A few comments from Jakarta Post readers
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20050608.F07&irec=5
I am calling on all emotional people to boycott Bali because a Bali court has carried out its duty to participate in the war against drugs and because the Australian authorities have failed to find the criminals at an Australian airport whom it is said planted the drugs in Corby's bag.
All emotional people must avoid visiting Bali, a great holiday destination with affordable prices and friendly locals who most of the time are friendlier to foreign tourists than to their fellow Indonesians.
In fact, from now on all emotional people must stay where they are forever and avoid visiting all destinations as what happened to Corby could happen in any country that is serious effort fighting drugs.
To rational people, the majority, this message is not aimed at you.
ANDOKO D, Jakarta
Admiring the Aussies
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20050608.F09&irec=7
After reading the letter of William Kamm of New South Wales, Australia (The Jakarta Post, June 3: Boycott Bali!), my previous admiration for the Australian people in general has now become boundless.
It is only people with exceptionally keen minds who can firmly conclude that the young lady from Australia is innocent of any drug trafficking.It is only clear and impartial thinking that could point out that the Indonesian court verdict was a disgrace to justice. And this, done from across the ocean probably without the bother of leaving one's living room, once again proves what a superior race the Australians are. Yes, my admiration knows no bounds.
Since the Australian lady is obviously innocent, it is also obvious that the drug was planted in her bag by some irresponsible agency. And, since I am convinced that the Australians are upright and honest, clear thinking and law-abiding, I am almost certain that the agency in question is a non-Australian one and most likely non-white. At any rate, a race inferior to the Australians. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Again I admire Kamm for calling on all people of God throughout the world to Boycott Bali and Indonesia. What a tremendous patriot. I must admit, I am a bit confused. Isn't Bali a part of Indonesia? Then why did Kamm say Bali and Indonesia? Or (begging his pardon) had he let his imagination run loose, by too much imagining that the young Australian lady was his daughter?
S.R. DWIANTO, Depok, West Java
posted at 11:03 AM
77 Comments:
The Corby case: A lesson in patience
Desi Anwar, Jakarta
For those Australians who have been ranting and raving against Indonesia over the Schapelle Corby case (and one would prefer to believe it is just all a media hype) rest assured that we in Indonesia are not rubbing our hands with glee at the prospect of seeing a pretty young woman thrown in jail. As a matter of fact most Indonesians harbor no ill-feeling, thoughts of vengeance or any kind of interest at all in the affair other than viewing it as yet another drug smuggling case in a country already rife with drug crimes not to mention a host of other much more serious problems too numerous to mention.
However, for the record, even if Indonesia is a relatively new democracy and our legal system is still far from perfect, contrary to what some Australians seem to think, we do have a rule of law here, based strangely enough, on solid evidence (e.g. a bagful of marijuana) and not on some theatrically loud protestations of innocence however heart-wrenching.
A more fruitful use of time and energy would be to find and get a confession from the baggage handler who planted the drug in Corby's belonging if that were the case, rather than taking it out on an entire nation that is quite happy minding its own business, thank you very much.
As for the Indonesian government, there is absolutely no reason to be provoked by or even dignify this latest onslaught of Indonesia-bashing exercise with any kind of response other than to let our neighbor down under wallow in their lower chakra emotions in which they seem to have a propensity in indulging.
Perhaps the imagination of some of our best friends there have been influenced too much by telenovellas or reality TV shows, but it is hard to believe that they would descend to such depths of hysteria if, for example, Corby were not a young, pretty female (and a beautician to boot!) but actually a fat, balding, middle-aged male drunkard without a future.
No doubt that a script is already underway for the making of the Corby film and one can be sure it would be a lot more tragic (with an array of Hollywood cast) than the story about the poor Indonesian fisherman who died in the Australian police custody.
On the contrary, Indonesia should actually sympathize with the fact that her neighbor seems to be perpetually under some sort of delusion that their so-called public opinion matter in the way this country is run. Which is a pity, as this sort of wishful thinking could only lead to disappointment. We know there are a lot of things wrong in this country, not to mention simply weird, but taking the hint that Indonesian justice doesn't appreciate being meddled with, might just go a long way in not jeopardizing Corby's future even more.
Indonesians shouldn't be upset either about Australians boycotting Bali. Giving the island a bit of a break from rowdy backpackers is not necessarily a bad thing. On the contrary, it would give more room for those nouveaux riches from mainland China and Taiwan who actually seem to enjoy spending their dollars more than sunbathing on the beach, or for the real Europeans from the West who display by far better appreciation of the local culture and possessing finer sensibilities than their more uncouth counterparts from down under.
As for those Australians requesting the return of their tsunami aid donation (we note that Russell Crowe the actor is one of them), I would suggest the Indonesian government did so forthwith and every penny of it. Not because Crowe's legs looked especially pleasing in a Roman tunic, but it would be embarrassing to keep a donation so insincerely given and with so many strings attached, not to mention the bad karma we have to carry if we were to spend money that is laden with so much ill-feeling and negativity. After all what country would want to face the ire of a silver screen gladiator?
Moreover, it is brought home to us that some Australians are now beginning to emulate the actions of a few of our more deranged members of society, namely acts of terrorism. Again, in dealing with this as with all unenlightened behavior, we can only resort to, not anger and revenge, but a lot of patience and understanding while hoping that this is only a temporary madness.
Let us watch with amusement (if not bemusement) when Australians march on Corby's birthday. We mustn't after all deny them their hunger for a cause celebre and their need for an inspirational figure. Quite the opposite, we should urge Corby's defense counsel to seek a presidential pardon pronto.
What with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's sweet disposition towards Australia and his willingness to bend over backwards to attract any scrap of potential foreign investment, he most probably be more than happy to grant it.
And who knows, given Corby's increasing popularity and political significance, we might just see her as the next Prime Minister of Australia.
The writer is an is an Indonesian journalist.
Something to ponder (from other blog):
If I were a frequent traveller to Bali, I'll think like this:
1. There's no proper check in customs (I don't know if my bag has been x-rayed before it goes to conveyor).
2. There's a profitable market for marijuana in Bali.
What would I do then?
Posted by: lex on June 7, 2005 11:32 PM
Lex, I would probably grow hydrophonic MJ at home.
I would ask my father to pack the bag nicely.
Maybe my brother can help me carry thru the customs ( I'll be too damned nervous!).
Posted by: Tom on June 8, 2005 08:46 AM
She was guilty; but 20 years seems too long. Why do family members of ABRI personnel always get light sentences in drugs offences? Is Indonesian law really fair? Or does it favor a certain few?
Indcoup,
There's no perfect system in this world. At least this time they are fair (fair according to Indonesian law)...:)
I hope i can answer this objectively. It was correct that no perfect system exists. I also don't deny that corruption often occurs in Indonesia especially in economic sector. ABRI was well known as an army that served under Soeharto's regime. In this case i would like to call it nepotism instead of corruption. Power often blinds justice and justify the 'discount' given for authorities. However Indcoup, since I don't know which case u're reffering to, I hope this kind of thing would never happen again under SBY. Since ex-president Megawati, the role of army in politics world has been reduced and was hoped to be eliminated in few years (as we know it's not an instant work to do).
If you check on www.detik.com (indo language) you would notice that almost everyday there will be a corruptor suspected/arrested. This is a prove that our country really take this problem seriously. In SBY's agenda, corruption is the main priority. Well let's just hope that SBY can do the best.
2005: anti-corruption year!
well said buddy! Go go go Indonesia!!! :)
Avoiding Australian Airport
What happen to the baggage handlers? Based on confession of an Australian convicted, who voluntarily confirms the drugs operations in Australian airport to transport drugs between cities using randomly selected passenger’s baggage, the Australian authority should initiate a national search on such baggage handlers. This theory is an embarrassment to Australia, since they would admit that they could not keep their airport from illegal drugs trafficking operations. Meanwhile, I would like to argue citizen of the world that you should reconsider your plan to travel to/from any airport in Australia or you might be subjected in committing drugs trafficking, since there are baggage handlers that would picks your baggage randomly and using it as mule to carry illegal drugs.
Since you people are so hung up on rationality, have you considered the following scenario:
Airport baggage is checked for drugs by sniffer dogs. As pointed out in the court, the bag of marijuana exhibited a pungent odour, when opened. If the bag can exhibit such a smell, then a trained sniffer dog should be able to easily detect the marijuana.
What you guys have failed to notice is that the baggage managed to get through Brisbane and Sydney airport, without being noticed by one of the trained sniffer dogs. This leads to a strong possibility that Balinese baggage handlers targeted a random unlocked bag (from Australia) to plant drugs in a bid for customs officials to 'discover' them inside the airport.
It could well be that the few baggage handlers and customs officials at that airport could be operating to plant items on people, every once in a while, in a bid to get tourists to bribe their way out of trouble. Many times before, tourists have had to be detained for hours by custom officials waiting to be bribed by tourists to get their belongs.
Bali police failed to weigh Schapelle's luggage, and compare the weight of the baggage in Bali to the weight of the baggage in Brisbane. Had Bali police found that the bag was 4kgs heavier, then Schapelle would have her innocence proven without doubt. Police also have contaminated the evidence with their own fingerprints, and seriously put their own credibility at risk.
Customs officials failed to video or audio tape the events of that day to prove their side of the story. For the custom official to have a story that Schapelle walked through the airport, up to the counter, and then prevent the official from checking all sections of her bag, it stretches the customs official's credibility beyond belief.
Now, if you can believe that Schapelle somehow got through Brisbane airport security, managed to get through Sydney without detection, and then waltzed up to a Bali official to have her bag searched for the worst place to hide drugs, then I have nothing but pity for your own stupidity. Corby has the benefit of overwhelming credibility in her favour, while the prosecution had to rely on conjecture. There is no doubt that the judge had no interest in listening to Corby's defence, because he had made his mind up about her fate before it all began.
I bet some of you guys still wonder why the Bali court is heavily criticised.
PT
Reading your comment PT, I can imagine how perfect the system in Australian airports is. However, somehow I wonder why they failed to show the record of Corby's bag weight in the court...... if the system is really so perfect...
Ok, so everybody has their own opinion. Maybe i'm not to clever (/stupid?) to catch ur theory..
Yep, i'm not a judge, i never took any law subject and i've never intended to be a police or detective (seems like PT has good potentials to be one)..
That's fair enough for me but don't call the others stupid because they disagree with you.. or maybe u would like to pity the majority of Aussies NOW, supported by 'high ranked' people in gov, journalism etc?
Anyway, it's been a pleasure to argue with you (and the others).
I have the feelings that I don't need to come to this blog very often anymore. Initially I just wanna defend my country against those morrons (not you, the one that swears, the racists). About corby, it's free for us to think and no matter what, only her and God (and whoever put that drugs if u think she's innocense) that only knows 100% truth. It's been a good and healthy discussion (knowing that there are no longer any racist comment here). I learnt many new stuff (the aborigines, oz media, govt, etc).
I will sometimes check on this blog in case.... (u know haha)..
Before then, it's nice to know u guys, pik, andy, blogmaster etc etc and also many anonymous(s) here and also PT etc and bla bla bla bla (sounds like oscar isn't it?)
well... until then, ciao! =D
Reading your comment PT, I can imagine how perfect the system in Australian airports is. However, somehow I wonder why they failed to show the record of Corby's bag weight in the court...... if the system is really so perfect...
Finding out that the bag was the same weight in Bali as it was in Brisbane would do SO MUCH to convince me that Schapelle is guilty. If the bag was about 4kgs heavier at Denpasar than it was at Brisbane, then I would be convinced that Schapelle is innocent. It would save people so much sleepless nights knowing that piece of evidence.
You would have to agree with that.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/03/04/1109700677359.html?oneclick=true
Read it and weep anti-justice/Corby haters.
As I said before, Brisbane airport and Qantas couldn't give any hard evidence concerning the weight of the bag in Brisbane...
Ray, nice to see you too here, I come once a day, and I think it's enough since as you said no more racist comments here... bye..good luck with your study!
As I said before, Brisbane airport and Qantas couldn't give any hard evidence concerning the weight of the bag in Brisbane...
They couldn't give hard evidence regarding the weight of one bag, but they did total all of the bags to come up with 65kg. Schapelle demanded that the police weigh her total luggage. The police refused. The police are obviously hiding the truth.
PT
As far as I'm concerned, Brisbane and Qantas claimed that all hard evidences have been erased. So I don't know from where the 65 kg comes up? Isn't the maximum weight for baggage usually 20-30 kg? Seems she has a lot of money to pay for excess baggage...
Quote:
If shock-jocks like Alan Jones were fair-dinkum they would stop refering to her as a beauty student, and lay it on the line as "Former Yakuza barslut in Japan, Schapelle Corby..."
Having followed that career for a few years, she would have been intimately familiar with the drug trade.
How did she support herself on the Gold Coast? Not hard if you have a knowledge of Japanese language, and appropriate work experience!
Did big sister pioneer the Japanese experience... or go straight into dealing in Bali? Her best mate from Byron Bay admits she also worked in Japan... and what was she carrying on the plane which arrived one hour after Schapelle's... just lucky that the customs officials were fully occupied when she arrived.
Posted by: Bazza on June 9, 2005 09:37 AM
I have no idea if she's guilty of DELIBERATELY smuggling dope or not. But there's no question that she was attempting to bring 4.5kgs of grass into Indonesia. ANYWHERE in the world - as far as customs is concerned - that's an open and shut case. Does anyone honestly believe that if someone from say, Thailand, was attempting to bring 4.5kgs of grass through Los Angeles or Heathrow, the customs/police/courts in the USA or Britain would be in the least interested in some convoluted and unprovable story about baggage handler gangs at Don Muang airport in Bangkok?
The girl might be desperately unlucky - but to blame her conviction on racism, or incompetence on the part of Indonesians is just stupid.
I hope this will be my last post haha...
to PT (now blaming the police), please buddy, don't justify any assumption yet before it's proven. What you have said MIGHT be true might be wrong. There are always possibilities and I don't deny it. From the first time, my opinion for Corby is 'possibly' guilty (instead of obviously guilty). So next time, I hope both camps (yes the anti-corby's too) can avoid any clash between each other. Try to respect each other.
As for the anonymous 1:13, the link is quite old (march) and I think is still influenced from media. How come the writer had so much information (that are told inonovel-way) that i've never read anywhere else? If it's valid than other media should already put it in the editorial etc. Ok, let's say that it's all true. Then you must remember the power of media. One story can be told in 2 styles but still have the exactly same fact and story. Playing with different words can change people's opinions significantly. I bet there are many people in journalism capable in reversing that article to the other opposite (with same story and fact). i just want to point that we have to be critical in extracting the 'real' evidence from stories just as any court does.
Everyone knows that the police at the Bali airport had no intention of letting Schapelle prove her innocence. It was a simple case of weighing baggage, and comparing results with the Brisbane airport's records. If the total baggage weighed 65kgs at Brisbane airport, and then weighed 69kgs at Bali, then Schapelle would have been telling the truth. If the total baggage weighed 65kgs at each airport, then Schapelle would be lying. Eight months after the event, it is almost impossible to prove her story.
The biggest query in the whole situation is HOW DOES SOMEONE PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE? Because the police DELIBERATELY withheld the evidence that Schapelle could use, what possible way could Schapelle prove her innocence?
The general feeling among expats in Indonesia, including Australians, is that Corby is guilty. Most also think that 20 years is way, way too long.
On point one, we can't be certain but the rabid words and actions of a population whipped up by and for a media circus are probably weigh uppermost in biases.
As I have already written http://jakartass.blogspot.com/2005/06/bitch-no-not-more-about-lass-stuck-in.html,
If marijuana were legal and similarly cheap here, Corby would not have caused international ructions and Jakartass would not have a wracking cough.
Corby is not innocent, in my opinion, of this particular crime, but she is not a danger to society. At least, not as much as many of her so-called supporters.
I hope this episode will see more folk focussing on real injustices, such as finding the assassins of Munir and exposing polluters and corruptors.
Jakarta Post says Indonesian courts do not operate under rule of law.
By posting the following threat on the Indonesian Embassy Web site, Indonesia has made itself a party to the threat that Desi Anwar made on behalf of the Indonesian judiciary: "Shut up or we will take it out on the helpless Australian prisoner in our hands."
NO COUNTRY ON EARTH HAS THE RECOGNIZED RIGHT TO PUNISH SOMEONE FOR THE BEHAVIOR OF THIRD PARTIES OUTSIDE HIS OR HER CONTROL. Doing so makes the country a hostage-taker, a holder of political prisoners, and a pariah throughout the civilized world. These remarks will set Indonesia back a decade or two in its efforts to be recognized as a developing democracy.
http://www.indonesianembassy.org.uk/
announcement_2005_06_06_jp_2.html
"We know there are a lot of things wrong in this country, not to mention simply weird, but taking the hint that Indonesian justice doesn't appreciate being meddled with, might just go a long way in not jeopardizing Corby's future even more."
The editor of the Jakarta Post says outright that the judges broke Indonesian laws in sentencing and convicting Corby. Mr. Bayuni implicated Linton Siriat, the other two judges, and Mr. Wiswananu for lying (as they all emphasized how the law required them to weigh only the evidence and the law).
http://www.thejakartapost.com/
yesterdaydetail.asp?
fileid=20050530.A03
"Even in finding her guilty, there was no reason for the judges to hand down such a harsh penalty, and even less so for the prosecutors to demand a life sentence in the first place. One can only conclude from here that both the judges and the prosecutors have been influenced by what was happening outside the court."
So Mr. Bayuni has firmly implicated his own country's judiciary for using its authority not to enforce the law but to settle petty personal grudges against Australians beyond their reach to punish the one Australian within their reach.
Desi Anwar is not the president. She's a journalist and still an Indonesian that doesn't like to be called 'monkeys, uneducated and uncivilised'. Anyway, If you don't like the way she wrote it, don't point your dislike to WHOLE Indonesia.
I couldn't open your link (couldn't paste the complete characters). But maybe what he meant that the judges are influenced by the public in Australia, if not corby might already had life sentence (remember, we Indonesians didn't even really care about this case, we didn't make a fuss, so it's impossible that the judges were influenced by the 'calm' society).
If not, then he's just simply one Indonesian guy in Corby's camp. It's pretty normal to always have both sides even in one country right?
And actually there are no evidences that they broke the law. Do they have any grudge against Aussie?
In fact, they need foreigners to come to Bali.
Sorry, PT, I just can’t help but laugh after reading your “genius” theory on how a Balinese Custom Officer might be the one to blame for planting the 4.1 kg marijuana in Corby’s bag.
Why?
The value of 4.1 kg marijuana in Corby’s bag is over $80.000 (around Rp 600.000.000. It’s over a half billion Rupiahs!!!)
I believe, the salary for a customs officer in Indonesia is somewhere about AU$500 PER MONTH (or less) or around Rp 4.000.000.
Goodness me, brainiac. It was a certainty that the customs officer would 'discovered' the marijuana in Corby's bag, had one of the Bali baggage handlers planted the drugs there. It's not like the customs officer had any fear of losing the marijuana, because he (or other customs officers) could have expected to get back the marijuana when Corby presented her bag. So, your theory about worrying that the marijuana would go missing is invalid.
Secondly, it is always possible that the marijuana never came from Australia in the first place? What makes you think that the customs officers didn't have access to someone that could make hydroponic marijuana in Bali?
What on earth do you think made him want to put a half billion rupiahs worth of drugs in a stranger’s bag to get, say, 1 million rupiah from a foreigner?
It would be the same motivation that other customs officers have for planting things on foreigners: GREED. Tourists have been detained in the past by customs officials wanting to be bribed. In this case, the marijuana was planted only to be collected later. What makes you think that customs officers paid for the marijuana? It could have been an accumulation of evidence from previous drug raids.
In Indonesia, they could live happily for the rest of their life with that money without the need to work as a customs officer!!
Yes, they could. Or they could be quite happy making extra money by forcing tourists to either bribe the customs officials, or face a penalty.
Not to mention the risk of the death penalty if they get caught and for losing the drugs.
You are straining your credibility if you can't believe that it is possible that Indonesian customs officials (who have a history of sporadically forcing bribes onto tourists) can't sneak drugs into the airport. Hell, they could probably walk the drugs in full view of everyone into the terminal, straight to their office, and could get away with it. Why? Because if someone reports them to the police, the official could just deny it. Evidently, Bali courts would then take the word of the customs official over the witness because courts believe "Customs officials don't tell lies".
My comment is… That sniffer dog might have a bit of flu that day.
See, I can be genius, too.
I have a flu right now, and my sense of smell isn't at its best at the moment. However, I can still tell if my morning toast is burning in the toaster, from 5 meters away. If a sniffer dog had the flu that day, there sense of smell would still EASILY be able to detect a pungent smell.
Very typical of a Corby supporter for blaming and criticising here and there for something they don’t even understand and telling the whole world how ‘perfect’ Australia is.
Who said that I think Australia is totally perfect? I didn't. Indonesia admits that it has a drug problem. Hence, drugs are quite common in Indonesia. That's why the penalties for drug possession is severe. An $80,000 bag of marijuana would sell quite well in Australia over a number of months. There's no need to bring it to Bali, where there would be no doubt that she would be caught, simply by bringing it into an airport. Who and how many people could Corby expect to sell 4.1kgs of marijuana to in the time that she was there? To make matters worse, the judges were biased in their assessment of the case, because they allowed hearsay evidence to be admitted by the prosecution, but dismissed the hearsay evidence of the defence.
Now after reading all the evidence (and lack thereof) that strongly suggest Schapelle is not guilty of drug smuggling, you have the gall to tell me that I "don't understand". I suppose you are one of those people that think the world is flat, too.
PT
As far as I’m concerned, to be a customs officer/baggage handler in Indonesia or anywhere in the world you have to pass police clearance.
I suppose the police clearance comes from the same police that would have no problem possessing drugs to try and entrap tourists.
Therefore, unless you don’t have a criminal record you won’t be able to work as a customs officer/baggage handler.
Schapelle didn't have a criminal record, but she was still accused and convicted of drug smuggling. What makes you think that only people without criminal records are not capable of committing a crime?
However, since Australia is such a “perfect country”, some baggage handlers which had previous criminal records still got recruited as recently revealed and published in the media in Australia.
This adds weight towards Schapelle's belief theory that the drugs were smuggled by a corrupt baggage handler in Australia.
Yeah, PT.
AUSTRALIA IS VERY PERFECT.
Australia isn't a perfect country, but it is certainly better off than Indonesia. Indonesians needs to realise that they are living in a glass house, and they shouldn't be throwing stones.
PT
I was just trying to point out that Australia is not as perfect as PT and others thought!
Have you ever heard of the term "strawman argument". That's when you construct a weak argument on your opposition's behalf, and then argue against it, to try and make your own argument appear strong.
You are also using ad hominem.
Thanks, Alanmince. Nop, I still have some free time to visit this blog..:)
and Alanmince, I have no interest to respond PT recent argument, for me it's too far from reality... They should worry themselves however about vast decreasing numbers of Corby supporters in Australia. And those kind of arguments above (believe me) won't give any help at all to keep the fate that Corby is innocent. salam.
*speechless*
PT, you really should apply to be detective. =)
"Indonesians needs to realise that they are living in a glass house, and they shouldn't be throwing stones."
<< pls don't say this anymore
and Alanmince, I have no interest to respond PT recent argument, for me it's too far from reality...
You're deluded.
PT
PT said:
"you're deluded"
No, PT, I just have a different point of view. Nothing's personal here.
She's as guilty as sin.
Get used to it!
One thing that wasn't far from reality was the fact that police were very complacent in dealing with the evidence. Had Indonesia's justice system not had a policy of "guilty until proven innocent", the police would have taken care to not contaminate the evidence. Even DNA tests would have convicted Schapelle of drug smuggling, if Schapelle had even breathed on the bag. There were no audio or video taping of Schapelle's alleged confession. If any serious judge ever gave a guilty verdict to anyone, based on a lack of evidence and improper police procedures, there would be a full scale inquiry.
Repetition...repetition...(get bored)...
"Repetition...repetition...(get bored)..."
Translation: I can't think of anything intelligent to respond, so I'm just going to try and be a heckler to people trying to debate intelligently.
intelligently? Indonesia has "guilty until proven innocent?", woooowww so intelligent, I'm impressed... go ask Prof Tim Lindsey then, and prove it that you're more intelligent than him. Better to read many sources first including some in this blog then make a comment, otherwise people can measure how intelligent your comment is...:)
And, even Corby's lawyers know very well without DNA test that you're so proud of, that MJ is of Australian origin. They also know Indonesian judicial system is based on innocent until proven guilty. Confussed? Ask them or your Prof Lindsey in Melbourne univ, I'm not your teacher. You don't pay a stupid for being a professor in such a prestigious university, do you? then ask him, consult your intelligent way of thinking. I get even more bored with repetition...:)
You, or someone like you, has been mouthing off saying "Schapelle hasn't proven herself innocent". That clearly means that you she is deemed guilty until proven innocent. Get it through your head that the judges assumed that well before their verdict was read. Any serious judge in the world would not allow contaminated evidence to be admissable.
*No fingerprinting because of police incompetence.
*No DNA testing to prove that Schapelle had even breathed on the marijuana before placing it the bag.
*No audio recording Schapelle's alleged confession to verify the officials' story --> quite a lack of achievement, considering that they alleged to have known about the marijuana upon x-raying the baggage.
*No attempt to hide the marijuana, or even try and bring it in much smaller quantities.
Innocent until proven guilty??? Bullshit!
She's guilty! Get over it kiddies.
"She's guilty! Get over it kiddies."
Yeah kiddies. Get over your whining that you think she is guilty.
If an African girl from Mali gets caught in Sydney airport with 4.1 kg marijuana, then she refuse to open her bag. What will your Australian judges think about her? guilty or not guilty? Then she comes up with a story about a mafia operated in Bamako, etc. Then a rapist gives his testimony based on hearsay of hearsay. I wonder how do you think about her... It's a matter of fact mannnn that you must present in a trial, not assumptions: she's not guilty, the dog cannot sniff her MJ, or how could she manage to pass brisbane airport, etc.. even if it's true, still all judges in the world demand hard evidences, facts you must provide! Get life and don't cry like kiddies, your papa will give you another toy to play with!
If an African girl from Mali gets caught in Sydney airport with 4.1 kg marijuana, then she refuse to open her bag. What will your Australian judges think about her? guilty or not guilty?
If she refused to open the bag, and the customs officer was prevented from doing so, it would be all caught on video and audio footage. Even Chika Honda had video footage taken of her when her luggage being opened. Customs officers in Sydney would also not fuck around with showing off to the media, before the case went to court. Customs officers would also be taking fingerprint analysis of the contents, and would be using gloves to prevent the evidence being contaminated.
Then she comes up with a story about a mafia operated in Bamako, etc. Then a rapist gives his testimony based on hearsay of hearsay. I wonder how do you think about her...
Good point. But, the accounts of her story would be useless if fingerprinting analysis showed that the drugs were touched by her last. DNA tests would also determine whether she had as much as breathed on the contents. The rapist would also have his account dismissed, if he couldn't back up his testimony with evidence.
It's a matter of fact mannnn that you must present in a trial, not assumptions: she's not guilty, the dog cannot sniff her MJ, or how could she manage to pass brisbane airport, etc.. even if it's true, still all judges in the world demand hard evidences, facts you must provide!
Then why is the case so one-sided in Indonesia, that you have to prove your innocence when the prosecutors have no evidence to go by, other than hearsay? The Mali woman would go free, if the prosecution could not provide a solid case against her. Regardless, if found guilty, the Mali woman would be spending less than a year in an Australian prison.
Get life and don't cry like kiddies, your papa will give you another toy to play with!
Oh go cry into your pillow. Careful! It might contain marijuana.
"the Mali woman would go free"
Well not the case of Chika Honda. Justice's only for a Mali woman, not for a Japanese woman..
"the Mali woman would be spending less than a year in an Australian prison."
Aha that's also for Mali woman only, for Chika Honda she has to spend 10 years...
Well not the case of Chika Honda. Justice's only for a Mali woman, not for a Japanese woman..
Aha that's also for Mali woman only, for Chika Honda she has to spend 10 years...
Someone caught with 4kgs of marijuana wouldn't be doing 10 years in an Australian prison. Chika Honda was caught with 13kgs of heroin in her and her associate's suitcases. 3.2kgs worth of the stuff were in Honda's bag.
Now, I can concede the possibility that Honda might have been dragged unwittingly into this mess, but I find it difficult to believe the story that after regaining their stolen possessions, they didn't check their new bags for any unwanted possessions before proceeding onto the journey for Melbourne.
http://www.worldlii.org/cgi-worldlii/disp.pl/au/cases/vic/VICSC/unrep179.html?query=%22chika+honda%22.
as Corby, Honda also maintain to this day that she's not guilty... the fact is that heroin was found in her bag, just like Corby. And Australian judges didn't give a damn to the story of mafia in Kuala Lumpur..hellooooo?
There's a big difference between heroin and marijuana.
according to Indonesian law there's no difference between heroin and marijuana, both are narcotics category 1....so sorry, next time don't smuggle it to Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand or Malaysia.. smuggle it to Australia and there's a big difference :)
and... we're not talking about the difference between heroin and marijuana that can result on difference length of verdict in Australia. We're talking about the possibility to be sentenced guilty, and both Honda and Corby were sentenced regardless the length of sentence...
Apples and oranges comparison. Honda was given a trial by jury. Schapelle wasn't. Honda had colleagues that didn't report an alleged theft of their vehicles. Corby managed to get through an airport without having drugs being found. Then the drugs managed to appear at another airport of dubious credibility. 13kgs of heroin smuggled into Australia can MAKE millions. 4kgs of marijuana smuggling into Indonesia makes only thousands, especially when it could be sold for a lot more in Australia.
There's a lot of credibility to Corby's innocence, but not much to the Japanese that imported 13kgs of heroin.
Corby refused to open her bag. Honda didn't. Honda surely didn't know the presence of heroin in her bag since it was hidden perfectly. Corby knew very well since it has difference in weigh. Marijuana is very expensive between expat in Bali, Corby knew it very well since she had some trips to Bali before and had brother in law a Balinese. Honda knew nothing about Australia. Having jury doesn't mean you have a better trial, ask Honda!
The drugs of Hodan also managed to appear in another airport, in Australia.
Corby's innocent? hahahahaha, prove it! even her smart lawyers from Indonesia and Australia couldn't prove it. Helloooo where's the baggage handlers??? That's only on her and your imagination probably..:) good imagination though...:)
"Corby refused to open her bag."
Prove it, dickhead. So far, no evidence has come forward to show that Corby claimed that she owned the drugs. But if you weren't on drugs yourself, you would already realise that the custom officer has to prove HIS point.
and prove it about the involvement of baggage handlers moron! I mean BEGO! hahahahahaha...
to anonymous 11.15 PM.
hey you must hurry, you haven't done your homework! alright I help you 2 x 2 = 4... hahahahaha...
"hey you must hurry, you haven't done your homework! alright I help you 2 x 2 = 4... hahahahaha..."
Keep it up, fucktard. I just love the way you show your immaturity. Adds strength to people who believe in justice.
ok..ok..I know it's rather difficult for you..I'll help you again:
7 + 4 = 11... hahahahaha...
"and prove it about the involvement of baggage handlers moron!"
You make proving things so easy. Facts are, no one at Brisbane airport found 4kgs of marijuana in her boogie board. Hence, because of that FACT, Schapelle is considered exonerated from smuggling drugs. The airport assumes full responsibility for her possessions for allowing her onto a plane with what she claims to have brought. It is up to Brisbane airport to prove that she had drugs in her possession. Since no drugs were found in her possession at Brisbane, it is assumed that baggage handlers had tampered with her possessions.
Now, I realise that you must be scratching your head with you index finger, trying to get your cognitively challenged brain to ruminate over a FUCKING obvious and well considered likelihood. But, I think your credibility would be so much more stabilized if you just ADMITTED that drugs don't magically appear in someone's luggage AFTER it has been shown not to have existed after an airport checking.
"ok..ok..I know it's rather difficult for you..I'll help you again:
7 + 4 = 11... hahahahaha..."
Fuck hey? I'm surprised you even managed that. You should run home to your "mommy" and tell her what a little fuckhead like you can do in arithmetic.
how about she failed to realise the difference in weight of her bag at that time? please give us a rational explanation... is she a kind of Sheena? :)
"Fuck hey? I'm surprised you even managed that. You should run home to your "mommy" and tell her what a little fuckhead like you can do in arithmetic. "
please don't easily get angry if somebody just tries to tease you :D
"you just ADMITTED that drugs don't magically appear in someone's luggage"
yeah I admit, she planted it in her father's house...
CONCLUSION SO FAR??? CORBY IS GUILTY...
So when does she get tied to a oil palm tree and recieve a Derryn Hinch breast reduction on her left breast?
"yeah I admit, she planted it in her father's house..."
I'll say it again: The drugs somehow managed to get by airport security, despite the enforcement of sniffer dogs, or x-ray machine scanning. Schapelle paid for a ticket to go to Bali, via Sydney. Because the airport allowed her luggage aboard, and therefore a liable for the security of the luggage. It is implied that once accepting the luggage aboard the aircraft that Schapelle was not carrying an illegal substance ("illegal" in Australia and Indonesia).
What if someone smuggled on a bomb on another plane, and it exploded? Wouldn't the airline be liable for allowing an unauthorized product onto the plane? After September 11 attacks, you would think that airport security would have improved remarkably and have easily accounted for drugs of such quantity, long before takeoff at Brisbane airport.
"how about she failed to realise the difference in weight of her bag at that time?"
It's.... only.... four.... kilograms.... of ..... extra..... weight. It would be insignificant weight that is hardly noticeable to any human who has just come off a 12 hour flight on an airconditioned plane and into humid weather. She was probably too drowsy after the trip to notice something the weight of a textbook.
Anyone that has ever gone shopping, and carried a basket with 4kgs of products, and then added another 4kgs of products on top would not notice much difference. Haven't any of you ever lifted 8kgs before? It's so easy to do. Schapelle looks to weigh atleast 60kgs. Lifting 8kgs would be no problem for someone like her. But noticing any weight difference (from 4kgs to 8kgs) after a long flight would be downright impossible.
Some of you guys talk in such absolutes. How do humans make the distinction of weight difference, after they have been exposed to an airconditioned plane for hours on end? Haven't you ever been in an airconditioned room, where your muscles tense up to keep yourself warm? You burn off energy while in the cool airconditioning, more than you would in a humid environment. After a long flight, the last thing on your mind is whether your luggage (especially one that has only flippers and a boogie board) has been tampered with by others. You are more likely to be thinking about a sleep at the hotel to revive your strength, rather than worry about any insignificant change in the weight of a bag.
I was experiencing 16 hours flight from Europe to Jakarta and still can make a distinction of 4 kg more weight when I bought 4 liter of mineral water right after I came home... I am a man, young strong, 182 cm/ 78 kg, and after 16 hours exhausted trip still can say that the 4 kg something is impossible not to be realized... don't try to f**k people up with irrational reasons...
in Brisbane airport there's no dog. Don't manipulate the fact here...
"I was experiencing 16 hours flight from Europe to Jakarta and still can make a distinction of 4 kg more weight when I bought 4 liter of mineral water right after I came home..."
Well, of course you would know that you have a 4 litre bottle of mineral water, when YOU were the one that placed the bottle there. It's a difference when you are expecting something, as opposed to Schapelle who wasn't expecting drugs to be placed in the bag.
(4 litres of mineral water?? Never heard of that quantity before)
"in Brisbane airport there's no dog. Don't manipulate the fact here..."
Thanks man. Didn't think you could prove your point. No dog to prove that Schapelle had drugs in her possession. Therefore, the airport assumes responsibility for the drugs. You would be crying a different tune if it was someone from Indonesia smuggling drugs into Australia.
"(4 litres of mineral water?? Never heard of that quantity before)"...
4 bottles of 1 littre each..
"Thanks man. Didn't think you could prove your point. No dog to prove that Schapelle had drugs in her possession. "
Thanks for admiting that you manipulate the facts..
no further comments Corby's? give up?
"4 bottles of 1 littre each"
Of course, the mineral water would be rolling around in your bag. A pillow case of drugs wouldn't move around.
"Thanks for admiting that you manipulate the facts.."
I said "despite the enforcement of sniffer dogs...". You claim their wasn't any sniffer dog. Either way, that makes any allegation that Schapelle tried to smuggle drugs very incredible. Why wouldn't Brisbane airport enforce a sniffer dog for an international flight? Makes the theory that the drugs were planted in Sydney all the more credible.
"Of course, the mineral water would be rolling around in your bag. A pillow case of drugs wouldn't move around."
My bag wasn't empty. the bottles didn't roll around.
"I said "despite the enforcement of sniffer dogs...". You claim their wasn't any sniffer dog. Either way, that makes any allegation that Schapelle tried to smuggle drugs very incredible."
Why? she knew that there's no sniffer dog in Brisbane airport that makes easier for her to pass the check in counter without being caught. ALSO perhaps she already know the persons responsible there and bribe them... anything possible.. she's also heading for Japan to work back in a "hospitality business". Do you know "hospitality business" means for Japanese? And do you know how far the involvement of Yakuza in that kind of business? Still wondering who finance her?
AN EYE FOR EYE....
IT'S FOR CHIKA HONDA
OZ....KEEP IT IN YOUR MIND
Japs
An eye for an eye means that you punish an offender in the same way that they have punished you. Nothing more. If that is the case, the Schappelle should receive a much lighter sentence, since Chika Honda wasn't sentenced to jail for 20 years.
I appears that you are tarring the Australian people with the same brush. Not all Australian's have fallen prey to the mass hysteria, nor the suspect defence. Not all Australian's feel that she should be treated in a manner differing to the laws of your country. The majority of my friends and family believe whole heartedly in her guilt so please stopp aussie bashing we're not ALL anti indonesian.
I am Dutch and now can say that we made the biggest mistake when we were at war with Indonesia after WW2. We should have killed all of you. Wiswantanu, prosecutor, is a criminal himself who has asked for bribes in return for lighter sentences.There will be a case filed against him with the international court of law and we will seek his extradition as to be able to take him to an international criminal tribunal.
Post a Comment
<< Home