Schapelle – guilty?
As I’ve previously stated in this blog, the evidence that could have conclusively proved Schapelle innocent or guilty was deliberately, and with merriment, ignored or contaminated by the Bali authorities on the night of her arrest.
There are some solid indicators of innocence. For all that there are undoubtedly two solid pieces of evidence against her. That (1) she was in possession, and (2) Bali authorities testified to a guilty reaction from Schapelle when they went to open her bag. So I am constantly amazed that so many of Schapelle’s detractors seem to be endlessly trying to come up with the 'really convincing' evidence against her. Here are some of those arguments, and their refutations:
Her defence was weak, with no real evidence, only that criminal with his hearsay evidence.
Refutation: Of course it was weak. The authorities either failed to collect, or contaminated, all the good evidence. But tell me, would you still think the defence was weak if the arrest had been properly handled, and as a result the defence had been able to show that a Brisbane baggage-handler’s print was on the cannabis bag or that the weight of the boogie board bag had increased by 4.1 kg between Brisbane and Bali.
A weight difference of 4-5 kilos on a boogie board bag would have been noticed by an innocent person.
Refutation: Worthless speculation. That is the type of thing that gets noticed by people who notice things like that. The argument is not fit for a courtroom or for intelligent argument. In any event, James did most of the carrying in Bali.
The drug parcel was almost exactly the same dimensions as the boogy board bag.
Refutation: A worthless speculative argument that would be laughed out of court, and rightly so. The drug parcel was a reasonable fit as you would expect since the smugglers had a choice of hundreds of bags. It would have also comfortably fitted in any average suitcase filled to less than than two thirds capacity. Not surprisingly, as a relatively soft parcel it partially took the shape of the boogie board bag.
The drugs were not intercepted by a third party recipient. Why wouldn’t the ‘baggage handlers have picked then up in Sydney.
Refutation: It’s only speculation on my part, but one possible reason is that the Sydney Airports were crawling with police looking to arrest the international cocaine smugglers. But there could be millions of reasons. Maybe the pickup man had a flat tire on the way to work, or a bad migraine.
Ms Corby has at various times claimed that the board had been tampered with in both Bali and in Australia. Sounds like she makes it up as she goes along.
Refutation: Ms Corby has claimed nothing of the kind. She has no idea how the drugs got in her bag. Her defence team came up with the domestic smuggling theory. It's worth pointing out that this is the exact reason that it was so difficult for Schapelle to convince the court of her innocence – because they required her to explain how the drugs got in her bag. Something which an innocent person could not possibly do.
She admitted that the bag was hers when she was arrested. How come she denies it now? Is she stupid or something?
Refutation: No, she certainly isn’t. Right from the start, and consistently thereafter, Schapelle clearly stated that the boogie board bag was hers, and the cannabis bag was not.
There are big profits to be made from importing Australian marijuana to Bali, because Australians will pay extra to by Australian-quality marijuana and would prefer to buy from an Australian so as not to be sprung by the Bali police.
Refutation: This argument comes from an article by Matthew Moore in which he cunningly compares the wholesale price in Oz with the retail price in Bali. In fact, the prices for high quality dope are very similar, probably reflecting a balance between Bali’s harsher penalties and the ready availability of lower quality dope in Bali. Not that I’m conceding for a moment that the ‘Corby’ dope was of high quality. It was never tested despite Schapelle’s documented request to the court that this be done.
The other argument is that Aussies would prefer to buy from Aussies. Good theory but Bali tourists will tell you without exception that the people trying to sell drugs are Indonesians, not Aussies. This is probably because any Aussie selling drugs would stand out like dogs’, and could expect to be arrested and facing death penalty charges within hours.
There are some solid indicators of innocence. For all that there are undoubtedly two solid pieces of evidence against her. That (1) she was in possession, and (2) Bali authorities testified to a guilty reaction from Schapelle when they went to open her bag. So I am constantly amazed that so many of Schapelle’s detractors seem to be endlessly trying to come up with the 'really convincing' evidence against her. Here are some of those arguments, and their refutations:
Her defence was weak, with no real evidence, only that criminal with his hearsay evidence.
Refutation: Of course it was weak. The authorities either failed to collect, or contaminated, all the good evidence. But tell me, would you still think the defence was weak if the arrest had been properly handled, and as a result the defence had been able to show that a Brisbane baggage-handler’s print was on the cannabis bag or that the weight of the boogie board bag had increased by 4.1 kg between Brisbane and Bali.
A weight difference of 4-5 kilos on a boogie board bag would have been noticed by an innocent person.
Refutation: Worthless speculation. That is the type of thing that gets noticed by people who notice things like that. The argument is not fit for a courtroom or for intelligent argument. In any event, James did most of the carrying in Bali.
The drug parcel was almost exactly the same dimensions as the boogy board bag.
Refutation: A worthless speculative argument that would be laughed out of court, and rightly so. The drug parcel was a reasonable fit as you would expect since the smugglers had a choice of hundreds of bags. It would have also comfortably fitted in any average suitcase filled to less than than two thirds capacity. Not surprisingly, as a relatively soft parcel it partially took the shape of the boogie board bag.
The drugs were not intercepted by a third party recipient. Why wouldn’t the ‘baggage handlers have picked then up in Sydney.
Refutation: It’s only speculation on my part, but one possible reason is that the Sydney Airports were crawling with police looking to arrest the international cocaine smugglers. But there could be millions of reasons. Maybe the pickup man had a flat tire on the way to work, or a bad migraine.
Ms Corby has at various times claimed that the board had been tampered with in both Bali and in Australia. Sounds like she makes it up as she goes along.
Refutation: Ms Corby has claimed nothing of the kind. She has no idea how the drugs got in her bag. Her defence team came up with the domestic smuggling theory. It's worth pointing out that this is the exact reason that it was so difficult for Schapelle to convince the court of her innocence – because they required her to explain how the drugs got in her bag. Something which an innocent person could not possibly do.
She admitted that the bag was hers when she was arrested. How come she denies it now? Is she stupid or something?
Refutation: No, she certainly isn’t. Right from the start, and consistently thereafter, Schapelle clearly stated that the boogie board bag was hers, and the cannabis bag was not.
There are big profits to be made from importing Australian marijuana to Bali, because Australians will pay extra to by Australian-quality marijuana and would prefer to buy from an Australian so as not to be sprung by the Bali police.
Refutation: This argument comes from an article by Matthew Moore in which he cunningly compares the wholesale price in Oz with the retail price in Bali. In fact, the prices for high quality dope are very similar, probably reflecting a balance between Bali’s harsher penalties and the ready availability of lower quality dope in Bali. Not that I’m conceding for a moment that the ‘Corby’ dope was of high quality. It was never tested despite Schapelle’s documented request to the court that this be done.
The other argument is that Aussies would prefer to buy from Aussies. Good theory but Bali tourists will tell you without exception that the people trying to sell drugs are Indonesians, not Aussies. This is probably because any Aussie selling drugs would stand out like dogs’, and could expect to be arrested and facing death penalty charges within hours.
posted by True Blue at 12:23 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home