Shoutbox

I would like to thank rafy for his accurate and detailed description of the law. As an australian law student I can confirm what he is saying about a primie facie case. I think Australians need to let their minds rather than their hearts do the talking. Emotions need to be separated from what are the cold hard facts of the case as rafy has pointed out. For another enlightening article on the issue I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schapelle_Corby

And I would highlight a quote:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Professor Tim Lindsay
Professor Tim Lindsay has stated that the defence case contained "virtually nothing that was admissible evidence to be given weight under Indonesian criminal procedure law" [3]

---

Also note that his comment is not alone:

quote:

---

Legal commentators in Australia have remarked that Ford's testimony, as hearsay, would be inadmissable evidence in an Australian court, but it was allowed under the Indonesian justice system, where the judges exercise a discretion over whether or not the evidence can be admitted

---

Now this does not necessarily mean that I think Schapelle Corby is innocent. It just means that her defence team was rediculous and according to Professor Lindsay did nothing that would further her cause. This was echoed in the Chief Judges comments both pre & post sentencing, that what he was looking for was a solid legal argument to acquit her. He said the emotional appeals did nothing as every person that is sentenced to such a charge does the same.

So maybe its time to stop bashing the Judge and the Indonesian Legal System. Clearly, it works although they obviously have a different value system to ours (hence the 20 year term). If a finger is to be pointed at anybody it would be her lawyers, who have neglected the fundamentals of law. That is, coming up with a clear legal argument as to why Schapelle why not guilty given the Primie Facie evidence that was stacked well against her.