Tweet
There was enough evidence to convict Schapelle Corby, but not enough evidence to suggest that she was innocent. This does not mean that she isn't innocent, and under a jury system, she may have been freed (or at the very least, a mis-trial) - this is what's good and also what's bad about a jury system, in that these are people with emotions making emotional decisions, not necessarily legal ones. But then again, sometimes you need to take emotions into account (or gut feeling) about whether someone is innocent or guilty.
I don't know enough about the Robert Blake trial, but with the O.J. trial, the prosecution didn't help things at all with the evidence they presented (does the glove fit, racist cop witness and and all that). And O.J. had a good lawyer - his Chewbacca defense was what won the case, IMO.
The problem with Schapelle Corby's case is that if she says that someone put drugs in her bags without her knowing, but without enough hard evidence to suggest someone planted the drugs (as least the media hasn't mentioned any that I've heard about), her statement means nothing. If the judges let her off, then every drug smuggler in the future will say exactly the same thing, point to the Corby case, and get off scot free.
I just wonder if an Indonesian came over to Australia with drugs in his/her bag, claiming someone planted it there (as would almost everyone in this situation), would the Australian legal system not convict this person? Australia might have to let this person and every person like him/her go free as well if Schapelle Corby was freed (and you can be sure the Indonesians will demand their citizens to be freed with vigour), and I think that's a bad direction to go into for both Australia and Indonesia. I do agree that Schapelle Corby should serve her sentence here in Australia though, and Indonesian prisoners here in Australia should be given a choice to stay here or go back to an Indonesian jail.
What I really don't like is all the people here in Australia claiming Schapelle is innocent (I think 92% said she is innocent in a poll), that we should boycott going to Bali, that we should ask Indonesia to pay back the Tsunami aid money and that the judge should let Schapelle free because of the nine Australians who died during the Tsunami aid work (IMO, it's a bit cheap to use other people's death to your own advantage). Only two kind of people can make say for certain that Schapelle Corby is innocent or guilty: people who have heard all the evidence (which most Australians haven't) and the people who are part of the drug smuggling ring.
And for the Jackson trial, you can watch re-enactments on pay TV here in Australia (E! channel and also on Sky News Interactive for those with Foxtel Digital) if you wish. I think all the evidence, and analysis, are presented. I just watched Jay Leno testify - they have some pretty good celebrity impersonators.
I don't know enough about the Robert Blake trial, but with the O.J. trial, the prosecution didn't help things at all with the evidence they presented (does the glove fit, racist cop witness and and all that). And O.J. had a good lawyer - his Chewbacca defense was what won the case, IMO.
The problem with Schapelle Corby's case is that if she says that someone put drugs in her bags without her knowing, but without enough hard evidence to suggest someone planted the drugs (as least the media hasn't mentioned any that I've heard about), her statement means nothing. If the judges let her off, then every drug smuggler in the future will say exactly the same thing, point to the Corby case, and get off scot free.
I just wonder if an Indonesian came over to Australia with drugs in his/her bag, claiming someone planted it there (as would almost everyone in this situation), would the Australian legal system not convict this person? Australia might have to let this person and every person like him/her go free as well if Schapelle Corby was freed (and you can be sure the Indonesians will demand their citizens to be freed with vigour), and I think that's a bad direction to go into for both Australia and Indonesia. I do agree that Schapelle Corby should serve her sentence here in Australia though, and Indonesian prisoners here in Australia should be given a choice to stay here or go back to an Indonesian jail.
What I really don't like is all the people here in Australia claiming Schapelle is innocent (I think 92% said she is innocent in a poll), that we should boycott going to Bali, that we should ask Indonesia to pay back the Tsunami aid money and that the judge should let Schapelle free because of the nine Australians who died during the Tsunami aid work (IMO, it's a bit cheap to use other people's death to your own advantage). Only two kind of people can make say for certain that Schapelle Corby is innocent or guilty: people who have heard all the evidence (which most Australians haven't) and the people who are part of the drug smuggling ring.
And for the Jackson trial, you can watch re-enactments on pay TV here in Australia (E! channel and also on Sky News Interactive for those with Foxtel Digital) if you wish. I think all the evidence, and analysis, are presented. I just watched Jay Leno testify - they have some pretty good celebrity impersonators.
Comment