Oceania Schapelle Corby: a conviction or an acquittal?

lie detector tests are not gospel either

 

well as least the truth will be reveled quicker

 

Do you take the time to actually read what you post or do you just hammer on the keyboard and click?

 

I agree

 

I wouldn't be too quick to join the finger pointing if I were you either.

 

It's like listening to the Annoying Frog ringtone, isn't it?

 

Oh dear God, don't start with that!! stupid, stupid frog!!

 

nang nang naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang nang nang

 

It's like listening to the Annoying Frog ringtone, isn't it?

Ahahaha so true.

Tis annoying when everyone assumes someone is innocent...especially when they've never met the person.

 

See I knew that you'd come undone; either I'd nail you on policy, or Saint would nail you on legality, or you'd lemmings yourself onto a fence.

Firstly, you bloody well can argue with the verdict; hence the term "appeal."

Secondly, lie detectors aren't allowed as evidence.

I would say then, it would not be unreasonable to say you fully supported the murder of 1,000,000 people in Indonesia in 1956 under anticommunist legislation, correct?

It would also be accurate to suggest you fully supported the occupation and annexation of East Timor, no?

And of course, you were absolutely, positively stoked that the constitutional court approved the overturn of Hambali et al's conviction(s) based upon the ex post facto application of anti-terrorism, law right! What they were convicted for - terrorism - wasn't a crime at the time they did it, so they should be free, no?

E_S

 

Tis annoying when everyone assumes someone is innocent...especially when they've never met the person.

And what about when someone has actually read up on the case and learned what evidence was withheld, the attitudes opf the court and so forth, what then?

Substitute the word "innocent" for "guilty" in your post, and the same holds true.

 

See I knew that you'd come undone; either I'd nail you on policy, or Saint would nail you on legality, or you'd lemmings yourself onto a fence.

Firstly, you bloody well can argue with the verdict; hence the term "appeal."

Secondly, lie detectors aren't allowed as evidence.

I would say then, it would not be unreasonable to say you fully supported the murder of 1,000,000 people in Indonesia in 1956 under anticommunist legislation, correct?

It would also be accurate to suggest you fully supported the occupation and annexation of East Timor, no?

And of course, you were absolutely, positively stoked that the constitutional court approved the overturn of Hambali et al's conviction(s) based upon the ex post facto application of anti-terrorism, law right! What they were convicted for - terrorism - wasn't a crime at the time they did it, so they should be free, no?


i know the word appeal....and i only think that it will get worse for her...

y would i support the killing of 1,000,000 indoneian....the communist had no right to do that...i know...because my mate at work is from vietnam and he told me all the stoies...so don't assume that you know me

 

Man this thread has made everyone so Narcy!

 

Why would I assume it?

Well, your reverance for Indonesian law and justice, that's why! Clearly, as you respect them enough in this case to suggest their process was just, fair and accurate, you obviously support other landmark Indonesian rulings, n'est ce pas?

"La philosophie de Yoda est plus intéressante que la philosophie existentialiste de La Nausée! Tu es d'accord, n'est-ce pas?!"

E_S

 

Substitute the word "innocent" for "guilty" in your post, and the same holds true.

Exactly.
Although, to be honest, didn't she have more evidence against her than for her?
She had drugs in her bag and no way to prove they were not hers.

Either way, none of us know the truth yet everyone is acting as though they do.

 

"...and the truth will set you free."

the obvious problem we have here is the fact that the case was held within the Indonesian system, meaning if it were in Australia the case would be as some have said 'fair and just'. We all see things differently, but the fact of the matter is, she was guilty until proven innocent which is in no way a fair and just trial. To me, it's as if they wanted to use her as an example, to scare others away from doing the same thing, which goes to prove how bad both the drugs importation issue is in Bali, and the law itself in the country.

Drugs were found in a bag that did belong to her. Fact. However, it is also a fact that there have been similar issues within airports in Australia. An Australian court would have no doubts in allowing this evidence to defend her. Along with other evidence that was thrown out by the judge of this case.

But it's true, it could become much worse for her now. 'Big time' names are backing her, which could lead to an even tougher sentence to show that no one person(s) can change a decision based on popularity. I'm afraid that conclusion is very likely to happen in an Indonesian court.

 

I'd love to see people sit down and read up on the Indonesian judicial and political system then still conclude prattling on about justice is indeed accurate...

E_S

 

[image=http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b55/JOHNNAGE_THE_BRAVE/whatthe.jpg]

 

I'm...at a loss for words.



Meanwhile, in our continuing series on the capable and forthright lawyers working for Schapelle Corby, courtesy of Steve Pennells:

And people think the Australian justice system sucks?

 

"There are no lawyers in Indonesia, only negotiators."

That about sums it up.

 

and negotiation is a sign of weakness some say lol

 

Some say lol? Ok then...

 

yes then.....

 

So, I guess that hagiographic light you've given the Indonensian judiciary is fading, or you didn't read Saintheart's article?

E_S

 

not fading personally