Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
aus.legal
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Corby Case
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Phil Allison  
View profile  
 More options May 28 2005, 12:21 am
Newsgroups: aus.legal
From: "Phil Allison" <philalli...@tpg.com.au>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 14:21:46 +1000
Local: Sat, May 28 2005 12:21 am
Subject: Re: Corby Case
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

"Rod Speed"
 Phil Allison

>>>> It seems the judges were somewhat selective in what they
>>>> considered as evidence; the testimony of Indonesian customs
>>>> officers (bribed?) was accepted, but that of Australians was not.

>>> There wasnt a single Aust who had ANY personal involvement
>>> in Corby's baggage that provided any 'testimony', fool.

>> Oh yes there was  !!!

> No there wasnt !!!!!!

**  Piss off  -   you fucking robotic LIAR  !!!!

>> The people travelling with Schapelle, including her brother who picked up
>> the bag from the carousel at Bali airport and carried it to the customs
>> counter, all  **contradicted**  the customs officers on the CRUCIAL issue
>> that was used by them to convict her. The crucial issue was that of
>> "knowingly importing".

> Mindlessly silly. The brother could be lying and she would have been
> fucking stupid to tell anyone else about having 4KG of pot in the bag.

** Anyone  *could* be lying -  that is no reason to reject the ONLY
eyewitness evidence to THE crucial issue in the case.

>> It is outrageous that the Bali judges ruled consistent eyewitness
>> evidence on the ONE crucial issue inadmissible.

> They didnt even do that.

**  Shame how it was stated by the Bali judges in the broadcast of the
hearing yesterday.

>>>> What was the final judgment?  That Corby couldn't
>>>> prove any other person had put the drugs in her bag
>>>> - hence, she must have done it.  Simple as that!

>>> Exactly the same thing would have happened if it had
>>> been an Indonesian woman who rocked up here with
>>> that amount of drugs in her bag, at an Aust airport, fool.

>> Not so -  the procedures and rules of evidence are very different.

> Like hell they are on that particular question.

  **   WRONG  !!!!!

>> The Bali judges were way out of line even with their own laws.

> Not a fucking clue, as always.

  **  Piss off   -  you fucking robotic LIAR !!

..............   Phil


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google