Corby Case
spac...@wi.rr.com
not put any of their locals in jail for any period of time for killing
Australians but they are really proficient at putting Australians away
for alleged pot possession.
Indonesia is very dependent upon Aussie tourist dollars - hint avoid
the place like the plague - let them enjoy paradise alone.
Don H
news:1117211413.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
# Yes, that's the implication: whether you're innocent or guilty of any drug
offence, if you go to overseas destinations, such as Indonesia, you'll
"enter at own risk". Hence, stay away! Australia has plenty of good
tourist spots; why go overseas?
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.
With Amrozi, the "smiling" Bali bomber, yelling abuse at Corby from his
cell, makes you wonder if the drugs were planted on Corby by Indonesian
terrorists as "pay back" (on Australia) for jailing their fellows?
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!
It still leaves the question of - who did she buy the marijuana from in
Australia; to whom was she intending to sell it in Indonesia?; why "smuggle"
it into the country in such an open and obvious fashion? All this is
irrelevant?
We are told we should "respect" the Indonesian justice system - why? if
it doesn't deserve respect?
Rod Speed
> Read about this case today in the NY Times - seems the Indonesians can
> not put any of their locals in jail for any period of time for killing
> Australians
Pig ignorant lie.
> but they are really proficient at putting
> Australians away for alleged pot possession.
Pig ignorant lie.
> Indonesia is very dependent upon Aussie tourist dollars - hint
> avoid the place like the plague - let them enjoy paradise alone.
Avoid fools like you like the plague.
Rod Speed
Don H <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:_rJle.3467$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> <spac...@wi.rr.com> wrote
>> Read about this case today in the NY Times - seems the
>> Indonesians can not put any of their locals in jail for any
>> period of time for killing Australians but they are really proficient
>> at putting Australians away for alleged pot possession.
>> Indonesia is very dependent upon Aussie tourist dollars - hint
>> avoid the place like the plague - let them enjoy paradise alone.
> # Yes, that's the implication:
Only for fools.
Consider what the reaction would have been if it had been
an indonesian woman who had rocked up here with that
much pot in her bag, and got caught at our airport, who
tried to claim that someone must have put it in her bag.
Yeah, right.
> whether you're innocent or guilty of any drug offence,
> if you go to overseas destinations, such as Indonesia,
> you'll "enter at own risk". Hence, stay away! Australia
> has plenty of good tourist spots; why go overseas?
> 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.
> With Amrozi, the "smiling" Bali bomber, yelling abuse at Corby from
> his cell, makes you wonder if the drugs were planted on Corby by
> Indonesian terrorists as "pay back" (on Australia) for jailing their fellows?
Only fools like you would try running that line.
And there is the tiny matter of where they would have
got the pot from if they had wanted to do it, when heroin
would have been a hell of a lot easier to get in indonesia
and much more damning if they had wanted to do that.
> 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.
> It still leaves the question of - who did
> she buy the marijuana from in Australia;
Irrelevant. We dont bother to prove where those
caught importing drugs into Aust got their supplys from.
> to whom was she intending to sell it in Indonesia?;
Presumably other non indonesians in the usual tourist traps.
> why "smuggle" it into the country in such an open and obvious fashion?
Likely she was stupid enough to 'think' that no one would
bother to check for drugs leaving Aust or entering Indonesia.
> All this is irrelevant?
No more relevant than it would be if an indonesian woman had
been caught with that much drugs on entry into Australia.
> We are told we should "respect" the Indonesian
> justice system - why? if it doesn't deserve respect?
Its no different on that detail than the Aust system, fuckwit.
Phil Allison
"Rod Speed"
> Don H
(snip)
>
>> 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 !!!
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".
It is outrageous that the Bali judges ruled consistent eyewitness evidence
on the ONE crucial inadmissible.
>> 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.
The Bali judges were way out of line even with their own laws.
( snip rest of the Speedbot's asinine robot droppings )
............ Phil
Rod Speed
Phil Allison <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in
message news:3fq3bpF...@individual.net...
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Don H wrote.
>>> 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 !!!!!!
> 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.
AND that brother has DRUG CONVICTIONS.
> It is outrageous that the Bali judges ruled consistent eyewitness evidence on
> the ONE crucial inadmissible.
They didnt even do that.
>>> 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.
> The Bali judges were way out of line even with their own laws.
Not a fucking clue, as always. No surprise that it only gets to molest toasters.
Phil Allison
"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
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>> 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 !!!!
Even a toaster molesting fuckwit should be able to bullshit
its way out of its predicament better than that pathetic effort.
Obviously not.
>>> 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
So you dont actually have ANY 'testimony', fuckwit.
> that is no reason to reject the ONLY eyewitness evidence to THE crucial issue
> in the case.
It isnt 'evidence' of a damned thing, fool.
Its just a CLAIM made by a brother WHO HAS DRUG CONVICTIONS.
>>> 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.
You're lying. Again.
>>>>> 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 !!!!!
RIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> The Bali judges were way out of line even with their own laws.
>> Not a fucking clue, as always. No surprise that it only gets to molest
>> toasters.
GagP
taking it all to another Asian cesspool . win win situation
Phil Allison
"Rod Speed"
Phil Allison
>>>>> There wasnt a single Aust who had ANY personal involvement
>>>>> in Corby's baggage that provided any 'testimony', fool.
>
>>>> Oh yes there was !!!
>
>>>> 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".
>
>
> So you dont actually have ANY 'testimony', fuckwit.
** Shame it was mentioned and rejected by the judges - impossible to
reject what never existed.
>>>> It is outrageous that the Bali judges ruled consistent eyewitness
>>>> evidence on the ONE crucial issue inadmissible.
>
>>> They didnt even do that.
** Shame it was all on live TV.
>> Shame how it was stated by the Bali judges in the broadcast of the
>> hearing yesterday.
>
> You're lying. Again.
** So then must barrister David Galbally, who made special comment about
it on Ch 7 afterwards.
Everone on the planet is lying.
Except one insane, autistic, fuckwit robot.
.......... Phil
Little Johnny Howard
My fucking sentiments exactly. Why should we bother helping those
deadshits. They grow dope over there and smuggle it over here. Going
the other way makes no fucking sense. Well, fuck them. Their stinking
economy can go to hell.
Seamus
>
> My fucking sentiments exactly. Why should we bother helping those
> deadshits. They grow dope over there and smuggle it over here. Going the
> other way makes no fucking sense. Well, fuck them. Their stinking
> economy can go to hell.
How is it that someone claiming to mindless outrage is making so few
spelling, grammatical or punctuation errors?
Rod Speed
Phil Allison <phila...@tpg.com.au> desperately attempted
to lie it say out of its predicament in message
news:3fqna4F...@individual.net...
and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
No wonder it only ever gets to molest toasters.
quietguy
mean if she is guilty then they would all know about it I presume, and
naturally lie to protect her,. Not that I know or think they did, but if I
was a judge I would certainly discount whatever they said, as would an
Australian judge I reckon.
David
nazr...@yahoo.com
already.
M
Don H
news:1117301632....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Give it 3 months. People will be heading back to Bali, if they aren't
> already.
>
>
> M
>
they end up on death row, whether innocent or guilty.
Corby's testimony directly contradicts that of the two Indonesian customs
officers and the two police which support them - hence, someone is lying.
Best to give all parties a Lie Detector Test, including Corby and the
three judges.
Who would smuggle drugs into a country in their OWN luggage? You'd either
get some "mule" to risk it for you, or you'd insert it into someone else's
luggage and hope to retrieve it later. If you did attempt it yourself, then
only carry a small packet, concealed as carefully as you could, bribing your
way out of trouble, if possible.
If Corby IS innocent (as seems likely), then it's a bit tough to be jailed
for twenty years for something you didn't do.
Rod Speed
> <nazr...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Give it 3 months. People will be heading back to Bali, if they aren't
>> already.
> # Probably.
Certainly.
> But, after the Corby Case, they can't expect much sympathy
> if they end up on death row, whether innocent or guilty.
If it was baggage handlers, its MOST unlikely they
are so stupid that they are still doing that now.
> Corby's testimony directly contradicts that of the two Indonesian customs
> officers and the two police which support them - hence, someone is lying.
And only one of them was found with
4KG in their bag, with a real reason to lie.
> Best to give all parties a Lie Detector Test,
> including Corby and the three judges.
Wota terminal fuckwit.
> Who would smuggle drugs into a country in their OWN luggage?
Plenty get caught doing that all the time, fool.
> You'd either get some "mule" to risk it for you, or you'd insert
> it into someone else's luggage and hope to retrieve it later.
Or be stupid enough to believe that the bags wouldnt be
searched for drugs when leaving Aust or entering Indonesia.
> If you did attempt it yourself, then only carry a
> small packet, concealed as carefully as you could,
Pity that you can make fuck all that way.
> bribing your way out of trouble, if possible.
> If Corby IS innocent (as seems likely),
Only to fools.
> then it's a bit tough to be jailed for twenty
> years for something you didn't do.
Tad of an improvement over a firing squad for something you did do.
Little Johnny Howard
You mean, unlike you, Seamen? What's surprising is that a thick Irish
cunt like you is coherant at all - even when you're sober.
Brissie
> Corby's testimony directly contradicts that of the two Indonesian customs
>officers and the two police which support them - hence, someone is lying.
Yes people who are guilty often go on the stand and say "Yes I did it"
moron
> Best to give all parties a Lie Detector Test, including Corby and the
>three judges.
Lie detectors aren't accurate and can be easily fooled. There's a
reason they aren't admittable into practically every court in the
world
> Who would smuggle drugs into a country in their OWN luggage? You'd either
>get some "mule" to risk it for you, or you'd insert it into someone else's
>luggage and hope to retrieve it later.
Have you thought Corby was the mule?
> If Corby IS innocent (as seems likely), then it's a bit tough to be jailed
>for twenty years for something you didn't do.
To me the evidence points at being guilty. The only evidence that
pointed to her innocence was the words from a convicted criminal. And
those words could be used to free every convicted drug smuggler
anywhere in the world. Because none of them admit to doing it. They
all say someone must have put it in my bag. Fact is if Corby is freed
because "It was possible someone put it in her bag" then there'll be
many people saying the same thing, and Australia will forced to
release the 100s currently in Australian jails.
Corby tried to stop customs opening her bag. That isn't denied. There
is a reason she tried to stop them.
And after the guilty verdict came down, she acted like a guilty person
as well. People who are truly innocent and are found guilty don't
verbally attack the judges, they break down because they never thought
it possible they'll be jailed. Guilty people always have the thought
that they could be jailed, so are prepared for it, so don't break
down, they just attack.
Seamus
> Seamus wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2005 01:37:36 -0700, Little Johnny Howard wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > My fucking sentiments exactly. Why should we bother helping those
>> > deadshits. They grow dope over there and smuggle it over here. Going the
>> > other way makes no fucking sense. Well, fuck them. Their stinking
>> > economy can go to hell.
>>
>> How is it that someone claiming to mindless outrage is making so few
>> spelling, grammatical or punctuation errors?
>
> You mean, unlike you, Seamus? What's surprising is that a thick Irish
> cunt like you is coherant at all - even when you're sober.
That's "coherent". I'll bet you really knew that all the time, eh?
Little Johnny Howard
You obviously didn't get my emphasis on the "rant" part, Seamen. So,
what does "ny" mean again?
Seamus
> You obviously didn't get my emphasis on the "rant" part, Seamus.
Err, you do the rant (eg see above), I merely poke a stick at you through
your cage (eg see above). Short-term memory playing up again?
Phil Allison
"quietguy"
** Quit the top posting - you fucking arsehole.
> And you dont think they would happily lie their heads off to protect her?
** Do you have any idea what is being discussed her ?
What specific evidence from her fellow travellers was rejected ???
> I mean if she is guilty then they would all know about it I presume,
** Funny how the others were not charged then !!
They were considered by the Bali police to be NOT involved so there was no
grounds to exclude their sworn evidence.
> and naturally lie to protect her,. Not that I know or think they did, but
> if I
> was a judge I would certainly discount whatever they said, as would an
> Australian judge I reckon.
** No way could it be excluded on the grounds given buy the Bali judges.
................ Phil
Phil Allison
"Don H"
>
> Corby's testimony directly contradicts that of the two Indonesian customs
> officers and the two police which support them - hence, someone is lying.
** I strongly doubt that any malicious lying has happened. It is usual for
several people to have varying versions of a event - especially a very
stressful one.
There is only one small detail that Schapelle remembers oh so clearly and
the customs guys did not notice, have forgotten or wiped from their
tory - that she did not act start to panicky and evasive until AFTER she
had seen what was in the bag.
The whole basis for the conviction is based on the idea that an innocent
person would have no reason to act panicky - but a guilty one would. The
flaw in their thinking is to not allow that it only takes *one second* to
recognise a big bag of marijuana has been planted and know that its presence
is going to put you into enormous trouble. The average person would not be
able to remain calm in that circumstance.
PLUS - the customs guys have very likely colluded with each other and the
police to get a nice, consistent story presented in their written statements
and then they would be TOLD to stick to that story like glue later in court.
This is **standard practice** right here in Aussie - so it is certain to
be the case in Bali too.
............ Phil
Don H
news:1i0k91t9bh77ot952...@4ax.com...
# It wasn't Corby who attacked the judges but her family, and she tried to
stop them. In fact the judges harangued Corby in true Nazi show trial
fashion - who were they trying to convince? themselves?
The Bali airport incident has no recorded evidence either way; so it's a
matter of who you want to believe. It's possible drugs were planted in her
boogie bag then; customs could select an appropriately-sized bag from among
those previously confiscated. It's pay-back time for the jailed Bali
bombers? Corby would naturally react with fear, once she saw her baggage
and realised the implications. Moral: stay away from Indonesia!
Don H
news:3fsethF...@individual.net...
Crackers.
Lionel Theunissen
customs
> >officers and the two police which support them - hence, someone is lying.
>
> Yes people who are guilty often go on the stand and say "Yes I did it"
Unfortunately, the argument that claims of innocence should be dismissed,
because guilty people often claim that they are innocent, is invalid,
because innocent people will also claim to be innocent.
> moron
>
> > Best to give all parties a Lie Detector Test, including Corby and the
> >three judges.
>
> Lie detectors aren't accurate and can be easily fooled. There's a
> reason they aren't admittable into practically every court in the
> world
On that much, at least, I agree.
> > Who would smuggle drugs into a country in their OWN luggage? You'd
either
> >get some "mule" to risk it for you, or you'd insert it into someone
else's
> >luggage and hope to retrieve it later.
>
> Have you thought Corby was the mule?
>
> > If Corby IS innocent (as seems likely), then it's a bit tough to be
jailed
> >for twenty years for something you didn't do.
>
> To me the evidence points at being guilty. The only evidence that
> pointed to her innocence was the words from a convicted criminal.
Let's just argue, hypothetically, that you are an innocent person who is
accused of trafficking drugs. Exactly how do you PROVE your innocence?
Unless you are fortunate enough to find a videotape of someone planting the
drugs in your luggage (unlikely), or a confession from the real culprit
(extremely unlikely), you are screwed.
> And
> those words could be used to free every convicted drug smuggler
> anywhere in the world. Because none of them admit to doing it. They
> all say someone must have put it in my bag. Fact is if Corby is freed
> because "It was possible someone put it in her bag" then there'll be
> many people saying the same thing, and Australia will forced to
> release the 100s currently in Australian jails.
Bingo. If the only evidence against someone is the discovery of drugs in
their luggage, then they SHOULD be released.
Noone should be able to be detained, let alone charged or convicted of drug
trafficking or importation, unless there is substantial evidence showing
where and how the suspect acquired the drugs with the intention to smuggle
them.
Certainly any drugs discovered should be confiscated by customs, but if
there is no evidence that the drugs were acquired by the person in question
they should be immediately released, or at the very worst deported.
> Corby tried to stop customs opening her bag. That isn't denied.
Yes it is.
> There is a reason she tried to stop them.
Other than the word of the customs officers there is no proof of this. In
this day and age all customs inspections should be videotaped. That would
have put an end to any misunderstandings or arguments over he-said/she-said
or did whatever.
> And after the guilty verdict came down, she acted like a guilty person
> as well.
There is no such thing as 'acting' like a guilty person. Anyone who believes
that is incredibly naive. Different people react to the same situation in
different ways.
> People who are truly innocent and are found guilty don't
> verbally attack the judges,
She didn't.
> they break down because they never thought
> it possible they'll be jailed.
She did. She tried to calm down her family who WERE hurling abuse and then
broke down as the realisation set in.
In any case, imagine you're facing a court that hasn't acquitted in 500
cases. How confident would YOU be?
> Guilty people always have the thought
> that they could be jailed, so are prepared for it, so don't break
> down, they just attack.
Twaddle. You have no understanding of human nature or behaviour whatsoever.
I have no idea whether Corby is innocent or otherwise. All I know is that I
am not comfortable with harsh penalties being imposed on the basis of
minimal standards of evidence. And that is not just a criticism of the
Balinese justice system. Australia, the U.S.A. and many other western
countries all seem to treat drug crime as a special case where railroad
justice is the acceptable norm.
Drug prohibition laws have now become more of a menace to the general public
than the drug problem they are supposed to control. It's time people stood
up and said enough is enough.
Lionel...
Rod Speed
Don H <donlhu...@bigpond.com>
desperately attempted to bullshit its
way out of its predicament in message
news:Qkpme.6472$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
and fooled absolutely no one at all. As always.