The Official Schapelle Corby Thread™ (1 Viewer)

[Smokey_22]

It shows emotion has no influence in a courtroom.

She'll probably be transferred to Australia after a few years, and be out after 10.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

i guess its just so easy to sympathise/empathise with her as a younge female. i can't really explain why.

If she wasn't a young female we wouldn't know about her. The whole situation is influenced by the bias australian media.

 

[tempco]

So many people believe she is innocent for absolutely no reason.

god damn, we agree on something. :uhhuh:

20 years compared to life in jail, or the death sentence. what's the point of comparing her sentence to what she would have received in australia?

 

[OZGIRL86]

i guess its just so easy to sympathise/empathise with her as a younge female. i can't really explain why.

but i feel really really sorry for her now, 20 years, that is fucked. i would be surprised if she doesn't kill herself if that sentence is the final word

I agree, I feel sorry for her too,I can't help it...

 

[iamsickofyear12]

It shows emotion has no influence in a courtroom.

She'll probably be transferred to Australia after a few years, and be out after 10.

She shouldn't be transferred to Australia. It is unfair to all other Australians who have had to serve time in Indonesia. It's also to a degree saying she is innocent, and undermining the Indonesian justice system. I don't think they will allow it.

 

[spin spin sugar]

If she wasn't a young female we wouldn't know about her. The whole situation is influenced by the bias australian media.

i meant, being a young female myself.

 

[spin spin sugar]

yeah, i know we have no right. but still. i feel sorry for her.

 

[flipsyde]

It shows emotion has no influence in a courtroom.

She'll probably be transferred to Australia after a few years, and be out after 10.

no they said they wont trade her or abotu 11-12 years and then shell spend about 5 -10 in australia...so shes not really getting less of a sentence

 

[spell check]

ridiculous that the judges made the decision based on her not being able to show who else put the drugs in her bag if not her

what kind of logic is that, surely if you were tried for murder you wouldn't have to show who was the actual murderer in order to prove your innocence

it's absurd to think a person who doesnt take drugs, going on a holiday to visit a relative, has never had problems with the law or anything like that would decide to stick 4 kg of marijuana in an unlocked bag to sell for a lower price than it would be in sydney

and considering they have evidence of corrupt customs officials, and that they just busted a racket that had been operating ON THE SAME DAY that her flight took off just lends weight to the argument that someone planted the drugs in her bag which were meant to be collected in sydney

and now just because she happened to be on a certain flight on a certain day and couldn't show how the drugs got into her bag or have the bag tested for fingerprints etc she gets to spend 20 years of her life in prison. she basically loses her chances to get married, have children etc because of bad luck

 

[tempco]

and considering they have evidence of corrupt customs officials, and that they just busted a racket that had been operating ON THE SAME DAY that her flight took off just lends weight to the argument that someone planted the drugs in her bag which were meant to be collected in sydney

they couldn't use that in the court room, if i'm not mistaken. although it is pretty strong evidence for corby.

 

[spell check]

When Bali bombers Amrozi, Muhklas and Imam Samudra were sentenced to death by the same court that is trying Corby, this was widely celebrated here, with some Australians offering to pull the trigger or burn them alive, and our Government indicating that execution was appropriate. In light of this, how can our Government now claim that death is a barbaric punishment, as popular opinion has it, if it is imposed on Corby or, as is more likely, the Bali nine?

uh, is he suggesting that the death penalty should apply to all crimes or something? it's fair to make a distinction between supporting the death penalty for bombers who indiscriminately killed however many hundred people, and opposing the death penalty for bringing 4 kg of a relatively harmless substance into a country

 

[Comrade nathan]

I expecting more of a big brother live verdict spin.

You know where the go live to Corby's home town, and they are all there in the local RSL with banners. You know with drunk cousins being morons, the usuall.

I am very shocked that the media haven't explioted this case to its full extent.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

AG Philip Ruddock has indicated that virtually all agreements to serve sentences in other countries involve the same length of prison sentence. So if she is sentenced to 10 years over there, it is 99% certain it will be 10 years here.

 

[spell check]

the prosecution would still have to show she at least knew or should have known that the drugs were there

 

[absolution*]

whats the deal with non-parole? anyone?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

the prosecution would still have to show she at least knew or should have known that the drugs were there

In Australian law with regards to proving she had possession, yes, they would have to show knowledge of the drugs being there or awareness of the probability of the drugs being there. This knowledge can be inferred, based on evidence provided by the customs official of her nervousness, the fact it was her luggage, etc. However we do have deeming provisions in NSW drug law statutes that state that you are assumed to have intended to supply/sell drugs if you are found in possession of them over a certain quantity (which she would have been -- 4.1 kg).

 

[spell check]

In Australian law with regards to proving she had possession, yes, they would have to show knowledge of the drugs being there or awareness of the probability of the drugs being there. This knowledge can be inferred, based on evidence provided by the customs official of her nervousness, the fact it was her luggage, etc. However we do have deeming provisions in NSW drug law statutes that state that you are assumed to have intended to supply/sell drugs if you are found in possession of them over a certain quantity (which she would have been -- 4.1 kg).

can you really can infer her awareness that drugs were in her bag from "the fact it was her luggage"

the customs official seems to have mistaken "yes it is my bag" to mean "yes they are my drugs"

 

[m111]

So let me get this straight...

A ex-beauty student is found to have smuggled (with or without her knowledge) 4.1kg pot into the country = 20 years
A cleric is found responsible of 101 deaths = 2 years

 

[MoonlightSonata]

can you really can infer her awareness that drugs were in her bag from "the fact it was her luggage"

Perhaps not soley on that fact - there was evidence that she was acting nervous or shifty and went white or some such behaviour as well. But using common sense, shouldn't the fact that the drugs were in her bag put up a small presumption that whatever was in the bag did belong to her? For instance, if you found a necklace in her luggage you would assume it was hers. You would not think someone had planted the necklace there. Logically the fact that the drugs were in her bag tends to suggest that it was hers, albeit not a definitive inference.

the customs official seems to have mistaken "yes it is my bag" to mean "yes they are my drugs"

Yes I noticed that also, I'm not sure whether the judges picked that up

 

[spell check]

Perhaps not soley on that fact - there was evidence that she was acting nervous or shifty and went white or some such behaviour as well. But using common sense, shouldn't the fact that the drugs were in her bag put up a small presumption that whatever was in the bag did belong to her? For instance, if you found a necklace in her luggage you would assume it was hers. You would not think someone had planted the necklace there. Logically the fact that the drugs were in her bag tends to suggest that it was hers, albeit not a definitive inference.

Yes I noticed that also, I'm not sure whether the judges picked that up

the judges seem to have leant the same way as the customs official. in the judgement one mentioned schappelle saying 'yes it is mine' or 'yes its marijuana'

and sure you would presume that something in someone's bag belongs to them but when that something is 4 kg of marijuana you'd want more than just a presumption in order to convict them of importing drugs

it is far more likely that 4kg of drugs would have been planted in her bag than a necklace, and in my opinion far more likely that the drugs would have been planted in her bag by this recently exposed drug racket than corby herself take 4kg of drugs on holiday with her