>>>> It seems the judges were somewhat selective in what they** Piss off - you fucking robotic LIAR !!!!
>>>> 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
>> Oh yes there was !!!
> No there wasnt !!!!!!
>> The people travelling with Schapelle, including her brother who picked up** Anyone *could* be lying - that is no reason to reject the ONLY
>> 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
eyewitness evidence to THE crucial issue in the case.
>> It is outrageous that the Bali judges ruled consistent eyewitness** Shame how it was stated by the Bali judges in the broadcast of the
>> evidence on the ONE crucial issue inadmissible.
> They didnt even do that.
>>>> What was the final judgment? That Corby couldn't** WRONG !!!!!
>>>> 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
>> Not so - the procedures and rules of evidence are very different.
> Like hell they are on that particular question.
>> The Bali judges were way out of line even with their own laws.** Piss off - you fucking robotic LIAR !!
> Not a fucking clue, as always.
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.