Thursday, June 02, 2005

A FAIR TRIAL, BUT NOT IN OUR MEDIA

OUR as in AUSTRALIAN MEDIA.

From: "A fair trial, but not in our media" (The Australian)
The problem begins with the popular media's assumption of Corby's innocence. For many of the shock jocks this is a given. It is the key to the campaign because once you assume a defendant is innocent, then Indonesia's legal system is guilty of an outrageous injustice.

The point, of course, is that the media doesn't know that Corby is innocent. It has NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER for this assumption. It is natural to be moved and feel sorry at Corby's tragic plight. But it is irresponsible to decide that she is innocent and mount a vast media campaign to this end.

Tim Lindsey, University of Melbourne's Asian Law Centre Director warned:
"... Corby's defence was weak on the evidence, despite the absolute denial of the popular media.

The Indonesian Customs officers said she was reluctant to open the bag and that when it was opened and she was confronted she acknowledged the drugs were hers.

Now it may be the Customs officers are lying. But the defence case was always based on denial and the judge had to make a call on the 'they said, she said' issue.

It was entirely within the bounds of the court to find the Customs officers were more convincing than the evidence by Schapelle's friends and family.

This is a perfectly understandable conclusion for the court to draw. The claim that this is demonstrably an injustice is just FOOLISH

This is not a situation of right and wrong. It is about evidence in a court. If we abandon the test of evidence, then we go back to burning witches. For people to say Indonesia's system has failed because they have a feeling Corby is innocent is Lindy Chamberlain in reverse ..."
Indonesian court in Bali is the same court, the same judge and the same procedure that convicted a few dozen of the Bali bombers and brought down DEATH SENTENCES against three of them. Yet most of popular media not only ignores this but focuses on the light sentence given to extremist cleric Abu Bakar Bashir as a device to manipulate public outrage.

HAH! Whoever said Indonesia doesn't punished BALI BOMBER is a proven ignorants.

Tim Lindsey, again said:
"...After the bombers were sentenced there were people in this country saying they would like to pull the trigger. So we are now being totally hypocritical. Australians can't have it both ways. We like the Indonesian courts when they convict our enemies who are Asian but we won't accept it when they convict a white Australian woman. We're either INCONSISTENT or RACIST and the Indonesians see this. We love the court for the terrorists and we hate the court for Schapelle Corby. This will do Australia a lot of harm...

As a nation Australia has badly mishandled the Corby case and it has a long way to run. Corby has been let down by her legal team and a reckless popular media...."

24 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you saying then that because the September 11 bombers died in the attack, it would be acceptable to give a drug dealer a higher penalty than Osama Bin Laden?

12:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you saying then that because the September 11 bombers died in the attack, it would be acceptable to give a drug dealer a higher penalty than Osama Bin Laden?

are u still on the sentences? i think CORBY IS GUILTY, i don't care about the sentences

1:07 PM  
Anonymous dede said...

I care about the sentence!! I think she must be hung!!!

2:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder what the Australian judicial system would have done, if the situation was reversed or if Schpelle happened to be an Australian that was not "white" and female. I really think that we are a bunch of racist xenophobic red necks. No matter how generous we are in times of need, just below the surface lies our true racist attitudes. With this sort of attitude, it is no wonder our neighbours will never accept us as part of Asia. We will always think that we are superior ... therein lies our arrogance and ignorance. Wake up Australia ... the world is bigger than 20 million people.

6:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder what the Australian judicial system would have done, if the situation was reversed or if Schpelle happened to be an Australian that was not "white" and female. I really think that we are a bunch of racist xenophobic red necks. No matter how generous we are in times of need, just below the surface lies our true racist attitudes. With this sort of attitude, it is no wonder our neighbours will never accept us as part of Asia. We will always think that we are superior ... therein lies our arrogance and ignorance. Wake up Australia ... the world is bigger than 20 million people.

If you had been keeping up with the news, you would have noticed that there are 9 people in detention in Bali that are being charged with trying to deport massive amounts of heroin out of Bali. The difference between them and the Corby case is that atleast the Bali police have VIDEO EVIDENCE showing the heroin being strapped to their bodies. Unless I have heard wrong, I think that there has been even somewhat of a VIDEO TAPED confession from the accused heroin smugglers.

The fact remains that being "white, female, and Australian" hasn't been nearly enough to get Australians to believe that Renae Lawrence is innocent of heroin smuggling. EVIDENCE is the missing piece of the case against Corby. Bali authorities have done well to convince me of the guilt against those other Austrlians accused of heroin smuggling, but not enough against Corby.

If Balinese authorities used hidden microphones/cameras and extracted a audio/video confession from Corby to admitting to trying to smuggle marijuana into Bali, then a lot of Schapelle Corby supporters would shut up straight away. Because EVIDENCE hasn't been forthcoming from Bali authorities, the Corby verdict will continue to be criticised.

8:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The evidence was Corby had with her 4 kgs of Mariyuana.
It is SHE that has to show the evidence that she is innocent!

7:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is SHE that has to show the evidence that she is innocent!

See! Now you have the idea. That is why the verdict is seen as unfair.

9:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you people really stubborn! you cant even hear your own people: Tim Lindsey. If you know nothing about law, dont pretend to master it. unfair..unfair..unfair..shit!! you must ask Chika Honda about how fair the Australians are.

12:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one should go to jail, let alone for 20 years, for posession of a harmless plant. But until we we should change the laws in Australia, we have no right to critisize other countries.

1:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

See! Now you have the idea. That is why the verdict is seen as unfair.

And these fucking gooks don't see the problem with the presumption of guilt...

5:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well dede u can shove it where the sun dont shine bcause we're outta the 1960's n we dnt hang ppl nemore!! And the reason y sum aussies say that they wanna pull da trigger on the bali bombers is bcause we f$@!in know they did it!! also alot of ppl r going around sayin that the 9 aussies caught exporting drugs deserve the death penalty, i dnt think ne1 deseerves death. As much as i support Schapelle...they were caught red-handed they really cant stand up in court n say that they didnt no it was there it was bloody well strapped 2 u u dickheads of cause u knew it was there!!

1:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

calm down Corby's camp..peace...

2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"you people really stubborn! you cant even hear your own people: Tim Lindsey."

That's because Tim Lindsey is dishing out the same lines as defenders of the Indonesian courts. Tim has been saying that the Corby court decision is "fair"... for the Indonesian legal system's point of view.

In uncorrupt countries, the Corby trial verdict would be considered unfair. Hearsay can't be taken as evidence for the prosecution. Clearly, if the customs officer felt that Schapelle seemed suspicious, he or any other customs officer could have taken the time to record Corby's actions to support their testimony in court.

9:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the judges were kind enough to hear such a "hearsay of hearsay" evidence from Corby's lawyer, and you told me that's unfair? don't you know how to say thank you?

9:10 PM  
Anonymous Kat said...

Actually, the judges heard it, but they refused to admit it on the grounds of hearsay. Don't you know how to say "stop talking about what you don't know"?

10:59 PM  
Anonymous pik said...

Be calm Kat, dont tell me that you are you losing your temper. You are an intelligent person.

Then why did you people say that the judge is unfair for hearing a "hearsay of hearsay evidence"? He is fair because he'd like to hear or to know as many evidence as possible...

3:15 AM  
Anonymous Kat said...

I didn't say that. It was someone else.

1:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

silence? bring it on, Corbs!

6:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

silence? bring it on, Corbs!

What do you want us to say? We've already overwhelmed you with evidence to show that Corby is not guilty. The fact that the marijuana wasn't present in her bag at Brisbane airport. The fact that Corby's baggage wasn't weighed at Denpasar. The fact that Corby has no history of drug use or criminal record of dealing drugs. What do you want us to say?

We already know that you guys are only trying to defend your country's honour, by supporting the prosecution's weak case against a foreigner. But, come on now, you are being ridiculous with your broken record parroting that she is guilty based on the fact that marijuana was found in her unlocked bag. Not once have you guys bothered to prove that Schapelle owned the bag of marijuana. But, no, you guys just want to take the lazy option out.

After the Bali bombing, you would have thought that its airport could have improved their standards in surveillance against possible bombers, let alone drug smugglers.

PT

7:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PT you forget one simple fact: SHE'S GUILTY. NUFF SAID

No matter what u wrote here. The court have found her GUILTY. All the lawyer there, THAT I BET SMARTER THAN YOU, can't show the judges that she's innocent.

So she's GUILTY.

9:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We've already overwhelmed you with evidence to show that Corby is not guilty."

PT, are you a high school student? I bet people who come here know very well and can distinguish between "overwhelming evidences" and "overwhelming manipulated assumptions"...

For example, you said: the fact that MJ wasn't present in her bag at Brisbane airport.

The fact: Brisbane airport couldn't show the data of her both x-rayed bag and weighted bag.

Please don't manipulate the facts and data here, we're grown up people.




:) sorry mate, nothing personal..

2:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact: Brisbane airport couldn't show the data of her both x-rayed bag and weighted bag.

They admitted her luggage on board without it being weighed? Seems to go against the conventions of air travel. Secondly, no one found a 4kg pillow sized bag of marijuana in the x-ray inspection? Thirdly, no drug sniffer dog found the marijuana in the bag?

Three reasons why Schapelle wouldn't have been able to get that amount of marijuana out of the country undetected. But, you still persist that she managed? So, if you think I'm a high school student, you mustn't be as smart as a high school student.

PT

10:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Still, it's Brisbane airport authority and Qantas that couldn't give any record of her weighted bag... a perfect system? I don't think so regarding their inability to show that particular data... so if the dogs couldn't detect it, why don't you ask to that "perfect system" how could it hapenned? don't blame the judge then.. :-)

11:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They dont have dogs in the international airport departure in Brisbane airport. I know that for sure. I'm not saying that she's guilty or innocent, this case is weak because the only evidence was the only the grass in her bag. A couple experienced this before, someone put marijuana in their bag. On the other hand, why did she refused to open her bag when they asked her to? Confusing, aye? Or should I say, tricky? ;\

12:03 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home