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.
