Schapelle Corby is innocent

[Dominic]

Holiday maker with 4.1 kg of Marijuana worth $80,000

Why would Schapelle carry this amount of drugs to a country that forbids it, especially on her holiday? Why would Schapelle endanger her family?

Why bring the drugs to Bali where they can be bought at a fraction of the price.

Why inside the Boogie Board bag? Why such an obvious place?

The media and the web community have been speculating over these questions for months. But there is one simple truth.

Schapelle Corby is innocent.

And the facts are here to prove it. You be the judge.

Fact 1:

Schapelle’s dad stated that he saw Shapelle pack her luggage.

Fact 2:

Brisbane airport have sent a legal letter stating Schapelle Corbys bag was x-rayed whilst in holding, she did not have access to the bag again until after she landed in Bali. The bag was cleared for any prohibited contents and then transferred from Brisbane to Bali, via Sydney.

Fact 3:

Australian Federal Police (AFP) requested a sample of the weed she was caught with so they could determine where it was grown.

The Indonesian Police will not comply as they say they have tested it.. they said it is "marijuana" and that is all the information they require.

Fact 4:

The AFP requested to finger print the plastic bag the weed was contained in… the Indonesian Police have advised this is not possible as it has all their finger prints over it.. Not wearing gloves whilst handling evidence, sounds really obvious if you ask me.

Fact 5:

Schapelle Corby’s lawyers have demanded video footage from Bali airport, alledgedly showing Schapelle attempting to stop the custom officer from unzipping her bag. The footage was not produced.

Fact 6:

Gold Coast businessman, Ron Bakir, fowarded a sworn statement from an unnamed source which supported the claim of Schapelle?s innocence.
The statement supports that Schapelle Corby is a victim of Australian drug trafficking ring.

[beatonthestreet]

Tis a scary story for sure..

petitionspot.com/petitions/corby
I was sent this petition...

[bruceisright]

I am deeply distressed by the number of people being suckered in by our vary biased – Americanised media – wake up AUSTRALIANS!

Fact – in October / November Corby’s case comes to light – a smiling Corby greets the media with a flicker and bat of her eye lashes.
Fact – either she was a complete idiot and totally did not understand what she could be charged for or this was a publicity stunt!
Fact – there are 46 Australian in overseas prisons up for drug charges and two are currently facing the death penalty. Would we care if Corby was a 40 year old ugly looking person?
Fact – The Australian’s whom requested their money back from charities and whom are making treats to Indonesian’s or their embassies should be ashamed of themselves – how disgusting are us Australian’s willing to get – how low are we willing to stoop.

Wake up Australia before it’s too late!!! The media evokes hate – angry and aggression – don’t be fools of the press!

[AyaBrea]

Dominic, i want to say something about the facts to prove Schapelle Corby is innocent in relation to your facts:
Fact 1: so? i am pretty sure he did not stay next to her the whole time to watch her pack her bag
Fact 2:if the x-ray scanners are so reliable, drugs shouldn't be able to be smuggled, but everyone knows drugs are still being smuggled everyday
Fact 3:so? that is not a useful fact. quite pointless
Fact 4: Do the custom officiers who check the bags wear gloves? i m not sure about that one
Fact 5: this does not prove anything. She could still be guilty
Fact 6: notice u said "unnamed source"

I do not have prove to say she is guilty, but i want to make clear of some points
1. if there was "4.1kg" of drugs in your bag, i am pretty sure you can feel it
2. 4.1kg of drugs are expensive. If they were smuggled by "ringleader", i think they would be hidden well (Schapelle Corby might be stupid)
3. are you telling me out of so many people, Schapelle Corby was somehow chosen to be planted with drugs? Not likely

One more thing, Domnic, you said that drugs can be bought cheaper in Bali. The main reason to smuggle drugs is for money, to EARN money not for personal uses.

I m extremely disappointed and scared by Australians when they said they want their money back. That is just so sad. Donations are made out of genoristy. I have one word to describe Australians (this is a sterotyped statement): IDIOTS

[Dominic]

People who send poison powder to an embassy (if it was over Schapelle Corby’s case) would have sent it given any excuse. She is just their excuse to vent over issues they already had before anyone was arrested. Has noting to do with how anyone else feels about it.

If Schapelle Corby is guilty, she would get probably 2 or 3 years prison for the same offence in Australia. 20 years and just escaping the death penalty is completely unreasonable in the eyes of a lot of Australians. A lot of people locked up for murder in Australia are paroled before 20 years.

How long were people involved in the Bali bombings sentenced to?

The 'facts' I posted were copy and pasted from a website about Schapelle Corby. So I didn't write them myself but felt they raised some important points.

Yes the media was ecstatic when Schapelle Corby’s case came along, they made tons of money out of it.

And quite possibly the reason why she didn't get a death penalty was because of diplomatic reasons.

The money that has been given to the tsunami relief has been given. You can't get it back once you have given it. Once the charities receive it, which they already have, they must spend it on the project they said they would when they asked for it.

All this crap about not supporting the tsunami relief because of Schapelle Corby’s sentence is just the media. They found a few people to whinge about it and make a comment. That's all it is. So the money have been given, a f'n lot mind you, and is still going to be spent on it's original purpose.

There are idiots in every country. My problem is with the media who know exactly what they are doing and that's stirring up emotions to make money selling advertising on their TV shows, in their newspapers and on their radio stations.

At least donations were raised when they did their coverage of the tsunami. Some good came of the media circus surrounding it.

And your stereotyped impressions of the idiots comes... only from what you read / hear / watch *wait for it* ... in the media!

[AyaBrea]

Yes, to some Australians, the sentence was harsh. However i believe that the sentence was not harsh at all because the Indonesia has had this policy for a long time. Each country is governed by differnet laws and the punishment is quite different. She is already lucky not receiving a death sentence.

Each country interprets a crime diffently. Some might see drugs as a more serious offence than terriost attacks and such.

And it is true that the media changes alot of people's feelings and intrepretations to an issue. We don't really know whats real and whats not.

[richie420]

4.1 kg times 2.2 = 9.02 lbs

hmmmmm

2000 $can
OR 3000++++ U$

+18,000 canadian upto approx $27,000 US
AUS approximate equal to canadian$

where do you guys get these prices? you're getting ripped off

[richie420]

what is australia's position on marijuana?

[Rose]

Money and the Corby Case:

Prices - well, they are very likely based on police estimates of the value of any confiscated illegal drugs, which is calculated using a stretchy scale and a vivid imagination, for presentation at any ensuing court case. Live plants are usually valued at their expected street price after they are fully grown, that is, small tree size, and harvested and packaged into individual saleable lots. Thus, a small plant on a window sill may stun its owner, when confiscated, by being worth a small fortune.

For those who do not live in Australia, and may not have been subjected to the media hype surrounding the Schapelle Corby case - the important fact here is simply that the price of marijuana in Indonesia is many times lower than the price in Australia. Schapelle was charged, in an Indonesian court, with smuggling a fairly large amount of the substance FROM Australia TO Indonesia.

If she had bought the dope in Australia, she could only have sold it in Indonesia for a fraction of its purchase price. From all accounts, marijuana is not difficult to buy in Indonesia; it would hardly seem that she would have taken it there for personal use, when she could have bought it there, for peanuts. Personal use doesn't make a lot of sense either, when you consider that she was only going over there for a two-week holiday. Four and a half kilos? In two weeks? Between four people? That'd be some holiday.

She could not have expected to sell it for profit, because of the price differences. To say that "Schapelle Corby might be stupid" is speculative at best, AyaBrea. Do you think drug "ringleaders" are intelligent? Do you think a young woman who had been saving money for a holiday would carry a large amount of drugs for any reasons other than personal use, or to finance her holiday? If she owned those drugs, and had sold them in Australia before she left, she could have treated herself and her group of friends to a five-star holiday with the proceeds.

That's why people talk about the prices, Richie - the price thing makes no sense, and a lot of people think it points to her innocence. The truth is, we probably really have no idea how much the actual bag of dope was worth. Dominic will be going on the reports we've seen here. But the actual figure isn't important - just be aware that there's a major difference between the countries. She would have had to be REALLY bad at maths.

As for people who said they wanted their tsunami donations back - can we leave them out of this? I'm sorry, but I fail to see the connection with Schapelle Corby's guilt or innocence. These people were upset, and justifiably frightened at the verdict, and the sentence. Their reaction was a knee-jerk one, and was very likely regretted later. We have no data on how many of these people later called back to apologise for that. These are not things that should be brought up in a discussion about Corby's guilt or innocence, because they are separate from, and irrelevant to, that issue.

[Rose]

Schapelle Corby's Personal Appearance.

I get very tired of hearing people say things like "would we care if Corby was a forty year old ugly looking person"? Or waffling about the "flicker and bat" of the eyelashes.
What a load of.

In answer to your question Bruceisright - by the way, are you sure about that name? I knew a dog named Bruce - he always thought he was right too - good dog though - however.....I digress. Where was I? Ah yes, the question: can I point out to you the recent media hype and the recent efforts of Australians on behalf of one Douglas Wood, held captive by extremists in Iraq?

Now, if you cast your mind back, you will recall that Douglas was old; he was also magnificently ugly. He doesn't even live in Australia. You will also recall that the Australian people did not go, "urrgh, he's ugly, and worse, he's old - we're not going to help him". The public took him to its heart; a lot of people did whatever they could to help, including one man who went over to Iraq and negotiated for his release. Even after Douglas had been released, and appeared on our televisions manifesting as the classic "ugly Australian abroad", a la Sir Les Patterson, even then, we didn't give him back to the terrorists.

So if you're male, and it wasn't you Schapelle Corby fluttered her eyelashes for, or if you're female, and your eyelashes are kind of short, perhaps you could take a look at the fact that this facet of the case is about as irrelevant as it gets. Talking about her looks in this context just makes you sound unintelligent - don't do it. Especially when you've come on the forum to claim we're all media pawns.

And even more especially when you have something to say about evoking hate. What is that but evoking hate? Bagging all your fellow Australians like that? If what you have to say is not in some way constructive, why say it? On a forum such as this, all of us who post must accept the fact that we ARE the media. What we post here is available to English-speaking people all over the world. People in countries where the Corby case never made it to the press are getting this story from US. It is imperative, therefore, that we behave responsibly. Each of us is entitled to express our opinion; just do it with respect for the opinions of others.

Headings such as "Australians are stupid" are inflammatory, and don't do anything to remove their author from his own generalisation. Speak for yourself.....on reflection, I think I'll re-phrase that: speak ONLY for yourself.

Schapelle Corby's personal appearance, as far as I can see, has proved a major stumbling block to her, because of the attitudes of people who somehow find it relevant to the facts. The press lit on it immediately; she looks great on television, and it has done her case no good at all. Finally, BruceIR, perhaps you could take some time out to reflect on the fact that long eyelashes over big green eyes are always going to be a noticeable feature of those who possess them. Try not to make the all-too-common male mistake of taking it personally when an attractive woman blinks in your presence.

[Rose]

The Corby Case AGAIN - yep, they've really got Rose going today....but will they be able to stop her? That's the question.........

The Facts:

Actually, I thought the facts that Dominic collected deserved more respect than they got. Think about it folks - if Schapelle Corby is innocent, then it could happen to you, it could happen to me. Who wants to live in a world where you're not safe even if you're innocent?

One person pointed out that there are 46 Australians in overseas prisons, and we don't hear about them. True. But my perception of this case is that a very large number of Australians feel that Corby may be innocent of the charges that were laid against her. That's one reason people are interested; the other is the enormous length of the sentence. How old will you be in twenty years' time?

The media has blown it into something else entirely, because Corby makes good television. Television news is dependant on the availability of visual images. Very important news items may be omitted or marginalised if there are no good visual images to back them. Very unimportant stories may be elevated to ridiculous prominence if images are available.

If the images are dramatic, or emotional, or even just pleasing to the eye, so much the better. For the first weeks of Corby's ordeal, all we heard of her was from small articles deep inside the newspapers. Then the television news crews twigged that she fulfilled all the above criteria, and she was being tried in courts that allow almost unlimited media intrusion. The whole thing promptly became a circus. Just the thing to boost the careers of a lot of television reporters. So how much of what the media presents us with should we believe?

Bruceisright - you feel that it may have been a publicity stunt? Who do you think needed publicity? For what purpose?

"Complete idiot and totally did not understand" does not qualify as a fact. It's speculation.

AyaBrea - Fact 1 - I'm not sure which part of your statement is a 'fact'. Why are you 'pretty sure'? Do you have some evidence that hasn't come out in the courts?

Fact 2 - Drugs are smuggled in many ways, not all of which would be picked up by xrays. I think you'll find that, no matter how sophisticated airport security measures get, drugs WILL still be smuggled. This is not evidence of anything except that the drug trade is active. I'm not sure what your point is. But have you never seen a body board? They are flat. They are smooth. The appearance of one would be dramatically altered on an xray screen by the presence of lots of little squiggly things, which is how plant stems would appear.

Fact 3 - What?! This is the most important fact of all; absolutely crucial. What if it turned out that the plants were grown in Indonesia or Thailand? Can't you see that some locations would indicate that the drugs had come from importers, or from locations Schapelle Corby couldn't have got them from?

Fact 4 - Customs officers don't wear gloves while checking baggage, but all law enforcement agencies, at the moment they perceive that they may be handling things that could become evidence in criminal proceedings, should immediately don them, so that they don't put their own fingerprints on potential evidence.
This was another piece of crucial evidence. A lack of her fingerprints on the bag would not have proved that she was innocent; but if they really thought she was guilty, there was their opportunity to try to prove it. If her fingerprints had been on it, then clearly, she was guilty, and no Australian could argue.

Fact 5 - You're right; she could still be guilty. Equally, she could still be innocent.

Fact 6 - I don't know where you learned about law, but wherever it was, you should ask for your money back. The first rule is to READ ALL of a sentence. A sworn statement is just that. It is sworn, on a Bible, or some other object with great meaning for the person doing the swearing. There are heavy penalties for lying in such a statement. You cannot swear a statement about, or obtain a statement from, an 'unnamed person'. Dominic said a statement FROM an unnamed source. That doesn't mean the source is unnamed in the statement; they can't be. That simply means that Ron Bakir is not telling us, the Australian public, who the statement is from, because it's none of our business.

I think you probably would notice an extra four and a half kilos in your luggage, but at this point I feel as if I'm banging my head on the wall - please go back and READ Dominic's fact 2, THEN answer it.

Yes, 4.1 kilos of drugs are expensive, and Schapelle Corby may well be stupid; I don't know her, so I couldn't say.
Equally, Schapelle Corby may be highly intelligent; I don't know her, so I couldn't say.

I guess the media HAS told you that out of so many people Schapelle Corby was 'somehow chosen', but why do you say 'not likely'? Do you know how many tickets are sold in each weekly lottery? Do you think it's unlikely that anybody wins, despite the chances of doing so being infinitesimally small? Would you consider Schapelle Corby 'not likely' to win a lottery? Who would you class as 'more likely'?
If, as has been claimed, baggage handlers have been smuggling drugs between Australian capital cities by putting them in distinctive bags that can be picked out at the other end, I would think that Corby, with a bright blue body board bag, would be unusually likely to be used. Some voices within the criminal community have been raised to say that this is exactly what did happen. They claim that a mistake was made in putting it in a bag bound for Indonesia; it was not supposed to leave Australia. They have even named the people they say did it. This is where the origin of the drugs could help shed light; it might be part of a confiscated drug haul from somewhere else; a part that the police didn't get.

When Dominic said that drugs can be bought more cheaply in Bali, I believe he was referring to the fact that it makes no sense at all to smuggle drugs from here to there in order to sell them. I don't believe he was inferring that Schapelle could have picked up a smoke more cheaply on Kuta Beach.

I don't know whether Schapelle Corby is innocent or guilty. Neither does anybody else on this forum. However, I think it's a cautionary tale for all of us, and we need to think about the implications of the questions Dominic put to us. Because next time, it could be you.

Think about it. Really think about it. Keep in mind that if it ever happens to you, back here in Australia, you'll have all these people saying all these things - going on about your batting eyelashes, while you stand there in front of a firing squad waiting for the bullets to rip into your body. Graphic eh? It's what could have happened to Schapelle Corby.

What makes so many Australians so sure it couldn't happen to them?

I believe that's what Dominic wanted us to consider.

[Konstantìn]

As opposed to civilised countries,
where police can walk up to you on a train,
and pump five bullets into your brain.

Sorry still sore about that incident.

In latest revelations it turns out he wasn't wearing a coat, he didn't run, he was just sitting on a train, when a someone walked up pulled a gun, and stuck it in his face, that's when he tried to get up, and the guy behind him pinned him down while the first dude put the gun to his head and shot him.

And it would appear he was dead from the time he left the apartment, and that there is no conceivable course of action he could have taken that would have saved his life, because he was never challanged and never given an opportunity to surrender.

Scotland Yard, the specialists in mass terror.

Back on topic.

What makes you think Australian police are any better?

I've done Jury Duty on a Reefer trial.

It was funny as anything, but quite farcical.
The police made a few little mistakes, like they forgot to take fingerprints of anything. One of the police officers didn't bother reviewing the case before coming to court and then had a bit of dutch courage first so he was staggering to the stand and might have been able to remember more if he hadn't need all his focus to not slur badly.

And 2 pound of weed disappeared between the crime scene, and the evidence lockup. And the police officers explanation was, "well sometimes it
can settle in transport."

I have 10 pound of settled feathers, and 10 pound of unsettled feathers.
They both weigh 10 pound. Never more, never less.
If they suddenly weigh eight pound it's because someone took two.

We had fun with that while locked in the jury room.
"Some smoking of contents may occur" and so on.

Needless to say it was decent of the guy to end up re-pleading as guilty, because we were going to let him go.

Konstantìn.

[richie420]

have you never reached into a bag, suitcase or knapsack without looking? fingerprints don't actually PROVE anything except you touched it, they also dont PROVE WHEN you touched it, as in, i have sandwich bags at home, in an open box that i have touched, someone else takes a bag and puts drugs in it, now my prints are on a bag of drugs, but i never touched the bag when the drugs were in it, get it?

Fact 4 - Customs officers don't wear gloves while checking baggage, but all law enforcement agencies, at the moment they perceive that they may be handling things that could become evidence in criminal proceedings, should immediately don them, so that they don't put their own fingerprints on potential evidence.
This was another piece of crucial evidence. A lack of her fingerprints on the bag would not have proved that she was innocent; but if they really thought she was guilty, there was their opportunity to try to prove it. If her fingerprints had been on it, then clearly, she was guilty, and no Australian could argue

[richie420]

it has!!!!
(and no i wont tell you about it!!!)

What makes so many Australians so sure it couldn't happen to them?

I believe that's what Dominic wanted us to consider.

[Rose]

The fingerprint thing was about the fact that Schapelle Corby's defence, via the Australian government, asked to be allowed to take fingerprints, because she claimed that she had never touched the bag. The request was officially refused on the grounds that customs officials and Indonesian police had left THEIR fingerprints all over it. Of course, the lack of Corby's fingerprints would not have proved that it wasn't hers - but it still would have counted as favourable evidence, and it's apalling police practise. You have to question why they would have denied her the chance to show that she had not touched the bag.

As you've no doubt gathered, I have strong feelings about this, and also, in common with Konstantin, about the Brazilian guy. The reason I feel strongly is that I feel as though I am potentially in every bit as much danger as these people proved to be, as I go about my daily business, just as they were doing. Like the Brazilian guy, I think Schapelle Corby was sunk from moment 1 - they were going to lock her up, guilty or not guilty, and that was that, just as the Brazilian guy was dead the moment he walked out his door.

Also, according to the latest reports from the "investigation", he was shot in the head EIGHT times. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought those things the police carried only had six bullets. At present indications, however, it doesn't look as though we are going to see an open public inquiry, much less murder charges. But then, my information comes from the media, the only place I can get it, and is therefore subject to all the limitations we've talked about above.

It scares the hell out of me that so many Australians are so blase about these things. A couple of years ago, I'll bet Schapelle Corby would have been one of the people joining in the debate about whether this person was guilty or not, confidently assuming that it could not happen to her.

The point here really is not the guilt or innocence of the people involved; it's whether innocent people in the community have anything to fear. People who carry drugs in places like Indonesia are fools; the penalties there, and the wielding of the law, are savage and complete.

The appeals and sympathies shown by Australian courts don't apply - and if you were about to argue that our courts are tough and unreasonable, do some research first. Comparatively, Australia's drug laws and those who administer them are milksops. Your life is over the moment the Indonesian authorities find something on you. So you carry nothing that could incriminate you, and you'll be fine, right? Well, count me among the people who is not sure enough of that to ever risk visiting Indonesia.

[Konstantìn]

Actually Indonesian justice can be quite flexible and merciful if you have the right influence, or the right sort of money. IMHO.

Ritche:
Actually it wasn't an object, it was a room with dope in it, and he claimed never to have been in that room or anywhere near it, if his fingerprints had been found all over it, that doesn't prove him guilty, but it would leave him with some explaining to do. .

Konstantìn.

[urchinnz]

meh....

innocent. they should give the stupid game up *angry*

[Rose]

The Corby family - the media have treated us to a variety of stories about them. Some of these stories have been quite negative.

But through it all, regardless of whatever is said, one fact presents itself very clearly - the Corby family is immovably determined to support their girl through whatever happens to her, for as long as it takes.

When she is released, whenever that is, they will be waiting to help her pick up the pieces of her life. For all the troubles she has, she nevertheless enjoys this greatest of gifts. How many people whose lives have veered off the track are lacking that basic security? On a forum such as this, it's something to think about - the value of a supportive family in times of trouble.

What do other people think?

[Dominic]

I watched most of the part one and part two Schapelle Corby program on channel 9 tonight and the other night. One of the lawyers or supporters is lined up to do their current affairs program Wednesday night. Four hours of content in prime time plus a spot on the current affairs program.... channel 9 is making a lot of money out of this. From what I've seen in the doco... no outcome or breakthrough was presented. Just a lot of content swaying this way and that way with no real substance. The program aimed to entertain and provided no clear line of argument or defense or exposure.

Guilty or not... the Schapelle Corby program on channel 9 was a money making exercise. The doco was many years in the making... with the obvious end result being the making of money... by the Corby camp and happily aired by channel 9.

The reason for this thread and this updated post is to open discussion and challenge the passive acceptance of truth via media.

Good luck to Schapelle Corby either way. She is still in jail, I'm not convinced she is guilty and I'm not convinced by the doco that she is innocent.

If she is guilty, I don't believe 20 years is a fair time to serve regardless of remission and regardless of it being Indonesia.

[Magenta]

There are many many supporters of her innocence and many of her guilt...I to watched the 2 part special shown the other week and I have also read her book!
But again I believe strongly that she was set up and used as a decoy from sydney airport to allow a large cocaine smuggling operation get thru...Ior the dope was put in at brisbane by baggage handlers and not removed at sydney for 1 reason or another.... do believe Brisbane airport would have noticed a weight or large bag of dope on their xrays which all domestic airports do even in small country towns! U all sumtimes forget we have increased security checks for potential explosives etc even aerosal cans with no lids are picked up! And...you have to take your bloody shoes off and put them thru to if theres a heel!!
I am not interested in her or her families histories, these days who hasnt tried sumthing or knows people have its all part of growing up nearly every teenager tries smoking, drinking, marijuana...its not a justification to pursue her family over their supposed guilt!
A young womn 28 no children no partner why would she risk all of that for marijuana so deliberately hidden in an easy access manner....she is not that stupid she has been to bali b4 she knows the warnings!
This could happen to any1...you dont know and that is scary....I have been to Bali twice and your right, money talks...its all about money! Anything is possible with money!
I had a guy approach us trying to sell us E's and I said noooooo way go away! I didnt even want to be seen talkin to him, then b4 u know it cops would appear and ud be locked up like that other chick was for the possession of 1 pill.