A recent article in the Daily Telegraph suggests the defense team of accused drug-trafficker Schapelle Corby is confident of an acquittal on Friday. When I talked to Schapelle in Kerobokan jail last week her spirits seems surprisingly good and it seemed to me she expected things to be wrapped up by Friday. Who knows, maybe a deal has been struck, one that cannot be talked about. The legal systems of two countries get intertwined when nationals of one country commit crimes in another and if Schapelle is acquitted no doubt the prosecution will appeal. As the Daily Telegraph point out this could cause some pushing and shoving, as the defense would want Schapelle to come back to Australia. In my opinion if she is acquitted someone in power will have given the order and that will be the end of it. Much like convicting the Bali bombers on a law that was written after the incident, it was a forgone conclusion, someone just gave the word.
If you are on holiday in Bali and want to visit a prisoner after Schapelle leaves by all means do so. There is a guy called Robert who never gets any visitors and other westerners in there. They appreciate food items.
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share             
|
THIS RESPONSE IS COMING FROM NEW YORK CITY - USA
I work in the legal industry here in New York and I can tell you that BALI’s legal system seems to have it’s defects and bias. I say this for the following reason:
Ms Corby has made the defense that someone unknown to her placed the drugs in her bag. In support of her defense the following was available to cast a “shadow of a doubt” on her charges:
1) A letter from the government of Australia attesting to the fact that there is a drug trafficing problem at the airport involving bag handlers.
2) The Bali officials failed to test the drug bags for finger prints.
3) The Bali officials failed to test the drugs to determine from what country they originated from.
4) There where prior claims that other people traveling to Bali found drugs in their bags once they arrived at their hotel room.
5) A jailed witness contradicted the charges by attesting to a conversation he overheard in jail. Such person was retaliated against once arriving back to jail and is in protective custody.
There are other open questions/issues: Was Ms. Corby’s prior history reviewed for criminal possession of drugs? Was her hair tested for use of the substance? Were witnesses present to testify on her character? If the court granted protection to the jailed witness, would he have revealed the identity of the individual who placed the drugs in Ms Corby’s bag? This would be all made in the search for “true” justice and not a fast resolution of the case.
Argument:
1) It is clear that her demeanor does not resemble a person who is guilty; but more of a person who is innocent. Simply look at the other individuals who are currently charged for drug trafficing and you witness a different demeanor. Compare any person who truly feels they are innocent and you get the demeanor that Ms. Corby displays, which of course is not evidence to her innocence; but a factor to consider when evaluating her charachter.
2) The failure to finger print the drug bags is significant. This would have proven that Ms. Corby had no contact with such bags or minimal contact as she opened her bag at the airport, which would have created a strong doubt against the charges.
3) The failure to test the drugs to determine the origin of the drugs was also a very crucial missing factor. This could have proven that the drugs originated from a country other than Australia. Not an all ending determination; but another question placed on her charges.
4) The fact that there were reports of other people arriving in Bali and finding drugs in their bags goes to Ms Corby’s defense that there exists a strong possibility that someone else did place the drugs in her bag. Thus, adding more doubt to the charges against her.
5) Charachter witnesses could have helped to determine if Ms. Corby possessed the disposition that would have allowed her to engage in such illegal activity. For example, no one would dare charge the Pope with such an offense even if they did find drugs in his bags. Ms Corby is not the Pope; but charachter witnesses can attest to her charachter and present evidence as to whether she is capable of committing such a crime.
6) The fact that the Australian government asserted that there is a drug trafficing problem at the airport involving baggage handlers goes to Ms Corby’s defense in that it helps to substantiates her claims that somone other than herself placed the drugs in her bag. Although it does not provide evidence of another person, it presents the possibility that her claims are feasible. Again, not an all ending determination. This is an “issue of fact” that would go toward establishing “doubt” against the charges.
With all the evidence presented to the jury in favor of Ms Corby, it would be hard to see a jury determining a conviction based on the concept of “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. Especially if Ms Corby never had any prior drug history.
It is very clear that Ms Corby did not have a fair trial, and taking into consideration the Judges statement that Ms Corby did not prove her innocence shows a bias against Ms Corby from the same judicial system that not only prevented her from presenting adequate evidence in her defense; but the same one that convicted her on the charges.
Regardless whether or not she is innocent or guilty. It is the mere fact that she was deprived of an adequate trial that is an injustice here, and which has outraged millions.
It’s very understandable why so many people are outraged.
The conclusion is that anyone who travels to BALI is under their own risk of being subjected to an arbitrary judicial system, and travel to BALI at their own risk. Of course, millions have traveled to Bali without a negative outcome. However, how many are willing to take the risk that the next person the Bali government decides to subject to their legal system is YOURSELF?
Of course life is not fair and the Balinese judicial system has attested to this as fact. It’s sad because judicial systems are ment to even the balance of unfairness. With the knowledge that there were Balinese protestors at the trial requesting that Ms Corby be executed immediately evidences an ignorance of some of the Balinese people, and a direct slap in the face of the Australian people who have provided economic support to that country through their travels there. You would think a people receiving such economic support would show the benefit of the doubt to an Australian instead of wanting her immediate execution.
The reason why I am responding to this case is not only because of the injustice I have witnessed in the Corby case; but due to the fact that my office was planning on traveling to Bali to celebrate an office success. Due to the Corby case many of the employees were frightened and we have decided to go somewhere else.
A message to all Australians. Bali has commited a grave injustice to one of your own. A clear injustice that you have had the opportunity to witness and judge for yourselves. The question is how many other Australians have the Balinese government victimized outside your knowledge. How many more will such a government cause to suffer in the future while enjoying economic gain from your country. It’s clear that the Balinse government as a whole is spitting on your faces. Taking your children, jailing them or murdering them.
I have never heard of one of us Americans being executed by the Balinese governement; but I have heard of Australians being executed by that government. Wake up Australians, your people are being killed and vitimized by a government that seems to not respect you even after you give them your hard earned money. Wake up and take action to stop the abuse against your own children because Ms Corby can be anyone of us or you the next time.
THIS RESPONSE IS COMING FROM NEW YORK CITY - USA
I work in the legal industry here in New York and I can tell you that BALI’s legal system seems to have it’s defects and bias. I say this for the following reason:
Ms Corby has made the defense that someone unknown to her placed the drugs in her bag. In support of her defense the following was available to cast a “shadow of a doubt” on her charges:
1) A letter from the government of Australia attesting to the fact that there is a drug trafficing problem at the airport involving bag handlers.
2) The Bali officials failed to test the drug bags for finger prints.
3) The Bali officials failed to test the drugs to determine from what country they originated from.
4) There where prior claims that other people traveling to Bali found drugs in their bags once they arrived at their hotel room.
5) A jailed witness contradicted the charges by attesting to a conversation he overheard in jail. Such person was retaliated against once arriving back to jail and is in protective custody.
There are other open questions/issues: Was Ms. Corby’s prior history reviewed for criminal possession of drugs? Was her hair tested for use of the substance? Were witnesses present to testify on her character? If the court granted protection to the jailed witness, would he have revealed the identity of the individual who placed the drugs in Ms Corby’s bag? This would be all made in the search for “true” justice and not a fast resolution of the case.
Argument:
1) It is clear that her demeanor does not resemble a person who is guilty; but more of a person who is innocent. Simply look at the other individuals who are currently charged for drug trafficing and you witness a different demeanor. Compare any person who truly feels they are innocent and you get the demeanor that Ms. Corby displays, which of course is not evidence to her innocence; but a factor to consider when evaluating her charachter.
2) The failure to finger print the drug bags is significant. This would have proven that Ms. Corby had no contact with such bags or minimal contact as she opened her bag at the airport, which would have created a strong doubt against the charges.
3) The failure to test the drugs to determine the origin of the drugs was also a very crucial missing factor. This could have proven that the drugs originated from a country other than Australia. Not an all ending determination; but another question placed on her charges.
4) The fact that there were reports of other people arriving in Bali and finding drugs in their bags goes to Ms Corby’s defense that there exists a strong possibility that someone else did place the drugs in her bag. Thus, adding more doubt to the charges against her.
5) Charachter witnesses could have helped to determine if Ms. Corby possessed the disposition that would have allowed her to engage in such illegal activity. For example, no one would dare charge the Pope with such an offense even if they did find drugs in his bags. Ms Corby is not the Pope; but charachter witnesses can attest to her charachter and present evidence as to whether she is capable of committing such a crime.
6) The fact that the Australian government asserted that there is a drug trafficing problem at the airport involving baggage handlers goes to Ms Corby’s defense in that it helps to substantiates her claims that somone other than herself placed the drugs in her bag. Although it does not provide evidence of another person, it presents the possibility that her claims are feasible. Again, not an all ending determination. This is an “issue of fact” that would go toward establishing “doubt” against the charges.
With all the evidence presented to the jury in favor of Ms Corby, it would be hard to see a jury determining a conviction based on the concept of “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. Especially if Ms Corby never had any prior drug history.
It is very clear that Ms Corby did not have a fair trial, and taking into consideration the Judges statement that Ms Corby did not prove her innocence shows a bias against Ms Corby from the same judicial system that not only prevented her from presenting adequate evidence in her defense; but the same one that convicted her on the charges.
Regardless whether or not she is innocent or guilty. It is the mere fact that she was deprived of an adequate trial that is an injustice here, and which has outraged millions.
It’s very understandable why so many people are outraged.
The conclusion is that anyone who travels to BALI is under their own risk of being subjected to an arbitrary judicial system, and travel to BALI at their own risk. Of course, millions have traveled to Bali without a negative outcome. However, how many are willing to take the risk that the next person the Bali government decides to subject to their legal system is YOURSELF?
Of course life is not fair and the Balinese judicial system has attested to this as fact. It’s sad because judicial systems are ment to even the balance of unfairness. With the knowledge that there were Balinese protestors at the trial requesting that Ms Corby be executed immediately evidences an ignorance of some of the Balinese people, and a direct slap in the face of the Australian people who have provided economic support to that country through their travels there. You would think a people receiving such economic support would show the benefit of the doubt to an Australian instead of wanting her immediate execution.
The reason why I am responding to this case is not only because of the injustice I have witnessed in the Corby case; but due to the fact that my office was planning on traveling to Bali to celebrate an office success. Due to the Corby case many of the employees were frightened and we have decided to go somewhere else.
A message to all Australians. Bali has commited a grave injustice to one of your own. A clear injustice that you have had the opportunity to witness and judge for yourselves. The question is how many other Australians have the Balinese government victimized outside your knowledge. How many more will such a government cause to suffer in the future while enjoying economic gain from your country. It’s clear that the Balinse government as a whole is spitting on your faces. Taking your children, jailing them or murdering them.
I have never heard of one of us Americans being executed by the Balinese governement; but I have heard of Australians being executed by that government. Wake up Australians, your people are being killed and vitimized by a government that seems to not respect you even after you give them your hard earned money. Wake up and take action to stop the abuse against your own children because Ms Corby can be anyone of us or you the next time.
David’s comments on May 31st are immature and unjust. One should definitely look into how a government can affect a justice system before judging it as a ‘murderous’ system who can subject anyone to it’s ‘arbitrary’ legal system. The Balinese government have nothing to do with an Indonesian high court. This is laughable since you claim that you work in the legal system.
Drug smugglers use gloves, because they know anything in their posession may be scanned for prints. Would one trust a convicted felon in testifying hearsay based on first names? Even so, one can not claim it as overwhelming evidence. Anyone can testify anything, one needs real proof to say wether it’s real or not.
The question is if you as an American get caught in an Australian airport with drugs smuggled in your bag, would you condemn the Australian nation as primitive and barbaric? Please read on the Chika Honda case in Victoria in 1992 as it gives a precedent to this case.
Stop national vilification.
Cheers.
What is the big deal with schapelle corby,I myself being a fellow Australian think this is just a load of crap. The media is feeding up the wrong interpretation of her time being spent in jail and the suffering she is going through because she is supposed to be innocent. There are alot of people worse off in todays society and we are worrying about someone living it up in jail and accused of being 2 months pregnant and in a love affair with another inmate. what is the world coming to!!!!!
i am a member of a party of 25 people that go to Bali each year, but we have decided we will not be going again, its Fiji for us from this point forward, we would want to see a much improved court system and sentencing structure, when it comes to foreign nationals along with some consideration for the difference in life styles as well, when being held in custody, it would show ( to us ) some thanks for the very large sums of money spent by us foreign nationals, that keeps the Bali economy going