Schapelle Corby - Guilty or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

She was NOT allowed to present evidence in her own defence.

If Corby was tried in OZ and the same procedure dealt to her there as in Indonesia, the judge would be on a charge, not her!

The marijuana found wasn't even proven to come from OZ, no DNA tests on it to establish provenance, no finger-print testing of the bag and blood tests taken of Corby showed negative for any drugs at all, yet you all bang on about her being some sort of druggy!

She was pissed as chook when she landed so no wonder she was confused when questioned.

Repeated requests for video footage at the airports that mysteriously existed then didn't exist, and the court refused to even ask to see them.
The bag weights were not checked for discrepancy,before and after flight and the weigh in tickets/records also mysteriously disappeared.

---

She presented her case. But what case was it? If every drug smuggler got away with it based on:

1. Country of origin of drug not matching flight tickets
2. No dabs on the drugs
3. Don't use it myself, guv.
4. I was drunk.
5. You ain't got no video of catching me red handed
6. Prove how much my bags weighed.

Then you can safely move drugs wherever you want.

She was caught red handed and got sent down by a judge who had seen many drug cases before but was an open and shut case for the prosecution:

A. She presented her bags to customs
B. Customs confirmed they were her bags
C. Opened bags
D. Found drugs.

Possible defences would include denying it was hers, but who is going to believe a drug smuggler? See above.

If the Oz government thought she was guilty, why did they offer to pay for her defence in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrAndy

so either you are a liar and a fool, or you have some facts to back it up the former is the truth

---

It's not really rocket science, is it ?

^^^^^This is the judge who publicly stated that Corby had to prove her innocence, not that the prosecution must prove guilt, this in contravention of Indonesia law where a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The same judge also publicly stated that he was 75% convinced that Corby was guilty, before the trial was over. This was a presumption of guilt, again in contravention to Indonesian law.

It doesn't matter if he was a Martian let alone a Xtian, he was still influenced by the consensus opinion, not by the proven evidence, or rather lack of it. The prosecution only said that the marijuana was of high quality and did nothing to prove that it came from Australia. Then the evidence was conveniently destroyed so that none of it could be verified.
A bit like Bush and the 9/11 evidence, conveniently dumped, or shipped off to China before any forensic examination could be done on it.
Or Osama Bin Laden's body that doesn't exist, dumped in the sea in less than 24 hours after his supposed death. No proof.

It was rather a fvckup from beginning to end, but then Indonesian bureaucracy is a real fvckup too. I have purposely never been there, after having lived in Malaysia for 8 months.
There was a very good reason that Osama Bin Laden's body was buried at sea. Displaying it would have stirred up sentiment too much and thereby potentially caused reprisals. And burying it would have created a place of pilgrimage. I thought it was a wise move to dump it.
.
.
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

The prosecution only said that the marijuana was of high quality and did nothing to prove that it came from Australia. Then the evidence was conveniently destroyed so that none of it could be verified.
A bit like Bush and the 9/11 evidence, conveniently dumped, or shipped off to China before any forensic examination could be done on it.
Or Osama Bin Laden's body that doesn't exist, dumped in the sea in less than 24 hours after his supposed death. No proof.

---

It was Corby and her lawyers that refused to have the dope "DNA" tested.

As to no proof, she was caught red fucking handed with the bag full of dope, how much more proof is needed for fucks sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fondles

As to no proof, she was caught red fucking handed with the bag full of dope, how much more proof is needed for fucks sake.

---

Loads, according the world of Ent.

Correct.
Circumstantial evidence and hearsay isn't enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latindancer

It was rather a fvckup from beginning to end, but then Indonesian bureaucracy is a real fvckup too. I have purposely never been there, after having lived in Malaysia for 8 months.
There was a very good reason that Osama Bin Laden's body was buried at sea. Displaying it would have stirred up sentiment too much and thereby potentially caused reprisals. And burying it would have created a place of pilgrimage. I thought it was a wise move to dump it.
.
.
.

---

That is the official story.
Strange that Al Quaeda didn't go crazy when their glorious leader got bumped off eh?
Hardly a peep out of his family either.

No body, no evidence, no proof.

This is the AFP version of the why the DNA tests weren't done.

On December 3, 2004, having sighted the papers Schapelle Corby signed giving her consent for the tests to be done, the Australian Federal Police [AFP] formally offered assistance to the Indonesian police to conduct DNA tests on the cannabis. However, in early January 2005, the Corby family were advised that the Indonesian police would not give any of the cannabis to the AFP for testing.

Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer said the Indonesians refused requests by the Australian Federal Police to test the cannabis Ms Corby allegedly tried to smuggle.

The AFP wanted to test the drug to ascertain its source because Ms Corby claimed it was not in her luggage when she left Australia and must have been planted there in Bali.

"The defence lawyers wanted it done, we asked, and yes, it's true the Indonesian police didn't agree to hand over any of the cannabis for testing," Mr Downer said.

Mr Downer said the Indonesians said they "were perfectly capable of doing that sort of testing themselves"

http://www.foreignprisoners.com/scha...release07.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

Correct.
Circumstantial evidence and hearsay isn't enough.

---

You will have to explain how standing there saying yes that is my bag and upon it being opened it was found to contain a large package of marijuana is “circumstantial evidence and hearsay”?

Any objective observer would have to say the Colby’s defense was based on ““circumstantial evidence and hearsay” not the prosecution’s.

Apparently the court agreed with you that "Circumstantial evidence and hearsay isn't enough" which is why they convicted her.
TH

still gotta wonder how she got it out of ozzie, with all them little drug fucked doggies runnung around..then there was the weight issue..anyway she,ll be out soon enough i reckon

Detection dogs are usually deployed in the arrivals concourse and baggage halls of international flights although cargo sheds are pretty much fair game if resources allow. Nevertheless, those doggies have a shortish attention span and are fairly useless after 30 minutes work when the connection between their nostrils and the brain becomes overwhelmed and they quickly revert to what they truly are, dumb dogs having a lark.

Anyway, isn't it a bit odd for an innocent dupe to have first argued that a conspiracy of corrupted baggage loaders were responsible for the placing of the contraband in her bag and when that bit of nonsense was deservedly abandoned she then vehemently argues the drugs were placed there after she arrived in Bali as if such a daft proposition was worth investigation. No wonder the Indos gave it short shrift.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nedwalk

still gotta wonder how she got it out of ozzie, with all them little drug fucked doggies runnung around..then there was the weight issue..anyway she,ll be out soon enough i reckon

---

Dispite Ent making a big deal of the wieght issue, the fact is all the bags were weighed as group and all the tags attached to Corby's ticket holder.


Yes, the Indonesian police should have taken all the bags and wieghed them together. But, they had a bag with a large package of marijuana in it and person claiming ownership.

What more did they need?


It is very believable to me that Corby and her friends/family would attempt to take a couple of keys into Bali to sell. They were not unfamiliar with the drug culture and just about anyone that is involved with it buys and sells with the hope of at least paying for their habit.

Also seems likely she would be stupid enough to be the one to carry it in her bag.

TH

Somehow the normal 1000 dollar bribe was not in the bag. She went down.

A little more hearsay.

But McCauley claimed he was Mick Corby's marijuana supplier and had sold him the drugs found in Schapelle's boogie board bag. He said the drugs regularly smuggled into Bali always contained a $US1000 cash bribe to smooth them through Customs.

When she does get out I reckon she will go straight back in fr shooting her dipstick brother who let her take the fall

Neither the cctv cameras (switched off), nor the dogs (having a day off), were working at Brisbane airport the day Corby left. The baggage weight tickets were "lost" by Quantas that day too.

The same day the AFP were busting a cocaine shipment into Sydney airport, as Corby was transferring to her Bali flight. The cctv cameras there were found facing the wall that day.

She hadn't touched her bags since Brisbane.
On arrival at Bali, the inner bag was found to be cut open by a rough edged instrument possibly a key, prior to being removed from her boogy board bag at interview.
None of the Indonesian customs officials wore gloves while handling the bags.
Fingerprint testing was refused.

If Corby's prints were on the bags, she'd be connected to them. They weren't and she knew it. the Indonesian customs and the court knew that too. The judge allowed the bags to be handled with ungloved hands by the prosecution in court, despite a request made that day for prints to be taken.

None of that goes to exculpating her at all. That her prints might not have been detected on the stash bag means nothing at all - the person who gave her the drugs could have packed the bag, she could have worn gloves, she could have wiped the bag clean of prints.

Certainly, given the red herrings raised in her defence and the conduct of the investigating officers etc she may well have been acquitted by a jury in the West adhering to the priciple of finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But, the fact remains the Indo judge was not hampered by such niceties and found her guilty on grounds that most would find reasonable. I shouldn't get too worked up about the rip in the stash bag - I should imagine a suspicious Indo customs officer examined the boogie bag before it made it to the reclaim belt and used his pocket knife to slit the bag open to have a sniff of the contents. After that it was just a case of letting the bag run and seeing who collected it.

Bang to rights and deservedly so.

But ENT, by all means plough the furrow of a hack scriptwriter for Hollywood if it pleases you. Everyone needs a hobby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegent

Certainly, given the red herrings raised in her defence and the conduct of the investigating officers etc she may well have been acquitted by a jury in the West adhering to the priciple of finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But, the fact remains the Indo judge was not hampered by such niceties and found her guilty on grounds that most would find reasonable..



.

---

As you point out, no fair trial was granted her.

ENT in focusing on the reasons why they should not have convicted Corby you are falling into the trap whereby you confuse fairness with justice. In my various careers I have seen quite a few guilty walk free because the trial often became simply an arena in which adversaries jousted according to the rules. The weight of evidence can always be unbalanced by doubt which is fostered by the forensic application of skills which have no other purpose than to obscure the truth. Trials resolve in many circumstances to just games.

Corby was caught with the dope which she either knew was there because she was party to its importation or she subsequently concluded had been placed there by another in her party whom she decided to protect - i.e. her brother. Indeed, the tenacity with which she has implausibly constructed a defence to place blame on others would lend credence to the latter scenario. Either way, her conviction and incarceration was indeed justice.

I rather think you are the dupe here, ENT, but I suppose you shouldn't feel too abashed by it - there are many like you.

Her fingerprints being on the herbal container would have SEALED her fate. Not finding them could give the impression that she had not touched the bag with her bare hands but this hardly destroys the prosecution case.

The judge must have found the prosecution's case overwhelming and if no defence had been offerred there were only two verdicts - guilt plus 20 years or death. Any remarks made were unfortunate but there you go, it was honest.

And what is the defence? Wild hearsay, innuendo, excuses, elaborate stories of neer do wells in Brisbane, suggestions even that someone in Bali smuggled drugs 20m from air side to land side (if you have seen the fence line at Bali you will know that air side it is only 10 feet high and you can toss it to your mate, it isn't exactly secure).

There is a saying that it is easier to defend a guily party than an innocent one. An innocent party has no idea about it, a guilty one has lots of ideas.

Procedure was followed, fair trial given, judge found correctly on the FACTS (not the drivel) and the sentence was proprtionate and compatible with the severity of the crime and other sentences passed on others.

And that is another legal point to dwell on, that an allegation or claim remains such until such time as you can provide evidence. Evidence makes it a fact. Corby was very short on evidence for her allegations so they would not become facts for a consideration of guilty or not guilty.

If she had been black African, death was a much more likely sentence.

The only evidence for the prosecution was the bag of drugs found in Corby's unlocked boogy board bag.
Any other evidence was either destroyed or disallowed by the Indonesian court.
Australia's Foreign Affairs minister, Alexander Downer confirmed that Indonesia refused DNA testing of the drug.

Hearsay and innuendo are not proof of anything.

The judge had already decided her guilt (75%, he said) before the trial was over.
He presumed her guilty, before even looking at or hearing her defence.

The judge contradicted his own assertion that the accused be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Corby was set up, and was not given a fair trial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

If the Oz government thought she was guilty, why did they offer to pay for her defence in the first place?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

This was a presumption of guilt, again in contravention to Indonesian law.

---

it would also be in contravention of Aussie laws

get your brain out of the mud, bENT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

The only evidence for the prosecution was the bag of drugs found in Corby's unlocked boogy board bag.

---

that seems enough for most countries

As far as I was aware Article 82(1)(a) of Indonesia.’s Law No. 22 of 1997 punishes anyone who .“without any rights or illegally imports, exports, offers for sale, traffics (transport may be closer to the meaning or delivers), sells, purchases, offers up, accepts, or acts as an intermediary in the sale, purchase or exchange of a Category I narcotic.” with death, life in prison, or up to twenty years in jail and a fine of up to one billion rupiah. Just my reading of course.

The prosecution only really had to demonstrate possession of the drug as it was incontrovertible Corby was passing through Customs at an international airport. They had her on up to 3 different points of Art 82 IMHO. Let me see:

- Importation
- Trafficing or transportation by any mode
- Accepting - though this last one is a bit more shaky as it would have been arguably outside Indonesia

There was no real need to demonstrate an intent (mens rea) to do anything, just that the drugs were in her bag at Customs (actus reus) which required the sworn testimony of a Customs officer and the drugs, the only evidence required to establish a case to answer. Prosecution case was a good un as it did not require establishing an intent or state of mind.

The defence could not argue the drugs were not found in her bag, though they insinuated that somehow the cCTV footage may have provided a defence. Unlikely avenue.

They did not really argue that the drugs were not drugs, the looked and smelt like drugs and no one was going to be fooled.

At the end of the prosecution's case it is customary to consider if there is a case to answer, that is has the prosecution established a case that would lead to a possible conviction i.e. has it got the components needed to establish guilt. Judge said yes, other courts if asked on this point would say the same. And that applies in Aus as well as UK, US etc. This trial was not pre judged by Indonesian standards.

The defence did suggest these were somehow Indonesian drugs, which could have got her off the importation rap. "Import is an activity of bringing narcotics from another country into a customs area" according to the Law.

However the trafficing or transporting would have stuck. There was no need to test them for DNA to prove or disprove they were foreign drugs as they were at the very least trafficed or transported from the conveyor belt 20m to Customs.

The only avenue for the defence was to claim she was not knowlegably in possession at the time of arrest and hence was not knowingly trafficing, a defence that she did not know it was drugs would not have succeeded or that it was not for resale. It was shaky but there you go, defence is not easy when you are banged to rights. Hence the drivel about other people having put it there which, because it was not persuasively evienced, did not become a fact that the judge need consider.

If you think she is innocent then that is fine, but to suggest the trial was unfair or the verdict unsafe would be wrong. By Indonesian standards the trial was open and free from corruption and the correct verdict delivered.

IF you ever find yourself in the same situation then bribe the first one you meet and run for it, your claim to have no knowledge will not work in court.