Corby - can someon explain

[Crow-mosone]

A question about this schapelle corby carry on.

I live in europe, and everything I or any my friends have heard, seems to suggest that there is nothing especially interesting about this case. She got caught drug trafficking, and appears based on the evidence to be guilty.

Can someone explain, why everyone thinks she isn't?

From over here it sounds a lot like ingrained racism: that those funny looking foreigners set up her up, you can't trust them, they don't know right and wrong, they're not like us. We have to support the australian against those funny looking people, they must be wrong, they don't look like us - whilst she, she looks like us, and therefore must be innocent.

Now this might not fair, so can someone explain to me why someone caught redhanded isn't guilty?

 

[just maybe]

1. There is an element of ingrained racism
2. She is a white, young, big-boobed Australian girl (for reference, there is a 'Asian-looking' Australian on death row for drugs in Vietnam, who we've heard nothing about)
3. She claims she has been framed and the drugs in the bag aren't hers (despite heavy amounts of circumstantial evidence to the contrary)
4. The drug bag was not fingerprinted by Indonesian customs officials.
5. The media has twisted and abused the story for ratings
6. Most Australians have a very ignorant and stupid view of the Indonesian legal system fuelled by the ignorant and stupid media coverage
7. She has a high profile financial backer (Ron Bakir) who keeps her in the news
8. She has a habit of throwing tantrums and fainting in court when the cameras are on her

That's a fair whack of the reasons why people think she isn't guilty.

I suspect she is.

 

[MGREG]

A question about this schapelle corby carry on.

I live in europe, and everything I or any my friends have heard, seems to suggest that there is nothing especially interesting about this case. She got caught drug trafficking, and appears based on the evidence to be guilty.

Can someone explain, why everyone thinks she isn't?

From over here it sounds a lot like ingrained racism: that those funny looking foreigners set up her up, you can't trust them, they don't know right and wrong, they're not like us. We have to support the australian against those funny looking people, they must be wrong, they don't look like us - whilst she, she looks like us, and therefore must be innocent.

Now this might not fair, so can someone explain to me why someone caught redhanded isn't guilty?

20 20 vision from Europe. Spot on.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Now this might not fair, so can someone explain to me why someone caught redhanded isn't guilty?

Because Today Tonight, Mr. Crow and UNIT said so.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Because Today Tonight, Mr. Crow and UNIT said so.

I desperately want to believe in the irony here, but I suspect you're right.

 

[teams]

There has been doubts raised about whether or not she placed the drugs in her bag.
If she is guilty she has taken Australia for a nice ride. If she is innocent, an unfortuante lass.

 

[FIGJAM]

Now this might not fair, so can someone explain to me why someone caught redhanded isn't guilty?

In every country around the world is presumed guilty until proven innocent when it comes to drug trafficking. As such she's gone down for being caught rehanded.

Probably the main reasons that it seems unusual to most Aussies, is that it seems like a massive outlay for very little return financially and the risk to return ratio of dragging weed into a country with the death penalty almost seems *ed.

And she seems quite intelligent and a prissy type of chick, who I would think wouldn't even touch a joint. Indeed it's the fact that you can't help but look at her and say something's wrong with the picture.

I don't know one way or the other, but I cannot help but have a gut feel that she wouldn't do something like this. Who knows, maybe that's what she was banking on in the event she got caught, but given it was her first holiday there in 5 years, how could you be that cocky and naive going into Denpassar with dudes carying machine guns, dogs and signs in Engrish saying you will die if you bring in drugs!

Having been there, as she had been in 2000, there's no chance in hell I'd have a crack at taking drugs into that airport. Hell, I wouldn't even chance my arm getting drugs through our airport on the way out! It's all a bit weird.

Coupled with baggage handlers shifting drugs (at least powders, maybe also some weed) then you start thinking that there's at least potential for one serious ******** up.

There was an article which said Eurotrash and Aussies paid a top end premium for Australian Hydro (which her gear definitely was), but even still, the premium didn't sound like it was so exceptionally high to want to cart a lazy 4 kilos into a country with firing squads. Still, how much more would a drunk Euro/Aussie pay for a gram? What's the ceiling? $30?? $35?? I doubt anyone would pay any more than that. And you can get $20-25 here with minimal risk.

So basically, smuggling grass into Bali still seems like an unfeasible proposition due to risk, return and death. If ya stereotypical drug dealer did it, I'd still shake me head. This chick ain't your stereotype, which baffles me even more!

 

[Crow-mosone]

There has been doubts raised about whether or not she placed the drugs in her bag.

are there really though? there seems to be zero real evidence to support this?

 

[FIGJAM]

are there really though? there seems to be zero real evidence to support this?

There would be zero real evidence to support this in any case (pardon the pun), unless there was clearly locks and straps broken.

Not an argument one way or the other.

 

[teams]

are there really though? there seems to be zero real evidence to support this?

No question the doubts exist.

Conclusive evidence one way or the other is yet to abound. She wasn't in possession of he bag in between Brisbane and Denpasar. The possibility that her luggage was tampered with definitely exists.

The judge and no-one else in particular except perhaps the lass her self know 100% that it wasn't tampered with. It was a legal ruling, not an investigative one, is where the hub hub here comes from. She could well be guilty but it isn't conclusive.

 

[just maybe]

Why did the marijuana bag fit the shape of her bodyboard bag?

 

[Crow-mosone]

Re: Corby - can someone explain

In every country around the world is presumed guilty until proven innocent when it comes to drug trafficking. As such she's gone down for being caught rehanded.

fair enough, if you're caught red handed, you would need some good reasons why it isn't so.

Probably the main reasons that it seems unusual to most Aussies, is that it seems like a massive outlay for very little return financially and the risk to return ratio of dragging weed into a country with the death penalty almost seems *ed.

all circumstantial. this means nothing. that is like saying "I didn't murder my wife/husband because I loved her/him" doesn't actually mean anything.

People don't expect to be caught, if they did, they wouldn't do these things.

I am not sure about the outlay, it all depends on where you get it from.
As for the financial return, that makes too many presumptions about motive that we cannot know, and should not attempt to.

And she seems quite intelligent and a prissy type of chick, who I would think wouldn't even touch a joint. Indeed it's the fact that you can't help but look at her and say something's wrong with the picture.

excuse me? I know some very intelligent cone heads. And as for not looking the part - do you mean white?

I don't know one way or the other, but I cannot help but have a gut feel that she wouldn't do something like this.

why would you presume to know anything about her?

Who knows, maybe that's what she was banking on in the event she got caught, but given it was her first holiday there in 5 years, how could you be that cocky and naive going into Denpassar with dudes carying machine guns, dogs and signs in Engrish saying you will die if you bring in drugs!

if you don't expect to be caught, what's the difference?

Having been there, as she had been in 2000, there's no chance in hell I'd have a crack at taking drugs into that airport. Hell, I wouldn't even chance my arm getting drugs through our airport on the way out! It's all a bit weird.

no offense, but you have already implied you have never popped a pill, smoked a joint, or any such things. which means you are imparting your value system as a proxy for hers. Can't really do that - not that there is anything wrong with yours. The courts all over the world are full of people who have done, what you wouldn't.

Coupled with baggage handlers shifting drugs (at least powders, maybe also some weed) then you start thinking that there's at least potential for one serious ******** up.

why? thats entirely spurious and has no bearing on an individual case.

There was an article which said Eurotrash and Aussies paid a top end premium for Australian Hydro (which her gear definitely was), but even still, the premium didn't sound like it was so exceptionally high to want to cart a lazy 4 kilos into a country with firing squads.

there you go with your value system again. Also, we cannot know, or really care, what the reason was, or why.

Still, how much more would a drunk Euro/Aussie pay for a gram? What's the ceiling? $30?? $35?? I doubt anyone would pay any more than that. And you can get $20-25 here with minimal risk.

who is to say, where it would end up?

So basically, smuggling grass into Bali still seems like an unfeasible proposition due to risk, return and death. If ya stereotypical drug dealer did it, I'd still shake me head. This chick ain't your stereotype, which baffles me even more!

how do you know anything about her? I don't.

I am really sorry if this seems I have treated you harshly that's not my intention at all. It really isn't, please accept my apologies on that level.
I am genuinely looking for where the doubt came from, from what appears a fairly open and shut case.

From a distance, there does not appear to be any grounds for doubt, other than that someone who is one of us, wouldn't do that. Again I refer to the all jails and courts littered with people who have done things that the average person wouldn't have. How do we differentiate these people from ourselves? by their chosen courses of action, not their social, education standards or the colour of their skin.

Something you might be interested in.
How much is a 4.1 kg's of weed?

well that is roughly 9 pounds. An ounce fills approximately a sandwich bag, imagine one of those glad sandwich bags.
There are 144 of those in 9 pounds. quite a few bricks there.
imagine how much space that would take up, forget the weight, but think of how much actual volume that would consume. you would need to have left with a near empty bag, to fit all of that in, and it would be fairly full visually after that lot went in.

We over here, do not know if she is innocent or guilty, but what we also don't know is where the factual basis for the outcry lies.

 

[Crow-mosone]

There would be zero real evidence to support this in any case (pardon the pun), unless there was clearly locks and straps broken.

Not an argument one way or the other.

it's in her bags, and there is no evidence that anyone else put it there.

pretty conclusive argument I'd have thought.

 

[Borgsta]

Re: Corby - can someone explain

Im sorry but you cannot tell by looking at someone if they have ever used drugs. With some people it is obvious but with most you would have no idea what so ever.

 

[Crow-mosone]

No question the doubts exist.

Conclusive evidence one way or the other is yet to abound. She wasn't in possession of he bag in between Brisbane and Denpasar. The possibility that her luggage was tampered with definitely exists.

The judge and no-one else in particular except perhaps the lass her self know 100% that it wasn't tampered with. It was a legal ruling, not an investigative one, is where the hub hub here comes from. She could well be guilty but it isn't conclusive.

I am sorry, but that is not how the world works.

maybe an alien has cloned your fingerprints, and that is why it is on the murder weapon? not to be funny, because something could have happened on the far reaches of probability does not make it a reasonable defence.

 

[Docker_Brat]

And she seems quite intelligent

She's 27 years old and a "former beauty student". She's no rocket scientist.

If she was intelligent she would have shut her mouth and had someone pay the bribes.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

If you were a drug smuggler, and had developed a highly complex method involving baggage handlers and such and such to smuggle Cocaine and the like; why would you bother using this method to smuggle a drug that's going to earn you bugger all money in the grand scheme of things?

 

[teams]

I am sorry, but that is not how the world works.

maybe an alien has cloned your fingerprints, and that is why it is on the murder weapon? not to be funny, because something could have happened on the far reaches of probability does not make it a reasonable defence.

You asked what all the fuss is about. I explained it to you. It wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt that she was the one who put the dope in her bag.

On the size of the thing, the odds are probably with her being guilty. That's only the odds, though.
The prosecution did not produce the evidence that demonstrates she put the drugs in her bag. If your bags are in the possession of some one else in the lead up to the discovery, work it out for your self, there is doubt.

If you want to argue that she is probably guilty, you'll find plenty of threads that already cover that without going to far back. And yes, pending appeal, she is guilty according to Indonesia judicary. That is the way the world is working.

 

[Crow-mosone]

You asked what all the fuss is about. I explained it to you. It wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt that she was the one who put the dope in her bag.

On the size of the thing, the odds are probably with her being guilty. That's only the odds, though.
The prosecution did not produce the evidence that demonstrates she put the drugs in her bag. If your bags are in the possession of some one else in the lead up to the discovery, work it out for your self, there is doubt.

If you want to argue that she is probably guilty, you'll find plenty of threads that already cover that without going to far back. And yes, pending appeal, she is guilty according to Indonesia judicary. That is the way the world is working.

I don't mean to be rude, but you don't sound very old.

You say the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, but I am not sure what you are basing that on? it's not the legal sense.

The prosecution in an australian or european court of law would also not need to prove that she put the drugs in the bag, it is enough that they are in her possession - why do you think, or who has told you that they do? The burden of proof then becomes to provide something other than fanciful theories in order to invalidate the known facts of the case. think of it like a game of rock/paper/scissors; except in this game, imagined, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories do not beat hard evidence.

I appreciate that you mean well, but I don't really know why you are focusing on something that doesn't really matter.

I am still hoping that someone will turn up a credible argument in her favour, as it is we, as a country, run the risk of becoming a laughing stock to the rest of the world.

 

[Borgsta]

I don't mean to be rude, but you don't sound very old.

You say the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, but I am not sure what you are basing that on? it's not the legal sense.

The prosecution in an australian or european court of law would also not need to prove that she put the drugs in the bag, it is enough that they are in her possession - why do you think, or who has told you that they do? The burden of proof then becomes to provide something other than fanciful theories in order to invalidate the known facts of the case. think of it like a game of rock/paper/scissors; except in this game, imagined, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories do not beat hard evidence.

I appreciate that you mean well, but I don't really know why you are focusing on something that doesn't really matter.

I am still hoping that someone will turn up a credible argument in her favour, as it is we, as a country, run the risk of becoming a laughing stock to the rest of the world.

Agreed with everything there. To try and put it in the simplest of simplistic terms.

The prosecutions case = We found the drugs in her bag.
The Defenses case = They did find it but it isnt mine.

The juries decision making process = In her bag with no proof it isnt hers = guilty.

 

[just maybe]

I don't mean to be rude, but you don't sound very old.

You say the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, but I am not sure what you are basing that on? it's not the legal sense.

The prosecution in an australian or european court of law would also not need to prove that she put the drugs in the bag, it is enough that they are in her possession - why do you think, or who has told you that they do? The burden of proof then becomes to provide something other than fanciful theories in order to invalidate the known facts of the case. think of it like a game of rock/paper/scissors; except in this game, imagined, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories do not beat hard evidence.

I appreciate that you mean well, but I don't really know why you are focusing on something that doesn't really matter.

I am still hoping that someone will turn up a credible argument in her favour, as it is we, as a country, run the risk of becoming a laughing stock to the rest of the world.

Finally. Someone else who understands the legal system and how it works. I thought I was banging my head against a wall trying to explain that unless you prove your vague conspiracy-theory defences, they have no weight.

Otherwise I could walk into court and cast doubt on my image being captured murdering someone on video by saying there was a secret conspiracy cloning humans, they'd done me, and I was never there. Therefore there'd be reasonable doubt and they'd have to let me go.

 

[dogupya]

Because Today Tonight, Mr. Crow and UNIT said so.

Good call Big fella

 

[JavaBlue]

Why did the marijuana bag fit the shape of her bodyboard bag?

I've been wondering that for a while. If it was a big pillow of ganja just hurriedly stuffed in the bodyboard bag, you'd have a big visual lump as well as the extra weight to worry about.

I've heard - probably sixth hand - that the bag was contoured to fit the bodyboard. This would tend to point to Corby or one of her family wouldn't it?

 

[Ipaidmy200in89]

1. There is an element of ingrained racism
2. She is a white, young, big-boobed Australian girl (for reference, there is a 'Asian-looking' Australian on death row for drugs in Vietnam, who we've heard nothing about)
3. She claims she has been framed and the drugs in the bag aren't hers (despite heavy amounts of circumstantial evidence to the contrary)
4. The drug bag was not fingerprinted by Indonesian customs officials.
5. The media has twisted and abused the story for ratings
6. Most Australians have a very ignorant and stupid view of the Indonesian legal system fuelled by the ignorant and stupid media coverage
7. She has a high profile financial backer (Ron Bakir) who keeps her in the news
8. She has a habit of throwing tantrums and fainting in court when the cameras are on her

That's a fair whack of the reasons why people think she isn't guilty.

I suspect she is.

Good summary JM.....

I suspect you think poorly of her, the media coverage and her support base....I am sure that is all based on considered opinion.

She is pretty stupid for thinking she could take a pillow sized bag of dope from Australia to Bali......she did a great job getting out of this country.....

Well.....that if she did it!

 

[just maybe]

I've heard - probably sixth hand - that the bag was contoured to fit the bodyboard.

It's not sixth hand. That was a key plank of the prosecution case.