Corby - can someon explain

[PA HOG]

No, most normal people would have been able to realise that it was there to help NET realise that she is a convicted drug smuggler.

As for your question, Ive never looked it up because I honestly dont care. Why is it important to you?

Your reaction had me scurrying back to see how badly I had constructed a simple post asking a civil question. Indeed, with hindsight, it might have been more skilfully worded but I plead lack of literary ability rather than abnormality as an excuse . I beg your pardon, it won’t happen again.


An interest in reading a transcript of the findings in order to become better informed on the outcome of the three charges would not be unique to me, particularly on a thread asking “Corby-can someone explain?” (424 replies 4609 views) It seems certain that the situation remains unclear because no poster yet has all the details. Anyone who can, in fact, “look them up” would be very popular around this thread.

 

[teams]

The fact that a court of law found her guilty means she is guilt. Whether she actually put the drugs in her bags is not the point.

It's the point I'm making. It is unknown who put them there. Could have been her for sure. But may not have been. If you want to go round in circles on this do so. Guess I can help you out by logging on every day or so. No extra fee.

No, you are still hung up on irrelevencies. Was she, or was she not, found coming off an airplane with drugs in her possession?

If you answer yes to this, and believe she is not guilty of smuggling, please explain how you come to this conclusion.

You aren't much of a forum poster are you. How many times do you need to be told I don't know whether or not she is guilty of knowingly taking drugs from one nation to another. Give up on posting from the perspective that I believe she is not guilty. Such is not the case.

Point misser? Yes, you are.

Again: THE CRIME IS POSSESSION. A BAG BELONGING TO HER POSSESSED DRUGS. THEREFORE SHE IS GUILTY. THAT'S ALL THE EVIDENCE NEEDED.

There was NO legal problem with the case, why do you not understand that evidence whether or not she put the drugs in the bag DOES NOT MATTER unless the defense can show someone else put it there as a...defence!

The prosecution only needs to show there were drugs in her bag. Done, case closed, no valid defence offered, guilty.

HOW MANY FRICKING TIMES DO YOU NEED IT TOLD TO YOU?

How many times do you need to be told that the only hard evidence against her was a denied confession. The times are a mounting up. Once again, you are trying to prove she put the drugs in her bag using an internet forum as a medium. Without finger prints or something, you really think you have a chance of proving she is guilty here.

Borgsta and anyone else making disparaging pot shots, I know she is convicted. I don't know that the conviction is just. You don't either. That's all.

 

[just maybe]

How many times do you need to be told that the only hard evidence against her was a denied confession. The times are a mounting up. Once again, you are trying to prove she put the drugs in her bag using an internet forum as a medium. Without finger prints or something, you really think you have a chance of proving she is guilty here.

Borgsta and anyone else making disparaging pot shots, I know she is convicted. I don't know that the conviction is just. You don't either. That's all.

THE HARD EVIDENCE AGAINST HER WAS THE DRUGS IN HER BAG.

THE HARD EVIDENCE AGAINST HER WAS THE DRUGS IN HER BAG.

THE HARD EVIDENCE AGAINST HER WAS THE DRUGS IN HER BAG.

THE HARD EVIDENCE AGAINST HER WAS THE DRUGS IN HER BAG.

THE HARD EVIDENCE AGAINST HER WAS THE DRUGS IN HER BAG.

GET IT YET?

 

[pivotal]

Here's the hard truth re: Corby and her defence: THEY SHOULD HAVE PLAYED THE GAME BY INDONESIAN RULES. Whether they like it or not, money speaks much louder than words in the Indonesian legal system, and if they had got the money flowing in a discrete fashion from day-1 things may have been very different for her. Instead, noises were made by her team that bribes had been requested, this was a huge error of judgement. Those requests should have been taken seriously and should never have been aired to the Aussie media pack. That put Corby's team in Indonesian bad books. I have family in Bali, and they tell some incredible stories about people getting off serious charges fairly lightly because they played by the Indonesian rules. I fear its too late now for Corby. The intense media scrutiny of her plight means there is no chance now that bribes would be accepted, this would have been her best avenue. When Corby's mother berated the Balinese judges on judgement day she also did serious harm to her daughter's chances. The judge's would have been highly offended by her outburst.

 

[cub]

On the news apparently she has Just sacked her new team and gone back to the old one.
In technical terms she's F&*k%d

 

[teams]

THE HARD EVIDENCE AGAINST HER WAS THE DRUGS IN HER BAG.

THE HARD EVIDENCE AGAINST HER WAS THE DRUGS IN HER BAG.

THE HARD EVIDENCE AGAINST HER WAS THE DRUGS IN HER BAG.

THE HARD EVIDENCE AGAINST HER WAS THE DRUGS IN HER BAG.

THE HARD EVIDENCE AGAINST HER WAS THE DRUGS IN HER BAG.

GET IT YET?

Dingbat. Drugs in her bag were evidence of smuggling. Not hard evidence of who the smuggler was. May have been her. May not have been. She was not in physical possession of her bag in the halve day lead up to the discovery of the drugs.

Notice you are still shy of addressing the question of where the proof is that she put the drugs in her bag. Unless you can provide an answer to this, about time you admitted that your line of reasoning about a proven smuggler is substantially flawed. Told you many times, all you have is a denied airport confession which is not hard evidence at all. (Grow up with the in capital repeats posting. All that does is shows you are covering up for a lack of substance in what you post.)


Pivotal, further to your contention, the suggestion that the appeal judge might increase the sentence to prove he wasn't bribed indicates a low key approach to justice. Not saying that ours is any better.

 

[just maybe]

Dingbat. Drugs in her bag were evidence of smuggling. Not hard evidence of who the smuggler was. May have been her. May not have been. She was not in physical possession of her bag in the halve day lead up to the discovery of the drugs.

Notice you are still shy of addressing the question of where the proof is that she put the drugs in her bag. Unless you can provide an answer to this, about time you admitted that your line of reasoning about a proven smuggler is substantially flawed. Told you many times, all you have is a denied airport confession which is not hard evidence at all. (Grow up with the in capital repeats posting. All that does is shows you are covering up for a lack of substance in what you post.)


Pivotal, further to your contention, the suggestion that the appeal judge might increase the sentence to prove he wasn't bribed indicates a low key approach to justice. Not saying that ours is any better.

That's it. You're an idiot hung up on semantics who doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. I refuse to make an effort any longer.

Not even those who think Corby is innocent are supporting your pathetic tirade, which should tell you something.

Maybe when you get a clue, people will respond to you again. Get a fxcking grip.

 

[Borgsta]

Dingbat. Drugs in her bag were evidence of smuggling. Not hard evidence of who the smuggler was. May have been her. May not have been. She was not in physical possession of her bag in the halve day lead up to the discovery of the drugs.

Notice you are still shy of addressing the question of where the proof is that she put the drugs in her bag. Unless you can provide an answer to this, about time you admitted that your line of reasoning about a proven smuggler is substantially flawed. Told you many times, all you have is a denied airport confession which is not hard evidence at all.

OK I'll go along with your theory. If we were to use this as a basis for all crimes, how many criminals do you think there would be in Australia? Besides crimes done in front of a camera or another person pretty much everyone would have no HARD EVIDENCE against them.

 

[teams]

OK I'll go along with your theory. If we were to use this as a basis for all crimes, how many criminals do you think there would be in Australia? Besides crimes done in front of a camera or another person pretty much everyone would have no HARD EVIDENCE against them.

Theory? Finger printing, investigating bag weights, investigating any relevant airport videos, all of these aspects of hard evidence were disregarded and that is where the answer to crowmosones original question lies, Borgsta.

All I have done is pointed out that neither those who say she is innocent or guilty (the judge included) have more than conjecture on their side. Earlier in the thread I stated that an acceptable verdict would have been guilty on the balance of probabilty. If she is guilty. she is locked up. If she is a victim of a airport drug movement that went wrong, the verdict has made this allowance.

In cases where any evidence of innocence is in another nation, the one on trial is up against it.
I would be more sure that the Japanese woman, (honda chikwa her name or something like that) is innocent than Corby. She was convicted by a Melbourne jury of importing herion from KL to Melbourne and spent 10 years in jail here but the evidence seems indelibly strong that she was the victim of a bag switch back in KL. The jury element made it a bit different but it was similar situation. Drugs were entering the country in the bag of a foreigner. To reach an innocent verdict made drugs entering the country innocent. The Corby case has the same overtone.


Notice that you finally admit to being unable to illustrate your proof that she put the drugs in the bag, Just Maybe. Accept your concession. Incidntally, asking for your proof that she put the drugs in her bag was not semantic. It was a key to you understanding that your position is not sustainable. Bad luck. Cheers.

 

[just maybe]

Notice that you finally admit to being unable to illustrate your proof that she put the drugs in the bag, Just Maybe. Accept your concession. Incidntally, asking for your proof that she put the drugs in her bag was not semantic. It was a key to you understanding that your position is not sustainable. Bad luck. Cheers.

I did not concede anything, I simply refuse to argue with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about any longer.

Don't you find it odd that NOBODY is backing you up, not even those who think there's problems with the case?

Until you realise that the proof she put the drugs in the bag is utterly irrelevant, you're a laughing stock.

Now I WILL cheers to that.

 

[jmorg1]

Corby's gotta be innocent right? I mean, just check out that rack!

 

[Borgsta]

Theory? Finger printing, investigating bag weights, investigating any relevant airport videos, all of these aspects of hard evidence were disregarded and that is where the answer to crowmosones original question lies, Borgsta.

Fingerprinting is such weak evidence, no where near hard evidence. She could have used gloves, one of her friends could have put it in the bag.

Bag Weights would have been interesting but wasnt done and isnt really hard evidence.

As far as I know there was no airport videos so that could hardly be classified as Hard evidence.

All I have done is pointed out that neither those who say she is innocent or guilty (the judge included) have more than conjecture on their side. Earlier in the thread I stated that an acceptable verdict would have been guilty on the balance of probabilty. If she is guilty. she is locked up. If she is a victim of a airport drug movement that went wrong, the verdict has made this allowance.

Finding drugs in someones bag is hardly conjecture my friend.

In cases where any evidence of innocence is in another nation, the one on trial is up against it.
I would be more sure that the Japanese woman, (honda chikwa her name or something like that) is innocent than Corby. She was convicted by a Melbourne jury of importing herion from KL to Melbourne and spent 10 years in jail here but the evidence seems indelibly strong that she was the victim of a bag switch back in KL. The jury element made it a bit different but it was similar situation. Drugs were entering the country in the bag of a foreigner. To reach an innocent verdict made drugs entering the country innocent. The Corby case has the same overtone.

No they are different. In the Chika case there does seem to be strong evidence that she was a victim of a drug switch. In the Corby case there is no evidence whatsoever to support that theory. NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER just in case you missed it the first time.

Notice that you finally admit to being unable to illustrate your proof that she put the drugs in the bag, Just Maybe. Accept your concession. Incidntally, asking for your proof that she put the drugs in her bag was not semantic. It was a key to you understanding that your position is not sustainable. Bad luck. Cheers.

Prove to us that she didnt put the drugs in her bag. Completely useless exercise, eh?

 

[OB1]

Fingerprinting is such weak evidence, no where near hard evidence. She could have used gloves, one of her friends could have put it in the bag.

Bag Weights would have been interesting but wasnt done and isnt really hard evidence.

As far as I know there was no airport videos so that could hardly be classified as Hard evidence.

But if they had of checked for fingerprints & found prints matching a baggage handlers would that have been hard evidence?

If they had of checked the weights & they were 4.1kg different then it would be hard evidence. Conversly if the weights were checked & they matched it most certainly would have been used against her & would go some way to convincing me of her guilt.

From what I have read the video cameras were "out of order" in Brisbane but not Sydney. I don't know this for a fact but apparently Qantas errased the Sydney tapes. Perhaps it ties in with the fact the the Fed Police were investigating the sydney baggage handlers regarding the coke bust? (just a thought)

None of that proves she's innocent but its all part of the reasons why people have doubts over the case. If they dusted & found her or her friends/families prints, If the bag weights were checked & matched or if the video was released & showed the bag going through untouched then the whole case would be a non-issue. I & others are simply searching for some hard evidence of her guilt. So far the only thing concrete is that the drugs were in her bag. No connections have been made on how she obtained the drugs or how they were to be distributed. I just don't think the evidence is enough to conclude either way.

 

[Borgsta]

But if they had of checked for fingerprints & found prints matching a baggage handlers would that have been hard evidence?

How would they have done this? There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that baggage handlers were involved so why would they be fingerprinted?

If they had of checked the weights & they were 4.1kg different then it would be hard evidence. Conversly if the weights were checked & they matched it most certainly would have been used against her & would go some way to convincing me of her guilt.

Hence me saying they would have been interesting. Its not the most convincing of evidence though, drugs could have been transferred from one bag to another and its unrealistic to check all bags weights.

From what I have read the video cameras were "out of order" in Brisbane but not Sydney. I don't know this for a fact but apparently Qantas errased the Sydney tapes. Perhaps it ties in with the fact the the Fed Police were investigating the sydney baggage handlers regarding the coke bust? (just a thought)

I assumed NET was talking about video from Bali, but Im fairly certain that if baggage handlers were smuggling drugs they wouldnt have done it on video. Stupider things have happened though.

None of that proves she's innocent but its all part of the reasons why people have doubts over the case. If they dusted & found her or her friends/families prints, If the bag weights were checked & matched or if the video was released & showed the bag going through untouched then the whole case would be a non-issue. I & others are simply searching for some hard evidence of her guilt. So far the only thing concrete is that the drugs were in her bag. No connections have been made on how she obtained the drugs or how they were to be distributed. I just don't think the evidence is enough to conclude either way.

Either do I but in a court of law she is screwed and until racist Australia realises this fact then I will continue to argue about these little facts being important.

 

[teams]

Until you realise that the proof she put the drugs in the bag is utterly irrelevant, you're a laughing stock.

Irrelevant? You sure have one weird way of looking at the world. What is the reason you believe she put them there? A laughing stock will answer "because they were there".

Finding drugs in someones bag is hardly conjecture my friend.

Prove to us that she didnt put the drugs in her bag. Completely useless exercise, eh?

If I have your bag for half a day. I give it back and walk away. The police swoop and seize your bag. Find drugs in it and don't any finger printing. And you say there is no conjecture as to whether it was you, I or some other third party as to put the drugs in there?

Don't worry about proving she put the drugs there. Just give us your reason why you believe she did. It is more than a character judgement, I will be surprised. And don't over look the fact that she wasn't in physical possession of her bag in the half day lead up to the discovery of the drugs like Just Maybe always does.

 

[OB1]

I
Either do I but in a court of law she is screwed and until racist Australia realises this fact then I will continue to argue about these little facts being important.

WTF does racisism have to do with this??????? Why did you feel the need to include a comment like that?

Lets just clear up 1 point for you & Just maybe. This is NOT a court of law, its an internet forum. Rules of evidence & judicial proceedure have absolutely no relevence in deciding my opinions (not that I think my opinions really matter to the case). Remember a court of law found OJ not guilty but that doesn't change my opinion that he was guilty as hell. Oh wait a minute, he's an African American so I guess I must be racists

 

[Borgsta]

Don't worry about proving she put the drugs there. Just give us your reason why you believe she did. It is more than a character judgement, I will be surprised. And don't over look the fact that she wasn't in physical possession of her bag in the half day lead up to the discovery of the drugs like Just Maybe always does.

Dont worry about my reason, just give us proof that she didnt put the drugs there. See this could go on all day with useless exercises.

 

[Borgsta]

WTF does racisism have to do with this??????? Why did you feel the need to include a comment like that?

Lets just clear up 1 point for you & Just maybe. This is NOT a court of law, its an internet forum. Rules of evidence & judicial proceedure have absolutely no relevence in deciding my opinions (not that I think my opinions really matter to the case). Remember a court of law found OJ not guilty but that doesn't change my opinion that he was guilty as hell. Oh wait a minute, he's an African American so I guess I must be racists

WTF does racism have to do with it? Hmmm maybe comments like "They just came out of the trees" or "They dont even speak English there mate". I said racist Australia remember, not racist OB1. You can say that you think she is not guilty and Im fine with that, its your choice and I cant really prove otherwise. However when people come out and say that the verdict is unfair and say things like 'she never would have been found guilty in Australia' then there is a fair bit of racism involved. Hey lets get our money back from the Indonesian donations.

Once again just to reiterate, I said racist Australia, not racist OB1 so please think before you respond with useless crap.

 

[just maybe]

Lets just clear up 1 point for you & Just maybe. This is NOT a court of law, its an internet forum. Rules of evidence & judicial proceedure have absolutely no relevence in deciding my opinions (not that I think my opinions really matter to the case). Remember a court of law found OJ not guilty but that doesn't change my opinion that he was guilty as hell. Oh wait a minute, he's an African American so I guess I must be racists

Erm..we're discussing the efficacy of the judgment of the Indonesian court. Of course this is all relevant.

 

[OB1]

Erm..we're discussing the efficacy of the judgment of the Indonesian court. Of course this is all relevant.

So If on appeal the court decides she's innocent that would change your opinion of her? If "Elvis" unearthed some loophole that showed the search of her bag was unlawful & therefore inadmissable (in effect destroying the prosecutions case) would that make you suddenly think she's innocent? I think not. My views have nothing to do with Indonesia or its courts.
As I have said before I believe that its very likely an Australian jury would have found it hard to convict her based on the lack of evidence but thats irrelevent to the theme of this thread. The origianal question was "whats all the fuss about." I & others here have outlined why we believe she's innocent & therefore believe there is miscarriage of justice occuring. We don't care what types of evidence are allowed under differing judicial systems. Courts in Australia & I would guess elsewhere are hardly representative of the true views of society anyway. Criminals get off on "technicalities" all the time & sex offenders get slaps on the wrist.
The fuss is because if you believe she's innocent then you believe it could have happened to any one of us. The freedom to travel around the globe is something I've enjoyed & a situation like this could put that freedom at jeopardy. This whole situation could have been exactly the same if she was travelling to Thailand, Malaysia or Vietnam (all places I've visited in the last few years). At least something good has come out of this & security has been upgraded at airports.

 

[OB1]

Once again just to reiterate, I said racist Australia, not racist OB1 so please think before you respond with useless crap.

Don't you think a comment like "racist Australia" is a bit of a generalisation & inflammatory? This theme came up earlier in this thread & I tried to deal with it then. Yes some people who are ignorant about Indonesia could look at this case & think "those so & so's are out to get her cause she white...we should just bomb the little buggers". There are also some people who are so ignorant the other way that they would never accept that racism existed outside western society. However I believe the vast majority of Australians are decent people but are getting sick of this "racist" jibe being thrown up everytime there's dissagreement. Its dirty pool!

 

[just maybe]

So If on appeal the court decides she's innocent that would change your opinion of her? If "Elvis" unearthed some loophole that showed the search of her bag was unlawful & therefore inadmissable (in effect destroying the prosecutions case) would that make you suddenly think she's innocent? I think not. My views have nothing to do with Indonesia or its courts.
As I have said before I believe that its very likely an Australian jury would have found it hard to convict her based on the lack of evidence but thats irrelevent to the theme of this thread. The origianal question was "whats all the fuss about." I & others here have outlined why we believe she's innocent & therefore believe there is miscarriage of justice occuring. We don't care what types of evidence are allowed under differing judicial systems. Courts in Australia & I would guess elsewhere are hardly representative of the true views of society anyway. Criminals get off on "technicalities" all the time & sex offenders get slaps on the wrist.
The fuss is because if you believe she's innocent then you believe it could have happened to any one of us. The freedom to travel around the globe is something I've enjoyed & a situation like this could put that freedom at jeopardy. This whole situation could have been exactly the same if she was travelling to Thailand, Malaysia or Vietnam (all places I've visited in the last few years). At least something good has come out of this & security has been upgraded at airports.

If Elvis finds a loophole, I'll gladly look at what has occurred and reassess whether I was incorrect.

 

[Borgsta]

Don't you think a comment like "racist Australia" is a bit of a generalisation & inflammatory? This theme came up earlier in this thread & I tried to deal with it then. Yes some people who are ignorant about Indonesia could look at this case & think "those so & so's are out to get her cause she white...we should just bomb the little buggers". There are also some people who are so ignorant the other way that they would never accept that racism existed outside western society. However I believe the vast majority of Australians are decent people but are getting sick of this "racist" jibe being thrown up everytime there's dissagreement. Its dirty pool!

well give me another credible reason as to why people believe that she should not have been found guilty in a court of law.

like i said im more than happy for you to believe she has been screwed, but to say the court didnt do their job is ignorant and to go further and complain that they dont speak English is stupid.

 

[teams]

Dont worry about my reason, just give us proof that she didnt put the drugs there. See this could go on all day with useless exercises.

If I wasn't interested in your reason, I wouldn't have asked for it and it doesn't go all day (all week) if you can eventually manage to comprehend that I freely admit to not having evidence either way.

If you have a credible reason that demonstrates that she is a bona fide drug smuggler, lets have it.

Get over the idea that I have argued her case. All I have done is point out that to be found to be "convincingly guilty as a trans national drug smuggler" would require more evidence than what the court drew upon.

The fact that you see a stale mate between proof that she did or didn't put the drugs in the bag proves this point.


With all that said and I have posted it before, a reasonable out come was "guilty of drug smuggling on the balance of probability" given the lack of hard evidence. If she is guilty, they have got her. If she is innocent, she can content her self to be the victim she claims to be.

Anyway, your admission of a stale mate about whether or not she put the drugs in the bag proves the point I am making to you. Her guilt was unproven. Can't do much more than that for you, Borgsta, old chap. Lead you to the water. Can't make you drink. You and Just Maybe are tired old geldings.

 

[Borgsta]

This is quickly becoming like your God cannot exist thread, with you writing absolutely nothing that makes sense and you beating around the bush and diverting off your original comments.

Also I never admitted a stale mate, just said it was a pointless exercise. Her guilt was carrying the drugs, until you understand that I cant really help you.