<< BAD NEWS IN IRAQ - FOR ZARQAWI ~ MAIN ~ CORBY TRIAL >>
GUILT OBVIOUS
The ABC’s Peter Lloyd meets some Schapelle Corby supporters in Bali, and sets them straight about Corby’s guilt:
These visitors represent the sharp end of public opinion, which has overwhelming faith in Schapelle Corby’s innocence, regardless of the prima facie evidence of her guilt and the utter failure of her defence team to prove assertions that she was set up.
Let her face the firing squad, then. Lloyd next mocks the those who believe the “attractive doe-eyed woman often described as a former beauty student is the innocent victim of a mysterious drug smuggling network and a corrupt legal system.” So cynical! Yet Lloyd was far more forgiving of Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad after the then-prime minister lashed out against world-controlling Jews:
This racist tirade was mildly characterised by ABC radio’s Peter Cave and Peter Lloyd as “calling on the world’s Muslim community to unite and take a lesson on survival from the Jews” and “to in some ways emulate their response to oppression”.
Lloyd also has special gifts that allow him to predict events, such as when he reported from a US media centre in Iraq prior to any press conference:
These media briefings will be selective, self-serving and at times perhaps, even worse … In the last Gulf War the truths, half-truths and what some say were downright fibs were presented from the podium by ‘Storming’ Norman Schwartzkopf. This time around the Americans are going for a different, arguably more devious approach.
Selective, self-serving, devious ... he’s just described the ABC.
Tim
Firstly, I hope to hell, for her sake, that she’s found innocent - regardless of her guilt. Also, I think drug trafficking should be decriminalised.
That said, the reality is that her defence is as weak as piss and has punctuated by a series of stunts which bordered on contempt.
The judges can only make decisions based upon evidence before the court - not emotion, hearsay on hearsay, and letters from the PM - and if you look at the evidence, she’s in a world of trouble. I doubt she’d be found not guilty in an Australian court.
The real issue isn’t whether she’s innocent or guilty Murph. It’s whether a country we’ve just given a billion dollars to and sacrificed nine service personnel for has any sort of fucking right to machine-gun a young woman for taking a bag of hooch (coal) to Bali (Newcastle).
Oh, you might say they won’t actually go ahead with the death sentence - just a life sentence or a long stretch. Not quite as barbaric but also unacceptable. Everyone knows the country’s full of drugs, its polce are corrupt, that witnesses and suspects get conveniently shot during arrest and that Corby is likely to be targeted (already has, in fact) by the likes of our holy Islamic friends like Amrosi in jail.
I also note that since big majorities of Australians started being recorded favouring Corby, the left has turned against supporting her. They don’t want to side with the Ray Martin set.
1. Indonesian Master Terrorist? - difficult to prove? 2.5 YEARS - if he serves full sentence.
2. Young Australian Marijuana Smuggler? - likely to be found guilty despite the anomalies and uncertainties of the case, and life in prison is the result?
If the Indonesians want to be respected and have their legal system respected they will have to do better than this - in Australia there is an extensive process involving the Director Of Public Prosecutions, and Commital Proceedings before a case goes to trial. Cases unlikely to be proven to a jury’s satisfaction do not proceed.
The Corby case has proceeded despite the lack of proper procedure, and is based on disputed evidence.
There are no weigh-in or fingerprint records. The bag was out of her control for extended periods. There was no motive. I do not believe she would be convicted here even if guilty, as our justice system has much more of a safeguard against wrongful conviction - yet they still happen.CL seems to have forgotten the Australian case involving Masaharu Katsuno, a Japanese woman, in the early 90s. She, with others, was arrested at Tullamarine with 13kg of heroin and subsequently used the ‘Corby defence’. There was a huge stink in Japan with our justice system and police being called every rotten name under the sun. Ten years in Pentridge. How hypocritical we are when the boot is on the other foot.
Read about it here.
We still don’t have the really vital news - the provenance of Schapelle. Where did Mum and Dad get the name from?
Posted by walterplinge on 2005 05 26 at 07:48 PM • permalink3. That would be “Stormin’ Norman”, not Storming Norman.
Actually, they got it wrong on two counts. It’s not Storming Norman, as you say, but Stormin’ Norman. It’s also not Schwartzkopf, but rather Schwarzkopf.
Well, two out of three ain’t bad. Oops, I guess they’ll have to settle for one out of three.
CL
Whilst I’m not with the mob on this one, I’m certainly not of the Left (you know that). From the evidence that I’ve managed to see (filtered through the ignoramuses which infest the Australian media pack), suggests that the most likely explanation for the drugs in her boogie board bag is that she put it there.
All my info is that she’s guilty, at least in reference to how the charge reads in Indonesian law. If the Customs Act in Australia hadn’t been fucked by by the LRC under Labor, she would have had no defence here- importation was an absolute offence- if it was in your possession, it was yours. The LRC added the rider of section 233B(1a) which inserted the provision of knowingly and recklessly, the defence used by Corby (and everyone apprehended at an Australian airport). There’s no such provision in the Indonesian Act, and therefore she is duckshit. I find it odd how a groundswell of bogan/white leghorn support can cause this government to jump around like a cat on a griddle- I wonder if the same support would apply to some skinny, toothless junky in the same circumstances. I haven’t noticed the Womens mag set rallying around the “Bali 9” several of whom are looking at the high jump. I have no sympathy for Australians who commit offences in foreign jurisdictions who then bitch about harsh penalties- it’s easy to avoid, don’t do the act in question. BTW, I believe in legalisation (and taxation) of all drugs, and removal of disability status for addicts/users.
I agree with Habib and others,
Ms. Corby took a boogie board to Bali, yet her sister owns a surf shop. Surf shops are an excellent conduit for a score for surfers. You have recent reports that westerners will only buy their grass from a westerner owing to plain clothes police who are Indonesian, her sister is a westerner. She picked up a boogie board bag and didn’t realise it was over 4kg heavier? Possibly double the board’s weight. she said one thing regarding her family’s record and another to 60 minutes, what then is the truth?
Whilst all of this may well be circumstantial, I still believe that she is possibly guilty though there is some doubt.Where the Australian burden of proof extends to ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ she may well have ‘got off’ here.
However, the point about the punishment compared with both that crime and the crimes of others is a moot one.
Murph: I’ve never been interested in whether she’s guilty or not. The sentence is barbaric and immoral. Carrying it out (whether life or death) is unacceptable between two countries constantly bullshitting each other like two drunks at a bar about how much they roilly love one another. There must be a prisoner transfer agreement for all such cases.
As far as the left is concerned - in whose number I don’t count your good self of course! - I’ve noticed some of them have started saying ‘she’s white with nice eyes and nicer tits, that’s why they’re supporting her in Current Affair Land.’ The same people see terrorist pondscum, David Hicks, as a victim whose fate worries them extravagantly.
I agree with you on a lot of things, CL, but here we differ; whether of not the penalty is barbaric, the offence has occurred in their jurisdiction. Why should Australian citizens be exempt from the penalty applied to nationals of the country involved (and other countries that don’t have a favoured status?) I note the absence of fuss over the two Australian citizens of Vietnamese background currently under death sentences in Hong Kong and Singapore- apparently the media and the great mass of bogandom only are concerned when it’s one of their own kind, especially one who bursts into tears and feints on cue.
Hypocritical arseholes.The Corby case is important to us for a variety of reasons. First, the media coverage. Although there are many other Australians who have been caught with drugs overseas Schapelle is obviously sexy and obviously willing to play up for the cameras. This alone ensures enough coverage for us to be aware of her situation and then all the “female” plays come into force the tears, fainting, requests for leniency. These tactics work on us at home and they certainly work on us through the media.
Paul: I first mentioned Nguyen Tuong Van on my blog mid-March but I agree with you and Allan that the media are driven by images judged saleable. (Witness the ridiculous behaviour of channel nine).
People think differently about heroin than they do about weed. Especially given there’s no shortage of the latter in Bali. However, as someone who opposes the death penalty being imposed on anyone - and who respects that other people think differently about that - I’m as concerned about the others as I am about Schappelle.
I don’t see the relevance of the social class factor you highlight. Bogans are also the biggest supporters of the British royals in all their travails. They’re not exactly class comrades.
If it was some Hooray Henry from Scotch or Melbourne Grammar there wouldn’t be the same support from bogandom, however (but at least they’d have a decent lawyer). One of the “Bali 9” is a Churchie boy, played in the same team as my offsider’s nephew- obviosly Ray et al know their demographic, and play to it.
I can’t see how she’s shown any reasonable doubt at all. Someone set me up has to be the lamest story every. I think the idea that baggage handlers are sending drugs from one state to another pretty unlikely. Much safer to send the drugs by car or truck. Quite different from overseas importing.
As for handling the evidence, it was in her bag, sure they didn’t fingerprint, but lack of fingerprints would not be conclusive anyway. She might have worn gloves and even if someone else put them in, that doesn’t mean she didn’t know the drugs were there.
As for doubling the weight of a boogie board, 4 kilos is way more than double.
The argument it is too stupid to be true doesn’t wash. How dumb was the hiding place for the Bali 9. The one drug smuggler I know was busted with bags of heroin in his jocks. Plus, ptetty hard to carry 4 kilos of weed by swallowing condoms.
What ever you think about drug laws, I think it is very hard to see how she can be acquitted on the laws that are there.
I never thought I would say this, but I agree with the opinion pice in the Sydney Morning Herald (runs out and gags).
Her defense is weak, at best only imposes reasonable doubt. Will that be enough?
Concern about the penalty is troubling, but should not obscure the issue of whether or not the justice system should find her guilty, which determination must be made on the evidence before it. I guess we will all find out soon enough.We had a saying in the Sierra team at Brisbane Airport- all we catch are users and losers; to start with, only amateurs still run product through areas as heavily policed as airports- light aircraft, yachts and modified containers can carry tons rather than kilos; we pinched a yacht in Hervey Bay with 30 tons of hash in its keel. Airport siezures are good publicity, but inconsequential, and very expensive for the limited results. I wonder if she’ll spill her guts now she’s been sent off, and tip the cart on other family members or travel companions? (Her legal advice was ratshit from the word go- a guilty plea would’ve gotten her about 7-8 years first up, knocked down to maybe 2 on appeal with Presidential intervention; all the blather about dodgy baggage handlers etc was hearsay and inadmissable, so unless she could’ve gotten some other party to put their hand up, she never had a defence).
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
This time around the Americans are going for a different, arguably more devious approach.
Arguably! See, I’m not biased!