Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by -rafy-
Okay here is some of the evidence from the other side of the case (The evidence the media isnt talking about)


- The package in the boogie board bag, had the EXACT dimensions as the outer pockets of the bag, and was a precise fit in Shappell's bag. The volume of the area of the bag it was found was 4.1 kg.

- Corby's father has a prior conviction for growing Hydroponic Canabis

- Hyrdoponic Canabis (which was the type found in Corby's bag) is worth alot MORE in Bali than it is in AUstralia, especially when sold to foreign tourists who dont trust indonesian made drugs.

- This is circumstancial, but there has being a break-down in the relationship between corby and her brother (who also has being arrested on drug offenses before) suggesting that her brother may have being part of it.

There are a few more points of evidence. Just read the judgement.

oh and by the way, there is NO indication that Corby did not recieve a fair trial. The judges went out their way to ensure she did recieve one. All rules of evience, of procedure, etc were followed.

She is just lucky they didnt apply the death penalty.

---

Where did you get this information? A link please?

I think if her bag was filled with 4.1kgs of pot, she would notice. But if you were carrying a whole lot of along with it, you wouldn't. It would be very easy. 4.1kgs isn't that much when you are carrying a whole heap of other bags.

Some of the points are from a Sydney Morning Herald Article i read some time ago (I cant find a link as it has being archived), others came from a summary of points from the age newspaper (below)....

Regarding point 1, if you know anything about the law, this fact immediately establishes a prima facie case. There is a case to answer, no matter what the country, and as a prima facie case, the defense has no choice but to prove that she is innocent.

1. The vacuum-sealed marijuana was in a boogie board bag that Corby admitted owning.

2. Customs official Gusti Nyoman Winata said he asked Corby to open the bag, but she unzipped only a front pocket. "When I opened it a bit, she said: 'No'," Mr Winata said. "I asked: 'Why?', and she said: 'I have some,' and looked confused." Mr Winata added that she blocked his hand to stop him opening the main zip.

3. Corby disputed Mr Winata's version, but there was no CCTV system in operation to support her denial.

4. A second customs official said Corby admitted owning the drugs.

5. Corby failed to notice the bag's extra weight. Her excuse was that the bag's handle had been broken on the way to Bali, meaning she had to drag it.

6. While Australian baggage handlers have since been linked to an airport cocaine-smuggling ring, which was in operation on the date Corby flew to Bali, there has never been any suggestion or evidence of them trafficking marijuana.

7. A drug dealer employing baggage handlers would be highly unlikely to smuggle four kilograms of marijuana into Brisbane airport and then into a stranger's bag, just to send it on to Sydney. Such a task would further require another handler at Sydney to sneak it out of the bag and hide it while attempting to get it out of the airport. As road haulage experts have confirmed, smug-glers could avoid this by sending it by road.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

8. Prosecutors claim the plastic bag was the same size and shape as the boogie board bag, suggesting it had been organised to fit, as opposed to being stuffed in by someone else, such as baggage handlers.

9. Hydroponic marijuana is highly sought after among cashed-up expatriates and tourists in Bali.

10. Had Corby been aware of the drugs and had her bag been properly secured with a padlock, there would have been no chance of her claiming that the marijuana had been planted in her bag.

I think that bloke who caused the Bali bombings should have got the firing squad, but I also think that Chapelle Corby should get it as well. Didn't you hear about the letters they found from her bloke in Indonesia complaining about the poor quality of weed there. And besides, 4 kilos of weed is alot and I reckon you'd notice it someone had smuggled it into your bag.

The bali bombing is a much more complicated case, and those who have being DIRECTLY involved have recieved either life terms, or death.

I dont think Shapelle should get the death penalty. 20 years is substantial enough, although i do think they will lmake that life on appeal.

Now i want to eleaborate on the legal concept of Prima Facie. The are so many people around saying she hasnt gotten a fair trial beacuse she is in some way guilty before being proven innocent in Indonesia. In any jurasdiction this would be the case.  Prima Facie is latin for 'At first view or on its face'. Meaning that evidence Requires no additional support to establish validity or credibility. It is resumed to be true unless disproved by evidence to the contrary. It refers to evidence that, at first appearance, seems to establish a particular fact, but that may be later contradicted by other evidence.

What that means is that substantial evidence exists (SHe was found with the drugs in HER bag) for that evidence to stand alone on court. As she was effectively caught red handed, the onus is on her to prove that the drugs in the bag were not hers.

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.

Creative ideas to spice up Corby news
June 10, 2005


The jury is out on Corby media coverage, writes Laura Jenkins.

I am the first to admit the Schapelle Corby case is fascinating. Even the most garish Hollywood scriptwriter would be hard-pressed inventing the Corby characters: the inexperienced lawyer, the stumbling interpreter, the once bankrupt financial backer, the sister with the enormous mouth named after a prestige German vehicle and the mother who, let's just say, never went to finishing school.

Love them or hate them, Schapelle and her coterie are must-see TV. But instead of bombarding us over and over with meaningless phone and internet polls, and even Channel Nine's ridiculous "worm" of approval, as to whether Schapelle is innocent, I wish the media would indulge our unhealthy interest with more exciting poll questions. For example:

 Vote for the funniest name involved in this case: a) Schapelle; b) Mercedes; c) Lily Lubis; d) Rosleigh Rose; e) Connie Panglahila.

 What is it about "our Schapelle" that makes you most proud? a) Her ability to maintain perfect eyebrows while in prison; b) That she still uses a boogie board at age 27; c) That she actually told her mother to shut her trap in court.

 Schapelle is said to spend her time in jail knitting. What on earth is she making in such a sweltering country? a) A muzzle for her mother for the appeals case; b) An imitation QC's wig for Lily Lubis - the closest she'll ever get to the real thing; c) A pair of fluffy dice for Ron Bakir.

 If you were being sentenced for drug crimes on TV, what would you want your mum to yell at the judge? a) Heaps of expletives like Rosleigh, mainly consisting of verbs used as adjectives; b) Something crazy to do with refunding a tsunami donation; c) A barb about the head judge having not found anyone innocent in 500 cases, so what was the point of the whole charade?

 Does your opinion of Schapelle change if she is guilty? a) Yes, I'm an Aussie and I only back teams when they are winning; b) Not at all, I'm a bit sick of Indonesia. Why can't we be neighbours with a benign country like Canada? c) She should just serve time in one of our comfy jails, which everyone knows are more like luxury hotels.

After thinking about the Corbys way too much, I have even started to wonder how my family would behave, if it were me. Being from the North Shore, my parents would mainly be disappointed that I had booked a holiday to Bali in the first place, and then they would hire flashy lawyers to get me off. If that failed they would storm the jail and we would sail to Majorca, Skase-style.

Or perhaps not. In reality, all they could do is watch the nightmare unfold, like Schapelle's family, but with less swearing and dressed in Country Road. I hope my mum would manage to leave her Helen Kaminski straw hat at home and that my dad wouldn't try and tell the judge I went to the same school as John Howard's daughter. Maybe the Corbys aren't so embarrassing after all.

i never really thought about the schapelle case much,
after been fed what all the media have been saying i had always just assumed that she was innocent, that the drugs had being planted there in her bag, that the indonesian justice system is unfair, that the drugs were worth virtually nothing in bali and there is no logical reason why she would smuggle the drugs into bali and it must have been the luggage handlers and that she was just a poor girl in the wrong place at the wrong time.
After hearin some points for the other side of the argument however i realise that if the media had showed the whole story i doubt she'd have such mass of people who are all 'absolutely certain' that shes guilty.
also im certainly no longer sure that she's innocent, not 100% sure that shes guilty either but its certainly an interesting debate and i believe that (from what ive heard which i doubt is not even close to the whole story) their is not really enough evidence to prove her inncocence especially with the 'guilty till proven innocent' system in indonesia, but there may be enough to quallify as reasonable doubt and therefore under australian law, be proven innocent.
still even if she is guilty, 20 years in those conditions just for marijiuana is far too harsh...

tbh i think what is hellarious there is a sign which is on her shop in qld which says back in 20

quote:

---

Originally posted by revilox
not really enough evidence to prove her inncocence especially with the 'guilty till proven innocent' system in indonesia, but there may be enough to quallify as reasonable doubt and therefore under australian law, be proven innocent.

---

perhaps you didnt read my ramble on prima facie cases?

quote:

---

The are so many people around saying she hasnt gotten a fair trial beacuse she is in some way guilty before being proven innocent in Indonesia. In any jurasdiction this would be the case.  Prima Facie is latin for 'At first view or on its face'. Meaning that evidence Requires no additional support to establish validity or credibility. It is resumed to be true unless disproved by evidence to the contrary. It refers to evidence that, at first appearance, seems to establish a particular fact, but that may be later contradicted by other evidence.

What that means is that substantial evidence exists (SHe was found with the drugs in HER bag) for that evidence to stand alone on court. As she was effectively caught red handed, the onus is on her to prove that the drugs in the bag were not hers.

---

The Indonesian legal system is innocent before proven guilty. However this case, as a prima facie case has been established, it is like being guilty before proven innocent beacuse the evidence alone is enough (she was caught red handed with the drugs) The defense has to show that the drugs are not hers. This would be the case in ANY legal system, even in Australia. The concept of reasonable doubt in how you decribe it is irrelevant in prima facie cases.
Hope that cleared some things up

that just proves my last point all wrong but still, i think its amazing how one sided the media coverage has been of the whole case so far and (from what ive seen in New Zealand) there has been virtually no media coverage showing the other side to the argument, and how easily (even i) was suckered by it and was so sure that she was innocent without even thinking that there might be another side to the story,
goes to show not to make a judgement until youve got all the facts...still not sure if shes guilty or not on this one though
-
chers rafy,