Expendable: The Political Sacrifice of Schapelle Corby

Expendable: The Political Sacrifice of Schapelle CorbyHow a government wilfully withheld vital evidence from a court of law, deceived its public, orchestrated an unprecedented media campaign, and ruthlessly deployed its organs of state against one of its own citizens.

This is a frightening but entirely true narrative; a grotesque political horror story which is still unfolding today. It exposes what happens when an individual's human rights conflict with strategic political need.

It reveals the ruthless use of a government's organs of state, and a regime of unprecedented opinion management, against a single working class woman and her desperate family.

It presents, and demonstrates, the crushing, pre-meditated, and often brutal acts which a western government is prepared to inflict upon a helpless citizen, in pursuit of political expediency.

Watch the full documentary now

427
6.56
12345678910
Ratings: 6.56/10 from 18 users.

More great documentaries

Comments and User Reviews

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_M6F3RJVEWJ24QKMCHFNVK7ADVE Winston Smith

    unbelievable. People are the same everywhere.

  • http://twitter.com/fishntrips_recs S.E.T.H

    An interesting and strong overview of some stunning facts.

  • dewflirt

    I almost want to believe she's guilty, then none of this would matter. Whether she is or not there has been a lot of bad behaviour by almost everyone involved, particularly the media. No surprise there, just look at the corrupt British press. Dirty little fingers in so many pies and scant regard for the truth. The only thing she hasn't done is step on a rake, I guess there's still time for that.

  • docoman

    Hmm, I'm struggling after only 8 minutes. What a load of crap largely so far.

    She got caught with 4kg of dope, in a bag she was carrying, coming into THEIR country. Either she put it there, or baggage handlers did (if I recall correctly was their defense argument, it could have been the baggage handlers). It was a mistake not weighing it and comparing it to when she checked it in. That would have either cleared or condemned her.
    A question for the AMERICANS who it seems made this 'documentary', with it's very 'high-horse' attitude so far. If you got pulled over in a car in the States, that you own (like she owned her bag), and they found 4kg of dope in the car, would you saying 'I didn't put it there' be an acceptable defense? Or is the fact that its found 'under your control' enough to charge you, and likely convict you?

    Something I found very interesting. When Schapelle got arrested and it hit the news media here, one of my brothers said to me straight away that he's bought dope that was grown by her father, through an 'associate', that said that to him before she was arrested. The name Corby wasn't in the media as yet, so why say it to him if it wasn't true. (3rd hand, circumstantial I know) At that time, all of the media here was crying 'poor, innocent Schapelle.
    If that is true, her father was involved in growing and selling MJ. That doesn't make her guilty. But...

    No motive because it's got a lower street value in Bali? BS! Sell it to the many many Australian tourists there, for the SAME price they are used to paying for it back home. Think about it, do you think it's easier for an unknown Indonesian to sell an Australian tourist pot in Bali, or would it be easier for an unknown Australian to sell it to them, a pretty young woman to boot? And do you think an Aussie selling would charge the local price still? OR, would they add some to the customers common price, it is after all in another country. A tourist wanting a smoke will pay a bit extra then THEIR normal, they're on holiday. Its unlikely a tourist even knows what the local price is.
    Their 'no-motive' argument doesn't really hold water, I think. In fact, the price difference makes it more UNLIKELY that baggage handlers did it, thus more LIKELY she did.

    I personally doubt very much that Schapelle Corby is the poor little innocent, working class woman that this 'documentary' has tried to make her out to be. If she is innocent, which she could be, I'm sorry for her, she hasn't deserved it. If she isn't, she broke the law in their country, she has to pay their price. She had been to Bali multiple times before that trip, she knew where she was going.
    Not liking prison is kind of the point of prison. I believe they could have given her the death penalty in this case. I personally don't think the punishment fits the crime, but it is their country, their rules. If you don't like that fact, don't go there.

  • dewflirt

    I can't help wondering what involvement her brother might have had in this.

  • docoman

    I haven't finished watching it yet, I will. I've heard a theory, I have no idea if it's true or accurate. This 'associate' my brother knows, said he knows Schapelle's brother. He described him as a 'F**k-up'. Apparently, he dropped off Schapelle at the airport. The theory went something like, her brother was supposed to drop her off, then go pay someone the bribe money required to ensure she gets through (apparently its not supposed to be her first run) For whatever reason, her f**kup brother didn't pay the bribe, figuring something like they can't bust her, she knows they're corrupt. That will bust them too. So he doesn't pay it.
    In Bali, while the plane is en route, the call goes through that the bribe hasn't been paid. She gets arrested. They, unlike her dimwitted brother, realized she can't dob them in without dobbing in her family and herself. (father and brother grew the seized pot according to the theory)
    So, she has a choice, tell that, go to prison anyway because you're admitting you're guilty, (probably get the death penalty yourself) and also take some corrupt customs with you. But in the process get your family busted back at home as part of a drug production and smuggling operation.
    Or, do what she has done. Have the torment in your head that your fk-up of a brother put you there because he's stupid. But also, you did it to yourself, probably because of greed. Others that are guilty too, and in on it, you can't get into trouble without getting yourself in deeper.

    Like I said, I heard that, it's only his theory. I don't know if its true or even accurate. If she did, she's a silly woman that's now paying a big price for her choices. If she didn't, she is very unlucky and it's unjust she's paying a price for something she didn't do.

    PS, "brother's 'associate'" means that. Not like at a Dr. when someone says, 'I have this 'friend' who has a rash....' So it is at best 3rd hand speculation.

  • Earthwinger

    Her bags were weighed, and it would seem that they gained weight after being handed over to the baggage handlers. This wasn't revealed to the defense team. The baggage handlers were also, at the time, under investigation, as it was already suspected that they were using innocent passengers as mules. This also, wasn't revealed to the defense team. Her baggage was never forensically tested in any way, and was burned, so any potential evidence, one way or the other, was destroyed. Her family were put under intense surveillance, in an attempt to see if there was any sort of drugs connection, and that turned up nothing at all. Given the sh*t storm that the mainstream media whipped up, about her case though, I'm not surprised that there are anecdotes such as yours, doing the rounds.

    Having watched the full documentary, it seems clear to me, that politicians, police, and the mainstream media have all been complicit in much obfuscation, willful ignorance, and complete dereliction of their duty to out the truth.

    Why am I not surprised?

  • dewflirt

    Somehow that feels nearer to the truth than either this film or the few articles I read. I hadn't even heard of her before this, maybe as a snippet in the news but no detail. I can't see her getting out any time soon, guilty or innocent. If it was her brothers mistake as you say then I can understand how that bitterness has caused her mental health problems. Imagine the 'if only' looping in your head day after day. Prison is supposed to take away your freedom, not send you bonkers :)

  • docoman

    I did say I don't know, it's only a theory I've been told. I don't know all of the evidence, I didn't follow it that closely. I agree, from what I've seen, the case was badly handled, evidence that would have been very enlightening was not collected or preserved.
    I did find the start of this show not to my liking. I personally don't like it when a show uses emotional 'heart-string' pulling the way this one has started out. Just hit me with facts, I'll decide what I feel about it. I'll watch the rest, hoping it gets better, to see what it says.

    I do however find it interesting that my brother, assuming he's telling me the truth, heard the Corby name (the father) in connection with MJ before she was arrested. IF that is true, that can't be a result of media or government propaganda.
    IF the father was growing dope, the second he heard she was arrested, he'd have known they'd come looking. In that case, he'd have pulled down and disappeared his grow set up immediately. I'd bet he could do that quicker then the police could get a surveillance organized and set up. Intensive surveillance can't see something that's not there anymore. That doesn't prove anything really, except that it appears that it's not going on, while the surveillance was in place.

    It is 3rd hand, circumstantial hearsay, coming from drug users.(I did say that) I don't put much weight on it, however it is interesting to consider. At least to consider to work out whether you accept it or not, before dismissing it out of hand. I do put more weight on the fact, however it got there, 4.2kg of MJ were found in her possession.

    I still stand by my conclusion that with my current knowledge, I personally doubt she's as innocent as has been made out, but I don't know, that's just my feeling. Many of the reasons I've heard as to why she has to be innocent have other possibilities, and vice versa. IF she did it, it was silly and she's paying a price I personally consider not befitting the crime, but earned nonetheless. That's their country, their rules. You have to realize that even if you don't respect or like it.
    If she is innocent, it is an unjust and cruel thing that has happened to her and her family, and in that case they would deserve and have my sympathies.
    It' seems rare the government or media chooses the morally correct thing to do. Their actions haven't surprised me either.
    I'll watch the rest now and see if my opinion changes.

  • docoman

    This is an example of why I don't like the show's style. At about 9 minutes, it says, "The Schapelle Corby case arose just 2 years post 9/11".
    They're showing pic's of the twin towers coming down at the time.
    September 11, 2001.
    Corby was arrested on October 8, 2004.
    Just 2 years post 9/11? Really?
    Please, just give me the facts, don't make them up, hoping it'll fly past unnoticed to help further the point.
    I'm struggling with it. :(

  • docoman

    Ahh, I also see another possible problem with the show's logic, at around the 12:30 minute mark. With regards to her baggage weights.
    It said, on the Qantas system it said the combined weight of her bags were 65kg.
    As the cut-off weight is 60kg, (as found when cross checked by 'independent researchers'. Derr, it tells you on your ticket how much baggage you can have) and she wasn't charged extra baggage costs, the extra 5 kg must have been added AFTER she checked them in. Wrong.

    Ok. Ask this question. WHEN does Qantas, or any airline, weigh and put your bag's weights into their system? And if need be, charge extra weight?
    The answer is, AT CHECK-IN.
    The show says that according to Qantas records, 5 kg had been added after check-in. Was there 2 different times Qantas weighed her combined bags? At check-in time as always, and again some time after?
    Or was it weighed only one time, at check-in. If only one, how can you infer anything was added after check-in, or in fact changed at all while Qantas had it. You can't if you're being honest.

    I've traveled, been through a fair few different airlines and countries. I have personally gotten away with extra baggage with the check-in personal multiple times, with a nice smile and a bit of charm. The proper weight was recorded (they need it to calculate fuel requirements), they just didn't charge me for it.
    If there is only the one time that Qantas weighed her bags, it must have been at check-in. The fact she wasn't charged over-weight only proves the check-in personal didn't do their job. Her bags weighed 65kg at check-in. Nothing else.

    Sorry again, but that doesn't seem to be evidence, but more like false logic to me.

    I'm trying to stay open minded, but it's feeling more and more like 'poor-corby propaganda.

  • Irishkev

    Drug laws are ridiculous .

  • docoman

    32 minute mark.
    I agree that obviously there is a lot of corruption in places like our police forces.
    There are more then the 2 possibilities the show claims though.
    A 3rd possibility, if we accept the police ect are in with drug smuggling though airports, and DON'T search the Corby's, it's because they don't want to show they've made money from the Corby operation, if there was one. They don't want that coming out.
    Also, a 4th. If the police are that corrupt and the Corby's innocent, why wouldn't the police do a raid and 'find' something incriminating. It would make the Corby's look guilty, and them clean. An easy fix for them.

    Showing the police and baggage handlers are corrupt, does make it more possible that Schepelle is innocent. Doesn't prove she didn't do it though, it is possible she was part of it herself, or independent of that.
    Showing that security at the airport is not a high standard, does not mean she didn't do it, in fact, makes it easier if she was smuggling it. Makes it more possible she'd get though Aussie customs and get caught over there.
    However, showing someone else that it has happened to, but happened to make it though customs, does set a precedent that it can and does happen. This makes her story much more believable.
    One point on this though, I think at the start of the show they say in Indonesia you are presumed guilty until proven innocent. So, under their rules, that doesn't help her. I also wonder if it was here, under our rules, would she get off the charges as it seems is presumed. They found it with her. Some juries may well still convict.

  • docoman

    Hang on show. Seizing her proceeds from crime, with her book, is the norm here, regardless of the intentions of the prisoner. Enough with the emotional rhetoric already. Chopper Reid might have had good intentions for the money for his books, so. That's not the point.

    edit- I didn't know about the photo with the accused man from Adelaide. It's no proof of anything. Naughty police and their implications and/or assumptions.

  • Irishkev

    F'n chatshow and media scum.

  • docoman

    Quite amusing watching the show condemning the use of propaganda techniques, after the bombardment this show has dished out. They might be correct in what they're saying, but it sure feels hypocritical hearing it from them. (as the spooky music continues in the background) lol.

  • docoman

    What?? The Lateline show retracting, or amending an earlier story from Lateline is a "wholly inadequate and obscure slot".

    One of the points I made about my brother telling me his story, was that he told me that in October '04. Well before any said smear campaign. When the media was mostly pro-Corby by my recollection.

    Sorry, I tried hard, but I've had my fill. There may well be more, intelligent evidence to tell, but I can't handle any more of this show's style.
    I haven't changed my opinion. I'm still open to more information, but not from these people. I should have trusted my instincts by the 5 minute mark. By the 9 minute mark they've flat out lied. I should have known better then continue. By the 53 minute mark I'm having flashbacks to being in church.
    Bugger this.

    If anything, this show makes me feel (unjustly for her) more negative towards Schapelle.
    Not worth the wast of your time if you're after information without BS attached, in my opinion. Stupidly and incorrectly thought out, and badly presented. An amateur's attempt at propaganda. My time would have been better spent reading about it on google. At least some of that may be facts without the BS.
    That's this show, I don't know if Schapelle has been used by the government, or the government has stepped on it's d**k again after an event, as per usual.

  • Incognito

    Quoting Docoman: "Didn't finished watching", Huh"?
    Same for the private investigigator who planted microphones in her family's residences obviously!
    You left the movie rolling while busy on the can or something?
    View the movie once more and the you may see that PI hired by a few television medias to spy on her family in Oz.
    And that was mush more than a day...
    Plenty to get the information that her brother never did use any drug nor any of her family relative.
    As we seen in the doco, the medias wanted to find something to hit on her (And/Or) her family.

    They should have given that task to you Docoman!

  • docoman

    I did learn one thing. If that's all the new evidence they had about her bag weights, it was right for it to be ignored. It proves nothing other then Qantas personal let some people take overweight bags on without charging them. Irrelevant to the issue of did she smuggle the drugs herself, unless...
    Weigh her bags again in Indonesia, then it becomes crucial. They should have done that.

  • Incognito

    I didn't know that Land or Oz had such a croocked Elite.
    Me too, never heard of the case.
    Just think of this: -Whoever and whatever goes through Oz borders falls under the authority of Oz Gov. gang os crooks at the borders!
    Dangerous peoples to say the least. They's go to any event!
    The Oz medias did report busting such criminal org within the civil servants and simply condemned one guy, never got any futher!
    They're still at it today, no doubt.

    I was supposed to visit a month long as I did in China least year.
    My mum's friend has family over there, retired, & I'd go with them...
    No way to take a vacation in Mexico where criminals rules.
    All Moslem countries are a no-no, & misery, the USA is already on my black list for obvious reasons, now it's Oz land...

    I though that Oz was a "Quite" place...
    I have a month or vacation, not (20-25)...
    Not even a second month arguing with Oz border agents.

    Ok-Do! What 'bout South Pole or North Pole?

    Hum... Better yet, Vietnam?
    For the least, corruption isn't rampant over there.
    We sure know that they're good peoples who gotten beaten.
    B ut the USA has polluted the place quite a bit, I heard.
    With the help of Oz if I remember well?
    At a time where Ho Chi Minh wanted to invade and take over the USA & Australia. A few generation back.

    Misery!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=514547284 Pauline Hollett-Morris

    I'm struggling with how they were able to seize her book royalties as "proceeds of crime".....that makes NO SENSE....

  • Incognito

    Quoting Docoman : -"Doesn't prove she didn't do it though".

    Hum... Russian law concept that is?
    Let me 1st find (Jurisprudence) when was the last time a lawyer had to prove that his customer was not gulty?
    Do you require: "Not guilty without the shadow of a doubt".
    Is that a Russian or a Chinese legal concept?

    Thirdly, have you taken your pills today?
    You may need to consult, Huh?

  • Jack1952

    I don't think it mattered to the Indonesian officials whether the bags were heavier or not. It happened outside of their jurisdiction and they were quite limited in their ability to investigate what could have happened in Sydney. They had someone who had an illegal substance in her possession...damning evidence in of itself. Case closed. How it got there would not have been their concern and I'm sure the officials at any airport would have acted in the same way.

    Their defence that there was no motive because the profit margin was so small won't sell either. Someone thought there was profit to be made, otherwise why plant the drugs. How is it the baggage handlers could make money but not her?

    I also wonder if this would have been such a big deal had she not been an attractive young woman. No one feels sorry for an average Joe who gets busted and sheds tears on tv. Pretty young thing gets the sympathy. Media types recognize a story that has hype potential.

  • Jack1952

    Well, that's simple. She was convicted of a crime. She wrote a book about it. Therefore any money made by selling the book would be proceeds of a crime. No crime...no book. The book cannot exist without her having been convicted of the crime. It would be like someone murdering a family member and then getting rich by writing a book about the deed. It is an indirect profit.

  • docoman

    Yes, I didn't finish watching it. And no, I didn't leave it rolling while I was on the can, I watched and listened intently. I did fail in some ways though. I failed to find the ignorance to not think about the evidence as it's shown. I failed to just believe rather then consider. I failed to find the patience to sit though the simplistic, propagandist style till the end, trying to find the nuggets of truth between some, what I thought were pretty obvious, flaws in their conclusions at times. And I do think that I could do a much better job then this particular piece of 'the media' at getting to the truth. It wouldn't be all that hard to better really.
    I did, in my earlier posts, use words like; theory, opinion, hearsay. And terms like; 3rd hand speculation at best, I think, I don't know, my feelings.
    It seems that may have escaped your attention, or understanding. (If you are unable to see the flaws in some of this show, it may be a recurring problem for you? Not understanding the whole meaning of a sentence that is.)
    I actually heard about the Corby case since it broke. I haven't made a judgement based on one flawed 'documentary' as you indicate you have, but as I've stated, I'm open to more evidence, and adjusting my opinion. Just not from the likes of this documentaries' writers. I began watching this in the hope they would give me more reason for some more empathy towards Schapelle. They quickly killed that expectation with their BS.
    In the words of G.W.Bush.. "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." (Somehow this quote came to mind whilst reading your posts)

    To be honest, there is parts of your second-last post I cant make sense of.

    Whatever mate, feel free to not visit as often as you like. That's completely fine with me ;)

  • docoman

    No, it's called logic. You should check it out, it's fun.

    As the show said in its exhaustive 2 minute recap at the very start, that may be (need to check this show's assertions) an INDONESIAN law concept, which would make it very relevant don't you think?
    Now where are my tablets......
    Edit- how about if you're going to be rude to me, at least try and be correct? I'll try to return the favor.

  • docoman

    Thank you, you explained that better then I fumbled.

    Yeah, not many people said much about David Hicks being locked up in Guantanamo without even a trial. I thought my government failed him badly. More so then Schapelle.

  • bubascary

    The whole Schapelle Corby case could have been handled better in my opinion. They (Indonesia) convicted a model Michelle Leslie for 2 ecstacy tablets, she didn't create a huge media circus alienating the Indonesian Government and could have got 15 years for crime. She did all she could to reduce the sentence. Yeah I get that it is a different kettle of fish and Schapelle was charge with importing drugs, but when all the hype had settled down she was given clemency and is due to be release in 2017 (maybe sooner). This Documentary isn't going to do her case any good at all!!

  • bubascary

    You are too funny docoman. I really enjoyed your posts. I get where you are coming from and I think most Aussie's have your view or a similar one.

  • bubascary

    I think I should be offended by your comment about Australia, but, I can't make heads or tails of what you wrote.

  • docoman

    Michelle Leslie was so quiet, I'd forgotten about that. That's the way to get yourself out of some deep doo-doo.

  • bubascary

    Yeah that's right, remember how controversial her conversion to islam was here. But Indonesia loved it.

  • docoman

    I remember thinking BS (I don't believe you), but smart move girl. When in Rome... get the hell out however, come home, shut up. :) But it was her dinner.... ;)

  • Jack1952

    Yet you would visit China, the land of the cultural revolution, Tiananmen Square, incredible pollution policies, and the persecution of Fulon Gong and other religious groups. Quite the political statement.

    Have you ever checked into the corruption of the politicians where you live. You may have to move to China...or the North Pole.

  • Captain_Hook

    Yet she is in the same position as many Saudi, Pakistani, and Afghan women who haven't even been to court. They just had the misfortune to be born there.

  • Centurion_Avenger

    After watching this I SERIOUSLY advise ALL australians to sign up at the local gun club, get a gun license, and do something about your OWN security. Because with a nationwide police force that's this corrupt, BULLETS are the ONLY defense you have against being locked up like a terrorist for 20 years. My 7.62mm sniper rifle vs an AFP pistol is what I call a fair legal defense. DISGUSTED.

  • Giza22

    The Indonesian Government was precise with their conviction of Corby, there's no doubt she was involved directly or in-directly with the smuggling of drugs into the country.
    I strongly advise people and the media to get over this innocent Corby crap and concentrate on other serious issues that need to be noticed on this planet.

    Corby deserves every ounce of her conviction and should serve her maximum sentence, and well done Indonesia for standing firm with your strict drug policies...

  • MickFraser

    You're missing the point, the correct country that tried her, and your response sounds makes you sound like a troll. Corruption is ubiquitous throughout the world and so is ignorance that supports it.

  • docoman

    To anyone that could finish the whole show.
    Did they mention the father had been fined in the '70's for possessing about two grams of marijuana, that he said was not his when caught?

    Or the whole bs between Jodie Power and the sister, Mercedes Corby? How Power claimed Mercedes had taken various illegal drugs with her multiple times. About the picture of the bong and Mercedes? Or how she (M Corby) had told her she had taken small amounts of marijuana to Bali. (amounts is plural) About how Chn 7 here in Aus paid Power for her story, including letters from M Corby to Powers mentioning their drug use. Chn 7 aired a show. M Corby sued Chn 7 for slander, Chn 7 settled.
    Power admitted to taking drugs, including speed, ecstasy, cocaine, ice, LSD and marijuana. She was Mercedes best friend for years, this is not disputed. And we are supposed to accept that Mercedes NEVER did any drugs with her drug addict best friend over the years? Or is it more likely that Power is the one closer to the truth in this case, Mercedes is not. (Power didn't get sued)
    That Mercedes is 'a unit' in my opinion. Find some footage of her and judge for yourself.
    At the very least, it shows you the caliber of company that Mercedes and the Corby's kept. A drug addict mother that did drugs in front of her child.

    The Corby family has been though hell, not doubt of that. But, do you really believe they are the innocent victims they are claiming themselves to be? Like this show makes them out to be, some political sacrifice, some poor unwitting pawn used by overbearing, corrupt government and police.

    Or is their hell mostly of their own creation, their own actions catching up with them. Now they're paying the piper, and not liking the price.

    Is one person being caught with 4kg of MJ this big, international drama, tension creating incident requiring a big conspiracy to manage it as this show claims? Or is that all BS, designed to create sympathy, mislead from the actual facts. Something I would probably think about as a tactic if I were her defense team or family.

  • wiccedwoman

    Watch the doco, and ignore the smears and lies. Some very big corporate players in Australia are desperate to hide the truth. Why? Because drug smuggling baggage handlers are extremely bad PR for the national airline, QANTAS (they were using the luggage of innocent passengers to ferry drugs between domestic airports), and because corporate Australia has billions invested in Indonesia. An innocent Australian woman banged up in a Bali hell hole is extremely bad for their financial interests.

  • Lastviewer

    Docoman? Never, ever seen such a biased person as you are specifically about that case. You smell bad, very bad.
    Sort of a Gestapo psychotic sub-human who once gotten pleasure and erections at viewing Viets childs burned by napalm bombing.

    I don't think that you missed the part where a private investigator state and give details as to, being hired by a few Ozzie's medias and given the task of planting microphones into this family house.
    No, your simply a dangerous spychotic as much as the worst Allah's psychotic. A beast this world doesn't need.

    The PI was paid to find reasons for the TV nework to inititate slander.
    Time went by and he came out empty handed.
    The guy was paid by a check and not "Cold Cash".
    Not paid fully since he was unable to produce what the media asked for. Because, it never existed!

    Oh! And I agree that your comment "It proves nothing other then Qantas" underlines the necessity to prove one's innocence when accused of crime in Oz Land laws.
    Understood that you were brought up into that concept.
    The father got fine in the '70 for about 2 grams of pot?
    Funny that the moslem fanatics didn't brough that up on her trial?
    They may be fanatics but didn't got the lack of education you shown here below.

    Which makes you what you are.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=540127273 Marie Síochána

    Docoman, instead of spewing out the same old recycled media propaganda bs, how about taking a look at the hundreds of verified government reports, cables, letters, emails, exhibits and other documents on the website. To this day there has never been any evidence to prove that Schapelle is guilty. And may I remind you, Schapelle (an individual) was on trial, NOT her family. When arrested she tested Negative for marijuana and all other drugs. She had NO previous convictions whatsoever. Her family's Clean Police Certificates can also be viewed on the Expendable website under "Exhibits".
    A few questions the Australian government Refuse to answer...

    1. Why were Schapelle's bags 5kg overweight on the Qantas system, when she checked in without excess charge ($175)? [Transit Report]

    2. Why was Schapelle or her lawyers never TOLD that her bags were 5kg overweight on the Qantas system? [Supplementary Report]

    3. Why did AFP Commissioner Keelty tell the media that there was no evidence of airport drug syndication two weeks before the verdict, when this was clearly, demonstrably and utterly false? [Transit Report]

    4. Why did Minister Ellison withhold the vital information, that ONLY the boogie-board bag was not scanned, when Schapelle’s lawyer asked, TWICE? [Transit Report]

    5. Why was this hidden from Parliament, when direct questions were asked? [Transit Report]

    6. Why did John Howard, and his friend, Head of Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd, Max Moore-Wilton, keep quiet about it, when they both knew? [Transit Report]

    7. Why did the AFP never investigate the reason for this missing screening data? [Transit Report]

    8. Why did Keelty, and the AFP, withhold all the other vital evidence, including the information from the Kessing Reports? [Transit Report]

    9. Why did the AFP and DFAT evade the forensic tests Schapelle was begging for? [Mutual Evasion Report]

    10. Why did DFAT not invoke the MACM treaty to obtain the sample of the marijuana which Schapelle begged them for, when they could have? [Mutual Evasion Report]

    11. Why did Ellison tell a false story about marijuana testing to a constituent? [Mutual Evasion Report]

    12. Why did the AFP and Qantas provide wholly contradictory stories about the missing CCTV footage Schapelle Corby pleaded for? [Transit Report]

    13. Why did the AFP tell Parliament that they couldn't perform marijuana pollen tests, when they could, and indeed, had originally offered to perform them? [Mutual Evasion Report]

    14. Why did the AFP refuse the services of a forensics expert, who was able to perform them? [Mutual Evasion Report]

    15. Why did Foreign Minister Downer and Prime Minister Howard endorse the original Bali trial, when they were well ware of the multitude of legal and human rights abuses throughout? [Show Trial Report]

    16. Why did Ellison endorse the burning of the evidence, when Schapelle Corby pleaded for it to be stopped? [Mutual Evasion Report]

    17. Why have DFAT endorsed and hidden the ongoing human rights abuses of a mentally ill Australian citizen for seven years? [Health Report]

    18. Why were ACLEI, when forced to examine the AFP's role, directly and demonstrably complicit with the AFP in producing a report which was an utter embarrassment to all parties [Whitewash Report]

    19. Why was a functionary, at the heart of the Howard regime when the above abuses occurred, allowed to rubber stamp ACLEI's rubber stamp? [Whitewash Report]

    20. Why was there a wholly unique flight delay pattern when Schapelle passed through Sydney airport, and whilst her bag was on the same baggage area as the Mocha Operation cocaine? [Transit Report]

    21. Why did the government force an Australian QC, Mark Trowell, on to Schapelle Corby, and then hide when he decimated her appeal by attacking her defence team to the media? [Insider Report]

    22. What was the precise role of Justice & Customs Minister Ellison, the QC’s long term friend, in this appalling situation? [Insider Report]

    23. Why was there no comment when the QC subsequently admitted that he was working for the government, and not for Schapelle Corby, all along? [Insider Report]

    24. Why did Downer and Howard publicly call a standard flour hoax a 'biological agent' and a 'murderous attack', when there was no evidence at all to suggest it wasn’t flour? [PowderGate Report]

    25. Why did neither of them say that the note included with the flour didn't mention Schapelle Corby, and was written in Bahasa, when they promptly blamed it on her supporters? [PowderGate Report]

    26. Why didn’t Ellison immediately alert all parties, to prevent the false (but support-wrecking) story from circulating around the world, when he was informed by email at 6:35pm? [PowderGate Report]

    27. Why did the government seize Schapelle Corby's book royalties, when she was still in legal appeal in Indonesia, when they knew what signal this would send to Jakarta? [Political Seizure Report]

    28. Why did they bring the Australian judiciary into disrepute, by extending its jurisdiction outside Australia, and holding secret trials, at which Schapelle Corby was not even represented? [Political Seizure Report]

    29. Why did they deny her the funds for another appeal, and for medicine, even when they knew about the nature of the Bali trial, and about the vital primary evidence they had themselves withheld? [Political Seizure Report]

    30. Why has the ABC engaged a clear campaign of hostility against Schapelle Corby and her family, which has included a number of known tools of propaganda, and which has even required an apology for presenting malicious allegations as fact? [Opinion Management Report]

    31. Why have the dozens of breaches of the Freedom of Information Act, with respect to requests made on behalf of Schapelle Corby, remained totally un-addressed [FOI Abuse Report]

    32. Why was the direct linkage of DFAT funding of ‘scholarships’ to Jakarta, for dozens of journalists, and subsequent hostile reporting with respect to Schapelle Corby, not been investigated when complaints were lodged with the Attorney-General’s Department? [DFAT Network Report]

    33. Why were the serious media abuses, submitted to the government in 2011, excluded from the Finkelstein inquiry, particularly those relating to the unlawful activities of the broadcasting media? [Expendable Documentary]

    34. Why has the Commonwealth Ombudsman supported the government with respect to every complaint ever lodged with respect to Schapelle Corby [Quango Report]

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Linda-Harvey/100000013774179 Linda Harvey

    You might want to get your facts right before you comment. Since when was Indonesia called Malaysia?

  • Pysmythe

    Right before it was called the Dutch East Indies? (lol)

  • aptnw

    Absolutely a must see documentary.
    Thank you.

    Also watch The Power Principle

  • aptnw

    I live in Australia, and this is the first time I have heard about other countries even knowing about Corby, let alone protesting for her release. That sounds newsworthy to me.
    Why would anyone be so foolish as to smuggle drugs INTO Bali?
    Didn't you see the piles of evidence?
    The ridiculous responses from government offices? Or do you think they are all made up.
    And you say: “Is one person being caught with 4kg of MJ this big, international drama, tension creating incident”
    Didn't you listen at all?
    That all got explained in the beginning.
    And yes, having 60 Million muslims sitting on the doorstep of a very large country with only 20 Million people, makes a lot of people nervous.
    Maybe you are letting yourself be influenced by personalities, rather than facts.

  • Lastviewer

    Corruption of civil servants is a disease.
    Diseases are known to spread over continents.

    Quoting Wikipedia: - "Indonesia's invasion and occupation of East Timor during Suharto's presidency, which received de facto support from the United States, United Kingdom and Australia at the time, resulted in at least 100,000 deaths. By the 1990s, the New Order's authoritarianism and widespread corruption were a source of discontent. In the years after his presidency, attempts to try him on charges of corruption and genocide failed because of his poor health and because of lack of support within Indonesia".

    Obviously, an ideal paradise for beasts like Documan.
    Since Australia proven that they gotten not only that disease but also lost the the most important essence of humankind: -Treating people in an human way.

    It becomes of a secondary matter if Schapelle Corby was guilty or not, what matter is that beasts like Documan are among the psychotic extremists.
    That is what's disturbing!

    APTNW? Living in Australia? Never heard about the case?
    You have all my sympathy, I wouln't live among beasts.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002658076089 Kaz Cook

    Docoman your brothers comment is merely HEARSAY and would not stand in a court of law... Over these people who say they knew some who knew someone that knows them!! Here is New Evidence that has come to light from Expendable after the Doco was made ...Detective Sargeant Christopher Laycock was jailed on April 4, 2012, the son of a former Assistant Commissioner of Police, John Laycock. It has taken almost 8 years for Laycock to meet his fate. The NSW Crime Commission recorded a conversation with 2 of Laycock's criminal mates regarding the pickup of Marijuana from Sydney Airport on the 8th October 2004. Recognise the Date?? It is the same day that Schapelle corby flew to Bali. But what meets the eye here is something of a mirage, his last hearing on March 29, 2012, before he was sentenced, was closed to the public on account of a mysterious 30 page "naming and shaming" document . The Australian Associated Press has subsequently reported what the court has instructed them to report. The real story here is not only what is in that document and why it has taken 8 years for Laycock to meet his fate but what the NSW Crime Commission and the AFP have hidden from the public for almost 8 years. The NSW Crime Commission recognised the significance of the recording with Laycock's criminal mates and consulted a named officer within the AFP. Both parties sat on it. Schapelle was never told, no one was ever told until the Expendable Project obtained the minutes.

    When Mick Keelty (Commissioner of Police) came out in the press stating " there is no evidence to suggest corrupt bagage handlers" 2 weeks before Schapelle's verdict HE LIED. In fact Keelty knew that drug syndication was rife at Sydney airport, he had the Kessing Reports, the tape of the NSW Crime Commission and Operation Mocha (Investigation into drug syndication at Sydney airport) was in progress on the very day Schapelle flew to Bali. Assistant Director of the NSW Crime Commission, Mark Standen was jailed in November 2011 for his role in drug syndication at Sydney airport it took 7 years for Mark Standen to be Jailed.

    In 2005 William Moss also known as William Miller ( the criminal friend of Detective Laycock) came out in the press in 2005 and said he was suppose to pickup the marijuana on the day Schapelle flew to Bali. The press ridiculed him and the ABC said that they would ruin him and bankrupt him William Moss/miller sued the ABC ., The ABC had defamed him on a page on their website When the Expendable project got a hold of the NSW Crime Commission minutes of a meeting regarding the recorded conversation The ABC paid Moss/Miller out and took down the defamatory web page. A copy of the cheque paid to Moss/Miller is on the Expendable project website.

    John Howard and his mate Max Moore-Wilton ( Head of Sydney Airport) knew about all of this and they did nothing. They covered up all the evidence that PROVED Schapelle was innocent. John Howard, Mick Keelty, Alexander Downer and Christopher Ellison witheld vital information from a court that would have helped free Schapelle!!

    The whole Schapelle Corby case was a sham from the beginning ... Tell me How does one get 4.2kg of smelly, pungent marijuana through 3 Australian airports (Brisbane domestic, sydney domestic & sydney international) without it being detected????? Why was Schapelle's boogie board bag the only bag that was NOT screened at Sydney airport??? Why did CCTV footage from the 3 Australian airports with over 200 cameras mysteriously Disappear????

  • Giza22

    whoops... I was close but.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002658076089 Kaz Cook

    No Giza22 You were wrong.. just like your ridiculous comment that Schapelle is guilty "there's no doubt she was involved directly or in-directly with the smuggling of drugs into the country" ...where do you get your info, where is your Proof??? I think you read too much lamestream media... You need to think outside the square, research the shcapelle corby case question everything, dont just believe what the media has fed you....

  • docoman

    Wow. At the end, after composing that ridiculous post you call me uneducated. lol.

  • docoman

    Actually, to this day there has been some pretty damning evidence against Schapelle. 4.2 kg of evidence.
    I agree, her family is not on trial. But her family got on TV, asked for sympathy from the public and help from the government on the basis that they are honest, hard working decent people. They put their reputations and past up for review when they did that.
    #1, I already addressed this in an earlier post. Ask yourself, when did Qantas weigh the bags? That point only shows that the person working check-in didn't charge her. Why would Qantas not lie and say it was 60kg in their system if they were covering everything up.
    #2 I don't know, did the lawyers ask? That is their job. Were they lied to about it when they did ask?
    For #'s 3 - 34 The charges are not in Australia, so it's not under our jurisdiction. There isn't a hell of a lot they can do about Indonesia's judicial process.
    I have and do agree, much of the way the government and the police have handled it is very bad, disgraceful if not criminal.

    Some quotes from my earlier posts, some parts you seem to have missed;
    "I agree that obviously there is a lot of corruption in places like our police forces."
    "Weigh her bags again in Indonesia, then it becomes crucial. They should have done that."
    "It' seems rare the government or media chooses the morally correct thing to do. Their actions haven't surprised me either."
    "Showing the police and baggage handlers are corrupt,"
    "Naughty police and their implications and/or assumptions."

    I could try saying it in a few more different ways, but that would run the risk of 'spewing out the same old recycled media propaganda' after this show.

  • docoman

    It seems someone thought it was worthwhile smuggling drugs into Bali. In this show, I did see piles of something. Bad logic and some outright lies.
    Yes, I did listen in the beginning. That's exactly where the show started loosing all credibility. Glossing over some important, relevant details in the 'recap', and then lying right at the start of their explanation of why it's a big, relevant incident. Didn't you think at all?
    Some bad logic, brushing over important details, and downright dishonesty, coupled with blatant propaganda techniques lost me.
    Maybe you are letting yourself be influenced by incorrect logic and misdirection, that's most of the content of this show.

  • docoman

    Hi Kaz, another selective reader I see.
    Some quotes for you, from some of my earlier posts;
    "3rd hand, circumstantial I know"
    "it's only his theory. I don't know if its true or even accurate"
    "It is 3rd hand, circumstantial hearsay, coming from drug users."
    "I did, in my earlier posts, use words like; theory, opinion, hearsay. And terms like; 3rd hand speculation at best, I think, I don't know, my feelings."
    (Thank you for showing me my error, I didn't use capital letters. My bad.)
    And once more;
    "I agree that obviously there is a lot of corruption in places like our police forces."
    "Weigh her bags again in Indonesia, then it becomes crucial. They should have done that."
    "It' seems rare the government or media chooses the morally correct thing to do. Their actions haven't surprised me either."
    "Showing the police and baggage handlers are corrupt,"
    "Naughty police and their implications and/or assumptions."

    New evidence from Expendable?
    Repeats for you from an earlier post of mine;
    "I'm still open to more information, but not from these people."
    Why? Because, as I said;
    "Please, just give me the facts, don't make them up, hoping it'll fly past unnoticed to help further the point."
    These people don't do that.

  • irisnina

    I understand your verdict to the matter but I don´t quite get what your referring to mate. From what l could gather, most of your statements are built on your opinion. It´s not logical what your saying mate. e.g. from what l gathered from the documentary is that airport staff (maybe the police) in AUSTRALIA traffic the drugs between airports in AUSTRALIA and screw up by putting the stuff into the wrong luggage bags. Or what? Is that what your 4,2kg damning evidence is?

  • docoman

    Before any more people that are unable to keep more then 1 idea in their head at a time as they're reading respond, and I get accused of more absurd things like being a Gestapo psychotic/spychotic sub-human that gets my jollies from children being napalmed, beast or other such nonsense, how about you read and understand my posts first. At least try to. (Lost ya already most likely, more then 1 idea:(
    Either I've pointed out incorrectness or outright lies in this 'documentary', or I've clearly stated elsewhere that it's an opinion, theory or thought, not fact.
    I have also stated that I believe, regardless of the question of whether Schapelle was knowingly involved, what's happened to her has been excessive. I am open to more evidence and adjusting my opinion on her complicit guilt or not. I have continually agreed that the media, government, police and baggage handlers are corrupt.
    As I said, I only got 1/2 way as I'd reached the limit of my patience with this style. I'm not surprised that the people who have displayed their ignorance by ridiculous name calling are not only unable to understand and follow logic in some posts, are also unable to see the blatant incorrectness, lies and use of propaganda tactics in this show.
    Here comes the last ideas, hopefully one of which you'll remember. If you want to dispute my logic or ideas, or legibly leave some links ect. to some sound evidence, please do. I admit I don't know all of the facts. If I'm rude to you first feel free to be rude back. (My apologies if I have, I try not to be. I do return it though.) Otherwise please try to refrain from unnecessary, childish name calling. That's just stupid. Check the comment policy if you have further questions.

  • irisnina

    Aglo Saxons are THE world leaders on how the state system controls the media in one form or another and trumpet the word as freedom of the press. Russians politicians once said that if they had a propaganda machine as that of the west, they would have won the cold war.

    If you own a TV and/or radio station or/and a newspaper tabloid, its in your interest to get along with law enforcement agencies and politicians. Look at what´s happening at this very moment with the Leverson enquiry in the UK. What seems strange is how most people seem surprised that the media are the side of the state? They are the drug dealers that control the media. There is no room for any gangster or mafia undergrand, they have the market covered. It also comes as no surprise that people such as R. Murdoch was an Australian. It was his classroom. However with his media empire it also comes as no surprise that someone would get sick of the B.S. and that someone such as J.Assage should come to repel such legal or illegal corruption. It´s strife in most of the western world. Someone once said NONE ARE MORE HOPELESSLY ENSLAVED THAN THOSE WHO FALSELY BELIEVE THEY ARE FREE. Corby is collateral damage that could have tarnished the image and stopped the dealing of drugs from the dealers of the establishment. Unfortunately for her.

  • docoman

    Its hard to respond to your second last post while you keep editing it, trying to get it right. I was going to try to make an intelligent reply, but you seem to have missed the point. So I'll have to refer you to my last post.

    Edit- You've completely changed the point now. lol. That wouldn't be you again now would it incognito? Or is it Lastviewer? You do have some things in common.

  • Incognito

    Wow Kaz! You really rubbed his noze into it.
    Personnally, as soon as I see such a clown, I don't even bother try to get his brain working. Useless.
    Obviously, he didn't even bother to verify a minimal amout of facts.
    Worst, the guy quote some of Bush aberration.

    Previously in the comments, Marie Síochána did the same as you. The guy has his own law: Docoman's law.

    Just imagine a nation under such individuals.
    -Simple, you get Moslem Indonesia.
    Ruled by some personnal "Charia".

    I guess that if one checks the individual's comment, the personnality will make the point. It goes 'round & round.

  • irisnina

    When you say l missed the point.....do you mean your point? There are many points of view that can be taken into the case depending on what angle you look at it, but l cant seem to your angle.

    As to the intelligent reply from you, that would be nice.

    Take care mate.

  • Jane Doe

    Did you read any posts before Docoman's? Giza22 is a helluva lot more biased, according to the post that was written.

    Calling Australians beasts and feeling sympathy for those who live there? Why are you so biased against the Aussies?

    Comparing someone who is discussing a court case to a sub-human Gestapo officer who likes to watch children being burned alive? What offended you so much to write something so horrible?

    What a drama queen! A Gestapo officer who napalms kids? Really dude? Get some perspective.

    I am not knowledgeable with Indonesia's history, what does Suharto's presidency have to do with the Corby case?

    It sure as hell IS of a primary matter if Schapelle is guilty or not! That is the whole point!

    What's disturbing is your attitude.

  • docoman

    It seems by your posts you are one of the people I was talking to, in the post I referred you to when I said "Lost ya already most likely, more then 1 idea:("
    I did infer that by the fact I suggested you should read that, in my reply to you, so....
    You said;
    "There are many points of view that can be taken into the case depending on what angle you look at it, but l cant seem to your angle."
    Umm, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that last bit? Follow/understand my point of view? Agree with my point of view? Like my point of view? Tolerate my point of view?
    There may be different points of view as to the right's and wrongs of the law, but the law there is what it is.

    The point we were talking about is, that if this show is correct and in Indonesia you are guilty until proven innocent, the fact that they found her with the 4.2kg, for them, is damning evidence. That's Indonesia's laws, not Australia. That's why she's in jail in Indonesia, they found it on her, in Indonesia. (Assuming the show is correct that is. Are you arguing the show has it wrong, and that's Australia's law? It appears so from your posts.)

    You also said, "As to the intelligent reply from you, that would be nice."
    (I had to copy and paste and quote you, before you edit and change it like you did with your earlier one.)

    I guess an opinion on intelligence, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

    I also like how you failed to mention in your earlier post, the fact that Julian Assange is Australian too. A product of the same 'classroom' you speak of. (oops, no quote, quick change it ;)

  • docoman

    Still not reading all the posts I see Incognito. Or just not following along properly, again. How did Kaz rub my nose in it? By starting out by saying the same thing I had earlier numerous ways?
    Or by suggesting I should go and read and believe more from the people from this show. (I did assume that's who she meant, there was no link, only some vague reference to what I took as the producers of this show) Which I'd already said why I don't trust these people, and had to repeat to Kaz, as it seemed she too isn't reading or understanding everything.

    If you consider I am a clown, then why bother 'trying to get his brain working', you just said you don't when you see a clown. So am I correct to infer then, as you have replied to me with your less-then-thought through post, that you consider that I'm not a clown?
    I suggest the clown you see may just be your reflection in your monitor.
    Here is an easy, little fact you can verify for yourself (you must have missed it in the doco, then in my posts, more then once.)
    Watch the show from 8:30 to 9:05. The show says the Corby case arose "just two years post 9/11"
    September 11, 2001, they're implying.
    Corby arrest, October 8, 2004.
    Verify it for yourself. Get out a calculator, do the math yourself.

    Lol. The Bush quote, the saying he fumbled and messed up, the proper saying was the end of the point I was making at the time. Saying your posts reminded me of that was true. Someone fumbling and getting things wrong, and thinking somehow they've done good. (look up the meaning for sarcasm. I was returning your attitude, it looks like that too slipped your attention.)

    You are correct in one thing, Marie did do some of the same things as as Kaz.
    You're right, I do have a personal law. It's this. Don't allow myself to be told what to think, or feel. Consider the evidence, and make up my own mind.

    Yes, imagine a nation where everyone thought for themselves. I don't know if that's what Indonesia is, being a religious nation I doubt it. That idea kind of goes against the organized religions from what I've seen. It wasn't what I saw in the Muslim country the 2 years I lived in one.

    Finally, as you indicate you do, I'm not surprised that you judge what someone says on what you assume their personality to be, rather then what they actually say. You've demonstrated that more then once now. I agree with you there. That's why I ask for fools like yourself to read what I actually said. TRY to follow along.

  • KateLloyd1

    No docoman, the point is that you show read YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT'S emails. They are published on the Expendable website.

    Instead of going into some sort of denial, read them.

    That is why people are annoyed with you. It's because they have. They can see for themselves what your government did. Yet you pointblank refuse to face it.

    The irony is that the film explains to the world why you are so hostile to Schapelle Corby. And here you are, being hostile, and becoming an exhibit yourself.

  • http://www.facebook.com/susie.horalek1 Susie Horalek

    didn't obama attend school in indonesia, I believe his stepfather is muslim. hmmmm

  • http://www.facebook.com/susie.horalek1 Susie Horalek

    well said!!!!!

  • docoman

    If you wish to accept information from people such as this show, that's up to you. I've already said I don't trust these people anymore, because of their dishonesty. Can you provide a link to someone that provides this information that is more trust worthy?

    As I've already said more then once, I'm open to more evidence, just not from people like this show's producers. They lost me when they lied and misled, drew false conclusions with the bag weight evidence, then became hypocritical when they condemn the use of propaganda tactics, while they themselves do it from the very start.

    I don't know how many more ways I could say I agree that the government and police ect are corrupt. I agree. I've clearly, repeatedly said I'm open to more, just not from liars such as Expandable. If asking to not be lied to when seeking information is some sort of denial in your opinion, that's ok with me.
    So you telling me to go read them, sorry, but not these people. Do you have that info. from someone else that provides it without the track record of dishonesty? I'd be interested to see that.

    I'm hostile to this show, that's for sure. Because of the above mentioned reasons. I am to any media that is as dishonest and hypocritical as they have been here. I've already said, more then once, I feel what's happened to Schapelle is excessive, whether she was complicit or not. Is discussing her case, even asking if she was complicit or not hostile towards her? Having an opinion that I doubt that Schapelle and her family are everything they've said they are especially when it comes to Mercedes, is probably hostile. If you believe everything they've said. I have returned hostility to hostile posts to me, I already said I do that.

    Actually, the point irisnina was trying to be sarcastic about to me initially, had nothing to do with the Australian side of things.
    It was to do with how the Indonesian courts view or even care whether she knew about it or not.

    I grant it is hard to follow that, when people do what irisnina did. Put up a post, edit what they saw in spelling and grammar faults (no problem with that), then see another post, change their post to suit the new 1, then see a reply to theirs, and change it again because of that.
    That is being intellectually dishonest, and not surprising that people who didn't watch it happen can't follow the conversation in it's original form.

    Edit- after rereading the conversation, it is still possible to see that, eventually after the current edited version. Its seems you're doing the same as others that can't follow along properly have. Because you don't like my opinion, you attack my perceived personality, rather then the point of what I've actually said. Where have I said my government did the correct, or morally right thing? Where have I said Schapelle deserves this?

  • docoman

    It would be quite amusing if it wasn't so absurd. Most of the attacks on me and my personality have come over either a point I'm actually accepting from this show, or over something I've already said I agree with, multiple times.

    The point of does Indonesian law care whether Schapelle was complicit or not. The show states this in it's 2 minute recap at the start. That's not mine or Australia's laws, this show says that's Indonesia's laws.
    This means people are assuming that's what I've said is my opinion. Not understanding what I did say, and actually arguing against the very show they think they're defending. It shows they're not following along properly, and are mistaken. The fact they can't see this and resort to personal attacks shows they're ignorant. Continuing on after I've pointed this out, just shows they're willfully ignorant.

    Pointing out things I've already said, or things I say I agree with, and then saying some how I'm in denial or attacking my personality on this is ridiculous. If you don't like the fact I'm not sucked in by the BS put forth from this 'show', say that. Don't suggest I should go looking for more from these people, or somehow that I'm some beast ect because I didn't allow them to suck me in using propagandist tactics calling on emotions, requiring suspension of critical evaluation of their statements.

    Funny, silly, selective-reading people.

  • Incognito

    If you claim that I don't read all the post, I hope that you'll understand that it became obvious that to many who read the posts, you never bother to make a few searches on the Internet 'about the topic?

    Everything considered: -Why search for the published documents when one refers to what's known as "Murphy's law, Huh?
    But to me, a document baring a Gov. seal is something else than an opinion.

    And denying access to any document related to a justice case is something else than freedom of speech. Especially if it's done intentionally and deliberately by one of the "Elite Member" of society. I don't negotiate with this.

    Now, regarding "Hatred" toward the Oz Elite...
    Maybe I should admit here that Australia always remained for me (Up to lately) sort of a "Dreamed" country far abroad that one always wish to visit on a never ending vacation. In short, I never expected that the Elite over there would behave like that. Also, Australia was part of the Allied, historically talking, isn't it?

    In addition, who is not aware of the US young dude who also got caught with with drugs in Indonesia some (10-15) years back? We all know and in his case, the proofs where quite more heavy and no manipulations where in doubted.
    If I remember well, he was sentenced to death.
    Did the US Gov. dumped him, as far as you know?
    Did his US Elite made fun out of his misery on the public medias?

    The point in here, being the bottom line is that it nshouldn't be ignored that a Oz custom officer was not only charge with taking part in drug smuggling through simple citizen mules but also found guilty to later disclose the facts.
    Facts that are now well known.
    Alas, unknown to me until someone good peoples told me of a problem not yet solved in Australia. They didn't clean up yet.

    To close the exchange about that case, the bare fact that the Oz media acted as part of the prosecutor is to me, what humankind defines as being "Propaganda".
    Propaganda, a word brought to life in the NAZI era.
    Sort of a tool to cause prejudice to peoples & justice.
    A tool that culminated in Vietnam. Peoples showing that behavior are dangeous.
    It doesn't work as well as it used to since then, as we now seee in now days.

    Propaganda still work in the same way, it takes a nation and agitators who push their "Murphy's Law".
    In most cases, it is to get their own thrills or own interest if not, their weekly paychecks.

    Now, about Suharto… Sort of a dictator who organized a coup in Indonesia held worldwide records in human rights abuses. He abused his country and its citizens during all the time his maintained power.
    That leaves sequelles on a nation. As seen in this documentary.

  • docoman

    Jane Doe was talking to Lastviewer, not you.
    How did she claim you don't read all the posts?
    Getting mixed up between your accounts are you? And/or just not following along properly, once more.
    And you call me a clown. lol.

  • zaphodity

    Dirty pool.

  • fiboneanonex

    I am even more amazed by the collective ignorance of australians re their government ........you are SO BLIND to the FACT that ALL governments are utterly corrupt, none of you seem very well read about your own country and its political history. Start by reading "Heroes" by john Pilger to get some idea......most of you remind me of the "Bible belt" americans who are deliberately encouraged to wallow in their ignorance and believe all the shite they are fed by the media, they are kept ignorant by a government that uses them as fodder for its oil wars........they would never have enough dumb soldiers to go get themselves killed if there were to be REAL nationwide education...........and there will never be justice for people like Schapelle as long as the majority of aussies indulge in the same mindless belief in the "basic goodness" (does not exist) and "truth" (ditto) in their government and media. I am distraught to find out today that my own niece is one of you. "its on television all the time and my husband KNOWS someone who KNOWS the corby family and she is guilty"......Dear God, I despair.......

  • docoman

    If the following doesn't make sense to you, it's not directed at you.

    Random tapping on the keyboard with 3 fingers from each hand won't do it.
    You've not realized that at 2.7, there is 2.6 that did better. Not all those are interested in joining the 'round table' you mentioned. Enough mate, I'm not playing anymore, I cbf.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002658076089 Kaz Cook

    I have read and understood everything... Who are you to say that this is not the case Docoman?? I see the governments own emails, Ihave read the minutes of the NSWCC re the recording of the pickup of Marijuana from Sydney airport. I also the copy of the cheque to William Miller from the ABC. You have an agenda Docoman ... I post my real name ... how about you doing the same?

  • docoman

    I said you haven't read everything, as a benefit of the doubt. As you were talking to me, and you started out by saying what I already had numerous times (as pointed out in my reply to you), then went on to offer more information from the makers of this 'doco', which I'd already said numerous times had lost my trust when they lied and misled (again see the reply), I figured you must just not have read everything, as someone who did and understood, wouldn't then go on to just repeat what others have, as that would be silly.
    If you wish to argue against that doubt, that's up to you. I won't disagree with you on that.
    My name is Nunya. Nunya business.
    If you wish to be stupid enough to post your real name on the internet, that's your choice. Don't bother asking me to be as silly as you, trying to make an irrelevant point.
    I've posted on many and varied doco's on this site. I see you have only on this one. Therein lies the answer to your accusation of who has an agenda here.

  • aptnw

    My exact words were: "...this is the first time I have heard about other countries even knowing about Corby, let alone protesting for her release".

    Yes I heard about the case. I never thought she was guilty.
    I thought perhaps she was covering for her brother, to start with.

    Politicians! What can you say?
    The only honest one I ever heard of resigned a week before he would be entitled to a lifelong retainer, car with chauffeur, office with two secretaries, and free first class air fair.
    He also used to wear suits made of the fiber of hashish plants.

    And do you know what? I'm ashamed I can't even remember his name.

    edit: put 'd' behind 'use'

  • aptnw

    My goodness dodcoman, do you listen to what you are saying?
    I take it you are from a western country where you are innocent, until proven guilty.

    "I personally doubt very much that Schapelle Corby is the poor little innocent, working class woman that this 'documentary' has tried to make her out to be. If she is innocent, which she could be, I'm sorry for her, she hasn't deserved it."

    There is no means to underline what I want to refer to, so I will repost what I want to emphasize:

    " If she is innocent, which she could be, I'm sorry for her, she hasn't deserved it."

    So, let's just kill her to be on the safe side, eh?

  • aptnw

    Why don't you inform the police if you think you have something credible to share, or otherwise just shut the f up with the insinuations already.

  • aptnw

    Hear hear!
    I voted for Howard to get rid of Keating.
    What a mistake!!!
    If only there were a credible choice.

  • aptnw

    Go to the f'ing police with this if you think there is anything to it.
    Else give me some names and I'll do it for you.
    Someone is languishing in jail, and you may be able to stop it.
    What do you do???????

  • aptnw

    She flew from Brisbane to Sydney first.
    Her bags were first weighed in at Brisbane,
    I'm only a private pilot, but I know the importance of weight distribution in an aircraft.
    I don't know if they do, but maybe it got weighed again in Sydney.

    Please do try to stay open minded docomam.

  • aptnw

    Agreed.
    If only they could be dispensed responsibly like alcohol.
    Even with the overtaxing it would be cheaper than the illegal stuff.
    Safer, easier and more controlled as well.
    And it would be the end of so much criminality, many enforcement personnel would loose their jobs.
    Maybe that's the issue.

  • aptnw

    "Seizing her proceeds from crime, with her book, is the norm here."
    I don't know where you are from, but it has never been the norm 'down under' until they decided that Corby shouldn't profit from her assumed crime.
    As was shown in the doc and which I have followed as it happened.

  • aptnw

    Don't give a moments thought to those suffering will you?
    LOL

  • aptnw

    Nobody could possibly be this stupid.
    Yes they should have.

  • aptnw

    They introduced, no, pushed that law through parliament, specifically for this one case.

    A very ashamed Australian.

    Edit: put a 'y' after the first word

  • aptnw

    I think that Bush quote describes you to a T.
    This documentary is obviously not done professionally.
    At least not in the sense that it is a professional piece of work.
    It would never bring in any money.
    What it is, probably, in my opinion, is an all out last attempt by friends and family, to spread the truth as they see it, to the world at large.

  • aptnw

    "Yeah, not many people said much about David Hicks being locked up..."

    Thanks to the Howard government directed media hype, sure.

    Edit: put "Howard" before government. (litterally as it turned out)

  • aptnw

    Absolute bull

  • aptnw

    And there's the proof of absolute bull

  • aptnw

    You Indonesian government official, ja?
    Offer real proof and bad reputation will all go away.

  • aptnw

    Sadly, as science progresses, the only option to ensure honesty is to make copies.
    Copies of past conversations will be made public in the event that it is not done so voluntarily on this site.

  • aptnw

    Talk about a rock and a hard place.
    Nothing beats honesty.

  • AntiTheist666

    @aptnw

    POLITICS

    "Talk about a rock and a hard place.
    Nothing beats honesty."

    Please! You’re making my defence of you look foolish! Was I Wrong?
    Redeem Yourself!

    The Ashamed One

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @aptnw,

    All of your comments and everyone else's will be deleted if they don't respect the comment policy.

    So now stop talking about persons around here, stop telling them that they will be questioned by the police and focus on the documentary (documentaries).

    Otherwise you'll be banned. Fair warning No.2.

  • Guest

    All this sad story because of a green herb that WILL become legal. You wait and see.
    Corruption is the name of the game and Schapelle is a pawn for the politicians. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them are pot smokers or their kids.
    Crazy world...where alcool is ok as long as it's taxed, tobacco is ok as long as it's taxed....many are rotting in jail for being passive pot smokers, it is a disgrace.
    az

  • aptnw

    Not understanding you.

    The whole Corby debacle is almost entirely about politics.

  • aptnw

    What makes it all even more hypocrite is that cannabis, up to a certain weight, is legal in Canberra.
    The pollies take good care of themselves.
    For everyone else, there's the kangaroo court.

    The Dutch were in America before the British.
    They were in Australia before Cook.
    Indonesia was one of their colonies.
    If only they had had the population to hang on to it all, we would now all be drinking Heineken and Grosch, and have the freedom to use the green weed as desired, among other freedoms.

    If you are interested in why the green weed is so feared by business (and thus government), have a squiz at a doco called "what if cannabis cured cancer" (or something similar).
    It is an eyeopener.

  • Guest

    There's not much a doc can teach me about pot. I live in the Canadian capital of growers.
    I have watched most doc on weeds and commented on most too.

    I agree the Schapelle story stinks of politics.
    az

  • http://twitter.com/kiddierajg Amanda Joy Gardner

    This is a very poorly done documentary, I was only able to watch about thirty minutes of it. The same information is repeated over and over. Why did Keelty's statement need to be replayed so many times? My favorite part was when the documentary came back to the woman narrator who only said, "And more" and this happened twice. Also, I feel bad for Schapelle... but I have never thought she was innocent. Why did she even take a body board... doesn't her sister own a surf shop there? Seems like a good way to get a large amount of pot into another country. It was found later that her Father and his friend were growing large amounts of pot at their home also. They maintained for so long that none of them had anything to do with illegal drugs. I think this could also be a lesson in going to countries that have bad legal systems, when you visit there, you become subject to it.

  • jpquick2

    Who put you up to it? It reads like you work for ABC. Who writes so much about any TDF films? You seem to know a great deal about selling drugs. Maybe this is why you "volunteered" your services. Do you think this will somehow get you a shorter sentence?

  • jpquick2

    That's right, attack a dead man. Takes real courage. I hope you're pleased with yourself.

  • jpquick2

    I think docoman is a mercenary for the Australian Gov't.

  • jpquick2

    Marijuana is a more benign drug than alcohol when not overused. Even if you compare chronic, long term use of alcohol to the same type of abuse of marijuana, marijuana is safer.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    It is poorly done, in comparison to big budget corporate productions & government propaganda. That's because it's neither of these.
    "Why did she even take a body board... doesn't her sister own a surf shop there?"
    No, her sister does not own a surf shop there. I believe her husband is (or was) a local surfing champion, but that's about as far as the Corby connection to the surf industry goes.
    "Seems like a good way to get a large amount of pot into another country."
    No it's not actually. The pot was in 2 clear plastic bags, the inner one had been slashed open, and the outer one wasn't even sealed up properly, just folded over. It was not vacuum compressed. It had been shoved into a body board bag, along with an actual body board & a pair of flippers, causing damage to the seams & handle. The bag was bloated like a pillow, and would have absolutely stunk. The owner's name & address was tagged on the bag.
    This does NOT seem to be a very clever way, to smuggle pot into a country that executes drug traffickers. I can think of much better ways to smuggle 4 kgs of pot into Bali, and I'm sure you could too.
    "It was found later that her Father and his friend were growing large amounts of pot at their home also."
    Not exactly right. Her father's neighbour was found to be growing pot on his property. He was convicted for growing & possession, but cleared of any trafficking charges. A police investigation found the alleged links to her father, to be unfounded. Her father has never been investigated for international drug trafficking, and his home was never raided, not even in the days following Schapelle's arrest. There has been a deliberate media campaign to smear the Corbys, and censor the actual facts. It has been documented.
    See The Primary Smear report on the Expendable Project's website.
    ...and then Google search for The Schapelle Corby Media Project
    "They maintained for so long that none of them had anything to do with illegal drugs."
    None of the family have ever been investigated or raided, over matters pertaining to international drug trafficking. In one the most high profile cases in Australian history, why have no police, state or federal, ever done any actual investigations into this so called "drug family"...?
    "I think this could also be a lesson in going to countries that have bad legal systems, when you visit there, you become subject to it."
    Here's how bad it is.
    The Indonesians presented no physical evidence, to connect Corby to the marijuana. They refused, withheld and destroyed vital evidence. They presented no evidence to support a charge of trafficking, which doubled her sentence from 10 to 20 years. The marijuana was never proven to be from Australia, as they refused to conduct any forensic testing.
    Schapelle's incarceration is actually unlawful, under Indonesian and International laws.
    See
    The Expendable project "The show trial report"
    or just Google
    breaches of the indonesian code

  • docoman

    lol. You need to get your accusations straight. Which am I? A drug dealer doing a sentence being forced to comment on TDF hoping for a sentence reduction, a journalist that works for the ABC, or a mercenary for the Aus Gov't?
    Sorry, but I'm not now, and never have been, any of the above.
    Thank you for the amusement, I enjoyed the laugh. I can't stay and play anymore now though, something's going on here. A cell search maybe? Ohh, it could be a new story, or another 'job' for Julia, or did someone die that I had better go attack now. lol.

  • jpquick2

    you're welcome… ;-)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=552975784 Shan Maree Walker

    No. They did pay the bribe. But the guy was sick on the day she arrived in Bali. From the start I thought she was guilty. I was right. She is doing the mental illness thing for the second time now and once she gets back here, she'll magically be well again. Her mother and her sister have gotten rich and will no doubt be keeping some aside for Shapelle, there will be plenty from proceeds of crime. What is sad, is that her own father could have owned up and saved her from prison. He could have taken responsibility for HIS actions. He was going to die anyway. But he didnt. No balls, no guts. Looks to me like the Shapelle camp made this film. Its weak.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=552975784 Shan Maree Walker

    LOL. You cant be serious.? And her family are very very good at letting their associates or offspring in this case, take the rap. Mr Corby's hydro growing mate spent 3 yrs inside without as much as a postcard from his partner. Its no surprise that he did the same for Shapelle. Baggage handlers, crooked gov, mental illness. She'll use whatever it takes to get home. And she should too, she's done enough time. Its not bloody heroin, its pot.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    Docoman, I am also a little sceptical of some of the things presented in this film. However, I do believe Schapelle is innocent. And I came to that conclusion, long before this film came out.
    I posted you some links to other independent sources, that also back up key things given in this film. But it appears the moderator wont allow me to post any links, so instead I'll just have to give you some Google search terms.

    Google
    breaches of the indonesian code

    The first couple of results are a detailed investigation into the Bali trial, and the complete failure by police & prosecution, to present a single shred of evidence connecting her to the drugs. Schapelle's trial violated not only Indonesian law, but all known international standards of justice. This film doesn't even go into that aspect, in all that much detail.

    Google
    tnra schapelle

    Truth News Radio Australia has covered this case for a while now. The first 5 or 6 results are relevant.

    Google
    schapelle corby journoz

    The Schapelle Corby Media Project has investigated media lies, censorship, and the ongoing hostile smear campaign against Schapelle and her family.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "No. They did pay the bribe. But the guy was sick on the day she arrived in Bali."

    Unsupported assertions/rumours don't count as facts. Unless you can prove this, or have special insider knowledge of the family, and their alleged dealings. And if you've got proof, then you should take it to the media. They'd love to hear from anyone who has real evidence against the Corbys. And when I say anyone ...I'm not kidding. They have already paid a couple of lying drug addicts, a mental patient and a criminal, six-figure sums of money to tell flimsy lies. So imagine what they might pay you, for real evidence against them ...if you actually have it.
    They wouldn't have to resort to photos of people smoking bongs, or non-stories about her father getting fined for possessing a little bit in a bowl, at a party back in the 70s.
    They wouldn't need to show slow motion footage of her father, accompanied by spooky music. They wouldn't have to repeat the phrase "convicted drug smuggler Schapelle Corby" over and over again, to give credibility to a trial that has none ...and brainwash by repetition.
    Oh yeah, they'd definitely pay big bucks for anything that is actually substantial...

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "From the start I thought she was guilty. I was right."
    Unfortunately your declaration of correctness, is offset by the fact that no physical evidence exists whatsoever, that connects Schapelle to the drugs found in her bag. That's because the Indonesians refused to collect and present any. They also withheld and destroyed vital evidence. The very evidence that she requested, and which could have incriminated her, had she'd been guilty ...and yet the Indonesians withheld & destroyed it. Anything about that seem odd...?
    It is also offset by the fact that no Australian police, state or federal, have ever found any evidence, to implicate any member of her family in the drug trade. That's because they've hardly even bothered to look for any. They never even raided either of her parent's homes, not even in the days just after her arrest, and never have since. If the Corbys really are drug traffickers, then they've caused international embarrassment to Australia, and a hot political situation.
    So why don't any Australian police want to investigate and expose them...? ...and show us the proof that shuts the lid on this, once and for all...?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "What is sad, is that her own father could have owned up and saved her from prison. He could have taken responsibility for HIS actions. He was going to die anyway."
    This was a man who was dying of cancer, and relied upon Schapelle as his carer. She had recently committed to this, and was visiting her sister in Bali to celebrate her birthday, before returning home to assume this role, on a more intensive basis.
    What is sad, is that any thinking person could believe that such a man, would plant 4 kgs of weed in his daughters unlocked body board bag ...in 2 clear plastic bags with the inner one slashed open, and the outer not even sealed up ...and send this with her into a country that routinely executes drug traffickers. ...and then let her take the rap ...and die without confessing.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    AND... IF her father planted it without her knowledge, I also wonder ...how could she (or her mum or travelling companions) have not noticed something odd about the bag ...as they were getting it out of the car, after they'd just arrived at Brisbane airport...?
    I know lots of people ask this question, in the context of her arrival in Bali. And its a fair question. I pondered over it too early on, as I believed it could've been the critical flaw, that throws the book at her. I have since found out that Schapelle claimed in her testimony, that she did actually did notice something odd about the body board bag, as her brother James was dragging it, and the rest of the luggage, across the floor toward the customs desk. That's right. Schapelle didn't carry it. When she placed it on the counter, she unzipped it to see what was causing the bulge. She zipped it up again in panic, after seeing what it was. Why would a willing drug smuggler open their bag, and then close it again, even before being asked to...?
    The customs officer gave a different version of events. He said she tried to prevent him from opening the bag, and quoted her as saying "I have some...."
    There was CCTV covering this exchange, that would've shown what really happened. The footage was requested by the defence. The judges said they'd only view it, if needed. For some reason though, it wasn't needed ...and they decided to take one person's unproven testimony over another's. And this unproven testimony, formed the basis of the guilty verdict.
    Google
    breaches of the indonesian code
    ...to find out about everything else, that was wrong with the "trial"...

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=552975784 Shan Maree Walker

    What about the staff on the plane with her. Several of them have made statements as to her conduct on the plane. Nervous, drunk, loud, paranoid. Even at the airport her friend travelling with her has said that Schapelle was pointing out the security cameras. No homes were searched for drugs because thats not where they keep it. The latest book on Shapelle written by a journo was very interesting and as far as I am concerned it answered a lot of questions. The police dont care enough about it to investigate it, because It didnt happen here. The entire Corby family have had used the media to their advantage. Money for jam is what its all about. Getting rich quick and not having to do an honest days work to get it. Or maybe showing your tits and spreading your legs for a mens magazine is considered...work.

  • docoman

    Thank you for your reply, although I don't agree with some of what you and some of the info. I've found from the searches I've done you suggested conclude, I thank you for your info. and intelligent reply v's the many personal attacks disregarding the issue.
    It did answer some questions, but also brought up some others. I don't know if Schapelle is guilty or innocent, but like most people I do agree 20 years for some MJ is excessive.
    With regards to some of what you bring up, it seems the idea of 'prima facie' means more or less that because of the quantity found, it's assumed it has to be trafficking and not personal. Which it looks like is a fairly universal ruling with larger amounts of illegal substances, regardless of the country. And because it's found on your person, (whether you're driving a car, or carrying a bag), its assumed it's yours. Which is what makes it necessary for Shapelle to prove she's innocent. (I'm not saying it's fair, I'm thinking that's how the law views it)
    With regards to the access to test the MJ forensically for country of origin, or with regards to due process there, IS it possible to test for country of origin at all? And legally, it seems by the wording of their law, they were required to give a report of the testing, not a sample.
    I also see how possibly they got around the interpreter, as the airline staff held her for the first 9 hours, not the police? It also begs the question when it's asked about the English skills of the questioners, if they couldn't ask questions in English, and Shapelle doesn't understand Indonesian, how could she answer any questions if she couldn't understand what was asked? Her argument doesn't really make sense to me. Maybe she has a case for suing the airline for wrongful imprisonment? It was wrong not having an interpreter, but I don't see how that negates her having to answer for the drugs found in her possession.

  • docoman

    In your first post there is a logic problem also. You said the police haven't investigated them (for international drug trafficking), but also say the police investigations haven't found anything. It can't be both? (unless you're relying on clever wording)
    I also agree with you that it doesn't make sense the way the drugs were packed. (I've not heard the inner bag slashed, outer not sealed properly before. I recall seeing it briefly on TV. Are you sure of this account?) BUT, it doesn't make sense for ANYONE to pack it that way, baggage handlers ect. It's weird to me. And, if her body bag, which when she checked in, only contained a body board and a pair of flippers, had this stinking bag stuffed into it, puffing it out like a pillow, causing damage to the seams and handle, why didn't she notice it was very different when she picked it up on arrival? If it was puffed out like a pillow and stunk, very different to how she checked it in and a damaged handle, why didn't she investigate? What is claimed as a defense, could also be viewed as incriminating.

  • docoman

    Dohh, just saw you already covered some of that question. That cctv footage should have been viewed in her trial, to confirm or contradict the evidence given by the customs officer. I would like to watch it, it'd clear up whether Shapelle did in fact act guilty when searched. One more mistake.
    There are many problems with the case. The lack of evidence collected being the main one. I can see how they probably viewed it as caught in the act, you prove you didn't do it, that's all the law needs.
    I'm back to where I started, I don't know, silly girl if she did, poor girl if she didn't. Either way I hate the BS style this doco puts forth, not the low budget, but it's logic and honesty level, it's condemnation of propaganda tactics whilst using them themselves. There's so much BS surrounding the case, from more then the one angle/side, that it's difficult to tell the truth. I can't completely believe any side of it, it feels like they're all not being 100% honest.
    Edit- I agree that the sentence seems excessive, but I also have to concede that it's not my/our call, it's the Indonesians. I don't think it's a good precedent to set to give preferential treatment to someone based mostly on empathy or our perception of an unfair process. It is hypocritical for Australia (and pretty much any country for that matter) to point the finger at others over human rights, we're all guilty in one way or another.

  • docoman

    The sad part I think is, with a decent approach, collection of evidence and evaluation, it could have fairly easily been determined whether Shapelle did or didn't check the drugs in, and therefore is or isn't guilty. I think whatever your feelings on the case, this is pretty self evident and the failing in the whole saga, which has to be born mostly by the Indonesian legal process/investigators. (Australia's is a farce too, you'll find if you have any experience with our legal system) Because of the fumbling?, only Shapelle, and the people involved with the drugs really know for sure.

  • docoman

    I don't know if she did or didn't do it. But if she did, her father couldn't own up to it, as it would possibly put her in front of a firing squad. ? Or at least confirm some level of guilt. If she is guilty, this was the only way to play it I'd think. (otherwise she'd be in there, they'd have charges over here as well.)
    I believe my brother is telling me the truth in what he heard, I don't know and can't trust a drug dealing 3rd party I don't know though. He said this very early on, when the media was all pro Shapelle. He did live in the same area as the Corby's at the time, but it's no proof one way or the other.
    I don't believe the sister one bit, Mercedes. She's a liar I believe, I find it very telling that she didn't sue Powers after Chnl 7. How did Mercedes' lawyer know what questions about which drugs, in front of her kids ect to ask (to discredit Powers. Ask the kids if they've ever seen Mum's friend Mercedes having drugs with Mum.) I think that incriminates a drug scattered thinking Mercedes myself, more so then a picture of her using a bong does. (I do resent someone I believe is a liar making money from it, but have no sympathy for Chnl 7, that was their fee they were happy to pay for ratings. So ok, good on ya Mercedes, you earned it for and through Chanl 7. Powers probably told the truth, but for selfish reasons, so no sympathy for her from me, she got her cut out of it. I think it was a public, skanky drug bytach fight, where both pulled out each others dirty laundry, including the accusation of taking MJ to Bali. The main difference being Powers admitted to her actions, Mercedes didn't.
    If they were really smart and friends, it's a clever way for the pair of them to get a lot of money out of Chnl 7. Maybe that's why there was no case against Powers, unnecessary legal fee's. They'd recieved their payouts. I'd suggest it to them if I was their lawyer, we'd all make money from it, no laws broken, playing on Chnl 7's expected actions, for the benefit of the client of course ;)
    Which is why I think many Australians feel against Schapelle. Everyone I've spoken to says they think 20 years is excessive. But, there is also something that doesn't sit right with the families claims, and makes it feel like we're trying to be played for fools.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "What about the staff on the plane with her. Several of them have made statements as to her conduct on the plane."

    Are we to assume that anyone who misbehaves on a flight, is likely to be a drug trafficker...?
    Anyway, where are these staff...? Who are they...? Why didn't the Australian media contact them way back then, for their juicy stories about Schapelle being naughty on the plane...? Why is the media not contacting them now...?
    I believe this information, was only recently given in that latest "book" you mentioned. And as for the "journo" that wrote it ...well, try a Google search for his name Eamonn Duff, just by itself. The first result will probably be his Twitter profile, but be sure to check out

    sinsofthefather(dot)net

    ...it'll be somewhere near the top.
    And be sure to read "Why Eamonn Duff's New Book About Schapelle Corby Is A Complete Crock Of Sh.." at Women for Schapelle. (Also near the top of the results)

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    And then Google
    journoz schapellecorby smh

    ...the first result is an investigation into Duff, that was done by the Schapelle Corby Media Project, before the "book" even came out.

    Also Google
    eamonn duff publisher axes

    The publisher originally promoted it, under? the title "The fall girl". But the original material, contained defamatory references to living persons. In Australia, it's not legal to defame the living. When they were contacted by legal representatives for the Corbys, they withdrew it, and sent a letter of apology...
    They then re-worked it, to focus entirely on the deceased Michael Corby ...and gave it a new title.
    In Australia, it's quite legal to defame the dead. And in Australia, a dead man can't sue.? And it seems his living relatives, can't sue on his behalf, either.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    I've also read the "book" and it doesn't answer any questions at all. It just goes over the same old discredited stories, that the mainstream media have already milked for all they're worth ...and presents 2 or 3 new "revelations" (such as Schapelle's in-flight behaviour) ...which one would have to wonder, why they've taken so long to come out.
    Note, that these "revelations" are given without any substance, and are not backed up by any other sources ...not even the rest of the mainstream media.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "No homes were searched for drugs because thats not where they keep it."

    House raids are a standard part of investigative procedure, when the AFP have evidence that an Australian family/syndicate/gang, or individual might be trafficking commercial quantities of illegal drugs into another country. An Australian being arrested arriving in Bali, with 4.2 kgs of weed, would constitute this evidence.
    Of course, the police wont be expecting to find all their drugs at their home ...possibly none. But the investigation has to start somewhere, doesn't it...?

    "The police dont care enough about it to investigate it, because It didnt happen here."

    The Corbys are an Australian family, so it's in the AFP's jurisdiction to fully investigate all their alleged Australian operations, and all family members, that reside in Australia.

    Are we supposed to believe, that in one of the most high profile and controversial cases in Australian history, the AFP don't care enough, to investigate this alleged notorious "drug family" ...who caused such inconvenience and diplomatic problems for the government...?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "The entire Corby family have used the media to their advantage."

    That's not the feeling I get, going by the general position of the mainstream media, over the last 7 years. The repeated use of the phrase "convicted drug smuggler Schapelle Corby" over and over again, to the point where it becomes blatant propaganda ...and the media's inability to conduct basic research before airing defamatory rumours & smear, and their ignorance of crucial facts, that are available in the public domain...
    ...would suggest the Corbys haven't had much luck at all, in getting the media on side. Not since after the trial, anyway. This is hardly surprising, considering that since then, the media has had an agenda, to paint them in an unfavourable light.
    And they've been very successful, in muddying the waters, and turning the tide of public opinion against Schapelle & her family.
    But in this case, it goes much deeper than ratings or profit ...the nature of all reporting on this subject has been strictly directed and moderated, by those who own the Australian media. Those who must protect Australia's economic, strategic & political interests with Indonesia.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "Getting rich quick and not having to do an honest days work to get it."

    I believe Schapelle's mum ran a fish & chips shop, that other family members (including Schapelle) contributed to. I believe they had to sell that business, to cover ongoing legal costs. And in his younger days, I believe her dad once worked in a mine.
    As for posing in a legitimate publication goes, -eg a men's magazine ...well as far as I know, that's also an honest & legal day's work.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "Which is what makes it necessary for Schapelle to prove she's innocent."

    I think this idea has also been supported by the media. I think the Indonesians also claimed this. I believe it's wrong though. I'm pretty sure there's articles in the Indonesian code of Criminal Procedure & Indonesian Human Rights Law, that go something like
    "The suspect or defendant shall not be burdened with the duty of providing evidence." ...and
    "Every person who is arrested, detained, charged or brought before a court has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty."
    I think this is mentioned in the independent research paper, all about the Breaches of Indonesian law, that I directed you to in my earlier post.

    "IS it possible to test for country of origin at all?"

    It is possible to identify the DNA of a plant, and find it to be an Australian variety, or an Indonesian variety, or an African variety ...etc. It can be cross-checked with existing catalogues & samples.
    And if formally requested by Australian police, (which they were) ...then they were required to give a sample, under something called 'bilateral international mutual assistance agreements'. Commonly referred to, as the Mutual Assistance Treaty. It was enacted on effectively, in the case of the Bali 9. In this case however, the Indonesians violated this treaty.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    I think this is what I wrote, that appears ambiguous:

    ...A police investigation found the alleged links to her father, to be unfounded. Her father has never been investigated for international drug trafficking, and his home was never raided, not even in the days following Schapelle's arrest...

    The police investigation I referred to in the first sentence ...is about how South Australian police briefly looked into the stories, given by a drug dealer named Malcolm Macauley, in which he claims to be connected to the Corbys. They found his claims to be "laughable" (their words) ...based on their investigation into him.

    I think I first read about how the weed was packaged, in "Schapelle :The facts, The evidence, The truth" by Tony Wilson.
    I'm sure I've also read something even in the Indonesians official reports, about the slash on the inner bag. They claimed it was caused by one of them, with a key or something, after Schapelle had been arrested.

    Upon her arrival in Bali, she would have noticed her bag all bloated & stinking. But, what exactly can she do about it, when she discovers what's in it...? Report to customs that she's just found a huge bag of dope in her luggage...? Maybe that is what she tried to do, but it was lost in translation. Customs officer Winata's english was not very good. Of course, we'll never know what actually happened in that exchange, because of the missing CCTV footage.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "BUT, it doesn't make sense for ANYONE to pack it that way, baggage handlers ect. It's weird to me."

    You're right. It doesn't make sense for anyone who DOES NOT want to get caught, to pack 4 kgs of weed in such a careless manner. No-one. Not baggage handlers, or the Corbys, or anyone.
    This dilemma can be solved however, if you consider that maybe whoever placed that weed in Schapelle's bag ...wanted it to be found.

    And who might that be...?

    Who was it, that refused to record the baggage weight on arrival in Bali, despite being requested to by the defendant...? Who refused to take fingerprints, despite being requested to by the defendant...? Who refused to test the weed for origin, despite being requested to by the defendant...? Who refused to provide a sample to the AFP when requested...? Who destroyed the evidence, without holding a sample, while the appeals processes were still pending...?
    Who went out of their way, and broke their own laws & violated an international treaty, to ensure that no evidence would be available ...and that no-one will ever have a sample...???

    The answer ...is the Bali police.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "I don't think it's a good precedent to set to give preferential treatment to someone based mostly on empathy or our perception of an unfair process."

    An Indonesian human rights activist named Arifin Wardiyanto has started a campaign, to bring attention to the unfairness of Schapelles sentence, relative to substantially lighter sentences given to Indonesian nationals, for similar amounts of marijuana ...and much greater amounts.
    It may not just be our perception. Arifin has provided data to show how unfair, Schapelle's sentence really is.
    If you Google

    Arifin Wardiyanto letter

    ...the first result, should be a post about him at Women for Schapelle. Select that, and on that page is a link to Arifin's letter, containing the data he has provided.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=552975784 Shan Maree Walker

    Saw him on twitter. Not bad looking, but then changed my mind when I saw he was a Posh fan.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=552975784 Shan Maree Walker

    She got paid a lot of money to pose for the magazine. She wouldnt have been in the magazine if not for her sister. It may be legal but honest? Its fast cash....$50,000.

  • docoman

    Thank you, I have learned more from you in 15 min then from what I could stomach of this 'doco'.

    I don't know if Shapelle did or didn't know about it, I never will probably.
    There are quite a few 'weird' areas of the whole story, I feel from all sides. Either way, the price she's paid is a steep one.
    Regardless of what I think about others of her family, that's not Shapelle.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Madamm-Geeky/100002043231906 Madamm Geeky

    I personally think that Australians should be banned from commenting on this. Why? It's in the film: propaganda. They have been subjected to so many lies and smears, the nastiest of them pollute places like this with their callous abuse against her and her family. They actually believe what they have been fed.It is truly ugly to see.

    As for this film, every abuse IS documented on the website. I urge you to visit it, and see the Australian government's own emails for yourself. See what they did. See what the media did. It is horrific.

    Then take a view on those who have bought the propaganda and feel the need to attack this innocent woman on the internet. Your view of Australia will never be the same again.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Madamm-Geeky/100002043231906 Madamm Geeky

    You can't be bothered watching the information, but there you are, smearing her father. No, he wasn't growing pot in his home at all. You buy the lies of your media, but are too lazy to educate yourself. Jeez.

  • ollie 88

    she done it end of story. you dont mix with druggies then say oh i dont do drugs

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/polarjoa Jo McKay

    It is the belief and hope of many that when we travel to other nations, our governments have our back. Hmmpf - not so much I guess; how many of you are willing to take the travel risk - what if this was your mother, sister, brother? (all this 4 govt. players to play and a few kilos of MJ? as in cannabis sativa? ... truly disgusting!!!)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Madamm-Geeky/100002043231906 Madamm Geeky

    Keep an eye on the Expendable Project website. More government cables are added frequently, as are more examples of the opinion management campaign, which of course produces increasing numbers of ugly callous Australians bleating what they have been fed. This sickening scandal won't be going away.

  • Carotomo

    Wow, I'm an Aussie and this doco seems poxy but the info is jaw dropping!
    A must watch for australians or anyone interested.

  • richardmullins

    I have no evidence but my immediate thoughts were that if the bali bombing was false flag, then corby arrest was a political ruse to hose down the rabid anti-indonesian australian press. Maybe this is a standard trick of the trade.

  • http://www.facebook.com/melissa.leyes2 Melissa Fugh Leyes

    For The love of God, everyone in the US knows about it!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/melissa.leyes2 Melissa Fugh Leyes

    Let the innocent girl out of jail and let everyone get on with their lives! 20 years is way too long anyway for a drug related mistake a young person makes even if she were guilty! Find the real bad guys, the ones who set her up!!!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/melissa.leyes2 Melissa Fugh Leyes

    And yes other countries do know about her and how she has been treated, her name is all over the US, and other countries. It is a disgrace what that government did to her!!! It makes me want to puke!!!!! You people in Australia need to get a little more together with your government it seems like! I thought you guys were normal? Let her out!!!!

  • GRUMPY25608

    Was she found with 4.2kgs of pot in HER boogie board bag. If so how can you say an innocent girl. They say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Here in Brisbane Aust the family has a reputation of living of the proceeds of crime, (dealing drugs).

  • docoman

    That is quite amusing coming from an American (USA). It would seem from your facebook page that's where you're from?
    Firstly, how exactly are the Australian Government or people supposed to 'let her out!!!!' ? She's in prison in Indonesia, under Indonesian Law. (That's a whole different country to Australia, as it seems you missed that point)
    And you really need to look in your own backyard before preaching to the rest of the world. Here's one little word that should make you, if you have any conscience, choke on your hypocritical words. Guantanamo. And that is just one of the MANY possible words the world can point the finger at your country over.
    Get off your soapbox Barbie, and clean up your own act before preaching to others. I hope we're never what you call 'normal', or as 'together with your government' as it seems you feel with your elected liars.

  • docoman

    Careful, I said something similar earlier and got all sorts of BS accusations from ignoramuses, including Aussies are beasts, I'm a gestapo psychotic sadistic pedophile. Some real pearls of wisdom. :) And someone using multiple accounts trying to be 'clever'. Be prepared for some cr@p on this topic if you dare to question some people's beliefs or their inability to notice the BS 'facts' contained in this 'show'. Most of them newer posters, looking for a battle of wits even though they're coming unarmed. ;)

  • http://www.facebook.com/torbjorn.wiren Torbjörn Wiren

    One thing is clear,hear I would not set my foot in any of those countrys ! corrupt to the corr/heartless / T a blind man can see whre this comes from!!

  • docoman

    Probably a good idea mate. It'd probably be too warm in Australia or Indonesia, our winters are probably warmer then your summers. We'd better not go to Sweden either, Blentarp seems much too mind-numbingly cold.

  • docoman

    Your 'immediate thoughts', on both topics you've commented on, are False Flag? Nothing to do with your viewing choices?
    How did the Corby arrest affect the media in Australia regarding Indonesia? Hosing down the rabid anti-Indonesian Australian press, as you suggest?
    How, by giving them someone the press initially drummed up sympathy for, against the Indonesians? That makes a lot of sense doesn't it? They'd do something to stir up any anti-Indonesian press sentiments, in an effort to hose down the anti-Indonesian press.

  • GRUMPY25608

    I have no problem with copping s*it over defending my country as I've been doing that my entire life both as a defence member and a extremely proud AUSSIE. The only reason these people say what they are, is because they can hide behind a computer screen. I know if we were to have this conversation face to face there responses would be completely different, as fear and intimidation would factor into it.

  • GRUMPY25608

    As an Aussie I would just like to thank you for not wanting to come over, as I believe your the type of tourist that we don't want here.

  • GRUMPY25608

    As a fellow Aussie I find it a disgrace that you could be taken in by such BS, Surely you heard about this when it was happening or hadn't you reaced pubity yet.

  • docoman

    Obviously my cautions were unnecessary, keyboard warriors versus a real warrior. Thank you for your service to our country mate.
    Yeah, people get 'brave' when they think they're hidden, many of these 'conversations' would be very different face to face.
    I've only seen one Corby supporter that had any sense, the rest seem to have been fools that are sucked in by the propagandist, emotional appeals, faulty logic and outright lies in this 'show'.
    Or the more amusing twits that you've already seen an example of, some stupid comment along the lines of "I'll show you, I won't visit your country". As if somehow that is doing us a disservice.
    I agree with you, I say the fewer idiots that don't want to visit the better, we've got enough of our own already. They can feel free to not visit as often as they like.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    4.2 kgs of pot was found in her bag ...after she had left it unlocked, and been apart from it for several hours, while it was handled by staff in both Australia and Bali, and during which time, several other people had access to it.

    How can you say an innocent girl...? Well... fact of the matter is, you can't say she's guilty for certain, either. For the reason I just outlined above.

    And ....also for these reasons-

    The Indonesians presented no physical evidence, to connect Corby to the marijuana.
    The Indonesians refused, withheld and destroyed vital evidence ...and violated their own laws, to do so.
    The marijuana was never proven to be from Australia.
    Schapelle's incarceration is actually unlawful, under Indonesian and International laws.

    See
    The Expendable project "The show trial report"

    or just Google
    breaches of the indonesian code
    The first results of a search for those words, brings up content relating to this case.

    It is a fact ...that the Indonesians never provided any official proof of Corby's guilt, whatsoever.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    And ....for these reasons-

    The AFP were running an operation at Sydney airport, targeting drug traffickers ...the very day Corby flew out. Yet CCTV footage (from 3 airports)...was somehow unavailable. Her lawyers were given conflicting stories, as they sought to obtain it.
    Australian Federal Police have never investigated any members of her family for drug trafficking.
    South Australian & QLD Police found no evidence for any allegations, made against her family.
    Qld Police issued a certificate of 'No disclosable outcomes' against the name Michael Corby Senior. Any drug convictions at all, would be a disclosable outcome.
    Australian media have presented no proof, connecting her family to the drug trade, or that any commercial flow of marijuana exists ...from Australia to Bali.

    See
    The Expendable project "The primary smear report" "The transit report"
    and "The absence of motive"

    See also
    Sins Of The Father, Eamonn Duff: THE TRUTH
    mooresaussiegold . blogspot
    womenforschapelle australian customs
    Schapelle Corby media project
    and
    Mercedes Corby wins defamation case
    lateline apology for Michael Corby senior
    Michael Corby senior police certificate (you can find that with a google image search)

    It is also a fact ...that no Australian media, or police or anyone in Australia ...have provided any proof of Corby's guilt, official or otherwise.

  • GRUMPY25608

    If you you get pulled over in a car a nd the police find 4.2kgs in that car that your in charge off. You wont get away with it, they will charge you for it. As the brurden of proof then becomes yours to prove beyound reasonable doubt.

    I never said that they were guilty of any offence, I stated that the family had a reputation of living off the proceeds of crime, At no stage did I state that thet did. Having a reputation, is somewhat different than been found guilty of an offence. You seemed to forget her brother in your rambling, or dont you count him with in her family.

    Possession is 9/10ths of the law, and they found it in her bag true.
    That being the case the burden of proof then become the defences problems as SHE was found in possession.

    If your argument was about her prison term, I would agree with the masses to say that the punishment was excessive to say the least.

    Your right at no stage did the Australian media, police or any other Australian agency has found her guilty of any offence and rightly so, as she was found in Bali. Bali has never been under Australian law, so it is not any member of australian community to prove her guilt.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    Corby was not pulled over in a car, and found with 4.2 kgs of weed. She was stepping off a plane at Denpasar airport, after a flight from Australia.
    Any scenarios involving a car, have no relevance here.
    I haven't forgotten about her brother. He has also never been investigated for drug trafficking. Found guilty of home invasion, assault and theft, but never investigated for drug trafficking.

    The burden of proof was actually on the prosecution, not the defence.

    Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP):
    Article 66 - The suspect or defendant shall not be burdened with the duty of providing evidence.

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):
    Article 14 (2) - Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

    Indonesian Human Rights Law:
    Article 18 - Every person who is arrested, detained, charged or brought before a court has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

    Just some, of the many articles of their own code, that were violated by the Indonesians.

    Obviously, it's not up to anyone in Australia to prove her guilt.
    But did it sink in, when I told you that the Indonesians also failed to prove guilt...?

  • GRUMPY25608

    who's boogie board bag? proven. Where was the drugs first found? Thats right it was found in HER boogie board bag.

  • docoman

    From our conversations earlier;
    "... it seems the idea of 'prima facie' means more or less that because of the quantity found, it's assumed it has to be trafficking and not personal. Which it looks like is a fairly universal ruling with larger amounts of illegal substances, regardless of the country. And because it's found on your person, (whether you're driving a car, or carrying a bag), its assumed it's yours. Which is what makes it necessary for Shapelle to prove she's innocent. (I'm not saying it's fair, I'm thinking that's how the law views it)"

    To be balanced, you should also be quoting the relevant parts of the laws that mention this, and how it shifts the burden of proof.
    Regardless of whether Shapelle knew about the drugs or not, the fact is 4.2 kg were found under her control, which shifts the burden of proof to the defense to prove it's not theirs.

    The Indonesians are the same as most countries on this point.
    They had enough proof in the eyes of the law, when they found it on her.

  • GRUMPY25608

    Your 100% correct about innocent until proven guilty, and no doubt everyone held on remand must feel unjustly imprisoned

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    ...after she'd left it unlocked, and been apart from it for several hours, while it was handled by staff in both Australia and Bali, and during which time, several other people had access to it.

    Are you missing something here? Is there something in that sentence above ...you are not able to grasp?

    Would it be the simple fact, that something found in somebody's bag-

    after they had left it unlocked, and been apart from it for several hours, during which time it was handled by several other people...

    ...simply does not equate to absolute proof, that the bag's owner ...is a willing drug trafficker...or that anyone connected to them is.

    You can't honestly be that daft.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    I can't find any articles in the Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure, the ICCPR, or the Indonesian Human Rights Law ...that shift the burden of proof onto the defendant.
    Can you?
    If you can find such articles, could you please show them?

    "I'm thinking that's how the law views it"
    "They had enough proof in the eyes of the law, when they found it on her."

    The onus is on you in this case, since you're the one who has made assertions ...that are as of yet, unsubstantiated.

  • GRUMPY25608

    All your information come from this doco or have you followed the hole case from the time she was first arrested?

  • docoman

    The biggest problem with what you point out, is that it wasn't 'several other people' that were found with it in their bag, attempting to get through customs.
    She was found with a large amount of an illegal substance, in her possession. It doesn't 'equate to absolute proof', but it's enough for the law, regardless of your selective law quotes earlier.

    She had to have known, as per our previous conversation, that her bag was different. Dump it if possible (toilets), or at least grab someone official and say, "hey, I just picked up my bag and it's different, it's got this big bag of pot in it that I didn't pack". If you're still charged, at least you can say you pointed it out to them before you were caught with it. That's not what she did. She tried to get it through customs. That in itself is trafficking, even if only from the baggage pick-up to outside the airport, she tried to get it through.
    Even if she had no prior knowledge of the pot until picking up her bag in Bali, she must've known then.
    And her choice was... try to take it through customs. Which is a crime.
    So, even if her story is true and someone else put the pot in her bag, she decided to try to get it through customs, which I think you'll find is still called drug trafficking.
    At the very least Shapelle is guilty of a very stupid choice leading to a crime, one way or the other.

  • docoman

    So you're arguing that larger amounts of illegal drugs don't come under the the idea of 'prima facie', where the person found with them is assumed to be trafficking and not for personal use?

    That finding something illegal in your possession, be it in your hands, pockets, car, bag, ect it's not taken that it is yours, and it's not up to you to prove it's not yours? That seems to be what you're saying.
    It would also seem the Indonesian Courts, who I'd assume know their law better then you or I do, thought that. And in this case, they're the ones that count.
    Either way, she chose to try to get it through customs, which is trafficking.

  • docoman

    She was innocent until proven guilty. The fact they found them on her is proof, at the very least of possession. That is standard practice in most countries, so trying to say somehow Shapelle got bad treatment on that point is incorrect. The second they found the drugs in Shapelle's bag, under her control, the Indonesians had the proof they needed. The onus then shifts to Shapelle to show how they can't be hers.
    I agree, the case was very shoddy, in multiple areas. But you can't just say that Shapelle has no questions to answer when 4.2 kg of pot are found in her possession.
    The only people that really know for sure are Shapelle, and any others involved with those drugs.
    At this time, the only opinion that makes a difference is the Indonesian Court's.
    Either way, this will follow her the rest of her life.
    The sentence isn't fair in my view, the case wasn't handled well, obviously.
    That still doesn't make the bag of pot or the questions disappear.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    I have followed the whole case since she was first arrested, and the info I've given you, is certainly not all from this documentary.
    Before this even came out, I could have told you all the same info.
    Have you looked into the sources I've provided...? Most are not connected to this film.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    What I would like to know is, HOW do you know she TRIED to get it through customs...?

    You have provided no substantiation for your previous assertions, and here you are trying to use another unfounded assertion ...in order to downplay the irrefutable facts pertaining to the Bali trial.

    -That the Indonesians broke their own laws, in withholding and destroying evidence.
    -That they presented not one shred of evidence, connecting Corby to the drugs. Under Indonesian law, prima facie evidence, is not sufficient for a conviction.
    -That they are the ones who have broken their own, and international human rights laws, by illegally jailing a person without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The luggage carousel that she collected it from, was only a few feet from the customs desk. I doubt if dumping it anywhere would've been an option.
    In her testimony, she stated that she did see something odd about the bag, and opened it to investigate (before being asked to) ...and quickly closed it again.

    In our last conversation I wrote-
    Upon her arrival in Bali, she would have noticed her bag all bloated & stinking. But, what exactly can she do about it, when she discovers what's in it...? Report to customs that she's just found a huge bag of dope in her luggage...? Maybe that is what she tried to do, but it was lost in translation. Customs officer Winata's english was not very good. Of course, we'll never know what actually happened in that exchange, because of the missing CCTV footage.

    I have already addressed this issue, and that's that. The footage that showed what actually happened ...was withheld from the trial.
    You have absolutely no grounds whatsoever, for your assertion that "she tried to get it through customs".

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "But you can't just say that Schapelle has no questions to answer when 4.2 kg of pot are found in her possession."

    Let's put it this way.
    Imagine you travel on a flight overseas, somewhere. And you take a luggage item with you. You put your luggage item over the counter at check-in, it disappears from your view, and you don't see it again, until you step off the plane at your destination.
    At your destination, upon being reunited with your luggage item, it is found to contain a huge package of drugs ...that you know you didn't put there. (Let's just assume for argument's sake, you really didn't)
    You were apart from your luggage item for several hours, and you had it unlocked (because it was only a bag containing a body board), and during that time ...other people had access to it.

    So ...is it IMPOSSIBLE that somebody else MAY have placed it there, during that time you were APART from it ...and you in actual fact, truly have NO IDEA who it was...?

    I mean, after all ...the stuff wasn't found in your stomach, or in any bodily cavities, and it wasn't even tucked under your clothing.
    It'd be pretty hard to claim ignorance, if that were the case.

    No, it was found in your unlocked bag, that you've just been re-united with, after being estranged from ...for many hours, while it was handled by other people.
    (Is there something here, you're just not getting?)

    But yet, I say to you "It was found in YOUR bag so it's YOURS. Unless YOU can tell us who it planted it ...you're GUILTY."
    What would you say to that?

    Please explain why you believe it is somehow impossible, that Schapelle may in fact, ...truly have absolutely NO idea, who planted it.

  • GRUMPY25608

    The issue I have as an Australian is that her family Jumped into our lives pleding for the Australian public to help "poor" Charpelle, yet as soon as we wanted to know what her and her family background is like, they came out making claims about how the media has assasinated them. My opinion is if you/your family, want to put yourself into the Australians living room and tell everybody how hard done by you all are, the court of public opinion in which held more sway to the Australian people as the courts of our land had nothing to do with her conviction.

    Surely if someone ask for help we must ascertain the full story or at least as much as we can get before considering that said request.
    That being said her family aren't of the best character, by all reports.

    I'm of the opinion the the Australian Goverment has a lot more to answer for over the Bali nine as they had prior information of that crime happening before they let them out of our country. I think that our goverment has alot more answers to give on their accountabilities concerning that case more than the Corby case as they had no prior knowledge of Corby until her arrest.

    As some one how has travelled through out the Middle East and Asia you know that the only country that cares for you is Australia, however if you break the law in another country our country have only diplomacy, to try and help our citizens abroard.

  • docoman

    Amusing, you say I'm trying to downplay the irrefutable facts pertaining to the Bali trial, while you have been downplaying the fact she was caught with it, in her bag, trying to get into Bali.
    The ONLY irrefutable fact in the case really.
    Not one shred of evidence connecting Corby to the drugs? So it wasn't in her bag, under her control at the time it was found?

    That's just delusional saying she wasn't connected in any way. Even if only from the time she picked up her bag. Even if totally unaware until after she landed, she is now and will always be connected with that 4.2 kg found in her bag.

    I'm not saying it was impossible that Schapelle didn't know who put it in her bag.
    The only people that really know for sure (whether she's a party to trafficking or not) are Shapelle, and any others involved with those drugs, is what I've said. As I have before, I agree that it's ridiculous there is 'missing' CCTV footage, the case was very badly handled from the start.

    You seem to be the one that claims she absolutely had no knowledge of it, and broke no laws. Because someone else MIGHT have put it there, being the gist of the defense, and your posts.
    So she picked up her bag, noticed it was different, opened it to look, and quickly closed it. Why quickly close it?
    Because from at least that point onwards, she knew about it.
    You say because of missing CCTV footage we'll never know.
    You dismiss the Customs Officer on the basis of their 'English not being very good', while brushing over the point that apparently it was in the Customs Officers' search the drugs were discovered.
    Personally, I'll put more faith in a Customs officer's word, then someone just found with drugs on them.
    It would also seem the Indonesian court felt the same in that regards.

    Trying to excuse any evidence the Customs officer gave the way you have is just an attempt to downplay the evidence that doesn't suit.
    And after your post about providing evidence to your assertions, why is it all of a sudden acceptable for you to start using 'Maybe's' when it comes to some of the more inconvenient points, MAYBE she tried to report it to Customs?

    You're not a lawyer or solicitor by any chance? You argue the same as they do, highlighting the stronger points, attempting to discredit or downplay the inconvenient ones.
    Are you connected to the Corby's in any way? Is that why you've followed it so closely from the very beginning?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    I'm not downplaying anything.

    I'm using simple logic, to assert that drugs found in your unlocked bag ...that you were separated from, for many hours, while other people handled it ...simply does not prove that you are the owner of those drugs
    ...OR that you know anything about it ...OR that you are "connected" to it in any way.

    The fact of the matter is, somebody else might have put it there. There is absolutely nothing in the laws of logic or Nature, that make this impossible.
    I notice you now seem to agree with this. That's weird. You seem to have backed down, from your prior position.

    "You seem to be the one that claims she absolutely had no knowledge of it, and broke no laws."

    I'm not claiming that.
    I was only using this same logic ...to disprove your apparent claim, that she definitely did know about it ...or has to be "connected" to it, in some way.

    And that's that. As far as I'm concerned, this particular aspect of the case, is a dead-end. Stalemate.
    I can't prove that she had no knowledge of the drugs ...but by the same token, you can't prove that she did.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "The ONLY irrefutable fact in the case really."

    That is certainly not the only irrefutable fact.
    That the Indonesians refused fingerprinting, re-weighing, Dna testing ..destroyed the evidence before the appeals were even complete ...and did not present any official proof of Corby's guilt ...as they were required to by their own laws...

    ...are also verified, proven facts.

    I've studied this case for long enough, to know they are.
    If the Indonesians did take the evidence and the official, legitimate proof of guilt ...I can assure you, they would have shown us, by now.

    This film, and this thread would never exist, and we wouldn't even be having this conversation ...nearly a decade later.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "Because someone else MIGHT have put it there, being the gist of the defense, and your posts."

    It's quite obvious, you haven't looked into any of the sources I've provided. My position is certainly not based entirely upon this.

    It seems to be you, who has been reduced to a position ...that hinges mostly upon "The drugs were found in HER bag"

    "So she picked up her bag, noticed it was different, opened it to look, and quickly closed it. Why quickly close it?"

    Is it impossible, that she may have panicked ...and from that moment on, lost her ability to think straight?
    How might you react, if you discovered 4.2 kgs of weed in your bag ...that you didn't put there?
    Truth is, you probably have no idea how you'd react ...until it happens to you.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "Trying to excuse any evidence the Customs officer gave the way you have is just an attempt to downplay the evidence that doesn't suit."

    One person's word against another's.
    Missing CCTV footage. Requested by the defence. Purposely withheld from the court. Another breach of Indonesian law.

    As far as I'm concerned, there is no evidence here ...one way or the other.
    And certainly no grounds, for your assertion that "she decided not to report it", and "tried to get it through customs"

    Why is it all of the sudden, acceptable for you to pull ideas ...out of thin air?

    WHY would Corby actually request the footage ...that may have corroborated the customs officer?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    You seem to want Corby to be guilty.

    You seem to argue in the way many do, when a long held belief is put on shaky ground, ...by new facts, that the believer wasn't previously aware of.
    Instead of considering the possibility that their belief could be wrong, and be prepared to adjust, or abandon it accordingly, they will continue to dogmatically stand by a belief, which in some cases ...has simply become untenable.

    They will often forgo logic, and fabricate their own ideas, assertions and scenarios ...in order to make the facts accord with their belief.

    I understand that it's very difficult to let go of a belief, that you may have had for a while. It's happened to me many times.

    But, I don't understand why people are so sensitive, about their precious online alter-egos. It's just a username on a screen.

    This is not a discussion about a cartoon character, or your favourite song.
    This is a case of a real person, who may be the victim of a horrific injustice. I ask, that you please try to put any beliefs to one side, and view this case with genuine objectivity.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    Please try to be open minded Docoman, and again ponder-

    Why would Corby request fingerprinting? Why would she request comparison re-weighing? Why would she request testing for origin?
    I shall remind you again, that under Indonesian law, these were Corby's basic rights.

    WHY would a drug smuggler request all the tests ...that would incriminate themself...?

    And WHY would the police, prosecution and the court, break their own laws ...to ensure these tests are not done ...and to withhold, and destroy the evidence...?

    Yes ...do please try to be open minded ...and please don't repeat that "the drugs were found in her bag".

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "they came out making claims about how the media has assasinated them"

    The very fact they have been assassinated by the media, with the crudest known propaganda techniques, and proven baseless allegations
    ...is the very reason why in the same post ...you are inclined to say this-

    "That being said her family aren't of the best character, by all reports."

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    They do have some questions to answer over the Bali 9.

    The day the last of the 9 departed Australia, was the same day the Justice minister was informed by phone, from his counterpart in Bali ...that they would definitely not be seeking the death sentence, for Corby.

    I reckon that the Bali 9, might have been an under-the-table exchange deal, or something.
    Nine Australians who were actually guilty, may have been handed over to Indonesia ...in exchange for sparing Corby the death penalty.
    I bet the Indonesians wanted an Australian to execute, all along. Or even better yet, more than one.

    Corby was probably their original candidate.

  • docoman

    Also from the site I just gave in my last post;
    "The fact that marijuana was located in Corby's luggage has never been disputed, but Corby has since consistently maintained that she had become an unwitting drug courier (drug mule) for what was supposed to have been an interstate shipment of drugs between Brisbane and Sydney in Australia. In proposing such a defence, any indication that Corby might have been reluctant to present her luggage would have been severely injurious to her defence. Ultimately, the case for the prosecution included testimony from four Indonesian officers ... "

    Also from there;
    "Corby gave a different version of the event, saying that the customs officer pointed at her bag and asked her brother if the bag belonged to him. Corby replied that it was hers. According to her version of events, she opened her bag without being asked by the customs officer. The prosecution stated that Corby began to panic prior to the opening of the bag, a claim denied by Corby."

    More from that site;
    "Professor Tim Lindsay stated that the defence case contained "virtually nothing that was admissible evidence to be given weight under Indonesian criminal procedure law"

    So lets do what you said, and use some logic.
    You said she noticed her bag was different, opened it, then quickly closed it. (correct me if I'm wrong, but I took it you meant that occurred between getting the boogie board bag after the flight, but before going to customs)
    The fact she quickly closed it would indicate she knew it was drugs.

    Then, by her testimony, the customs officer pointed to the bag and asked her brother if it was his. (supposedly while attempting to go through customs) Shapelle said it was hers. It would seem what happens next is the point in contention.

    The fact that the bag was, well, somewhere between her and her brother, and they were asked who's it was (thinking it was the brothers), says that she didn't walk up to the customs showing what she'd just discovered in her bag. As you propose 'maybe' happened but was lost in the translation. No, it would suggest they were attempting to go through.

    That's not 'out of thin air' as you put it, that's from you, a self professed close follower of the case, and Shapelle's testimony.

  • docoman

    You said,
    "It seems to be you, who has been reduced to a position ...that hinges mostly upon "The drugs were found in HER bag" " and;
    "Yes ...do please try to be open minded ...and please don't repeat that "the drugs were found in her bag"

    Well, that is what the whole thing is about.
    Despite your silly appeal.

  • GRUMPY25608

    I don,t know how in the real term did the media assassinate there family, as with a little reseach, I have found the following points that shows that the Corby's didn't need the media to assassinate them as they where more intent to commit public reputation susicide. Mick had two convictions for possessing and using marijuana in 1973 and was openly selling the illicit drug as far back as the mid-70s, before graduating to smuggling as part of an international syndicate that stretched from Adelaide to Bali. He also says police seized 197 plants from the Queensland farm owned by Mick’s next-door neighbour, Tony Lewis – four weeks before Schapelle was arrested in Bali. They are recorded convictions (can you see how the seed of doubt in public opinon can crept in to rational thought). Now lets put her lovable honest sister under the mircoscope for a moment; Mercedes also jeopardised the defence by lying when asked if anyone in the family had a criminal conviction or connection with drugs, Mr Tampoe said
    As you no doubt know Mr Tampoe was Sharpelle's ex laywer.

    You have brush away my statement about possession is 9/10th of the law (look under ''prima facies') .

  • docoman

    You don't find it interesting that she was traveling with her brother? Who is a convicted criminal, on home invasion and also drug possession charges (in the family home if I recall correctly). That Powers, a long time family friend, said that the sister had told her that she'd (Mercedes) had smuggled pot to Bali. That Powers had taken drugs at the Corby residence in the past. Powers passed a polygraph test over her accusations. Mercedes never sued Powers. In the Chn 7 v's Mercedes case, how did Mercedes lawyers know exactly what questions to ask Powers about her drug use when she was on the stand? Because her best friend since school knew, obviously. And we're supposed to not believe Powers, who admitted her actions, and believe Mercedes. Common sense tells me Mercedes is a liar, and the Corby family isn't the squeaky clean family they've claimed.

    It is a pity further tests were not conducted. It wouldn't have surprised me if they'd found her brother's finger prints all over the bags. Or if the weights showed an increase in Shapelle's by 4.2kg, and a decrease in her brothers by the same. I read somewhere (not sure if it's true or not) that apparently the brother had handled the boogie board bag after the flight?

    If any of that is true, and she was 'taking the rap for her brother', she couldn't say that, as it also incriminates her, showing she had knowledge.

    And then you say that because there is missing CCTV footage, there is no evidence as far as you're concerned, it boils down to 1 person's word v's another's? Actually, it was 1 person v's 4 customs officers.
    A person just found with a large amount of an illegal substance.
    And you call that a stalemate. That's that as far as you're concerned.
    And then go on to say I'm operating off a belief system. lol
    You are an amusing person Worvey. :)

  • docoman

    G'day 6's.
    Wow, I hadn't heard of that case. Pretty bl**dy harsh, the prosecution only asked for 15 years, instead she received the death penalty. Wtf.
    I have a lot of sympathy for that poor woman. By that article, she has a history of mental illness, and was coerced into being a mule with threats against her children.
    Especially in light of the relatively light sentences so far given to the others involved. Who it would seem, were all probably higher up the 'food chain'.
    In my opinion, the courts got the sentencing very wrong. That's not justice when the bottom worker get's something so out of proportion to the 'boss's' You can't just let someone off, but the death penalty was way too excessive I think.

  • docoman

    I agree with you on that point. It's hard to have much empathy towards a family that asked for our help, based on the fact that they are decent, hard working 'aussie battlers', then find out the story is more complicated then that, and not in a good way for the Corbys.
    The media rarely is completely fair, and I'd agree that probably in some ways they weren't to the Corbys. But, if the Corbys don't like some of the questions asked, and don't like the resulting rejection of some of their claims, that's a bit of bad luck. It's the public's right to make up their own minds on how they feel about it/them.

  • docoman

    "You seem to want Corby to be guilty."

    As I said earlier in the thread, I originally watched this 'doco' in the hope it would give me more reason to feel more empathetic towards Shapelle. I do think 20 years is excessive, even if she was knowingly a part of it. She will always be 'the convicted drug trafficker', so is always 'connected'. As I've said, that is a very steep price, even more so if she was 'innocent'.
    Which after talking with you, now seems even more unlikely.
    I have, and do thank you again, you gave much more information, and 'food for thought' then this 'doco', that contained lies, false conclusions and blatant propaganda used throughout.
    But, contrary to your claim I haven't looked up any of your suggestions, I have.
    As I've shown, it would seem a Professor specialising in Asian law, would say that your argument that the Indonesians broke their own laws is incorrect. That from the moment that amount was found 'on her person', it became Shapelle's job to prove it wasn't hers. Which was my interpretation of the information I found in the links you provided.

    Which also puts a big hole in what seems to be the rest of your theory, that Shapelle was deliberately set up by the Aus and Indo governments.
    It would also seem, that contrary to your accusations I'm operating based on a belief, it seems you are the one that has built an argument akin to a house of cards. The legal aspect has fallen, the families supposed good reputation has fallen, so what do you have left other then your admitted belief she is innocent?
    Some maneuvers, no doubt 'ass covering' BS that is the SOP of government officials.
    Pretty weak argument when you do look at it with an open mind, without the preconception Shapelle HAS to be innocent in all ways.

  • GRUMPY25608

    Your opinion on the fact that she was found in possession is not the real issue is in fact false according to Prof Tim Lindsay;

    According to Professor Tim Lindsey, director of the University of Melbourne's Asian Law Centre, the prosecution had a prima facie case against Corby, established merely by her possession of the narcotics, regardless of her knowledge. In a lecture given at Melbourne University, he said, "Suffice to say that being caught with drugs on you, whether strapped to you or in a bag that is your property, is probably going to be sufficient in most instances for the prosecution to establish a prima facie case. The question then arises as to how that prima facie case is answered by a defence team."

    I have looked at the sites you have adviced us to visit yet during my search of those site at no stage did I find any Professor confirming your theories,or beliefs.

  • docoman

    What? You said;
    "I bet the Indonesians wanted an Australian to execute, all along. Or even better yet, more than one.
    Corby was probably their original candidate."
    Possession of more then 1kg of cannabis carries a possible death penalty in Indonesia.
    Possession, not even trafficking. IF the Indonesians wanted to execute Shapelle, that option was possible.
    The fact they gave her 20 years, which by their scale is fairly mid-range in that case, suggests that the court did take into account the circumstances. And surely goes against your proposal that they WANTED to execute her.

  • docoman

    I also notice your convenient misdirection to my direct questions to you. Are you a lawyer or some similar 'law worker', and, are you connected to the Corbys in any way?

  • docoman

    You asked me to ponder, why would someone request finger printing? Why ask for re-weighing? Why test for origin? (which I'm still to be shown is even possible)

    OK, IF her brother put it in there, and she knew she hadn't touched the bag, of course she'd ask for fingerprinting. Was her brother still in Indonesia, did the Indonesians have her brother's finger prints on record?
    The same with the weighing. It might've proven she didn't check in with it in her bag, but it may also have proven her brother did.
    My feelings are her brother was the one trying to traffic the drugs, and he put it in her bag, expecting that she'd get through easier.
    She knew this, even if only from the Bali luggage pick-up onwards. She didn't try to offer up what was in her bag, her own testimony says this.
    The way it's been 'played' since, with the whole 'emotional meltdown' ect ect, is exactly how someone would have to, given her circumstances. It does not indicate innocence, contrary to the emotional appeals put forth. However much you'd like to overlook it, the fact is they found 4.2 kg in HER bag.

  • GRUMPY25608

    The AFP offered her defence team all above mentioned test, however after being advised that the prosecution will have the results available to them also. The defence withdrew from that request as it may have incriminated her or may have been detrimental to her case.

    That being an element of Worvey's argument about the fingerprints and other forensic evidence not been made available, is quite misleading, considering the defence team withdrew the request they made to the AFP.

    If they had nothing to hide why would they knock back vital evidence that would either confirm or deny there arguements about the evidence. It may have shown Sharpelle didn't touch it, however it may implicate other members of her family or travel companions, which in turn shows reasonable doubt into her claims that she is completely innocent.

  • docoman

    More from that site;
    "After the verdict, Downer also revealed that the government had provided financial assistance for Corby's defence and that an offer of two Queen's Counsel had been rejected. In the same interview, he renewed this offer in the event of an appeal and urged the Corby family to accept."

    So they were given financial help, and offers of a Queen's Council (the top lawyers in Aus basically), which they rejected (the council, not the money ;)
    That doesn't seem to fit with Worvey's assertion that the government were 'out to get her'.

    And about the CCTV footage, from that site;
    "There are reports of overwritten Qantas surveillance tapes requested long before the erasure cycle:

    "Any chance of getting that evidence has gone. Qantas says the CCTV tapes were wiped on November 2, two weeks before it received a letter from the lawyers officially requesting copies. But Corby's lawyers say their first request for the tapes was made on October 14, six days after Corby's arrest, to a Qantas security official who had flown from Sydney to Denpasar to meet them. This request was repeated a number of times."[5]

    It has since been revealed that Corby's lawyers had been offered but rejected surveillance videos that were suspected to be of the day in question which had been forensically recovered."

    It seems there is more to the 'missing' CCTV footage, and Aus governments actions, and the Corby defense choices, and the Indonesians actions, then Worvey suggests.
    The 'house of cards' argument is crumbling fast.

  • docoman

    I don't think it's coincidence that the very point that makes Shapelle's defence look wrong, (Shapelle's actions at the airport), or according to that site, "any indication that Corby might have been reluctant to present her luggage would have been severely injurious to her defence", is the very point Worvey would like to just dismiss, due to 'English problems'. Or no TV so no evidence, or one person's word against another. Her defense team had to try to discredit that issue, it made all the difference to her defense.
    That defence wouldn't have got her off in Australia, USA, UK, or nearly any country. Most countries will take the word of 4 of their Customs officers over one traveler found with a large amount of drugs in their possession.

  • GRUMPY25608

    It would appear that Sharpelle, her family and legal team had the opportunity to create a stronger defence than they presented with the help from both our goverment and the Australian police services (both state and federal levels) through out this saga.

    I find it quite amusing that Worvey at this stage hasn't answered your questions if she is either in the legal profession or has close relations with the Corby family. I would hazard a guess that your questions may have been to close to the truth.

  • docoman

    The more truth that comes out, the more BS Worveys and the Corby's arguments become. A nice effort at deception and misdirection, which reminds me of how lawyers often argue a bad position. Worvey has made me look closer at the case, so I do thank them for that. Although I doubt that was their intention, as the Corby's lies are now more visible. ;)
    The whole legal argument that Shapelle was somehow hard done by, sentenced illegally, is utter rubbish.
    The argument that Shapelle didn't know about the drugs in her bag, at least from the point of baggage pick up onwards, utter rubbish.
    The claims that Shapelle tried to offer up the drugs at customs, utter rubbish.
    The claims from the family to be good, decent, hard working 'aussie battlers', more rubbish.
    Which in turn, makes the 'conspiracy theory' aspect of the Corby argument, utter rubbish.
    So, upon closer inspection, pretty much the whole Corby version of events becomes a construct of BS. Which leaves the alternative, that she, and most probably at least some members of her family, were involved with those drugs.

    I'd like to know exactly how much tax payers money was given to the Corby defense. I've not heard the Corbys, or any of their supporters, mention that fact when they're having a go at the Aus or Indo government or people. It's the Aus and Indo tax payers that have been ripped off on this whole saga.
    In my opinion the Corbys should be ashamed of themselves, because of the trouble they've caused, and the lies they've told to try to get out of it. Shame on them for accusing their own country, and the one they're visiting, of doing wrong by them, when the truth is it's the other way around. Not to mention the criminal activities, as the court there rightfully found. Shapelle probably should have the company of her brother during her 'enforced holiday'. If he wasn't the scumbag he is by all accounts, he probably would have been there instead of Shapelle. If the Indonesians had done all of the evidence collection properly, I bet he'd be in trouble over there too, and Shapelle could well have been looking at more then the 20 years she received.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    The moment Corby opened the bag, and quickly closed it again ...may have been immediately just after she picked it up off the floor, and put it on the customs desk.
    I'm not certain if it was still on the floor, at the moment she opened it ...or already on the desk. As I already made clear, I find it pointless to continue to dwell on this aspect.

    Because all we have is people's testimonies.
    We have no CCTV footage to show us who did exactly what, and exactly when. That's the real evidence, that would have carried more weight that anyone's testimony ...or anyone's speculations.

    Evidence that was withheld.

    I find it very odd, that Corby requested this footage. It was not the prosecution that requested it, it was the defendant.

    Another thing that's odd is the fact, the Indonesians never inspected any of the luggage items, belonging to her travelling companions. There were four or five other luggage items, in the same group with the BB bag.
    Yet for some reason, they showed no interest in these ...or in her travelling companions. None of them were ever investigated.
    Did they just know that nothing of value, was likely to be found in the other luggage?

    Do you find it odd, that a so-called drug trafficker's travelling companions ...are completely ignored, and allowed to walk out of the airport ...with their luggage ...without being questioned?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    The only exception is James.
    It was actually him ...who they initially interrogated, immediately after the weed was discovered. Apparently, for about half an hour or so.
    During that time they left Schapelle, and the other travellers, and the other luggage items, unsupervised.

    It appears that the police and customs, initially believed James was the owner of the BB bag. After interrogating him for about half an hour, they then turned their attention to Schapelle. And James was free to go.

    If Schapelle's actions and behaviours, really were perceived to be "suspicious" by the customs officer(s) ...then why exactly, did they show no immediate interest in her ...instead deciding to interrogate James first?
    Could it be because he was acting "suspiciously"...? Possible...

    But as far as I know, the customs officer(s) court testimonies ...didn't include anything about James acting "suspiciously".

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    This "silly appeal" is about the fact that no physical proof exists, to connect her to what was found in her bag.
    It's about the fact, the Indonesians did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ...by any known standard of justice in the democratic, or civilised world.
    Not even their own.
    As I said, that's the whole reason we are still having this conversation, nearly a decade later.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "Mick had two convictions for possessing and using marijuana in 1973"

    I know he was fined for possessing a small amount, at a party once.
    But is it possible that instead of "convictions", you actually meant to say "charges"...?
    There's a difference.

    But, if you're certain you meant to say "convictions", then-

    What were the exact quantities Mick was convicted for?
    What were the exact dates of the arrests, that led to these convictions?
    What was the punishment he received? Fines?... how much? Jail? ...how long?

    IF it is true that Mick had these 2 convictions ...then clear answers to those 3 questions should be available, all over the public domain, and be very easily verifiable.

    The media would've dug them up, and peppered the newspapers & news sites with those details ...long ago.

    Nobody seems to be able to find them, though.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "....and was openly selling the illicit drug as far back as the mid-70s, before graduating to smuggling as part of an international syndicate that stretched from Adelaide to Bali"

    Like I once said to somebody else here, unsubstantiated rumours and allegations ...don't count as facts.

    Why did South Australian police find the allegations made against him to be "laughable" ...in their words?
    Why do the Australian Federal Police have no interest in him, and have never investigated him?
    Why did they not even raid his home in Australia, in the days immediately after Schapelle's arrest?

    Do you think the? AFP, and SA police, protect international drug dealers...? ...and refuse to investigate them ...even when one's daughter is caught entering another country, with 4.2kgs of weed in her BB bag ...sparking one of the most high profile, and controversial cases in Australian history..?

    I suppose the police can be bought...

    But how much would it cost, to buy immunity ...when you've caused such public embarrassment to your government ...and such an awkward political, and diplomatic situation...?

    Being sophisticated international drug dealers though, I suppose the family are incredibly wealthy.

    Then I'm wondering ...why they didn't just pay, whatever bribes were payable to the Indonesians, to fix all this up...?
    Being sophisticated wealthy international drug dealers, I would've thought they'd be familiar with the workings, and the perks of the legal systems, of the countries they operate in.

    --footnote--

    Mr Tampoe...?
    Would that be the same Mr Tampoe ...who was struck off the roll of legal professionals, for professional misconduct, and defamation...?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    I don't find anything "interesting" about the fact, she was travelling with her brother.
    At that time, he was not yet a convicted criminal. The home invasion incident happened over a year later.

    His story, was that he believed the couple at that home, were involved with the stuff found in his sister's bag.
    They were apparently small time local dealers.
    The stuff found at the Corby home, was what James had stolen.
    Even though convicted of possession & theft, and the other charges, it seems the police and the court accepted his motivation was sound, and no further evidence has ever surfaced that would implicate him in drug trafficking.

    However, there is ample evidence to clearly suggest, that James ...is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

    But... If he were a drug dealer, how truly daft would he have to be ...to pull off a home invasion, and an assault, at a time when his whole family were under the media spotlight
    ...and risk exposing the entire family's international dealings?

    I'd be expecting his body to be discovered ...at the bottom of a river, or a dam. The fact he's still alive today, speaks volumes.

    --footnote--

    Yes, apparently it was James who dragged the BB bag, and the other 4 or 5 items at the same time, a short distance across the floor, from the carousel to the customs desk.
    If true, this might be why ...he may not have noticed an extra 4 kgs of weight. The whole bundle of luggage was around 60-65 kgs.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    Lie detector tests are given no weight in a court of law, for the simple reason ...that they're not consistent or reliable.

    The results of Power's lie detector test was actually inconclusive. This often happens. Hence, the first sentence.

    Mercedes sued Channel 7, for defamation.
    Power was called on to substantiate the allegations, she made on national TV ...that she was paid over $100,000 for.

    The court ruled in Mercedes' favour.

    "How did Mercedes lawyers know exactly what questions to ask Powers about her drug use?"

    I'd say because they're lawyers. Their job is to ask the right questions and find critical flaws, in a person's story. They are professionals, who are skilled in the art of spotting lies.

    Powers apparently told the court, all about how she and Mercedes used drugs together, in their younger days.
    So what?

    Does this prove that Mercedes ever smuggled pot into Bali?

    Was Power able to substantiate those claims about Mercedes, and the allegations she made on TV ...before a court of law?

    Have any Australian police, state or federal ever bothered to look into Power's allegations?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    Yes, a person just found with a large amount of an illegal substance...

    ...in a bag that was unlocked, that they were apart from for several hours ...while other people had access to it, and handled it.

    Nothing in the laws of logic or Nature, that make it impossible for somebody else to have planted it.
    No conclusive physical proof, that connects the bag's owner to the illegal substance.
    Evidence requested by the defendant.
    Evidence that would have actually been the physical proof ...that would've proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ...if it had been taken.

    That same evidence purposely denied, refused by the police and prosecution ...and withheld from the trial.
    The key piece of evidence destroyed, while the appeals processes were still pending ...rendering it impossible for it's origin to be traced.

    Not possible me to declare for certain, that she's innocent, based on this aspect of the case.
    But ...certainly not possible for you to declare for certain, that she's guilty.

    So, yes ...I do call that a stalemate.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    It was not found 'on her person' ....it was found in her unlocked bag, that she'd been apart from for many hours, while other people handled it.

    As I've made clear in previous posts, there is a crucial difference.

  • GRUMPY25608

    Worvey
    You have again avioded the question put to you about your profession and your relationship with the Corby family. What are these question to hard to understand or are you avioding them because we may find your agenda has been discovered.

    I see you have not mentioned anything about Prof Tim Lindsay, or anything to do with the facts of law that through him have shown the weakness in your argument about the fact that in your opinion she had no prima facie case to answer.

    You have stated that the Indonesians did not prove there case beyond a reasonable doubt, appears to be your opinion rather than fact.
    If it is indeed fact you must be able to prove such a claim.

    You have demaned that myself and other posters answer your question you have put to us however you have not made any effort to answer the question put to you.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "As I've shown, it would seem a Professor specialising in Asian law, would say that your argument that the Indonesians broke their own laws is incorrect."

    Would that be Professor Tim Lindsay, who you referred to earlier?

    Would that be this same Professor Tim Lindsay who also said this-

    “Most of these reports are based, however, on serious mistakes. For example, despite persistent claims that Indonesian law presumes guilt, the fact is that it certainly does not. Indonesian legislation clearly places the burden of proof on the prosecution and provides for a presumption of innocence similar to that which applies in Australia,” he said.

    That's from

    archive. uninews. unimelb. edu. au /view-65111. html

    It appears that this particular professor, may have contradicted himself.

  • docoman

    You're getting erratic trying to prop up your failed argument now Worveys.
    You demand proof from the other side, while continuing to sprout what has been shown to be incorrect yourself.

    Of course you don't want to examine what happened at the airport too closely, as already shown it is the very point that destroys the defenses case. That is exactly why that is the important part in understanding whether Shapelle knew or not, regardless of your continual effort to dismiss or distract from that very relevant and important time.

    You said;
    "It was actually him ...who they initially interrogated, immediately after the weed was discovered. Apparently, for about half an hour or so.
    During that time they left Schapelle, and the other travellers, and the other luggage items, unsupervised. "

    In another place you say;
    "Another thing that's odd is the fact, the Indonesians never inspected any of the luggage items, belonging to her travelling companions. There were four or five other luggage items, in the same group with the BB bag.
    Yet for some reason, they showed no interest in these ...or in her travelling companions. None of them were ever investigated.
    Did they just know that nothing of value, was likely to be found in the other luggage?"

    Why is it that when it suits you, you quote what you call FACTS about what happened at customs, then when it doesn't, you claim there is no CCTV, and therefore no evidence?

    One minute there's no evidence, the next you know the FACTS. One minute the police are out to get them, the next they haven't even been investigated. One minute it was the baggage handlers, next it was her brother.

    You're all over the place, your argument has crumbled and is now untenable. You are relying on your beliefs now, not what you call facts.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    The statement you quoted from Professor Lindsay, was specifically in regard to the testimony of John Ford, who was flown from his jail cell in Australia, to the court in Bali to give evidence ...about something he apparently overheard. And that statement is true, there was no weight in Ford's testimony.

    But Professor Lindsay has been caught out making unsubstantiated claims to the media, that he wasn't able to back up with academic references or any data, when his department was contacted by email, and asked to provide them.

    The claims were in regard to Corby's sentence, and he asserted that her sentence was 'light' by Indonesian standards.
    For which an Indonesian legal professional has actually shown data, that contradicts this. (See our previous discussion from 6 months ago)
    You'd think this Melbourne University Professor specialising in Asian law, should've been able to do his basic research, before commenting to the media.

    The response from his department was-

    "Academic freedom protects the right of professors to make statements of this kind without interference from the university authorities. It would be inappropriate for me to take either of the steps you have requested."

    womenforschapelle. blogspot. com. au/2011/10/schapelle-corby-prof-tim-lindseys-boss. html

    So in other words, he's allowed to say whatever he wants ...without fear of repercussions.

  • docoman

    It does appear that someone contradicts themselves, when someone does exactly what you just did with Prof. Lindsay. It's commonly known as quote mining, or some prefer contextomy.
    Quoting someone out of context, in an effort to change the meaning.
    Some would even call it intellectually dishonest.
    Either way, it seems you can't, or won't change what is clearly your BELIEF, and an incorrect one at that, on the legal aspects of the case.

  • docoman

    OHh, wow, hang the man. He thinks 20 years compared to a possible death sentence it light. How dare he make that call without proper homework.
    Grasping at straws now, trying to discredit someone who clearly knows Indonesian law better then you.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    The only professor I've found to have said that prima facie was sufficient in this case, is Professor Lindsay.
    See my responses to docoman, regarding Professor Lindsay.

  • docoman

    "Suffice to say that being caught with drugs on you, whether strapped to you or in a bag that is your property, is probably going to be sufficient in most instances for the prosecution to establish a prima facie case. The question then arises as to how that prima facie case is answered by a defence team."

    That's the quote from Prof. Lindsay.

    Nothing that hard to understand, despite your misrepresentations of the man and his reputation.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "Possession of more then 1kg of cannabis carries a possible death penalty in Indonesia."

    Can you cite an example of anyone being executed, over an amount of cannabis similar to what was found in Corby's bag?
    Or for any amount between 4.2kgs and 1 kg?

    Are you able to show data to back your statement ...that 20 years is 'mid range' by their scale?
    Perhaps you should again refer to the data, provided by the Indonesian legal professional Arifin Wardiyanto.
    (See my post from 6 months ago)

    When they had the Bali 9 in their custody, (just a few weeks later I believe) they now had much better candidates for execution ...as the evidence against them IS conclusive, and their guilt is more or less, clear cut.

    The AFP and the Bali police did it all officially, and by the book ...in this case.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    What's the point in me giving an answer to that?

    How can I prove that I am ...or am not?

    This wouldn't happen to be an attempt to shift the focus ...from my arguments, onto the person who is making them...?

    Those questions are not required here, as the person behind this profile is not relevant. Only the comments made by this profile ...about this case, are.

  • docoman

    Another misdirection, now on a point that is actually irrelevant.
    I think most reasonable people would consider 20 years to be somewhere 'mid-range', when it could go from basically time already served, to the death penalty, regardless of what has been applied in the past.

    Nice try though, trying to take the conversation away from more important aspects, like the fact it was found in her bag. Or examining your conflicting claims of what is and isn't evidence over the most important part of Shapelle's actions, at customs, showing if she had knowledge of the pot or not.

    Straws Worveys, all you have left are straws.

  • docoman

    OHh, so what was all that absurd rhetoric you went on earlier with about my screen name?
    Your double standard is shining through.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "The same with the weighing. It might've proven she didn't check in with it in her bag, but it may also have proven her brother did."

    If it belonged to James, then it might have been in one of the other 4 or 5 luggage items, when the whole bundle was weighed in Australia.
    The whole bundle, including the BB bag was weighed together as one item, and that total weight was recorded and tagged, before leaving Australia.

    All the Indonesians had to do, was re-weigh the whole luggage bundle again, including the BB bag & the weed ...to see if it matches, what was recorded in Australia.

    And this would have confirmed without a doubt, that the marijuana ...was included in that bundle, when it was weighed at Brisbane.
    Hence, proving it originated from Australia ...and definitely not at the Indonesian end.
    It would also have confirmed that the marijuana ...was not added by any airport staff, or anyone else ...at any time between weigh-in at Brisbane, and collection at the carousel in Bali.

    It more or less, would've been the smoking gun ...that points straight at Schapelle and(or) James.

    So why did the Indonesians not want this official confirmation...?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    It was the Indonesians who refused to provide a sample, when they were formally requested by the AFP.

    The AFP have no jurisdiction in Bali, and all they could do was request a sample.
    Only if the Indonesians formally request further assistance from them, can they get involved any further.

    While the Indonesians were obviously not obligated to invite the AFP into their case, or their country ...they were obligated to honour the Mutual Assistance Treaty, and send a sample, to the AFP when formally requested.

    Under this treaty, the AFP were entitled to make this request.

    An official certificate from the Australian Consulate in Bali, shows that Corby did want the tests to be done, and that the AFP's request was refused.

    womenforschapelle. blogspot. com. au/2010/09/schapelle-corby-formal-complaint-to. html

    Indonesia set to destroy Corby's evidence
    usp. com. au/fpss/schapelle_corby/press_release07. html

  • docoman

    I asked the question, trying to understand you a little better. You said you have followed the Corby case very closely since she was first arrested.
    I also note, that at the time I write this, you've posted on this website a total of 49 times, 48 of them on this thread.
    As I've said, you at times remind me of a lawyer the way you argue. You're quite adept at misdirection, bombarding with what at first glance looks like a barrage of good, creditable evidence, that under closer inspection is a cleverly constructed load of BS.

    I don't know anyone who's followed the case as closely as you have, other then someone connected to the family or a journalist.
    Journalists generally have a better nose to smell a rat in a story then you've displayed, so I doubted that, unless you're from a group as absurd as those 'Expendable' liars that made this 'doco'.

    I don't care, I would laugh if you were getting paid in any way for this. It'd be a waste of money in my opinion. I was curious though, you have followed the case more then anyone I've met or spoken to, I wondered why.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "If they had nothing to hide why would they knock back vital evidence that would either confirm or deny there arguements"

    The same question can be asked in regard to the Bali police, and their refusal to take evidence.

  • docoman

    A quote you may have missed, or just miss-understood, from the Professor in Asian Law, you failed miserably to discredit earlier.

    Professor Tim Lindsay stated that the defence case contained "virtually nothing that was admissible evidence to be given weight under Indonesian criminal procedure law"

    The Bali police had enough for a conviction, obviously.
    The defense failed to show any decent evidence, according to Prof. Linidsay. (and the court, going by their verdict)

    So now you're back to Bali police put the pot there, not her brother?
    lol.

  • GRUMPY25608

    by all accounts he wrote there book of law and your just some hack like myself discussing the case by all acounts

  • GRUMPY25608

    "But Professor Lindsay has been caught out making unsubstantiated claims to the media, that he wasn't able to back up with academic references or any data, when his department was contacted by email, and asked to provide them."

    As you have requested on numerous for us to show where we got our fact from.

    Show me where you got that information about Prof Lindsay to make the abovemetioned statement you have made

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    The QCs were never able to act in any official legal capacity. Only pro-bono.

    How would a couple of Australian lawyers, who don't even speak Indonesian ...be of much help anyway?
    Besides, Indonesia is outside of their working jurisdiction.
    At no time did Corby or her Indonesian defence team, request them.

    "Mr Trowell is facing the West Australian State Administrative Tribunal over claims he acted unprofessionally when he released confidential information about the Corby case in 2005.
    But Mr Trowell today told the disciplinary hearing that he had never acted in any legal capacity for Corby, who is serving a 20-year jail term for smuggling 4.1kg of marijuana into Bali in October 2004.
    He said he only acted as a go-between for the Australian government after being contacted by then Attorney General Philip Ruddock, at a time when Canberra was under intense pressure to assist Corby's case."

    "I was never asked to join the legal team nor would I do so," Mr Trowell told the hearing."

    "I had no intention whatsoever in assisting in the appeal."

    WAtoday, September 18, 2008

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    QC, Mark Trowell was not only of no help, but he severely damaged Schapelle's case.
    He accused her legal team of planning to bribe the Indonesian authorities, knowing that would be damaging to her case.

    "However, Mr Trowell was not about to explain his extraordinary attack half-way through Corby's appeal, despite being warned in advance by Corby's Jakarta lawyer, Hotman Paris Hutapea, that it would be extremely damaging to her case. "There are reasons for it," he said."
    Sydney Morning Herald, June 27, 2005

    I wonder what those reasons are...?
    I wonder if a there's a hint, in the third sentence of the WAtoday article I posted...

    "He said he only acted as a go-between for the Australian government...."

    I'd say that probably tells us, who he was really "representing".

    Anyway, he was investigated and reprimanded by the WA State Administrative Tribunal.

  • docoman

    "At no time did Corby or her Indonesian defence team, request them." 'Them' being QC's
    No, but they rejected the governments offer of QC's, more then once according to Downer, the then Foreign Minister.

    Trowell isn't the only QC in the country, in case you weren't aware. I think you are, I think it's another ploy. Like your play on words is with the QC's. No, they didn't request, they rejected.
    Why reject help, that's supposedly what they were asking for. It would seem that they could have used some more legal 'brain power'. Yet another of those 'rat smells' emanating form the Corby camp, that was supposed to smell like a rose, but doesn't.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "It has since been revealed that Corby's lawyers had been offered but rejected surveillance videos that were suspected to be of the day in question which had been forensically recovered."

    I believe QANTAS told that to an inquiry. But can you believe ...just anything, they say?

    Why exactly would QANTAS (or SACL) want to offer the surveillance tapes?

    The contents would prove that either-

    ...their security is so incompetent, a bloated, stinking bag containing 4.2 kgs of crap, made it through all staffed check points ...on the very same day, that a police operation targeting drug traffickers at the airport, was supposed to be underway

    ...or that they had corrupt drug-running baggage handlers on their payroll, who used passengers as unwitting mules ..on the very day Corby flew out
    (Which incidentally ...they did, and still do)

    ...OR if the tapes showed neither of these, then the focus would shift to the Indonesian end. And powers that be, more powerful than QANTAS ...definitely wouldn't want that.

    There are a lot of questions for QANTAS, which they've never been able to answer.

    womenforschapelle. blogspot. com. au/2010/08/schapelle-corby-qantas-australian. html
    womenforschapelle. blogspot. com. au/2011/01/schapelle-corby-qantas-corrupt-drug. html

  • docoman

    A little logic problem for you. IF Trowell was acting on the governments behalf, in some sort of conspiracy by your suggestions, why would the government then allow him to be reprimanded for doing their bidding? Surely if they're acting so far outside the law already, a little State hearing by a Tribunal should be easy for them to quash?
    Again, you're argument wants to have it's cake and eat it too.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    (Reposting this, as I think the moderator wont allow my comments, if I try to include hyperlinks. So I have to put spaces after the dots in website addresses. Sorry about that)
    ---

    "It has since been revealed that Corby's lawyers had been offered but rejected surveillance videos that were suspected to be of the day in question which had been forensically recovered."

    I believe QANTAS told that to an inquiry. But can you believe ...just anything, they say?

    Why exactly would QANTAS (or SACL) want to offer the surveillance tapes?

    The contents would prove that either-

    ...their security is so incompetent, a bloated, stinking bag containing 4.2 kgs of crap, made it through all staffed check points ...on the very same day, that a police operation targeting drug traffickers at the airport, was supposed to be underway

    ...or that they had corrupt drug-running baggage handlers on their payroll, who used passengers as unwitting mules ..on the very day Corby flew out
    (Which incidentally ...they did, and still do)

    ...OR if the tapes showed neither of these, then the focus would shift to the Indonesian end. And powers that be, more powerful than QANTAS ...definitely wouldn't want that.

    There are a lot of questions for QANTAS, which they've never been able to answer.

    womenforschapelle. blogspot. com. au/2010/08/schapelle-corby-qantas-australian. html
    womenforschapelle. blogspot. com. au/2011/01/schapelle-corby-qantas-corrupt-drug. html

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "any indication that Corby might have been reluctant to present her luggage would have been severely injurious to her defence"

    Docoman, I feel I must remind you again, that the only hard evidence of any "reluctance" or "suspicious behaviour" ...was to be found on the CCTV footage, of the customs desk interaction.

    The very footage Corby requested ...and was denied.
    (Breach of KUHAP Article 72 – The evidence collected by the investigators is accessible to the suspect and his counsel.)

    Again, why would the defendant request the footage, that may have incriminated themself...?
    Why would the court, not want to view it...?

    This is the very point I see you are trying to dismiss, downplaying with unbounded speculation, and your subjective interpretation of her testimony.

    You have absolutely no idea, what went on in Corby's mind.
    You have no idea, about what she knew ...or didn't know. Or what she decided to do ...or not do.

    Remember also, that any conclusions based on the absolute given, that James HAS to be the owner ...are also of little value.
    Since there is no proof of this, and no hard evidence for this.

    I must make it clear that a felony, that was perpetrated over a year after Schapelle's arrest ...does not prove any link to the stuff, found in her bag. That would've been up to Queensland police to establish. Which they never did, and have no reason to suspect, or investigate.

    And, I suppose it would've been helpful if the Bali police had have provided a sample ...like they were obligated to, under an international bilateral treaty.

  • docoman

    Worveys did a 'lawyer' type trick, and answered without actually answering, then resumed their misdirection agenda again. Talk about anything, but don't mention they found it in Shapelle's bag, and that her whole defence is dependent on her actions when found. Which by her own account seems quite shady. By the 4 customs officers that testified, definitely suspicious.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    In most countries in the democratic world, a defendant will probably not be denied all of their basic rights.

    In most countries in the democratic world, a defendant will probably not be found guilty and sentenced to 20 years ...on mere circumstantial evidence, and testimony.
    Especially not if the court broke with it's own Code of procedure, and withheld the hard physical evidence ...that was requested by the defendant.
    I believe this is called

    ...Withholding of Vital Evidence.

    In most countries in the democratic world, there is no way such a ruling could be considered fair and correct.

    In most countries in the democratic world, I believe this would be called ...a miss-trial.

  • GRUMPY25608

    it appear that you also have the right to say whatever you want....without fear of repercussions.
    Your therioes and belief are not fact like you seem to think they are, and whenever someone shows you your errors, your very quick to change the angle of approach to argue the same points still without giving any references or evidence to prove your case, sorry I should have said beliefs.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    Since you mentioned 'food for thought' somewhere just before ...there are still plenty more awkward questions, to ponder over.
    Of course, they will only be awkward ...if you can't free yourself of the pre-conclusion that Schapelle HAS to be guilty.

    Why would a drug smuggler request all the tests ...that would incriminate themself...?
    Why would the Bali police, not want to do these tests...?
    Why would Corby actually request the footage ...that may have corroborated the customs officer...?

    And here's a few more, that nobody I've ever debated this on this topic ...has ever given clear answers to.

    Why did? the Indonesians burn the evidence, before the appeals process was even complete?
    Why did they refuse to provide a sample to the AFP, despite being under obligation to do so, as per? an international bilateral treaty?
    Why did they? not bother to carry out an investigation into the supply network, at their end?
    Why was the home of Mercedes Corby and her Balinese husband, never raided, and neither of them ever investigated?

  • GRUMPY25608

    I read your response to docoman and it would seem he shot you down
    by his reply back to you.

    "Quoting someone out of context, in an effort to change the meaning.
    Some would even call it intellectually dishonest."

    I think that we whom are not qualified in law. should not go around defaming a Professor of law.

  • docoman

    From what I've seen on this site, the moderators only ever delete or modify comments that contravene the Commenting Policy. If you post a link, they have to OK it. I believe the moderators are from North America, so it can sometimes take awhile for the post to appear, but it will, unless it's a disqus problem, which has happened a couple times. It should eventually appear in the correct order it was posted.
    You're jumping to incorrect conclusions again.

    I'll take the opinion of a Professor specialising in Asian law over your incorrect assertions about Indonesian law. You are wrong on the legal points, as shown repeatedly now.
    I'll quote what you said in a post to someone else,
    "Are you missing something here? Is there something in that sentence above ...you are not able to grasp? " " You can't honestly be that daft."

    More legalistic type BS wordplay, you don't seem to understand it's not flying anymore. "that the only hard evidence of any "reluctance" or "suspicious behaviour" ...was to be found on the CCTV footage, of the customs desk interaction."
    Depends on your definition of 'hard evidence'. Most reasonable people would consider the word of 4 customs officers v's a person just discovered with a large amount of drugs, pretty good evidence. Remove the word 'hard', and your assertion is dead wrong, it just doesn't suit yours, and Shapelle's argument.

    All you have is straws you're grasping at, yet you're still trying to rebuild your straw-man argument.

    So far, you've said it's the Aus Police, the Bali Police, the Aus gov, the Indo gov, the brother and QANTAS. You've pointed the finger at everyone, except the one person actually found with the drugs.

    It's time you prove your assertions, and by the way, 'womenforshapelle' type sites do not trump a Professor of Law, however much you protest.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    And, at the risk of sounding like that lady in this film ...there's more.

    IF her father (or James) planted it without her knowledge, how could she (or her mum or travelling companions) have not noticed something odd about the bag ...as they were getting it out of the car, after they'd just arrived at Brisbane airport...?

    What happened to the CCTV footage taken at Brisbane and Sydney airports? Why was it never provided, despite it being requested, within hours of Schapelle's arrest?
    Why were Corby's lawyers told conflicting stories when they sought to obtain this footage?

    Why , in the only recorded case of an Australian apparently attempting to smuggle cannabis OUT of Australia,? has there never been an AFP investigation on the Corbys in relation to international drug trafficking?
    Why do we see no evidence of any such investigation?
    Why were their homes in Australia never raided ...not even in the days immediately after Schapelle's arrest?

    Why did we never see their hydroponic equipment, huge sacks of herbs, and their ill gotten bundles of cash, sprawled out on display, for all to see, on the front page of every newspaper, within days of Schapelle's? arrest?

    Are we supposed to believe, that in one of the most high profile and controversial cases in Australian history, the AFP don't care enough, to investigate this alleged notorious "drug family" ...who caused such inconvenience and diplomatic problems for two governments?
    Why don't any Australian police want to investigate and expose their alleged criminal activities in Australia...?

    ...and show us the proof that the Indonesians never did, and shut the lid on this, once and for all...?

  • GRUMPY25608

    Foreign Minister Downer statement discredits your claim about the assistance offered to the Corby's.

    And with the amount of lies or untruths told by the whole Corby family and hangers on, I think I would have more trust in Downers version of events over a family that "could not lie straight in bed"

  • docoman

    You are yet to prove any of your assertions of illegal actions towards Shapelle.
    Some have however, been shown already to be 1/2 truths, or legal maneuvers attempting to create an appearance of innocence.
    Like your QC BS earlier. Like your CCTV requests evidence.
    A quote you obviously decided to disregard earlier, take particular note of the last paragraph;
    "There are reports of overwritten Qantas surveillance tapes requested long before the erasure cycle:

    "Any chance of getting that evidence has gone. Qantas says the CCTV tapes were wiped on November 2, two weeks before it received a letter from the lawyers officially requesting copies. But Corby's lawyers say their first request for the tapes was made on October 14, six days after Corby's arrest, to a Qantas security official who had flown from Sydney to Denpasar to meet them. This request was repeated a number of times."[5]

    It has since been revealed that Corby's lawyers had been offered but rejected surveillance videos that were suspected to be of the day in question which had been forensically recovered."

    Clearly, not the search for proof of innocence as you claim, but a legal ploy, to artificially create the illusion of innocence.

  • docoman

    Don't worry, you have long since passed the border of sounding like the lady in this film.... pretty much all you have is smoke and mirrors, false conclusions and what amounts to downright intellectual dishonesty at times.
    I used to think Shapelle probably knew about the drugs, but wasn't sure. After talking with you, looking at the law, Shapelle's testimony and the Customs officers, I'm now convinced she had some knowledge of the drugs, and was guilty of a crime.

  • docoman

    You can't see how requesting something you know you won't or can't get, or request something that you later quietly decide to refuse, can be used as pseudo evidence.
    The way it seems to have been done here. And why? Because the big problem they had with the defense case, Shapelle's actions in the airport. This was their ONLY play, to try to diffuse, discredit and cast doubt on the part that just doesn't work with her story.

    The second part of your questions, again, you can't see that your version of Shapelle being acted illegally against is wrong, in the opinion of someone who does know what he's talking about with Indonesian law. Unlike your 'womenforshapelle', or 'Expendable' sources, he is a Professor, who has studied their law extensively.

    He's right, you're wrong. It's pretty simple.

  • GRUMPY25608

    Do you believe your lie or are you that stupid that you can not tell the difference physical evidence and circumstantial evidence.

    I will even type slowing so you may learn the difference;

    4.2 kilograms of pot found in her possesion.....physical evidence.

    Your ranting and raving if you could call it evidence at best it is circumstantial nothing more and to think that if you are within the legal profession, it shows what comtempt you have for the law and the people showing you your errors.

    it appears to me that your rational and logical thought process has been tainted by your beliefs and therories.

  • GRUMPY25608

    Hazarding a guess I think Worvey is of the female type and will never admit she is wrong in any way shape or form

  • docoman

    I'd say the part about not admitting being wrong is fairly accurate. The thread bears that out.
    I'd also guess Worveys is a female, based on what they said, "at the risk of sounding like that lady in this film.."
    Pretty good English skills, pretty fast at typing, probably an Australian, possibly British or Kiwi, (pretty sure I've seen some English spelling in their posts), argues similar to a lawyer at times... my guess would be Worveys is an ex legal secretary, possibly connected with the Corbys, because of the statement;
    "I have followed the whole case since she was first arrested, and the info I've given you, is certainly not all from this documentary.
    Before this even came out, I could have told you all the same info."
    That was either an attempt to sound more creditable on the subject (probable), or a slight slip of info."

    The amount of knowledge on the case seemingly memorised, well above the average person who has followed the case. The strong, almost fanatical assertion that Shapelle didn't know, the knowledge of exactly what part of her defense was their achilles heel, and the continual misdirection away from that crucial, awkward point, and the continual, ridiculous assertion that the CCTV is the only evidence from that time.
    I wouldn't at all be surprised if they're connected with the Corbys, some PR type, all bar 1 of their posts have been on this topic.

    Worveys is correct in that it makes no difference who the person behind the name is.
    Either way, his/her argument is very flawed.

  • GRUMPY25608

    You have made a valid point about Worvey agenda with quoting the amounts of posts made be "her", all bar one has been on this topic over the last six months.

    I've been a member of this site for approx, one month yet, I have watch and commented on a number of topic through out this site.

    This is why I think "Worvey" has vested interest in the Corby case.
    If I'm wrong I truely feel for her in the aspect that obsession can be one of the signs of mental illness.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    Are we to assume that any online profile, that only comments about one topic, must have some 'vested interest' ...or sinister agenda?

    I also have another online profile, which I only use to engage in speculative discussions about consciousness, lucid dreaming, and the paranormal. I have another, which I only use to talk about aquarium fish.
    I even have one, which I only use to talk about remote control toy cars, and helicopters.

  • GRUMPY25608

    I have discussed a number of different topic using my same online profile. By do so it gives other poster the opportunity to hopefully understand my reasoning behind my thought process.
    Please inform me of your other profile so I may be able to understand your thought processes better and I also have an interest in those other subjects as well and I like your thought provoking ideas and opinions

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    I understand what you mean, about reading other comments posted on other topics, to get a better idea about somebody whom one may find interesting.
    I enjoy viewing YouTube profiles, and reading many different opinions posted by the same person, on a variety of topics. It's a good way to see the world from the perspective of others, and sometimes acquire new knowledge.

    Regrettably, in this case I would prefer not to associate this profile with any others, by naming them. I would prefer not to distract other readers from this topic, as I feel this is a very important issue, that has relevance to the life of a human being.

    Also, I have engaged many others on this very case, on other threads elsewhere. And also, not under this name.
    In the past, I have been subject to hostility and in some cases physical threats, from other posters, in retaliation to arguments and questions ...that they aren't able to respond to effectively, or in a mature manner.

    For this reason it may be wiser for me, not to link any of these Corby dedicated profiles to each other, or to the ones I use for all my other interests.
    I apologise, for choosing not to actually name my other online personae.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    The 4.2 kgs found in her unlocked bag ...that she was apart from for several hours ...that other people had access to, and handled
    ....was circumstantial evidence.

    All alone, circumstantial evidence is inconclusive.

    The physical evidence required to connect her to it, that the Bali police refused to collect ...includes fingerprints or DNA found on, or in the plastic bags.
    Or re-weighing the luggage, along with the 4.2 kg package ...to compare it to the weight, recorded & tagged at Brisbane.
    Or testing the cannabis, for verification that it's an? Australian variety.

  • GRUMPY25608

    Correct me I'm wrong do you mean on this site you have more than one profile (nickname)

  • GRUMPY25608

    It appears to me that you don't understand whats been posted about those points as explained to you previously by both docoman and myself, or have you got a selective reading problem.

    All you point have been vigously discussed throught this thread on numberuos occassions with you even to the point where we have shown you to be mistaken or not willing to accept the evidence presented to you.

    It may pay for you to re-read all our posts again so you may understand the answers give to you

  • docoman

    Still not understanding it I see.

    4.2 kg of pot found in her bag, is physical evidence.

    The fact it was unlocked, she'd been apart from it for several hours (most of those several hours in-flight) and other people have handled her bag, is circumstantial evidence.

    The physical evidence required to connect her to it... it was in her bag, she had control of the bag.

    "All alone, circumstantial evidence is inconclusive."
    Correct. And that is all that you have, and all her defense had. And not all by the hand of the Bali police, as you claim, and as has already been demonstrated to you.

  • docoman

    You won't have to put up with threats like that here on TDF, it's not tolerated by the moderators, the policy is to report physical threats like that to the relevant authorities. As it should be. A bit of sarcasm is about the worst anyone gets here on TDF.
    Do you have any other names you use here on TDF?
    Other sites aren't included in the question, so there's no worry for your safety.
    We can disagree, I have no wish for any harm to come to you by any means, anyone who would over a discussion is absurd.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    I only use this one profile, here at this site. I don't use it anywhere else.
    That way, I don't get confused. I can easily remember that 'Worveys' = TopDocumentaryFilms.

    As you noticed, I have commented on one other documentary here, under this name. I may use it in future, to comment on other documentaries here.
    I just haven't got around to it yet.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    How things seem, as opposed to how things really are ...are often quite different.

    The professor seems to agree with me here-

    "Misunderstanding Indonesian law: Schapelle Corby, Bali 9, Bali bombers"

    archive. uninews. unimelb. edu. au/view-65111. html

    16 May 2005

    Note, this was what he said before Schapelle's sentencing.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    I provided the source for that, in the same post.

    Here it is again-

    womenforschapelle. blogspot. com. au/2011/10/schapelle-corby-prof-tim-lindseys-boss. html

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "...without giving any references..."

    I believe so far, I have provided-

    Newspaper articles-

    "Questions over role of Perth QC in Corby team"
    Sydney Morning Herald, June 27, 2005

    "I never acted for Corby: Perth QC tells disciplinary hearing"
    WAtoday, September 18, 2008

    Website addresses-

    "Misunderstanding Indonesian law: Schapelle Corby, Bali 9, Bali bombers"
    archive. uninews. unimelb. edu. au /view-65111. html

    "Indonesia set to destroy Corby's evidence"
    usp. com. au/fpss/schapelle_corby/press_release07. html

    womenforschapelle. blogspot. com. au/2010/08/schapelle-corby-qantas-australian. html
    womenforschapelle. blogspot. com. au/2011/01/schapelle-corby-qantas-corrupt-drug. html
    womenforschapelle. blogspot. com. au/2010/09/schapelle-corby-formal-complaint-to. html
    womenforschapelle. blogspot. com. au/2011/10/schapelle-corby-prof-tim-lindseys-boss. html

    Search terms to Google:

    breaches of the indonesian code

    tnra schapelle
    journoz schapellecorby smh
    Sins Of The Father, Eamonn Duff: THE TRUTH
    eamonn duff publisher axes
    mooresaussiegold . blogspot
    womenforschapelle australian customs
    Schapelle Corby media project
    Mercedes Corby wins defamation case
    lateline apology for Michael Corby senior
    Michael Corby senior police certificate
    Arifin Wardiyanto letter

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    If you scroll back to 6 months ago, you'll find the very first reply I ever gave to you ...that appears on this thread.

    In it I said
    ---I posted you some links to other independent sources, that also back up key things given in this film. But it appears the moderator wont allow me to post any links, so instead I'll just have to give you some Google search terms.---

    Those very first couple of replies I ever sent to you, contained hyperlinks.They have never appeared.

    A comment I posted a few days ago has been edited by a moderator, and it does seem, that I have to put spaces after the dots ...or my posts wont appear.

    So again, sorry about that.
    If you just paste the addresses as they are, straight into a Google search, the relevant websites will usually be first on the list of results.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    A reprimand is like a slap on the wrist. Trowell should've been struck off.

    Here's a bit more about it here-

    "Another case about one of Schapelle Corby’s lawyers"

    lawyerslawyer. net/2009/05/05/another-case-about-one-of-schapelle-corbys-lawyers/

  • GRUMPY25608

    I have look for your comments the other topic and not suprising only one post appears. Now can you see the difficulties I have with your obsession with this subject. Your been on this site for over seven months and made one single post on one other subject, yet I've been on this site for approximately four weeks and during that time I have many posts on many subjects.

    The biggest problem with mental illness is the sufferer wont admit it to them selfs so it remains untreated, so in the interest of your own health please seek some professional help before your illness starts to render you unreliable and untrustworthy.

    If you haven't got a medical condition, you have no idea how to filter fact from fiction and that make you a stupid person in my opinion.

    66 to 1 comments can you see my point.

  • GRUMPY25608

    Can you provide a site that is not a sexist site or a site for bleeding heart.

  • docoman

    I just read your site 'Misunderstanding Indonesian law'.

    I think you misunderstood that article. Lindsay was not arguing, like you are, that Shapelle was acted illegally against. In fact, the exact opposite.
    From there;
    "Professor Lindsey said although the Indonesian legal system provided the sorts of rights and protections for the accused that might be expected in Australian courts, they were not always upheld in the same way in practice.

    “There may be room for criticism of the Bali drugs trials but we should not condemn the Indonesian system on false grounds or simply because it is different to our own.”

    One example where in practice it's not that way, is a prima facie situation. Which I've already posted Lindsay saying the Corby case was an example.

    You are doing exactly what Lindsay says we shouldn't do in that last paragraph. Condemning them on false grounds.

  • docoman

    I agree a reprimand is pretty much a slap on the wrists. Trowell did act in a way that was not good for Shapelle, I agree.
    On the same token, I can understand a QC not being happy that he's been associated with a team that is looking at bribes as a tactic. He did have his reasons.

    I've been involved in more then one drawn out legal case, and no, not as the defendant. :) I have personally sacked lawyers, and severely reminded another exactly who is working for whom.
    It was important to me, so to ensure it was handled properly I had to oversee/check all parts of it. A steep learning curve, but I felt, and it proved to be, necessary to my outcome.
    The Corbys should have done the same, if they had the intelligence to, or get some help that could. It would seem from the 'free shapelle' sort of sites, they are barking up the wrong tree, on multiple points.
    Which is where it seems you are getting your information from.
    I understand it's emotional, and we are talking about a person being locked up. But that doesn't make it correct to 'bang on about' points that are incorrect, which those sites are doing. Continuing to do so after being clearly shown they're incorrect, is nothing short of willful ignorance, and outright dishonesty. But then again, for sites like 'Expandable', truth doesn't seem to be a high priority. Only their 'feelings' on it, not the facts. Hence the continual misinterpretation of the facts, highlighting some points, dismissing some and lying about others.

    Her defense argument would not have been sufficient in any 1/2 decent legal system in the world. Her actions were not consistent with her version of events. The only version that 'fits' everything, is Shapelle had some knowledge of what was in her bag at the airport.

    I agree it's a pity more evidence was not collected. But that would only probably have given Shapelle some 'brotherly' company in jail, probably got her a sentence that was closer to the 'life imprisonment' the prosecution asked for.
    Neither side, the prosecution or defense, did a very good job on this case.

  • docoman

    If you think the moderators edit comments for other reasons, you'll have to ask them. I've not seen it here. I've talked with all the moderators in my time on here, I'd be very surprised if editing based on bias happened on here.

    Is there anyone that you think isn't 'out to get' Shapelle? That post of yours seems to indicate you believe the moderators are somehow against her too.

    Disqus, the 'forum program', sometimes has the odd glitch. I've been on TDF for a year or so now, I've only ever seen moderators edit a comment for language, threats, or possibly a link error. If you post a link, it will not show up until it's been checked by a moderator. (To stop spamming I think)
    I've not known them to edit a comment based on any bias, I've seen them not do that when it would have been very easy to.

    Links with spaces in them to get them posted straight up is not a problem with me. No apology needed.

    WomenforShapelle sites, I find have their own agenda. Their name says it all. 'Expandable' have no problem lying, it's very evident very early in this 'doco'.

  • Achems_Razor

    You are right, we do no editing based on bias, us moderators strictly adhere to the "comment policy"

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    I'm not accusing the moderators of bias, or anything else. I'm just stating my observations. I'll just assume it's a 'glitch', or something.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "...been associated with a team that is looking at bribes as a tactic."

    Trowell made a defamatory accusation.
    However, he was not able to show evidence for it. That'd be a big part of the whole reason, he was reprimanded.

    ---

    "The only version that 'fits' everything, is Schapelle had some knowledge of what was in her bag at the airport."

    There is another version that 'fits' everything ...even better.

    The version, that it may have actually been the Bali police, who planted the cannabis in Corby's bag.

    And this version provides the clear answers, to ALL the awkward questions that I've put to you, so far.

    Most of which, I notice you've avoided.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    So anyone who campaigns in support for Corby, must have some agenda?
    What would that agenda be?
    To convince a nation, that a guilty woman ...is actually innocent? ...with a barrage of lies, emotional rhetoric ...and website names that "say it all"?

    What would all these websites, and all these people all over the world, have to gain from such an agenda?

    Oh, of course... financial incentive.
    They're all (including me) ...obviously on the Corby payroll.

    I suppose it does stand to reason, that a wealthy international drug trafficking family ...would employ the services of hundreds of individuals from all over the world, including independent research teams, film makers, human rights activists, alternative and regional media, investigative journalists, authors, legal professionals, psychiatrists, celebrities and song writers.
    And the masses in Europe and the US, that have gathered to show their support, and hold up signs saying "Free Schapelle".

    I suppose they're all on the Corby payroll.

    Being paid a worthwhile salary, to maintain a persistent campaign to convince Australia, that a guilty Australian woman jailed in Indonesia ...is actually the innocent victim, of a corrupt political game.

    HOW much would all this, be costing the Corbys...?

    How much time, effort, trouble and money, could they have saved themselves, if they had just paid off the Bali police ...and had all this fixed up, 8 years ago...?
    Would it be too late now, to pay off the Indonesians? ...instead of spending all their money on paying me, and the types of people, I just listed above?

    The Corbys have had 8 years to negotiate with the Indonesians. But it would appear even they, are just not corrupt enough ...to accept bribe money from the Corbys.

    OR ...even better yet, how much rigmarole could they have avoided, if they had just made a little more effort to pack the weed...
    ...in such a way, so that it's NOT guaranteed to be discovered

    ...by the very first airport employee, or sniffer dog ...who spots a bloated, pillow sized 4.2kg boogie board bag, that's likely to stink of weed...?

    The Corbys must dead-set be ...the absolute stupidest drug dealers of ALL time.
    Why didn't they ever feature on "World's dumbest criminals"...?

    Not to mention the luckiest, since they've attracted no interest from the Australian or Indonesian police, and have never been investigated, or convicted, over any of their apparent operations in Australia, or Indonesia.

    Oh, that's right ...Police in both countries, would obviously have to be on their payroll, too.
    But then, that brings us back to the question of ...WHY didn't they just pay off the Indonesians, 8 years ago, ...to buy Schapelle's freedom..??

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    I don't think I misunderstood the article.

    "Professor Lindsey said although the Indonesian legal system provided the sorts of rights and protections for the accused that might be expected in Australian courts, they were not always upheld in the same way in practice."

    I believe that quote is also consistent with my position.

    Particularly this part-
    "...not always upheld in the same way in practice"

    Precisely.
    Just as these rights and protections would not be not upheld, in Corby's case.
    Just because they are not always upheld in practice, does not make it legal. Failure to uphold these rights, is in violation of the Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure.
    Obviously though, I'm sure it happens often.

    As the professor states in the same article "Indonesian legislation clearly places the burden of proof on the prosecution"

    And this happens to be the very point, that I'm arguing.

    Note this was published, before Corby was sentenced.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "Justice system not getting a fair hearing in high-profile drugs cases"

    "Despite persistent claims that Indonesian law presumes guilt, the fact is it does not. Indonesian law places the burden of proof on the prosecution and provides for a presumption of innocence similar to that which applies in Australia."

    "Article 8 of the Indonesian Judiciary Law and Article 18 of the Indonesian Human Rights Law state that every person who is arrested, detained, charged or brought before a court has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Article 66 of the Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure likewise provides that "the obligation of proof is not to be imposed upon the accused or defendant".

    smh. com. au/news/Opinion/Justice-system-not-getting-a-fair-hearing-in-highprofile-drugscases/2005/05/02/1114886314945. html

    Sydney Morning Herald, May 3, 2005

    Note, that this was also published, before Corby was sentenced.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "Professor Tim Lindsay stated that the defence case contained "virtually nothing that was admissible evidence to be given weight under Indonesian criminal procedure law"

    "Judges had no option, law expert says"

    ABC The 7.30 report
    TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
    Broadcast: 27/05/2005

    abc. net. au/7.30/content/2005/s1379035. htm

    Note, this transcript is what Lindsay said to the mainstream media, after Corby's sentencing, on the evening of that day. He seems to have adjusted the tune a little bit.

    Or, he just seems to have forgotten, to include the part about "Indonesian legislation clearly places the burden of proof on the prosecution"
    ...which he is quoted and published as saying ...before the sentencing.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    Reposting. This comment briefly appeared, then it vanished.
    Maybe, because I didn't put my spaces in properly. I'll try again.
    (Edit- It reappeared again, a few minutes later. It looks like it's just a technical thing)
    ---

    "Professor Tim Lindsay stated that the defence case contained "virtually nothing that was admissible evidence to be given weight under Indonesian criminal procedure law"

    "Judges had no option, law expert says"

    ABC The 7.30 report
    TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
    Broadcast: 27/05/2005

    abc. net. au/7. 30/content/2005/s1379035. htm

    Note, this transcript is what Lindsay said to the mainstream media, after Corby's sentencing, on the evening of that day. He seems to have adjusted the tune a little bit.

    Or, he just seems to have forgotten, to include the part about "Indonesian legislation clearly places the burden of proof on the prosecution"
    ...which he is quoted and published as saying ...before the sentencing.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    And here is the same university professor, making what appears to be a false, or misleading statement to the media. I don't consider that "irrelevant".
    And this statement about Schapelle's sentence being "light" was also made, on that "7 30 report" interview, he gave in the evening ...after the sentencing.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    The article you cited, has forgotten to include other things that Professor Lindsay has said ...previously.

    Note, obviously that article was also published ...after Corby's sentencing.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "It's time you prove your assertions...."
    -----

    "Indonesia_Law_of_Criminal_Procedure"

    defensewiki. ibj. org/images/6/62/Indonesia_Law_of_Criminal_Procedure. pdf

    "Article 66
    A suspect or an accused shall not bear the burden of proof."
    p16
    ----

    "Culture, Ideology and Human Rights: The Case of Indonesia’s Code of Criminal Procedure"

    papers. ssrn. com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=2007669

    "The KUHAP was promulgated in 1981,
    replacing the Dutch colonial code of 1848 known as the "HIR". It establishes a number of
    fundamental rights for criminal defendants that were not provided for in the HIR. These
    include a presumption of innocence..."
    page 6

    Or here for a quick view-

    digital. federationpress. com. au/964te/6

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    (Edit- I didn't need to repost the last one, since it returned after a brief disappearance. So here's the next.)

    "A guide to investigation and indictment using an integrated approach to law enforcement"

    cifor. org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BSinaga1102. pdf

    "In regard to burden of proof during court proceedings, Article 66 of the KUHAP
    stipulates that the accused is not burdened with the obligation of substantiation."
    p70

    "INDONESIA The PRD Prisoners"

    unhcr. org/refworld/pdfid/3ae6a9ba8. pdf

    "Failure to uphold the presumption of innocence is in contravention of
    Article 66 of KUHAP, Article 11 of the UDHR, Article 14 (2) of the ICCPR and
    Principle 36 (1) of the Body of Principles"
    page 8

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    This is also an interesting read.

    "Critics on Reverse Burden of Proof: Nothing Else But Desperation"

    sites. google. com/site/arkhfhui/in-the-news/personsnameonfacethenation

  • AntiTheist666

    Hello Worveys

    I just want to say that I admire your tenacity in arguing this case. I have no opinion on who is right or wrong in this instance but I am interested in why you’re fighting it so fervently. I know @docoman asked you outright if you’re a lawyer but I don’t think I’ve seen an answer. Good luck in your efforts anyway.

    The Crucified One

  • docoman

    I just got through reading her latest posts. I seriously doubt she's a lawyer unless she's trying to be misleading. A lawyer shouldn't misinterpret the law as Worveys is.

  • docoman

    And Schapelle (I've been mis-spelling her name I noticed, not on purpose) didn't sack one of her lawyers that was supposedly involved with bribes?
    After Trowell made his remarks?

  • docoman

    Her defense was that it was Australian baggage handlers that put it there. Which I've seen you push. Now you're changing to the Bali Police again.
    How long till you switch back to Qantas, or the Aussie end?

    Of course you don't 'think' you misunderstood that article, you wouldn't have got it wrong if you knew.
    "Professor Lindsey said although the Indonesian legal system provided the sorts of rights and protections for the accused that might be expected in Australian courts, they were not always upheld in the same way in practice."

    "...not always upheld in the same way in practice" does not mean not at all, as you're saying. It means in practice, they're not done the same way. NOT not done at all.

  • docoman

    You've already been shown the burden of proof argument you're pushing is incorrect.
    Prima facie. You'll need to get your head around the idea to understand it.
    You could quote individual parts of Australian law, and miss Acts that expand on a particular point, and totally misunderstand it. Which is exactly what you are repeatedly doing with Indonesian law.

    Why, if it's the Bali police that did it, are you defaming an Aussie QC and a Professor?

    Are they paid by the Bali Police?

    Lindsay didn't say 'light' sentence, he said 'mid-range'. Big difference.
    Are you arguing that 20 years, compared to a possible death sentence, is not mid-range?

  • docoman

    If you could understand Prima facie, you'd understand the burden of proof was still with the Indonesians.
    Which they satisfied when they caught Schaplle with pot, in her bag, trying to enter their country.
    It's not that hard to grasp really.

    I'll take the opinion of a Professor of Asian Law, over the misunderstandings you have, no doubt from reading the sites that are not really interested in pushing the truth, but their agenda.
    Especially over points you obviously have trouble understanding.

    Trying to change his meanings or discredit him the way you have tried to does not make him incorrect.

  • docoman

    Silly rhetoric such as that post proves nothing other then your misunderstanding of the case.

  • AntiTheist666

    @docoman

    G’day mate

    Thanks for the info. My feelings about the case have intensified since I heard of that horrific death sentence for the poor old brit mule, that’s just barbaric! My confidence in the Indonesian judiciary just gets lower all the time. As a related side issue I don’t think I ever told you that my daughter lives in Australia. She recently moved from Wollongong to Albion Park NSW. We keep in touch regularly, been there two and half years I think. You’ll never guess what she’s doing??? I’ll tell ya. She’s a graduate from New College, Oxford and is currently doing a conversion course so she can practice law, aussie rules or something like that.

    Top companies from around the world chased her but she turned them all down so she could practice civil law. I would ask her about the Corby case but her schedule is already hectic, she’s running a company as well as the course which is pretty intensive in itself. She’s only got a few months left to go so maybe I’ll ask her then. Is this case still a hot topic in oz media?

  • docoman

    G'day mate. I never knew that. Wow, you must be very proud mate! :) Sounds like a very clever girl, I know where she got that I think. ;)
    I agree, that poor lady in the case you linked, I feel a lot of sympathy for. I don't understand why she got a death sentence when the prosecution didn't even ask for it. Obviously there has to be politics involved.
    As, no doubt, there was in the Corby case to some degree. I don't dispute that, only the amount her supporters claim.
    I don't think that Schapelle had nothing to answer for. 4.2 kg in your bag, acting up on the plane, acting suspicious at the airport (I recall another traveler reporting how she was checking out the CCTV camera's before reaching customs, I'm not sure if that is true though, I can't be bothered chasing it up), suspicious again by the testimony of the Customs officers, and her own testimony.
    Most of the sympathy I have for Schapelle has been evaporated by the manipulation of the facts, as I see it.
    As Grumpy said, the Corby family did have a reputation in the drug scene around Brisbane, I heard that from my 'a*shole' brother as soon as the case broke, when all the media was pro Schapelle.

    You've only got to look at the sister and brother to see they are not the 'clean' family they claim to be, especially in the area of drugs.

    I don't for a second think that any countries legal system is perfect, or beyond corruption. I personally wouldn't want to be under charges in Indonesia.
    I've had problems with Aussie law. (not charges against me, but the interpretation and application of parts of it. I won both cases I've initiated, in 2 different States. ;)
    No, it's not a hot topic in the media here anymore, hasn't been for awhile now.
    Interestingly, when I've asked people here about their feelings on the case, they almost always say her family was involved. Some do say they believe Schapelle is innocent. The majority I've asked say no.
    I think because the families claims were obviously 's*ifty', most people could 'smell a rat'. And not just because of the media, the 'circus' that was Mercedes (the sister) was as damaging to public opinion here as anything else.
    Worveys argument keeps changing, it's sometimes the same as Schapelle's defence, sometimes different. The main constant is the 'assertion' that she should not be held responsible for what was found in her bag, as 'someone' was out to get her. Obviously, I don't agree. :)

  • docoman

    I just posted a reply, it's awaiting moderators clearance.
    Just an add on to that already long post, as your daughter would no doubt know, you have to divorce your emotions and look at the legal aspects of any case. I found the hard way, decent morals and law don't always match up. It's what is written in the 'rules', and the interpretation of them that matter, not the emotions or feelings of right/wrong.
    Personally I think Schapelle has paid more then enough, but that's not my call. Unfortunately for Schapelle it's the Indonesians call.

  • docoman

    You asked me once what I'd do if I found drugs in my bag like that. I haven't answered you.
    I've traveled and lived overseas. One time, while leaving Bahrain, my sister asked me to carry her suitcase. I did, and while going through customs I was pulled aside for a bag check. I vividly recall the Customs Officer pulling out a packet of tampons, and looking at me weird. I had the thought running through my head, 'Please don't find something like the Contraceptive Pill, and then I find it's banned here'. IF they had, I would have spoken the truth, but still been subject to their laws, whether I thought it was fair or not. Lucky for me, all was OK.
    I do know for sure, that if I opened my bag after a flight and saw drugs like that, there is no way I'd try to go through customs with it. I've never been that st*pid. Stupidity is not a legal defense.

  • docoman

    LOL, that's a new one for me. What's wrong with the word 'shifty'?
    or was it a mis-read? It is similar to another word ;) Sorry guys, not trying to make your job harder. :)

    shift·y
    /?SHift?/
    Adjective

    1 (of a person or their manner) Appearing deceitful or evasive: "he seems so shifty—he won't meet my eyes".
    2 Constantly changing; shifting: "it was a close race in a shifty wind on smooth water".

  • over the edge

    docoman
    lol that was me. sorry man. when will i learn not to multitask.

  • docoman

    lol, no worries mate, it did look like the other word. :)

  • docoman

    I would be interested in your daughter's take on the case, but she sounds like a very busy lady. You obviously have done a very good job as a parent. I wish I had a daughter such as yours mate, you have every reason to be very proud. If you ever come over for a visit, and get near Brisbane, I'd love to meet you and say G'day face to face, and buy you a drink. :)
    If you do, I can take you camping and show you about metal detecting for gold :) A taste of the 'real bush', not some tourist bs. One of my hobbies when I'm well.

  • GRUMPY25608

    Your a better man than me in the aspect that you seem to tolerate fools better than myself.

    When people don't or won't except facts and strive on beliefs and ideals, my tolerance become less and my contempt for them increase ten fold.

    After exhusting all legal avenues available with in the Indonesian law she was still found guilty. it's quite apparent that after due process free was still found guilty.

    Although I believe that her punishment seems harsh. it alot better than a death sentence, that could have been handed down.

    I have a friend who spent 15yrs in prison for a crime he did not commit and the only reason he didn;t do he hole sentence was the state goverment held an independant commision against corruption where the police where found to have fabricated evidence for his conviction. when that evidence came to light my friend was out within two days. he's a free man now but nothing will ever replace that 15 years of his life that he lost because a conviction was a guarantee for promotion for the arresting officer. whom latter testified that he falsafied and fabricated evidence to get a conviction.

  • AntiTheist666

    @docoman

    Thanks mate and yes I am immensely proud of her. I’ve been meaning to get out to your wonderful country for some time but events keep interfering and this year is already too full. Next year however the chances are good and I would love to take you up on your splendid offer, I love all those things you suggested :-) I believe it’s only an hour or so from Sydney?

    You were absolutely right when you said that emotions of any kind in interpreting law have to be left out. While we all know the law can be an ass it remains the law. The Lindsay Sandiford case has already got many similarities to Schapelle’s, I’ll be keeping a close watch on this one, it’s already beginning to smell bad though and may go on forever. I don’t think they’ll carry out the death sentence but the issuing of it even is just not just!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    Let's get this thread back on topic shall we...?
    Back to the important stuff...

    The Indonesians presented no physical evidence, to connect Corby to the marijuana.
    The Indonesians refused, withheld and destroyed vital evidence ...and violated their own laws, to do so.
    The marijuana was never proven to be from Australia.
    Schapelle's incarceration is actually unlawful, under Indonesian and International laws.

    See
    The Expendable project "The show trial report"

    or just Google the words-

    breaches of the indonesian code

    The very first results of a search for just those words, brings up content relating to this case.
    For the Bali police, and anyone else who
    thinks Corby got a fair trail ...this is a problem.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    The AFP were running an operation at Sydney airport, targeting drug traffickers ...the very day Corby flew out. Yet CCTV footage (from 3 airports)...was somehow unavailable. Her lawyers were given conflicting stories, as they sought to obtain it.
    Australian Federal Police have never investigated any members of her family for drug trafficking.
    South Australian & QLD Police found no evidence for any allegations, made against her family.
    Qld Police issued a certificate of 'No disclosable outcomes' against the name Michael Corby Senior. Any drug convictions at all, would be a disclosable outcome.
    Australian media have presented no proof, connecting her family to the drug trade, or that any commercial flow of marijuana exists ...from Australia to Bali.

    See
    The Expendable project "The primary smear report" "The transit report"
    and "The absence of motive"

    See also
    Sins Of The Father, Eamonn Duff: THE TRUTH
    mooresaussiegold . blogspot
    womenforschapelle australian customs
    Schapelle Corby media project
    and
    Mercedes Corby wins defamation case
    lateline apology for Michael Corby senior
    Michael Corby senior police certificate

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "Indonesia Law of Criminal Procedure"

    defensewiki. ibj. org/images/6/62/Indonesia_Law_of_Criminal_Procedure. pdf

    Article 66 "A suspect or an accused shall not bear the burden of proof."
    p16

    "Culture, Ideology and Human Rights: The Case of Indonesia’s Code of Criminal Procedure"

    papers. ssrn. com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=2007669

    "The KUHAP was promulgated in 1981,
    replacing the Dutch colonial code of 1848 known as the "HIR". It establishes a number of fundamental rights for criminal defendants that were not provided for in the HIR. These include a presumption of innocence..."
    page 6

    Or here for a quick view-

    digital. federationpress. com. au/964te/6

    "A guide to investigation and indictment using an integrated approach to law enforcement"

    cifor. org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BSinaga1102. pdf

    "In regard to burden of proof during court proceedings, Article 66 of the KUHAP stipulates that the accused is not burdened with the obligation of substantiation."
    p70

    "INDONESIA The PRD Prisoners"

    unhcr. org/refworld/pdfid/3ae6a9ba8. pdf

    "Failure to uphold the presumption of innocence is in contravention of Article 66 of KUHAP, Article 11 of the UDHR, Article 14 (2) of the ICCPR and Principle 36 (1) of the Body of Principles"
    page 8

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    I haven't been pushing the Australian baggage handler scenario, at all.

    In the comment about QANTAS, I just mentioned it in passing, as QANTAS did actually have drug smuggling baggage handlers on their payroll, at the time Corby flew.
    It's official.
    They were receiving cocaine from South America.

    But, I didn't say I think any of them, had anything to do with the weed found in Corby's bag ...because it's very doubtful they did.

    I mentioned the crooked baggage handlers, as 1 of 3 possible reasons, why QANTAS wouldn't really want to hand over the surveillance tapes ...in the context of the issue that you raised.

    I also gave 2 other possible reasons, why QANTAS wouldn't want to hand over the tapes. The focus being shifted to the Bali end, was one of them.

    Misrepresenting an opponent, is an all too common tactic for trying to create confusion, and to distract from the core of their argument.
    And it's not even the first time you've done it on this thread.
    Nice try, again.

  • GRUMPY25608

    if I buy seeds from Amsterdam and grow the hydroponicly using tank water and imported chemicals, how could anyone prove where that pot was grown.

    All your other point have been addressed numerous times now and it appears that your too brain dead to fully comprehend the answer you are so deperate for Docoman and myself have not only proven you to be misinformed quite a few times now, yet you keep repeating the same question time and time again. So your either confussed with the truth or just plain brain dead (stupid).

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "....they were not always upheld in the same way in practice."

    Despite your attempt at wordplay, it means exactly what it says.

    It means-

    ...that in practice, these rights and protections, although provided by the Indonesian legal system ...are not always upheld.

    In other words ...the Indonesians sometimes break with their own Code of Criminal procedure.

    It's not that hard to grasp really.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "You could quote individual parts of Australian law, and miss Acts that expand on a particular point, and totally misunderstand it. Which is exactly what you are repeatedly doing with Indonesian law."

    Then please, feel free to quote the Articles that I've missed, or "totally misunderstood."

    Article 66 clearly states: "A suspect or an accused shall not bear the burden of proof."
    Please quote any Articles from the Indonesian Code of Criminal procedure, that shift the burden onto the defendant.

    ----

    I wasn't even the one who brought up the QC, or the professor.

    I've been trying to keep to the real issue.
    That the Indonesians broke their own laws, when they denied Corby the evidence she asked for, and shifted the burden of proof onto her. This make Corby's incarceration illegal.

    Other people keep trying to distract from this, with a myriad of other side issues, that I have to address.

    An Aussie QC who severely damaged Schapelle's case with an unfounded accusation...
    ...and a professor who downplays the unfairness of the sentence, and gives misleading and false statements to the media, on the evening after her sentencing.

    He did say the sentence was light, in the ABC interview. And he lied.

    "But this is a light sentence for Indonesia."

    ABC The 7 30 Report 27/05/2005

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    You've previously been arguing up until now ...that under Indonesian law, the burden of proof is on the defence.
    Here's what you posted a few days ago-

    "So, as I was saying, it does shift the onus onto the defense to prove it's not her drugs, according to a guy that knows what he's talking about with Indonesian law."

    And after being shown 4 independent sources, not even associated with Schapelle Corby, that state otherwise...

    ...you now seem to be acknowledging, that burden of proof is actually on the prosecution, after all ....just as I've been arguing all along...??? wtf?

    You NOW say, that "the burden of proof was still with the Indonesians." ...when you've previously been arguing that it was on Corby...
    ...AND that's how it is ..."according to a guy that knows what he's talking about with Indonesian law."

    That guy being Tim Lindsay, who gave misleading statements and lied to the media, on the day of the sentencing.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    SO now, your new position is "the burden of proof was still with the Indonesians."
    ...which they satisfied, with prima facie evidence..?

    Unfortunately, this new position wont hold up well for you either ...as prima facie, is not adequate for a conviction.
    Nor is witness testimony.

    I have argued, in opposition to you all along, that Indonesian law places the burden of proof on the prosecution.

    And that the Indonesians broke with their own Code of Criminal procedure, when they shifted the burden onto Corby.

    Just as you asked, I have now substantiated this ...and I believe you are now trying, to wiggle and weasel your way out of an awkward situation.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    That "silly rhetoric" was intended to highlight the serious logical flaws in the "Schapelle is guilty" argument
    ...all the while, laying the foundations for 2 unavoidable questions.

    A hollow answer such as this, demonstrates your wilful ignorance of these flaws, and your unwillingness to ponder these questions.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    A DNA record, and a preserved sample of the weed, could've been used by them, for their downstream investigations. It could've been used to match it, to future cannabis seizures, and make arrests in Bali. It would've been a crucial part of investigating the alleged distribution network.

    A sample could've been sent to Australia, enabling the AFP to match it to seizures in Australia, and make arrests. A crucial part of investigating the alleged supply network.

    It would've been crucial evidence that could've identified the person (or persons), who planted the weed in Corby's bag.

    Be it Corby herself, OR someone else...

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    And ...most of my points have not actually been addressed.
    Here's some of them again.

    IF her father (or James) planted it without her knowledge, how could she have not noticed something odd about the bag ...as she was getting it out of the car, after she'd just arrived at Brisbane airport?

    How much time, effort, trouble and money, could the Corbys have saved themselves, if they'd just paid whatever bribes were payable to the Bali police ...and had all this fixed up, 8 years ago?

    Why would a drug smuggler request all the tests ...that would incriminate themself...?
    Why would Corby actually request the footage ...that may have corroborated the customs officer...?
    Why would the Bali police, not want ANY of this evidence...?

    Why did? the Indonesians destroy the main piece of evidence, before the appeals process was even complete?
    Why did they refuse to provide a sample to the AFP, despite being under obligation to do so, as per? an international bilateral treaty?

    Why did they? not bother to carry out any investigations into the alleged operation, at their end?
    Why was the home of Mercedes Corby and her Balinese husband, never raided, and neither of them ever investigated?

    Why , in the only recorded case of an Australian apparently attempting to smuggle cannabis OUT of Australia,? has there never been an AFP investigation on the Corbys in relation to international drug trafficking?
    Why were their homes in Australia never raided ...not even in the days immediately after Schapelle's arrest?
    Why did we never see their hydroponic equipment, huge sacks of herbs, and their ill gotten bundles of cash, sprawled out on display, for all to see, on the front page of every newspaper, within days of Schapelle's? arrest?

  • docoman

    Clearly you have problems following along properly.

    I will talk slowly for you so you might keep up .

    Prima facie , read about it and try to understand it.

    Burden of proof is with the prosecution, until something like 4.2 kg is found on your person.

    Then the burden shifts to the person found with it on them to show it's NOT theirs.

  • docoman

    Some of those points haven't been addressed, because their stupidity is self evident to someone able to think critically, like your first one about at Brisbane airport.
    The rest have been addressed, like your CCTV BS.

    Trying to have the last word doesn't make you right, just persistently ignorant.

    You can attempt to smear Prof. Lindsay all you like, he'll always know more about Asian law then you and I put together.
    That's why you don't like him. If he agreed with you, you'd be all over him. Fact is, he doesn't, he says you're wrong. Even if you can't comprehend properly all of his words.

    Schapelle will always be a convicted drug trafficker.

  • docoman

    Maybe this example will help you understand. I'm not holding my breath though ;)

    Australia and the US have a similar military doctrine, however they are not always upheld in the same way in practice.

    It does not mean one doesn't fight. Just that when it's applied, it's not always in the same way.

  • docoman

    Na mate, Brisbane is about 900km north of Sydney, which is about another 100 or so north of Albion Park NSW. That's a nice part of the country where your daughter is, you'd like it there. A tad closer to your climate then Brisbane too ;)
    You're welcome if you ever get the chance mate. :)

  • GRUMPY25608

    I see either the question I put to you to hard for you to understand or if you where to answer it another hole appears in your arguement, either way your by you not addressing my question makes your case weaker in my opinion.

  • GRUMPY25608

    May-be we could organize that BBQ as it would be my previledge to meet the both of you, as though this site I've respected all your combined comment even though I may not agree with them at times.

  • GRUMPY25608

    It appears that you have no concept on how police or military operation proceed or if so what are their current operations.

    I know through my own experience that all operations are a need to know based situation.

    Under the security ACT of Australia you and I are not in that group of persons that need to know.
    I totally agree with that Act as without it, I doubt that I would be here today.

    All your point have been answered numerous times now yet you appear to as thick as two short planks, or the answers you got dont suit your therories so you have dismissed them.
    You then ask them again when you think that we have forgotten you previous posts, so rather than address your questions again, I would sujest you re-read all the replies back to you or get someone with more intelligence to read them and explain them to you.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    You've posited a very good reason to forgo the tests.

    Just in case, the weed happens to be grown from imported Amsterdam seeds ...that means that any DNA information will
    be useless ....so let's just not bother.

    If it had have been stuff grown from Amsterdam seeds, it's DNA information still could've been recorded.
    This information still could've been useful for matching it to future seizures, pertaining to the upstream and downstream investigations, in Bali and Australia.
    Like I said, it could've been crucial evidence for identifying the syndicate, or and the person(s) who placed it in her bag.

    Even if it were Corby herself.

    When a foreigner is caught entering a country with a stash of weed found in their bag, I should think it pertinent for the police of that country, to be interested in shutting down this foreign operation, that imports bulk quantities of weed.

    To even start their investigations ...they will need to record the DNA and strain, and preserve a sample.

    My points have not been answered at all.
    Simply repeating that they have been, and repeatedly inferring that I'm very stupid ...does not give you credibility.
    Credibility must be earned.

    And your ramblings about the security ACT of Australia ...do not provide a satisfactory answer, to the unavoidable questions I have posed.

  • GRUMPY25608

    How do you know what investgation where conducted nad by whom they were conducted by.

    I work in a CT unit for a period of time and unless I was directly involved with that operation I had no clue that it was even being conducted, so please tell me how someone with my extremely high security clearance was kept in the dark about operation that I personally no involvement in yet you seem to be have knowledge that I can't get through the proper authorities with my security clearance.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    One does not need any security clearance, to obtain the knowledge I have.

    My knowledge which I have shared here, can be obtained from books, and the internet. Much of it is also attributable, to my lifetime of observations of the world I live in.

    It take's a LOT of time and effort, to wade through the oceans of information, that are available in the public domain. Obviously, a measure of critical logic, and common sense must be applied, in order to process the information ...and to ascertain what is credible, from what is not.

    Some facts can be asserted, by an absence of evidence.

    Such as, the fact Schapelle's family has never been raided, or investigated by the AFP, for drug trafficking. Anyone who has even the slightest concept of how the the media operate, can ascertain this fact.
    If they had been investigated by the AFP, it would've made the front page of all the newspapers, and been shown on prime-time, that very evening. If they ever were of any real interest to the AFP at any time since, it would have made front page news.

    There'd be no need for photos of people smoking bongs, or non-stories about people being fined for possession, over 30 years ago.

  • docoman

    Schapelle's family has never been raided? lol.
    Then how did they find the pot at her mother's house that the brother had stolen, apparently to 'help free Schapelle'?

    You seem to think that the media knows all AFP investigations. That's the basis of your claim? lol.

    How often is DNA testing done on Marijuana seizures? Are you aware that every cannabis seed in Australia has been imported, there are no native strains. And you're assuming that a 'syndicate' has a particular 'strain' that is unique to only them. lol

    They didn't care about testing too much, they caught her with it in her bag. That was all they needed, they got their conviction.

    A little saying it would do you well to understand and remember, it's useful elsewhere, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Do you understand what that means?

    Your legal arguments are wrong, as explained by a Professor of Asian Law.
    Your assertions are based on faulty logic, and your inability to critically evaluate information properly. That's why you're easily seduced by the emotional appeals that your source sites employ.

    In short, your argument is pretty weak, at best. Silly mostly. Even after you've been shown you're incorrect, you still keep parroting the same assumptions and BS 'information'. lol.

  • GRUMPY25608

    "by the absence of evidence" something your seem to be extremely good at presenting however when evidence is available you seem to ignore it eg. 4.2 kilos of pot in her bag........

    AFP would hand all thier finding to the rallivant state authorities'and again lets look at the family history to date shall we.

    Poor old daddy early 70s drug conviction,
    brother where do we start with his rap sheet,
    sister only sue the television station not her mate as if she did her true involvement with drugs would have come to light.

    I'm lead to believe that her estranged partner was convicted of drug offences. need I say more
    There are words to discribe people like however I enjoy the priviledge of being a member of this site so I shall refrane myself and call you as I see it. Your a six pack short of a picnic

  • docoman

    It also hasn't escaped my attention that you've failed to mention any of the talks about a possible prisoner exchange deal between Aus and Indo, which the Corby case prompted back into the 'spotlight' for awhile. It seems the Corby supporters have been unusually quiet about that. Doesn't fit the theory, or not what Schapelle wants?
    Could it be that, if that were to happen, Schapelle would more likely have to serve her whole sentence, whereas now she still has the presidential pardon option in Indonesia.
    Also, in an Australian jail, she'd not have it the same as she does there. Over here, there is no way she'd be able to 'take a lover' as she has reportedly done there, unless it was another female that is. A convicted drug dealer by all accounts. A good match for her by the sounds of it.

  • rcarr33

    In schapelle cobys situation the baggage has just arrived at the airport Indonesia customs,so for the last 8 hours of travel, are the Airline responsible from the last check point negligent .What are your legal comments.

  • GRUMPY25608

    You pick up your baggage and with your personal items you then proceed to the customs area. It's not customs job to collect your luggage. Their job is to enforce their country boarder control laws.

  • docoman

    G'day rcarr33.

    It's a complicated case, so please excuse the length of the following. I hope if you bear with me, you'll have a better understanding to the legal case regarding Schapelle.
    The following is from one of the links posted earlier in the thead;

    "The fact that marijuana was located in Corby's luggage has never been disputed, but Corby has since consistently maintained that she had become an unwitting drug courier (drug mule) for what was supposed to have been an interstate shipment of drugs between Brisbane and Sydney in Australia.
    In proposing such a defence, any indication that Corby might have been reluctant to present her luggage would have been severely injurious to her defence. Ultimately, the case for the prosecution included testimony from four Indonesian officers that Corby had clearly attempted to avoid presenting the contents of her boogie board bag, and this incident weighed heavily when the verdict was announced."
    Also from that site;
    "According to Professor Tim Lindsey, director of the University of Melbourne's Asian Law Centre, the prosecution had a prima facie case against Corby, established merely by her possession of the narcotics, regardless of her knowledge. In a lecture given at Melbourne University, he said, "Suffice to say that being caught with drugs on you, whether strapped to you or in a bag that is your property, is probably going to be sufficient in most instances for the prosecution to establish a prima facie case. The question then arises as to how that prima facie case is answered by a defence team."

    This means, when you are caught with something 'on your person' meaning something you control, be it in your hands, pockets, bag, car, home ect, the burden of proof from the prosecution has been satisfied. Basically, you got caught 'red handed'. It then becomes the defenses job to try and show that what ever it is (4.2kg of pot in this case) is not actually yours, if in fact they can. Also, for lager amount of drugs such as in this case, it is also automatically assumed it is for commercial reasons, it's way too much for personal use.

    Schapelle's defense has never refuted the 4.2 kg of pot were found in her bag.
    So, Schapelle's defense was that she didn't know about the drugs, they must've been put in there after she checked in her bags in Australia. Her flight had a domestic stop before going to Bali, so the baggage handlers must have missed it, probably because her bag was in the Bali leg baggage, not the domestic lot. Basically, a mistake was made by the baggage handlers in Aus and the drugs weren't picked up before going to Bali. IF this was the case, when the 4.2kg of pot was found in her bag at Bali customs, Schapelle having had no knowledge of the drugs, should have been shocked and surprised, the normal innocent reaction, when upon opening her bag the drugs appeared.

    The bag in question is a boogie board bag, not that big really. It only originally had a boogie board, and a pair of flippers in it. (not sure, facemask or not) The drugs, which were in 2 plastic bags, one inside the other, apparently not sealed air-tight very well, so probably stinky, where stuffed into the bag so hard, that it actually broke part of a handle of the bag, and started splitting one of the seams. It was over 9lb, so a pretty big bag of pot.

    So Schapelle and her travel party (including her sc*mbag brother) landed in Denpasar airport, Bali. The bags were collected from the collection point. Worveys has said it was only 'feet from the customs desk', but hasn't said how many feet (ballpark), or how she knows this info as far as I can tell. There is reports of Schapelle's brother handling the boogie bag in question, sometime around/shortly after collecting them in the airport. They then made their way (I'm unsure if anyone went to the toilet or not. Qantas staff on the flight reported that Shapelle had been drinking and 'playing up a bit' on the fight. Worveys as conceded this happened. I'd expect someone did go to the toilet,every flight I've been on there is usually a rush for the ladies toilets as soon as they're landed, and she'd also been drinking..)

    Worveys said that somewhere between getting their bags, and going to customs, Schapelle said that she opened her boogie bag, and then 'quickly closed it'. (why would you 'quickly close it, ask yourself. What's that implication?)

    As stated earlier, the bag was over stuffed, there is no way if you packed the bag you'd not notice something was very different, not to mention a broken handle and split seam.

    This is also from that site, Schapelle's testimony of what happened when they then got to customs;
    "Corby gave a different version of the event, saying that the customs officer pointed at her bag and asked her brother if the bag belonged to him. Corby replied that it was hers. According to her version of events, she opened her bag without being asked by the customs officer. The prosecution stated that Corby began to panic prior to the opening of the bag, a claim denied by Corby."
    The 4 Customs officers that testified, said Schapelle started to panic before she opened her bag. As Schapelle said, the Customs officer originally thought it was her brothers, so the bag must have been somewhere between Schapelle and her brother, probably a bit closer to him, to give that impression.

    IF as some have suggested, that MAYBE Schapelle tried to surrender the drugs she's noticed in her bag but language got in the way.... why, by her own testimony, would the bag be somewhere, obviously closer to her brother then herself? She was not trying to 'give up the drugs she'd found', and some translation with English problem did not confuse the matter.

    At least from the moment Schapelle discovered what was in her boogie board bag, whilst in 'no man's land', between baggage pickup and customs, she knew she had a lot of pot in her bag.... what did she do next... she tried to get through customs with it, with her and her brother's luggage in a group. She didn't try to offer up what she'd discovered, by her own words. (possibly a freudian wish to distance herself from the bag, leave it closer to her brother?)
    Even if, as another hypothesis has put forward, that it was a sudden, under pressure, st*pid choice by Schapelle, you will find st*pidity is not a legal defense. It could be argued, that every criminal act that get's caught, is a 'st*pid' choice. It's still guilty of possession and trafficking, with a knowledge beforehand, however brief the time.

    Which, referring back to Prof. Lindsay's assessment of the legalities of the case, Schapelle's defense hindged on her reacions at Customs. She didn't try to give it up as she later claimed, the 4 Customs officers said she started to panic when they wanted to look in the bag.

    The other arguments about evidence being withheld, some have some basis, but not the relevance implied. Some are actually legal 'smoke screens', to try to discredit the crucial, damning Achilles heel of the defense argument, her actions at customs.

    There was requests to receive CCTV footage, but the official request came through 2 weeks after they knew it'd have been routinely wiped over. The defense made their requests very public, but then later when offered some other CCTV footage, they 'quietly' denied it, as it would also give it to the prosecution.
    The Indonesians did not act illegally towards Schapelle in any way according to Prof. Lindsay, he did say both sides could have handled their cases better then they did.
    Why would Schapelle ask for finger printing has been asked. If she did in fact only discover the drugs just prior to customs in her bag, the her prints would not be on the plastic bags. The problem with that is, it doesn't show she still had no knowledge of it being there, only she probably didn't put it there.
    Why ask for DNA for the pot. Because that is not able to show much at all, and even if it could show it's origin, it doesn't excuse/explain Schapelle's actions at Customs.

    When you evaluate the facts and law correctly, the Indonesians didn't break any of their own laws. They did a pretty slack job, but they thought the 4.2 kg and Custom's evidence was enough, and obviously they were correct.
    Shapelle's defence/story, does not fit with her actions, even with her own testimony. That means... she's not telling the whole truth. The 'evidence and reasons' presented by absurd shows like this doco', and the repeated assertions of some people as if saying it enough times will make it somehow become truth, doesn't make it so. You have to evaluate them, see some of the defense misdirections for what they are, smokescreens to distract from the truth.
    Her defense was inadequate, and logic says she had as least some partial knowledge of what was in her boogie board bag before attempting to go through Customs. Which means, she was guilty of a crime.

  • GRUMPY25608

    Worvey will have to send another twenty odd post to rebuke your statement of the facts and how they where presented. comprared to the belief she/he/it has put forward to us on the 90 odd posts from SHIM to date.

    Current tally 91 to 1 with 11 likes, glad SHIM not an Aussie cricketer, batting average needs to improve somewhat.....lol

  • rcarr33

    Thank you docoman, for your very in depth assessment of events on schapelles arrival in Indonesia. I would say that schapelle was a very young age at the time, mixed with poor English customs officers, and a shock to see the contents in her bag, didnt go very well.I have lately paid attention to her half brother James Kisina who could be very involved, and schapelle has taken the fall for him,she cannot defend her self where she is, the family are in control of her. Maybe that,s the ?

  • GRUMPY25608

    I think your assesment of her brother is not far off the mark, however if thats the case, one would assume that she had some type of knowledge prior to her going to customs. If the brother was involved and that came to light there would be more of the Corby family serving time and/or the penalty may have gone from twenty years to firing squad for all.

  • docoman

    My personal opinion on what probably happened, but we'll never know because it wasn't investigated properly, I think the brother was taking the drugs. Possibly to someone like the sister Mercedes to sell to tourists in Bali, they'd get probably double what they could in Australia selling to tourists who would rather buy from an Aussie then a local that may be police, they'd pay extra than the usual on holiday. (the Powers story fits that, Mercedes saying she'd smuggled multiple lots to Bali, an accusation that passed 2 of 3 polygraphs) Although again, I'll point out it's not an accusation, just my feelings. He probably got to Denpasar, saw the bag had broke it's seal (he'd probably taken a 'sample' before leaving on the trip) and smelt it, panicked and took the bag out of his luggage and stuffed it in Schapelles bag, being the 'dumb twit he is', possibly hoping they'd think it was female perfume and not pot smell? He may or may not have told Schapelle, but she must have known it was in her bag. She was also family, so she may well have intended to not have anything to do with any trafficking, but knew the family business and no doubt her brothers reason for his travel. He sprung it on her. She probably got got stuck with a hard choice, do the loyal, 'cool' thing by your family and step up when yr F*k up of a brother has stalled, and hope it's all cool. I think that, or something similar was a likely scenario.
    The second Schapelle was caught, she had no choice but to go with legal defense she did. If she said, yeah, it's my brothers, that admits gilt herself, plus gets the brother as well. I think by the time they were requesting prints be taken from the bag, the brother was long back in Aus.
    It's also interesting you hardly saw him in any of the media supporting Schapelle, he was quite quiet about it. I don't recall him going back to Indonesia much, if at all. I wonder why?

  • rcarr33

    Thank you both docoman and Grumpy for your honest opinions of my thoughts.I agree also that schapelle,s brother has never supported her or returned to Indonesia much.It,s interesting to note that James Kisina had an interview with Indonesian customs and they let him go, i wonder if a money deal was done.So how do we turn it around for schapelle fellows, she has done enough time, who is the person to make it go right for her,someone here or Indonesia.

  • docoman

    Her best hope now is to keep being a model prisoner, her best bet now is a presidential pardon. I think there was already some talks, so hopefully she won't be in much longer.

  • GRUMPY25608

    The longer I debate this subject the less pity I have for her sentence as she had traveled over there numerous times so she knew the penalties. 20yrs by Australian standards is extremely harsh, however she was not caught here.

    With what the maximum punishment under their law is death by firing squad, 20yrs deosn't sound to bad really by their standards

    At the start of me joining this particular thread my disgust at her sentence was sickening, however after the researching deeper into the case my compassion has all but gone, which was not my intention in the beginning.

  • docoman

    It's hard to for Schapelle now, when she at least had some knowledge, compared to the poor British mother 6's linked to earlier, who told the truth when caught, and apparently did it to protect her son. Receiving the death penalty when they only asked for 15 yrs seems light compared to 20 years when they asked for life.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    After looking into the 'Prima facie' aspect a bit more, I think I am now clear on what this means.
    I was under the impression that 'prima facie' meant the same as circumstantial evidence. But it seems not exactly.

    It does appear that although by default, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, just as in Australian courts ...a prima facie case, does effectively shift the burden onto the defence.

    If the defendant is not able to rebut it, then apparently, a prima facie can stand on it's own ...and get a conviction.

    ---

    But ....in the context of this case, there are still the other serious problems. The ones I've already mentioned.

    Withholding and destruction of evidence.

    In the interview Professor Lindsay gave on the evening after the sentencing, he forgot to mention that Corby requested fingerprinting, re-weighing and dna testing, and that under Indonesian law, this was the defendant's basic rights.
    That evidence collected, must be made available to the defendant and his counsel.(KUHAP Article 72)
    After all, what possible chance does the defendant have of rebutting a prima facie ...if the forensic evidence isn't made available to them...?

    But, what if it wasn't even collected?

    Lindsay forgot to mention that the evidence Corby requested was withheld (re-weighing, dna, CCTV footage) ...and contaminated.
    He forgot to mention, the Bali police didn't even wear gloves when they handled the plastic bags, just minutes after Corby's arrest. Her fingerprints were supposed to be on those plastic bags.
    This was the prima facie evidence ...and yet a couple of low ranking police officers, are allowed to handle it ...with their bare hands...?
    Did those officers somehow know right there and then, within minutes of the seizure, that fingerprints would not be required in this case...? ...and that they wouldn't be reprimanded for contaminating evidence...?
    He forgot to mention the Bali police refused to send a sample to the AFP, when requested ...in violation of the Mutual Assistance Treaty.

    Professor Lindsay also said that a greater focus on the weakness of the forensic evidence, may have gone a long way. What he should have said was, a greater focus on the absence of forensic evidence.

    Later, the Bali police would break their own laws again by destroying the evidence, before the appeals avenues were exhausted.

    So... the argument that the Bali police broke their own laws, and that this makes Corby's incarceration illegal ...still stands.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    Read the whole sentence, including the last 3 words.

    Never been raided or investigated -for drug trafficking.
    When pot that James stole, was found at the Corby home, that was not over a matter of drug trafficking.

    This case wasn't just low profile event. As I have already pointed out, this was one of the most high profile and controversial cases in Australian history. It involved the possibility of an international syndicate, that exports commercial quantities of cannabis FROM Australia to Indonesia.

    If the Corby's really were of any interest to police, OR if their homes had been raided at the time of Schapelle's arrest...
    ...then given the publicity of this case, I can assure you ...the media would know about it.
    And so would we.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    "...to sell to tourists in Bali, they'd get probably double what they could in Australia selling to tourists who would rather buy from an Aussie then a local that may be police, they'd pay extra than the usual on holiday."

    So tourists would be a little weary of buying deals from locals. Naturally. Everyone knows the Bali police control the drug trade over there. No-one wants to get set-up, or caught buying drugs in Bali. The penalties for even small personal amounts can be absurdly harsh.

    But apparently, some tourists are brave enough to cram 4.2 kgs of weed, into an unlocked body board bag without even properly sealing it, tag their name and address on it ...import it into a country that has seriously harsh drug laws ...and then set themselves up as dealers, on territory that's patrolled by Bali drug lords/police...?

    If buying a small deal in Bali is risky, then how suicidal would it be ...to sell the stuff over there, engaging in direct competition with the Bali drug lords/police ...on their own turf?

    And to do it, for a fraction of the profit you'd get for it in Australia? The price of weed in Bali is around one tenth, the price in Australia.

    There is no expensive Australian weed being sold in Bali.
    Do you think tourists who go there for cheap hotels and cheap booze ...also go there to buy expensive imported Australian weed, and risk being caught and going to jail for years...?

    No other Australian has ever been caught apparently trying to import commercial quantities of cannabis into Bali.
    It'd be a bit like importing cocaine into Columbia, and setting yourself up over there, as a coke dealer. How long do you think you'd last?

    No Australian has ever been caught distributing commercial quantities of cannabis in Bali.
    If it were happening, others would've been caught by now. Our media loves to report every single drug related arrest in Indonesia, involving a westerner ...no matter how big or small.
    We'd know about it.

    "The Truth about "Aussie Gold"

    mooresaussiegold. blogspot

    No emotional appeals here. Just a word by word critical analysis of a newspaper article, that was published around the time of Corby's sentencing. The article has been traced as the source of the myth.

    "Australian Customs Admit Aussies Do NOT Smuggle Marijuana TO Indonesia"

    schapelle-corby-australian-customs. html

    No emotional appeals here. Just a letter from Australian Customs, stating they have no records of any investigations, or arrests, or even any training manuals ...in regard to commercial exportation of cannabis to Bali, within the last 15 years of the time of writing.
    The link, is on the orange words 'full admission' in the paragraph on that page.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    Requests for the were made for the Australian CCTV footage immediately after her arrest.
    Conflicting stories were initially given.

    Brisbane airport initially stated the footage was in good order ...then later changed their story, and said that the cameras were under repair, ..and then, that they were turned off.

    Sydney airport also initially stated that they had no CCTV footage available. Despite a major drug operation being underway on the very day Corby flew, in an age post 9/11 and post Bali bombings ...there was no footage available for both Sydney domestic and Sydney international airports.

    There is no mystery, as to why the tapes disappeared.

    Because the contents would prove that either-

    ...Sydney airport security is so incompetent, an oversized, and aromatic 4.2 kg boogie board bag , made it through all staffed check points ...on the very same day, that a police operation targeting drug traffickers, was supposed to be underway

    ...or that there were drug-running baggage handlers, who used passengers as unwitting mules ..on the very day Corby flew out
    Which there actually were, receiving cocaine from South America.

    ...OR if the tapes showed neither of these, then the focus would shift to the Indonesian end.

    Either Sydney airport security would be revealed for the farce that it is ...or the spotlight would be on the Bali end.
    For the powers the be in Australia, neither option would be acceptable.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    So, you have seized upon Schapelle's testimony that she opened her bag, and quickly closed it again ...as a basis for your opinion that her actions were suspicious, or that she had knowledge.

    A question I have, for you to ponder is ...IF she knew what was in it, WHY would she even open her bag, in the first place...? ...BEFORE even being asked to...?

    Have you thought about that?

    You're a drug smuggler, and you've just arrived in Bali, and you've got 4.2 kgs of weed in your boogie board bag, that you know is there ...either because you packed it, or your brother did.
    You're just about to go through customs, and you haven't even yet been asked to open your bag ...and you're most probably hoping beyond hope, that you wont be.

    So ...I suppose right NOW, would be the perfect time ...to just open up your bag, for some inexplicable reason.

    ---

    So could James have planted it without her knowledge?

    ...hoping that the smell of marijuana, might be mistaken for women's perfume...?
    It is apparent that James isn't that bright, but... really... -perfume?

    I've also wondered why James has kept a low profile ever since.
    It stands to reason, that after the damage he did to their reputation with the home invasion, his family have instructed him to stay out of sight. If he did visit his sister in jail, the media would be all over it, and more baseless stories about him and her, and the family would likely emerge.
    It's even possible that he's been disowned by his family, or that Schapelle doesn't want to see him, because of the damage he did.

  • docoman

    LOL.
    Congratulations, it only took what, 7 months, but you finally actually got something to make sense to you? Prima Facie isn't that hard to understand. It doesn't make it always right, but it's what the law is.

    I think you'll find if you bother to check you assertions properly, for a change, that you're also wrong with other legal points.

    Take the Mutual Assistance treaty. Straight away, without even looking at the treaty, what does Mutual Assistance actually mean? It does not mean, as you suggest, that if your help is offered it HAS to be accepted. Just because the AFP offered help, that does not mean the Indonesians HAD to accept it. You've mentioned the treaty and it's supposed violations, but not shown any assertions to be correct. (your track record of interpreting legal ideas would suggest you've probably got it wrong again)

    You've also been shown, that testing the Pot's DNA does little to nothing for or against Schapelle and her case. That idea is nothing more then a legal smokescreen.
    As is your CCTV. You forget to mention, repeatedly now, that the defense refused some CCTV evidence when the very same evidence would become available to the prosecution.

    I think you should have the sense to try to stop changing what Prof. Lindsay says. You've already been proven that your ideas regarding law v's what Prof. Lindsay says, is analogous to a Sardine thinking it can take on a Great White.

    So no, your BS about the Indonesians breaking their own laws is still exactly that, BS.
    Still, Prof. Lindsay is correct, you are not.

  • docoman

    Again, you're misleading. Qantas only OFFICIALLY received the letter from Corby's lawyers, 2 weeks after it had been recorded over. Her lawyers waited till they knew they couldn't get it anymore, before doing their job and sending in an official, legal, request.

    That's lawyer, BS, again.

    You've just fallen for their tricks, because you are wanting to see everything in Schapelle's favor, not actually for what it really is.

    The Indonesian Court is not a silly as you, and clearly saw through these typical lawyer BS smokescreens, to the real legalities of the case.
    Keep looking for another 7 months or so, you'll possibly eventually get it so sink in.

  • docoman

    AS you've pointed out when trying to defend the Corby family, the brother's BS story explaining his home-invasion, pot theft was, what, you said at least a year after Schapelle got caught? Why stay in the background before that?

    YES, I have thought about it, and written, but it seems you are unable to understand.

    "A question I have, for you to ponder is ...IF she knew what was in it, WHY would she even open her bag, in the first place...? ...BEFORE even being asked to...?"

    AS I've already said, but it didn't suite you, I personally think her Brother put it in her bag at the Bali airport. That's besides the point,

    FROM the SECOND Schapelle knew there was drugs in her bag, her actions become important. From that exact SECOND, she was aware. And what did she do next... tried to commit the crime of trafficking. She didn't offer her bag and contents, she had to be asked.
    She tried to get through customs, and got caught.
    That is by definition, Trafficking.

  • docoman

    "I was under the impression that 'prima facie' meant the same as circumstantial evidence. But it seems not exactly."

    Well, there was only something like a dozen or so posts to you explaining it, but you flat-out refused to want to believe, let alone look at it properly.
    I can see with your attitude in just 'banging on about things without thought' even after being shown why you're wrong, why you said others have gotten frustrated with you to the point of threats. I don't think you deserve to be hurt or threatened, but you are a stubborn, silly person Worveys. You seem to have a good heart, just misplaced loyalty.
    There are others, much more deserving of your sympathies and time then the Corby family.

  • docoman

    Hahahaha.
    You'll have to excuse me, your asserting that you know everything the AFP and State Police investigate is absolutely ludicrous. Based on what, that the media will tell us.
    You can assure me hey?
    Hahahaha.
    Good luck with that. Absurd.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/4UFLLFKERDXDCGLNI2KBXMV4OE Katherine

    Thanks for the entertaining read. I don't know, if I wanted to sell pot or any drugs for that matter, I probably wouldn't risk the death penalty only to decrease my profits. I can't imagine anybody being that stupid.

  • rcarr33

    Since the mystery of the corby family boogy board,there have been many well qualified reports on poor customs security areas behind the walls,our health and safety has been compromised as we travel unknowingly.And our Ministers and agents struggle to keep up with the crime gangs taking advantage of us, and our rights to go about our travels.And when i ask my local MP how do we deal with this,there,s no idea.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    At no point, did I say the Indonesians had to accept any help from the AFP.
    Here is what I stated earlier:

    ---
    It was the Indonesians who refused to provide a sample, when they were formally requested by the AFP.

    The AFP have no jurisdiction in Bali, and all they could do was request a sample.
    Only if the Indonesians formally request further assistance from them, can they get involved any further.

    While the Indonesians were obviously not obligated to invite the AFP into their case, or their country ...they were obligated to honour the Mutual Assistance Treaty, and send a sample, to the AFP when formally requested.

    Under this treaty, the AFP were entitled to make this request.
    ---

    You should read comments like that properly, before posting hasty replies.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    Your wilful ignorance, in regard to the importance of DNA information, is astounding.
    Every bit as astounding, as your attempts to downplay the seriousness, and the legal implications ...of withholding vital evidence.

    The Bali police claim it was high quality Australian gear.

    If it is true, that tourists are buying this good quality Australian marijuana in Bali, that would seem to imply that this gear is better, or different from Bali marijuana.
    Then, I should think this good quality Australian gear, should have a slightly different DNA profile, from whatever Indonesian strains, the locals must smoke.

    Imagine now, that the Bali police didn't break an international treaty, and actually did send a sample, when they were requested by the AFP.

    It may have had a DNA profile, that correlates much more closely with existing samples, from past seizures in Australia.
    Or future seizures, yet to happen.

    Or... it may have had a DNA profile, that matches samples that could've been seized, from either of the Corby homes ...IF there had been any raids or investigations done in the days immediately after Schapelle's arrest.
    But neither of these happened, so I'm just speculating.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    I haven't changed anything Professor Lindsay has said, I'm pointing out the things he didn't say.

    Being a Professor of Asian law, and all that, I should think he would've been aware, the Indonesians withheld the forensic evidence from Corby.
    Well, I'm assuming he did follow, and the study the trial closely ...overwise he'd be in no position to comment about it.

    And I should think, he also would've been aware of the legal issues, pertaining to withholding forensic evidence.

    I feel a little bit weary of a professor of Asian law, who forgets to mention these very important things, ...that one would expect a professor ...of any law, to tell us.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    So, whose testimony are you going to go with?

    At some point earlier, it looked like you were going with Corby's version. That she opened up the bag before she was even asked, and then quickly closed it. I thought that was the basis for your opinion ...that her actions were suspicious.

    "She didn't offer her bag and contents, she had to be asked"

    That was the customs officer's version. And his version contradicts Corby's.
    Something else you stated earlier:

    "...suspicious again by the testimony of the Customs officers, and her own testimony."

    You can't have two contradictory testimonies, to support your assertion.
    You have to choose one, or the other.

    ---

    As far as reporting a discovery of drugs in Indonesia goes, do you know what the Australian Embassy's advice is, in regard to that?
    An Australian couple, who once discovered a block of hash in their luggage at their hotel, contacted the Australian Embassy first …and the advice given to them, was to flush it down the toilet.
    Reporting a drug find in Bali, seems to be the equivalent of confessing.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    I'm not misleading. I'm stating the facts. The family, and her lawyers were given conflicting accounts, in the hours and days immediately after the arrest.

    "Weighing the evidence"
    March 5, 2005

    smh. com. au/articles/2005/03/04/1109700677359. html

    This was published before the sentencing. Before the media became hostile.
    Read the whole article. Take note of how the facts of the case are given, without any misdirection, or spin. A lot of Australians seem to have forgotten these facts …and now seem to think, that withholding vital evidence from a trial, is perfectly OK.
    Without a doubt, this is the true power of media opinion management.

    The words of interest in that article are-

    "Any chance of getting that evidence has gone. The security camera tapes which might have helped - the prosecution as well as the defence - have been wiped. The luggage was not weighed in Bali.

    Qantas says the tapes were wiped on November 2, two weeks before they received a letter from the lawyers officially requesting copies. After the letter, dated November 16, Qantas got forensic experts to see if any images could be recovered but this was not successful.

    But Corby's lawyers say their first request for the tapes was made on October 14, six days after Corby's arrest, and was repeated a number of times.

    The lawyers say that in the last week of October, the Qantas security official told them the tapes were going to be destroyed within a week. On October 28, they sent the security official an email, noting this, and requesting copies of the tapes before they were wiped. This did not happen."

    So it would appear, at this time the official story was-

    -The tapes had been wiped on November 2... (according to Qantas)
    -Forensic recovery attempt, was NOT successful. (according to Qantas)

    -Corby's defence lawyers sent an email requesting copies, before they were to be wiped.
    They weren't sent. (according to them)

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    After the sentencing, this was published...

    "Airport evidence 'ignored' by Corby legal team"
    August 14, 2005

    smh. com. au/news/world/airport-evidence-ignored-by-corby-legal-team/2005/08/14/1123353548725. html

    "The images were retrieved by forensic computer experts from closed circuit television at the carrier's domestic terminal for a federal inquiry into aviation security, according to newspaper reports.

    Corby's legal team were offered the chance to examine the tapes for evidence to advance her case, but the offer was not taken up, Qantas told the inquiry in its report.

    The airline had paid audit firm KPMG to retrieve the images. Although the experts could not verify the date and time of the images, they believed the tapes might have been useful to Corby's legal team.

    Qantas wrote to Corby's then lawyer, Vasu Rasiah, on December 24, offering to "discuss the recovered images and the further investigations that could be undertaken", but there has been no response."

    So it would seem, the official story now is-

    -Forensic recovery attempt WAS successful (back in December 2004)
    -Qantas apparently had offered the recovered images to Corby's lawyer, back in December 2004, but he ignored them. (according to Qantas)

    Wtf...?

    Why are Qantas now saying, that the forensic recovery WAS successful back in December 2004....?
    ...when a few months earlier, the previous March (before the sentencing) they said it was NOT....??

    And the same newspaper, published these apparent contradictions. It's interesting to note, one is from before, and the other from after the sentencing.

  • docoman

    Top marks for persistence, 3/10 for intelligence and 1/10 for honesty.
    You're still barking away like a silly little chiwawa, thinking you're actually doing good. Silly little Worveys.

    "At no point, did I say the Indonesians had to accept any help from the AFP":
    No? Then here is some of your earlier silly noises you were making.

    "Why did they refuse to provide a sample to the AFP, despite being under obligation to do so, as per? an international bilateral treaty?"
    See the word obligation? You certainly implied it with that wording.
    And this one next, "Imagine now, that the Bali police didn't break an international treaty, and actually did send a sample, when they were requested by the AFP."
    Get you lies straight.
    After months of not being right, you are staying true to form.
    Wouldn't happen to be a religious person too would you, you have showed a liking for fairy tales?

    Maybe you should understand what you're barking on about, before making more BS replies. lol.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    It's not really all that absurd, to any thinking person.

    As I assume you're well aware, this was one of the most high profile and controversial cases in Australian history.

    Yes, I can assure you, we would've seen their hydroponic equipment, their stash, and their ill gotten cash ...sprawled out on display, for all to see, on the front page of every newspaper, within days of Schapelle's? arrest.

    We would've seen something concrete.

    But instead, all the media could give us, was non-stories about people being fined for possession back in the 70s …a photo of someone smoking a bong, a liar who they had to pay $100,000 or more, for dribble, that didn't stand up in a court of law... and a myriad of other lies, that don't even stand up to logic...
    …and the phrase "convicted drug smuggler Schapelle Corby…convicted drug smuggler Schapelle Corby...convicted drug smuggler Schapelle Cor…….."
    FFS.
    The Australian media are such amateurs.

    As soon as that started, the very evening after the sentencing, I knew they were trying to program me.

    Does that phrase, have be inserted in front of Renee Lawrence or Scott Rush …every single time one of them is mentioned on TV, and in print?

    Come on Australia…. wake up.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MX2QMZBU2VMEST6LLTKQJA5R3A Worveys

    Why did they refuse to provide a sample to the AFP, despite being under obligation to do so, as per? an international bilateral treaty?

    I believe that is perfectly consistent with-

    ...they were obligated to honour the Mutual Assistance Treaty, and send a sample, to the AFP when formally requested.

  • docoman

    Talking a lot about DNA profiles for pot. Is it a common practice, DNA testing of pot seizures? Anywhere in the world, let alone Indonesia?
    Woof woof little worveys.

  • docoman

    You have tried to discredit Professor Lindsay, without success. And here you go again.

    Yes, he did comment on both, if you bother to go look it up. I guess you'll have to look elsewhere then the BS sites you keep quoting, those sites don't like mentioning things like the truth. Not all he said was against some of your BS barking noises, but that seems to have missed your attention.
    You've been too busy trying to discredit him to actually look at all he said, even the things he agrees with you on, (which is very few admittedly)

  • docoman

    You can't even keep your own version straight. You are the one who claimed 'knowledge of the case', and said she opened it then 'quickly closed it'.
    Where did you get that from?

    You are correct, relying on you for any correct information on this case is a wrong thing to do, you've proven that repeatedly.

    Corby said the customs officer asked is that her brothers bag.

    Why ask that, if that bag was being offered up for them by Schapelle? If someone was handing you their bag, why would you ask is it someone elses?

    Her story doesn't make sense. The Customs Officers do.

  • docoman

    Was there a copy of the email produced?
    Why, was the 'official' request, the only one that properly matters as it's the 'official request', not put in immediately? Why wait until the tapes are supposedly wiped over to OFFICIALLY request something that will supposedly prove your innocence?
    From the site I gave you;

    "It has since been revealed that Corby's lawyers had been offered but rejected surveillance videos that were suspected to be of the day in question which had been forensically recovered."

    It's clear to see who is 'playing funny buggers' trying to manipulate the facts, her lawyers were. In an attempt to make her defense a viable option, which Schapelle's actions at the airport had rendered untenable.

  • docoman

    I don't accept your assurances on anything. Silly little yapping chiwawa.
    You argued, incorrectly, for over 7 months, quoting law and all sorts of BS, that Schapelle didn't have a case to answer for.
    After being shown and told for months that you're wrong, finally, you actually checked it and found, OOHH, YOU'RE WRONG.

    The only people that were surprised by that were you, and anyone else who hasn't bothered to check it for themselves. Woof woof Worveys. lol.

  • docoman

    3rd time now trying to bark on about the AFP and the refused DNA sample. Woof woof about the same, debunked BS.

    What part of the 'Mutual Assistance Treaty', EXACTLY, did they not follow through on their obligations?
    What part, EXACTLY, OBLIGED them to provide a sample, which they then failed to 'comply' with?

    When you find none, IT MEANS, they didn't dishonor an international treaty as you keep barking about.
    Once more, you're wrong.

  • docoman

    "Your wilful ignorance, in regard to the importance of DNA information, is astounding."

    After your multi-month long display of false assertions regarding law in general, and Indonesian law in particular, any display of 'willful ignorance' has a LONG way to go to even come close to your efforts in twisting and changing the truth.

    And now you have the audacity to continue on about their laws, and you're WRONG AGAIN. Woof woof woof worveys.

    DNA evidence regarding the pot had little importance in this case. DNA of pot will not prove what country it came from, what country it was grown in, or who grew or trafficked it. All it will prove is that it is Cannabis, which they already satisfied.
    You keep overstating it's importance to Schapelle's defense. Exactly what DNA that pot had was never going to get her off her trafficking charge.

  • docoman

    Prima Facie, ring any bells? It should have told you that where you are getting your information regarding Indonesian law is wrong.

    You are misleading, and are selectively stating 'facts'.
    With regards to the Indonesians destroying evidence. From the site I gave you;

    "Schapelle Corby - Supreme Court appeal overturned

    On 19 January 2006, the Indonesian Supreme Court overturned the five year reduction in her sentence on appeal and reinstated the original 20 year jail term handed down.

    The Court has also ordered that the evidence - the boogie board bag and drugs - be destroyed, signalling that the case was now closed [18].

    The three-judge panel also rejected a final appeal from Corby, whose lawyers had been seeking a lighter sentence or acquittal meaning all legal avenues have been exhausted unless exceptional new evidence can be produced to reopen the case."

    So the evidence was not destroyed until 'all legal avenues have been exhausted', and unless exceptional new evidence appeared it was case closed. Contrary to your claims they destroyed evidence to 'set up' Schapelle.

  • GRUMPY25608

    Have you read the MAT and if you have please quote the page and reference number to said section that states that either country had or have any obligation to exchange any information on ant criminal activity. You will find it covers an agreement of mutual assistance if requested, neither country are under any obligation to assist as you have implied.

  • GRUMPY25608

    104 posts and still wrong or not able to grasp the difference between fact and fiction.

  • GRUMPY25608

    You stated "Some facts can be asserted, by an absence of evidence."

    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is merely an unintelligent rationalization for a belief in something for which there is no hard evidence.

  • GRUMPY25608

    It appear that the week it has taken worvey to reply hasn't help her understand her errors in any way.

    The most amussing thing is that with all her ranting all she seems to have done is prove the case against her .

    Some poeple just don't relize how there views can be so blinded by their own ignorance.

  • docoman

    This evening, I was around at one of my sisters, b'day thing, and the Corby case came up in conversation. My brother-in-law, who is not into drugs but has known people that have been, said (before I said anything about my position) that he had been told by people he knows it was well known in the pot scene on the south side of Brisbane that the Corby family were involved in the pot 'industry'.
    Another separate person saying they'd heard of the family before Schapelle's arrest.
    1 more that knew of their family's involvement with drugs before Schapelle's arrest.

    Worveys has become just like a silly little barking chiwawa, barking as if it's noise has any real meaning attached. Months of arguing and being wrong, she FINALLY works out she's wrong, then ignorantly turns back to points that have been shown to be just silly, or not the complete story and misleading. After seeing she's wrong, she goes on to be sarcastic as if she's somehow 'winning', not only displaying her ignorance but seemingly also her contempt for learning if it doesn't suit her beliefs.
    Prima Facie, so it was up to Schapelle to prove it wasn't her drugs, which her defense failed to do, and not because evidence was withheld as is worveys only claim she has left.
    No, Schapelle got convicted correctly of a crime she did try to commit.
    Worveys just can't see past the images given to her by propaganda sites like 'womenforschapelle', or this bunch of liars, 'expandable'.
    So all we keep getting is a little woof woof woof, with no substance to it, a parrot, or a paid puppet for those sites?
    She never did answer if she's connected to the Corbys in any way. ;)

  • docoman

    A straight and easy couple of easy questions you've dodged more then once so far.

    Are you connected to the Corby family in any way?

    Are you connected with the sites you've listed, like 'womenforschapelle' or 'expandable', in any way?

  • GRUMPY25608

    By her neither confirming or deniing her true interest in this topic shows me she has some other hinden agenda. As if she is not invovled with the Corbys in some way, she is one very sick puppy .

  • docoman

    Didn't stand up in a court of law. lol. The same case that the jury found Mercedes was a pot smoker? The one that was Mercedes v's Channel 7?
    The same case where all of a sudden it's ok for the Corby's to use a QC? Where M.Corby never sued Powers?
    Where Powers failed the first polygraph she took, because she said she lied about her own use. Then passed 2 more, speaking the truth about herself and Mercedes. (and yes, I know polygraph's are not permitted in a Court of law in Australia, luckily for Mercedes hey) The one where Powers admitted to taking drugs like cocaine and speed, and said Mercedes took drugs with her.
    The one where even after being challenged by Power's mother to take a polygraph, Mercedes wouldn't? Because Mercedes is a liar and wouldn't have passed it.

    And more about the 'clean' Corby family.

    Another half brother of Schapelle's, Clinton Rose. Not to be confused with James Kisina, the one traveling with Schapelle when she was caught with the drugs, the one that did the 'home invasion' of the drug dealers and took some of their pot back to his home, supposedly to 'help Schapelle'. (Schapelle's mother got around a bit, obviously, kids to 3 different fathers)

    Corby's half-brother, Clinton Rose, has spent time in jail for a range of offences. He was serving a 15 months sentence in Queensland for breaking and entering and fraud. This was his second time in prison.[82] In January 2002, Rose was convicted of drug possession. He had pleaded guilty to what the Southport District Judge, Robert Hall, described as a "campaign of crime". Rose pleaded guilty to a total of 62 charges accumulated over a six-month period."

    Claiming the Corby family has been harshly treated by the media is BS. They are a dishonest, criminal family, that tried to use the media for their advantage, and are now crying foul when their story is found to be BS. 62 charges in six months! Clinton was a busy pr*ck wasn't he. Jail terms, BEFORE Schapelle got caught attempting to traffic drugs.

    Which shows your 'media assassination' claims to be the BS they are. But shows the claims that the Corby's are the 'decent' family they say they are is complete and utter BS.

    They brought this on themselves, and do not deserve any sympathy for being held accountable for their actions.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    Treaty between Australia and the Republic of Indonesia on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters
    Entry into force: 17 July 1999

    Article 10
    Taking of evidence

    1. Where a request is made for the purpose of a proceeding in relation to a criminal matter in the Requesting State the Requested State shall, upon request, take the evidence of witnesses for transmission to the Requesting State.

    2. For the purposes of this Treaty, the giving or taking of evidence shall include the production of documents, records or other materials.

    INTERPRETATION ACT 1987 - SECT 9
    Meaning of may and shall

    (1) In any Act or instrument, the word “may”, if used to confer a power, indicates that the power may be exercised or not, at discretion.

    (2) In any Act or instrument, the word “shall”, if used to impose a duty, indicates that the duty must be performed.

  • docoman

    G'day Worveys,

    Who requested what, and when? In relation to that treaty and the Corby case.

  • docoman

    Are you connected to the Corby family in any way?

    Are you connected in any way, to any of the sites you've quoted as your sources?

  • GRUMPY25608

    G'day Dig,

    I've noticed that worvey has avoided these particular question asked of her/him on several occasions by a few different posters.

    It appears that she/he has got some thing to hide as if there is nothing to hide why avoid these question repeatly. It appears to me Worvey is some type of puppet to either the Corbys or to Expendable
    production company.

    P.S NO GOOD IN THE CRICKET LAST NIGHT, BUT YOU REALLY COULDN'T EXPECT MUCH MORE FROM THE THIRD STRING PLAYER THAT REPRESENTED OUR ONCE GREAT AUSSIE TEAM . THREE CHEERS TO THE ROTATION POLICY......;)

  • docoman

    G'day mate, yes, I thought I'd try and ask outright once more, that's gotta be about 3 or 4 times now I've asked, plus as you mention others have as well. I do find the continued non-response quite revealing.

    It's time the selectors were 'rotated' ;) ACA (cricket Ass.) should be ashamed for charging top dollar for fielding a 3rd rate team.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    I don't get the Chihuahua thing you keep using....like you are comparing Worvey to a dog...now please explain so i can rest.
    1i

  • docoman

    G'day oQ, I was returning sarcasm. If you notice I didn't in the last 2 posts, as there was none directed at me in the latest posts I was replying to. I was saying after 7 odd months of debating already covered stuff that was already shown to be incorrect assertions by Worveys, it was feeling like being barked at by a Chiwawa. Have you ever had one of those tiny dogs yapping at ya? It's an amusing paradox..to me anyways. :) She's 'barked' incorrect assertions about the law, the process and the case for months.

    You can sleep easy mate, I wasn't calling her a B*tch, you know I'd say that if that's what I meant. ;)
    And if you wish to keep watch, I'll prove her latest assertion wrong when she gets around to replying to me. ;) Start from the beginning of the thread, it's an interesting read some of what I've been called on here for daring to question the Corby's assertions. ;)

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    Yes, my oldest daughter got a Chihuahua about 2 months ago, they sure are annoying and not that cute, kind of rat looking.
    1i

  • GRUMPY25608

    Do you work for or contribute to The Expendable Project in any way?????

  • docoman

    Ahh, I just read another thread, I see your concern. Don't stress mate, that's not my intention. :) A ways back now in this thread, Worveys was asked why she only commented on this doco and no others here (apart from 1 other post). She's not being 'driven away', in fact the opposite, branch out to more doco's I say. Why stay just on this 1. (hence some of the questions concerning her motivations here). We may not agree, and we've swapped sarcasm, but I've actually quite enjoyed our 'joust' together. She's actually given me the motivation to learn a lot more about this case then I ever knew. Sadly for her I guess, just not the way she was hoping for.
    She's said she has been threatened on other sites, she was reassured and told not to worry, that isn't tolerated on here. :)

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    Just as I predicted, another stack of useless drivel that contains no substance, to either support a position ...or refute mine.

  • docoman

    Still not answering the question about the treaty? Answer that, then you'll receive the debunking you're requesting.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    The AFP requested a sample. Why is that a hard question?
    I thought I already stated as such.

    From what I recall of my research, it some time around late 2004, early '05.
    Obviously, it was during the time of the trial.

  • docoman

    You are quite amusing Worveys. When your post history on this site is pointed out, and not just dropped when you fail to reply, now it's reset? 2 posts, really? All someone has to do is scroll down and see that isn't true. lol. Who do you think you're kidding?
    Don't misinterpret my reply to oQ as you're off the hook with your BS. oQ isn't a moderator here, and my reply to her was out of my respect and history with her. You don't have either of those.

    You seem to have some shred of honesty left in you, (why I scored you 1/10 for honesty), instead of just lying about your real relationship with this Case, you've decided to try to be deceitful in other ways, like resetting your post count, or just remaining silent on questions you don't like. Quieter, less noticeable deceptions are still lies Worveys.
    Then, as your per your SOP, you play on people's expected laziness, and not bothering to check on your assertions. Lol. Woof woof woof, worveys.

    Answer the question about your last remaining intact assertion about the Case, and then I'll show you exactly where you have got it wrong.

    A non-answer is just admitting you know that is already the case, you've misrepresented the truth, again, on purpose, again.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    What exactly is my "last remaining intact assertion"...?

    There are quite a lot of points to my position, that are quite intact.

  • docoman

    Thank you for your reply. Which, by the way, I didn't need, (but your reply does give another example of why you're wrong, but I'll get to that bit next post)

    "Article 10
    Taking of evidence
    1. Where a request is made for the purpose of a proceeding in relation to a criminal matter in the Requesting State the Requested State shall, upon request, take the evidence of witnesses for transmission to the Requesting State."

    Ok, so now lets go through the language so you understand that.

    The AFP, apparently, requested the sample. So that means Australia is the 'RequestING State'.
    Which means that Indonesia was the 'RequestED State', they were the one's apparently asked.

    Now, with the translation, re-read No. 1

    1. Where a request is made for the purpose of a proceeding in relation to a criminal matter in "Australia" (the requestING state), "Indonesia" (the RequestED State) shall, upon request, take the evidence of witnesses for transmission to "Australia" (the RequestING State.

    OR, more translated so that it's easier to understand. IF one of the 2 countries has a criminal matter, and 'properly' (which I'll get to next post) requests for evidence from witnesses from the other country, then the other country will supply it.

    Indonesia didn't request any information from any witnesses in Australia over the Corby case as far as I'm aware, which is exactly what Article 10, point 1 is talking about.

    So your assertions about the treaty being broken on those grounds is completely incorrect. Under that treaty, even IF the AFP did request a sample, Indonesia was under no obligation to send one. The case was in Indonesia, not Australia, so your part of the treaty does not apply. Read No. 1 again if you can't grasp the idea.

    Once more, you have failed to understand the law. You can argue all you like, just as with Prima Facie. You don't understand the law you're reading, or you're trying to be deceitful, one of the two. Either way your claims are incorrect.

  • docoman

    And now about you claiming the AFP requested a sample from Indonesia with regards to that treaty.

    From the MAC treaty we're talking about;

    Article 3
    Central Office

    1. The Contracting Parties shall each appoint a Central Office to transmit and receive requests for the purpose of this Treaty. The Central Office of Australia shall be the Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra and the Central Office of the Republic of Indonesia shall be the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta. Either State shall notify the other of any change of its Central Office.

    2. Requests for assistance shall be made through the Central Offices which shall arrange for the prompt carrying out of such requests.

    So if, as you've stated, the AFP requested information, they're not the Central Office as defined under this Treaty, and so even on the point of who made the request, your assertions are incorrect.

  • docoman

    Your claims of the MAC treaty being broken are wrong.
    Your claims the Corby family was wrongfully persecuted by the media, wrong.
    Your claims the 'Corby' family were decent people, wrong.
    Your claims about the law being wrongfully applied, wrong.
    Your claims Schapelle 'had no knowledge' of what was in her bag, wrong.
    Your claims it was a 'translation problem' when she was caught, wrong.

    So now, your only 'intact assertion' is what? It's a harsh penalty? I've already agreed on that point, always have.

    Edit- PS. I forgot, your claims that you know what the Federal and State Police investigate, wrong.

  • docoman

    Fair enough. As I've said, there is occasionally 'glitch's' with disqus.

    What about the repeated questions, are you related to the Corby's or the site's you've listed?
    Whatever, I'm not really fussed, you've made it clear you don't want to answer that. Which pretty much speaks for itself. ;)

    I'm amused, and sincerely hope you are receiving money for what you do on here, it would tickle me greatly if you were being paid directly or indirectly from the Corby's.
    As least some of the 'tax payers' money that they've received has gone to educating and entertaining at least 2 Aussies. ;)

  • docoman

    I just flagged your post for you, to get one of the mod's to help you.

    Could a moderator please be able to assist Worveys with her account problems?

    Thanks guys.

  • Achems_Razor

    I cannot assist posters with their Disqus account problems, all I can recommend is to go into edit profile.

  • docoman

    Thank you for looking at it AR.

  • docoman

    It looks like you'll just have to live with your new account.

    No matter, the point about you only posting on this issue (bar 1 other post) remains. If you're not being paid to only be here, (and if you're smart if you are paid to be here) it'd be wise to post on some other issues. It'll either make your 'involvement' less obvious, or your 'obsession' may be helped by trying new subjects. I don't care, either way you've encouraged me to find out more about the case, and entertained me for quite a few hours now.

    I'm sorry for you if it's your job, but... do it better if it is. ;) Learn when someone like me with the time and inclination to investigate your claims comes along, trying to BS them isn't going to always work. Grumpy obviously doesn't buy your story either, so not everyone will be distracted or dismissed easily.

    I'm sorry for you if it's only an obsession, but Schapelle did break the law and is subject to their rules. It's not nice, but that's true with many of life's facts.
    Either way, thank you for helping to lead me to evidence and knowledge so I can now see exactly why Schapelle is guilty, and how her defense was conducted.
    But, I also won't be letting you post your BS without debunking the non-truths you propose on this issue. The Corbys asked for me to have a look at them, I have. So bark away if you wish mate, I'll be here to bark back. :)

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    The comment, in which I explained why I created a new account ...has vanished.
    You should remember me posting it. You replied to it.

    Yet it disappeared within half an hour. I wonder why that comment vanished...?
    For that matter, why did I have that mysterious problem with my former account...?

    I'll keep an eye out, to see if it returns.... it still might be a glitch...

    This is nothing new for me. I've had 'glitches" like this often, when commenting on this case, elsewhere.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    "The case was in Indonesia, not Australia, so your part of the treaty does not apply."

    The charge of importation, should have made it a transnational crime.

    Indonesia was essentially accusing Australia, of being a drug exporting nation. This would infer, that there is a criminal matter in both countries.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    I do believe at some stage, Australia did request a sample. Be it the AFP, or the Attorney general, or whoever...it doesn't matter, if I got those exact details wrong.
    I had already read that part of the treaty.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    I'm aware, that Indonesia didn't ask Australia for any help. I have never stated that they did.
    And, the fact the Indonesians didn't request any assistance from Australia, is odd in itself.

    In the very first case ever, of an Australian being caught allegedly trying to import cannabis into Indonesia, they decided to call it a domestic matter.
    In the past I've suspected that calling it a "domestic matter" ...just may have been the loop hole, they used.

    I would've thought that a foreigner, allegedly attempting to import a commercial quantity of drugs into their country ...should have made it a transnational crime.

    Australians shipping weed into their country...?

    They should've been keen to investigate this alarming new development, and request assistance from, and cooperate fully with Australia...
    ...but instead, they called it a domestic matter.

    ---

    I'm tired of bickering about details of treaties, and about which office/department, or whatever has to do the paperwork.
    To me, all these side issues are a smokescreen.

    Here is my original statement, about what went on in Bali. The main points I've always highlighted are...

    The Indonesians presented no physical evidence, to connect Corby to the marijuana.
    The Indonesians refused, withheld and destroyed vital evidence ...and violated their own laws, to do so.
    The marijuana was never proven to be from Australia.

    I intend to continue arguing the position, that the Indonesians broke their own laws.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    The Indonesians may have gotten out of the treaty, by calling it a "domestic matter".

    You have not disproved the existence of the media smear campaign.

    I've never used the word 'decent' ...or any other generalising terms, to describe Schapelle's family. All I have done, is challenge the lies, that have been propagated about them. (by the media)

    You have not disproved my overall position, that the Indonesians broke their own laws, in failing to collect and preserve forensic evidence.

    You have not proven, that Schapelle did have knowledge of what was in her bag.
    You have not proven, that there was no difficulty in translation, during her first interaction with the customs officer.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    Yeah OK, you got me.
    I can't live with my conscience anymore. It's time to come clean.

    I am connected to the Corbys. From their limitless financial resources they pay me, and vast numbers of other people all over the world, to bat for them.

    Apart from me, those on their payroll also include:
    independent research teams, film makers, human rights activists, alternative and regional media, investigative journalists, authors, legal professionals, psychiatrists, celebrities and musicians
    ...and the masses in Europe and the US, that have gathered to show their support, and hold up signs saying "Free Schapelle".

    I'm still at deadset loss to figure out, why they didn't just pay their "fees" to the Bali police, 8 years ago ...but hey, why should I complain?
    I'm getting wealthy!

    And yes, I am connected to those sites. I'm connected to:

    The Sydney Morning Herald
    WAtoday
    The Bali Times
    The ABC
    The United Nations high commissioner for refugees
    Federation Press
    Journoz
    Truth News Radio Australia
    sinsofthefather. net
    The Social Sciences research network
    Blogspot
    Center for International Forestry Research
    The Australian Professional Liability Blog
    Melbourne University
    Foreign Prisoner Support Service

    And the first couple of sites, that come up in a Google search for "breaches of the indonesian code"
    ...I'm connected to those as well.

    Yeah... every single source I've referred to so far.
    They're all on the Corby payroll too, and I'm connected to all of them....

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    "She's actually given me the motivation to learn a lot more about this case then I ever knew. Sadly for her I guess, just not the way she was hoping for."

    I find comments like that amusing.

    Why do people assume, it's all about them...?

    Do people forget, that lots of other people ...can also read discussions on internet forums...?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    You're right.

    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" ...just sounds like an attempt at confusing wordplay.

    But, I didn't make that statement. You're quoting docoman.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    In the first sentence, of the first reply I ever sent to docoman on this thread, I stated....

    --Docoman, I am also a little sceptical of some of the things presented in this film.--

    My main scepticism, being WHO it was, that planted the cannabis in Corby's bag.
    I've been arguing on this thread, that it may have actually been the Bali police.

    Not Australian baggage handlers, as this film infers.

    This film presents an assertion, that it gives substance to ...with a couple of hours of expose, all about the cocaine imports into Sydney, and the crooked baggage handlers and police, who were involved in that.

    If I worked for The Expendable Project ...why would I be here, offering another theory, that directly refutes the assertion, that this film spends 2 hours or so, laying the groundwork for...?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    You mean the half brother that Schapelle didn't even grow up with, and hardly even knew?

    62 charges eh...?

    Can you dig up any, that relate to international drug trafficking? ...or for that matter, even just local drug trafficking...?

    My guess is ...probably none of them, had anything to do with drug trafficking.
    That would by why the media never bothered to elaborate, any further on that. All that seems to be publicly known about Clinton, is that little paragraph you quoted ...from Wikipedia.

    But feel free to look further into it, and see if you can dig up any charges or convictions, that relate to drug trafficking ...if you can be bothered. Nobody else seems to be.

    But ...if you do happen to find something, that police aren't aware of ...that even remotely implicates him, in drug trafficking of any sort ...or connects him to the weed found in Schapelle's bag ...please be forthcoming.

    And wow... apparently the court found out that Mercedes, either is, or was a pot smoker...?

    Gee, I suppose that proves that she and her sister, are international drug runners. By that logic ...I guess anybody who smokes pot, either is an international drug runner...or is connected to international drug runners.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    "All it will prove is that it is Cannabis, which they already satisfied."

    Let me get this straight.

    Are you saying, that you believe...

    ...that every single cannabis plant in the world, has identical DNA...?

    So there's only ONE type of cannabis in the world...
    and every individual plant is identical.

    ..OK.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    Why did you bother to cite that same Wikipedia article again, after I've shown disparities between it, and it's source ....that cast serious doubt on the validity of that quoted sentence?

    Before we even bother to go hunting around for copies of emails, I think we first need to address the main issue here, and consider the implications of Qantas' contradiction.

    It was they, who claimed that Corby's lawyers waited until it was too late ...and supposedly rejected an offer of recovered tapes.

    But how much credibility should be given to an airline, who claims one thing before the sentencing, and then says the exact opposite afterwards..?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    How long do you plan to keep gloating over this 'prima facie' thing...?

    Just because I conceded, that I may have made one slight technical error. Do you realise that continuously gloating over it, does not advance your credibility?

    For the record, I sill think the prima facie aspect is nonsense, given the fact that all the forensic evidence, which under Indonesian law, should have been made available to both the defence and the prosecution .... was withheld, contaminated and destroyed.

    The assumption here, is that forensic evidence, was actually collected according to the rule of law ...when it wasn't.

    In any trial in Australia or Indonesia, or anywhere else in the democratic world that adheres to the rule of law ....the failure of police to collect forensic evidence, would have surely resulted in a miss-trial ...and Corby's immediate acquittal.

    For the police to withhold all the forensic evidence, thus denying the defendant any chance to prove their innocence ...puts a big question mark, all over the true validity of this 'prima facie' notion.

    I think it may be time to consult some other professors, and legal professionals ...and seek their opinions about this.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    Still sourcing all your research material from that Wikipedia mirror site?

    From the actual wikipedia:
    en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Schapelle_Corby

    See if you can spot the disparities here-

    "Appeals and clemency"

    "In October 2005, Bali's High Court reduced the sentence to 15 years. Both sides again appealed to Indonesia's Supreme Court.

    On 19 January 2006, the Indonesian Supreme Court overturned the five-year reduction in her sentence and reinstated the original 20-year jail term.

    The court ordered that the bodyboard bag and drugs be destroyed, signalling that the case was now closed.[34]

    The three judge panel rejected a final appeal from Corby, whose lawyers had been seeking a lighter sentence or acquittal.[citation needed]"

    It then goes on to say...

    "In August 2006, Corby and her legal team made an extraordinary appeal to the Denpasar District Court. The basis of the appeal was a letter submitted from an Australian government official that said CCTV cameras were operating at Sydney airport on the day she left and indicated that they hoped that the footage (although none has been shown to exist) would show drugs being put into Corby's bag. Corby's lawyers also said that the trial court did not have evidence of actual ownership of the drugs and thus erred in convicting her. The judges agreed to wait ten days to allow for footage to be presented before sending the record to the Supreme Court.[citation needed]

    In March 2008, the Indonesian Supreme Court rejected Corby's final appeal against her sentence.[35]"

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    The order of events.

    1.
    The evidence was destroyed on March 17, 2006

    "Prosecutors burn Corby evidence"
    Mar 17, 2006

    abc. net. au/news/2006-03-17/prosecutors-burn-corby-evidence/821032

    "But he says the extraordinary appeal will go ahead."

    2.
    From the actual Wikipedia ..
    "In August 2006, Corby and her legal team made an extraordinary appeal....."

    "Corby to make final sentence appeal"
    Aug 25, 2006

    abc. net. au/news/2006-08-25/corby-to-make-final-sentence-appeal/1247088

    3.
    And then a little while later...

    "Corby final appeal rejected, says Indon court"
    March 28, 2008

    theage. com. au/news/world/corby-loses-final-appeal/2008/03/28/1206207385491. html

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    "that he had been told by people he knows it was well known in the pot scene on the south side of Brisbane that the Corby family were involved in the pot 'industry'."

    The number of people who say that, to give themselves credibility ...is astonishing.

    Of course it's usually "I know someone ...who scored from the Corbys" or "I've been told by someone..." etc
    In some cases, people actually claim that they have scored from the Corbys.

    I have asked such people, numerous questions. These questions apply to either her mother's, or her father's home.

    What's the name of the street they lived in...?
    What's the style of the house...? for eg brick, weather board, fibro?
    What colour is the house...?

    How many cars did they have...?
    What type of car(s)...?
    What colour was the car(s)...?

    Did they have any pets...?
    If so, what type of pets...?

    Some people have attempted to answer such questions ...but of course, the answers never correlate.

    I lived on the Gold Coast up until 2002, before moving to another part of Australia. At that time, I was a regular marijuana user, and I often had to travel all around the Gold Coast ...and on some occasions, travel to Brisbane in search of something to smoke.

    In the whole 12 years I lived on the Gold Coast, I had never heard of the Corbys.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    "Learn when someone like me with the time and inclination to investigate your claims comes along..."

    Have you bothered to investigate the claim, that Australians apparently smuggle commercial quantities of cannabis, into Indonesia...?

    ---
    "The Truth about Aussie Gold"

    mooresaussiegold. blogspot
    ---

    "Australian Customs Admit Aussies Do NOT Smuggle Marijuana TO Indonesia"

    schapelle-corby-australian-customs. html
    ---

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    Here are some past quotes from you.

    "The sad part I think is, with a decent approach, collection of evidence and evaluation, it could have fairly easily been determined whether Shapelle did or didn't check the drugs in, and therefore is or isn't guilty. I think whatever your feelings on the case, this is pretty self evident and the failing in the whole saga, which has to be born mostly by the Indonesian legal process/investigators. (Australia's is a farce too, you'll find if you have any experience with our legal system) Because of the fumbling?, only Shapelle, and the people involved with the drugs really know for sure."

    "Dohh, just saw you already covered some of that question. That cctv footage should have been viewed in her trial, to confirm or contradict the evidence given by the customs officer. I would like to watch it, it'd clear up whether Shapelle did in fact act guilty when searched. One more mistake."

    "As I've already said more then once, I'm open to more evidence, just not from people like this show's producers"

    ----

    A few months ago, you seemed to understand the implications of withholding vital evidence. You did seem to be much more open minded, back then.

    But now, even without any proof from the Indonesians, you've decided that Schapelle did break the law, and is subject to their rules.

    So, have you finally decided to go with the customs officer's testimony?
    If so, that means you can't go with 'Corby opened up her bag before being asked to, and quickly closed it again.' ..as any basis for "suspicious" actions.

    Because according to the customs officer ...that didn't happen.

    So, if you're going with the customs officer's testimony, I would also like to point out that ...there are anomalies, just within his version, that make it cast doubt on itself.

  • GRUMPY25608

    Why don't you answer the question that has been put to you on several occassions

    Do you work for or contribute to The Expendable Project in any way?????

    It's not a hard question it only requires a yes or no answer

  • GRUMPY25608

    You are the reason most poeple dislike the Corby family be of your dishonesty

    I think my last count on your posts on this site was 104 on this topic, one on another.
    So now we hav total of 126 on this topic since 22 are added since you hit reset.

    The biggest problem your having is your own creditability and your dishonesty.

    I think I might start calling you Corby rather than worvey.

  • GRUMPY25608

    When has glitch meant I've been caught out with my lies once more???

  • GRUMPY25608

    Yuor wrong in your assertion that Indonesia accused Australia of being a drug exporting nation. They had a "Pirma facias" case on an Australian citizen only.

  • GRUMPY25608

    "Do you work for or contribute to The Expendable Project in any
    way?????
    ''The Indonesians presented no physical evidence, to connect Corby to the marijuana.'' WRONG they had 4.2 kgs of physical evidence.

  • GRUMPY25608

    The Corby's asked the Australian people via the media for help and by doing so, media had the right to inform the Australian people about the family as the statements made by them warranted the
    australian to there background to be examined as a nation

  • GRUMPY25608

    Have you recieved any payment or inducement from any body or site in relation to the Corby case???

  • GRUMPY25608

    "Corby to make final sentence appeal"
    Aug 25, 2006

    A sentence appeal is only appealing the sentence, not the conviction, as it was not an all grounds appeal.

  • GRUMPY25608

    'Corby opened up her bag before being asked to, and quickly closed it again.' ..as any basis for "suspicious" actions.

    If I remember correctly that one was your statement not doco's.

    So, if you're going with the customs officer's testimony, I would also like to point out that ...there are anomalies, just within his version, that make it cast doubt on itself.

    Are you know saying that only one custom officer testified???

    four officers testified not one, so once again your wrong.

    How many time do you have to be wrong before people start thinking your a F*ck wit????

  • docoman

    LOL, you are a paranoid one. If you'd watched properly, the post you refer to that disappeared was the one that was flagged, and was deleted at the same time the moderator checked your problems out. He must have deleted it, as it referred to a problem he'd sorted as much as possible, and only mod's can delete posts.

    Your 'convenient' account problems and post reset, (at the time your post history wasn't being let fly), was cried about in that post, and contained nothing to do with the topic, so no doubt that featured in the mod's decision to delete it.

    Unlike your suggestion that it's all part of the 'get Schapelle conspiracy'.
    lol

  • docoman

    "Indonesia was essentially accusing Australia, of being a drug exporting nation. This would infer, that there is a criminal matter in both countries."

    lol, wrong again. Indonesia accused Schapelle Corby of trying to traffic 4.2 kg's of Marijuana. 'Strangely', the amount they found in HER bag ;) Which is why she's in jail, in Indonesia, where she was caught. lol.

  • docoman

    "Be it the AFP, or the Attorney general, or whoever...it doesn't matter, if I got those exact details wrong.
    I had already read that part of the treaty."

    lol, wrong again. It does matter very much, as with any legal request not done in the proper, legally correct, and 'official' manner, it's doesn't count.
    If it's done incorrectly, or unofficial, it's not a request that falls within the bounds of whatever treaty/act you are trying to work within, it makes it not relevant to those proceedings.

  • docoman

    You said;
    "In the very first case ever, of an Australian being caught allegedly trying to import cannabis into Indonesia, they decided to call it a domestic matter.
    In the past I've suspected that calling it a "domestic matter" ...just may have been the loop hole, they used.

    I would've thought that a foreigner, allegedly attempting to import a commercial quantity of drugs into their country ...should have made it a transnational crime."

    OK, so lets have a look at another current case of drug trafficking in Indonesia.
    Lindsay Sandiford, who has just been given a death sentence in Indonesia for smuggling nearly five kilos (11 pounds) of cocaine worth $2.4 million into Bali. She co-operated, and because of that police were able to net four others in the drug ring, including three Britons.

    Schapelle didn't co-operate, she lied about her involvement. If she had have cooperated , others would have been charged with her probably.
    That is why I said in the Corby case, it could have been handled better. If the Indonesian police had done their job properly, they probably could proved there were others involved as well as Schapelle. Schapelle probably should have some 'company' in jail, although going by the recent verdict, they may not have received a jail sentence, but instead death. Schapelle knew about the drugs, the testimony of her, and the Customs officers together show she had some knowledge of what was in her bag, and she didn't try to 'offer it to them first'.

    And probably, IF they Indonesians had bothered to chase it up, they could have asked the Australian police to look harder into the 'Corby' family, although as I've shown, that request could have been declined if wanted.

    Of course you are tired of talking about treaties and the law, because it is proving on closer inspection to debunk you claims, one by one.
    You are wrong, Schapelle is guilty. Logic says so, not just me. The Indonesians knew it, the Australian government knew it, the Corbys knew it. Anyone looking at the case closely enough can see it, as previous posts have shown.

  • docoman

    Next from you:
    "You have not disproved my overall position, that the Indonesians broke their own laws, in failing to collect and preserve forensic evidence."

    lol, wrong again. What laws did they break? Your interpretations of law so far have been completely wrong, as displayed. Prime Facie, their domestic law, and the MAC treaty, the International Treaty you claim was broken, have both been completely debunked, so your statement is BS. Feel free to give me any links to any Act you think, and what parts they've broken, and I'll do the same as I have with your attempts so far, show it to be completely incorrect.
    As I've said on this site, I've done a few years of looking and reading law, I don't mind the challenge. You seem to at this moment, as you consistently are shown to be incorrect so far. Bring on more law to me if you wish, I don't mind it. It's been easy so far to prove you wrong.
    So, which Act and section exactly do you claim the Indonesians broke, and how that impacts on the verdict?

  • docoman

    Next woof woof from you;
    ""She's actually given me the motivation to learn a lot more about this case then I ever knew. Sadly for her I guess, just not the way she was hoping for."

    I find comments like that amusing.

    Why do people assume, it's all about them...?

    Do people forget, that lots of other people ...can also read discussions on internet forums...?"

    Lol, wrong again. Firstly, that comment wasn't all about me, I mentioned 'she's', referring to you when speaking to oQ, so that really means it was about 3 of us. lol

    And, as I've said, your BS is what has given me motivation to find the legal aspects, the defense's way they played the case and the testimonies that give the knowledge that Shapelle wasn't wrongfully convicted. Thanks again. ;)

  • docoman

    Lol, from you;
    "In the first sentence, of the first reply I ever sent to docoman on this thread, I stated....

    --Docoman, I am also a little sceptical of some of the things presented in this film.--

    My main scepticism, being WHO it was, that planted the cannabis in Corby's bag.
    I've been arguing on this thread, that it may have actually been the Bali police."

    So that's it from this film, the rest you agree with then. So you agree with their assertion that 'the corby case arose just 2 years post 9/11', and as is easily seen, 11th September 2001 is not just 2 years prior to Schapelle's arrest in Bali, which was 8th October 2004. And that's one very simple one, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that's plainly a lie. Not an error, a lie on an scripted, edited 'doco'.

    Pitiful really, what they thought they'd get past people to help float their BS.

  • docoman

    lol, you replied to my post that all DNA will show (in relation to the trafficking charges) is that it is cannabis;
    "Are you saying, that you believe...

    ...that every single cannabis plant in the world, has identical DNA...?

    So there's only ONE type of cannabis in the world...
    and every individual plant is identical."

    Don't try and twist my words, I meant exactly what I said, that all it would achieve is that they knew through it's DNA it was Cannabis, which they were already happy to conclude, and which has never been disputed by the defense.
    So it's a silly, moot point barking about DNA testing. Again. lol

  • docoman

    It's not 'gloating' over a very crucial point of law, contrary to what you now call "one slight technical error", that you claimed time and time again was not correct, in regard to Prime Facie. lol.
    You are wrong, which not only negates many of your silly assertions, but also show's not only your 'credibility', but also your quoted 'sources'.
    If you'd bothered to read more of Prof. Lindsay's opinion, rather then try to discredit him because he proved you wrong straight up, you'd have noticed where he said more attention should have been paid to the lack of forensic evidence by the defense. Which was THEIR JOB, but what did they do?

    The Corby family 'hamstrung' her defense team when they went public with it so early on, asking for help because they're good people. Because from then on, the case became VERY public. So, after the attempted avenue of 'bribes' backfired, all the defense had left was a 'smoke and mirrors' strategy.
    And that's all you've come up with so far Worveys, repeated flat out wrong, or just smoke and mirrors to the fact of the Charge and the Conviction.

  • docoman

    OK, I'll use a different source for you then. Try the Sydney Morning Herald.
    From last year;

    "While the Corby family once claimed they had no links to marijuana, Queensland Police Service archives confirm Schapelle's father Mick was arrested twice in 1973 for possessing and using cannabis. Fast forward to 2004 and three weeks before Schapelle's arrest, Mr Corby was implicated in a ''Queensland Police Crime Intelligence report'' as being part of a Gold Coast syndicate that was transporting drugs to Bali - using commercial passenger flights. In those statements a police informant, Kim Moore, claimed Tony Lewis - Mick Corby's best friend and next-door neighbour - was running a marijuana operation on his property. When police raided him days later, they found 200 plants and stockpiles of vacuum-sealed cannabis stored in freezers, worth more than $600,000."

    It you claim they're wrong on any points, please point to exact, decent proof to debunk it, as I've done with your legal claims. Wiki is more accurate then the 'Expendable' propaganda site is, by a long way. ;) If you want to up the standard, match or better a Professor in Asian Law, if at all possible.

    It is probable the Australian side did something similar to what they did to the 'Bali 9', and 'let' Schapelle be arrested in Indonesia rather then here, as some sort of confidential deal between the countries. That would explain the governments reactions on both sides quite well.
    Here's the problem with your argument, they 'let' her try to traffic it then then catch her, even though a 'dirty' move arguably, it still means the Corbys were guilty. No wonder it wasn't followed up that hard, the Indonesians obviously had enough to get a conviction, as time, and multiple 'appeals' have proven.

  • docoman

    As already pointed out to you, the problem with your argument about evidence being destroyed, is that it was no longer required.
    "2.
    From the actual Wikipedia ..
    "In August 2006, Corby and her legal team made an extraordinary appeal....."

    "Corby to make final sentence appeal"
    Aug 25, 2006"

    Again, it has been pointed out by Grumpy now this is BS, a 'sentence' appeal is all about how 'big' the sentence is, not the actual verdict itself. They had played all their cards in that area, and after there was no further legal avenue to chase it up, there was no need to keep it. (the pot)
    Nothing illegal done there.

    Wrong again, lol.

  • docoman

    Your next bark;
    "that he had been told by people he knows it was well known in the pot scene on the south side of Brisbane that the Corby family were involved in the pot 'industry'."

    The number of people who say that, to give themselves credibility ...is astonishing. "

    Many Australians around Brisbane say that, because it happens to be true. (they've heard or know it themselves)

    You also said,
    "I lived on the Gold Coast up until 2002, before moving to another part of Australia. At that time, I was a regular marijuana user, and I often had to travel all around the Gold Coast ...and on some occasions, travel to Brisbane in search of something to smoke.

    In the whole 12 years I lived on the Gold Coast, I had never heard of the Corbys."

    That explains a bit ;)
    Now, are you saying that just because YOU didn't hear it, no one did? That it's not possible that you yourself never got anything from them, or if you did it wasn't repeated to you. Any 'dealer' with half a brain cell left should be able to sense that someone like you is a 'need to know' sort of person. As clearly, you have paranoia and logic problems, and easily jump to conclusions and stick to them even if shown incorrect.
    lol, you call hearing about it by multiple people 'nothing', but you not hearing about it 'something'. lol, wrong. woof woof

  • docoman

    Your next one, ;)
    "Have you bothered to investigate the claim, that Australians apparently smuggle commercial quantities of cannabis, into Indonesia...?"

    lol, what do you think I've been doing here? lol. The answer to the question is yes, it does seem at least once an Aussie (more when you start looking at M.Corby and Powers) has 'tried' or done it.

    People do not 'travel to the moon' right now, that doesn't mean it hasn't been done.

  • docoman

    And the next one from you, quoting my post from months ago. I've already thanked you for helping me find out more, as now my knowledge has vastly increased since then, which has consistently shown you to be wrong.

    So I'll say it again, thank you for helping motivate me to learn more about the case. :)
    "So, if you're going with the customs officer's testimony, I would also like to point out that ...there are anomalies, just within his version, that make it cast doubt on itself."

    You mean 'their' testimony, there were 4 Customs officers testify were there not? lol.

  • docoman

    There you go, that was a reply to all of the posts you tried to flood me with. If you wish to play the 'flood with posts' game, I'll reply to every single one you post, then always give at least 1 more as interest. ;)
    IF you want to re-look at points, I'll go through them one by one with you. If you want to try to dominate with 'noise', I can play that too.

    We're both akin to silly dogs now, you little thing yapping away, now I've got a bone you dug up for me, I've got plenty of time to chew on it ;) More then your employers are willing to pay you to babble on eventually I'll bet ;)
    Your silly games won't work, so do you want to play properly, or resort to more silly games like your last effort?

  • docoman

    You said;
    "I'm still at deadset loss to figure out, why they didn't just pay their "fees" to the Bali police, 8 years ago ..."

    They tried to, remember? Recall the QC you tried to defame earlier, it made the Corbys really pissed off he wouldn't be in it and blew it for them.
    You are correct, you're at a 'deadset loss', as the Corby's hit a dead end trying that. ;) They messed that up making it all SO public as they did. St*pid is what I'd call them, they cried wolf, knowing they were the wolves. lol.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    In that post, I explained why I created a new account.

    I was describing a problem, that developed with my former account.
    I was essentially defending myself, from the implications of dishonesty and deceit ...that you so freely let fly. So I consider that, to be an important post.

    It did not contravene the comment policy, and it was not spam.

    I see no good reason, why a moderator would choose to delete it.

    "..contained nothing to do with the topic.."

    Does that mean, I can just flag one of your earlier posts, (or one of the AntiTheist's) ...that has nothing to do with this topic ...and it will be deleted within half an hour...?

  • docoman

    Here you go again?!? You've firstly, way back, claimed the moderators edit you based on bias. A mod came and told you they don't.
    Now, you had a problem with your account (at the very least at an 'interesting time') I helped you get it looked at, as I've said, I don't know why he deleted it, for a couple possible reasons I alluded with you on.
    Now you're claiming again, that you've been hard done by?

    C'mon you twit, why would the mod's give a F*ck about the Corby case. Why come again with that BS, trying to sleeze out of your actions.
    WHY Sleeze? Because, as already stated, the point remains, regardless of your new account, that you've made over 100 posts here, and 1 on another topic. Why?

    Don't lie or carry on with paranoid cr*p that you're being hard done by. The mod's have been more then fair with you, they've already helped you twice now with BS, and you're claiming they're against you somehow. BS.

    I'll get to another post back on topic in a minute, thanks for the wake up bark. Woof woof woof, paranoid little chiwawa type fool.

    Edit-- flag what you wish, ask them what you want. Ask me, I'm not hiding or misleading, like you are, so I'm not paranoid. ;)

  • docoman

    You've said you're slightly sceptical about some parts of this... show?
    Well the show itself isn't, at the very start, is puts up in writing it's first first outright lie;

    "Every abuse documented in this film is strictly accurate."
    And then lead you to their BS website.
    Trust us, we're not lying, is what they're saying, as most BS artists do.

    Would you like to have a closer look now at some of it's claims, I guess we should hey?
    Not to mention the cr*ppy actors they hired to do this crud. Or that the start has been changed to try to fix some of it's glaring errors. lol. Tried and failed dismally. I love their new guy at the start with their 'prelude', which is basically an outline of claims it's all political, and Schapelle is some innocent pawn between International politics. I really love his look to his left to the "Case Facts",

    There is roughly 15 points this lying, piece of cr*p show brings up in it's early '2 minute recap', what it claims are "CASE FACTS". Maybe we should go through their assertions one by one, a bit more slowly, and examine them, and their claim they're not liars..

    I have a few questions about a few of them for you, not all negative.

    It will take more then one post, and this one is long enough, so I'll start next post.

  • docoman

    @Worveys
    First up, they say that the price of Marijuana in Bali is lower then in Australia, so there is no motive.

    As we've already discussed, and if your claims of being a regular, 'in the know' pot smoker from the Gold Coast in the past are true, then you'd be aware that Bali is a major tourist destination for Aussies, especially younger adults.
    And IF you were selling pot to 'fresh tourists, mostly from Australia', do you think that dealer would be charging the local price? Which the tourists have no experience of? Or will they be charging MORE then the usual price in Australia?
    Of course dealers in Bali charge tourists more then local price if they can get away with it.
    So, IF you were selling it there to tourists only, not locals, someone say, that had a 'surf shop' for example, is it possible they tried to get more then one tourists dollar out of them? A non-native, but local. Hmm, who would fit that description, around 2004?

    Hmm, what was Mercedes doing then? Do you know?

    So the first claim of NO money NO motive is wrong. BS.

    Do you, Worveys, want to argue that there was no motive, as the show claims? Or do you concede that assertion is incorrect?

  • docoman

    I've waited more then an hour now, feel free to give multiple replies, respond when ready. I'll move on, respond when you're ready, I'll take a non-response as conceding the point. I'm happy to go back to any you wish.

    The second 'Case Fact', they said Schapelle tested negative to drug tests. That is positive news for Schapelle, if in fact true. On this shows track record, we have to query their claim.
    Do you know anything about when and who gave Schapelle drugs tests? Was it the Indonesians, and how long after she was arrested? It is good news in that it says, if found to be accurate, that Schapelle wasn't a drug user.
    But the bad news is, she wasn't being charged with use. She was being charged with trafficking, so the point of if she used or not, although good for her character reference, is of absolutely no relevance to a trafficking charge.

    And that's their 2nd point already? I hope that's not their best already. That 2nd point does not say she wasn't in possession and trafficking 4.2 kg of pot.

    A plus for her character at best, at worst, more smoke-screen from this show, to distract from the real issues of the case.

  • docoman

    This show's 3rd 'Case Fact'.

    "They refused to weigh her luggage. If it was heavier then when she left, they would have had to release her."

    OK, Who refused, how and when? Who made the request, when? Did the request legally HAVE to be responded to?

    And no, they wouldn't have HAD to release her automatically, she was found with 4.2kg of pot in her bag. It, with more information, like what were her fellow traveler's bags weight's as well, both ends, might have been useful at trial.
    But she would have still had to prove, because of Prime Facie, that she had no knowledge.
    For example, she may have had an agreement with her brother, he did the first bit through the first customs, she did the 2nd half of the 'run'. I'm not saying that's what happened, it's an example of her weights alone not being enough to negate some charges. It may well have gotten other persons charged as well.
    Unfortunately it wasn't done, as more information would have been helpful. I think the police, if they were being thorough, should have done that. I can see how they figured they caught her with it, in her bag, so under Prime Facie they already had enough.

    Without more then just their claims, more info is needed on this claim.
    I'll take a break for awhile now, see if you're interested in discussing any of it.

  • docoman

    'Case Fact' No. 4 from this show.

    "she was illegally interrogated for 9 hours."

    Hmm. Ok. Where, how, and by whom. I recall you saying early on that it was the airline that did that? Is that correct? But, where were the Custom's officers that found the 4.2kg of pot in her bag? What is Indonesia's laws and procedures, and how and what was 'illegal' about how she was questioned.
    You've also said once she was left for about 1/2 an hour with her fellow travelers while they initially questioned her brother. Is that true, where is the source for that please, I'd be interested now investigate that further.
    I recall you saying she didn't have a translator, and we don't know how well the questioner knew English.
    Ok, so what do we know. It's up to you to prove this one. I'm quite open to decent evidence. I haven't investigated this at this time, as I don't see how that being questioned wrongly by an airline (?) negates your problem when you've just had 4.2 kg found in your bag. I'd have to see the law that says that please.

    So far the show is 1 wrong, 3 unfinished or non-negating of the legal process so far.

  • docoman

    'Case Facts' 5 and 6 go together partly, so we'll do them together.

    "They refused to test the drugs for country of origin, if they were Indonesian, they would have HAD to free her.
    They refused to DNA or fingerprint the evidence."

    There is some interesting information about the 'requested DNA tests'. I'll get to that near the end. The following is from wikipedia, and it has source numbers, so saying wiki is no good won't cut it, if you can show the source they used is wrong, then that does 'cut it'.
    From wiki, Schapelle Corby page;

    "The bag of cannabis was not fingerprinted by the Indonesian custom officials or police, nor analysed to determine its origin.[23] Tim Lindsay of the University of Melbourne, an expert on Asian law, suggested that a greater focus on the weaknesses of the forensic evidence could have helped Corby's case.[24]

    The cannabis was contained in two bags, and although the outer bag had been handled by customs officers, Corby's defense argued that only the bottom of the inner bag had been contaminated. Therefore it was claimed that fingerprinting of the inner bag could be of value to the defense if it was shown not to possess Corby's fingerprints. In spite of requests to have the bag tested, including at the time of her arrest, such had not occurred by the time of Corby's second court appearance on 3 February 2005. At that court appearance the bag was handled by court officials. A formal request for fingerprinting made after the court appearance was unsuccessful.[4] The prosecution argued that fingerprinting was unnecessary, as Corby was found with the drugs in her possession.[25]

    In 2004, Alexander Downer, the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, announced that the Australian Government would be requesting permission from Indonesia to test the cannabis and help determine its point of origin.[26] It was argued that testing of the cannabis would have strengthened Corby's defense if it could have been shown that the drugs were grown in Indonesia, or potentially weakened it if they were grown in southern Queensland.[26] However, shortly thereafter the Australian Consul General in Indonesia informed Corby that the AFP had no jurisdiction in the case, and in early 2005 the AFP was advised that the Bali police would not be providing a sample.[27] Downer acknowledged that Indonesia had denied the request, but clarified that as the case was in Indonesia, it was their sovereign right to do so.[23]"

    So, firstly the Indonesians didn't care, they had enough when they found her with it. That evidence had been quite contaminated, that was very lazy and unfortunate. I wish it had been handled, and printed properly. I think if you then crossed any found against Schapelle, her whole family, and her fellow travelers, you'd get a match or two. Like I said, sadly the Indo. police didn't care, they'd caught their 'man'.

    Now about their (and yours) interpretation that this was all a conspiracy against Schapelle, and to show why I think like I just said, here is some interesting information, from wiki. If you can properly debunk it that would be handy for your argument as this hurts it;
    From wiki, with their sources noted;

    "Three years later, in 2007, Vasu Rasiah, the "case co-ordinator" for Schapelle Corby's defense team, appeared on Today Tonight to say that he managed to obtain a sample of the cannabis for testing prior to Corby's conviction, but that Corby did not allow the sample to be tested.[27][28] This was similar to earlier claims by Mike Keelty, who in 2005 stated that Schapelle Corby's legal team had advised the AFP that they did not wish to have the drugs tested when it became apparent that the results of the tests would be shared with Indonesia.[29] In both cases these versions of events were disputed by Corby's family, who insisted that it was the Indonesian police who turned down the request, and that they wished to have the drugs examined by Australian authorities.[28][29]"

    Wow, Corby's defense had obtained a sample of the pot found on her, but Corby did not allow the sample to be tested!
    Why? If she WAS innocent.

    This one is not only BS smoke screen, this one is VERY telling AGAINST Schapelle.

    Edit-- also note the part about Prof. Lindsay. He was working on the assumption that Schapelle is innocent, as born out by what he said about the forensic side. Like I said, the Prof. was speaking the truth about the law, and not 'out to get' Corby at all.
    It seems Corby refused to have their sample tested, as that would have made it open to the prosecution. Why not, unless you're guilty.

  • Achems_Razor

    For your info, your post was flagged. I did not delete your post in question, but would have anyway, off topic. When my fellow moderators delete a post that is their prerogative, and I never go against their decisions. Just wanted to make that clear, please read the "comment policy"

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    May I ask, how is it ...that you just so happen to show up here on this thread, a few hours after I mention the moderators...?
    Did my previous post, just before this one, also get 'flagged'?

    How did you know, that I mentioned the moderators?
    Does using the word "moderator" in a post, automatically signal the moderators...?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    I never accused the moderators of bias.
    I have never claimed that they're 'against me'. That's your interpretation.

    I once explained, that I am not able to post links in comments. That's why I have to leave spaces in website addresses. Otherwise my comments wont appear.
    I did not accuse any moderators of bias, then.

    But a moderator just so happens to show up, and comment that they don't edit based on bias. The moderator mentioned the 'bias' ....not me.

    I did not require any help from you, or any moderators, and I did not ask for it ..then or now.

    I never asked for any help, in regard to my former account. I was just explaining, why I had to create a new one. I did not need you that flag that comment.
    I could have seeked help myself ...if I needed it.

    But I didn't. I just created a new account, and moved on.

    In future I'll thank you, to please not seek help on my behalf.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    No, that's not what I'm saying.

    At no time did I ever state, that there was only one customs officer.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    The Indonesians presented no physical evidence, to connect Corby to the marijuana.

    The key word in that sentence, that you really need to get a grasp on ...is 'connect'.
    Look it up.
    ---

    Why do you still ask, if I work for The Expendable Project?
    Why do you ask that same silly question again, after I just answered it?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    I'll need to spell this one out for you too, I suppose.

    If the Corbys had have just straight away paid their 'fees' to the Bali police, you and I, would never have heard anything about it.

    It never would've made the news.

    It would've just been 'fixed up'...on the very day Schapelle was arrested ...and there never would've been any QCs in the equation.

    The bribe accusation from Trowell, was levelled at the defence lawyers.
    And they too, would never have been needed, if the Corbys had have just paid their 'fees'.

    Ya get it...?

    And we wouldn't be having this conversation, nearly a decade later.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    What about the questions...?

    Have you ever thought to ask them, of people who make heresay claims...?

    How is it, that the whole time I lived on the Gold Coast I never heard of the Corbys ...but not long after we first hear of Schapelle Corby on the news, all of the sudden every second Gold Coaster, already knows of the Corbys ...and "knows someone who deals with the Corbys"....?

    The Corbys must have been very, very active on the Gold Coast, given the number of people who suddenly "know someone who deals with the Corbys"

    Hearing about it from multiple people...? None of whom, can give correlating answers to those simple questions I posed...?

    I call that a baseless rumour.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    No, I meant have you actually read the letter from Australian customs entitled:

    "Australian Customs Admit Aussies Do NOT Smuggle Marijuana TO Indonesia"

    schapelle-corby-australian-customs. html

    The whole position of Schapelle, and her family being guilty ...relies on the pre-assumption that there is a good reason for someone to smuggle cannabis, from Australia into Indonesia.

    Have you thought about the amusing logical contradiction ...in the idea, that Australian tourists are nervous of buying deals from locals, in fear of being caught?

    When yet apparently, some are brave enough to cram 4.2 kgs of weed, into an unlocked body board bag without even properly sealing it, tag their name and address on it ...import it into a country that has seriously harsh drug laws ...and then set themselves up as dealers, on territory that's patrolled by Bali drug lords/police...

    For how long would the Bali police, and the Bali drug lords ...tolerate an Australian operation, smuggling expensive Aussie weed into Indonesia?

    Did you read..

    "The Truth about Aussie Gold" at

    mooresaussiegold. blogspot

    And in the context of this case, why did the Bali police have no interest, in investigating the alleged distribution network at their end?

    They weren't even interested in Schapelle's other female companions ...or any of the other luggage items, on the day she was arrested.
    They let her brother go, after an initial interrogation.
    They've never investigated Mercedes or her husband.

    I will be replying to your other posts soon, to talk about what parts of this film, I'm sceptical on ...and what parts are well grounded.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    "all DNA will show is that it is cannabis"

    I don't believe I'm twisting anyone's words. What else is that comment from you, supposed to mean then?

    It infers, you seem to believe there is only one type of cannabis in the world, so DNA testing would be useless.

    Or maybe, you think DNA testing wouldn't be able to differentiate different types, and that it's not possible to find any indication of origin.

    The information given by these sources, implies otherwise.

    "New DNA test for strength of marijuana"
    Monday, 3 April 2000

    abc. net. au/science/articles/2000/04/03/115168. htm

    "Forensic DNA Typing: Biology, Technology, and Genetics of STR Markers"

    John M. Butler, ?2005

    books. google. com. au/books?isbn=0080470610

    p303
    Plant DNA

    "New DNA Technology for Drug Law Enforcement"

    Canberra Institute of Technology

    cit. edu. au/partnerships/industry_connection/2008_november/dna_technology_for_drug_law_enforcement

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    Found in HER bag...

    ...after she'd left it unlocked, and had been apart from it, for many hours ....while many other people had access to it.

    You keep forgetting about that part I keep adding, and fail to see how something found in somebody's bag...

    ...after they'd left it unlocked, and had been apart from it, for many hours ....while many other people had access to it

    ...alone, does not equate to proof that the bag's owner ...is a willing drug smuggler.

    Despite me reiterating this many times, you keep hiding from this inconvenient logic.

    I'll also spell this one out for you.

    In accusing an Australian, of attempting to traffick a commercial quantity of cannabis into Indonesia, this essentially (do you understand the use of the word 'essentially' here?) ...equates to an inference, that Australia is a drug exporting nation.

    This would also infer, that there must be a supply network in Australia, and therefore a criminal matter in Australia.

  • GRUMPY25608

    "So, if you're going with the customs officer's testimony, I would also like to point out that ...there are anomalies, just within his version, that make it cast doubt on itself."

    As you see by the above statement of yours; HIS means one person, if you were talking about more than one you should have said they or them, so by definition you did say only one officer

  • GRUMPY25608

    Who owned the bag the dope was found in????

    It appears you have no grasp on connect.

    The reason I'm asking the same question is I don't believe you have answered my question honestly

    Do you work for to The Expendable Project in any way?????

    It's not a hard question it only requires a yes or no answer

    Your curclar tactics are on the verge of preaching and this site does not allow preaching.

  • docoman

    Hahaha, 4th time now accusing the Moderators of doing things to you because of the topic. All one has to do is read your posts to know you're being dishonest about it.

    I didn't flag that post you're asking about. I did flag the one I told you I did, that's all. I have no need to, I'm debunking yours and this shows lies the proper way, with logic and facts. Which will continue, despite your misdirection attempts. ;)

    I can see why you have 'problems' everywhere you talk about this topic. Falsely accusing and lying about things doesn't go down well with most people.

    I'd suggest you start being careful about your BS accusations, the moderators will likely get tired of it soon. Your actions also shed light on your claim of being hard done by by other sites.
    Your a nutter, or a paid BS artists, one of the two.

    To be honest with you, they've let you get away with more BS then I've seen them with a number of people in the past, 4th accusation at them now that they're doing wrong by you. I've seen others given official warnings for less.
    So contrary to you assertions, the mod's have actually been quite relaxed with you, from what I've seen in the past. You are here, your missing post contained nothing but BS, it didn't answer the question just tried to deflect it, as is this BS line you're going on with now.

  • docoman

    The point was, you've done, between your 2 accounts here, at this time you've done 137 posts, 136 on this topic.
    Many of which are pure preaching now, as you've been debunked already but try to circle back to confuse.
    It's not working with me ;) I'll stick to the point, and the facts, that point out that Schapelle was guilty.

  • docoman

    You said;
    "At no time did I ever state, that there was only one customs officer."
    You did, as Grumpy and I've already shown, in your language used. 'HIS' is singular, not plural, which you used talking about the Custom's officers evidence.
    It's all part of your BS smoke and mirrors, a typical BS lawyer type tactic of word play.

  • docoman

    You said;
    "The Indonesians presented no physical evidence, to connect Corby to the marijuana."
    Then being smart a$$ed, you said, "The key word in that sentence, that you really need to get a grasp on ...is 'connect'."

    4.2 kg were found in HER bag. HER being the key word. Schapelle connected herself, when she replied to the question of who's bag it is.
    Your BS is just that, BS.

  • docoman

    "Why do you still ask, if I work for The Expendable Project?
    Why do you ask that same silly question again, after I just answered it?"

    So by that you're saying that your answer of yes was correct? Despite the fact you tried to disguise it amongst sarcasm?

  • docoman

    You're possibly right, maybe if the Corby's had been quiet and payed some bribes at the start, we wouldn't be talking about it now.

    The bribe accusation from Trowell, was his reason for not wanting to be involved. Good on him for standing up for his ethics.

    And, who do the defense lawyers work for? Schapelle. So by extension, as lawyers act on instruction (do you think any bribe money would come from lawyers?)
    Schapelle was the boss, she's the one that said OK, try to bribe now.

    AFTER they'd already gone public, and destroyed their chances.
    Because the Corby family is st*pid, that's why they f*ked up any bribe possibility.

    IF in fact, it is possible to bribe the Indonesians, I don't know, obviously the Corbys thought it was, they tried to.

  • docoman

    LOL, "Hearing about it from multiple people...? None of whom, can give correlating answers to those simple questions I posed...?"

    You haven't asked any questions of the people I've heard that from, you haven't talked to them. Another 'gem' of BS from you. lol.

    They knew, as the evidence shows, as the police know, as lots of people already knew, the Corby family are guilty as sin with regards to dope production and sales.

  • docoman

    The answer to that is easy, the Corby's are st*pid, they thought they'd continue to get away it. Obviously.

    Still, it says nothing about he show's claims, 'there was no motive'. Of course there was, money.

  • docoman

    Thank you, about time you gave some info on DNA testing, as has been requested more then once already.
    I already researched it myself now ;)

    'DNA showing it is cannabis 'does not imply I was saying there is only 1 type at all, that's your incorrect interpretation.

    I am quite aware there are more then one type, sativa and indica for starters, you're just trying to use to distract the real issue. Again.

    LOL, if you wish continue on about the lack of testing, you'd better explain why, when it WAS possible as her defense had a sample, did Corby refuse to let them do it?

    That speaks VOLUMES on who knew what the results would be, without it even being tested.

    Again, why did Schapelle refuse to let it be tested, and it's now used as some sort of claim for her?
    She's guilty as sin, is the answer.

  • docoman

    And to your last post of utter BS,
    "Found in HER bag...

    ...after she'd left it unlocked, and had been apart from it, for many hours ....while many other people had access to it.

    You keep forgetting about that part I keep adding, and fail to see how something found in somebody's bag...

    ...after they'd left it unlocked, and had been apart from it, for many hours ....while many other people had access to it

    ...alone, does not equate to proof that the bag's owner ...is a willing drug smuggler."

    You have already, more then once, had this explained to you.
    It's called;

    PRIMA FACIE.

    So once more, you're wrong.:)

    And your attempt at distraction will not work, as I'll continue for all 15 points regarding 'Expendables' "Case Facts" You've not disproved anything I've said so far, so at the moment, after the first 6 points of the show's 'CASE FACTS'

    3 wrong/lies
    3 neutral/unsubstantiated
    0 correct

  • docoman

    It's a relevant question, you've been asked outright many times by a few posters, and eventually answered yes. So I'm confirming your answer to the following questions is in fact yes.

    Have you received or are you owed any remuneration, financial or otherwise, from 'Expendable', the people who made this presentation, or their 'parent company' Hidden World Films or Hidden World Research Group, or from the Corbys, either directly or indirectly?

    You can end the questions with a proper, with out BS, yes or no answer. At the moment, your answer more then once is yes. (surprisingly honest.)

    I'm wondering if you'll try to make me show if you're telling the truth or not about that? Remember, once it's on the internet it can be found, then tracked. Digital info. is only as safe as the programmers skills, and there is ALWAYS a trail left on the internet. ;)

    Not a huge fan of the term Gatekeeper myself. ;) I've always liked climbing over a wall, beside the 'gate'. Even better still, leave no 'footprints' yourself. lol Do you want to go there? Are you sure? ;)

  • docoman

    You should know exactly why the Aus government, and the AFP, 'played their cards close to their chests'. Do you want to expose the real reason?
    Your call Worveys, or as mentioned by another earlier, Corby ;)

  • Achems_Razor

    Figure it out your self!

  • docoman

    I agree with you, that it is pretty much self explanatory. To be honest with you AR, I believe that Worveys is outside the comments policy now, for a couple reasons.
    4 times now she's accused the moderators of meddling with her posts, because of the topic. False accusations that have been replied to repeatedly by Mods.

    If you read the whole thread, it becomes clear that Worveys has an agenda, 136 out of 137 posts on this topic , when this was pointed out, she's had 'disqus problems', that happen to 'reset her posts', the point that was spoken about.

    Even after points have been debunked, and acknowledged as incorrect, she 'circles' back to that argument, which amounts to Preaching.
    More importantly though,
    she has said she is connected to this 'doco', which I've already shown is BS propaganda, and still have more then 2/3'ds proof is cr*ap, it's a propaganda show, and Worveys and this show have made accusations that warrent a legal investigation into defamation claims arguably.

    She has said she works for this doco, only posts on this topic, won't accept evidence she's wrong. Preaching, 4 times accusing 'weird' treatment by moderators, even though you've explained to her what happend, at least worthy of a warning is it not now?

  • Achems_Razor

    Yes, her posts are getting redundant, if a majority of you want her off, will warn her, three strikes and she is out! Of course if she can offer empirical proof of her allegations then we shall see...

    Edit" have to get back to this later, am going to bed, still on nights.

  • docoman

    I don't want her off, I'd like her to prove or accept being debunked though. An official warning may do that, I doubt it though. As a 'preacher', she won't unless forced, I must say I'm enjoying debunking her though.. She's working for the 'doco' by the looks and by her own admission, so isn't really a real 'TDF poster'. This is propoganda, and is incorrect, defaming Australia and Indonesia over a criminal families drug connections.
    I would point out, if you remember the doco added a few weeks back, where Vlatko added his own comentary, because he was concerned that it was total BS and propaganda by creationists.
    This doco, I would argue, has been debunked in most of it's assertions, and therefore would also warrent a similar caution to any viewers maybe?
    ]
    Worveys and this 'doco' defame the governtment and police of Indoensia, wrongly, and also the same in Australia, wrongly. The Corby family was as guilty as they were alive, the evidence shows it. This 'doco' is complete BS, and I've got plenty of proof. :) Worveys, by her own admission and the evidence, is only posting on this doco, because she's paid to.
    That's not what I am, an individual posting their own thoughts, evidence and conclusions, that's not what the doco makers are doing, having a double dip at the opinion. :)
    It's yr guys call, I don't really want her booted, I like debunking her, but she is repeatedly going back over already covered posts, in an effort to support this BS doco.

    Edit- My apologies for any hassles caused, I know you guys already work hard. But Worveys is clearly trying BS tactics, the same as the Corby defense, and I'd propose, that she's being paid to do, by her own admission. When it's all gone through, she starts again, with points already debunked. Clearly BS, and preaching in my opinion.

  • docoman

    The stench of Schapelle's BS is spreading. I eagerly await the moderators decision. You've been debunked, but return to the same lies. You admit you are linked to the site, and it's BS. Fk you, and your BS assertions against Aus and Indo because of your employers BS. The Corbys are guilty of making moeny out of pot, Schapelle was guilty of trafficking, it's been proven more then once, despite your BS claims.

    And I now change my opinion. I used to think 20 years was a harsh penalty. Not now, 5 years for trafficking, 15 for the BS. Which, of course, she will ever serve the full amount..
    And in turn, what Australian prison allows prisoners to start a sexual 'relationship' as Schapelle has, F*king a convicted male drug dealer. Birds of a feather.... ;) BS she's doing 'hard time', and BS she's 'innocent.'
    The Corby family and relations are guilty. I dare any of them to sue me in Australian Court over my opinion. I will gladly give my name and address for any such attempt, as I've VERY confident I will win.

    Schapelle and her family were making money out of drugs, pure ans simple. They didn't like it when they were caught, and asked to explain their actions.

    I dare you, sue me if I'm wrong.. I'll smash any accusations in court. Bring it, I dare you!

  • Achems_Razor

    I for one then will (NOT) take her off TDF posts per your request as long as she follows the "comment policy"

  • GRUMPY25608

    I have also believe that Worvey is breaking the rules as mentioned to him/her in my latest post to Worvey
    ''Your curclar tactics are on the verge of preaching and this site does not allow preaching.''

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002658076089 Kaz Cook

    Are you still going on and on and on.. Your comment "The Corbys are guilty of making moeny out of pot, Schapelle was guilty of trafficking, it's been proven more then once" Where is your proof DOCOMAN... either put up the link that you say has been PROVEN ... Oh thats right you can't because there is NO PROOF, never was any PROOF, just your blantant propaganda. EVERYTHING on Expendable is PROVEN via 1000's of documents obtained through freedom of information. IT CNOT BE DENIED... AS MUCH AS YOU TRY..

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002658076089 Kaz Cook

    FYI Docoman it has been PROVEN that Rosleigh, Mick, Mercedes do not have any crimial records whatsoever. Stop spreading your lies and BS... And Schapelle also had no convictions or recorded information on anything until the Australian government framed her to cover up the MASSIVE corruption at Sydney airport!!

  • docoman

    "per your request" ? I didn't request her to be excluded from TDF Razor, I said, "I don't want her off, I'd like her to prove [her assertions] or accept being debunked though. An official warning may do that, I doubt it though."
    Later in the same post, the one you replied to; "It's yr guys call, I don't really want her booted, I like debunking her, but she is repeatedly going back over already covered posts, in an effort to support this BS doco."

    What you do is up to you, but please, don't put words in my mouth I didn't say.

    I did say in my opinion she's preaching, and by her own admission is working for these people. (which would contravene the comment policy by the looks)
    You said;
    "Yes, her posts are getting redundant, if a majority of you want her off, will warn her, three strikes and she is out! Of course if she can offer empirical proof of her allegations then we shall see..."

    I was under the impression that TDF is not a democracy, I thought it was the moderators call?

    I take offense to her repeated incorrect accusations against my country after being shown it's incorrect, and that TDF and the moderators are biased against her, because of the topic.

    How you respond to that is up to you guys isn't it, not a 'majority' decision as you alluded?
    As you should know, I told the truth when I said I flagged her earlier post for you to check on her account problems, and I didn't flag any others after, which she suggested I'd done.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    Docoman, please direct us the post, where I "admitted" that I work for The Expendable project.

    And where are these 4 occasions, of me making accusations...?

    Please find them, and repost all 4 instances, in which I made any direct accusations, against anyone.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    "This 'doco' is complete BS, and I've got plenty of proof"

    Who has 'debunked' this documentary? ...you?

    Where's your proof...? Your opinions don't count.

    You haven't debunked anything, docoman. Much of your 'debunking' consists of counting my posts, and speculating about who I work for.
    You have just nit-picked over little details of legal matters ...in an attempt to justify a show trial.

    You have not 'debunked' the fact there is no motive, for smuggling cannabis into Indonesia.

    Or the fact, the Bali police withheld evidence, making it impossible for the defendant to rebutt a so called 'prima facie". Sorry docoman, but repeating that it was 'prima facie" ...does not constitute a 'debunk'.

    And if you really were as legally savy, as you make yourself out to be, you'd be well aware, that the refusal and withholding of forensic eveidence ...is a serious problem.

    ---

    I find it amusing, how you use the word 'preaching' in an attempt to discredit me.
    Trying to connect me with relig-tards, wont work in this case.
    It's obvious you're desperate to 'debunk' my position ...but you just haven't got much substance to 'debunk' it with.

    Constantly repeating that's it's all 'BS' ...does not constitute a 'debunk'.

  • docoman

    Hello Kaz, I see your critical thinking hasn't improved since your last silly post, or you ability to go back and read the thread. If it had, you'd be able to see you are wrong, again.
    I'll reply to these posts, but if you want to engage me on the topic, pick a point and we'll discuss it if you wish. I'll return your style, civil if you wish, or sarcastic, it's up to you.

    "EVERYTHING on Expendable is PROVEN via 1000's of documents obtained through freedom of information. IT CNOT BE DENIED... AS MUCH AS YOU TRY.."
    And from your following post;
    "FYI Docoman it has been PROVEN that Rosleigh, Mick, Mercedes do not have any crimial records whatsoever."
    lol.

    EVERYTHING is PROVEN on this 'show' is it? Wrong.
    So, the show's assertion that "the Corby case arose just 2 years post 9/11" in your opinion is true then, even though basic math disproves their claim. 9/11/2001, Corby arrest, 8 October 2004. Just 2 years?
    As I've already, repeatedly now, shown. Just for starters.
    Read up on what Prime Facie means, then examine their claims about 'assumed guilty, contrary to Indonesian law'. Wrong.

    The Corby's are a 'clean' family are they?
    From the Herald-Sun, whose source was Police files;
    "While the Corby family once claimed they had no links to marijuana, Queensland Police Service archives confirm Schapelle's father Mick was arrested twice in 1973 for possessing and using cannabis. Fast forward to 2004 and three weeks before Schapelle's arrest, Mr Corby was implicated in a ''Queensland Police Crime Intelligence report'' as being part of a Gold Coast syndicate that was transporting drugs to Bali - using commercial passenger flights. In those statements a police informant, Kim Moore, claimed Tony Lewis - Mick Corby's best friend and next-door neighbour - was running a marijuana operation on his property. When police raided him days later, they found 200 plants and stockpiles of vacuum-sealed cannabis stored in freezers, worth more than $600,000."

    As you should be able to see, your claim that Mick Corby had no police record is completely wrong.

    And, it backs my assertion that the family was involved in drugs.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    Let me try put this one, in a simple, honest way.

    At no time, did I ever deny that there were 4 customs officers.
    At no time. did I ever explicitly state that there was ONLY ONE.

    The customs officer (singular) that I've been referring to, is Winata.
    His testimony was the main one. He had the most to say.

    In past comments, you will see that I have even placed (s) in brackets, after 'customs officer' ...inferring, that I was aware there was more than one.

    And I get constantly accused of twisting words, and misdirecting.

    Incredibly lame nit-picking like that, is very annoying, and creates misdirection in itself.
    I get the impression you are desperately picking through my posts, hoping to discredit me, with provable examples of dishonesty and lies, but find nothing.
    You even take a sarcastic answers seriously.

    If something I've written appears inconsistent, you could always just ask me to clarify.

    To claim an opponent is wrong and challenge them accordingly, is one thing.

    But these routine accusations of dishonesty, lies, misrepresentation, misdirection ..'lawyer tactics' ...(the word 'sleazy' appeared somewhere I think)...
    ...are really lacking in substance ...and are becoming a bore.

    Just claiming that I'm wrong, is one thing. Lying however, is a serious charge.
    And serious charges, require serious evidence.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    "You haven't asked any questions of the people I've heard that from..."

    No, of course I haven't.
    That's why I asked if you have.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RWQJ5GLVSOA2R4WBHJ6JAQSHF4 Worveys

    I gave a sensible answer, to the question of whether I work for The Expendable project. Read that post again.

    The sarcastic answer, was in response to whether I'm connected to the Corbys, or the OTHER sites I refer to. Read that post again, also.

    I had really hoped those answers ...the sarcastic one, in conjunction with the sensible one ...would put an end to all this silly nonsense.

    But it does seem, I was hoping for too much.

  • Achems_Razor

    I feel anything I would say would be wrong at this point, so will moderate per the comment policy only.

  • docoman

    Thank you mate, that's all I've asked for.

  • docoman

    You said;
    "You haven't debunked anything, docoman. Much of your 'debunking' consists of counting my posts, and speculating about who I work for.
    You have just nit-picked over little details of legal matters ...in an attempt to justify a show trial.
    You have not 'debunked' the fact there is no motive, for smuggling cannabis into Indonesia.
    Or the fact, the Bali police withheld evidence, making it impossible for the defendant to rebutt a so called 'prima facie". Sorry docoman, but repeating that it was 'prima facie" ...does not constitute a 'debunk'."

    Yes, who you are and why you're here is a sidetracking of the issue, which came about because of your 'mysterious' account problems when asked why you only post on this issue, are you connected to them.

    This is a Legal Case, so what you call "just nit-picked over little details of legal matters ...in an attempt to justify a show trial. " is actually what it's all about. The law. Despite you claiming they're "little details".
    You and this show claim Schapelle was illegally found guilty, and is innocent.
    You've claimed the MAC Treaty was broken, and that Schapelle was 'presumed guilty', breaking Indonesian law.

    On both the legal aspects you've brought up, you have been debunked. I've shown and discussed the law/treaty with you, explaining why you are incorrect.
    As well as referred you to Prof. Lindsey, a Professor in Asian Law, that says you're wrong with your legal assertions.
    But you dismiss his learned opinion, because he disagrees with you.

    So I'll be getting back to addressing the show's assertions they made in their 'Case Facts', and continuing to go through them slowly.

    You still agree with the show's assertion, No.1 of the 15 'Case Facts', that 'there was no motive'.

    Please prove yours and the shows assertion that there was no motive, and remember what you just said to me,
    "Where's your proof...? Your opinions don't count."
    You make the assertion 'it's a fact there is no motive', the burden of proof lies with you. Prove it.

  • jackmax

    This documentary seems to have to many holes in it to be taken seriously, shorely, 2yrs after 9/11, they could not ever get their maths right.

    I thought that a documentary had to be factual it seems that the facts of this case have been lost because the truth may not be what the makers want us to know

  • http://www.facebook.com/amanda.watson.5203577 Amanda Watson

    This is a hidden scandal.

  • http://www.facebook.com/amanda.watson.5203577 Amanda Watson

    With any luck the moderator of this group will appear and remove "docoman". He is shouting down anyone who comments with dozens of completely random and completely false allegations. It has been wrecked by him.

  • jackmax

    wow what happen to your post it shrank from about ten lines down to five words

  • AntiTheist666

    If you were to read all of his posts I think you’ll find that @docoman does NOT shout down anyone who comments with random and false allegations. Instead he debates using evidence, testimony and common sense. Far from being wrecked by him this comments section has been expanded and made more interesting by him.

  • docoman

    This site is not a morpheus/Steve Addison/Bax and co controlled site, so go ahead Amanda, flag any posts of mine you wish. ;)

    Unlike the 'hidden' makers of this Conspiracy Theory, I welcome closer scrutiny to this 'Theory' that they propose.

  • docoman

    I find it amusing for one, enlightening another, to watch the reaction to doing the opposite to what this Conspiracy Theory they call Expendable, wants us to do.
    They want to 'cram' 15 'Case Facts' at you in a '2 minute 'recap'', trying to not let you think about their claims.
    When you slow down and start to examine these 'facts', look at the response by it's supporters.

    IF they are speaking the truth, why wouldn't they welcome a closer scrutiny of their evidence?

    I guess 'wrecked' this thread depends on your aims. If it's to propagate this Conspiracy Theory, to believe and convert without inspection and evaluation, then I guess I am wrecking it for them. ;)

    The same as 'scrutiny' about religion 'wrecks' it for religious beliefs.
    Because that is all this show is at it's core, thoughts and beliefs founded on an incorrect evaluation of the evidence. It's a Conspiracy Theory.

    I have no remorse or intention of apologising to them for exposing their incorrectness, or expressing my own opinion. That's what these threads are for, discussion of the 'featured show' :)

  • AntiTheist666

    HEY GRUMPY

    Where are you? Come and swear at me you big bar steward! Don’t think a big softy like me would be missing you or anything though.
    Could you tell me what kind of dope precisely was in the bag and what its real value was?

  • AntiTheist666

    Christ almighty doco, I bet you wish you’d found that earlier. A very comprehensive report, I didn’t read it all but it seems to back up everything you’ve been saying. Others who don't want to read it all should scroll down to the summary at the bottom. This article takes a while to load up but it's definitely worth it.

  • docoman

    Correct mate! It would have negated the need for most of the research I've done! :( Oh well, it did entertain me for awhile. :)

    It completely debunks this 'show', with logic and facts.

    This 'show' is categorised incorrectly in my opinion, it should be under Conspiracy Theory really. :)

    I've found here in Aus also, that most non-fools that do support Schapelle, don't like this 'morpheus' and crew, or their tactics. After learning about them, neither do I.
    Trying to manipulate truths like this Expandable does, is not helping her case. In fact it does the exact opposite, anyone with some critical thinking skills see's their lies, and puts that dislike then onto Schapelle.

    That fool, Morpheus or whatever he wants to call himself, is only hurting Schapelle, not helping. This is just his 'crusade' now, regardless of the truth or not, or the effect on Schapelle or not.
    He should butt out, he's hurting her, not helping as is claimed.

  • jackmax

    something you might find interesting;

    Legal considerations for Mercedes Corby AND her associates; the Expendable Project, Expendable TV and Women for Schapelle.

    The Expendable Project and Kim Bax's 'Women for Schapelle' blogsite are breaking Commonwealth Law according to the Criminal Code Act 1995,S474.17 which states inter alia:

    474.17 Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence

    (1) A person is guilty of an offence if:

    (a) the person uses a carriage service; and

    ( the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.

    Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

    Defamation Law.

    Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published, whether true or false, depending on legal state. In common law it is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

    In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defence for invasion of privacy."]

    False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being." If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred.

    In some civil law jurisdictions, defamation is dealt with as a crime rather than a civil wrong (termed a public-law delict in civil-law systems).

    A person who harms another's reputation may be referred to as a "famacide", "defamer", or "slanderer". The Latin phrase famosus libellus means a libellous writing.

    A recent judgment of the High Court of Australia has significant consequences on interpretation of the law. On 10 December 2002, the High Court of Australia handed down its judgment in the Internet defamation dispute in the case of Gutnick v Dow Jones. The judgment established that Internet-published foreign publications that defamed an Australian in their Australian reputation could be held accountable under Australian libel law. The case gained worldwide attention and is often said, inaccurately, to be the first of its kind. A similar case that predates Gutnick v Dow Jones is Berezovsky v Forbes in England. Cyber-bullying Legal definition:

    Cyber-bullying is defined in legal glossaries as

    * actions that use information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behaviour by an individual or group that is intended to harm another or others.

    * use of communication technologies for the intention of harming another person

    * use of internet service and mobile technologies such as web pages and discussion groups as well as instant messaging or SMS text messaging with the intention of harming another person.

    Examples of what constitutes cyber-bullying include communications that seek to intimidate, control, manipulate, put down, falsely discredit, or humiliate the recipient. The actions are deliberate, repeated, and hostile behaviour intended to harm another. Cyber-bullying has been defined by The National Crime Prevention Council: “When the Internet, cell phones or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person."

    A cyber-bully may be a person whom the target knows or an online stranger. A cyber-bully may be anonymous and may solicit involvement of other people online who do not even know the target. This is known as a 'digital pile-on.

    The aforementioned is a well known practice of the Expendable Project, now publicly endorsed by Rosliegh Corby.

    In the current situation, EP use a Web Host based overseas. The freedom of International ISP host site access and operation by anonymous defamation criminals, particularly in the USA, is soon coming to a grinding halt. Under US Law, the First Amendment, judges in every state are experiencing a huge increase of libel cases against anonymous defamers as laws permit a more robust approach toward investigation of these criminals. The US continues to develop cyber law and there are now cyber legal specialists that will conduct private investigations and take these criminals to court. Other moves are being made by the US Government to empower the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and police the cyber space more effectively. This is an International trend, of which Australia is slowly catching up to such cyber crime. In Australian Federal Law, such Internet Service Providers (ISP) come under the jurisdiction of the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (C’wlth) (BSA). However, the law to prosecute anonymous defamation by any carriage system as defined under both the aforementioned acts comes under the Criminal Code Act 1995, as has been previously disclosed. Therefore, EP are breaking Australian Commonwealth law in terms of utilising the internet for their defamatory deeds.

    That is from an article I found in FAIR BLOODY DINKUM written by sunny

  • docoman

    I wasn't aware of much of that. Thank you.

  • docoman

    A warning to everyone, including myself. One of the sites I mentioned earlier, the Prisoner Support site, says they'd already been handing over information to the AFP, (Australian Federal Police) regarding some activities of people and their actions online.

    We all need to remember we're not invisible, or untraceable, and are responsible for what we say.

  • AntiTheist666

    @docoman

    I gotta hand it to you mate you smelt a rat with this right from the beginning. Congrats, you’re quite the dogged detective ;-) I’ll be interested to hear what @Worveys has to say about all this?

  • jackmax

    I think most Australians could see through all the BS very early. I read some where that if Schapelle was a middle class Aussie average male there would have been very little said. They use their gender card to pull at the heart strings which in their opinion was one of their trump cards.
    When the family went to the media they claimed that they were an honest hard working Aussie Battlers, so they opened the door for the scrutiny that followed as most Aussies aren't as gullible as they thought.
    Once the family's checked past became apparent further digging was the only option left open to the media, as the Australian public don't like being taken for a ride.
    Their only defence was to attack all concerned as if they came out and told the truth, Schapelle most likely would not be alone in prison or worse the death penalty may have been the sentence for her and others.

    I for one never thought her innocent from the beginning, nor did anyone of my friend that followed the case.
    These lobby groups are made up of mainly fictitious members once you start looking, eg. women for scharpelle claim to have 189 members yet how is it you'll see the following names appear either 8 or 9 time by going through their little members avatars that appear on the facebook page.
    Lori Dawn 9, Sheila Kircher 9, Local Lady 9 Steven Williams 9, Christine Fallon 9, Apricot 9, Dinese 9, Amsnet 8, Polyester 8, Swtemotion 8, Gedandtess 8, Manz64 8, Anita Game 8, Kath Hoover Rutt 8, Helen 8, Ruth110 8, Sylvia Perez 8 Prue Miller 8, Sales 8 & Lisa Ellison 8. yet Kim Bax name does not appear on the members list yet she started the group. If I started ANY group I would be the first member yet her name is nowhere to be found.

  • docoman

    Thank you for your compliment 6's. That's my bone, grrr ;)

    I didn't reply to you a little earlier mate, I was waiting for their response, I didn't want to influence it with a comment. It ended up being pretty much what I was expecting from supporters of this 'show'. As reported from other sites, their SOP is not honest, as they've displayed here more then once now. The trouble they have, I'm not misrepresenting myself, or what I've found. I'm not the one with things to hide. ;)

    If one is telling the truth, or at least believe you are, why discourage scrutiny of your claims?
    If, as claimed, this is proof of innocence, why not stick to the 'facts'?

    To me the answer seems obvious, they know they're being dishonest.

    And if there is no relationship with the Corby's as is claimed on one of their websites, this show and supporters, where does the money they receive for this 'Corby fighting fund' end up?

    Also, why is Roseleigh Corby in one of the pic's of their supporters on one of their connected websites, if they've no connection to the Corbys as is claimed?

    I 'smell' the rat's hole goes deeper then shown so far. My feelings are, if the money trail was followed it would lead to a 'rat's nest' of dishonesty.

    I welcome closer scrutiny to of all this. I'd put money on it they don't. ;)

  • docoman

    Interesting, I hadn't noticed that, well spotted. lol, one more attempted deception by this group. I wonder what others are yet to be revealed. I wonder how many of the 'claimed supporters' are actually real, individual people, wanting to be there, for example the pictures in Womenforshapelle, how many are real supporters, willing to stand beside their picture and confirm they're part of that 'group'?

    I agree with you, most Aussies I've talked with, think the family was involved. And not because of a media campaign against the Corbys, as is claimed. Most I've talked to would agree that 20 years is pretty harsh, but they also 'smell' that family isn't completely honest.
    Some don't disagree with the 20 years, because of what they consider the deceptive tactics and accusations thrown around by what they consider dishonest people.

    I guess it doesn't really matter much what Aussies think, as the crime was committed/caught in Indonesia. It's what the Indonesians think that matters to Schapelle at the moment.
    And dishonest people like this 'Expendable' and co. are not helping her.
    I think they have other motives, I think following the money trail would bear this out. That's my opinion, hopefully time will tell one way or the other.

  • jackmax

    As I not at home at this time the information about some of the funds from one of the "Trust funds" are being deposited into an account held by Rosliegh Rose. I will confirm this upon returning home, but I'm sure it was an article from the Sydney Morning Herald.

  • docoman

    I've done quite a bit more reading today, prompted by jackmax's comment.
    Here are some of my thoughts from what I've found, from multiple sources today. It could be right, could be wrong, it seems to fit to me so far.
    Contrary to this whole film's basis, the Australian Government has gone out of it's way to do what's best by Schapelle.
    From what I can find, the AFP and it's actions, the cctv claims at Sydney airport on the day, the Aus Gov, all make sense now.

    They were after a 'dirty', quite high ranking Aussie official. Involved in BIG money drug importation, for eg. something like AUD$120 mill worth went missing on a sting, obviously they had a 'mole'.
    They were chasing BIG fish on the day that Schapelle flew out. That's part of why there wasn't cctv released, and why QANTAS was unsure how to act at first, ect. (just bad timing for the Corby's, flew out on the day another operation was going on. It's all been written about, even used by these 'twits' from Expendable and co.)
    The AFP knew about the Corby family, because of the informant and following bust of the 'best mate' next door, as the document released shows. They knew the Corbys were into pot, weeks before Schapelle's flight.
    Guess how the next door mate had his busted pot stored? In Vacuum sealed bags in a freezer. (hmm, vacuum sealed, like the one Schapelle had in her bag, the bag that had been at the fathers house days before her trip?)
    The brother flew home straight away. Why didn't he stay to support Schapelle, his sister Mercedes lived there, he had somewhere to stay? It's all innocent according to the Corbys.

    When Schapelle was caught, and after the 'BS' surrounding it started, the Aus Gov had a choice. Tell the Indonesians what they knew, and probably get her, and POSSIBLY anyone else still in Indonesia, a death sentence. Which, was obviously not in Schapelle's best interests.
    It's a bit of a catch 22. If quietly asked, the Aus Gov had to say nothing ( or BS), or get Schapelle killed. If officially asked, by invoking the 'death sentence' clause in the MAC treaty, they confirmed her guilt, making the request now redundant, and getting Schapelle killed.

    The AFP made their bust of the corrupt 'mole' they had, pretty high rank. BIG drug ring, and internal corruption stopped, what they were after.
    Back to the Corby, relatively 'small bickys', but there's the problem of;
    1. If they incriminate her in any way saying what they know while she's still there, she could easily get her sentence changed to Death, as many Indonesians wanted.
    2. The problem of 'staying quiet' originally to the Indonesians about what was a criminal matter, if they'd been asked in any manner.

    So what did they do? They offer QC's, the best possible defense lawyers, more then once, at taxpayers expense, $1000 plus an hour. They help pay for the defense costs anyway. They offer to test the drugs if Schapelle wants to, and the Indonesians want it.
    They keep quiet, so they don't get her killed, even though every 'nutter' with some free time, every 'conman' with an idea of how to cash in on it has their say and makes 'movies', accusing them of doing the wrong thing by Schapelle.
    They 'cop' that, because it's in Schapelle's best interests. Kev Rudd promised to do everything he could if he got elected, I suggest he has, by keeping quiet.

    It's just a theory, there is more to it, but you get the gist. The proof will be in the pudding, I wonder what will happen to the Corbys once Schapelle has done her time and they come home? IF they come home. (I'd not be surprised if she gets deported once released) No more 'death sentence' hanging over their head, and after all the BS that's gone on and been said, accusations and everything, I doubt they'll be in the 'good books' with the AFP and Aus Gov anymore.

  • rod

    Well done Kaz Cook, on your presentation. The thing is who is going to prosecute who for schapelle , baggage handlers have been charged recently. It is a vicious circle of crime and schapelle is in Bali jail for every one. This week is schapelles week, everybody is getting together for schapelle. I think a delegation needs to press Indonesia to a diplomatic settlement.

  • docoman

    Hello... rod. lol.

    Baggage handlers have been charged in connection to Schapelle Corby's Case? Please show a link, I'd love to read/hear about that, that's news to me.

    'Who is going to prosecute who for Schapelle?'
    That's been run and won, the Indonesians prosecuted Schapelle on a charge of drug trafficking, won, and sentenced her to 20 years. Schapelle has had multiple appeals.

    No, Schapelle is in jail for Schapelle, it was her bag they found 4.2kg of pot in, not 'everyones'.

    Not everybody is 'getting together for Schapelle'. lol.

    Your comment about 'diplomatic settlement' is going to resolve her criminal matter there how exactly?
    Or even help Schapelle how?
    By stirring up the very people that hold her 'key' right now?

  • rod

    Hello docoman,Thanks for your reply today,baggage handlers have been charged recently,[ separate current issue, just a statement ]. I recently listened to a youtube radio interview with roy reeves and a customs manager, Thats why i mentioned other people are involved. I would like to be at the schapelle get together, looks likes i may not see you there in Melbourne.A diplomatic settlement may cause trouble you think ,interesting comment, there are many different ways in my life experience and travels to make things happen with the right people.Kind regards.

  • docoman

    With regards to the 'baggage handler defense', the lawyer who invented that story has said it was his 'invention', a story for the defense. So the 'separate current issue' relationship is?

    If you are after Schapelle to be acquitted through 'diplomatic settlement' that is not possible, as it isn't a 'diplomatic problem', it's a criminal matter.

    So it's not that it'll 'cause trouble' at all, it's just not legally possible at this point in time.

    Does your life experience include somehow getting a 'diplomatic solution' for a criminal matter? As it seems that's what you're requesting here.

    If you mean the talk about possibly releasing her on parole, but being allowed to return to Aus, that's still an Indonesian law problem and decision, nothing to do with Aus at this time.

    If you've any update on that I'd like to hear about it, as that seems to be the most expedient way Schapelle will get to leave prison. I assume you're aware of the developments along that line last year, but the 'loophole' with regards to foreigners and either detaining them or deporting them. (which to me would seem to indicate the Indonesians would want her to 'serve' her parole time in Indonesia)

    So, unfortunately it seems you'll not be seeing Schapelle in a get together in Melbourne either, or anywhere in Australia for awhile yet. :(

  • rod

    To docoman, just to let you know, it was " Truth News Radio Australia recorded sep 18th 2009", Roy reeves and John Bursal a manager at customs i believe, the interview was about baggage handlers,have a good day ..

  • docoman

    'Truth News', the 'alternative' online news? The one that's linked to many of the EP websites. The one that says;
    "For a detailed summary of the the key facts in the Schapelle Corby case, please visit the Expendable Project."
    The same 'key facts' that have already been shown that Expendable Project get consistently wrong or lie about.
    You need to check your sources better, they're all linked those sites, and are all advocating the same misinterpretations and outright lies that this show does.
    Either way, as you've already conceded, it's not directly connected with the Corby case. And that defense was 'made up' by the Corby team, so it doesn't help or prove anything with Schapelle's case.

  • docoman

    Already twice so far on this site, on this topic, multiple accounts for the one user have been caught out, not to mention false accusations deleted. All you have to do is look at how many 'first time users' have commented on this topic only. These people think they're clever, when they're just twits that can't see how silly they are. They are not decent people these people connected to Expendable, they're obviously disturbed.

    This is how 'honest and nice', these people from Expendable are. In their ignorance they think that bullying people that are Schapelle supporters because they don't support the lies this show contains is a good thing. People that support Schapelle, just not liars like the EP people. The following apparently is a list of some of who these people have attempted to harass and bully so far;

    Actor Russell Crowe
    Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Robert Carr
    Australian Justice Minister Jason Clare
    Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty
    Prime Minister Julia Gillard
    Former Greens Leader Bob Brown
    US Attorney Dan Mori
    Australian Foreign Minister Alexandra Downer
    Get UP
    Former Prime Minister of Australia John Howard
    Greens Leader Christine Milne
    Humanitarian Kay Danes
    Leader of the Liberal Party Tony Abbott
    Australian Federal Police Officers
    Scott Ludlam
    Fair Trials International
    New Zealand Schapelle Support Group
    The Innocence Project
    Schapelle Corby's Special Action Support Group
    United States supporters of Schapelle Corby
    Channel Nine News
    Australian Embassies
    Channel Seven News
    Australian Foreign Officals
    Andrew Hornery, Celebrity Columnist
    Robert McClelland MP
    Former Minister of Transport Anthony Albanese
    Bruce Billson MP
    Free Schapelle Support Network
    Civil Rights Organisations
    Mike Rann
    Australian High Commissioner UK
    Murray Kidd Schapelle Supporter
    The Indonesian Government
    Lizzie Love, Schapelle Supporter
    The Indonesian Police and Judiciary
    QANTAS Airlines
    Former Justice Minister of Australia Chris Ellison
    Amnesty International
    The CIA
    Former Australian Attorney General Phillip Ruddock
    Rachel Jacobs, Senate Candidate
    ABC Journalist John Stewart
    Media Personality Derryn Hinch
    Author and Journalist Eamonn Duff
    Nicolas Herriman Journalist
    Barry O'Farrell, Former Premier of New South Wales
    Neville Wright Founder Free Schapelle
    Anna Bligh, Former Premier of Queensland
    Rupert Murdoch
    Media Magnate
    Gaile Williams Founding member of Schapelle Support Group
    The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
    The Entire Australian Media
    The Qld Police
    The Alliance of Australian Lawyers
    Adam Stone, Senate Candidate Australian Greens

    They brag about having had high court injunctions to 'shut them up', somehow thinking that's a good thing. M*rons, lol.

  • docoman

    It's not so hidden anymore if you read the thread, Exendable have been exposed. They're not hidden, I easily found some addresses of the 'core' of this supposed 'research group'. UFO researchers and nurses aren't hard to find. Or Morpheus, aka where's wally. lol.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002658076089 Kaz Cook

    9 months ago we first interacted, and you still haven't watched the DOCO,? Really? Did you say you have only seen 6 minutes of it? You refute something you haven't seen yet? How can one do that? Have you searched the site for all the government own emails, cables and documents? After you watch the doco you need to rearch all the evidence, because after the doco came out a lot more evidence came to light. Docoman the weed story about gettting it weed that was grown by her dad, is hearsay, someone, knew someone... come on what a load of crap. There is no proof of that! The proof is on Expendable website.

  • jackmax

    Hey Kaz Cook,

    Your not the sharpest tool in the shed are you, as if you were you would notice your replying to a post which was made nine months ago.

    It may pay to read all the posts on this thread before making a statement about The Expendable website or their properganda based products they have to offer.

  • docoman

    Every single 'interaction' from you has been ridiculously ignorant, badly thought through, or flat out wrong. As your latest silly post is another example of.
    As already stated by jackmax, you are replying to a post that was very early on and is months old. Yes, I have watched this conspiracy theory. By 6 minutes, they had already made numerous false claims, outright lies and incorrect conclusions. Try to keep up Kaz. If you were a regular contributing member to TDF instead of an Expendable lackey here to promote and try to add 'credibility by popularity', you'd have noticed this site has changed the way the threads are set out.

    No UFO's tonight Frola, nothing hovering over Dunlin Rise, Macclesfield? You might need a psychiatric nurse, be careful witch Bax you get though ;) lol.

    And once more you display how much of an ignoramus you are by just repeating what I've already, repeatedly responded to YOU about, which I'd already said numerous times before you got here. You're repeating yourself again, repeating yourself repeating me, with BS that has REPEATEDLY been shown to you is BS. What is it, 3 or 4 times now with the same silly thing to say?
    Not to mention this show has been proven wrong in it's assertions, yet I don't expect someone with your obvious chronic memory and comprehension problems to be able to understand. Either you're connected with Expendable (as your post history would suggest), or you are being a complete imbecile by just repeating the same thing. Hearsay, look at all your posts and mine, you'll see you've already been proven to be a twit, yet here you go again......
    I know it's hard for you, but try to keep up Kaz.

    Have you actually got anything even 1/2 intelligent to say on the matter? Pick a point in the 'show' if you like, and I'll explain to you why the show is wrong.

  • docoman

    Rofl. That is exactly what it's like talking to these Expendable supporters. Obviously Micallef has listened to some Corby supporters, maybe even this particular conspiracy theory. lol.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100005310480908 Suzzane Harmen

    Allowing such foul comments on here, by trolls who clearly have some sort of fetish hatred of this innocent woman, serves no credit to Top Documentary Films. It is obvious that nothing at all will stop them.

    Here is the proof in black and white, with even ministers discussing that her bag was the only one not scanned on the flight, which they hid. Yet they still throw stones at her.

    It is so twisted that there aren't words sufficient ot describe them. What a repugnant reflection on the lowest echelons of society. TDF shouldn't be providing a platform for them.

    This is an amazing film, and the evidence they have gathered should be recognized as a great modern feat of investigative journalism. But it is censored by the mainstream, and the dogs of society bark their sickening abuse.

  • jackmax

    Who are you calling a troll?
    Have you read all the posts pertaining to this doco or are you blinded by your own self importance to look at the evidence provided with-in this thread.

  • AntiTheist666

    “This is an amazing film, and the evidence they have gathered should be recognized as a great modern feat of investigative journalism.”

    LOL

    No Expendable is a sham documentary and should be filed under “conspiracy” next to how the moon landings were faked.

    This doc, expendable and its supporters are not helping justice or Schapelle at all.

  • docoman

    Amusing. Another new facebook account, has made a total of 3 posts, all on the Corby topic, the first 2 on the latest by Expendable's leader, Steve Addison, aka Morpheus, or in this particular case, Patapsco. lols. The twit.

    Yet you think you have the right to come here, and first post start telling TDF what they should and shouldn't do. Haha, good luck with that, ya twit.

    Yet another pathetic attempt at your online shenanigans. That's all you have you lot from Expendable, weak minded attempts to try to appear to be more then just the few you are.
    Lies is all you have. Speak about any of the points, and prove just 1 that means Schapelle is innocent? You can't, because you're either one of Expendable's twits, or a random m*ron who can't think for themselves, either way you're a fool, as not 1 of this show's points means Schapelle is innocent, most of them are outright lies, wrong conclusions, or just stupid nothing's that have no bearing.

    Care to take up the challenge, prove 1 thing they claim that proves Schapelle is innocent?

  • docoman

    Ganja Queen is a much better look at the Corby case then this trash conspiracy theory.

    Ganja Queen, (what the Indonesians call Schapelle), gives some very enlightening 'hidden camera' moments, and some close and personal interviews with the Corby family.

    Their ignorance of the situation, their comments, reactions and body language speaks for itself. Some times you want to feel sorry for them, other times you want more Corby family members to be locked up as well.

    Much better then this conspiracy theory, proposed and supported by fools and con men.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lucy.marriner.3 Lucy Marriner

    Literally 100's of documents obtained via freedom of information and written by the Australian governments own hands, prove without doubt that Schapelle Corby was sacrificed to cover up the corruption at Johhnie Cowards newly privatised Sydney airport. Corruption at Sydney airport has been going on for years including the day Schapelle flew, Mark Standen, Assistant Director of the NSWCC involved in drug syndication at Sydney airport he witheld a secret recording of 2 criminals discussing the pick up of Marijuana from Sydney airport on October 8, 2004.. Standen was later jailed for 22 years for his role. Ian Robert Chalmers a director of Macquarie bank (owner of Sydney airport) also. jailed for his role in drug syndication the day Schapelle flew. CCTV footage disappeared from 3 Australian airports the day Schapelle flew. All can be viewed on Expendable Project every bit of evidence is there to back it up. Love the naysayers on here, one wonders how much they are getting paid by the Australian government and police to spread lies and propaganda. Selling lies for profit SHAME on them!!

  • docoman

    Nice try. Yet another NEW poster... or should I say Expendable Poser.

    Please provide the evidence to back up what you're saying. Expendable Project has NO evidence to back up their BS claims, they're BS. Shame on them, and YOU for promoting their lies, for trying to profit from lies from criminals and con-people.

    You're trying to imply that the men busted had something to do with Marijuana being smuggled out to Bali by the Corbys on that day. Wrong.

    That is not what they were charged for at all. Mark Standen was found guilty for being part of IMPORTING 300kg of pseudoephedrine, the drug used to make speed and ice. Ian Chalmers for his part in IMPORTING 20-30 kilograms of cocaine from South America.

    If you get caught speeding on a highway in your family car, does that automatically mean you're connected to anyone caught speeding, GOING THE OTHER WAY, in a race car? That's analogous to what you're trying to say, which is wrong. Those men got caught and charged for their separate, unrelated crimes, as did Schapelle Corby for her unrelated crime. The Australian authorities were chasing much bigger fish then Schapelle Corby and her 4.2 kg of marijuana.

  • docoman

    Come on Expendable, bring your next BS new account to try to justify and trick people into believing this dishonest piece of trash of a show. Fools.

  • docoman

    A little tip for you Expendable twits. It seems you haven't noticed yet, your usual tactic of cyber bullying can't work on me. You can't mess with me like you have others, and if you were able to you'd find I'm not like your usual meek targets and would respond vigorously. I'm not scared of silly nurses, UFO chasers or silly female lawyers, or your id1ot in the UK.
    EVERY time you send another BS account to post on this site, I'll respond here, then go google and look up other sites about Corby, and post there. (as I just did, and did the last 2 times you've been here.) More then one response elsewhere for every time you try to infect this site with your lies. So you can continue here as much as you like, it will be a negative effect exercise for your 'cause', every time. Or you can p1ss off from this site with your BS and I'll leave your other sites alone. Fk with this site, and I'll return the action on other sites, with interest, every time.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lucy.marriner.3 Lucy Marriner

    Docoman protesth to much. Who are you Docoman? NEVER seen anyone who chases this forum the way he does. Dishonest? Docoman cant even comment with his real name??/ Speaks volumes why he is on here.... You are the only fool Docoman... hundreds of Documents prove she is innocent all obtained by Freedom of information... Man we can see what you are doing.... FOOL

  • dewflirt

    Not bad for a kangaroo though ;)

  • docoman

    Show just 1 that PROVES she is innocent. Should be easy for you if there are hundreds of them.
    There is not 1 that PROVES she is innocent, because she's guilty.

    *as promised, multiple replies done elsewhere.

  • docoman

    And yes, you Expendable twits would love to get my real name, so you can try your bully tactics on me, just like you have on many others. Guess what, you can't. lololol. If you did, I'd not respond as you anticipate. Lucky for you that you can't get to me. ;)

  • docoman

    My name is Nunya, Nunya F. Business.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lucy.marriner.3 Lucy Marriner

    Docoman you are proving every minute what a try hard you are. You should change your name to "abusive maniac", you keep pushing your agenda! It ain't going to work, the truth is shining through, what has been buried for so long is now coming to the light and the masses are awakening.

  • Emergency Stop

    Pick a comment, any comment of Docoman's, at the bottom of the comment you'll see the reply button, if you use that I reckon he'll get back to you. I think it will be an interesting discussion considering your comments.

  • docoman

    The truth is shining through? lol. I see you've failed to provide just 1 of the claimed hundreds of documents that PROVE her innocence. You claim she's innocent, show it. Put your evidence where your mouth is.
    This is the third time now you've received the challenge, care to try to prove it? Or are you just going to resort to attacking me because you can't back up what you claim? Ad hominem appeals and twisted logic is all you have.

    And speaking of 'the masses', last I saw it was about 86% of Aussies saying she's guilty. The masses woke up to the Corbys a long time ago, Lucy. lol.

    *as promised, more replies elsewhere.

  • Emergency Stop

    You may want to check out the latest comments on this thread (sort comments from newest). Someone is dragging your name through the dirt with comments like this, "Who are you Docoman? NEVER seen anyone who chases this forum the way he does. Dishonest? Docoman cant even comment with his real name??/ Speaks volumes why he is on here.... You are the only fool Docoman" and this "You should change your name to "abusive maniac", you keep pushing your agenda!".
    edit: I didn't realise you got back to her, sorry about that.

  • docoman

    Yeah, it would be interesting if they had anything other then ad hominem arguments. Which is all Schapelle and supporters have, appeals to peoples emotions rather then logic. The logic doesn't suit what Schapelle wants, to get out of paying for her actions.

  • docoman

    No worries mate, tks for the heads-up. I keep an eye on this thread pretty regularly. :) I'm not fussed what they say about me, all they can do is attack me to try to deflect from the fact the evidence is against Schapelle, not proving her innocence as they claim. I don't know if you saw some of the links I've posted here, it seems the 'Expendable' people are quite the bunch of nutters. They've been cyber bullying many people, mostly Australian politicians and media. They can't touch me, all they have is docoman on disqus, no email or name. It seems this annoys them, as you can see by their recent posts. :) (I saw there was some uni student in Melbourne called himself docoman too, I hope they realise its not him, they are dumb enough to think it is though.)
    Fk 'em, they're not going to spread lies about my country while defending a criminal family and correctly convicted drug smuggler on here unanswered while I'm able to respond. :)

  • jackmax

    Hey Lucy it appears you have no idea what truth in law actual is as if you were to read this full thread you will notice that both doco and myself have shown though out this whole thread that the expendables have either mislead or manipulated the truth for their own glory
    Before you go and make allegations like you have it would pay to start investigating the information they where presenting as we have.
    Question one to you do you know what the Mutual Assistance Treaty is and how did it have any bearing on Corby's case?
    Q2.. Do you understand what a Prima Farces case is and what is the procedure once it has been established?
    Once you can answer those question truthfully as well as understand what the MAT requirement are you may then reconsider your view however if your one of worveys friends i understand that you would have to be a thick as a brick.

  • jackmax

    How much of your own research have you done to ensure that the information from this documentary is actually correct because if you had you may find your trust of the pro Corby propaganda machine may find it self undeserving

  • jackmax

    I to would like for you to produce just one document that prove her innocent, as to date no one has been able to produce one so good luck with that

  • Emergency Stop

    I can see now how my post could be read that way because I didn't give any examples of the comments I was referring to. These are the comments in question "You should change your name to "abusive maniac", you keep pushing your agenda!" and " Who are you Docoman? NEVER seen anyone who chases this forum the way he does. Dishonest? Docoman cant even comment with his real name??/ Speaks volumes why he is on here.... You are the only fool Docoman". I wanted to read his replies to those comments and as it turned out he did, I didn't read the conversation thread properly:(
    Sorry for the misunderstanding, the last thing I wanted was to be seen as trusting the pro Corby propaganda machine.

  • Emergency Stop

    As I explained to jackmax I didn't read the thread properly, you did get back to her and I did get a chuckle, Nunya.

  • AntiTheist666

    You’re the one protesting too much Lucy! Lol. Docoman has a good reputation around these parts and is especially knowledgeable when it comes to this case. I’ve read his responses to countless clones like you and he always backs up what he says, you on the other hand just call him names, bring on your proof if you’re so sure. But if you actually work for, or are associated with the Expendable Project, I would save your breath, it stinks.

  • jackmax

    One thing I've learnt since this debate started is the Corby camp have only heart strings to pull as all their evidence amount to nothing when examined thoroughly.
    Why do you think doco and myself have worked so hard on defending our countries reputation so rigorously...
    For me as so as the Corby family went to the media and told the Australian public how they are just an honest family of Aussie battlers they open the door for we the people to examine that claim which appears to have been just another case of BS they have continually spread from the get go.
    If you look at the post here you may have picked up all our rebuttals can be verified via independent sources yet the expendables have been unable to do so. This documentary opening statement is the first lie and from that point there until the end it is either lying to us manipulating the truth or pulling on the heart string of the gullible. They attack all who show any knowledge of the law or government treaties and have on more than one occasion threatened people who have disagreed with their agenda.
    People like the expendables, women for schapelle and others already mentioned here through out this thread have probably have done as much damage to schapelle as herself and her family have done to her.

  • jackmax

    G'day 6's
    It's a shame that these fools who decide to discredit doco dont do the research required to find the truth as he and I have over the course of this debate.
    If my memory serves me correctly it doco's b'day this week

  • AntiTheist666

    G’day Big J

    When you analyse the psychology of these insults you cannot help but come to the conclusion that they are in fact compliments to docoman and he deserves them. Re his B’day, please give him a loving bump from me.

  • Free4Life

    Sadly ,you're right jaclmax. The times have changed, nowadays war is peace , lie is the new truth , honesty and decency are punishable ,criminals walk free and hard working people get screwed on daily basis. Not my fault, nor yours. Remember the times when Julian was found guilty by our prime minister ( at the time) before any court found him guilty of anything? Same day , different shirt here.

  • Free4Life

    "And speaking of 'the masses'" - isn't that good enough proof of how effective the media is in manipulating the masses?

  • docoman

    This show is exactly that, an attempt through media to manipulate public opinion. That's all the Corby's have had as their defense since the start. The facts are clear when you examine them, remove the BS from both sides and you're left with a family that was caught trying to make illegal money, a girl that's the only one to take the fall. If the police did their job properly there would have been more arrests then just Schapelle over that 4.2kg.

    *as promised, posts left elsewhere.....

  • docoman

    I agree, Julian Assange has not been treated properly by the Australian government, neither did David Hicks. But this is a whole different ball game, and in this case the government did the right thing by Schapelle. She got caught trying to smuggle drugs, not a "political crime" (or like you said, without being convicted of anything like the other two, unlike Schapelle). If the Aus gov. gave all they knew to the Indonesians, they would have caused Schapelle to receive the death penalty instead of 20 years (which in Indonesia is never that long with good behaviour), instead they remained silent on the Corby family and associates to not get her a death sentence, and on more then one occasion since discussed a crime at the PM level asking for leniency and apparently considered prisoner exchanges with the Indonesians.

  • Free4Life

    I sure appreciate that you agree to the fact that the Australian Gov. has a history of taking the wrong side every now and then. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that she was or wasn't guilty. It's just the fact that the whole story reminds me of old communist tactics that work like this : the police would arrest randomly a person, interrogate for days (more like torture) until the person is willing to point out anyone on the street as the criminal they're looking for . Then , if you're lucky enough to be the chosen one (out of the blue) they have a witness and you would be the accused who , in police custody , would have to prove your innocence.Works every time. It looks to me that she wasn't in possession of her bag for quite a while and then arrested and asked to prove her innocence while in police custody.. Wouldn't be reasonable to ask the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that no one had interfered with the content of the bag while the bag was not in her possession? I seriously doubt the fact that even a federal police officer , while in Indonesian police custody could prove himself innocent in a similar situation. If you have any ideas of how to prove that the bag was or wasn't tampered with, I'd surely like to hear it. Cheers

  • Free4Life

    Have you ever been blamed for something just because you've done it before? You know, like the teacher who , without looking , knows it's you because you're the trouble maker? It was supposed to be a trial based on facts not family history. And in all honesty, the footage presented , where the media was pushing her guilt and making fun are real and they are clearly aimed at her supporters .Unfair. Loosing data or recording over after 7 days, at an international airport, unfair again.Like the moon landing. They needed the tapes to record something else, more important than the first moon landing!!! Really? Is there such a shortage of tapes in Australia? Quantas cannot afford to have a decent system in place at an international airport? Or is it just bad luck? So now we have a government who every now and then fails to protect its citizens, the police who didn't do a proper job , Quantas who failed to have a proper security system and the media who's pushing away all that and pushing forward family history ?!?! What next?

  • docoman

    Hello ago Free4life worveys or whatever your latest incarnation is from whichever Expendable member or wannabe member you are.

    You're correct, no one in the same position as Schapelle was in could have proven themselves innocent, because that would be proving what wasn't the case. You can't prove yourself innocent when you're guilty.

    It doesn't really matter what this case does or doesn't remind you or anyone else of, it's the case on it's own merits, so communist fairy tales doesn't do anyone any good in this situation. Or the fairy tale you told about how Schapelle was first questioned.

    OK, so you want to ignore the family history, the fact they were just accused weeks earlier of transporting marijuana to Bali, the lies etc told by the family, the father having handled the boogie board bag days before the trip, the access to and motive for her doing it.

    Ok, we'll forget the family history.. here's a couple problems for Schapelle and her 'story'.

    The 4.2kg of pot was vacuum packed, (the air is sucked out, making it a thinner, much more solid object) in exactly the same shape and size as the boogie board she was also carrying in that bag.

    IF, as is the fraudulent claims are, the drugs were put in by baggage handlers or someone between her checking in and getting her bag in Bali, how did they know the exact size to pack and seal the drugs to before hand? Not all boogie boards are the same size, how'd they 'fluke' it to match hers?

    And Schapelle's own testimony in Court about when it was discovered, and that of the officer. She has another problem with her reaction then, how'd she know what it was before the bag was opened? Before the customs officer could smell it?

    Or Schapelle's connection to people like the convicted pot grower Dave McHugh, and Malcolm McCauley. The same people in the pictures they Corby's have fought to get removed from that book about it, taken with Schapelle at her prison.

    And unlike the fairy tale you make up, Schapelle wasn't alone against the 'machine'. She had her own lawyer, case manager, another lawyer and supporter from Australia, her family, the efforts and offers of QC's and the financial help they did receive as well as what they rejected from the Australian Government.

    She had to answer a Prima facie case, look it up if you don't understand, or read the rest of this thread, it's been explained more then once. There was no legal rail-roading that went on, in fact Schapelle was granted an extra appeal they didn't have to. She had every chance, but couldn't come up with a lie that was convincing enough, and fell back on ad hominem, which isn't a legal defense.

  • docoman

    Irrelevant dribble your first part. Nothing more then ad hominem.
    The rest has already been covered in this thread, as you well know. Read it all and you'll see if you don't.
    What's next? Well, the lying, dirty criminal family will make more money out of silly people and even worse media off what they helped do to one of their own. Then she'll get out eventually, and make more money from being busted then they ever did from their crimes.
    Crazy, and as you said, not fair. Criminals gaining from their crimes, but that's the world we live in.

  • Free4Life

    Way, way off with your assessment. Expandable member, wannabe, etc. You're quite hasty to label people for some reason. Was it it such a wrong thing to do to express my opinion that no one in a similar situation, guilty or innocent , wouldn't be able to prove his or her innocence? Apparently you agree !
    You must be aware of the lengths and the effort that those smart criminals (those not in police custody) are willing to spend to keep their business going(i.e cameras and scanning devices on ATM's, watching their pray for days if need be and so on.We all know (or should be aware of) that. Is it then so inconceivable that one may use you as a mule without your knowledge? My opinion is that it is possible. Also my opinion that family history was not relevant as it would not prove or disprove if the bag was tampered with. Did they prove beyond reasonable doubt that the content of the bag was not altered while not in her possession? I say not. That's my view.You can choose to ignore my view and everyone else's view that doesn't fit yours and any argument that may point to a flaw in the process but that wouldn't prove anything apart from the fact that you have a different view .Or that you're paid by the government. Or that you're with the AFP. That's all. Cheers

  • docoman

    Lol, have reading comprehension problems do you? I said I agree it would be hard to prove you're innocent when you are in fact guilty. Nice try putting words in my mouth.

    "Did they prove beyond reasonable doubt that the content of the bag was not altered while not in her possession?"

    Obviously you don't understand the law. Once it's found "in her possession", it's hers, they didn't have to prove how she got it. As you've already been told, look up and understand the law of the case before stating stup1d things. Prima facie is what you need to understand. Look at the whole case and the laws relevant to it.

    So yes, I'll dismiss ignoramuses who wish to ignore all the facts. Ignore the fact that members of her family were accused before she was caught of being involved in selling drugs and transporting it to Bali, ignore the fact she was caught with it on her, ignore the fact it was prepared exactly to go in her bag, ignore the lies told by Schapelle and her family, ignore that she had choices about her legal defense and made bad ones.
    Ignore all that, but come up with some scenario where she's now been studied and used as a mule? The Government or Police or criminals set her up for.... whatever reason they can come up with, like trying to link it to 9/11 etc as this absurd show attempts to. Or like yours in this case, that it is possible because criminals do all sorts of things like scanners on ATM's etc.

    Why were drug people meeting with some family members for drinks, and going to see Schapelle in jail over there? Any drug dealer not involved would wish to distance themselves from a convicted 'mule' in the news headlines, unless of course they're involved and are reassuring her so she remains quiet about them...

    The mistake made was not investigating the bag and it's contents properly. Obviously there were other people also involved that escaped charges, that time.
    Are you aware that the latest of Schapelle's 'self appointed' lawyers helping the family, this one from Brisbane, also fell out of favor with the family when she said she thought they were likely Micheal Corby's drugs? (the fathers)
    Look closely at all the facts, they make a much more solid picture then BS stories about government set ups or BS of the like...

    If you're here to enjoy TDF, watch and comment on more then just Corby here, then welcome.

    If you're just another one (if you read the thread you'll see multiple examples) that signed up just to spread lies on this thread, then you'll get the same response from me as the others have. For every one here, I'll post at least 2 elsewhere. If it's an attempt to use TDF as part of a media blitz to spread BS, I'll make sure it's a negative effect having come here. Your choice.

  • jackmax

    You can't honestly believe that you can compare Julian Assange with Schapelle Corby.
    Schapelle was found in possession of 4.2kgs of pot in her boogie board bag.
    It would appear that you have a lot to say without much substance, if you had anything constructive to input into this thread you have missed the mark.
    Your reply seems to be missing the answers to my questions, are they too hard or did you think that by p1ssing in my pocket I might treat you with less contempt than the other Corby supporters?

  • Free4Life

    You really missed the point there. Who is comparing the two? I was pointing out that if the government failed to treat properly one of it's citizens, it wouldn't be the first time. If by " anything constructive to input " you mean 100 % agree with you, then thanks but no thanks. Obviously , from your perspective anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot, " thick as a brick " or a Colby supporter. With such powerful arguments you can only win the debate. And by the way, the p1ss in your pocket is not mine.Are you sure it's just in your pocket? Cheers

  • docoman

    If you're not just another new Expendable sign-up, then prove it. Go through the evidence, show me where Schapelle has to be innocent. Show where this show is correct, and the link already offered up debunking this show is incorrect.

    If you can show me that Schapelle HAS to be innocent, you'll convert me, and I'll do whatever I can to help her be released.

    I'm not a newcomer to the case though, so there is a lot you'll have to explain or show isn't true. Read the books or the links and law on it have you? I've done quite a bit of research now. You'll also need to engage on other topics and threads here on TDF if you're for real.

    Otherwise you'll just show that you're another of the 'Expendable' group of loonies, hanger-on'ers and wannabe's that don't have the capacity or willingness to understand basic facts. A UFO chaser, a psychiatric nurse ( is, or needs, I'm undecided), or a dumba$$ed, 'babble without a cause' POM until he found and fell for the Schapelle story. There's a few more around here, people that don't care about the truth but fell for a 'heart-string' con. If you look at one of the associated links, it was 'women for Schapelle' I believe, it had trumped up numbers manufactured largely through new facebook memberships, and has pulled pic's from dating sites to help create an image of more support then is the factual truth. Hence my response to you, a brand new commenter, only on this topic.

    Seen the BS this group is up to have you? Either they don't realise it, or don't care, but they're actually harming Schapelle's chances of getting out as soon as possible. Shame on you if you have, have a look and investigate for yourself if you haven't.
    Somehow, judging by your name here, I doubt you will. :( I'd like it if you proved me wrong.

  • jackmax

    "Who is comparing the two" you ask!!!
    As you're the one who mentioned Julian in the first place and then went on and said " Same day , different shirt here." It would appear that you did..

    I don't want anybody to agree with me, that's up to them. By all means debate or disagree with me all you like as I'll enjoy any discussion with anyone on this topic. After watching this doco and the follow up research that has been carried out by myself and docoman to debunk this doco has now convinced me of her guilt.
    I see you have failed in answering my question. Why is that ? Would it be that if answered honestly your opinion may also appear to be flawed.
    I look forward to your answers to my questions as it will show me what type of person I'm dealing with in many ways.

  • Free4Life

    "Who is comparing the two" - Again, my point was that the government decided that she was guilty before the court did. Same as with Julian.My opinion. If you believe they did their best,your choice. I can accept that.
    "I don't want anybody to agree with me", nice ! Then stop calling people names and attacking them for having a different view. I respect the fact that you've researched the issue and put forward a documented point of view so that others can see it and judge for themselves. Some will agree with it , some will disagree. And sometimes even when one is 100% right, can be wrong. Am I here to prove Schapelle innocent? NO. I was pointing out things that didn't look 100% fair to me. There's a big difference between knowing for sure someone is guilty and being able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, would you agree with that? What if that scenario is true and tomorrow you end up with something in your bag and sentenced to life in prison? Would you say that they have to prove it is yours?
    Are you honestly telling us that if the AFP would have found that there is a drug syndicate using airports they would just take the blame and admit it? Really?Would you?
    And even if they did find something and admit it , would it be of any help at all for one in a similar situation? My guess is not.

  • jackmax

    I'll answer you in point form so you may be able to follow and understand....

    1. Can you provide me with the evidence that the Aust gov did anything untowards the Corby case? From what I've read, the government did as the laws require them to do and in fact by not providing the information by invoking the MAT actually saved her from the death penalty, as although the prosecution had not asked for the death penalty the courts never took that option of the table of possible punishments. That is one of the reasons the government acted in that manner.

    2. Can you point out where I called anyone names?

    3. Math in not your strong point as in if your 100% right you're completely right, with no wrong.

    4. As I have traveled overseas several times as she had you are very aware of the international laws on drug trafficking and the penalties of other nations. I would never put myself in that situation as after packing my bags I would place a lock on it so prevent any tampering whilst in the custody of the airline I was traveling.

    5. You stated " I was pointing out things that didn't look 100% fair to me." What part of this doesn't look fair, the fact that she was found guilty or the 20 year sentence?
    If it's the trial what part of the trial wasn't fair to Scharpelle?

    6. Why would the AFP take the blame for a drug syndicate operating and using the aircraft as a transports option. Your accusations towards the AFP are unfounded and quite foolish to imply. If your right all syndicates that use the marine ports aren't to blame the AFP is.

    7. If you had done your research as we have done you would know that the day Scharpelle's party left Aust, the AFP were conducting a major international cocaine syndicate. As they were conducting an investigation on a major international cocaine bust with internal security problems being investigated at the same period in which lead to multiple charges being laid including the second in charge of the NSW crime commission.

  • docoman

    What argument pointing to a flaw in the process? You haven't pointed out diddly squat but your own, uneducated feelings about the case, even though you've repeatedly now been pointed in the correct direction to gain an education on the legal aspects of her case. She was caught with it on her, found guilty and sentenced. The fact that you express a lack of understanding of the law concerning it does not mean there is a flaw in the process, just your understanding.

    And not just because you disagree with my opinion, because the law says you're wrong, but you'd rather BS on about it inaccurately rather than actually learn the law and what you're on about.

    You've stated the Aust Gov. found Schapelle guilty before her trial. How exactly? By offering to pay for 2 QC's? Worth what was it, something like $2000 each per hour? Which was knocked back in favor of an Indonesian lawyer who'd not even handled a big case before.. all because Schapelle thought that lawyer believed her.

    If you think there was a flaw or something done incorrectly or illegally to Schapelle, what exactly was it? So far all you've proposed is fairy tales, or it is POSSIBLE she didn't do it, it's POSSIBLE the conjured defense that it was baggage handlers is correct. (Yes, conjured defense. Her legal help admitted later they invented that defense)
    Learn the relevant laws, you'll see that POSSIBLE does not equate to reasonable doubt as you seem to think.
    It's possible Ivan Milat didn't murder anyone, should he be released on those grounds alone? Care to have him give you a lift somewhere would you? I wouldn't.

  • jackmax

    When are you going to address any of the questions put to you from both docoman and myself.???????? Too hard for you

    Your abusive trolling is the extent of your capabilities and is about the standard i would expect from the "Corby" clan....

  • Free4Life

    Hey docoman, I think you blew it this time. Log off and log back in as docoman not as jackmax. Or stay in as jackmax, go to the comment addressed to you, reply to that one and then log off and log back in. Or just forget about it, relax , have a beer with your imaginary friend and talk to him and have a laugh about the good old times when both of you thought you're experts in international law.

  • docoman

    So you're saying jackmax and myself are the same person are you? lol Silly little girl, my comment to you is awaiting moderator clearance.

  • docoman

    I also see you've not answered any of the questions put to you about the case. Why is that?

  • jackmax

    I don't think we have imaginary friends, however if you would like to involve the MODs they may answer your absurd claim that docoman and myself are the same person.

  • Achems_Razor

    'docoman' 'jackmax' are two different people. NOT the same person.

  • jackmax

    G'day Doco,

    Great link it's a shame your efforts will be wasted on me.....;)

    It would appear they will not try to educate them selves about this subject and realize the failure of her defence and the fact that she was caught with 4.2kgs in her possession, hence the Prima Facie.......

    P.S. Melbourne Storm 68-4 did the donkey (broncos) win?

  • jackmax

    How did you go with link docoman posted did you understand the first two paragraphs sums it up beautifully wouldn't you agree?

    Just to ensure you didn't miss reading Professor Tim Lindsey once more for our reading pleasure....;)

    "The decision by the Denpasar District Court to sentence Schapelle
    Corby to 20 years in jail was not surprising, given the evidence against
    her.

    The prosecution established a prima facie case against her relatively easily. There was no dispute that the cannabis was in her bag
    when it was opened at Bali's Ngurah Rai Airport. Their witness said Corby had admitted it was hers. She denied this - as might be expected, regardless of whether she was guilty or innocent."

    I would find your argument void of any substance now just by that paper alone, but as your type will go down fighting a losing battle than admit your wrong and have been sucked in by the Corby's emotional heart string efforts to avoid what could have been a lot worse outcome with only one member of the family doing jail time......I suggest you invite all your "Friends" around to give them the sad news that they have been wasting their time on that cause and should start throwing there passion behind a worthwhile cause that our future generations may benefit from... I'm sure many great causes could your militant stance on issues ranging from children's cancer to saving the whales from the Japanese whaling voyages down in the Antarctic seas.

  • docoman

    Which photo's of the packed weed would that be? The one's in court, AFTER it had been found and opened? lol

    Go have a look at what the customs officer, I Gusti Nyoman Winata, said happened. You'll see he clearly said it was vacuum packed when it was first discovered, in a way that made it look like a boogie board when it was in the bag. When he asked Schapelle what it was, she answered 'Marijuana' straight away, before the customs officer himself had even smelt it. He also said he opened the vacuum sealed bag to investigate what was in it.

    Then have a look at Schapelle's own testimony in court about when she was caught. You'll see a liar in action, having trouble keeping her version straight.

    Why would it be packed into a vacuum seal plastic bag, and then not vacuum sealed? Is it more likely the Customs Officer is telling the truth, or the discovered drug trafficker? The evidence backs the Customs officer.

    So what pictures are you talking about exactly? How, exactly, can you tell "it had never been vacuum packed"? Please provide your evidence that shows the statements of Customs Officer Winata were false, and your claims are correct.

    And you'll see that the apology was amending the show Lateline stating some things as fact, instead of allegations. They still said the 'new evidence suggests' M.Corby's involvement in the drug trade. As he has died and it wasn't proven in Court, that's what they'll likely remain, allegations. It is, as stated by Lateline in your link to their apology, still evidence suggesting M.Corby's involvement.

    Care to comment on M. Corby's cousin Allan Trembath and his claims about M.Corby Snr? About how it was known and had caused friction in their family about M.Corby's involvement with drugs, or his claim that M.Corby had offered him money to transport some Marijuana for him.

    And how T.Lewis and M.Corby were best mates, had known each other for years, used to work in the mining industry together, how it wasn't chance they owned adjoining properties.
    I have a copy of the book 'Sins of the Father', with the photos the Corby's fought to have removed. (over copyrights to the photo's. Why did they want so badly to have all those taken out of the book?)
    They prove T.Lewis is a liar, he was not busted with, as he called it, 'outdoor, bush weed'. The police photos of the T.Lewis bust clearly show indoor cultivation.
    The photo's also show Schapelle with Malcolm McCauley and Dave McHugh in prison during her trial, in more then just one spot, clearly talking more then just saying 'hello, good luck'. Self professed 'Schapelle supporters', and now, after their charges and convictions, and own statements, known Marijuana drug trade participants. (a grower and a dealer). As well as photos of them drinking at a bar with R.Corby, and photos outside the prison with R.Corby, seemingly all very friendly, more then just a 'hello' from some random supporters. And the manufactured reason for the drug trade participants visit, the letter Schapelle wrote to McCauleys granddaughter. (which also shows Schapelle's complicit actions in the whole saga)
    Also Malcolm McCauley and his claim he delivered the drugs to M.Corby the day before Schapelle left for Bali. (remembering who had the boogie board bag, supposedly to 'fix' it, just before the fateful trip? M.Corby.)

    And why did the cops bust Tony Lewis? As already shown, based on the statement given to the police by Kim Moore, about T.Lewis and M.Corby and their involvement in the drug trade.
    They found 197 MJ plants, cash, and
    vacuum packed bags of Marijuana stored in T.Lewis' freezer. And you think that's 'not of any major interest anyway'. Lol, it is when the statement by Kim Moore was at least partly proven to be correct when they busted T.Lewis. And I do find it of major interest when someone, just weeks before Schapelle got caught, informed Qld Police that her father M.Corby was part of a drug syndicate shipping marijuana to Bali. A few weeks later his daughter just happens to get caught trying to enter Bali with marijuana. Of no interest? lol.

    Yes, it did make the news headlines... what do you think the show Lateline is, for starters? lol. Again, they didn't retract their story, just apologised for stating some things as fact and not allegations. The evidence still remains. Far from a retraction, it was an amendment for legal reasons is all that apology was about, nothing about the evidence itself, just some of their wording in the story.

    How do you know what the police do and don't investigate?
    What evidence do you have that the police never investigated M.Corby? Again, please provide your evidence. You and I have already been down that track, you have already shown you have no knowledge of what the police do and don't investigate.

    Would you care to comment on Kerry Smith-Douglas' comments? She's an Australian solicitor who was working pro bono for the Corbys, who was dropped by the Corbys when she said on raido, "It would not surprise me if her father has done this", after the evidence contained in the book 'Sins of the Father' came to light. Or Ms. Smith-Douglas' statement she made on Channel 9, "I'm disgusted this didn't all come out during her court case in Bali."
    Even a lawyer working for the Corbys can see the Corby family is not the clean, innocent people they've claimed they are.
    For another example, the Australian lawyer Robin Tampoe's comment , (hired by Ron Bakir to help with the case during the trial), after the verdict, to the documentary 'Ganja Queen', "They put the wrong Corby in jail." I'd say the comments by the lawyers are quite telling, coming from people with the closest, intimate knowledge of the case.

    No wonder they dropped Smith-Douglas like a hot rock... she made the mistake of speaking honestly her thoughts on the family and the conclusion the evidence clearly led her to. Something the Corby clan obviously have a problem with, the truth of what the evidence points to. That families guilt.
    The evidence you want to just dismiss as not of any major interest. Lol, that was the best laugh I've had all day, thanks for that Worveys.

    Off to comment on other Corby sites now, as promised. ;)

  • Jack F. Jordan

    This is pathetic, this documentary's use of terms 'truth', 'fact' and 'actual evidence' is at best, insultingly weak. This is a truther, conspiracy style documentary, its content surely cannot be believed by a thinking person. Let's not forget we all enjoy a conspiracy theory over no theory at all.

  • Worveys

    And I suppose again, I'll just have to spell it out for you...

    The ABC waited until after Mr Corby was dead, to come out with their lies on Lateline. Exploiting a legal loophole in Australian law, which allows them to defame the deceased, without fear of any major repercussions.
    Look up "Dead men can't sue"

    If a statement naming him, really had been given to police even before Schapelle was arrested ...then surely he would've been of major interest to them, when his daughter was arrested overseas with 4 kilos in her bag.
    This would surely be enough to warrant an arrest for him. Don't you think...?
    Does Lateline mention anything about Mr Corby being arrested by police, on suspicion of drug trafficking, at any time in the saga...?
    No ...it would be a bit hard to fabricate a whopper like that, since it could be so easily checked.

    Mr Corby never was named or arrested or investigated in relation to the stuff found in Bali, or any other drug trafficking matters. Given the very high profile nature of this case ...the ABC, and the rest of the media would surely have known about it ...and would've been in a frenzy, bringing the details to us.

    And the media would've found out about it much earlier. Back in late '04 ...or '05 or '06.
    And if it were true, they would've been free to report it back then ...when Mr Corby was alive.

    And that's when we would've heard about it. In all of the media.

    NOT in 2008 ...nearly 4 years after the alleged event, in one dodgy Lateline broadcast ...that was timed to be put to air, just a few months after Mr Corby had passed away.

    After the ABC had to apologise, the rest of the media apparently decided not to run with this "information".
    We never heard from this "informant" ever again...

    Do you get it now?
    Learn how to employ deductive thinking, docoman.

  • Worveys

    When you view The Primary Smear report (see link in my earlier comment), be sure to click on "2.3 Lateline - The sources" ...and all the other red links referring to Lateline
    ...and McCauley, who's story was described as "laughable" by SA police.

    The people who made this film have their own website, which surely gets a lot more hits than this thread.
    This makes me wonder ...why they would spend their time and energy creating multiple accounts to post here ...at this little site, which is only just one of many ...all over the internet, where this film is mirrored.

    So what do you hope to achieve by guarding this thread ...and with all of your promised postings elsewhere?
    What do you hope to achieve with all your little winky faces ;) and LOLs...?

    Besides demonstrating how utterly obsessed and desperate you are to defend an online ego ...which has become heavily invested in a position, that requires a lot of defending...?

    You are drawing attention to the untenability of your position ...and your desperation.

  • Worveys

    There was no activity on this thread for a few months, until I posted a comment at the top.
    It wasn't even sent to you docoman, but obviously you check this thread regularly ...and sure enough ...a few days later you respond.
    And within the same hour, another profile not seen here before, just happens to show up ...and agree with you.
    Yeah ...you're becoming quite predictable.

    Your sock-puppet show is insulting weak, docoman.
    Just as weak as the Australian media's amateur propaganda techniques, which have so easily affected you.

  • docoman

    Care to take your false claims up with the Mods, yet again??
    For about the, what, 4th time now? Lol.
    And your post started with, "The video linked to by the previous poster..."
    As if you weren't talking to, or about me. Hahahaha.

  • docoman

    Haha, nice try worveys. A nice strawman argument you've constructed, to try to hide behind. My lol's are at you. You and your id1otic claims amuse me.
    Ad hominem is all you have left? Lol.

  • docoman

    SA Police??
    So on the one hand you claim M.Corby was never investigated by police... but then say SA Police found stories about M.Corby "laughable"
    So which is it? Was M.Corby investigated by Police or not? You can't have it both ways, although you do try.

    And your whole 'not arrested means not investigated' argument is, like the rest of your position, based on wishes and not facts.

    Fact... the police can investigate someone without arresting them.
    Fact.. the police do not tell everyone what they do and don't investigate.
    Fact... you don't know what the Police, either any of the State or Federal, investigated.

    Just because M.Corby wasn't arrested does not make him completely guilt free, or mean he wasn't investigated, unlike your disjointed and wishful thinking attempts to claim.

  • docoman

    So that is all your evidence?? LOL.
    Your highly qualified, expert, knowledgeable feelings, based all on photo's taken after it was opened. And yes, the pic at 0:18 does look like it had been vacuum packed to fit the bag. NOT, as you try to claim, just a loose bag of buds.

  • docoman

    That's all you have?? Hahahaha.

  • docoman

    @ Mods

    This is about the 4th time Worveys has accused myself of posting under more then just the name docoman here.
    I've seen Worveys be told by more then one Moderator, on more then one occasion, that it is not the case.

    I request these false accusations be put to rest. How many times does Worveys have to be told, and how many times do I have to put up with the off-topic, ad hominem attacks? Personally, I think 5 is more then enough.
    You'll see if you read it all, that is the modus operandi of others on this thread earlier on, not me.

  • over the edge

    you are right and now he is banned

  • docoman

    Thank you edge.

  • docoman

    They didn't withdraw the story at all, they amended it to say 'accusations' more clearly. You're right, it is quite simple really, so why do you try to make out it's more then it was.

  • Jean Ween

    She is guilty. She is not unusual in any sense from the many young Australians found guilty of drug trafficking every year in South East Asia. Most Australian residents caught and found guilty of drug crimes in Asia face mandatory death sentences, and the government can do little to intervene, except to insure a fair trial is undertaken. Corby received ridiculous amounts of media coverage, most sympathetic and sensationally biased, a smaller amount, fair and balanced. The bias towards her I might add. Her supposed "home spun attractiveness", youth, whiteness, and being a woman, endeared her to mainstream Australia, and bought her doe eyed melodramatics an unproportional amount of mainstream media coverage. Rather than being hard done by, or a victim of dubious judicial competance, she garned the benefit of the doubt in a big way, and used tear jerked, mascara soaked pleas of innocent damsel in distress mode to plead her victimhood. I do not agree that such crimes are fairly dealt with on the whole, especially in our parts of Asia. The harsh penalties for drug crimes are an outrage as far as I am concerned, but Australians have a long history of facing horrendous penalties for our drug related escapades in the region. The death penalty is commonly applied to Australian citizens overseas in drug crimes, but our western notions of specialness insure our young risk takers will bear serious consequences to drug use and traffick, as we foolishly believe "it won't happen to nice white folk like us". This is a waste of space, and a complete joke as far as a conspiracy theories go.