Oceania Schapelle Corby: a conviction or an acquittal?

Yes i know this...but i like to read all the resourse i can get from anywhere, not just the media...i read as much facts as i can and them like to make up my own mind...that way i have a wide range of resources and not just the medias

 

I can't help but notice that you've actually not once demonstrated the "facts" you alleged have possession of, but rather reiterated your opinion ad infinitum.

So, post your facts or admit you got confused between a fact and an opinion.

E_S

 

Fact - She was caught with the Drugs on her....


it is just like the bali 9 with it strapped around them...they will be killed because of it

 

Fact - She was caught with the Drugs on her....

Er, no. The whole point and the focus of the defence case was that the drugs weren't on her, they were in a boogie board bag that she said was hers when asked. She did not know what was in the bag, according to her account.

PPOR.

EDIT:

She is guilty until proven innocent in my eyes. The legal system there has done its job, let it be. The affairs are outweighed by the affairs of many. Her tears could all be mock then again be real. Not all people in jails across the world are guilty lol. Errors are part if the system. We do not need a 3rd umpire for the legal system

Pardon my French, but this is so daft I decided to dissect it to see if it has any internal logic at all:

She is guilty until proven innocent in my eyes
I'm so glad you disagree with the basic logic that's underpinned the Westminster system of justice for the past three or four hundred years. Just remember this, my friend--being charged with a crime you didn't commit is rather like the pie-in-the-face routine: it stops being funny when it starts being you. I truly hope that if, by some misfortune, you are charged with a criminal offence, you have a magistrate who thinks differently to how you do.

The legal system there has done its job, let it be.
But it's done its job in a flawed fashion--therefore one cannot let it be. That's like saying "Well, we convicted the wrong guy, but hey, he's gotta be guilty of something!"

The affairs are outweighed by the affairs of many.
If you're going to quote Star Trek on a Star Wars board then get it right, and don't try and resort to it as a legal principle. The needs of the one are not outweighed by the needs of the many--as you may or may not know or believe, it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted or imprisoned. The justice system has this as one of its most fundamental principles. Otherwise, justice--or at least your idea of it--is no better than the law of the jungle. We're more than that.

Her tears could all be mock then again be real.
I am amazed that you can run this line and then say that she's guilty until proven innocent. Ever heard of the presumption of innocence? Reasonable doubt? Haven't you watched "Law and Order" recently? The point is, her credibility is only one point in many to consider, and the fact is there wasn't enough evidence to convict her.

Not all people in jails across the world are guilty lol.
This makes my blood boil more than anything else you've spouted. Do you realise how many people have been wrongly convicted, even executed, and subsequently cleared of their so-called crimes? Do you realise how many are still proclaiming their innocence, and don't have anyone listening to them? Do you have any idea how hard it is to obtain justice once you are wrongly convicted? You term this as an acceptable situation and have the hide to put an LOL after it???

Errors are part if the system. We do not need a 3rd umpire for the legal system
No, that's exactly why we need a third umpire for the legal system. It's called the Court of Appeal, bonehead.

 

it is just like the bali 9 with it strapped around them...they will be killed because of it

There's a different between having drugs literaly ON you, and having it in your bag.
No one can plant drugs on you without you knowing, not like that anyhow.

You're scraping the bottom of the barrel for retorts.

 

umm...it was her bag...

and when they ask her to open the bag she refused saying No...from what i understand..dosn't that indicate that she is trying to hide something...

 

Not really. Implying that a person has done something, whether they've actually done it or not, can make them get somewhat defensive. You wouldn't want them doing anything unless you were sure they were allowed by law to do it.

 

in the film that the quote came from "mono" means 1

"Mono to mono" = 1 to 1

also quoted is "mono to trio" 1 to 3
it is based in an imaginary world just like Star Wars


I dont think many people know all the facts of the case unless they have read through the court transcripts etc and not just read the Herald-Sun or watched 60 minutes.

 

well if you had nothing to hide then i don't see why she went all defensive...this i mean to her is was just a body bag

and also how did she not know that it was in there....did you see the size of that compare to what a body board bag look like it...she only had the body board in the bag and the drug would have made it look 10 times ticker...anyone would have had to notice it

 

umm...it was her bag...

But she didn't know what was in it.

and when they ask her to open the bag she refused saying No...from what i understand..dosn't that indicate that she is trying to hide something...

She didn't refuse. She opened it on request, by her account. Just because an underpaid Customs agent says something doesn't mean it's true.

PPOR.

well if you had nothing to hide then i don't see why she went all defensive...this i mean to her is was just a body bag

Define defensive. And also tell me why a person shouldn't question the right of an agent to open your luggage when you don't believe you've done anything wrong.

and also how did she not know that it was in there....did you see the size of that compare to what a body board bag look like it...she only had the body board in the bag and the drug would have made it look 10 times ticker...anyone would have had to notice it

The amount of drug was 4.1 kg, not 20. And for that matter, she wasn't carrying immediately before the customs agents grabbed it; her brother had put it up on the desk, not her.

PPOR.

 

The amount of drug was 4.1 kg, not 20. And for that matter, she wasn't carrying immediately before the customs agents grabbed it; her brother had put it up on the desk, not her.

well 4.1 is still huge...it expands and is quite large

it may only sound like 4 kg but that is alot

 

well 4.1 is still huge...it expands and is quite large

And if it's compressed? As this particular item was supposed to have been?

it may only sound like 4 kg but that is alot

Her brother picked up her bag and put it up for inspection by the customs agent. Have you ever travelled by air as a group? Would you be able to make a mental note of every one of your travelling companions luggage weight?

 

Ya, S_M is right.
I fly to Melbourne every month or so with a couple of other people...more often than not I carry mos the of luagage, good look remembering the weights of all those bags...especially after a flight.

 

but are you saying that you won't feel any different in the bag...i mean if i picked a body bag and it had a huge lump in the middle of it...i would question what is in side...and beside they showed the size of the drugs...pretty think if you ask me

 

pretty think if you ask me

***?

 

sorry got distracted by younger bro...

mean to say pretty thick if you ask me

 

You're saying you would notice, but you're assuming one bag.

What if you're already holding three bags, you pick up another one, you've just gotten off a flight to another country in a cramped plane, and you just want through the admin stuff and your holiday to start. You going to tell me you'd question what may or may not be a lump in your sister's luggage under those conditions? If that were me, before all this mind you, I'd assume she crammed extra stuff into a spare space in a bag of luggage, I've done that myself on many occasions, just taking advantage of available luggage space.

Bottom line, don't go assuming someone would do something just because you or may not act the same way under those conditions, and certainly don't presume guilt based off your assumptions.

 

yes that is a very good point, but i am not assuming anyting i am just saying that i would notice the huge lump in the bag

also i would like to state

that you are defending someone that has been found guilty of something that no one will ever know if she did it or not and are quick to judge other countries Criminal system...however we should look at our own Criminial system where if you kill someone you get off with less then 5 years in jail...no to mention good behaviour..(just my opinion on that matter)

 

Yeah well, murdercan be justified...drug dealing cannot.

 

Several points to raise in that:

(1) You bet I'm judgmental about Indonesia's criminal justice system. If you'd read back a few pages into this thread you'd see why. Just because there are flaws in our system doesn't mean you can't criticise a truly abysmal justice system. At least you have a chance of an acquittal before an Australian court--unlike the chief justice in Indonesia, who has never acquitted once. Can you not see there is something deeply wrong with a system where there is no such thing as an innocent person?

(2) In talking about sentences dished out by Australian courts, you're missing the point: the debate is not about the sentence, but about the conviction. But since you're looking to shift your ground: less than 5 years in jail for killing someone? And time off for good behaviour? Where and when, please? And under what circumstances (since you're obsessed with being apprised of all the facts). Unless you're talking about manslaughter, which is accidental killing, I find it highly unlikely that murder or wilful murder ordinarily receives five years in jail, which is what you seem to be implying. If you're talking about dangerous driving causing death, that's different, and a different set of rules applies.

And I suggest you take a walk or serve time in an Australian prison before you start deciding what sentences should apply for people. I strongly suspect you have little idea what goes on in our prisons, and the real nature of punishment of this kind. Try living with the daily risk of getting knifed or beaten or raped. Try living without your baby son or daughter for years at a time, being unable to see them or hug them or touch them in the restricted visits they give you. Try living as a surname only, and having to call every person in authority above you 'boss'. Believe it or not, courts are actually dishing out punishment they believe fits the crime...but at least they temper it with mercy, which is more than an Indonesian court does.

 

Several points to raise in that:

(1) You bet I'm judgmental about Indonesia's criminal justice system. If you'd read back a few pages into this thread you'd see why. Just because there are flaws in our system doesn't mean you can't criticise a truly abysmal justice system. At least you have a chance of an acquittal before an Australian court--unlike the chief justice in Indonesia, who has never acquitted once. Can you not see there is something deeply wrong with a system where there is no such thing as an innocent person?

It is hard to say that she is innocent when the evidence stack against her is 2 great...he looks at the facts and emotion

(2) In talking about sentences dished out by Australian courts, you're missing the point: the debate is not about the sentence, but about the conviction. But since you're looking to shift your ground: less than 5 years in jail for killing someone? And time off for good behaviour? Where and when, please? And under what circumstances (since you're obsessed with being apprised of all the facts). Unless you're talking about manslaughter, which is accidental killing, I find it highly unlikely that murder or wilful murder ordinarily receives five years in jail, which is what you seem to be implying. If you're talking about dangerous driving causing death, that's different, and a different set of rules applies.

What i am implying is muder in general, ok i can understand wilfull muder getting more time in jail, but manslaughter..i don't care if it is accidental killing they should be in jail for like...if someone actidental killed one of your family members how would you feel if he got a reduce sentence, i would be angry..if you kill someone no matter what it should be life for you...a life for a life...an accidential killing could be drink driving ...now should they get a lighter sentence because it was the achoal..i don't think they should

And I suggest you take a walk or serve time in an Australian prison before you start deciding what sentences should apply for people. I strongly suspect you have little idea what goes on in our prisons, and the real nature of punishment of this kind. Try living with the daily risk of getting knifed or beaten or raped. Try living without your baby son or daughter for years at a time, being unable to see them or hug them or touch them in the restricted visits they give you. Try living as a surname only, and having to call every person in authority above you 'boss'. Believe it or not, courts are actually dishing out punishment they believe fits the crime...but at least they temper it with mercy, which is more than an Indonesian court does.

prisions in australia are alot different then overseas, i remeber reading that a couple of the prisions had a swiming pool, dvds, books, tv etc now does this sound like a prision...i mean most prision could be bad...but some are like they are going on a holiday which is a joke...compared to overseas prision where 10 or more people share a cell together with nothing apart of what there family brings them...i think australia prisions are high quality compared to other places

 

It is hard to say that she is innocent when the evidence stack against her is 2 great...he looks at the facts and emotion

As you said earlier, you don't have all the facts.

And you're ignoring that the Court's conclusion was a foregone one. The defence team was precluded from introducing relevant and exculpatory evidence of baggage handlers being involved in drug trafficking at Australian airports, including the one Corby departed from. Sure, evidence looks bad when you're not allowed to explain or provide contradictory evidence which affects the weight a court can give it. And a chief justice who has never acquitted cannot be said to be looking at things objectively--justice has to be seen to be done, and a no-acquittal record doesn't show it.

What i am implying is muder in general, ok i can understand wilfull muder getting more time in jail, but manslaughter..i don't care if it is accidental killing they should be in jail for like...if someone actidental killed one of your family members how would you feel if he got a reduce sentence, i would be angry..if you kill someone no matter what it should be life for you...a life for a life...an accidential killing could be drink driving ...now should they get a lighter sentence because it was the achoal..i don't think they should

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," as the saying goes. Let's consider your idea that no matter what a killing should involve a life sentence. Let's say you're speeding to the hospital, your wife in the back of the car, about to give birth to your first child. A kid walks out into the road. You don't have time to stop. Kid dies. You still think you should go to jail for life?

And for the record, alcohol use doesn't mitigate a sentence. Courts have ruled on that again and again. Otherwise every Tom, Dick, and Harry would be out using the alcohol as an excuse for driving.

prisions in australia are alot different then overseas, i remeber reading that a couple of the prisions had a swiming pool, dvds, books, tv etc now does this sound like a prision...i mean most prision could be bad...but some are like they are going on a holiday which is a joke...compared to overseas prision where 10 or more people share a cell together with nothing apart of what there family brings them...i think australia prisions are high quality compared to other places

Which prison had the four-star facilities? I'll guarantee you it was in the minority. Ain't no swimming pools at Hakea, Acacia, Casuarina, Karnet, Woorooloo, Albany Regional, Eastern Goldfields, or Greenough Prison out here in the West. And having a gilded cage doesn't change the fact that it's still a cage...filled with a lot of dangerous animals. Oh, well, at least you can think about what a cool DVD you watched when you're in the infirmary with a shiv wound in your side. You look at a person who comes out of prison after a long jail term, and I'll guarantee you you're looking at a much different, much lesser person than the one who went in.

 

The more they change, the more they stay the same. Of course, it's a minority that attempts further crimes after long jail terms, but unfortunately jail time doesn't change everyone. But I do agree, there are one or two prison cells that are more like second homes then what a traditional jail was and should be.

 

It is hard to say that she is innocent when the evidence stack against her is 2 great...he looks at the facts and emotion

You mean the evidence that was allowed to be admitted right? You don't mean the evidence the court ordered inadmissable?

Oh, and "2" is a number, not a word.

 

you carn't argue with the fact that she was found guilt...

i man when she appeals this time it will to there supreme court io think so the outcome might change...

but really

y don't they just put here on a lie dectector test and find out for sure...