Talk:Schapelle Corby/Archive 1

message: Someone's gone through and vandalised the article by inserting random gibberish. Think I've got rid of most of it. - M.C. Brown Shoes
:what about the astrology links?  what gives? --Morbid-o 12:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random gibberish 

message: Read the article carefully. Downer actually suggests that it is positive that she has had her sentence reduced from death. He does not say it can be reduced. The ABC interprets him that way. For Downer's stance on the trial, which far from being particularly positive, is diplomatic, see . It should be clear from that that while the gov't don't want Schapelle to be killed, and you can probably conclude they don't want her to have life for the crime, they are happy to allow Indonesia to make its own decision. What he says they are doing is trying to make sure she has as fair a trial as possible. Grace Note 02:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downer's remarks 

message: It is my understanding that Ford has no previous convictions.  This I recall from previous reports.  I just had a look and couldn't find any documents confirming this either way.  I have removed the claim he is a "many times convicted criminal" pending a supporting report (either way).  Robertbrockway 06:09 Apr 24 2005 (UTC)
:Sorry, yes, confused him with Vigenser. Ford is yet to be convicted of anything. My apologies. Grace Note 07:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Defence Case 

message: What is a beauty therapist? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 17:25, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
:HTH. Grace Note 23:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beauty therapist 

message: Defense is American English, while defence is used in all other English-speaking countries.  Note the latter redirects to the former.  The last edit changed the former to the latter; which is appropriate here?  Stephen Compall 19:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought the Australian spelling was appropriate since the subject of the article is Australian.  Note Wikipedia has no preference - Wikipedia:How_to_copy-edit#Correcting_spelling. --AYArktos 22:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not true about having no preference. We precendent, and in this case, Australian English should prevail. (Or Indonesian English, if there is such a thing). func(talk) 22:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Defense of Spelling 

message: I think a bit of tidying up is needed particularly in the section on conduct of the case - we have two topics: the legal issues and the media reporting both in Austrlaia and Indonesia and we seem to toss backwards and forwards between the two.  In particular the paragraph on the preganancy test is out of place. --AYArktos 00:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article structure 

message: So far 2 people have put the verdict in without realising I'd already done so.  I wish people would read the article before posting :)  If you think the verdict should go somewhere else then remove the other places it is mentioned.
Robertbrockway 04:20 27 May, 2005
:Perhaps, then, a separate section should be created?--Cyberjunkie 08:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading the Article 

message: Something that might be added about the wide involvment of the medias in regard to the case is the fact that last friday in Sydney (the 27th), 3 of the five channels (ABC, 7 & 9) on free TV were showing the verdict live. On the others, network 10 were doing update during the adds and SBS was showing a news program from abroad (as is the regular programing at that time).
This is not meant with any subtext whatsoever, just a good example of the impact the case seem to have had in australia.   --Marc pasquin 01:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media coverage of the verdict 

message: "There are also allegations that the attention and sympathy especially from the Australian public and media may be related to xenophobic sentiment and a unfair mistrust of Asian legal systems. Also, many think there was no motive for Corby to transport marijuana from Brisbane to Bali where the value is far less, and where it is readily available on the street not far from her prison (and even within it), i.e. it would be like smuggling ice to Eskimos."
This seems POV to me.  (Of course, in the interests of full disclosure I believe that she is guilty).
I added some referencing to a Sydney Morning Herald article where it was alleged that Australian marijuana (in particular hydroponically grown marijuana) sold quite well in Bali for a few reasons:
# Indonesian marijuana is quite poor in quality - rich tourists generally prefer the Australian stuff.
# Due to the lack of entrapment laws in Indonesia, tourists can often be caught by Balinese police stings - and so prefer to buy their marijuana off other whites, who are less likely to be members of the Indonesian police.
I can understand the text on the (turns out to be non-lethal) white powder being sent to the embassy being removed.  I believe that even though a link hasn't been established between the two events that this incident will have a bearing on the case, and especially its portrayal (spelling?) in Indonesia, but I can see why the lack of a clear connection between the two events has led to its removal.
That said, I cannot understand why the text on "smuggling ice to Eskimos" is allowed to remain whereas the text from the Sydney Morning Herald, a respected (within Australia at least) news source is not.  If the view that there would be no point smuggling marijuana to Indonesia is allowed to remain, why not the view that there would be a point, especially if that view is put forward by a major Australian newspaper?  The article seems POV and biased in favour of Corby to me.
150.203.2.60 04:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality? 

message: :"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."
The reference linked to at the end of this paragraph, , does note the government's financial assistance for Corby's defence. But it does not state that there was ever any offer of two QCs for the original trial. It only states that the QCs were offered for the appeal. If no one can provide a reference for this other claim, I am going to delete it. --Susurrus 00:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this which disputes the Australian government ever offered any legal help at all. The article also says 'Foreign Minister Alexander said the offer had also been made in the past but was turned down.' -- Longhair | Talk 01:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: That is a trifle vague, but at least it does put forward that claim. I will therefore use that reference as well at the end of the above passage. --Susurrus 02:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous offer of QCs rejected? 

message: Beside Ron bakir registering her name, I read in the magazine "the bulletin" that someone registered "CorbyCase" as a trademark for secure luggage.--Marc pasquin 01:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinoff products 

message: Have removed the following from the intro. Don't think it's true (?), or verified. If it is, please quote source. Also not sure that it deserves such a prominent position.
"At age 17 she became a drug addict that nearly cost her life. It was then that she decided to turn her life around and became a beauty therapist." AndrewMcQ 20:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  from intro 

message: The proliferation of not actually fair - fair use images in this article is pretty bad, and really entirely unnesessary.--nixie 00:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I and one other editor have been pruning external links from this article.  I undertook to one (new) user to open the issue up for discussion.  The link I was particulalrly concerned about was http://fairbloodydinkum.com/ which is to my mind a general link and falls within the category of material covered by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.  Any views?--A  Y  Arktos 23:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors with malicious intent keep removing valid links. They have continually remove the link to the original Schapelle Corby Supporters Forums whilst choosing to leave inactive domains in place. I would like to hear an explanation for this please.Bluetongue 08:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forums are generally not accepted as valid external links. See Wikipedia:External links. Words such as "malicious intent" are also contrary to the assumption of good faith. Please review that also. If you disagree with any other external links in the article, you're welcome to remove them. -- Longhair\talk 08:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Forums are generally not accepted as valid external links" That's a funny thing to say considering some of the links you've chosen to leave in place are also forums. The Wiki is about Schapelle - the forum at www.schapellecorby.com contains not only discussion about Schapelle but also information about her situation. I have been reading this wiki since its establishment and the link in question as been there for months at a time.  Why would you bother to remove that particular link whilst leaving other links that have displayed the default plesk pages for 3+ months. Some of the other links you have chosen to leave have not been updated for 12+ months.  Bluetongue 09:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to assume here you failed to read over assume good faith. Please do so. I reverted the most recent edit, not reviewed the entire article. Now that you've raised the matter, I've remove the entire section titled Corby supporters sites as being unencyclopedic. -- Longhair\talk 09:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, then rather than try to insult people, find something else to do with your time. To continue now after that statement, you would be just a hypocrite. --Merbabu 22:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Both the remaining sites seem to style themselves as "official sites".  Ideally, we should limit ourselves to one official site, but I think we'd survive if it was two.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to be a bit hoist by my own petard, as I had to delete a second link to the same site, this one styling itself as "official evidence."  Given that the support of some Aussies for Corby is part of the story, I have no objection to one, or at most two, support sites being linked to.  However, there is no vacancy.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apropos of anything else, the site is not "Official Evidence", it's a transcript of the same opinion piece published in The Age that is discussed below in "CCTV Mess". Achromatic (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: :Three of Corby's travelling companions testified in court that they had seen Corby pack her bag before leaving for the airport and that only the yellow boogie board and flippers were inside it. They also said that Corby did open the bag herself at the customs counter.
Can someone go through the court records or newspaper reports and identify who these companions were? The fact that they were her travelling companions already implies that there is a good chance they are not reliable witnesses (especially if she really was smuggling and they were all involved or aware). But if they were her relatives, this needs to be mentioned since it makes it seem even more likely that they may lie for her. I guess one was her half-brother, who were the others? Also can anyone check if there were any other travelling companions who did not testify? Nil Einne 06:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Travelling companions 

message: I was disappointed to find this article devoid of any moral outrage over a young, non-violent girl being sentenced to 20 years in prison over possession of cannabis. My own outrage at the stupidity and hypocrisy of the thoughtless cruel self-righteous despots who rule our countries leaves me in no shape to add NPOV edits to this article. Hopefully some compassionate, loving dutch wikipedian; able to see through the lies and clouds of rhetoric can assess what, if, or the nature of bias here. Whatever happens to Schapelle Corby, science will vindicate her for possession of a drug no more dangerous and less addictive than tobacco. Time will vindicate her as collateral damage of an imperialistic US foreign drug policy imposed by kooks, lobbyists and their sockpuppets. Jeff Carr 12:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By "this article", are you referring to the actual Schapelle Corby article, or this, its talk page? Whilst I agree with your views on the war-on-drugs, it would seem that including "moral outrage" on the main article would be POV. But maybe I've misinterpreted your message (?). Cnwb 22:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you even aware of the details of the case? The fact that she had 4.1kg indicates this wasn't a simple case of possession. Assuming it was here, she clearly was importing it for a reason and it seems unlikely to be for personal use. Given that she was importing it into Bali, Indonesia, a tourist haven but also a place were illict drugs are heavily frowned upon, we can assume she wasn't just doing it because she thought cannabis should be legal and wanted to provide people with it as a public duty. We can assume that financial gain was her prime motivator. And however your feelings about cannabis, surely you can see that someone who purposely and knowingly violates the law (whether or not that law is unjust) to make money is hardly someone who deserves our compassion when they get caught. Also, while I'm also reluctant to defend the US and acknowledge they've clearly used drugs as part of their foreign policy, you might be interested to know but most South-East Asian countries that have harsh drug policies have only had limited influence from the US in this matter. Their policies are primarily related to their views on drugs. I don't know what government you're talking about, I guess the Australian since you don't sound Indonesian. But surely you must recognise that the Australian government, even if they had disagreed with the substance of the drug policy (which that trafficking cannabis is wrong), which they don't, have no right really to interfere in a case that occurred in Indoesia. Surely you can see that it is the soverign right of Indonesia to choose to ban substances they feel are harmful to their community whether or not you agree with these decisions. It seems likely Corby was well aware of this ban so it's not as if it was a surprise to her. Really, it appears to me that her and her family are a bunch of profiteering drug traffickers who care little about anyone but themselves and have no qualms about who or what they use, or who gets hurt in the processes. I should add, that my feelings on cannabis are fairly neutral (not strongly supportive of it being illegal, not strongly opposed either). Nil Einne 13:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding this paragraph above (where you ask about knowledge of the case details and criticise the points the guy made) I have several points:
a) having drugs in your bag isn't proof you knew they were there. It's like putting condoms in a granny's trolley at the supermarket and then laughing when she gets to the checkout. They didn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Schapelle knew the drugs were there. For this reason alone, the trial should've returned a no verdict. Specially if you look at point e) below.
b) 4.1kg is way too much for personal use, but...
c) she was unlikely to profit from taking pot to Bali to sell, cos it would sell for less there, and...
d) if she was delivering it to her sister (who lives there), again, it would probably be cheaper for her sister to buy it in Bali, and that would avoid the risk of passing through 2 sets of customs. Not sure how safe or available it is to buy pot there, nor the quality of pot in Bali though.
e) the bag wasn't fingerprinted
f) the pot wasn't tested to find out where it was grown
g) there is clearly a large problem with baggage handlers smuggling various drugs around and into Australia
h) how true are all the allegations of family involvement in pot growing etc. that are on the article page? I hadn't heard some of them before. Are they allegations or have they been proved?
i) She was travelling with family and therefore potentially risking all their freedom if she was caught. unlikely/likely?
j) strolling through customs with a huge bag of drugs isn't the most sophisticated smuggling method for a supposedly experienced drug-using family as the article claims.
k) the sentence was way too long regardless of guilt or innocence
Not wanting to argue the case too much in here, but these are all valid points I believe, therefore it's not unreasonable to ask that more outrage be shown in the article.
SpookyMulder 13:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Your argument is a Negative proof logical fallacy.--76.17.171.199 02:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Her chances of acquittal would have only been marginally better in Australia. I'd put my money on her getting that conviction in an AUstralian court to. --Merbabu 13:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually your quite wrong. In most countries, having over a certain amout of drugs on your possession is accepted as proof of intent to smuggle. It's up to you to either prove that you didn't intend to smuggle or you didn't actually own the drugs and they were planted. Note the car argument is rather different since in this case, it's just your car. Whether or not you were in it is rather difficult to say and it's not unresonable to assume you weren't. Although AFAIK in a number of countries you would in fact be responsible unless the car was stolen (your car, your responsibility I guess). Check out Road-rule enforcement camera and note it says driver identification is only necessary in some jurisdictions. If you weren't driving, you'd have to name the person who was and I guess if the person accepts responsibility, you'd get off. Should the person fail to accept responsibility and it prove impossible to say who was driving, I assume you'd still be held responsible since it's your car (but not really sure about this). I'm not sure what happens if you can prove you weren't driving (e.g. being interviewed on TV at the time) but it's impossible to prove who was and the person you name doesn't accept responsibility. In any case, although it's obviously a rather complicated area of the law, it's clear that it's not universally accepted that they have to prove you were driving (and as I've said, this is rather different from when you're found with something in your possesion anyway) Nil Einne 09:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In any case, if the police catch you with drugs or a body in your car, you'd have to prove that the body or drugs where planted not the police. As for point K, that's bullshit. She's lucky she didn't get the death penalty. Indonesia law has very strict penalties, especially for drug related offenses. This is well established. Point g is also bullshit. I have yet so see any evidence whatsoever that drug smugglers use planes to smuggle drugs domestically/around Australia. As so many people have pointed out, this is rather unlikely since it's a very high risk and there is no need. It's much much easier to use a car, truck, van whatever rather then go through a high security airport. Remember for interstate travel there are no customs. Point c (and also d) is also bullshit. It has been answered by many sources. Simple fact is, there is probably quite a high demand for cannabis in Bali from tourists. However tourists are reluctant to trust Indonesias for fear of police stings. However they'd probably trust a pretty white Aussie girl and they'd likely be more then willing to pay more then they would pay in Australia. Point i also seems a bit irrelevant. Who said her family wasn't involved? Indeed it's been widely speculated the bag actually belonged to one of her companions but she claimed it was hers since she thought they'd be more leniet with her. Point j has some relevance. Then again, a lot of people have done stupid things. It's also possible the drugs were hers or someone elses but she didn't plan to smuggle them to Bali but forgot to take them out or they ended up in the bag by accident. This will also affect a lot of the other points. If this were the case and she had admitted it, she might have gotten a more leniet sentence but she didn't. Really, if you'd read some more neutral sources, you might realise a lot of the arguments her supporters have put up are basically crap. If this is the kind of stuff she was relying on, no wonder she was convicted. Point E and F have some merit. But it comes back to what I was saying earlier and what the article. It was really her fault for relying on lawyers and people who apparently weren't particularly good since they came up with wacky ideas and hearsay rather then concentrating on the problems with the prosecution case (although I personally don't believe there was sufficent problems that a better lawyer would have gotten her off) Nil Einne 09:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If you don't believe the first points I made, check out the Commonwealth of Australia law on drugs  and  Nil Einne 09:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Two other points. The granny-trolly thing is interesting. If you had say a mobile phone in box in your shopping bag that was definitely from the store in question and you leave the store and don't pay for it, AFAIK, the store would not to actually prove you put it there or were aware it was there. Simply having it in your bag is proof enough unless you can come up with resonable evidence to suggest it was put there by someone else. Now obviously if the store caught you on their CCTV camera they'd use that as evidence but if they didn't have any, I doubt you'd get off. Indeed, I suspect even if you admit you put it there but claim you'd intended to purchase it, you still probably wouldn't get off. The same would apply to condoms too except that condoms are a bit more difficult to prove actually came from the store in question or hadn't been paid for (if they were in your wallet or handbag for example, you could just say you keep them there for use which is plausible). You're somewhat right that it's rather difficult to prove that someone else put them there. But this is always going to be the case when you claim something isn't yours. I mean even had her fingerprints been on the bag and the soil used to grow the cannabis matched the soil in her greenhouse, this still wouldn't prove the cannabis was hers (since it's impossible to do so). It's still possible someone used a bag with her fingerprints and grew it on soil that was similar to hers. Perhaps they wanted to set her up or perhaps she'd left a bag inside her boogie board bag which they used. It makes her story seem even less likely but the law never deals in certainties only resonable doubt. And think about it another way. If anyone can come up with some wacky story and you always require forensic evidence to prove something in someone's possesion bellonged to them, then it'll be rather easy for smart criminals (especially in the pre-DNA days). Just take great care when handling your illicit stuff (drugs, guns whatever). You can be very brazen if you want. If you get caught, well just say it's not yours and someone planted it. You don't have to come up with resonable evidence to suggest this was the case. As long as there is no forensic evidence to tie you to the illicit item you get away scot free. Thankfully this is not the way the world works. Having something in your posession is usually sufficient evidence it's yours unless you can provide resonable evidence it's not Nil Einne 10:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, this is not a forum.  If there were mandatory procedures that were violated, and if you have sources for it, see if you can improve the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reefer Madness