My thoughts are swaying! - Page 8

admin · 02-28-2007, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sturuomo

I have been assimilated into the BORG. Resistence is futile.

Schapelle Corby is Innocent. The cannabis was placed into her bag by someone in Bali Airport.

Free Schapelle!

This is the way of the collective.

I am not forcing anything onto anyone. This is the position we choose to take. If you think Schapelle did it then thats fine but THIS site is to support Schapelle. I have an open mind and believe in free speech but in society you just can't do or say whatever you want whenever you want without there being consequences.

Schapelle Corby is indeed innocent .

DJ Wolf · 03-02-2007, 07:25 AM

The weights issue: its printed on your ticket.

Trying to follow this thread is difficult so lets look at the situation as it stands. I know the Bali Police planted the drugs but that doesn't matter. If anyone had accused them and they had to face the charge there is more than enough evidence to convict them in any court of law on the planet.

It doesn't matter whether you believe they planted the drugs or not because the fact that they predetermined the outcome of the trial is there for all to see. You need to realise that the prosecutor needed 2 pieces of evidence under Indonesian law to get a conviction. They had the marijuana and that was the first piece of evidence. Why did they contaminate fingerprints? Did they already know that Schapelle's fingerprints were not on the plastic? How did they know? Psychic? The first two policemen, junior officers, laughed when asked to stop handling the plastic. If they were suprised and unprepared for the find how did they know they would not be reprimanded for destroying what may have been the second piece of evidence needed for a conviction? Was the humour due to the fact that they were using Schapelle as a witness as to when their fingerprints appeared on the bag since they were the ones who planted the drugs - (if someone like the Australian government insisted on fingerprinting)

Then they refused to weigh her luggage and compare it to the weight printed on Schapelle's ticket. Didn't they think she was guilty? After all, the first piece of evidence was the marijuana in Bali. If the weight on the ticket matched the weight with the marijuana in Bali then there is no other explanation - Schapelle had the marijuana when she checked in her bags - game, set and match. There would be no pleading innocent, no doubt. Didn't they want a clean strike? If they were suprised by the find, it would be them insisting that her luggage be weighed. The fact that Schapelle asked to have her luggage weighed... How could she possibly be guilty? If this weighing showed that her luggage was now 4Kg heavier than it had been when she last saw her luggage then someone else put it into her bag. How did the Bali Police know that weighing the luggage would not support the prosecutions case? And, even if you believe that they sneakily weighed it without anyone knowing they still convicted someone they knew to be innocent.

Schapelle signed a form given to her by Lily. This was to give the Australian Federal Police permission to forensically test the drugs. International law stipulates that a defendant has a fair and reasonable access to evidence being presented against them. Schapelle and those she nominates had the right to test the drugs. The Bali Police wrote back to the AFP saying that "their assistance in this matter was not required" and the AFP had a fit. John Howard stated that certain aspects of the case caused him great concern." The problem was that the Bali Police should not have had a say over the defence's access to evidence. This was amended when Hotman Paris Hutapea wrote to the AFP saying that since the country of origin was not in contention there was no need to analyse the marijuana. However, none of the Corbys were informed of Hotman's actions until the trial was nearly over. Hotman was not representing Schapelle any more than Vasu or Lily were.

This wouldn't have been so bad if Schapelle were pleading guilty but she was pleading 'not guilty' and so the prosecution still needed a second piece of evidence to tie her to the marijuana. How did they know Schapelle wore a hair net when she packed the marijuana? Psychic again? Without a hairnet, the person who cured and packed that marijuana would drop hair which would have been caught in the resin. If Schapelle had been guilty the AFP would have found evidence of it. If she wasn't the hair could still lead to an identity match - if not to a particular person, then at least to the race and sex of that person.

Finally, after several months and only days before the trial, the customs officer who could barely speak English 'remembered' that Schapelle had said, "the marijuana is mine." I don't believe that even if I believed that Schapelle was guilty. The problem was that the judge ruled that customs officers were 'officers of the court' and were there to report facts. They could be questioned but they could not be cross-examined as a hostile witness. In other words, their word was not to be doubted. AND THIS WAS THE SECOND PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

Now, Schapelle's lawyers who supposedly weren't representing the interests of the Indonesian government went off on a merry ride around Brisbane and Sydney airports which had absolutely nothing to do with the case. What they didn't do is go to the anti-corruption committee and protest that the Bali Police had cut off every avenue of defence. What did she have left? Prayer? You think I am being facetious. All she retained was the prayer that someone would come forward and admit their guilt. That's not a defence!!!

Schapelle's task was impossible. Without being allowed to collect any evidence she had to prove that she had no knowledge of the drugs. And what did her lawyers do? Everything they could to hurt her. They aligned her with criminals and searched for a guilty Australian baggage handler. What if they had found one? It wouldn't change anything for Schapelle. How is proving that you have no knowledge of the drugs any different than proving that you don't know some baggage handler? IT WASN'T A DEFENCE. They may as well have taken her out on the tarmac and shot her.

And here's the kicker! Want to know why everyone thinks she's guilty? Because she appeared to be so innocent. Everyone thought she was innocent but when our government didn't protest, didn't take action, didn't support her... they were confused. Perhaps our government knows something we don't. That's when the media attacks started and the rumours about the Corby mafia family with the arrests of Clinton etc. Then people were angry and resentful because they felt they had been duped and manipulated by her tears. "How could Schapelle be innocent", they thought. Our government wouldn't condemn an innocent citizen just to protect Sydney baggage handlers... No, but they would to protect representatives of the Indonesian authorities and the Indonesian court.

Maybe people will wake up to the fact that if anything Jodie Powers said was true our police would already have Mercedes and Rose in prison and the very fact that we have witness testimony over three nights along with a viewer phone in poll means that the police find no validity in the accusations. It's a television show. Maybe people will wake up about what was done to Schapelle when David Hicks returns a blubbering mess from 5 years of torture... Oh that's right, our government didn't know... and they don't know what happened in the Bali courtroom either... They were watching the Simpsons during the news.

admin · 03-02-2007, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Wolf

The weights issue: its printed on your ticket.

Trying to follow this thread is difficult so lets look at the situation as it stands. I know the Bali Police planted the drugs but that doesn't matter. If anyone had accused them and they had to face the charge there is more than enough evidence to convict them in any court of law on the planet.

It doesn't matter whether you believe they planted the drugs or not because the fact that they predetermined the outcome of the trial is there for all to see. You need to realise that the prosecutor needed 2 pieces of evidence under Indonesian law to get a conviction. They had the marijuana and that was the first piece of evidence. Why did they contaminate fingerprints? Did they already know that Schapelle's fingerprints were not on the plastic? How did they know? Psychic? The first two policemen, junior officers, laughed when asked to stop handling the plastic. If they were suprised and unprepared for the find how did they know they would not be reprimanded for destroying what may have been the second piece of evidence needed for a conviction? Was the humour due to the fact that they were using Schapelle as a witness as to when their fingerprints appeared on the bag since they were the ones who planted the drugs - (if someone like the Australian government insisted on fingerprinting)

Then they refused to weigh her luggage and compare it to the weight printed on Schapelle's ticket. Didn't they think she was guilty? After all, the first piece of evidence was the marijuana in Bali. If the weight on the ticket matched the weight with the marijuana in Bali then there is no other explanation - Schapelle had the marijuana when she checked in her bags - game, set and match. There would be no pleading innocent, no doubt. Didn't they want a clean strike? If they were suprised by the find, it would be them insisting that her luggage be weighed. The fact that Schapelle asked to have her luggage weighed... How could she possibly be guilty? If this weighing showed that her luggage was now 4Kg heavier than it had been when she last saw her luggage then someone else put it into her bag. How did the Bali Police know that weighing the luggage would not support the prosecutions case? And, even if you believe that they sneakily weighed it without anyone knowing they still convicted someone they knew to be innocent.

Schapelle signed a form given to her by Lily. This was to give the Australian Federal Police permission to forensically test the drugs. International law stipulates that a defendant has a fair and reasonable access to evidence being presented against them. Schapelle and those she nominates had the right to test the drugs. The Bali Police wrote back to the AFP saying that "their assistance in this matter was not required" and the AFP had a fit. John Howard stated that certain aspects of the case caused him great concern." The problem was that the Bali Police should not have had a say over the defence's access to evidence. This was amended when Hotman Paris Hutapea wrote to the AFP saying that since the country of origin was not in contention there was no need to analyse the marijuana. However, none of the Corbys were informed of Hotman's actions until the trial was nearly over. Hotman was not representing Schapelle any more than Vasu or Lily were.

This wouldn't have been so bad if Schapelle were pleading guilty but she was pleading 'not guilty' and so the prosecution still needed a second piece of evidence to tie her to the marijuana. How did they know Schapelle wore a hair net when she packed the marijuana? Psychic again? Without a hairnet, the person who cured and packed that marijuana would drop hair which would have been caught in the resin. If Schapelle had been guilty the AFP would have found evidence of it. If she wasn't the hair could still lead to an identity match - if not to a particular person, then at least to the race and sex of that person.

Finally, after several months and only days before the trial, the customs officer who could barely speak English 'remembered' that Schapelle had said, "the marijuana is mine." I don't believe that even if I believed that Schapelle was guilty. The problem was that the judge ruled that customs officers were 'officers of the court' and were there to report facts. They could be questioned but they could not be cross-examined as a hostile witness. In other words, their word was not to be doubted. AND THIS WAS THE SECOND PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

Now, Schapelle's lawyers who supposedly weren't representing the interests of the Indonesian government went off on a merry ride around Brisbane and Sydney airports which had absolutely nothing to do with the case. What they didn't do is go to the anti-corruption committee and protest that the Bali Police had cut off every avenue of defence. What did she have left? Prayer? You think I am being facetious. All she retained was the prayer that someone would come forward and admit their guilt. That's not a defence!!!

Schapelle's task was impossible. Without being allowed to collect any evidence she had to prove that she had no knowledge of the drugs. And what did her lawyers do? Everything they could to hurt her. They aligned her with criminals and searched for a guilty Australian baggage handler. What if they had found one? It wouldn't change anything for Schapelle. How is proving that you have no knowledge of the drugs any different than proving that you don't know some baggage handler? IT WASN'T A DEFENCE. They may as well have taken her out on the tarmac and shot her.

And here's the kicker! Want to know why everyone thinks she's guilty? Because she appeared to be so innocent. Everyone thought she was innocent but when our government didn't protest, didn't take action, didn't support her... they were confused. Perhaps our government knows something we don't. That's when the media attacks started and the rumours about the Corby mafia family with the arrests of Clinton etc. Then people were angry and resentful because they felt they had been duped and manipulated by her tears. "How could Schapelle be innocent", they thought. Our government wouldn't condemn an innocent citizen just to protect Sydney baggage handlers... No, but they would to protect representatives of the Indonesian authorities and the Indonesian court.

Maybe people will wake up to the fact that if anything Jodie Powers said was true our police would already have Mercedes and Rose in prison and the very fact that we have witness testimony over three nights along with a viewer phone in poll means that the police find no validity in the accusations. It's a television show. Maybe people will wake up about what was done to Schapelle when David Hicks returns a blubbering mess from 5 years of torture... Oh that's right, our government didn't know... and they don't know what happened in the Bali courtroom either... They were watching the Simpsons during the news.

I would consider myself a reasonably intelligent person but seriously mate! The things you write are just your own opinion. Please don't write them like they are carved in stone.

You don't know why the junior officers touched the pot in Bali. Having lived in Indonesia and knowing the type of people they are my conclusion would be entirely different. Theres no giant conspiracy. They touched the pot because they were absolutely gobsmacked by 4 kg's of pot in this apparently dumbfounded Australian woman's boogie board bag. I mean how many people are busted coming INTO bali anyways. I'd like to see the figures I bet it is miniscule. They were laughing and touching the stuff because thats what they are like. They take very few things seriously due to the fact that Allah is the allmighty and will take care of everything. I have seen this behaviour MANY times in my years spent in Indonesia.

The errors that happened in Bali are therefore ,in my opinion, much more likely to have resulted from incompetence than any malicious plan. I never expected the sentence to go any other way. Initially I may have but by the time she was tryed it was game over for Schapelle. She had never been able to properly proove the pot wasnt hers and consequently was sentenced. Was the sentence harsh? Hell yeah! Is she guilty? Hell No! I don't blame the Indonesians though. From Bakir to Hotman it was a shambles the whole way through. THe corbys did the best they could but the money hungry vultures were at them from all sides. They didnt know who to trust. They did their best but it wasnt enough.

This argument of yours that the pot was placed in Schapelle's luggage in BALI is one which I have heard only you mention. If there are others that think this I would like to hear from them.

Most importantly and above all else. Isn't it best from Schapelle's point of view to support what her and her family choose to do. Doesn't it indeed hinder Schapelle's situation if she and her family are saying one thing and her supporters are saying another?

sturuomo · 03-02-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by admin

I would consider myself a reasonably intelligent person but seriously mate! The things you write are just your own opinion. Please don't write them like they are carved in stone.

You don't know why the junior officers touched the pot in Bali. Having lived in Indonesia and knowing the type of people they are my conclusion would be entirely different. Theres no giant conspiracy. They touched the pot because they were absolutely gobsmacked by 4 kg's of pot in this apparently dumbfounded Australian woman's boogie board bag. I mean how many people are busted coming INTO bali anyways. I'd like to see the figures I bet it is miniscule. They were laughing and touching the stuff because thats what they are like. They take very few things seriously due to the fact that Allah is the allmighty and will take care of everything. I have seen this behaviour MANY times in my years spent in Indonesia.

The errors that happened in Bali are therefore ,in my opinion, much more likely to have resulted from incompetence than any malicious plan. I never expected the sentence to go any other way. Initially I may have but by the time she was tryed it was game over for Schapelle. She had never been able to properly proove the pot wasnt hers and consequently was sentenced. Was the sentence harsh? Hell yeah! Is she guilty? Hell No! I don't blame the Indonesians though. From Bakir to Hotman it was a shambles the whole way through. THe corbys did the best they could but the money hungry vultures were at them from all sides. They didnt know who to trust. They did their best but it wasnt enough.

This argument of yours that the pot was placed in Schapelle's luggage in BALI is one which I have heard only you mention. If there are others that think this I would like to hear from them.

Most importantly and above all else. Isn't it best from Schapelle's point of view to support what her and her family choose to do. Doesn't it indeed hinder Schapelle's situation if she and her family are saying one thing and her supporters are saying another?

I agree with Admin. Just speculation.

Your DNA test of the MJ argument is flawed. There is no evidence to suggest that she packed or even processed the MJ. Someone entirely unrelated could have processed the MJ and packed it, and merely supplied it intact. So even if they did DNA test it, and were lucky enough to find any hair samples in the stash. Whats the point here?

Admin, Uluru makes a similar claim. That some airport worker in baggage handling stashed the MJ in the boogie bag, forced to do so by JI operatives.
Personally , I can't see a motive to stash 4kgs into a bag of an arriving tourist.

Yes I would also agree with incompetence. I don't think customs officers or police were part of a master plan, their incompetence shows them to be anything but clever. Maybe extremely naive.

Wolf I think youre way off the ball park in your conclusions.

uluru · 03-02-2007, 02:21 PM

9msn

Sex offender jailed for stealing hair

Friday Mar 2 12:23 AEDT

A sex offender and airline baggage courier who stole women's hair to satisfy a fetishism has been jailed by a Melbourne judge for at least two years.

......................... 30, of Wallan, has pleaded guilty to 50 counts of theft of women's hair that he stole and collected from the baggage of Qantas passengers.

Sentencing him in the Victorian County Court Judge .....................also reinstated a previously suspended prison term imposed for ............. attempted rape conviction in 2004.

The court heard .......... would pull over in his courier van and rummage through the lost or delayed luggage that he was returning to Qantas passengers.

The courier collected the pubic and head hair from brushes and underwear in the baggage putting it in plastic slips and recording the owner's personal details in an exercise book.

............ suffered from a range of sexual deviancies including fetishism, sexual sadism and frotteurism, an unusual condition in which sexual satisfaction is gained by actual or fantasised rubbing up against another person, the court heard.

"I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you posed a real risk to the safety of women in the community," the judge said.

©AAP 20079 NEWSWATCH
__________________________________________________ _________

Yikes!

More useless Qantas security.

The whole airline baggage security system is wide open to abuse.

Like I said, if ever I travel overseas, which will probably be never given what's happened to Schapelle.....I will not be letting any luggage of mine out of my SIGHT.
NEVER will I be having a suitcase of mine in the hold of an aircraft.

These people with "illnesses" do exist in society...not everyone is "nice."
Airline security should be such that no matter what is going on in society, passengers' luggage is tamper-proof.

WHEN will Qantas be introducing armor-plated steel boxes with keys like the ones to Camelot for passengers to enclose their luggage in?

Murray · 03-02-2007, 03:03 PM

If this had happened to Schapelle, travelling through an Australian airport, her defence team would have been allowed to weight, fingerprint and DNA test the evidence as she requested.
A customs officer would not have been designated an 'officer of the court' - and could have been cross-examined as a witness.
Schapelle would have had a real lawyer and not one of the Lubis sisters.
No translation problems or Judges reading books during proceedings.
No Government paid stooges at the back of the courtroom....

Matter of fact it would have been so different I might have to consult a lawyer over this.

The 'concern' that our Prime Minister voiced about certain aspects of Schapelle's trial, would have been put brutally under the media microscope.

And we may have gotten to the truth in a case like that. Or failing that - at least a fair trial.

Desert Rat · 03-02-2007, 04:54 PM

Admin, I don't like DJ's theories but don't think they should be dismissed out of hand. I do not think it hurts Miss Schapelle's chances if some of her supporters have different opinions of what really happened than she does - being innocent as we know she is, she has no way of knowing if it was bungling baggage handlers, corrupt officials, or some other explanation. I would prefer to believe in the bungling baggage handlers. Couple of questions, though:

(1) Using commercial jet planes to smuggle mj from one Australian city to another sems to me very risky. Is there a verified case that you know of where someone has been caught smuggling marijuana in that way? NOT drugs in general, mj in particular. Can you provide a news link?

(2) If there was no conspiracy ( I sincerely hope there was not), then in your opinion who cut the inner bag? And Why?

deidre plummer · 03-02-2007, 05:02 PM

Valid points Desert Rat. The bag was cut from the inside? What bag.....?.....the boogie board bag?

Also Wolf's quote:

"Then they refused to weigh her luggage and compare it to the weight printed on Schapelle's ticket. Didn't they think she was guilty? After all, the first piece of evidence was the marijuana in Bali. If the weight on the ticket matched the weight with the marijuana in Bali then there is no other explanation - Schapelle had the marijuana when she checked in her bags - game, set and match. There would be no pleading innocent, no doubt. Didn't they want a clean strike? If they were suprised by the find, it would be them insisting that her luggage be weighed. The fact that Schapelle asked to have her luggage weighed... How could she possibly be guilty? If this weighing showed that her luggage was now 4Kg heavier than it had been when she last saw her luggage then someone else put it into her bag. How did the Bali Police know that weighing the luggage would not support the prosecutions case? And, even if you believe that they sneakily weighed it without anyone knowing they still convicted someone they knew to be innocent".

You're a clever fellow and you've got a fantastic point. Yeeeeeeeah!!! What happened? WHY DIDN'T THEY WEIGH THE BL...Y BAGS???? I hope that Ms Corby's defence team really goes to town on this one.

Poor Schapelle

Desert Rat · 03-02-2007, 05:28 PM

No, the vacuum-sealed "space bag" inside the boogie board bag. Actually there were two space bags, one inside the other. This arrangement was shown in customs photos, and the cut in the inside bag was visible in court, sealed with black tape. People who believe the Bali police were in on it claim the cut was done to alert customs officers to the smell ( customs officers denied cutting it themselves). Even if she were guilty Schapelle would hardly have cut the bag herself. Is there any reason for drug-smuggling baggage handlers to have cut it? Or are the customs officers lying? Why?

deidre plummer · 03-02-2007, 05:32 PM

Dessert Rat

Yeeeah!!! Why was that

?? Excellent point Rat.:)

Dee

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)