easy to assume Aussies are let trough easier than people from other countries. So the drugs could be from anywhere, it does not prove anything. 4. Do you know they did not check the security cameras? Maybe her defence did, and realised it does not do any good for their case. 5. All drugs are destroyed after the case is finished, it is the law. But yeah, maybe if they knew there was an appeal, they should've waited, I do not know the details. 6. Would they? They do not know what is in the bag, so why would they notice a weihgt difference? Difference to what? 7. As above. People would put various stuff in a bag, to safe space. And who knows, maybe she is that stupid, there are a lot of stupid criminals. 8. I would like a link to that statement. An official one I mean. 9. Again, no argument. This happens all the time. People's lawyers tell them they have change of being found not guilty, so they go for it (even if they are guilty) because what would you go for? 2 years in jail or no time in jail? Many guilty people still try for a not guilty verdict, most of them as a matter of fact. 10. Again, this is no argument for innocence. Visit a jail. Everyone there is innocent. I have many friends who works as pscycologists and Social Workers in prison, and there is a joke in correctional services all over the world - The justice system must suck, since everyone in prison is innocent. To be frank. I think she is a mule, it happens often to South Africans (and people from all countries) often. They pick some guilbile looking person, offer them money to be mule. and they go for it. The injustice is that these people who pay these mules most often get away with it. So she should not be punished alone. But it seems she is guilty as charged, and should take her punishment. And if the law there states the punishment for such a crime is 20 years, well then, that is the law. AH
Yes, I agree with Africanhope. There is a lot of misconceptions surrounding the Corby case and let me prove at least one more to be a myth, that is that the Indonesian justice system presumes guilt and the onus is on the defendant is to prove innocence, this is completely untrue. While bribery and corruption within the Indonesian justice system is rampant it is obvious in this case that Corby got as fair a trial as she would have in Australia.
LOL, they want the prosecution to prove guilt? Sure - but how easy it that when Schapelle wasn't given any defence? The bag was never weighed nor tested. It was not tested for fingerprints. Could the prosecution even prove she TOUCHED the bag? No. How then, could they possibly prove she KNEW the drugs were there when they couldn't prove she touched the bag? Answer me that one, Ian. SC would have gotten a fairer trial in Australia. For one, we don't contaminate evidence. The bag would have been weighed and tested for fingerprints. Doing that could have meant the difference between a guilty verdict and an acquittal.
Prove she intended to smuggle the drugs, AH. IF she was a smuggler, she would have had the drugs in her bags at Sydney airport. The baggage handlers have said they would have noticed the difference in weight had this been the case. They noticed nothing. This means the drugs were NOT in her bags when she left Sydney airport. Her family has already said she chose not to bribe her way out of it, because the drugs were not hers: http://www.creationtips.com/schapelle_timeline.html She was sentenced for drug smuggling. There is no drug smuggling if she got the drugs in Indonesia and tried to smuggle them into the same country. At the most, all they could have found her guilty of was possession. They had a case against her for possession, but no such case for smuggling. Her defence team has never stated anything of the sort. The drugs were destroyed after TWO appeals. The first appeal reduced her sentence to fifteen years, the second appeal reinstated the original sentence. They were destroyed after that - never fingerprinted or tested. The drugs were HEAVIER than the actual boogie board itself. They can recognise a boogie board bag, AH, they would have known something was wrong if the bag appeared heavier than it should have. The fact they didn't is evidence that the drugs were not on SC until she touched down in Bali. A woman who has travelled to Bali many times before, who chose not to bribe her way out of trouble? I don't think so. No official link, but can you show me how she could have proven her innocent without the bag being fingerprinted? The problem is, pleading her innocent meant a long sentence, pleading guilty meant she'd probably walk free. Why would she CHOOSE a longer sentence - possibly the death penalty? 99% of people in jail are guilty, and the physical evidence proves that. Could you point to the physical evidence that proves SC is guilty? I don't believe I have seen any as yet. I think she is innocent and was set up. The bottom line is - there is no evidence either way to say whether she is innocent or guilty - BUT - there is more evidence to suggest innocence.
I have no idea if she is guilty or not, but my personal preudices lead me to think she is a bogan from a family of drug dealing bogans who give the impression of being as dumb as dog(*)(*)(*)(*). Hence - I am not particularly interested in her case and I will continue to travel to Indonesia when the mood takes me - making sure that I always lock my bags before traveling - as any normal and innocent person would do when traveling overseas.
Yes I can point the physical evidence, you have given it - the drugs where found in her bag. There is the evidence. That was easy! And you make a lot of the fingerprints, but i don't get why? It is her bag, is it not? So her fingerprints would probably on it? No. So would that, in your mind prove she is guilty? Off course not. So I don't get this fascination with the fingerprints. But okay, point for point: 1. Baghandlers, who handles how many bags a day, remember her bag, and remember how much it weighed? Really? Really? I am sorry, I find that very hard to believe. Can they prove it? Nope. So it is not evidence for a court of law to consider then, is it. But tell me Makk, what do you suggest? That this drugs where never in Aus? So someone in Indonesia tried to, uhm, smuggle it into Indonesia? That makes no sense at all. So it must've come in someone's luggage from Aus.....So....Did the handlers not notice any of the bags being 'heavier'? See. It makes no sense and is no defence. 2. Her family says. Again, that is no proof. Families go on what she told them, and they want to put her in a good light. And not bribing is no proof of innocence, is it. Again, if it was, then you would have to release a few prisoners in Aus, who did not try to bribe anyone. It is no defence. It makes no sense to be honest. Last month I did not try and bribe a traffic Officer for a speeding fine. Does that mean I am innocent? I wish it did, but I did speed. See. 3. Why would some one in Indonesia smuggle drugs into Indonesia? This drugs must've come from somewhere else, thus it is smuggling. And the difference, I suspect, is the same as the difference for being caught with drugs, and charged with dealing or having - the amount. The amount of drugs she was found with was clearly more than for personal use, and thus it is not possession, but smuggling. 4. Off course not, that would defeat the point. Did they ask for the footage and was refused to view it? 5. You made my case stronger. So the drugs where destroyed after two appeals. Well then, the evidence was looked at 3 times then. And you are upset they destroyed it after THREE different courts looked at it, and all THREE courts found her guilty. Off course the drugs where destroyed. All drugs must be destroyed. It is the law. 6. I often put things on my laptop bag, and my camera bag, that is heavier than my laptop and my camera. So the weight of the boogie board bag proves nothing. And also, and again, it is the word of the handlers, who handles how may bags a day? Again, it is no proof of innocence. 7. To repeat myself - I often don't bribe my way out of things. I am sure most of the criminals in your prisons haven't tried to either. So it is no proof of innocence. 8. Proof has been given that this statement of yours was wrong. You are not considered guilty until proven innocent in Indonesia. And the fingerprints proof nothing. There would have, I guarantee you, many fingerprints on the bag - and hers WOULD have been on it, because it was HER bag. It is a bad route to go if this is what her lawyers build the appeal on. Really. 9. I'll state it again. Most criminals lead innocence, even if pleading guilty would mean a shorter sentence. Why? Many studies have been done on this. It is in an interesting thing. Often, and this is what I said before, people believe their lawyer who tell them they have a good change to be found innocent, so they rather go for that, for the hope of no sentence is stronger than the fear of a short sentence. 10. Besides the point (and I have answered this above). You gave the fact that she still says she is innocent as proof of her innocence, I showed why this is irrelevant, as most criminals do this. So it is no prove of her innocence. Facts remain. Makk. Not to be nasty or anything, but you are not giving any facts of innocence. Ponts 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 you would not even be able to bring to a court of law, not in Indonesia, not in Australia. Your last statement is just not true. There is evidence that she is guilty. THREE different courts found this to be so. The drugs where found in her bag. Sorry. But these are the facts. AH
Well ok, which baggage handlers? Despite the fact that this claim appears on the face of it completely ludicrous what evidence do we have other than heresay that any baggage handler claims this? what evodence was presented in court regarding this? Completly irrelevant to the facts of whether she was guilty or not, despite which this alleged ability to bribe here way out is a fantasy. Bribery, although common in Indonesia needs to be put into context. Not really, the law in Indonesia regards posession of amounts of illegal drugs above a certain limit as dealing, the same as in Australia. Her sentence would have been no different, the origin of the drugs is again irrelevant. Someone elses fingerprints on the bags would have proven nothing either way, she could easily have got someone to place them there for her or worn gloves when doing it herself. Not having evidence either way doesnt prove the drugs werent there. All it means the evidence isnt there. Believe me, no one is bribing their way out of possession of 4 kilos of marijuana at a major international airport in Indonesia, noone. Come on, crims plead innocent all the time
Yep - that's the key. Drugs in you bag is drugs in your bag. Emphisis on YOUR bag. And while of course I have no idea what really happened - there were drugs in her bag. Does she deserve her sentence? No - of course not. It is clearly inappropriate by Australian standards. But - she is not in Australia. She is in a country where drug trafficking can bring a death penalty. A country where you really need to take just a little care to secure your bags before traveling.
evidence was given at her trial that Corby admitted ownership of the ganja but she recanted afterwards. There is nothing to suggest that any of the evidence given by the Indonesian officials involved is false, there was no points in it for anyone to fabricate evidence. Some people suggest that the Indonesian authorities somehow "had it in" for Corby and she was treated differently because she was Australian. This is patent nonsense, in fact there would have been considerable pressure on all the authorities involved to ensure an impartial trial. The " baggage handler drug ring " theory was an invention by Corbys lawyer which he admitted to afterwards.
It is irrelevent. Just because she had the bag in her possession doesn't mean they were hers. Seen Brokedown Palace? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokedown_Palace About two Americans who visit Thailand, meet up with an Aussie, are about to come home when they are caught with heroin. The drugs are in their possession, it is assumed they were smuggling. They ended up stuck in a prison for 30+ years. Now you watch that movie and tell me whether the movie is saying a) they are drug smugglers or b) they were set up by the Australian man Just because I have drugs in my bag doesn't mean I am trafficking them. You cannot assume guilt. You need to test things, fingerprint them, to be sure. None of SC's belongings were fingerprinted. She demanded that the rest of her belongings were searched, they refused. She claims the customs officers didn't listen to her, that they put their hands all over that bag and laughed, slapped each other on the back to congratulate themselves on their 'good work'. So AH, I guess a good investigation is to contaminate evidence? If you walked into a house and saw that someone had been shot, is it okay for you to pick up the murder weapon without wearing gloves? Seems to be what you are arguing here. 1. If the baghandlers came across her bag, she would never have been allowed to board the plane to Bali. She would have been arrested in Australia. 2. Her families opinion can be taken into consideration, especially as you CAN bribe these people to look the other way. 3. How do you know the drugs came from Australia? They were tested to find out where they originated from. Testing them would have told them whether the drugs came from Australia - which would have been a stronger case for the prosecution. They did no such tests. 4. They asked for the security footage to be shown, the judges said they would look at it if they felt the need to. They didn't. They didn't bother to check whether SC was telling the truth. They ignored what could have been evidence. 5. The drugs were NOT examined three times. After three appeals, they were not tested, the bag was not weighed, and it was not checked for fingerprints. You call that an examination? Don't make me laugh. 6. Read #1. 7. She was apparently offered to bribe her way out of it. But from what I hear, she either didn't have the money to get off the hook, or she denied the drugs were hers. 8. Her prints would have been on her boogie board bag, but you cannot assume that because the marijuana was in her bag, her prints would also have been present. Tell me this, AH - if I caught you standing next to a dead person and you had a knife in your hand, and you said you didn't kill that person, can I throw you in prison without even testing the knife for prints to see if you were telling the truth? Is it okay for me to simply assume you are guilty? 9. I don't agree with that. I am aware of what some lawyers tell their clients. SC's lawyers likely said she should plead guilty. She chose not to because she was innocent. 10. Right...so if you were locked up in a hell hole and you know that saying you were guilty could bring you home, you'd refuse to admit your guilt?
And what proof is there that SC admitted guilt? Oh yeah, its a 'he said-she said' thing, isn't it? Nice that the judges could listen to the prosecutions opinions, but they ignored much of what SC's legal team said. No wonder a few people wanted their Tsunami money back. If I'd made a donation, I'd want it back, too.
No, it wasnt heresay, it was presented in evidence by one of the customs officers. There was no motive for him to lie. Pretty mean comment dont you think?
A customs officer SAYS that SC admitted guilt. Did SC confirm or deny this? IF they had review the security tapes, perhaps they could have found out who was telling the truth, eh? But oh yeah, they didn't do that. Not at all. I will never visit Indonesia, will never give them any money. Not if they treat people like that. They deserve nothing.
Your defense of this woman is based largely on emotion, not on facts or any understanding of legal principles so to continue this subject is pointless. You condemn a whole country because they had the gall to pursue criminal charges against a person who was found in possession of a large amount of drugs. Thats your call but I find it to be a double standard particularly considering the high amount of foreign tourists whom are brutally murdered in Australia every year.
I agree with the above Makk. You just repeat the same defense over and over again, defense which no court, also not in Aus, will allow. Take your last point - it is a joke, surely! And your repeated calls for checking for fingerprints, on her OWN bag, makes no sense. And how long do you want them to keep the drugs before destroying it? 100 years? Until she is dead? Again, no sense. But let's take you'r way of arguing it. You are saying courts should ask 3 questions: 1. Did you try to bribe to police 2. Are you guilty or innocent 3. After a while in jail, will you still say you are innocent. If, according to you the answers are: 1. No 2. Innocent 3. Yes Then you are innocent and should be released? REally? GLad I don't live in such a country! Give me Indonesia any day. And, Makk, your argument smacks of double standards. You want us to take her family's story on hearsay, but you are quick to shout hearsay for the official evidence from the customs official. Bit of a double standard there hey. My arguments have been based on facts, yours on emotions, and what if and could have beens. Think about this logically: How many criminals family's say things to try and protect them? How many criminals still say they are innocent after years in jail (the answer will be more than 90%? How many drugs get past the baggage handlers every day? (Again, lots, they handle 1000's of bags a day, it is their job to keep the system moving, not check for drugs. If they were that efficient, there would be no drug smuggling, would there? Jeez, I almost think this defense is the silliest of them all) How many people in jail would say they did not bribe the police? I would say lots. And I would say, what on EARTH has this go to do with anything. Really. DO you want any court to take that excuse of a defense seriously. The world would be a mess if we did. If you answer these question logically and honestly, you'd see you have no case, as your case is based, as said above, en emotions, no facts, not even one. Nada. So, facts for her innocence: She says she is innocent Facts for her guilt: The drugs were found in her suitcase Mmmmmm. Sounds rather guilty to me. AH PS. I did not answer a lot of your repeated arguments, like irrelevant test if the drugs are from Australia, as this has been adequately answered before. AH PPS. I find the tsunami money remark absolutely repulsive.
Ask me this - can someone smuggle drugs from Indonesia to Indonesia? No, they cannot. Which is why testing the marijuana is so important. If it came from Australia, they would have had a case against her. If it came from Indonesia, how could they charge her with smuggling? She's in prison for drug smuggling, remember? And if you don't think fingerprinting is an important part in a criminal investigation, then I think you need to learn a little more about how things work. As I said, you wouldn't contaminate a murder weapon and refuse to fingerprint it, would you? What happens when contaminated evidence is introduced to a court? It gets thrown out. It's inadmissible. Why? Because it's contaminated. Find me a case of contaminated evidence being admitted to a courtroom, and NOT being thrown out. Know what happens when contaminated evidence is admitted to court? Innocent people go to jail. Like Farah Jama. http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-generic-blog/man-paid-out-for-bungled-rape-case/20100629-zjke.html Convicted soley on contaminated evidence. If you went to court, I think you'd want your bags to be fingerprinted. As I said - which you ignored - if I found you standing over a dead body with a knife in your hand, could I assume you were guilty without even bothering to check for other evidence? Imagine how many innocent people would be in jail if our courts accepted contaminated evidence. As for the comment about the Tsunami, I've stood by it for more than five years. No one should support such a corrupt country.
Okay, I will refer to it again. Lol. You are the one who seems to be claiming it is from Indonesia, no one else. So it is you who should answer that question Makk, not us. But the point it, what would the tests prove (I am not even sure a test can prove where it is from, to be honest, how would it work), but as I have said before, many times country's are used as stop overs, those drugs might be from France, for all we know. So what would it prove, like all the other arguments put forward by you - nothing. What is your theory? That for some strange reason, the officials have something against this women they know nothing about, and planted it in her luggage? And what, may I ask, is the reason and logic behind that? Please enlighten us. Or what other theories do you have? AH
I think I have been through what testing the drugs would prove. If they came from Indonesia they couldn't get her for smuggling, only possession. Like I said, you can't smuggle drugs from Indonesia into Indonesia. They failed to: Test the drugs Weigh the bag Fingerprint the bag Review CCTV footage to check if SC's story backed up They also: Contaminated evidence Refused to test the evidence even after one trial, and two appeals Now if this had happened to you, you'd expect them to at least test the (*)(*)(*)(*) bag for fingerprints. If you guys really think they actually worked this case well, then thank god you don't live in Indonesia.
That is the sort of comment we are used to hearing from the retards who think that the deaths of innocent Iraqis from an illegal invasion is justified. And I know you are not one of them Mak. All governments are corrupt in one way or another. But human beings are human beings - no matter what country they happen to live in.
