Corby Case - Racism
Dumbass
Australians by far. A lot of Australians have openly stated they want to
harm Indonesians.
Retracting the donations to the tsunami victims is disgusting.
The Indonesian judges listened to evidence.
- eyewitness testimony that Corby admitted the drugs were hers.
- they even listened to hearsay evidence, a fact being very lenient to
Corby's defence
They found Corby guilty on the facts.
The Australian public and media say she is innocent. Why is she innocent?
I listen to facts. Not how much someone cries on television.
Corby supporters. Answer me this, where is the evidence of her innocence?
Its not about being innocent until proven guilty. Its about the prosecution
putting up a strong case.
In Australian courts, the prosecution would put up their case, the defence
would then put up their case.
Where was the defence?
Dumbass
evidence. They found her guilty.
People want to punish the Indonesian people. That is just silly. What did
they do wrong?
People want to boycott Qantas airlines. If you think that will free Corby,
go right ahead. Just remember that these are Australians you are hurting.
sola_fire
news:42984972$0$25452$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Corby supporters. Answer me this, where is the evidence of her innocence?
In Australia, this wouldn't matter, Due to the fact that there are corrupt
baggage handlers/traffickers, and multiple fingerprints on the actually bag
containing the marijuana (not the luggage itself), the fact that no "drop
off" had been identified. There is no way in a proper Democracy that she
would have been found Guilty because:
IT COULD NOT BE PROVEN THE DRUGS WERE HER'S ***BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT***
Case dismissed. Then, for the appeal, the prosecution would have to
actually prove who she was going to sell it to, investigate her so-called
sources and trafficker clients, otherwise they would be able to produce no
new evidence than at the original hearing and the appeal would be thrown
out.
Or do they honestly Chapelle intended to bag all that stuff up into foils on
the Beach while the surf is out, then head down to the markets to single
handedly distribute?
Sigh.
V*nessa
>
> Australians by far. A lot of Australians have openly stated they want to
> harm Indonesians.
>
> Retracting the donations to the tsunami victims is disgusting.
I haven't heard anyone state this but if true it's disgusting. The victims
of the tsunami have nothing to do with the verdict.
> The Indonesian judges listened to evidence.
> - eyewitness testimony that Corby admitted the drugs were hers.
> - they even listened to hearsay evidence, a fact being very lenient to
> Corby's defence
>
> They found Corby guilty on the facts.
>
> The Australian public and media say she is innocent. Why is she innocent?
I don't think she is based on the evidence I've heard. I think many people
feel sorry for her and believe her story because she's young and attractive.
Dumbass
http://www.schapellecorby.com/showthread.php?t=1639
There was also a story about it on the news.
Red Cross and World Vision have received calls from people wanting their
money back.
"V*nessa" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42984d4e$0$9263$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Kwyjibo.
> "Dumbass" <fa...@fake.com> wrote in message
> news:42984972$0$25452$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>> Corby supporters. Answer me this, where is the evidence of her
>> innocence?
>
> In Australia, this wouldn't matter, Due to the fact that there are
> corrupt baggage handlers/traffickers, and multiple fingerprints on the
> actually bag containing the marijuana (not the luggage itself), the fact
> that no "drop off" had been identified. There is no way in a proper
> Democracy that she would have been found Guilty because:
>
Funny that no Australian lawyer seems to agree with you.
> IT COULD NOT BE PROVEN THE DRUGS WERE HER'S ***BEYOND REASONABLE
> DOUBT***
Funny that no Australian lawyer seems to agree with you.
>
> Case dismissed.
Funny that no Australian lawyer seems to agree with you.
> Then, for the appeal, the prosecution would have to
> actually prove who she was going to sell it to,
Wrong.
> investigate her
> so-called sources and trafficker clients, otherwise they would be able
> to produce no new evidence than at the original hearing and the appeal
> would be thrown out.
Wrong again, and no Australian legal expert that has made a public comment
on this case agrees with you.
Funny about that.
--
Kwyj.
(Remove your finger from that dyke to reply by email)
Dumbass
Four professional eyewitnesses; policemen and customs officers.
Even the statement of "beyond reasonable doubt" is flawed.
They follow the same legal system in many European countries. They have a
democratic system as well.
If this case were heard in France, the outcome would likely be the same.
Are you claiming that Australian law should be followed worldwide?
"sola_fire" <sola...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42984c73$1...@quokka.wn.com.au...
netvegetable
> People have been convicted solely on the testimony of four eyewitnesses.
>
>
> Four professional eyewitnesses; policemen and customs officers.
>
>
>
> Even the statement of "beyond reasonable doubt" is flawed.
>
In reference to the customs officers, these officials deliberately
set out to destroy any chance she might have of gathering evidence for her
defence, by ......
(1) point blank refusing to dust for fingerprints, though requested, and
(2) point blank refusing to weigh her luggage (though why that was such an
impossible request to fulfill we'll never know).
Even the judge, and various Indonesian police officers in including
Pastika, pointed out this is a flaw in the prosecution's case.
But the question is: Why? Why refuse such simple, straightforward
requests? It's almost as if they didn't care whether she was innocent or
guilty, and they were determined to prosecute her for it regardless. And
that calls to question their credibility as witnesses.
Anyway, after having denied her any chance of gathering evidence in her
defence, they then put her in court a where she had to "prove" her
innocence. An impossible task.
> They follow the same legal system in many European countries. They have
> a democratic system as well.
Exact same is it?
>
> If this case were heard in France, the outcome would likely be the same.
>
> Are you claiming that Australian law should be followed worldwide?
I'd be very surprised indeed, if there are any judges in the EU with a
500/500 criminal conviction rate.
--
A: Top posters
Q: What's the most annoying thing on usenet
#politics irc.austnet.org (the aussie politics channel!)
#political_forum irc.undernet.org
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
The Raven
Don't know, do you have the stats?
> Australians by far. A lot of Australians have openly stated they want to
> harm Indonesians.
And how many Australians are there and what percentage of them hold that
belief?
Now go compare that to Indonesia. I suspect you're going to be in for a
shock.
> Retracting the donations to the tsunami victims is disgusting.
Arguably unrelated and probably a media beat up to generate some news.
> The Indonesian judges listened to evidence.
> - eyewitness testimony that Corby admitted the drugs were hers.
> - they even listened to hearsay evidence, a fact being very lenient to
> Corby's defence
>
> They found Corby guilty on the facts.
Their legal system is different and thus I can understand their findings
under that system. Doesn't mean we all agree with it though.
> The Australian public and media say she is innocent. Why is she innocent?
You don't understand the Australian legal system do you?
> I listen to facts. Not how much someone cries on television.
Where are you sourcing your "facts"?
> Corby supporters. Answer me this, where is the evidence of her innocence?
You don't have to support Corby to realise that under Australian law there
is more than sufficient doubt as to whether she was responsible for the
drugs in her luggage.
> Its not about being innocent until proven guilty. Its about the
> prosecution putting up a strong case.
The case really isn't that strong given the lack of any evidence to
associate her with the drugs (other than them being in her bag).
> In Australian courts, the prosecution would put up their case, the defence
> would then put up their case.
Duh! An oversimplification if ever there was one.
> Where was the defence?
The bit about no known drug associations, blood tests that indicate no prior
usage, logic that taking marijuana to Bali is stupid given it's worth much
more in Australia, that she had no access to the luggage for an extended
period while others did, and that some of those others are suspected of drug
trafficking, testimony by another person to that effect.
What's the prosecution got? It's her bag, it had drugs in it. Not much of an
argument under our legal system given the total lack of decent forensic
procedures.
FFS they don't even appear to have identified where the drugs were grown,
which should be pretty basic unless it was grown in a sterilised hydroponic
lab. Forget fingerprints, everyone got to play with the bag before any
forensics (if any) were done.
--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** Now I will bring chaos to the world!
The Raven
> Here is the discussion about retracting the donations.
> http://www.schapellecorby.com/showthread.php?t=1639
>
> There was also a story about it on the news.
> Red Cross and World Vision have received calls from people wanting their
> money back.
As if you could trust anything World Vision says.....
Firefly
> Which people are more racist? Australians or Indonesians?
>
> Australians by far. A lot of Australians have openly stated they want to
> harm Indonesians.
Your name suits you well. How is a stated desire to harm someone racist?
Firefly
>I do not understand how people can blame the judges. They listened to the
>evidence. They found her guilty.
They weren't doing their job. All three are hanging judges. They rarely find
in favour of the accused.
> People want to punish the Indonesian people. That is just silly. What did
> they do wrong?
They tolerate incompetent, racist judges.
Firefly
> People have been convicted solely on the testimony of four eyewitnesses.
>
> Four professional eyewitnesses; policemen and customs officers.
>
>
>
> Even the statement of "beyond reasonable doubt" is flawed.
>
> They follow the same legal system in many European countries. They have a
> democratic system as well.
>
> If this case were heard in France, the outcome would likely be the same.
You heard that somewhere, didn't you?
> Are you claiming that Australian law should be followed worldwide?
Maybe it should. We don't convict people who should have been found not
guilty on obviously flawed evidence.
The Raven
news:42986f55$0$49186$c30e...@ken-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> "Dumbass" <fa...@fake.com> wrote in message
> news:42984bb3$0$15535$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>I do not understand how people can blame the judges. They listened to the
>>evidence. They found her guilty.
>
> They weren't doing their job. All three are hanging judges. They rarely
> find in favour of the accused.
According to reports there has never been a case of an accused trafficker
being found innocent.
>
>> People want to punish the Indonesian people. That is just silly. What did
>> they do wrong?
>
> They tolerate incompetent, racist judges.
Based on what I heard they are simply one sided, all accused are guilty.
Prodigy
> news:42984972$0$25452$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > Which people are more racist? Australians or Indonesians?
> >
> > Australians by far. A lot of Australians have openly stated they want to
> > harm Indonesians.
> >
> > Retracting the donations to the tsunami victims is disgusting.
Too bad.
They want to test our resolve? The next tragedy coming their way, we'll see
how generous we are to the likes of them.
Prodigy
> Corby supporters. Answer me this, where is the evidence of her innocence?
Where is the evidence of her guilt?
Brissie
Don't people like yourself say that people in Australia from other
countries should accept the Australian legal system or leave? Why
shouldn't Australian's have to accept other countries legal systems?
In fact several high profile lawyers have said she could have very
easily been found guilty in an Australian court based on the evidence
presented (and they did mention that her only witness wouldn't have
been able to give his testimony in an Australian court because it was
hearsay)
But they did mention that Indonesia uses the "Guilty until proven
innocent" system and Australia uses the "innocent until proven guilty"
system. People who go there should respect that.
And there are innocent people in jail in Australia because "reasonable
doubt" in Australia only requires 75% surety that they are guilty.
Brissie
wrote:
>
>"Dumbass" <fa...@fake.com> wrote in message
>news:42984f8d$0$19676$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> People have been convicted solely on the testimony of four eyewitnesses.
>>
>> Four professional eyewitnesses; policemen and customs officers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Even the statement of "beyond reasonable doubt" is flawed.
>>
>> They follow the same legal system in many European countries. They have a
>> democratic system as well.
>>
>> If this case were heard in France, the outcome would likely be the same.
>
>You heard that somewhere, didn't you?
It was on SBS last night. 13 European countries(France being one) use
the same legal system as Indonesia.
>Maybe it should. We don't convict people who should have been found not
>guilty on obviously flawed evidence.
You can never prove 100% that someone is guilty of a crime (unless
there is video). Rape is a very good example - "She consented", "I
didn't consent". Impossible to prove. Are you saying no one should
ever go to jail for rape or sexual assault?
What's stopping someone caught importing massive amounts of cocaine,
heroin into Australia saying "I didn't do it, must have been a baggage
handler" - are you going to say "set them free because they said they
didn't do it, so musn't have"
Brissie
>The bit about no known drug associations, blood tests that indicate no prior
>usage
She has admitted to using pot before - she first said she hadn't but
then changed her story saying
>, logic that taking marijuana to Bali is stupid given it's worth much
>more in Australia
No way. Marijuana fetches 10 times in Bali what it will anywhere in
Australia.
>What's the prosecution got? It's her bag, it had drugs in it. Not much of an
>argument under our legal system given the total lack of decent forensic
>procedures.
And what other evidence do the prosecuters in Australia present when
charging people who try and import drugs into Australia. The same
evidence.
Brissie
>
>> Corby supporters. Answer me this, where is the evidence of her innocence?
>
>Where is the evidence of her guilt?
She didn't want customs opening her bag
She made up some bullcrap story that drugs fetch less money in Bali
than they do in Australia
She lied to police saying she never smoked marijuana before, then
changed her story.
LindaH
> Here is the discussion about retracting the donations.
> http://www.schapellecorby.com/showthread.php?t=1639
Hang on. I just went and looked at that site briefly. The first idiot
posted something about "wanting their donation back." Practically every
other reply (by supporters of Corby) was as disgusted with the suggestion as
any logical human would be.
You simply can NOT call all Corby supporters racist.
Firefly
"The Raven" <swils...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4298713b$0$5178$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> "Firefly" <brigh...@nite.com> wrote in message
> news:42986f55$0$49186$c30e...@ken-reader.news.telstra.net...
>>
>> "Dumbass" <fa...@fake.com> wrote in message
>> news:42984bb3$0$15535$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>I do not understand how people can blame the judges. They listened to the
>>>evidence. They found her guilty.
>>
>> They weren't doing their job. All three are hanging judges. They rarely
>> find in favour of the accused.
>
> According to reports there has never been a case of an accused trafficker
> being found innocent.
According to Judge Linton Sirait there was one. He was Indonesian and it was
only a small amount.
>>> People want to punish the Indonesian people. That is just silly. What
>>> did they do wrong?
>>
>> They tolerate incompetent, racist judges.
>
> Based on what I heard they are simply one sided, all accused are guilty.
They happily let Indonesian bombers who kill hundreds of non-Indonesians
off.
atreus
Umm...... comments like "send all the monkeys back" and "fuck all the
Indonesians next time they want help" are pretty racist remarks.
People just need to remember, the Indonesian people didn't convict
Corby. Just like Australians aren't killing Iraqis.
If you don't agree, blame the governments, not the people.
Firefly
"Brissie" <bri...@zwallet.com> wrote in message
news:j8si91hip2vt2v6hg...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 May 2005 23:19:22 +1000, "Firefly" <brigh...@nite.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dumbass" <fa...@fake.com> wrote in message
>>news:42984f8d$0$19676$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> People have been convicted solely on the testimony of four eyewitnesses.
>>>
>>> Four professional eyewitnesses; policemen and customs officers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Even the statement of "beyond reasonable doubt" is flawed.
>>>
>>> They follow the same legal system in many European countries. They have
>>> a
>>> democratic system as well.
>>>
>>> If this case were heard in France, the outcome would likely be the same.
>>
>>You heard that somewhere, didn't you?
>
> It was on SBS last night. 13 European countries(France being one) use
> the same legal system as Indonesia.
Good example. France is a lawless, terrorist nation that doesn't give a shit
about the rest of the world.
>>Maybe it should. We don't convict people who should have been found not
>>guilty on obviously flawed evidence.
>
> You can never prove 100% that someone is guilty of a crime (unless
> there is video). Rape is a very good example - "She consented", "I
> didn't consent". Impossible to prove. Are you saying no one should
> ever go to jail for rape or sexual assault?
There has to be some proof for rape. Certainly a lot more than was presented
in Schapelle Corby's case.
> What's stopping someone caught importing massive amounts of cocaine,
> heroin into Australia saying "I didn't do it, must have been a baggage
> handler" - are you going to say "set them free because they said they
> didn't do it, so musn't have"
If they didn't do it then of course they should be set free. The difference
here is that we'd make sure they did it. We'd take figerprints, get DNA
samples etc. You know, all the stuff that wasn't done in Schapelle's case.
Firefly
"Prodigy" <Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4298756e$0$27624$61c6...@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
Firefly
> On Sat, 28 May 2005 23:39:15 +1000, "Prodigy" <Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Corby supporters. Answer me this, where is the evidence of her
>>> innocence?
>>
>>Where is the evidence of her guilt?
>
> She didn't want customs opening her bag
So the customs office says. The brother says differently. Of course there
was no translator present and the customs officer apparently didn't speak
English so how does he know what she said?
> She made up some bullcrap story that drugs fetch less money in Bali
> than they do in Australia
She didn't make that up. That has been well documented.
> She lied to police saying she never smoked marijuana before, then
> changed her story.
Proof?
Firefly
Accepting the legal system is oine thing but the whole process was obviously
flawed. Glaring mistakes were made. Justice, even under the Indo legal
system, was NOT done.
> In fact several high profile lawyers have said she could have very
> easily been found guilty in an Australian court based on the evidence
> presented (and they did mention that her only witness wouldn't have
> been able to give his testimony in an Australian court because it was
> hearsay)
Several more have said she wouldn't.
Firefly
>
>>The bit about no known drug associations, blood tests that indicate no
>>prior
>>usage
>
> She has admitted to using pot before - she first said she hadn't but
> then changed her story saying
>
>>, logic that taking marijuana to Bali is stupid given it's worth much
>>more in Australia
>
> No way. Marijuana fetches 10 times in Bali what it will anywhere in
> Australia.
Proof?
>>What's the prosecution got? It's her bag, it had drugs in it. Not much of
>>an
>>argument under our legal system given the total lack of decent forensic
>>procedures.
>
> And what other evidence do the prosecuters in Australia present when
> charging people who try and import drugs into Australia. The same
> evidence.
No, they'd have actual physical evidence linking the accused to the drugs
like the accused's DNA and/or fingerprints on the bag. The Bali police
refused to do that. They didn't want her to be able to get off.
Chris Mayer
People like you are sick retarded fucks.
Pellegrino
> They want to test our resolve? The next tragedy coming their way, we'll see how generous we are to the likes of them.
So... you'd let an innicent person starve because of a couple of
Indonesian judges.
Thank Christ not everyone in the world is as big a prick as you.
Chris Mayer
> "Brissie" <bri...@zwallet.com> wrote in message
> news:insi91t36bf5uoo9o...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sat, 28 May 2005 23:39:15 +1000, "Prodigy" <Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Corby supporters. Answer me this, where is the evidence of her
>>>>innocence?
>>>
>>>Where is the evidence of her guilt?
>>
>>She didn't want customs opening her bag
>
>
> So the customs office says. The brother says differently. Of course there
> was no translator present and the customs officer apparently didn't speak
> English so how does he know what she said?
>
>
>>She made up some bullcrap story that drugs fetch less money in Bali
>>than they do in Australia
>
>
> She didn't make that up. That has been well documented.
Not it fucking hasn't. The papers today alone are all over the fact that
the *OPPOSITE* is true. It is quite telling the amount of absolute
bullshit evidence that the Corby supporters are putting forward in the
wake of the verdict.
ferret
If it was a Indonesian in the same position she would probably
only got 10 years or less.
Chris Mayer
Care to back that up with some sources? Or just making more shit up?
Chris Mayer
You are a sick, sick fuck.
Chris Mayer
I assume you are basing that on your knowledge of racial biases in
Indonesian courts. Like to provide the sources to where you got that
knowledge?
Chris Mayer
Yes, but it seems there is a huge contingent of people like these in the
country.
Darkfalz
> >>easily been found guilty in an Australian court based on the evidence
> >>presented (and they did mention that her only witness wouldn't have
> >>been able to give his testimony in an Australian court because it was
> >>hearsay)
> >
> >
> > Several more have said she wouldn't.
>
> Care to back that up with some sources? Or just making more shit up?
Well, Schapelle's own Aussie lawyers have said it. Nobody else though.
gumshoe
The situation as I see it is these Indonesian judges had to save face in
finding Corby guilty, otherwise the custom people there would look like
dills in the eyes of locals, that's just how they are. The chief Judge
apparently has never found a customer not guilty yet!.
And probably the reason her lawyers over there didn't take the free
legal offer from OZ is they would lose control, get less publicity and
make less bread.
Say what you like... the large majoritythink it was not proven beyond
doubt she was guilty.
--
gumshoe
Chris Mayer
> The situation as I see it is these Indonesian judges had to save face in
> finding Corby guilty, otherwise the custom people there would look like
> dills in the eyes of locals, that's just how they are. The chief Judge
> apparently has never found a customer not guilty yet!.
Thanks for that newsflash about the judge, we might never have heard it
otherwise.
> And probably the reason her lawyers over there didn't take the free
> legal offer from OZ is they would lose control, get less publicity and
> make less bread.
Of course, have to include the defence lawyers so we know that it is
every single Indonesian who is scum for this 'miscarriage of justice'.
> Say what you like... the large majoritythink it was not proven beyond
> doubt she was guilty.
That's nice, does that mean something on fantasy planet where you live?
Brissie
Indonesia doesn't require to. The accused have to prove their
innocence, rather than the other way around.
That's their legal system. It's common knowledge. If you visit there
you accept their customs, same as Australian's expect people visiting
here to accept our customs.
Anyway the evidence to me shows guilt. It's possible she's innocent,
but very unlikely, and there's very rarely 100% no doubt someone
commited the crime. In Australia there is a 75% surety before finding
someone guilty.
Lets see
- She tried to stop customs opening her bag
- She lied in court
- She was doing a trial by media (a stunt often attempted by guilty
people to try and get public sympathy)
- She was signing book deals, movie deals, etc. whilst in custody
People keep saying OJ Simpson was guilty. Please the evidence in that
case was nowhere near as strong. OJ Simpson probably did do it, but
there is reasonable doubt, so should have been found not guilty. Corby
probably did do it, but there is only some doubt(not reasonable)
doubt, so should have been found guilty (even if held in Australia)
Every single lawyer that has commented publicly has said based on the
evidence Corby probably would have been found guilty in an Australian
court(although of course they said there was more chance of being
found not guilty because Australia requires a higher level of
probablity than Indonesia does - but they still said they thought
she'd be found not guilty) - but then you have the jury factor to
contend with. As the saying goes "Do you really want your future
decided by people to stupid to get out of jury duty"
Brissie
Corby's 20 years was of the softest sentences that this judge has ever
given. That's why the prosecuters are appealing, because they are
outraged the sentence was so short.
Brissie
Which is why many leaders of countries around the world describe as
one of the most racist countries in the world.
And remember Australia has violated more UN human rights treaties than
any other country in the years 1992-2002. USA was 2nd. Afgahnistan
wasn't a member of the UN, so weren't included, but all the other
countries - Iran, Iraq, etc. were, and according to the UN Australia
was worse than both(in a human rights sense)
But then Australians don't have a problem with locking innocent
children up for years in the middle of the desert.
Greg
wrote:
> If you visit there
>you accept their customs, same as Australian's expect people visiting
>here to accept our customs.
I wish this was true but it isnt
Darkfalz
That's correct. The judge went over and over about how Corby was
cooperative in court, how this was her first offense and so on, he was
setting people up for the very lenient sentence.
Firefly
"atreus" <atreus.tr...@gmail.orme.com> wrote in message
news:4298967b$0$29270$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> On 2005-05-28 23:15:53 +1000, "Firefly" <brigh...@nite.com> said:
>
>>
>> "Dumbass" <fa...@fake.com> wrote in message
>> news:42984972$0$25452$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> Which people are more racist? Australians or Indonesians?
>>>
>>> Australians by far. A lot of Australians have openly stated they want to
>>> harm Indonesians.
>>
>> Your name suits you well. How is a stated desire to harm someone racist?
>
> Umm...... comments like "send all the monkeys back" and "fuck all the
> Indonesians next time they want help" are pretty racist remarks.
The first is racist. The second is not. Neither expressed a desire to kill
them so neither are an answer to my question.
For the record, one of the judges said he wanted the death penalty for
Schapelle. Is that racist?
> People just need to remember, the Indonesian people didn't convict Corby.
> Just like Australians aren't killing Iraqis.
>
> If you don't agree, blame the governments, not the people.
>
The governments are the people.
Firefly
"Chris Mayer" <chris...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4299056e$0$4656$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
You're a moron. Next insult?
Firefly
As I said, *she* didn't make that up. The truth is that the drugs sell for
around 2.5 times more than they would in Australia but the market is
reasonably small because it's only westerners who can pay the price. The
drugs in Schapelle Corby's case were only worth about $82,000.
Firefly
Do you read the papers or watch TV?
Chris Mayer
> "atreus" <atreus.tr...@gmail.orme.com> wrote in message
> news:4298967b$0$29270$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>>On 2005-05-28 23:15:53 +1000, "Firefly" <brigh...@nite.com> said:
>>
>>
>>>"Dumbass" <fa...@fake.com> wrote in message
>>>news:42984972$0$25452$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>
>>>>Which people are more racist? Australians or Indonesians?
>>>>
>>>>Australians by far. A lot of Australians have openly stated they want to
>>>>harm Indonesians.
>>>
>>>Your name suits you well. How is a stated desire to harm someone racist?
>>
>>Umm...... comments like "send all the monkeys back" and "fuck all the
>>Indonesians next time they want help" are pretty racist remarks.
>
>
> The first is racist. The second is not. Neither expressed a desire to kill
> them so neither are an answer to my question.
Both are racist, fuckwit. First you said harm, now you say kill. Make
your mind up.
> For the record, one of the judges said he wanted the death penalty for
> Schapelle. Is that racist?
No it isn't. Do you have a point?
>>People just need to remember, the Indonesian people didn't convict Corby.
>>Just like Australians aren't killing Iraqis.
>>
>>If you don't agree, blame the governments, not the people.
>>
>
> The governments are the people.
Yes, I am sure the people of Aech and Nias (for example) that were
recently devastated by *natural* disasters can exert a massive amount of
influence on trials in Bali.
Firefly
"Pellegrino" <pelle...@noitcejer.com> wrote in message
news:WJ6me.4923$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
People who think like you are exactly the reason we get walked over, whether
it's by three racist judges looking to convict a young, white western woman
or by a country intent on killing our whales for their dinner tables after
forcing them to the brink of extinction.
Chris Mayer
In other words you can't back it up. Papers are on the web these days.
You say it was in the papers, so back it up.
Firefly
And why are they there? Because Indonesians wouldn't let them stay in
Indonesia.
Firefly
Bali bombers tried in the same court. Killed hundreds of Australians. Amrozi
has been allowed to yell and scream abuse at Corby. AND he's not dead yet
when he should be.
Chris Mayer
> "Pellegrino" <pelle...@noitcejer.com> wrote in message
> news:WJ6me.4923$BR4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>Prodigy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>They want to test our resolve? The next tragedy coming their way, we'll
>>>see how generous we are to the likes of them.
>>
>>So... you'd let an innicent person starve because of a couple of
>>Indonesian judges.
>>
>>Thank Christ not everyone in the world is as big a prick as you.
>
>
> People who think like you are exactly the reason we get walked over, whether
> it's by three racist judges looking to convict a young, white western woman
Stop being pathetic and outlay here and now *only* the *facts* you have
to substantiate *any* claim that the judges' verdict is based on race.
Firefly
So what three people think is more importnat than what millions think? That
must mean that if I think you're a total fuckwit, what anyone else thinks is
irrelevant.
Chris Mayer
He was sentenced to death, what fucking more could you possibly want?
Chris Mayer
Logic is something you have never heard of, is it?
Firefly
Do you also want me to post a url that proves the sun will rise tomorrow?
Firefly
Actually killing him would be a really good start.
Chris Mayer
> "Chris Mayer" <chris...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:4299adc2$0$4653$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>>Firefly wrote:
>>
>>>"Chris Mayer" <chris...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>news:429905F9...@nowhere.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>ferret wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It is the judges that are racist
>>>>>
>>>>>If it was a Indonesian in the same position she would probably
>>>>>only got 10 years or less.
>>>>
>>>>I assume you are basing that on your knowledge of racial biases in
>>>>Indonesian courts. Like to provide the sources to where you got that
>>>>knowledge?
>>>
>>>
>>>Bali bombers tried in the same court. Killed hundreds of Australians.
>>>Amrozi has been allowed to yell and scream abuse at Corby. AND he's not
>>>dead yet when he should be.
>>
>>He was sentenced to death, what fucking more could you possibly want?
>
>
> Actually killing him would be a really good start.
Yeah because people in the west *never* sit on death row for years
before being killed.
Chris Mayer
In other words you have nothing. Come on, just one. Would take less time
than one of your replies I am sure.
ferret
Why bother with the roo court thing anyway, its only a formality.
All of the Defenses witnesses and testimonies were dismissed because
she was deemed guilty. All of the Prosecutions responses were accepted
because there gunning for her.
So if you hated somebody in Indonesia (like a judge) all you have to do
is put some stash in the back seat of his car for a conviction.
The Head Primate said, by doing this was saving the lives of many
Indo's. I don't think anybody has ever died due to smoking weed,
unless driving and still more people die from alcohol related.
Coke and Heroin is a different matter, but there is no way you
put weed in the same class as those.
Brissie
In Indonesia people are usually on death row for 2-4 years before
being killed.
In the US people are usually on death row for 20-25 years before being
killed(and sometimes more) - some states like Texas it's much quicker
and 10-15 years.
ant
I just thought I'd type something here, after going to all the trouble to
scroll and read all the way down these unsnipped posts. This'll get my
bandwidth stats right up, unfortunately.
Pellegrino
OK... I've had a long day and I'm tired, but... what the fuck are you
talking about? People who think like me? People who don't believe
someone who had nothing to do with the Corby judgement should suffer
because of it?
Lionel Theunissen
> >guilty on obviously flawed evidence.
>
> You can never prove 100% that someone is guilty of a crime (unless
> there is video). Rape is a very good example - "She consented", "I
> didn't consent". Impossible to prove. Are you saying no one should
> ever go to jail for rape or sexual assault?
Are you saying that someone should have their life and reputation destroyed,
and be incarcerated for years, on the basis of nothing other than an
accusation?
Crimes which attract harsh penalties should require a very high standard of
evidence to prove. While this means that some of the guilty will escape
punishment, punishing the innocent is an even greater crime that no
compassionate and civilised society should accept.
Unfortunately, principles such as "proof beyond reasonable doubt",
particularly with regard to drug crime, are increasingly being abandoned,
even as penalties are relentlessly increased. The axiom of "innocent until
proven guilty", supposedly at the core of Australian and U.S. court system,
is now rarely employed in practice.
The public accepts the abandoment of these principles at its peril.
> What's stopping someone caught importing massive amounts of cocaine,
> heroin into Australia saying "I didn't do it, must have been a baggage
> handler" - are you going to say "set them free because they said they
> didn't do it, so musn't have"
If there is no evidence as to how and where the drugs were acquired by the
accused then there should be no case to answer. It defies logic to argue
that it is impossible, or even implausible, that drugs were planted in the
luggage, when any reasonably intelligent person could imagine any number of
possible ways that it could have happened.
For example, suppose you have a rival who you know is travelling overseas. A
small package of cocaine, strategically slipped into his luggage at the
airport as you see him off, and you won't have to worry about him for a
while now, will you?
Answer this. How would your rival PROVE that the cocaine wasn't his?
Lionel...
Seamus
>
> For example, suppose you have a rival who you know is travelling
> overseas. A small package of cocaine, strategically slipped into his
> luggage at the airport as you see him off, and you won't have to worry
> about him for a while now, will you?
>
> Answer this. How would your rival PROVE that the cocaine wasn't his?
Why bother with that cocaine. Substitute plastic explosive - no more
rival!
But seriously, you put some drugs in your rival's car and tip off the
police. How does the rival prove the drugs aren't his?
This sort of hypothetical silliness can go on forever.
Lionel Theunissen
"Seamus" <dri...@eight.com.ir> wrote in message
news:3g0norF...@individual.net...
But that's the point! Possession implied by discovery in an individuals
luggage should not be enough to make a case for a drug charge, either in
Bali, Australia, or anywhere else. Unfortunately there are people in jail
here in Australia and overseas who have been convicted on the basis of
little or nothing else.
Now, while I don't think it is fair to question how a foreign country
chooses to punish drug offences, it is not unreasonable to expect certain
minimum standards of proof be applied, especially considering the high
stakes involved. If you are going to impose long prison terms or, heaven
forbid, the death penalty, you had better be damn sure that there is NO
doubt of the guilt of the accused.
With the Corby verdict, all the talk of boycotts, witholding of aid to
Indonesia, and blatantly racist statements is counterproductive. Public
outrage could be channeled into a more constructive purpose by pressuring
the Australian government to propose minimum international standards of
evidence required to detain or charge an individual accused of drug
offences. At the very minimum a chain of possession from the supplier(s) or
to the intended end user(s) needs to be shown.
The enforcement of drug prohibition has now become more of a menace than the
drug problem it is supposed to control. It is time for a reexamination of
the legal application of drug laws, and for people to stand up and say
enough is enough. Overseas travellers need to be aware and respectful of the
laws of other countries, but we need to demand that their laws do not, and
cannot, threaten those who may be falsely accused.
Lionel...
Lionel Theunissen
>
>
> >
> > For example, suppose you have a rival who you know is travelling
> > overseas. A small package of cocaine, strategically slipped into his
> > luggage at the airport as you see him off, and you won't have to worry
> > about him for a while now, will you?
> >
> > Answer this. How would your rival PROVE that the cocaine wasn't his?
>
> Why bother with that cocaine. Substitute plastic explosive - no more
> rival!
Actually the answer to that is simple. With the plastic explosive (I'm
assuming you mean that it explodes rather than gets picked up by customs in
which case your rival faces a similar situation than being caught with
drugs) it is obviously a murder, and you are likely to be implicated. With
the cocaine a foreign state gets rid of your rival for you. If you've done
it discretely there's no way to trace it back to you. Even if your rival
suspects that you put it there and accuses you (safe in your home country),
who's going to believe him?...i.e. It's the perfect crime.
> But seriously, you put some drugs in your rival's car and tip off the
> police. How does the rival prove the drugs aren't his?
The fact that you tipped off the police and knew the drugs were there could
well implicate yourself.
Lionel...
Su Solomon
>
> "Seamus" <dri...@eight.com.ir> wrote in message
> news:3g0norF...@individual.net...
> > On Tue, 31 May 2005 00:31:34 +1000, Lionel Theunissen wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > For example, suppose you have a rival who you know is travelling
> > > overseas. A small package of cocaine, strategically slipped into his
> > > luggage at the airport as you see him off, and you won't have to worry
> > > about him for a while now, will you?
> > >
> > > Answer this. How would your rival PROVE that the cocaine wasn't his?
> >
> > Why bother with that cocaine. Substitute plastic explosive - no more
> > rival!
> >
> > But seriously, you put some drugs in your rival's car and tip off the
> > police. How does the rival prove the drugs aren't his?
> >
> > This sort of hypothetical silliness can go on forever.
>
> But that's the point! Possession implied by discovery in an individuals
> luggage should not be enough to make a case for a drug charge, either in
> Bali, Australia, or anywhere else.
This is not true.
> Unfortunately there are people in jail
> here in Australia and overseas who have been convicted on the basis of
> little or nothing else.
And you can name everyone of them?
>
> Now, while I don't think it is fair to question how a foreign country
> chooses to punish drug offences, it is not unreasonable to expect certain
> minimum standards of proof be applied,
Posession is proof.
> especially considering the high
> stakes involved. If you are going to impose long prison terms or, heaven
> forbid, the death penalty, you had better be damn sure that there is NO
> doubt of the guilt of the accused.
Posession.
>
> With the Corby verdict, all the talk of boycotts, witholding of aid to
> Indonesia, and blatantly racist statements is counterproductive. Public
> outrage could be channeled into a more constructive purpose by pressuring
> the Australian government to propose minimum international standards of
> evidence required to detain or charge an individual accused of drug
> offences. At the very minimum a chain of possession from the supplier(s) or
> to the intended end user(s) needs to be shown.
Like the Bali 9?
> The enforcement of drug prohibition has now become more of a menace than the
> drug problem it is supposed to control. It is time for a reexamination of
> the legal application of drug laws, and for people to stand up and say
> enough is enough. Overseas travellers need to be aware and respectful of the
> laws of other countries, but we need to demand that their laws do not, and
> cannot, threaten those who may be falsely accused.
Why do you believe that Corby is innocent and the Bali 9 are guilty?
>
> Lionel...
Lionel Theunissen
"Su Solomon" <s...@email.net> wrote in message
news:429B4F...@email.net...
> Lionel Theunissen wrote:
> >
> > "Seamus" <dri...@eight.com.ir> wrote in message
> > news:3g0norF...@individual.net...
> > > On Tue, 31 May 2005 00:31:34 +1000, Lionel Theunissen wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > For example, suppose you have a rival who you know is travelling
> > > > overseas. A small package of cocaine, strategically slipped into his
> > > > luggage at the airport as you see him off, and you won't have to
worry
> > > > about him for a while now, will you?
> > > >
> > > > Answer this. How would your rival PROVE that the cocaine wasn't his?
> > >
> > > Why bother with that cocaine. Substitute plastic explosive - no more
> > > rival!
> > >
> > > But seriously, you put some drugs in your rival's car and tip off the
> > > police. How does the rival prove the drugs aren't his?
> > >
> > > This sort of hypothetical silliness can go on forever.
> >
> > But that's the point! Possession implied by discovery in an individuals
> > luggage should not be enough to make a case for a drug charge, either in
> > Bali, Australia, or anywhere else.
>
> This is not true.
I'm afraid it is. Maybe not in theory, but certainly in practice. I'm sorry
that you're so naive to believe otherwise.
> > Unfortunately there are people in jail
> > here in Australia and overseas who have been convicted on the basis of
> > little or nothing else.
>
> And you can name everyone of them?
EVERY one of them? Are you kidding?
> > Now, while I don't think it is fair to question how a foreign country
> > chooses to punish drug offences, it is not unreasonable to expect
certain
> > minimum standards of proof be applied,
>
> Posession is proof.
Posession (sic) is proof of nothing other than possession. It does not prove
how the drugs came into your possession. It does not prove the intention to
traffic or import drugs.
> > especially considering the high
> > stakes involved. If you are going to impose long prison terms or, heaven
> > forbid, the death penalty, you had better be damn sure that there is NO
> > doubt of the guilt of the accused.
>
> Posession.
So, you are comfortable with someone being incarcerated or executed on the
basis of nothing other than the discovery of drugs in their luggage. Even
when there is the very real possibility that they could have been placed
there by parties unknown while the luggage was out of the care of the
accused?
The reason the Corby case has upset so many people is that they realise how
easily this could have happened to anyone.
The Corby case is hardly unique. There are, undoubtedly, many innocent
people sitting in jail right now because of the minimal standards of proof
required to charge an individual with drug offences.
It is unfortunate that up to now the plight of these people has been ignored
by the public. Corby seems to have captured the public imagination through
the media. Unfortunately this is probably based on little more than her
being photogenic. But, since this has now entered the public conscience some
good can be made to come of it by pressuring politicians to legislate
safeguards into drug laws and push for international standards that prevent
people being charged without adequate proof.
> > With the Corby verdict, all the talk of boycotts, witholding of aid to
> > Indonesia, and blatantly racist statements is counterproductive. Public
> > outrage could be channeled into a more constructive purpose by
pressuring
> > the Australian government to propose minimum international standards of
> > evidence required to detain or charge an individual accused of drug
> > offences. At the very minimum a chain of possession from the supplier(s)
or
> > to the intended end user(s) needs to be shown.
>
> Like the Bali 9?
It would not be appropriate to comment on that case until it has gone to
trial. However, if a chain of possession can be demonstrated in evidence
with the clear intention to traffic drugs then that should be the level of
evidence required to prove a charge.
> > The enforcement of drug prohibition has now become more of a menace than
the
> > drug problem it is supposed to control. It is time for a reexamination
of
> > the legal application of drug laws, and for people to stand up and say
> > enough is enough. Overseas travellers need to be aware and respectful of
the
> > laws of other countries, but we need to demand that their laws do not,
and
> > cannot, threaten those who may be falsely accused.
>
> Why do you believe that Corby is innocent and the Bali 9 are guilty?
You assume too much. I don't BELIEVE anything regarding these cases. I have
no idea whether Corby is guilty or not. But I, for one, am not comfortable
with harsh punishments being imposed without substantial evidence. Whether
you believe Corby or not, no chain of possession was demonstrated at the
trial. The drugs should have been confiscated, but she should not have been
detained, let alone charged and convicted.
Lionel...
Seamus
>
>
> You assume too much. I don't BELIEVE anything regarding these cases. I
> have no idea whether Corby is guilty or not. But I, for one, am not
> comfortable with harsh punishments being imposed without substantial
> evidence. Whether you believe Corby or not, no chain of possession was
> demonstrated at the trial. The drugs should have been confiscated, but
> she should not have been detained, let alone charged and convicted.
Whatever you believe, and whatever your state of comfort, regarding the
Corby matter is wholly and completely irrelevant to anything.
There is not a thing you can do about what has happened and what will
happen, one way or another, other than you stamping your little feet in
frustration that things won't go as you wish. That's you and all the other
mindless morons who have such strong views about how the Indonesians
should do something different on your say-so.
Su Solomon
> >
> > Why do you believe that Corby is innocent and the Bali 9 are guilty?
>
> You assume too much. I don't BELIEVE anything regarding these cases. I have
> no idea whether Corby is guilty or not. But I, for one, am not comfortable
> with harsh punishments being imposed without substantial evidence.
Which is not what you have been arguing.
> Whether
> you believe Corby or not, no chain of possession was demonstrated at the
> trial. The drugs should have been confiscated, but she should not have been
> detained, let alone charged and convicted.
There you go!
Chain of possesion was shown.
You dont like harsh penalties.
Therefore Corby should be let free.
>
> Lionel...
Brissie
>All of the Defenses witnesses
Did she have any credible ones that supplied info?
No. She had one which was hearsay(and from a convicted criminal at
that) and the others were character witnesses.
> I don't think anybody has ever died due to smoking weed,
They have actually. Causes neurological problems
F1refly
>
>>All of the Defenses witnesses
>
> Did she have any credible ones that supplied info?
>
> No. She had one which was hearsay(and from a convicted criminal at
> that) and the others were character witnesses.
No they weren't.
Brissie
F1refly
Why don't you look at the transcript of the judgement or the witness list?
Brissie
wrote:
>
>"Brissie" <bri...@zwallet.com> wrote in message
>news:k8mr91tcnkc357i38...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 00:23:25 +1000, "F1refly" <br17...@n17e.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Brissie" <bri...@zwallet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:0tgr91dpuhq4dsekv...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>All of the Defenses witnesses
>>>>
>>>> Did she have any credible ones that supplied info?
>>>>
>>>> No. She had one which was hearsay(and from a convicted criminal at
>>>> that) and the others were character witnesses.
>>>
>>>No they weren't.
>>>
>>
>> Okay then who were they?
>
>Why don't you look at the transcript of the judgement or the witness list?
>
I have. The way I explained them is correct. If you think differently
list them. You can't. If you copuld you would have
F1refly
I was actually hoping you wouldn't make yourself look any more stupid.
Professor Wilson was certainly not a character witness. He went there as an
expert in Criminology.
Brissie
wrote:
>
>"Brissie" <bri...@zwallet.com> wrote in message
>news:sqls91le1biib5dpi...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 02:10:54 +1000, "F1refly" <br17...@n17e.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Brissie" <bri...@zwallet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:k8mr91tcnkc357i38...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 00:23:25 +1000, "F1refly" <br17...@n17e.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Brissie" <bri...@zwallet.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:0tgr91dpuhq4dsekv...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All of the Defenses witnesses
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did she have any credible ones that supplied info?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. She had one which was hearsay(and from a convicted criminal at
>>>>>> that) and the others were character witnesses.
>>>>>
>>>>>No they weren't.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Okay then who were they?
>>>
>>>Why don't you look at the transcript of the judgement or the witness list?
>>>
>>
>> I have. The way I explained them is correct. If you think differently
>> list them. You can't. If you copuld you would have
>
>I was actually hoping you wouldn't make yourself look any more stupid.
>
>Professor Wilson was certainly not a character witness. He went there as an
>expert in Criminology.
>
And I ask again what testimony did he present that pointed to Corby's
innocence? None. He didn't say "I saw her bags before the flight and
they were empty" or "I saw someone put the drugs there", he didn't
offer any testimony like that.
F1refly
Irrelevant. You said her other witnesses were character witnesses. He wasn't
a character witness.
Brissie
>> And I ask again what testimony did he present that pointed to Corby's
>> innocence? None. He didn't say "I saw her bags before the flight and
>> they were empty" or "I saw someone put the drugs there", he didn't
>> offer any testimony like that.
>
>Irrelevant. You said her other witnesses were character witnesses. He wasn't
>a character witness.
>
He still didn't offer any actual evidence though
She had no evidence to support herself
F1refly
Only because it was all conveniently lost, deliberately destroyed or
avoided. That's not her fault. The defence did try to get the evidence but
they were prevented from getting it. That's hardly fair.
Brissie
wrote:
QANTAS said that the video showed nothing that would have helped her
They wouldn't lie.
If there was evidence that would have helped her they would have
handed the video over. But they didn't
Should tell you something.
F1refly
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 17:19:27 +1000, "F1refly" <br17...@n17e.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Brissie" <bri...@zwallet.com> wrote in message
>>news:ogdv91tqhl94dtno7...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>> And I ask again what testimony did he present that pointed to Corby's
>>>>> innocence? None. He didn't say "I saw her bags before the flight and
>>>>> they were empty" or "I saw someone put the drugs there", he didn't
>>>>> offer any testimony like that.
>>>>
>>>>Irrelevant. You said her other witnesses were character witnesses. He
>>>>wasn't
>>>>a character witness.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He still didn't offer any actual evidence though
>>>
>>> She had no evidence to support herself
>>
>>Only because it was all conveniently lost, deliberately destroyed or
>>avoided. That's not her fault. The defence did try to get the evidence but
>>they were prevented from getting it. That's hardly fair.
>>
>
> QANTAS said that the video showed nothing that would have helped her
>
they had erased the tapes, how do they know that the video showed nothing
that would help her.
> They wouldn't lie.
I have this bridge for sale........
> If there was evidence that would have helped her they would have
> handed the video over. But they didn't
and a big rock in the middle of Australia at a really good price.
>
> Should tell you something.
You're gullible?
Brissie
>> Should tell you something.
>
>You're gullible?
hahahahahhaha
I'm not the one who believes "I didn't do it"
F1refly
So you're admitting that you planted the drugs. I'll pass that information
on to the authorities.
Brissie
wrote:
Um, no I believe she did it.
You say she didn't because she said she didn't.
If I planted them, then I would believe "I didn't do it" don't you
think?
F1refly
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:45:00 +1000, "F1refly" <br17...@n17e.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Brissie" <bri...@zwallet.com> wrote in message
>>news:n0l0a1tamki025kdi...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>> Should tell you something.
>>>>
>>>>You're gullible?
>>>
>>> hahahahahhaha
>>>
>>> I'm not the one who believes "I didn't do it"
>>
>>
>>So you're admitting that you planted the drugs. I'll pass that information
>>on to the authorities.
>>
>
> Um, no I believe she did it.
>
> You say she didn't because she said she didn't.
No I don't. I say she didn't because I don't think there was enough proof
and there's too much reasonable doubt.
> If I planted them, then I would believe "I didn't do it" don't you
> think?
Whoosh.