Schapelle Corby look at these facts

[ufo_investigations]

I'm not saying either way whether she was innocent or guilty but check out this excerpt below:

"In May, 2005, baggage handlers at Sydney Airport were arrested and accused of being paid $300,000 to help smuggle a briefcase of almost 10kg of cocaine. And the date of that was October 8, 2004 - the same day that Corby and her luggage were transiting from Brisbane, through Sydney airport to Bali. Corby's legal team said this added weight to the theory."

http://www.news.com.au/national/schapelle-corby-has-been-centre-of-attention-for-nine-years/story-fn...

I don't understand why the Indonesian legal system did not take this into account. Do we have any law students here? Surely if police caught corrupt workers at the airport on the same day Schapelle was arrested should ring alarm bells? Yes or No?  I think it is reasonable to suspect corrupt baggage handlers could have had something to do with it, maybe? Is this enough proof? Beyond reasonable doubt?

How can anyone be found guilty of an airport drug crime on the same day and route that corrupt airport workers were busted for trying to smuggle drugs? Why was this not important to police prosecutors? Anyone know?

[debra9275]

I remember that too UFO, but Indonesian laws are different to ours, I guess in their view, possession was 9/10's of the law despite anything else that came to light during her trial

[ufo_investigations]

According to wikipedia this is what it says about - Presumption of Innocence:

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.

[lyndal1838]

While that principle is applied in many countries, the question is whether it is recognised in Indonesia.

I seem to remember at the time the Federal Police informed Indonesia of the facts but the reply was something along the lines that it was nothing to do with them.

Some of the court procedures were very much at odds with the Australian system too.

Whether she is guilty or not, she did not get a fair trial according to our system and it has also been said that there were some Indonesian procedures that were not followed properly.

[*crikey*mate*]

Indonesian Law places the Burden of proof on the prosecution. This means that the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

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".

The Court procedures were different because the legal systems are different

The absence of juries is a feature of the European-derived Civil Law tradition, which is followed by most countries, including Indonesia.

The common law jury system - followed by former British colonies like Australia - is less prevalent, and even in Australia most criminal matters are dealt with at the District (magistrate's) Court level, where most defendants waive their right to a jury.

The Civil Law process is more like a coronial inquest in our system. The main role of the panels of three judges who preside over trials is to "discover the truth" about whether the alleged crime was committed and, if so, whether it was the accused who committed it.

Although prosecutors and defence lawyers can put their arguments to judges and ask questions of witnesses as they do in Australia, judges can also freely ask questions of witnesses and call their own witnesses.

Under common law, the judges are restricted to enforcing the rules of evidence,

[the_bob_delusion]

I know this is circumstantial evidence but you have to consider yourself pretty unlucky that both your dad and brother are drug heads/dealers. 

[darksideofthemoon]

In France, if I remember correctly, you are gulty until proven innocent  

There is so much controvery about Schapelle that one has to wonder what was going on.  

[azureline**]

---

@**freethinker_bob** wrote:

I know this is circumstantial evidence but you have to consider yourself pretty unlucky that both your dad and brother are drug heads/dealers. 

---

The Qld police actually made a statement negating this issue, the dad has never been charged with anything beyond a traffic infringement(I think?) and her brother was a child under the age of 18 at the time.

If you assume the dad was in fact the guilty party, since he had a terminal illness, and he obviously loved his daughter, I think he might have confessed to placing it in her bag without her knowledge.

[tasfleur]

Good morning Darkie xxx

No matter what, I am really glad she is going to get her freedom now ... 

[boris1gary]

the fact is she was caught with illegal drugs in her possession.