• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: andyturbo

the shapelle corby televised judgement

Some very valid points and a good discussion to be had. But an interesting point raised would be this: What if the same drugs were found in Shapelles bag inside Australia?

If you claim the drugs are planted on your bag would the law be applied the same in Australia than in Indonesia. Obviously the penalities much harsher in Indonesia for drug offences but would you be guilty until proven inocent or inocent until proven guilty?

I'm sure things would have been a lot different for someone being charged with drug running and not facing the death penalty. I doubt the media would give it much attention either, I doubt many people would care if your wrongly charged for that matter.
 
Originally posted by Fry-d-
What if the same drugs were found in Shapelles bag inside Australia?

As far as the judgement goes, I certainly believe she would be found guilty here too.

I initially made the mistake of criticising what seems to be a guilty until proven innocent approach by the Indonesian court. But then it hit me like a ton of bricks. The prosecution have all the evidence that they need to justify the charges laid against her. Hence, she ought to be found guilty unless she can somehow cast reasonable doubt on the evidence; that being, that she was in possession of the drugs and was caught red-handed.

That goes for Indonesia or Australia. Otherwise anyone caught with any drugs (or anything for that matter) could simply claim that they were planted, and demand that the police prove that the drugs were theirs. The police have already fulfilled their necessary objectives - they have caught a person red handed, and they have enough evidence to convict that person of the relevant charge. If there is an exception to the case that contradicts the prosecutor's accusation as arrived at from available evidence, then naturally the defendant ought to prove that exception for the claim to have merit. This is distinct from proving one's innocence against a presumption of guilt - this is proving one's innocence by offering something tangible to overshadow the prosecution evidence justifying the charges. The prosecution evidence is so strong that guilt is not presumed, but is established, as far as the Indonesian court is concerned.

And in reference to the whole media hype, which began with the prospect of the death penalty, I will post up an article that Bent linked to in Australian Social discussion, here:

Originally posted by Bent
And on a final note...on the severity of her sentence...have a read of 'Corby and the Aussie media' - certainly puts a different slant onto it.

This article is insightful because it offers the Indonesian perspective on this whole saga, focussing on the sentence that Corby was given. I think it is worth posting below (sorry for the extra scrolling I'm making everyone do with these lengthy posts ey), so here it is:


Corby's drug trial and Australian public opinion

Endy M. Bayuni, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The 20-year prison term meted out by a court in Bali against Schapelle Corby on Friday for smuggling cannabis into the country is not the end of the road as far as her legal fight is concerned, but if there is one important lesson we can learn from the trial, it is that the massive public campaign in Australia, her home country, for her release has, at times, gone overboard and probably not helped her case at all.

We likely may never know for sure if the judges in the Denpasar District Court determined the sentence solely on the basis of evidence presented before them, or whether other factors, including undue outside pressure, influenced their decision. But we do know for sure that the sentence is rather severe even by Indonesian standards.

Corby was found guilty of attempting to smuggle 4.1 kilograms of marijuana through the Denpasar airport in October. Compare her verdict with what other foreigners have received in Bali, and one has to admit that she has had the harshest punishment of all when compared to other similar cases.

A Mexican woman who smuggled 15.22 kg of marijuana received only a seven-year prison term in December 2001. An Italian man was sentenced to 15 years in July last year for attempting to smuggle 5.3 kg of cocaine, a much more dangerous drug. Corby did not smuggle cocaine and the amount of marijuana she was accused of smuggling is far less than what the Mexican woman brought in. Yet, she got a harsher sentence.

One thing that was evident from the beginning is that Corby never faced the death sentence as was widely and wildly suggested by the Australian media. Not one person in Indonesia, foreigner or otherwise, has been sentenced to death for trafficking marijuana. All the death penalty cases have involved large amounts of cocaine, heroin or ecstasy.

Corby's relatives and friends, along with the Australian media, succeeded in whipping up massive public support and sympathy at home by playing the death penalty card. The prospect of the 27-year beautician facing an Indonesian firing squad certainly played on the emotions of most Australians. Such over-dramatization of her case in Australia is partly to blame for the death threats received by Indonesians in Australia as well as all the other forms of anti-Indonesia sentiment we have seen in recent weeks.

Australian newspaper polls, which found that 90 percent of Australians believe Corby is innocent, and a victim of a drug syndicate, of course had no relevance on the court hearing in Bali. A person is found guilty or innocent on the basis of evidence brought before the court and not by public opinion.

But the diatribes by the Australian public and media against the Indonesian legal system while the trial was still in progress have certainly been very unhelpful. The Indonesian courts have their flaws, probably more so than the Australian courts, but it was dead wrong for the Australian public and media to prejudge the court, even to the point of dismissing its ability to act fairly in dispensing justice, before it reached the verdict.

Australian politicians both in and outside the government -- whose intentions were clearly more political in nature, rather than the well-being of Corby -- jumped on the bandwagon to appeal to the Indonesian authorities on her behalf. They should know that such a move was premature, and could have been easily construed here as an unwelcome interference into the Indonesian legal system.

Looking back, one cannot help get the feeling that Australia's media hype in covering Corby's trial almost became a self-fulfilling prophecy on Friday. Even in finding her guilty, there was no reason for the judges to hand down such a harsh penalty, and even less so for the prosecutors to demand a life sentence in the first place. One can only conclude from here that both the judges and the prosecutors have been influenced by what was happening outside the court.

This becomes clearer if we look at the case of Clara Elena Umana, the Mexican who was sentenced by the same court in 2001 to seven years. She got just a third of the sentence that Corby received, for smuggling more than three times the marijuana. With sentence reductions through good behavior, the Mexican woman will likely only end up serving a little more than half the sentence.

In light of this, looking back now, we wonder, hypothetically, how many years Corby would have received if there had not been so much public pressure and publicity supposedly waged on her behalf in Australia during the trial. Going by the Mexican woman's case, Corby should have been given three or four years.

Ordinarily, this would have been just another drug trial involving a foreigner, and because of the type and amount of drug involved, Corby would probably have gotten off lightly. But, since the Australian media and public opinion decided from the beginning that this was going be a special case, and even turning it into a cause celebre, the Denpasar district court inevitably, though perhaps inadvertently, treated this as a special case too.

Fortunately, the district court is not the last dispenser of justice in Indonesia.

Corby still has the right to appeal to the High Court, and potentially, the Supreme Court. Judges in those higher courts have the ability to assess the case and the evidence presented in the lower courts more soberly, away from the media spotlight. Ideally, they should be allowed to work without any form of outside undue pressure.

The sympathy and support that Corby receives from her compatriots, who believe in her innocence, are laudable. But her family and friends, and the Australian public, in general, would be helping her cause far more by restraining themselves in their comments on the Indonesian legal system, and allowing the legal process to run its full course. If they still hope for justice for Corby to come from these higher courts, they have to believe in them, or at the very least, let them do their work uninterrupted.

The writer is chief editor of The Jakarta Post.

Source Page
 
One postive I'd like to see come out of this is for the Federal govt to compel airlines to print the weight of a bag onto the baggage tag they print out and stick on your bag.

I presume that the weight displayed by the electronic scales at the airport is already somehow interfaced to their ticketing system in order for the pilot to know how much all the luggage on his/her aircraft weighs so that fuel can be calculated.

In the Corby case, a 4.2 kg discrepency between the 'tagged' weight and the actual weight when the bogey board was searched could possibly have exonerated her at trial.
 
Apparently there is already a downturn in the number of aussie holidays being booked for Bali.

If she had been found here then they would have finger printed the bag and tested the weed's origin to validate or disprove her claims, that's due-process.
 
^ too right - sure a boycott will hurt indonesians however when they finally get it in their heads they need us far more then we need them they'll press for change in their judical & political system.

Its all well and good to state the Bali people are just as shocked however the Bali people have allowed a system, which they all have a vote in, to throw the tenets of justice & due process into complete disregard. .

I'm just as pissed at the Australian government though and will be boycotting them as much as i'm boycotting the indonesians. I'll do my part to solve this injustices but if the indoneisans can't mobilise themselves to effect change then fuck em because when my dollars aren't been spent over their its not me thats going to be starving.

Most Australians have fought for the rights of those who have come here, tampa, the refugees. We've fought for our industrial, judical and social rights. We have mobilsed and effected changed in our society not all the way, but certaintly better then that of the apathetic indonesians.
 
chugs said:
We've fought for our industrial, judical and social rights. We have mobilsed and effected changed in our society not all the way, but certaintly better then that of the apathetic indonesians.

Watch this space for commentary of chugs' upcoming battles against the Howard govt's erosion of "our industrial, judical and social rights" once Howard has control of the senate. 8)
 
Why should john howard and the media help her if she was dis-honest to the public when liz hayes from sixty minutes asked her if her freinds or family were involve with drugs or drug trafficing and she said no not at all, and next minute they found out her dad was busted once for drug trafficing.
 
Why should john howard and the media help her if she was dis-honest to the public when liz hayes from sixty minutes asked her if her freinds or family were involve with drugs or drug trafficing and she said no not at all, and next minute they found out her dad was busted once for drug trafficing.

Her dad was busted in the 70's for possession not trafficing (correct me if wrong). It's entirely that Shappelle never even knew about it, considering how trivial such a thing was in those days. If I was asked a question like that I know I wouldn't have thought it was relevant.

charlesbronson - re ur article - I never realised that the death penalty wasn't even a serious possability. If that's true have you noticed how the media are playing the same card again with the appeal....?

Sorry bout not having any sources - I tried to find some but conviniently the today show doesn't provide easy access to info from previous shows. However if I remember correctly they interviewed and Australian who was sentanced to life for 3.5KG in the 80's.

Nice Tits
 
Would you really try and source your gear off someone if their name was "The Today Show" or "Sixty Minutes" ... hardly reliable sources for anything except for hyped out fabrications. If they were hyping their wares on Pillreports they'd soon get flamed out of existance 8)
 
Watch this space for commentary of chugs' upcoming battles against the Howard govt's erosion of "our industrial, judicial and social rights" once Howard has control of the senate.

Won’t you get up eccitude when they start destroying the hard-earn rights we've been blessed with?

I can't believe the attitudes of some BLighters....Everyone here takes drugs yet you argue somehow that Indonesians should not be blamed for judging her as a criminal, calling her something that (if she did) you do every Saturday night. It’s like one giant devils advocate argument here.

There is no other way to get her out (at least now) other then exerting as much economical and social pressure onto not only the Howard Government but the Indonesian people. No other way now (they should have paid the bribe and gotten the story killed)...

If you people think somehow all the arguments put forward in her defence are fallible then why don't you advocate realistic options on how to get her out, or do you think she rot in jail for the rest of her life?
 
Originally posted by clocker
If she had been found here then they would have finger printed the bag and tested the weed's origin to validate or disprove her claims, that's due-process.

How so? Like I have already said, not finding her fingerprints on the cannabis bag does nothing to change the fact that she was in possession. Do you think an Australian judge would say "hmmm, well maybe someone else packed the bag and she smuggled it as part of a co-operation, therefore this finding does not validate her claim, or maybe she is completely and totally innocent and is the victim of a UFO conspiracy!!"? Please explain to me how the absence of her fingerprints on the bag would do anything to prove that she wasn't involved directly and with full knowledge in the smuggling.

Test the weeds origin? With what? In the hope of achieving....?

Originally posted by chugs
too right - sure a boycott will hurt indonesians however when they finally get it in their heads they need us far more then we need them they'll press for change in their judical & political system.

Yes, their lives hinge so much on our tourism, that they would call revolution to overthrow the government so they could see Aussies returning to their beaches for a surf. That is THE one thing that is going to convince the Balinese Bolsheviks to revolt. And the Indonesian army would welcome a revolution by a small tourist sector of the 200 million strong Indonesian population, so that more Aussie tourists could come back with their money.... because the Indonesian army don't use guns, they use feathers to tickle the Balinese people to prevent them from revolting, and then they all play beach volleyball together, and laugh about how the Balinese nearly managed to snag an island belonging to the sovereign nation of Indonesia earlier in the day.

Originally posted by chugs
Its all well and good to state the Bali people are just as shocked however the Bali people have allowed a system, which they all have a vote in, to throw the tenets of justice & due process into complete disregard.

Yeah and as we have seen, it is all a matter of the wonderful, godly, omnipotent system of democracy and casting your vote - it worked to create a fairer Australia a few months ago too, didn't it? How come those damn Indos can't be as great as us and exercise their right to vote with results as fruitful as ours? Before you think it is all a matter of voting and democracy, and that we are all in the same boat, try and invest some time into understanding the differences in context and history between the two nations of Indonesia and Australia, and then you might slowly start to develop an appreciation of cultural differences, which could hopefully show you why it is not fair to simply accuse them of being 'apathetic'. Yes, the future of their country is in their hands, and hopefully the people will inspire change of their heavy-fisted laws (my opinion), but I wouldn't be quick to start screaming about what they should be doing already. Because I don't know enough about Indonesian society or politics to know: a) whether or not there is any significant alternative political movement, and b) whether or not the climate exists in Indonesia at the moment to facilitate such a political movement. So I won't put it down to the people's apathy.

Again, I also want someone to explain in full the inconsistencies with normal justice in this case. NOT the investigation bungles, NOT the harsh sentences, NOT the judge reading a book - what were the judges supposed to do? Accept that she might be telling the truth because of limited circumstantial evidence in support of her claims, and thus reject the charges? What judge in the world would give so much weight to the testimony of someone who has been found in possession of 4.1kgs of cannabis at an airport? The onus is on the defendant to definitively show the judge that something went horribly wrong, otherwise the judge has no choice but to decide the case based on available, admissible evidence - therefore a guilty verdict was to be expected in this case. Where did due process go wrong?


Originally posted by Nice Tits
charlesbronson - re ur article - I never realised that the death penalty wasn't even a serious possability. If that's true have you noticed how the media are playing the same card again with the appeal....?

Yeah I've noticed ey, they know what works. It goes to show you the number of perspectives and interpretations that can be made of a single incident. Popular media usually manipulate public stupidity and gullibility to stir up fear and emotion, which are quick to cast a shadow over people's ability to judge and consider things rationally. It is frightening how responsive the public are to the manipulation conducted by friendly media faces - like people here have said, many Bluelighters are quick to critically analyse and slam any drug-related sensationalism, but are totally blind, or have a double standard, when it comes to considering other issues.


Originally posted by chugs
I can't believe the attitudes of some BLighters....Everyone here takes drugs yet you argue somehow that Indonesians should not be blamed for judging her as a criminal, calling her something that (if she did) you do every Saturday night. It’s like one giant devils advocate argument here.

Indonesians should not be blamed because they have done something that is CONSISTENT WITH THEIR WAY OF LAW!!!!! Their legal system and drug laws may be criticised, but the Indonesian people should not be attacked over this case because they have done nothing out of the norm. Don't make it personal, because the Indonesian's don't see it that way; they have merely acted in accordance with their laws. Add Corby to the huge list of people who have suffered under such laws; Indonesians, Australians, all countries, all people - even right here back home in Australia. Her case fades into insignificance. Your beef is with the war on drugs world wide, not with the 'Indonesians', so don't limit your cries to her case only, but use it as a catalyst to amplify your protest against the criminalisation of drugs in general.

And I don't smuggle 4.1kg of cannabis into Bali every Saturday night.....

But I'll refrain from being facetious; I understand what you are saying. Her punishment does not fit the crime, because as far as many of us are concerned, there is no crime in the comsumption of drugs to begin with (and hence no crime in deciding to move large amounts for the purpose of supply). But this page of posts has not been about whether or not the law itself is fair - it has been about people's anti-Indonesian sentiment, despite the fact that Indonesia has only acted in accordance with its laws. Reminder: you can't expect Indonesian court to change its laws because you feel sorry for Schapelle - that is far from a convincing argument against their harsh drug laws. The hypocrisy will not be seen here my friend. It will be seen in Australian society and media, i.e.:

"New evidence finds shocking link between cannabis and psychosis: We run after drug dealing scum in SuburbX caught peddling illegal drugs to children, and see what the police have to say about our footage. We interview the police minister about disgraceful sentences handed out to drug dealing hoons, poisoning our society with the fruits of the devil, yet not even getting one month in the slammer. Where did Australian society go wrong along the way, A Current Affair asks this important question tonight."

then

"Poor Schapelle, look at the sadness in her eyes, 20 years for marijuana - an Australian, true blue sheila, tip top fair go, locked up in a roach infested hell hole for 20 years, her mum and dad are devastatingly distraught. How could they? How could this be allowed to happen? What is the world coming to? - thanks for watching, tomorrow night we interview the loopy goofy politician who wants to legalise cannabis! WHAT A HIPPIE!"

Originally posted by chugs
If you people think somehow all the arguments put forward in her defence are fallible then why don't you advocate realistic options on how to get her out, or do you think she rot in jail for the rest of her life?

Because when it comes to priority, I can't help but first consider the situation that the Australian government puts all of these people in: women, children, 7 year detainees without trial, in Australia's refugee detention centres. They deserve a teency weency bit of attention and help too no? Perhaps Indonesia will worry more about their human rights record in dealing with drug offenders when Australia stops and reconsiders its policy on detention of refugees without trial or charge.
 
Please explain to me how the absence of her fingerprints on the bag would do anything to prove that she wasn't involved directly and with full knowledge in the smuggling

We all acknowledge there is no one magical piece of evidence which, even if it existed, would conclusively illustrate Corby's innocence’s.

Had fingerprints been discovered such information could have been used to track the person to determine whether they had a relationship with Ms Corby. It would have also lent credence to her defense. What if the fingerprint was that of a baggage handler?.

Do you think an Australian judge would say "hmmm, well maybe someone else packed the bag and she smuggled it as part of a co-operation, therefore this finding does not validate her claim,

An Australian Judge would take into account that the bag wasn’t fingerprinted in the first place. An Australian judge would consider her background and history. Did the federal police have her under surveillance? Did she consort with criminals? Did she have an unexplained amount of cash or equivalent assets? Did she live beyond her means?

None of this information was consider by the judge despite the Defenses attempts.

An Australian judge would take into account the absence of information and not try and make conclusions as to what this information could or not indicate. The lack of it is the point.

Test the weeds origin

The prosecution claimed that the cannabis was from Australia and more importantly of high quality. No test was made to prove this contention thus allowing the Prosecution to cast dispersions that she was involved in the trafficking of high quality drugs and hence far more guilty of a serious crime then says someone trying to move 4 KG of leaf.

The whole point is that a huge amount of information, very relevant to this matter, was not made available due to the ineptitude of the Bali Police and Custom office.

A rapist is facing a retrial simply because a juror went to the place of the crime. Fucking hell just imagine what would happened if she was tried here and these things weren’t done.

Yes, their lives hinge so much on our tourism, that they would call revolution to overthrow the government

For a country with a GDP of $1 trillion US dollars (with a population 12 times bigger then Australia's compared to our GDP of $811 billion and 20 million people), low mineral & oil exports (hell they're a net importer now days) you have to concede that they are significantly (perhaps heavily) dependant on foreign tourism dollars. That and the money their expats send from the manual labor jobs they work around the world.

A decline in Bali tourist dollars will have an impact on the greater Indonesian economy and more importantly it is the only language these people speak. Don't get me wrong I like South East Asia as much as the next man (perhaps more so since I married one of em) but living in the abject poverty they do money is the all mighty ruler. I've got more stories then I’ve had Sunday roasts about the corruption and nepotism that goes on in those countries. Disregard it or not but it is an accepted fact that these countries are not ruled, presently, by social systems which are not inherently corrupt.

If the Indonesians are clever enough they'll repair the hole in their economy, caused by a boycott by a) completing the extradition treaty b) allowing the appeal to acknowledge the mistakes and order a retrial forcing the presiding judges to acknowledge the failure of the Law Enforcement agencies to follow due process.

I also want someone to explain in full the inconsistencies with normal justice in this case. NOT the investigation bungles, NOT the harsh sentences, NOT the judge reading a book

1. Lack of fingerprinting. Again if you were caught in an Australian Airport this would be done. It is a Law Enforcement procedure that hundreds of agencies around the world complete as a matter of course. By not doing it is not following the due process.

2. Testing of drugs to (trying) determining quality and origin. Again this occurs as a matter of course in an Australian drug trial and for that matter in nearly every western country.

3. The judge was not paying attention. A Judge in Australia is facing being dismissed because he didn't pay attention in several cases. It is a fact cases have been re-trial because of inattentative members Judicery. It goes to the heart of a fair trial and the inability of the Judge(s) to provide this right to Corby is again another failure of “due process”. The fact he was giving a unspoken message by reading a book about life imprisoment during the trail is a further insult.

4. The acceptance of several unsubstantiated claims by the prosecution including comments regarding the quality of the drugs which in turn cast contentious dispersions about her character.

Consider any western country and try and imagine that if you were caught with untested drugs, with the prosecution trying to imply you’re a big boss just because they think it’s of high quality.

5. The judge was giving fucking media conferences. If a judge in the western world even commented on a fucking case they deliberated on they would be up to their next in fecal matter.

It goes to heart of inderpendance, impartiality and justice that judges do not try to perform to media expectations.

I hardly doubt in the big boys book of Indoneisan law that it says "Judges are encouraged to comment and give media conferences on cases they deliberating on.

6. The judge asked questions like "look into her eyes and tell me that she is not a criminal".

Again please point out where in Law school he taught this was a technique that allowed one to determine the guilt of the accused.

7. The Judge inablity to acknowledge that Corby does not consort with criminals, or live beyond her means, or any of her character references. This clearly illustrates that either the Indonesian legal system has no requirements to consider these aspects or that the judge failed to follow this in judgment.

**********
You claim the defense did not provide enough justification to find her innocent. I find that the judge disregard failures in due process simply because she was in possession of the drug in the first place. just because one may have held a gun doesn't mean you've fired it. Is that right or fair? Nup.

they have merely acted in accordance with their laws.

Do I hear Indonesians saying anything against this very fallible judgment? Nup.

Not a pip - they've acted like hurt little children simply because there very fucked societies problems have been aired out. Seriously these people with their little attitudes and their inablity to get themselves out of their corruption quagmire makes them just as a guilty as the judge who made the call.

Does she deserve (even if she is truly guilty of this “crime”) such a sentence? Nup. Is the Indonesian Judiciary an infallible place of judgment not known for its corruption? Nup. Did the Indonesian judicial system follow best practice or its own statutes? Nup.

Sorry Charly Bronson but your belated defense that Indonesian should be allowed to get with such bullshit simply because it’s a sovereign nation, over some argument of “how would we like it if it happened here” is just unrealistic.

I would love it if the Indonesians were able to point facts in relation to a travesty of justices in our country. If they did I would be publicly 100% behind them.

Being a sovereign nation doesn’t defend you from doing the wrong thing.
 
Last edited:
I've said my bit in the social thread on this issue...but I thought I'd add this.

It ain't often I agree with Andrew Bolt, but in this instance he's actually making some sense...

Corby and the mob

Also, I'd like 'rebut' a couple of Chugs points if I may...

Had fingerprints been discovered such information could have been used to track the person to determine whether they had a relationship with Ms Corby. It would have also lent credence to her defense. What if the fingerprint was that of a baggage handler?.

Um, that only works of the fingerprints are on file. Otherwise all they can identify is that the prints belong to fingers. ;) ;)


The whole point is that a huge amount of information, very relevant to this matter, was not made available due to the ineptitude of the Bali Police and Custom office.

She was charged (and found guilty of) possession. Where the pot was grown holds absolutely no baring whatsoever to the case. The defence tried to make it an issue, but couldn't.

Finally, with regard to Australian tourism's importance to Bali's economy, you're kidding yourself. I've got a few friends living and working in Bali, and immediately after the Bali bombing Australian media reported the apparent worst fears - Aussies would no show up and the island would die.

Hate to burst your bubble, but Aussie tourists make up a pathetically small % of the tourist dollar in Bali. Right after the bombing smoke had clear the island was teeming with Europeans spending far more than the pissy amounts a few drunk Aussies generally spend, and numbers of actually tourists were apparently almost exactly the same. This was for two reasons...first off as I said, we don't make up that much of the tourist mix.

The 2nd reason is that as much as you might boycott, there's more than one other Aussie who'll take your place for a cheap holiday to Bali in 2 weeks time when Corby is all but forgotten.
 
Last edited:
Interesting comments chugs. Here are my latest thoughts:

Had fingerprints been discovered such information could have been used to track the person to determine whether they had a relationship with Ms Corby. It would have also lent credence to her defense. What if the fingerprint was that of a baggage handler?

- What if the fingerprints discovered on the bag were not stored in any database? They could not be connected to anyone. Where would that leave Corby? It is very likely that they would not be able to connect the prints to any suspect, and it would be impractical for police to collect the fingerprints of all baggage handlers involved in the transit of the bags. Thankfully the state does not yet store all of our fingerprints as a matter of course.

-Even if they found fingerprints, and determined that the person to whom they belonged did not have a relationship with Corby, that would not be sufficient evidence to throw out a case of smuggling 4.1Kg of cannabis, here or abroad. Again, it is the simpler (and thus more likely) explanation that the cannabis was merely prepared for Corby by someone who she knew but couldn't be traced to her, and this explanation would dominate unless more convincing evidence came to light in support of Corby's counterclaim.

Which brings us to:

An Australian Judge would take into account that the bag wasn’t fingerprinted in the first place. An Australian judge would consider her background and history. Did the federal police have her under surveillance? Did she consort with criminals? Did she have an unexplained amount of cash or equivalent assets? Did she live beyond her means?

Yes they would probably do all of that, and they should, and that is why our justice system is more progressive than Indonesia's. And although all of those factors would affect the sentencing outcome, they are all just circumstantial things that wouldn't change the fact that she was caught with the gunja and, despite her claims, can't establish firmly whose it is or how it got there.

By your logic, an Australian judge would also consider the validity of her claim; eg. why would baggage handlers bother with smuggling 4kgs of pot through airports, when (like someone here has already mentioned) a car could be used with far less risk or complication to drive the gear around the country. How could she not notice a 4Kg increase in the mass of her bag? And what about all that bullshit to do with her brother, the wannabe gangster? Why are the people she was travelling with so quiet? Her Indonesian husband who owns the surf shop - why was she carrying a body board? 33 trips in the past year? etc etc we could both spit chips about her guilt or innocence all day, but I don't know either side of the story well enough to come to any conclusion.

The fuckups of the Indonesian police are one thing; but the judges have been open to the pleas of the defence. They allowed an Australian criminal to go up and testify. What the fuck was that? I imagine that Aussies would be really welcoming if some Indonesian thug from a Jakarta jail came over here to testify in a case against an Indonesian guy suspected of murder, and said he had overheard two Indonesian cutthroats in jail talking about how they knew who had done it. Yeah right, not in the country of double standards. Ultimately the judge must use available evidence, and in this instance, I am not convinced that they have done something inconsistent with their legal system, and they have considered much of the circumstantial evidence in Corby's defence, but have fairly found it to be inconclusive. They heard the trial; they know the evidence for and against. I will reserve my commentary because I think that is the right thing to do considering I have not done any extensive research into the case myself (note: extensive does not mean watching channel 10 at 5, channel 9 at 6, channel 7 at 10:30).

An Australian judge would take into account the absence of information and not try and make conclusions as to what this information could or not indicate.

You mean an Australian judge would take into account the absence of substantial evidence validating Corby's claims against her guilt, and would not try and make conclusions about her innocence based on her appearance? Indeed they wouldn't, and seemingly neither have their Indonesian counterparts. There are two sides to every coin.

The whole point is that a huge amount of information, very relevant to this matter, was not made available due to the ineptitude of the Bali Police and Custom office.
True.

But as for the quality/origin test - yes, they could determine the potency of the buds, but this would not by any means prove where the bud came from. Strong hydroponic bud can be grown anywhere in the world given the right equipment and supplies.

A decline in Bali tourist dollars will have an impact on the greater Indonesian economy and more importantly it is the only language these people speak

It just rings of fascism for Australia to do this to anyone. We are hypocrites if we target Indonesian drug laws - Australia and Indonesia stand side by side in the criminalisation of cannabis and other drugs. Indonesia could look at Australia's less harsh laws and accuse us of being soft-cocks when tackling the drug issue. Why should Indonesia be made to suffer for imposing their laws on an Australian offender in Indonesia, when Indonesians suffer from the harsh laws too? It seems as though the greatest motivation to boycott Indonesia is not in protest of their drug laws, but in the name of our beloved Schapelle.

If the concern is with the Indonesian drug laws, then we view Indonesia as a human rights violator, and rather than (or as well as) boycotting them, consider writing in to your federal representative to encourage the government to cut off all diplomatic ties with a human rights violator. Fat chance! From one useless government to another.

And try and find out how much of their GDP is built by Australian tourism. It really can't be a very significant slice, considering Indonesia is a tourist destination popular amongst many westerners, not just Aussies.

If the Indonesians are clever enough they'll repair the hole in their economy, caused by a boycott by a) completing the extradition treaty b) allowing the appeal to acknowledge the mistakes and order a retrial forcing the presiding judges to acknowledge the failure of the Law Enforcement agencies to follow due process.

If Australians are clever we will realise that being belligerent and ethnocentric will only pull us to the bottom of the pile as far as regional relations are concerned. Any move to affect change in Indonesia through aggressive foreign relations will be reflected right back our way, and Indonesia will simply form stronger alliances with its South East Asian neighbours, who don't like Howard and Australia much at the moment anyway. It is a childish way to deal with the problem, and will ultimately damage more than it will repair. I may be wrong though, perhaps in practice the outcome would differ, but I can't really see it.

--------------------------------------------------------------
1. Lack of fingerprinting. Again if you were caught in an Australian Airport this would be done. It is a Law Enforcement procedure that hundreds of agencies around the world complete as a matter of course. By not doing it is not following the due process.

2. Testing of drugs to (trying) determining quality and origin. Again this occurs as a matter of course in an Australian drug trial and for that matter in nearly every western country.

Failure of police procedure, and therein acknowledged. NOT a failure of justice, because evidence of fingerprints or quality is not critical to outcome of case.

3. The judge was not paying attention. A Judge in Australia is facing being dismissed because he didn't pay attention in several cases. It is a fact cases have been re-trial because of inattentative members Judicery. It goes to the heart of a fair trial and the inability of the Judge(s) to provide this right to Corby is again another failure of “due process”. The fact he was giving a unspoken message by reading a book about life imprisoment during the trail is a further insult.

They have a panel of judges. One was reading a book. Here is what he had to say:

I don't know how long I can survive
By Matthew Moore, Herald Correspondent in Denpasar
April 29, 2005

...........Outside the court, Judge I Gusti Lanang Dauh explained he was reading the book before deciding Corby's sentence.

"Because there is a demand from the prosecutors for a life sentence, I am reading this book as a reference to add to my knowledge."

It was still too early to reveal if he would give prosecutors what they had requested.

"That's a secret," he said.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/I-...e/2005/04/29/1114635692329.html?oneclick=true

Don't let facts about the hearing descend into sensationalised accusations against the court. They are a different people, with a different system, and you can't necessarily just blast the judge over something that he did which would be considered unusual here. I think the above consideration effectively refutes your claim that his reading a book was inconsistent with justice; it is more a matter of etiquette which warrants criticism from the Australian perspective, rather than a critical flaw with their legal system.

4. The acceptance of several unsubstantiated claims by the prosecution including comments regarding the quality of the drugs which in turn cast contentious dispersions about her character.

Yet you think the judges should accept the unsubstantiated claims that attest to Corby's innocence? Double standards mate, double standards.

5. The judge was giving fucking media conferences. If a judge in the western world even commented on a fucking case they deliberated on they would be up to their next in fecal matter.

Yes, highly inappropriate to comment publicly on a hearing in progress.

6. The judge asked questions like "look into her eyes and tell me that she is not a criminal".

Again please point out where in Law school he taught this was a technique that allowed one to determine the guilt of the accused.

Don't take one statement and swing it about like it is an example of his understanding of the law. This statement is probably a matter of cultural difference. Make more of an effort to understand simple things, things like the differences in conversational formality and communication between Indonesians and Australians. They are huge! Hence, this statement does nothing to suggest that the judge is not qualified or professional in his own legal system, and is not an indication of how he formed his conclusion about the case.

7. The Judge inablity to acknowledge that Corby does not consort with criminals, or live beyond her means, or any of her character references. This clearly illustrates that either the Indonesian legal system has no requirements to consider these aspects or that the judge failed to follow this in judgment.

Such aspects of character are not significant enough to allow the judge to find her innocent in this case. Nor are they conclusive evidence that she is/is not a drug smuggler. Therefore this is not a critical aspect of justice in this case, when the evidence in the prosecution's favour is so heavy. But regardless they still should have conducted a broader trial, and in this sense our legal system is functionally superior to theirs. But we will wait and see what the higher courts have to say about it all. The above considerations are most important in determining an appropriate sentence.

I find that the judge disregard failures in due process simply because she was in possession of the drug in the first place.

I have seen no evidence to substantiate this claim. There are certainly reasons for the complacent investigation and trial, but I wouldn't go so far as to attribute them to the overwhelming evidence against Corby unless I had something to back up such a claim.


Sorry Charly Bronson but your belated defense that Indonesian should be allowed to get with such bullshit simply because it’s a sovereign nation, over some argument of “how would we like it if it happened here” is just unrealistic.

That's not my defense. I am simply establishing the fact that Indonesia has done nothing out of the ordinary with Schapelle. Also, too many Australian's think she is innocent, yet they are unable to justify their beliefs in a way that is acceptable by legal standards. Flush your emotions down the toilet before considering this case if you wish to remain objective.

I am also saying that it is not fair to criticise Indonesia so 'directly' - if their drug laws need an overhaul, then criticise their drug laws. But don't make this into some kind of personal conflict by implying that Schapelle is an innocent victim of grim reaper Indonesian judges.

I would love it if the Indonesians were able to point facts in relation to a travesty of justices in our country. If they did I would be publicly 100% behind them.

Being a sovereign nation doesn’t defend you from doing the wrong thing.

hahaha! Travesty of justice in our country? Nooooo, never. I mean, apart from allowing our own citizens to be imprisoned for years without charge by the US (free David Hicks first), or being the only developed nation in the world to have mandatory prisons waiting for refugees allowing for indefinite detention periods (of people who are guilty of nothing - where's the innocent until proven guilty tenet now then?), or involving ourselves in unilateral US military aggression against a nation on the other side of the world, or having our fucking prime minister appoint 4 out of the 7 High Court judges who always consistently rule in line with government policy on issues critical to the nation, or the suffering that our Aboriginal people continue to live under....... yep, seems squeaky clean to me.

And now the government wants to pay for two QCs as part of her defense team? Tax dollars well spent, on a shameless political points campaign capitalising on public sentiment. Why doesn't David Hicks get shouted a collect call to the White House from Johnny Howard to Bush, let alone a Queens Counsel defense? Is it because he is an Australian Muslim convert?

Indeed, being a sovereign nation doesn't defend you from doing the wrong thing. This is an important consideration for future Australian drug-smugglers who want to traffic into SE Asia.

Being an unjust sovereign nation does, however, provide you with some right to be protected from the nosy bullshit that other unjust sovereign nations want to heave at you when it comes to running your own country.
 
chugs said:

I would love it if the Indonesians were able to point facts in relation to a travesty of justices in our country. If they did I would be publicly 100% behind them.


From last night's 7:30 Report

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1381437.htm

Broadcast: 31/05/2005

Perth QC on board for Corby appeal
Reporter: Kellie Tannock


KERRY O'BRIEN: When Shapelle Corby begins her lengthy appeal process she may be armed with a much stronger defence team than she has had in Bali. Veteran Perth QC Tom Percy has come on board, with a second silk facilitated by the Australian Government to help with the appeal. Percy is renowned for clearing the names of West Australians John Button and Daryl Beamish more than 40 years after their convictions. Both men served lengthy prison terms for murders they didn't commit. So can the boy from Kalgoorlie do the same for Schapelle Corby within the confines of Indonesia's legal system? Kellie Tannock reports.

KELLIE TANNOCK: There's no doubting the determination behind the bid to free Schapelle Corby. But the Corby clan will need more than will and bravado to successfully navigate the Indonesian appeal system.

We're gonna prove it. We're gonna prove it beyond any possible shadow of a doubt!

KELLIE TANNOCK: This is one of the men on whom Schapelle Corby's future may now depend, an Irish pub singer, racehorse owner, Aussie Rules obsessive and a renowned champion of the seemingly hopeless case.

TOM PERCY QC, BARRISTER: If there's one thing that really terrifies me and really drives me on, it's the fact that there are a number of people in jail here in Australia who are comprehensively not guilty.

These 2 murder convictions were a far greater "travesty of justices in our country" than Corby's case.
 
Andrew Bolt's article, was too a large degree a smear campaign, as usual from the right. Some good points were raised but it went to far off the tracks a few times for it to sway me. He like a few others keeps insisting that it's because she is "beautiful". I'm sure she's a nice person but we aren't running off to protect Aussie pussy. She's not beautiful. He's too reactionary. He spoke of various opinions of the case and few specifics of the case.

There was no attempt to hide the drugs, they were straight in a body board bag.

Think of how you would try to import 4.1kg of weed? Would you even drive that amount of weed like that in your car interstate? I wouldn't and I'm sure most others wouldn't either. Seems like a quick baggage handler job to me. A nice big bodyboard bag would be a prime target.
After hearing the stories of other travellers that had things planted and made it through customs I'm starting to believe her.

Charles got served by chugs, keep the legal perspectives coming.

To sum up the fingerprinting...4 things could have happpened:

1. Schapelle's prints are found all over the bag. This blows her defence out of the water.

2. Fingerprints of known origin are found. Further investigation into this person is required and the prosecution will then seek establish whther schapelle had a relationship with this person (i.e. the person knowingly packed the bag for her).

3. Fingerprints of unknown origin are found. This doesn't help or hinder her case.

4. No fingerprints are found inside or outside the bag (it has been cleaned). This doesn't help or hinder the case.

Why didn't they process the evidence properly when presented with the "framed" defence?


These 2 murder convictions were a far greater "travesty of justices in our country" than Corby's case.

I'd rather be in jail for a murder I didn't commit than 20years for pot that wasn't mine.
 
Last edited:
What if the fingerprints discovered on the bag were not stored in any database

It doesn't matter whose fingerprints were on the bag, hell it could have been Steve Waugh’s but we’ll never know because the opportunity to find out was not acted upon. Read up on the word opportunity, it’s a very important legal term.

The whole point of justices is that facts are judged in a impartial and fair manner to determine the truth of a particular matter. The failure to gather these facts represents a miscarriage of justice.

That was my original point. If Corby’s prints were on the bag then so be it. But we'll never know. In most western countries the failure to gather crucial & relevant information such as this would be at the very least grounds for a retrial.

allowed an Australian criminal to go up and testify

No they allowed the defence to call a witness, nothing strange there. The only thing special was the prisoner transfer arrangement that had nothing to do with the court but more to do with the Indonesian police and the Australian police/government.

I wouldn't go so far as to attribute them to the overwhelming evidence against Corby

The prosecution tendered only 1 fact; the bag was in her possession.

Please list the facts which were tendered (no contentious bullshit like the pot was high quality ok).

Did the 33 trips rumour get submitted, nup – However please show me a copy of her passport which reflects all these trips because I haven’t seen a single fact with regards to that aspect.

our justice system is more progressive than Indonesia's

More Progressive is a massive understatement, we in the next fucking galaxy. Travesties of justices occur daily in Indonesian. You can blame the western powers for fucking their country but hey we did it with their cooperation, there were Indonesians there that knew better but let their country descend into the hell hole it is today. They killed and destroyed every system that could have lead to a free, healthy and rich society simply to enrich themselves. When I spend a dollar in Bali, half of it ends back in the hands of the government, and mandrins, enriching the real villains who have used the Corby affair to push their fucked aspirations for political power. They are the ones who can free Corby and my boycotting Indonesia is the only way I’m ever going to get my message across. If it hurts 10 people that’s not my fault their using the Bali people as proverbial human shields.

it just rings of fascism for Australia to do this to anyone. We are hypocrites if we target Indonesian drug laws -

The world is full of contradictions; innocent people get fucked over every where. I can't support Corby, and argue in her favour, simply because other people getting in the world are also facing injustice?

Who gives you right to judge that Hick's life is more important then Corby's life, or for that matter a dying child in South Africa. Each in their own right is as important as the other. Hell if we were talking about Hicks I would be talking with as much passion. If we were talking about Africa, or anywhere else (you name it) I’d talk with as much anger.

Nevertheless apart from a boycott please propose a realistic alternative on how to get her out of that jail as soon as possible (unless you think as I’m getting the feeling, you think she deserves to rot in there).
 
clocker said:
I'd rather be in jail for a murder I didn't commit than 20years for pot that wasn't mine.


Again, from the 7:30 Report Transcript.
Two years earlier, another Perth man, a deaf and mute petty criminal named Darryl Beamish was convicted of murdering socialite Jillian Brewer. His death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment and he served 15 years in jail.

You'd rather be in jail for a murder you didn't commit huh? I wonder if you would have thought the same way if it was really you wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to death? 8)


Oh, and btw Chugs, will you be boycotting Fiji as well for imprisoning 2 gay men, one an Australian, just for having sex?
 
Last edited:
This discussion is beginning to stall as we realise that it is no longer a matter of objective argument, but solely of personal opinion. We will eventually agree to disagree, but until then....

About the fingerprints. As far as the Indonesian judges are concerned, the issue of fingerprints is not that important. I, personally, am glad to live in a system where great importance is placed on police evidence-collecting procedure, and hence I agree that it is a good criticism against the investigating team who failed to collect the prints.

But why don't the judges think it is important? Because someone who is smuggling drugs is probably likely to ensure that the bag is clean of any prints that link back to the smuggler. Sure, we'll never know, but the Indonesian judges seem to think that the issue of fingerprints is trivial given, perhaps, all the other circumstantial evidence against her, eg. her nervousness as the customs officer opened the body board bag up (see the link provided in Bent's post for more of these small issues of circumstantial evidence - they don't only exist in favour of her innocence, some facts incriminate her, yet they are easily overlooked by those on this board who want the SAS to go and bust her out of jail).

No they allowed the defence to call a witness, nothing strange there. The only thing special was the prisoner transfer arrangement that had nothing to do with the court but more to do with the Indonesian police and the Australian police/government.

So you don't appreciate the fact that a very low credibility witness was allowed to testify with second hand evidence? Hearsay evidence that is pretty much irrelevant considering the judges had little other evidence that gave credence to the baggage handler claims? There is very little attempt by you to look at things from the Indonesian perspective. Even after considering all shreds of evidence that the defence could gather, the judges still concluded that she was guilty. Perhaps there is a reason, somewhat valid, for their arriving at this conclusion? Think about what that reason might be for a sec.

The prosecution tendered only 1 fact; the bag was in her possession.

That is the only fact they needed to justify the charges against her. That, combined with the testimony of the arresting officers concerning her demeanour etc, which was not in Corby's favour (keeping in mind that their credibility is certainly no less than Corby's).

Aside from that, you seem to know the case better than I do. So tell me more about the facts.

What facts did Corby tender in her defence against the established evidence that she was in possession of the cannabis?

I can't support Corby, and argue in her favour, simply because other people getting in the world are also facing injustice?

You can, and you should, so long as you have justified to yourself your belief that she is innocent. Or perhaps you concede that she is guilty, and want to continue fighting the battle as part of a greater campaign against illegalisation of drugs around the world. Either way, your passion is commendable.

Who gives you right to judge that Hick's life is more important then Corby's life, or for that matter a dying child in South Africa.

The same person/object that gives you the right to find Corby innocent even though you don't know for sure, even though you didn't oversee the trial, and even though it is plainly obvious that a huge part of your decision about her innocence was influenced by a generalisation that the Indonesian system is corrupt (corrupt, as opposed to harsh).

But to correct you, I don't judge that Hicks's life is more important. My place is not in passing judgement on individuals who I do not know. I merely offer a friendly reminder that gross injustices are committed by countries that you consider to be a 'galaxy' ahead of Indonesia.

Nevertheless apart from a boycott please propose a realistic alternative on how to get her out of that jail as soon as possible (unless you think as I’m getting the feeling, you think she deserves to rot in there).

It ought to be obvious to you that I don't think anyone deserves to 'rot' in jails, least of all drug offenders. I understand your anger; you feel that a great injustice has been committed. I will explain to you my perspective so that you may understand my position:

I am not convinced of her innocence, or of her guilt. However, I am not skeptical enough about the Bali court to feel as though its judgement, which was cast by judges in a far better position to know the facts than I am, was corrupted or wrong as far as law is concerned. Therefore I am not ready to conclude that she is innocent, but because of all of the other issues, I have some doubts in my mind about her being guilty. I am prepared to allow the Indonesian courts of appeal to hear the case and come to their own conclusions; I simply do not have the right information at my disposal to make any firm judgements right now. Hence I am not yet prepared to talk about getting her out of there, especially because there are most certainly other Aussies in far more critical situations who should be helped first. I judge that based on raw necessity, rather than personal prejudice.

Note that I do not think their judgement and sentence was fair because I do not see smuggling of pot as a crime. Corby's name joins the list of millions who are needlessly made to suffer under oppressive drug laws.
 
Top