The Schapelle Corby Story

[RhondaLee]

It's a fantasy novel. Just like someone else here wrote a Martha Stewart prison story with a slight change of her name. By your logic, Martha is really innocent (she is only guilty of being stupid), noone should write a story on Martha and yet there is some member here wrote a story on her.

I was surprised that if Corby didn't use the drug or nor never use the weed before, she should strengthen her case by doing a drug test, proving that she never use weed before. But I don't recall the defense use that as evidence.

[albear]

The reason I gave for not writing the story was that it might be in bad taste. I know nothing about Martha Stewart, the circumstances of her case or the story written about it. Nor do I want to.

Just stating my opinion

[Caitlin]

I was surprised that if Corby didn't use the drug or nor never use the weed before, she should strengthen her case by doing a drug test, proving that she never use weed before. But I don't recall the defense use that as evidence.

Corby was tested for drugs. She had both a blood test and urine samples taken. She was drug free. It was on a 60 minutes interview.

There is a vast difference in how Martha Stewart served her prison sentence, and how Schapelle will serve hers. For Schapelle to survive she has to be financially supported by her own family. She needs money to buy extra food, bribe prison guards, and have her own cell, instead of sharing with seven other women. Schapelle is also in a foreign country, doesn’t understand the language, and the population have more their own fair share of muslim religious fanatics.

The judiciary system is also vastly different. Stewart was innocent until proven guilty. Schapelle was guilty until she can prove her innocence. Stewart was judge by a jury, Schapelle was judge by Judges who had never given an innocent verdict.

Just because 'someone else' wrote a Martha Stweart prison story, doesn’t mean you have to follow suit. The difference between the Stewart's experiences and Schapelle are vastly different.

As I said, I don't mind a fantasy story, but one based on Schapelle sufferings is quite tasteless. It's not how I like to get my kicks out of life.

[RhondaLee]

Schapelle was guilty until she can prove her innocence. Stewart was judge by a jury, Schapelle was judge by Judges who had never given an innocent verdict.

Since when? Is it really true? You mean in Indonesia, the legal system is guilty until proven innocent. Also, when you said "Judges never given an innocent verdict, you meant all these years in all the hundreds of trials?

As I said, I don't mind a fantasy story, but one based on Schapelle sufferings is quite tasteless. It's not how I like to get my kicks out of life.

that's all right. I don't write story, I don't have the time. I am just saying this could be a story idea.

[Caitlin]

Since when? Is it really true? You mean in Indonesia, the legal system is guilty until proven innocent.

Indonedian Law is not based on English Law. Schapelle has been accused. The onus is on her to prove her innocence. Not the other way around.

Also, when you said "Judges never given an innocent verdict, you meant all these years in all the hundreds of trials?

The Judges presiding over her trial; Yes. For your perusal http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15400604-2,00.html

I don't write story, I don't have the time. I am just saying this could be a story idea.

And I'm just saying its tasteless to base that sort of story based on a real persons suffering and anguish. This is a forum, and I'm stating my opinion.

[Sweep]

You guys must be Aussies - I don't think that many people in the world (including Indonesia) know who she is.

I think that you are both right - Shapelle got a bad deal and the case would have beed dismissed in Oz for lack of evidence or contaminated evidence.

Still - The first thing that I thought of when I saw Shapelle in handcuffs was how sexy she looked. OK I'm a twisted bastard but that's why I'm on thios site.

I'm sorry for her and would do anything I could to help her but there are very few real life stories with such strong bondage implications.

[albear]

Yeah, we are Aussies And you're right, until after the verdict and she was on the front page of the Jakarta Post, no one in Indonesia even knew who she was. In Australia it's a whole other story though! It could possibly be very bad for our country's relationship with Indonesia, with a lot of Aussies withdrawing their bits of the $1 billion aide we gave for the tsunami relief, and holidays to Bali being cancelled. During the recent Red Cross doorknock appeal a lot of people were stipulating that they would NOT donate unless it can be guaranteed the money isn't going to Indonesia. It's sad, because the Indonesian people will suffer, when it's not their fault. That said, I won't be travelling there in just for the simple fact that I value my life too much to risk it. I think it's just a really touchy subject at the moment, and too close to home for a lot of Aussies.

[RhondaLee]

Indonedian Law is not based on English Law. Schapelle has been accused. The onus is on her to prove her innocence. Not the other way around.

Is Indonesia the only country like that? Guilty until proven innocent? This is absurd to me. In that case, why would anyone go to a place like that for vacation?

The Judges presiding over her trial; Yes. For your perusal http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15400604-2,00.html
.

To be fair, if anyone carrying a bag of weed and simply said "it's not her...someone put it there.", then millions of drug lord around the world would have walk free. The evidence is righ there in her bag, it's direct evidence.

If someone were to carry a bag of weed thru US Custom, caught, do you think that someone can say 'No...someone else put it there, it's not mine", and get away with it?

Anyhoo, what was her original purpose to Bali? Is it a vacation?

[Caitlin]

Ahhh... Miss Duce, To have ours minds shaped and moulded by those who can't do, but teach.

ppl... nope... got no idea what the heck that is

I have no idea what country your from, so I don’t know how familiar you are with my country, or our relations with Indonesia. You say in your profile info your from the best country on earth, so I’m going with the fact that your Australian then. Right Mate. But since you sprook US law, maybe your not.

To be fair, if anyone carrying a bag of weed and simply said "it's not her...someone put it there.", then millions of drug lord around the world would have walk free. The evidence is righ there in her bag, it's direct evidence.

If someone were to carry a bag of weed thru US Custom, caught, do you think that someone can say 'No...someone else put it there, it's not mine", and get away with it?

For RhondaLee and Miss Duce http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...0-1702,00.html re: Customs report into drug smuggling at Australian airports

What overwhelming evidence points the finger at her? The evidence might be in her bag, but there is a high probability that it is not hers, and the Indonesian failed to prove that she was the only one to have had access to the bag, she had identified as being tampered with, and the Indonesians authorities had refused to fingerprint the bag.

A major important fact you are failing to grasp, is that drugs are smuggled out of Indonesia, not into it. It’s like either of you packing a bag full of drugs, and smuggling it into Columbia.

her defense fail to prove such existence of tampering with her bag

The prosecution failed to prove that the bag was not tampered with.

its not up to the prosecution in any country to prove someone's innocence.

That’s right. And your point is??

the taiwanese national cable that i get at home even suggested that austrialians were making a big deal out of this because she's white while austrialia has some 80 something other citizens in jail in other asian countries on similiar charges but most of them were asian. .

This may shatter your naiveté miss duce, but media and what they report are not without bias. Your right albear, the media is more often than not, skewed and biased.

The Bali nine caught for drug smuggling are a mixture of Asian and white, and none have the support by media, or the Australian public as Schapelle had, because it is so glaringly obvious that they are guilty. With Shappelle, there is a high probability that she is innocent.

Also, what has Australians riled, is that Abu Bakar Bashir, an instigator of the Bali bombings, where 100 plus Australians, and other tourist were killed, received a two year sentence, where Shapelle received twenty years, and may be facing the death sentence, because the prosecution is appealing on the leniency of the sentence.

another question that came up during the class discussion was the role of the austrailian govt. why were there no formal investigations into her defense claims of baggage handlers and corruption? instead the govt downplayed the situation of security risks at airports and ask ppl not to panic.

Just because the Government doesn’t publicly acknowledge what they are doing all the time, doesn’t mean that they are not doing anything. There is an inquiry into the handlers, cleaners, etc, and are overhauling security and hiring procedures. The fastest way to alienate someone and make them irritated with you is to jump up and down and point fingers at. Indonesia is Australia’s closest neighbour, handling delicate situations with tact and diplomacy is much a more mature option.

it seems that most austrailians blame the indonesians for their legal systems 'failure' and fail to look at the supposed orginal source of the problem. its pretty hard for the rest of the world to feel anything more than pity.

No, Australians don’t blame the Indonesians for their legal systems ‘failure’, they just don‘t agree with some aspects of their procedures.

Also there seems to be many problems about the whole affair. What is the original problem? You failed to enlighten us.

Anyhoo, what was her original purpose to Bali? Is it a vacation?

And your point

[miss duece]

original problem = airport security risks IN austrailia

you say i have no point when i say that prosecution's job is not to prove someone's innocence. yet you say that they failed to prove that the bag wasn't tampered with. thats the defense's problem. prosecutors jobs are to PROSECUTE. they convince the judge or jury someone's guilty while the defense does the opposite. if you can't get the point of that then i'm sorry there's no simplier way to explain it.

whats your point that drugs are smuggled out of indonesia? it has nothing to do with this case where she was bringing it in. doesn't matter if the country is full of drugs already, the law still stands and exists.

its a forum i'm not gonna give myself a wedgie over this, just stating what young college americans, namely my international law class, feel on the subject matter. of course its expected that you'll be emotionally offended by anything other than the response you expect to get. just please don't go about talking down to other people claiming you're shattering their 'naivete'.

[RhondaLee]

And your point

It wasn't a point I was trying to make, it was a question. That's why you see a symbol "?" at the end, which stands for "Question Mark".

If you don't know the answer, you don't have to respond.