It was AUSSIE GOLD alright
Australian marijuana made up of large flowers or buds, while the marijuana Aceh in north Sumatra or from Malang in East Java has much smaller buds and a lot of leaf mixed in.
More interesting quote:
... Despite requests from Corby's lawyers, Indonesian police did not test the marijuana in her bag to find out where it was grown or its strength, and it is not certain it was grown hydroponically, a cultivation method that increases its potency. But when the bag of marijuana was displayed in the court, it was clear it was made up of buds the size of bananas, which emitted a powerful smell whenever the plastic bag was opened....The above quotes are from: Why Australian marijuana is a big hit in Bali
More interesting quote:
... While drugs might seem freely available on the streets, the foreigners who live in Bali, including those serving time in Kerobokan jail, say that buying them is a very risky business because you never know if the seller is an undercover police officer or a police informer.Corby is GUILTY nuff said.For that reason, westerners in Bali are prepared to pay premium prices for marijuana if they can get it from other Westerners, as that's the best way to ensure they are not going to be trapped and arrested....
posted at 5:32 PM
73 Comments:
Okay, you've convinced me, I might even consider donating to the tsunami appeal again.
.
.
.
.
I'm not sure of the logistics of my money going towards starting another tsunami, but it's for a good cause.
Yes, it's Aussie Gold!! And Corby's guilty to flesh. Regarding biological weapon they sent to our Embassy in Canberra, Corby must be hanged in no time! HANG CORBY!!!
See, I told you. It's such a bilateral legal issue between two countries and now is getting to be such a serious threat between Indo and Aussie relationship.
Schapelle case is just a vehicle. There are coming more impacts, I suppose.
The biological weapon sended from the Western civilization to the Eastern government is such an ODD action. The first time in history. Terrorism has changed their clothes. Welcome to the new era of heart-feeling terrorism.
Sorry, I mean "Welcome to the new era of HARD-FEELING TERRORISM."
OK she's guilty. So what? get a life.
I've read a bit of this, and of course there's 2 main issues in my mind:
1) Why would she be taking hash TO Bali, when they grow their own?
2) The penalty in Australia for that amount would probably be 3 months jail, or else a fine and suspended sentence.
As you have explained, there is a reason to take it to Bali, because the quality of Balinese hash is terrible. So that answers that one. So is the real reason that we are so upset because in Australia she'd just get a slap on the wrist? To me, that seems like a bigger issue.
I mean, the reality is that there's plenty of legal drugs that are just as bad or worse than marijuana, and countries the world over are looking to legalise marijuana. So why send people to jail or even execute them?
But at the same time, yes, she is guilty, and, rightly or wrongly, that is the law, so she should take her medicine.
And she was probably a bit unlucky actually. If she'd offered the officers in Bali the right bribe, then she would have got away with it. She was probably just unlucky to stumble upon a few honest policemen in Bali airport, who wouldn't accept her bribes.
I don't agree with the law myself. I think marijuana should be a legal subtances.
I also don't agree with alot of current laws and rules in Indonesia, but it's the law nontheless, without it Indonesia will be in Chaos.
So the question is, why punish Indonesia for following their own law?
Anyway, thank you for such an informed comment
Honest policement in Bali, hehe... nice one.
Still haven't proven it's hers. IT's Australian, we know that, but that's consistent with the defense case as well. Give me proof it's hers - come on.
proofs?
1. 4 kg was in corby's bag and she didnt notice. didnt notice? c'monnn..it's 4 kg. pillow size.
2. she refuse to open the bag according to the police and custom officer. Bulshit? well Indonesian custom officers and polices are corrupt, who doesnt know? But they have nothing to profit in this case.
3. Do you still need more?
proofs?
1. 4 kg was in corby's bag and she didnt notice. didnt notice? c'monnn..it's 4 kg. pillow size.
2. she refuse to open the bag according to the police and custom officer. Bulshit? well Indonesian custom officers and polices are corrupt, who doesnt know? But they have nothing to profit in this case.
1. Lift something up in a bag that weighs about 10kgs. Put it down. Put 4kgs more into the bag, and then pick it up again. You would probably notice the difference because it was only a moment ago that you were lifting a 10kg bag, rather than a 14kg bag. Plus, you would be expecting the bag to weigh more. If you walked into an airport terminal with 10kg bag, and then didn't pick up the bag for another 5 hours, you would NOT remember the sensation of how the bag weighed upon arrival at a new airport. In fact, any sensation of your baggage seeming heavier upon arrival at a new airport can be attributed to tiredness.
2. The hearsay evidence of custom officials and police isn't strong evidence. Why can't an international airport have some surveillance cameras verify either side's story? A country that has laws that prohibit the importation of drugs would surely equip their airports with security cameras to catch drug smugglers.
Basically the prosecution's testimony was very weak.
Maybe we could have known for sure where the marijuana came from if the Indonesian authorities had actually done their job and conducted forensic tests?
1. Corby's bag is about3-5 kg., not 10 kg.
2. No camera? How about Brisbane airport and Qantas? Hey we're poor country, remember?
3. The marijuana is obvious from Australia, try to at least read your own newspapers, where have you been? Didn't you see it on TV the shape of the marijuana?
1. Corby's bag is about3-5 kg., not 10 kg.
You still wouldn't know about any increase in weight hours after you had last lifted your bag. 4kg isn't very heavy, and you wouldn't notice the difference. Considering that you freely admit that the marijuana bag is the size of a pillow, it means that the weight would have been less noticeable to a person carrying the bag. That is because of the less weight density of marijuana. If you still think that you would unexpectedly notice a slight change in baggage weight after hours on a flight, then you are seriously delusional.
Dear anonymous,
We may argue this all the time without result. As for myself, I won't realize it if my bag is about 20 kg. But with 3 to 5 kg, with additional 4.1 kg, I will notice it. I think you must learn science more, the dense has nothing to do with the weight. The dense is the same, only spreaded. The gravitation force that imply is the same :)
Dear anonymous,
We may argue this all the time without result. As for myself, I won't realize it if my bag is about 20 kg. But with 3 to 5 kg, with additional 4.1kg, I will notice it. I think you must learn science more, the dense has nothing to do with the weight. The dense is the same, only spreaded.
I think you need the science lesson. A bag weighing 5kgs would weight only 5kgs if nothing else was in it. Assuming that Schapelle was carrying a 5kg bag with 4 kgs of marijuana inside, that only makes 9kgs.
You can't seriously say that a bag the size of a pillow weighing 4kgs gives the same sensation as a rock weighing 4kgs. 4kgs isn't heavy. But, you can feel the difference between 4kgs that has a low weight density, and 4kgs that has a high weight density. The density of an object DOES have relevance in this case. With the weight of drugs spread out, Corby wouldn't have noticed any bias in weight.
Assuming that there was other things inside a boogie board bag to inflate the weight of a bag, like flippers and the boogie board, that would be quite a weight in its own right. You could easily weigh the bag to have 10kgs with flippers, a boogie board, and the bag itself. You wouldn't unexpectedly notice an extra 4kgs, especially after hours after a flight. Corby would have to be carrying the bag at the time someone put the marijuana into the bag for her to notice an increase in weight. Therefore, your premise is ridiculous.
PT
My dear PT,
The weight is the same as long as the gravitation force is the same in the same place. the 4 kg rock has the same weight with the 4 kg pillow size marijuana, as well as 4 kg chair, 4 kg no matter what the things you carry in. Even a 4kg carpet 5m X 5m still it has 4 kg weight. do you think 4 kg rock is heavier than 4 kg television? OMG.
My dear PT,
The weight is the same as long as the gravitation force is the same in the same place. the 4 kg rock has the same weight with the 4 kg pillow size marijuana, as well as 4 kg chair, 4 kg no matter what the things you carry in. Even a 4kg carpet 5m X 5m still it has 4 kg weight. do you think 4 kg rock is heavier than 4 kg television? OMG.
I didn't SAY that a 4kg rock weighs more than a 4kg television. I have just twice written before that the sensation of an object is dependent on its weight density. Are you really that stupid to think that you wouldn't feel the different sensation of lifting a 4kg television that is 1m x 1m, compared to a 4kg rock?
Since you are so poor at science, maybe you should try this experiment. Fill up a bag full of feathers, and a bag filled with rocks to 4kgs each. Then get someone to pick up both bags one at a time. They will surely notice the bag full of rocks to feel different, because of the BIAS in the bag. The rocks would be rolling around in the BAG creating a different sensation to the person lifting the bag. The bag with the feathers in would NOT be rocking around, because there is an EVEN SPREAD of contents inside. THE CENTRE OF GRAVITY would not shift around in the feather bag, like it does in the bag with the rocks.
If you were honest with yourself, you would admit that by now. If you had the choice, would you rather be hit in the head with a 4kg pillow, or 4kg lead weight? Surely you would start to understand basic science by now.
Beyond that indisputable evidence, what kind of person are you to even suggest that Schapelle would notice a slight weight increase in her boogie board bag? 4kgs is so easy to lift, that it would be unnoticeable amongst your other luggage. It would seem suspicious if you DID notice a slight increase in baggage weight after having the bag out of your possession for so long.
Face it, pik, you aren't doing yourself any favours by lying to people. You can argue against science all you want -- it only makes you look foolish.
PT, repeating isn't my hobby, and my engineering background requires me to learn physics alot.
If I were you I wouldn't dare to say someone else fool just because you believe that a bag full with 4 kg rock is heavier than a bag full with 4 kg marijuana. EVEN if you talked about SENSATION, a pillow size PT, those marijuanas aren't spread around her bag, the density of that pillow size marijuana makes the center of gravity is still centered enough to make people realize there's a different weight. EVEN if those marijuanas do spread in all of places in the bag, the BAG is still small enough to pull together those marijuana and other things inside make one center of gravity. We are not talking about a big empty bag with marijuanas all over the empty place make those maris can move around inside the bag. We are talking about a bag full with things inside and a pillow size marijuana make it even more full and denser. Use your imagination honey, and don't tell me that you just graduate from highschool, I will not teach you no more, it's your teacher responsibility, not me.
ALSO 4,1 kg is heavy enough to realize. Well if you are Hercules than I'll say nothing :)
and you should be able to notice there is something in the bulky bag.
The 'pillow' is quite big and very thick compared to a bodyboard (which is about 5 cm? and the bag's thickness should be around 10-20cm max, correct me if i'm wrong. whereas the 'pillow's thickness is more than 20cm i think.. it's quite 'turgid'/densed)
If i were her, i would expect the boogie bag to be the lightest bag perhaps (since a body board is made of light material to make it float on water). Let's say that i have a heavy luggage to carry and when i see the boogie board, i would expect it to be much less heavy rite? and would be surprised if the weight increases more than twice..
well, i dunno exactly, this is only assuming.. cheers =D
btw, read the comment on the first post in this webpage by an anonymous, he did an interesting experiment =D
Yup Ray, I read that interesting experiment. PT I'm sorry if you feel offended by one of my comments. Honestly, I almost forget many lessons of physics since I do economics rightnow. However, I still believe with what I said before.
If I were you I wouldn't dare to say someone else fool just because you believe that a bag full with 4 kg rock is heavier than a bag full with 4 kg marijuana.
That has to be about the third or fourth time that you have LIED about what I have said. Dickhead (aka "pik"), stop FUCKING LYING. I am NOT SAYING 4kg is heavier than 4kgs. Even an idiot like you should be able to see clear straightforward. My goodness, Pik. So you freely admit to being one of the dumbest people on earth. Learn to fucking read posts properly, fuckhead.
EVEN if you talked about SENSATION, a pillow size PT, those marijuanas aren't spread around her bag, the density of that pillow size marijuana makes the center of gravity is still centered enough to make people realize there's a different weight.
Wrong again, moron. Put a lead weight in the bag, and you would feel its bias the bag at one spot. Putting a bag full of marijuana, which is pillow sized, then you wouldn't notice the bias. Try it out for yourself.
Use your imagination honey, and don't tell me that you just graduate from highschool, I will not teach you no more, it's your teacher responsibility, not me.
With your stupid reasoning, I'm not surprised that you defend the indefensible "theories" like you do. Thank god that the desperate idiots are on your side, and I have intelligent people with the backing of science and psychology on mine.
ALSO 4,1 kg is heavy enough to realize. Well if you are Hercules than I'll say nothing :)
Are you really THAT pissweak? A eight year old child would have little trouble carrying a 10kg bag or a 14kg bag, let alone notice the increase in weight. Imagines how much harder it would be for a fully grown woman to notice any increase in weight. How difficult do you think 10kgs of legitimate items would be to carry? How much more difficult would it be to carry an additional 4kgs? REMEMBER, Corby has just gotten off the flight, and would likely have been a) tired; and b) more concerned about getting to her destination.
You idiots expect Corby to be some kind of robot that can instantaneously detect baggage weight increase the moment she picks up a bag that she hasn't touched for HOURS. Unfortunately, you stupid theory is flawed for all the above reasons.
Thus far, I have clearly demonstrated a plausible argument about why Corby would not notice the weight increase of her luggage. All you have done is repeat the same tired arguments over and over like some stupid parrot. Obviously, Pik, you are just some lost cause that can't formulate a reasoned argument.
PT
Yup Ray, I read that interesting experiment. PT I'm sorry if you feel offended by one of my comments. Honestly, I almost forget many lessons of physics since I do economics rightnow. However, I still believe with what I said before.
It's alright Pik. I am quite comfortable in the knowledge that even though you can't understand the blatant obvious, others can. Not many people will give a "Schapelle Corby is GUILTY" rant much credibility. But, for those that do venture upon this site with an open mind about this issue, I can be quite at ease that they will take my point of view as a well reasoned perspective.
PT
(Feel free to disprove the allegations of this following post)
Here is something that you guys probably haven't bothered to think about, that you can ruminate over in your heads for a while:
If the scenario of Corby's situation was that she somehow notice that her bag was heavier, and upon inspection discovered the marijuana in her bag, what would have become the different outcome? Had she gone to the customs officials and said that she found the marijuana in her bag, Corby would have still been charged with marijuana possession. Damned if she did, and damned if she didn't.
Has anyone got any publicly available documents about the procedures a visitor could take if they discover drugs in their possession?
errrr.... about the sensation when u're hit with 4 kg rock and 4 kg feather, yeah it should be different however i don't think it's because of the density.. i mean there are other factors like elasticity (since a rock doesn't change shape and hard) and momentum (impact).
No matter how many times we argue, we won't ever know whether corby was too exhausted to notice it or not.
btw.. for me 4-5 kgs is quite heavy (yeah, i don't go to gym haha >_<)
"Corby would have still been charged with marijuana possession. Damned if she did, and damned if she didn't"
errm... if that's the case i guess there won't be any evidence saying "corby tried to reject opening her bag"
PT, I also have told you my clear argument supported by ray and an anonymous experiment, maybe I'm not supported by science experts or else and maybe I do forget some theories of physics, however I still remember the basic theories and have my logic for sure. I've told you about my perception on this case that you couldn't use an analogy of an empty bag. Our different perception could happen because of many reasons, maybe we use different imaginations how it was happened, maybe I just misundertood you or you misunderstood me, or else.
As for whether I'm a weak person or not, today I brought 2 bottles of mineral water, 2 liters each. As you know, that 1 liter of water = 1 kg, so they worth 4 kg. And I felt they're heavy enough to realize. And as Ray mentioned, Corby would expect it as the lightest bag she had, so it's impossible if she didn't notice that obvious additional weight. However, you have your own right to have a different opinion of course, it's up to us how to see this perception.
Ray, the sensation depends so much on the size where you put that rock or feather. All I wanted to say is the weight is absolute, 4 kg. The sensation is relative, relative to the kind of things you carry, relative to the size of place you put in. If we want to talk about sensation, the size of the bag gives so much impact. For a small bag whether you carry rocks or feathers, the sensation is unsignificantly different. If you carry a big bag with much empty space, surely there's different sensation. However, the weight is absolute: 4 kg.
Perhaps you correct Ray about momentum and elasticity, but even they don't give a much different sensation for a 4 kg pillow size marijuana (please all, use your imagination) and a 4 kg pillow size rock in a boogie board bag.
PT in case you don't know which experiment that Ray said, he means this one that your fellow Australian post it today, I quote:
"I had an expriment at work today. I asked someone to bring a 3kg box to a table and than add extra 4 into the same box and ask to take it back later. He said sh*t what is this? I said "Corby bag". He laughed and said "I cannot believe you lift this from a conveyor and not noticed any difference". "
Perception plays a strong role in whether you believe an object feels heavier than it did before. If you don't know that someone has put an object in a bag, you aren't expecting the bag to weigh any more.
I bet you can't remember how heavy an object is when you have lifted it the next day. You can't remember the exact amount of effort you used to lift the same object that you did the day before. So, you have to guess how much force it takes to lift an object.
Weightlifters use mental and physical conditioning techniques to prepare themselves for a heavy lift. They go out to the gym and lift weights in preparation towards lifting an even greater weight in competition. If you have seen the Olympic weightlifting competitions, you would notice that once the weightlifter has finished a lift, they don't go and sit down to wait their next turn. They are working out in the makeshift gym trying to keep a focus for their next weightlift.
**Here's where the fun begins for your imagination** What if the weightlifting judges played a trick on the weightlifters, and switched their weights with look-alike foam weights. The weightlifter would come out for his next lift and expect the weight to be heavy. Upon pushing for a mighty lift, he finds himself practically throwing the fake weights into the air, and the judges laughing in hysterics. This is a case where the lifter was expecting more weight to lift than he received.
In Corby's case, when her bag came off the carousel, Corby had forgotten how heavy her bag was, when it was last in her possession carrying it. She did not have the benefit of hindsight into how heavy the bag was. So, to compensate for ANY unexpected weight of the bag, she exerted some effort into the lift, and found that it was more than adequate to lift a bag full of flippers, a body board, and (unexpectedly) marijuana. As far as she was concerned, her focus is on a holiday, not jail time.
Why haven't the Bali police weighed Corby's baggage and compared the results with the weight that Brisbane airport officials found?
"I had an expriment at work today. I asked someone to bring a 3kg box to a table and than add extra 4 into the same box and ask to take it back later. He said sh*t what is this? I said "Corby bag". He laughed and said "I cannot believe you lift this from a conveyor and not noticed any difference". "
That is a very inappropriate experiment to compare with the situation of Schapelle Corby. For starters, the person bringing the 3kg box over to a table did not have the box out of his possession very long to be able to forget what was the sensation of lifting an empty box. Try having another person leave the box for a couple hours.
Secondly, is the 3kg box the equivalent weight of the bag, the flippers, and the body board? Is the box the same size as Corby's bag. Why not experiment using similar materials?
PT
C'mon mannn,
Pik, you're right pal. PT, Pik just want to be polite regreting his insult to you about "high school grad things", but I think he's right about his argument. Also, we are not talking about feathers in a big bag here. We are talking about marijuana in a bag that's already dense enough make it even denser and heavier impossible not to be realised.
And please don't say that you have many science experts behind you, it only makes you look stupid. It's a basic physics pal, you don't need to take postgrad in physics to know that. I think everybody who reads postings between you two mostly will agree with Pik as for myself.
For "anonymous":
Bisbane airport officials found what? Please don't talk something you don't know. It was Brisbane airport and Qantas who couldn't give records on Corby's bag weight. Wanna protest? Send your protest to the Brisbane airport authority and Qantas, not to the Indonesian court.
Pik, you're right pal. PT, Pik just want to be polite regreting his insult to you about "high school grad things", but I think he's right about his argument. Also, we are not talking about feathers in a big bag here. We are talking about marijuana in a bag that's already dense enough make it even denser and heavier impossible not to be realised.
What's the difference between feathers and marijuana. They both need a lot of them to be able to make up 4kgs. A soft bag of marijuana would not be noticed when carried. A 4kg bag of marijuana is light enough to be unnoticed in a bag carrying flippers and a body board. A bag is the worst place to keep marijuana in such a large quantity as to be found by a customs official who would have no hesitation in prosecuting a crime that could carry the death penalty.
Basic human psychology tells people that high risk of death + lack of beneficial return = unlikely to happen.
ie, The combination death penalty for drug trafficking, and the lack of a financial return for marijuana so common in Bali, leaves a lack of incentive for Corby to do the deed of drug smuggling.
No one would put themselves at risk of getting caught for drug smuggling, if the possible penalty for such action is death. No one would hide drugs in a most conspicuous place to put drugs, and then admit to owning the bag to a customs officer. No one would then admit to being in possession of marijuana.
Corby is obviously innocent. Overwhelming evidence in her favour supports that conclusion.
overwhelming evidence? show me...
overwhelming evidence? show me...
It's already written down.
overwhelming "hard" evidences? or overwhelming "rumours" evidences?
Evidence to support Corby's innocence:
*4.1 kgs of marijuana is expensive to obtain in Australia. It would be bad business practice to buy it in Australia and then sell in Bali, where locals can get the marijuana for cheaper. Even the "it was for rich tourists" reasoning doesn't hold any credible reasoning. What are the chances that Schapelle can find enough tourists to sell 4.1kgs of marijuana during her stay in Bali?
*Has anyone found evidence in Schapelle's home to support the theory that she was growing marijuana.
*To get marijuana from Brisbane to Bali, Schapelle would have needed an international flight. No drug sniffer dogs detected any hint of a marijuana odour in Corby's bag. Sniffer dogs don't tell lies.
*Schapelle had her bag out of her possession for over 10 hours. The flight from Sydney to Bali took 7 hours. In that time, anyone in the airline industry from Brisbane to Bali could have had access to an UNLOCKED bag. Anyone, including the Bali airport officials.
*The blogmaster has freely admitted that the airport customs officer KNEW that Corby's bag was filled with drugs. How does one know that, unless he has been told by someone that the bag was full of drugs?
*The dispute between Corby and airport customs officials lie with the fact that Corby was talking to an official with a limited knowledge of English. The customs official claims that Corby admitted to drug possession. Corby claims that she owned the body board bag. Clearly, the official could easily be mistaken what was said, because the conversation was in English and not Bahasa. Audio recorded evidence would have proven someone's assertion, while dismissing the other person's. Video evidence would have helped, too.
Schapelle asked that the luggage be weighed to verify that the drugs had been planted. The police refused. Schapelle asked that the bag containing drugs be fingerprinted. That request was also refused, adding that their own fingerprints would be over the evidence. Therefore, police have destroyed the only physical pieces of evidence that Schapelle could have used to prove her innocence.
*The bag of marijuana was found in the most conspicuous of places to hide a bag of marijuana. This suggests that Corby was not even trying to sneak the bag of marijuana out of the airport. This sort of action clearly shows that she had no idea that the drugs were in her possession.
---------------------------------
Evidence to suggest Corby's guilt.
*A bag of marijuana found in Corby's body board bag that wasn't found in Australian airports, but managed to appear in a Bali airport.
*Accusations that a 60kg woman would somehow detect a bag of marijuana concealed inside a bag. Accusations that a 60kg woman would have some trouble lifting 4kgs of extra weight to an extent that she would stop to check whether something else was weighing down her luggage.
---------------------------------
Clearly, Schapelle had a lot of evidence backing her innocence.
overwhelming "hard" evidences? or overwhelming "rumours" evidences?
Schapelle would have had "hard" evidence, if the police did not destroy it. Basically, the airline had possession of Corby's luggage, which also makes them a suspect. Yet, the police charged Corby on a "rumour" that Corby had put drugs in her baggage. The police didn't have hard evidence to back up their claims either.
the Police had, it was in her bag.
Anonymous 6:41.
O God please don't send any more ignorants, there's no need for me to explain something clearly explained in this blog.
Quote:
if you read all of the contents you would know that before it goes to conveyor in Bali airport, a bag has been x-rayed, that's why the customs officials had known if there's MJ in Corby's bag. Just trying to avoid a repetition for some igno...mmm I mean not so well informed persons...:)
- customs officials in Bali do speak English as it has been well known as a world tourism destination.
to anonymous 6:41
http://www.flyingchair.net/story.php?storyID=1275
to anonymous 6:41
They are not evidences, they are called assumptions. If you present those in any court, let me know if anybody can win a case. tip: read the 10 evidences in the age
They are not evidences, they are called assumptions. If you present those in any court, let me know if anybody can win a case. tip: read the 10 evidences in the age
The 10 pieces of evidence in "The Age" is also assumption. Assuming that Schapelle put the marijuana in her bag, without proof to show that she did.
if you read all of the contents you would know that before it goes to conveyor in Bali airport, a bag has been x-rayed, that's why the customs officials had known if there's MJ in Corby's bag.
Oh really??? So, the x-rays at Brisbane airport could not show that Schapelle had marijuana in her bag. However, an x-ray machine found marijuana at Bali? Thank you, anonymous, for showing everyone how befuddled your reasoning really is.
"Oh really??? So, the x-rays at Brisbane airport could not show that Schapelle had marijuana in her bag. However, an x-ray machine found marijuana at Bali? Thank you, anonymous, for showing everyone how befuddled your reasoning really is. "
It's not my reasoning. It's said in the trial. Thank you for showing how smart you are.
Bring it on Corb's! :)
Further hard evidence was the fact that Schapelle presented her bag to the customs official for inspection. If smuggling drugs was Schapelle's goal, then clearly she didn't have an exit strategy. How does someone get a bag through an airport, when there is no doubt that the customs official is going to check the bag?
Apparently, no effort was made to hide the drugs UNDERNEATH other other possessions. It was apparent that the drugs were placed in the most conspicuous part of the baggage. Now, Schapelle might not be the brightest of people in the world, but if it was true that Schapelle placed the drugs in the bag to be found so easily, then it would not doubt people to think that she wanted to get caught.
What the anti-Corby rent-a-crowd mob would have you believe is that Corby paid for a flight to have herself arrested in a foreign country. It's a rather pointless action, that only the most mindless of people really want to believe happened.
PT
Hi PT,
Your scenario does make sense but it can't be considered as evidence. She's caught with hard evidence and until someone can really prove her innocense (by bringing the real culprit), she has to stay in the jail. I hope you understand this. For your theory, I also can give you a scenario. What if actually corby has been smuggling MJ for several times. She realised that it is highly possible to smuggle drugs to bali and decided to bring a lot more (4 kg). The reason for her to be careless in packing/hiding the package could be because she was in hurry or she was sneaking to hide it from her family/friends.
When she was caught she was surprised and started to 'cry' disbelieving that she actually did nothing different from previous year but why this time she got caught, explaining her 'innocent look' later. This actually makes sense and sounds a bit far and imaginative right? the same goes to yours.
The only reason why I doubt that she's completely guilty is because she keeps struggling and never admit her guilt. This never-give-up attitude is quite rare especially (if she's really guilty) after she was given so much lighter punishment compared to life sentence. However, this will no be considered as evidence right? Also I'm not a psychiatric.
Oh yeah,
about the fingerprints... This is only a possibility so I'm not saying that this is the fact. Perhaps the customs and police had already experienced in checking every suspicious person in smuggling drugs and they never found one with fingerprints (maybe). That's why they decided not to do that because if the person is innocent, it's very certain that there won't be any fingerprints but if the person is guilty, they won't find it either.
about the lie detector, finally this explains:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Corby-Case/Corby-ready-to-take-liedetector-test/2005/06/10/1118347600314.html
It is the decision of the defense team not to use it. The lawyer asked whether she is ready or not to take it. Perhaps he wanted to know whether corby is confident enough to answer his qustion. Whether she lied or not, we don't know
Your scenario does make sense but it can't be considered as evidence. She's caught with hard evidence and until someone can really prove her innocense (by bringing the real culprit), she has to stay in the jail. I hope you understand this.
No culprit would willingly give themselves up, just to get an innocent person out of jail. You are saying that people need to prove her innocence, yet no one has proven her guilt. Schapelle has already denied having any ownership of the marijuana. Her proof of innocence relied on police weighing the luggage, and fingerprinting the evidence. Neither of which was allowed to happen, for some strange reason.
For your theory, I also can give you a scenario. What if actually corby has been smuggling MJ for several times. She realised that it is highly possible to smuggle drugs to bali and decided to bring a lot more (4 kg). The reason for her to be careless in packing/hiding the package could be because she was in hurry or she was sneaking to hide it from her family/friends.
If she was experienced enough to smuggle a small amount of marijuana into Bali, she wouldn't jeopardize her freedom by upping the ante and bringing in 4kgs of the drug in ONE trip, in ONE bag, in the most obvious of places to hide drugs.
An experienced traveller to Bali would already know the procedures that customs officials have.
Customs officer: "Put your bag on the counter. Open your bag" *checks for any evidence of drugs* "Thank you".
Do you expect Corby would seriously expect that the customs officer would NOT look through the bag, when she got to the counter?
PT
"No culprit would willingly give themselves up, just to get an innocent person out of jail."
Of course, I'm saying that s/he has to be captured.
"You are saying that people need to prove her innocence, yet no one has proven her guilt."
It was proven through the court. unless that you still refuse to say that it is fair? Then I don't know what to say anymore and I'm tired with the topic fairness. Maybe you should read some opinion from Andrew Bolt or Peter Faris through the links given by many people here.
"Schapelle has already denied having any ownership of the marijuana."
Without assuming that she's completely guilty:
Schapelle: gee, I'm faced with a death sentence now... I don't wanna die now, maybe I should lie, should I? hmmm...
"Her proof of innocence relied on police weighing the luggage, and fingerprinting the evidence. Neither of which was allowed to happen, for some strange reason"
Are you reffering to my writings? As I said, I was only assuming. It's only my imagination. Of course it would be strange for you especially you have different opinion with me. Please don't take it seriously.
"If she was experienced enough to smuggle a small amount of marijuana into Bali, she wouldn't jeopardize her freedom by upping the ante and bringing in 4kgs of the drug in ONE trip, in ONE bag, in the most obvious of places to hide drugs."
Well maybe she succeded to bribe some corrupt officers before (I don't deny corruption occured, but if in airport i believe only small scale) and she got caught by some honest officers OR this time the officer couldn't take the bribe cause there are too many witnesses (easily spotted by x-ray) and corby tried to bribe but...
well again, it's only an imaginative story, could happen, but please don't take it too seriously. =D
One more thing, the theory about baggage handlers is quite impossible. take a look at this
http://www.farisqc.observationdeck.org/?p=190
And if you say that there is a conspiration involving some Indo baggage handlers, it's also quite impossible. How do they organise this between two countries? Most of them haven't even touched (or heard) internet before.
cheers
PT,
sometimes in Ngurah Rai airport (Denpasar) tourists just pass the customs without any proper check because their luggages have been x-rayed and nothing seems suspicious inside. And, maybe, Schapelle didn't know this and thought it's safe to bring some MJ because in her opinion the custom is not so strict. I myself have been in 7 countries by air without knowing that my luggages have been x-rayed as they come to the destination before they go to conveyor. I really have no knowledge about it (or maybe I'm just too ignorant of this fact). Before this case I think some countries like in western europe and japan have a loose custom since they never check my luggages. And it's not impossible if Corby has no knowledge on this matter also. Then she has a thought that it's fairly easy to smuggle MJ there, again: maybe, but it's possible.
Ray,
you have so much patience buddy. You know, I think it's not neccessary anymore to answer all of their arguments except the ones that have something new as their basis. Some of them are only repetitions. They blind themselves not to see other point of views. And just like you I'm tired to make repetitions.
But surely it's up to you buddy.. as for myself, I should rarely come here since it has delayed my jobs greatly :)
pik,
On the opposite, I just finished my two exams and my next one is in two weeks time *sigh*. Good luck on your jobs buddy =D
I know Australian's are not known the world over for their intellect (and I'm assuming you're Australian) but whoever made this blog sets a new record for the phrase 'intellectually challenged'. WAKE UP dip shit and do some research you pathetic, hateful loser. Obviously you have plenty of time on your hands but clearly you cannot comprehend the importance of research. Visit The Expendable Project http://www.expendable.tv/ It's a fantastic website especially for dumb arses like you who don't like to make the effort to research. You'd rather hate on someone who can't defend themselves. Don't worry, it shouldn't involve too much effort as the research has already been done for you. I'm sure you wont publish this comment but who cares. At least you'll read it you moron!!
THE EXPENDABLE PROJECT
www.expendable.tv
The Political Sacrifice
of Schapelle Corby
THE EXPENDABLE PROJECT
www.expendable.tv
The Political Sacrifice
of Schapelle Corby
THE EXPENDABLE PROJECT
www.expendable.tv
The Political Sacrifice
of Schapelle Corby
THE EXPENDABLE PROJECT
www.expendable.tv
The Political Sacrifice
of Schapelle Corby
THE EXPENDABLE PROJECT
www.expendable.tv
The Political Sacrifice
of Schapelle Corby
THE EXPENDABLE PROJECT
www.expendable.tv
The Political Sacrifice
of Schapelle Corby
THE EXPENDABLE PROJECT
www.expendable.tv
The Political Sacrifice
of Schapelle Corby
THE EXPENDABLE PROJECT
proves her innocence.
It has hard evidence and
it's just one click away.
Judge for yourselves
www.expendable.tv
AUSSIE GOLD DOES NOT EXIST!!
DO SOME RESEARCH! START HERE
www.expendable.tv
THE EXPENDABLE PROJECT
THE EXPENDABLE PROJECT
www.expendable.tv
The Political Sacrifice
of Schapelle Corby
THE EXPENDABLE PROJECT
www.expendable.tv
The Political Sacrifice
of Schapelle Corby
THE EXPENDABLE PROJECT
www.expendable.tv
The Political Sacrifice
of Schapelle Corby
www.expendable.tv
THE EXPENDABLE PROJECT
www.expendable.tv
The Political Sacrifice
of Schapelle Corby
www.expendable.tv
THE EXPENDABLE PROJECT
www.expendable.tv
The Political Sacrifice
of Schapelle Corby
www.expendable.tv
THE EXPENDABLE PROJECT
proves her innocence.
It has hard evidence and
it's just one click away.
Judge for yourselves
www.expendable.tv
I'm reading all these comments and they are nothing but un-researched, gossip and speculation. Pathetic.
EXPENDABLE doesn't just TELL you what to believe. It has hard evidence, for all to see. Thousands of verified documents, cables, reports, exhibits and more, available to view on their website.
www.expendable.tv
THE EXPENDABLE PROJECT
www.expendable.tv
The Political Sacrifice
of Schapelle Corby
www.expendable.tv
THE EXPENDABLE PROJECT
www.expendable.tv
The Political Sacrifice
of Schapelle Corby
www.expendable.tv
I cannot believe some sad loser would make a blog like this. If she doesn't get out soon, she'll die. But you wont hear much about her illness on the mainstream media. Will that make you happy? What exactly are you trying to achieve idiot? She has been sentence to 20 years in hell!! Her family have suffered terribly and continue to do so. What exactly is your objective? To turn more people against Schapelle and her family? To intensify the nightmare? Do you actually get satisfaction out of creating such a hateful and negative blog? There are so many people suffering all over the world and so many good causes you could get involved in to maybe make this world a better place, but you choose this?! Speaks volumes about the type of person you are doesn't it..
www.expendable.tv
Post a Comment
<< Home