This is Schapelle Corby related news. However, the main subject of this little post is Robin Tampoe; a one-time lawyer for Schapelle Corby.
Robin Tampoe (photo courtesy of here) became involved in the Corby case very early on. He provided pretty bad advice, in my opinion, because his own ego required that he piggy back on this case in order to make a name for himself by using someone else's legal predicament to further his career. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, this has backfired in a big way and has in fact ended his legal career as he has been struck off the role of legal practitioners.
The advice was indicative of someone not knowing the intricacies of the Indonesian legal system and also highlighted a substantial lack of understanding of the substantive law that applies in Indonesia. In this sense, the writing was on the wall for Corby as soon as Tampoe became involved. However, the advice is not the reason for his striking off, but rather his conduct as a lawyer and handling of client information.
It was certainly a Forrest Gump kind of a moment in the type "stupid is as stupid does". Simply, Tampoe came into possession of confidential information which he then divulged to the world on TV. This information related to prior criminal convictions among members of the family. After being dumped from the Corby legal team he then went on to add insult to injury by disparaging them in the documentary, "Schapelle Corby - The Hidden Truth", by calling the family "trash".
The Legal Services Commissioner initiated the action based on an allegation that Tampoe breached client confidentiality. In essence, he failed to uphold the lawyer - client privilege that certain communications are subject to. In a written judgment of Justice Roslyn Atkinson of the Queensland Legal Practice Tribunal, Tampoe was found guilty of professional misconduct. Atkinson then ordered that Tampoe be struck off the roll.
On a side note. It is interesting to see that in the current Manohara case two of Indonesia's senior lawyers, Todung Mulya Lubis and OC Kaligis, have left the legal teams of Prince Tengku Temenggong Mohammad Fakhry and Manohara Odelia Pinot respectively, and then gone on to make some disparaging remarks about their former clients relating to their respective intents to resolve that matter. I wonder, any ethics or professional misconduct issues there?
919 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 919 Newer› Newest»Thousands Kay?
Please extrapolate on that!
Who are the 'thousands'?
I doubt 'your thousands'.
To All Commenters...
Thanks for taking this nothing post about Robin Tampoe to 400+ comments. He does not deserve the honour, but such is life.
Kay...
Yes, I sense this too. I think that my comments have always focused on the idea that there are more important things than rehashing the evidence and attempting to retry the case in the media and through blogs and other social networking media.
I have said many times, I just do not see the Indonesians throwing up their collective hands and saying, "You got us, You're right! Ms. Corby is free to go!" Maybe I am wrong on this, I guess in some people's minds.
That is all I have really been saying, or at least I thought it was. She is suffering, perhaps she has suffered enough (no comment on whether she should have suffered), perhaps it is time to explore treatment options. I guess, this is not good enough for some.
Well you don't get to see my mail box! (Ha) Sometimes I think I could do with a full time secretary! :-)
Rob,
Yes I've always understood that your comments are focused on the idea that there are more important things than rehashing the evidence and attempting to retry the case in the media.
I don't see the Indonesians throwing up their collective hands either and saying, "You got us, You're right! Ms. Corby is free to go!"
Having said that, I'd like for them to look at her case and her current situation, and show leniency. Hoping she qualifies for the coming remissions. Renae has already knocked two years from her sentence.
Rob. A much earlier post you said that you and Kay were stroking each others egos. Indeed you were. and Kay has been since the beginning stroking your ego. It is obvious.
You already have a personal assistant don't y0u?
Kay
You are sucking up to Rob. Quite obvious to some of us who are watching this diatribe. Get a life.
Gaile...
You Googled me, wow. I will take that as a compliment. To be perfectly honest I have not Googled you, sorry. And, I might add, I am not going to do it now either.
I knew you were following the comments. But, thanks for letting me know that it was you, publicly, that was posting as an anonymous poster.
CV, impressive? Not really, but it is what it is.
Is this post and the comments getting laughable? Not really. It highlights though how fractured the supposed support groups are when it comes to defining and working towards Schapelle's best interests.
If I am not mistaken both Nev and Steve have requested that forum members do not become involved in this blog. It was not worth it and there are more important things to be done. You know what, I agree, there are more important things to be done and time is of the essence.
Furthermore, If I am not mistaken, Nev said that it was not members of the forum that were commenting here. This is apparently not true, is it?
I am glad that Brad is a real analytical type of fella.
My point to him and to you, is that the time for rehashing the evidence is passed. If you want to do the evidence again, write a book.
I am glad that I make you laugh because I am here rolling on the floor pissing myself laughing at how someone desperate for the approval of Mercedes Corby is undermining any real debate about the seriousness of Schapelle's situation. Maybe you should ask Mercedes about it?
On whether Kay is frustrated. She has answered this.
But I am leaning to deleting all comments starting with yours if they relate to Kay Danes. She is not the subject of the post, and this is not the forum to attack her or her efforts. All comments are kept for reference as required.
Kay...
To be honest I had turned of comment moderation because I took Nev and Steve at their word that the freeschapelle forum was not involved.
Gaile's presence here are her continued personal attacks on you is proof positive that she is personally involved here. Considering she is supposedly an important member of the freeschapelle forum, then perhaps it is time for readers to make up there own minds on where the problem lies.
I am keeping all the comments and a list of the IPs for future reference.
Gaile...
What is it that you do not get? This is not a Kay Danes blog, it is not a Schapelle Corby blog, it is not a forum for you to rehash the evidence, it is also not the place for you to voice your personal animosities to other posters.
When people look at the thread and analyze it, there opinions will generally not be that it is a car wreck. They will see that it has been open, where most commenters have been civil and respectful of the subject matter, and have shown reasonable netiquette and then they will see also that some people have come out of the woodwork who have little or no idea about what it is they have set out to achieve by coming here.
You have and continue to undermine any sympathies people might have for Schapelle. In many respects you behave like an internet troll.
Not sure how clear I can make it, but here goes...
Kay Danes is not the subject here.
Kay...
I guess some people just will never get it.
On the remissions front. In the short term, this is not going to be enough to get Schapelle Corby past the current phase. She needs an intervention. This is most likely to be a trip to Bangli.
I do not see the first step being back to Australia. I would be supportive of this move, back to Australia, but I just do not see it happening.
Gaile...
I tell ya wat! You are good value for no money. The stroking the egos comment is so taken out of context that this further highlights the extremes that you are prepared to go to sabotage support for Schapelle and those who might be thinking about supporting her, and who have stumbled across this blog and this thread.
I keep stats of what people search for and the pages they visit on this blog based on those search terms.
Gaile...
On getting a life. I think a Google search of "Kay Danes" might highlight that the woman has not only got a life, but she has had one as well.
I am stoked that you think a woman as accomplished as Kay Danes is sucking up to me. So, thanks for stroking my ego. I just love being a legend in my own lunch box.
I would reckon anyone reading this thread would come to a pretty quick understanding with respect to who needs to get a life.
Have a nice evening.
I think Nev said that members should not post and that members were posting under their name as I have done. I have watched over the week/s now. And I have posted. I have watched this whole debacle. This has been a real shit-fight since Kay Danes came in. Anything Kay Danes gets involved in is a real shit-fight.
She is a very dangerous person.
Do you really want to help Schapelle, Rob? Please prove this. Further, you can't just support her without helping the other 9 Australians wrongfully incarcerated in that hell hole. Let's form an outcry!! The lingo between you and Gaile requires some reading between the lines. However, I can see that Gaile is genuine...
Keep my IP Rob. Thats find by me.
Interesting comments Rob.
Thanks for extrapolating.
Gaile
Rob, are you hoping that by negging Gaile she may become more interested in you? Go figure!!
Gaile...
Grow up.
This has nothing to do with Kay Danes, but everything to do with Schapelle. I honestly cannot see how you fail to see this.
Gaile, you are the dangerous person. You are dangerous because your obsession with being friends with Mercedes Corby clouds everything that has been written here.
Yes, you have posted under your name and by your own admission you have also posted anonymously. You just do not realize that you have made that admission yet.
Gaile, I would not expect anything less than for it to be fine with you.
Anonymous...
I am afraid I do not have to prove anything to you, you are after all anonymous.
No, the Schapelle Corby case and the Bali Nine cases are very different. If you fail to see that then there is not much point in trying to explain to you why that is.
I guess that you are suggesting that I am not genuine as in your anonymous and infinite wisdom you have read between the lines?
As I said, you are anonymous. I simply do not need to justify my motivations or my genuineness to you.
But I can see that you on the other hand are soundly behind what you believe in because you do not even do me the respect of posting under your real name. I fail to see how I might form an outcry with an anonymous poster.
I don't think it is appropriate for you to comment on a friendship that involves helping someone go through an emergency (Mercedes). I sure hope that you have had more compassion to other people that you have met in real life going through similar tragedies. While this may be the case for Gaile, we don't know if you have been involved in something like this??
Rob... whilst I just ignore the obvious rantings of those who seem to be suffering the effects of tall poppy syndrome, what's your take on where to go from here for Schapelle?
I'll ignore the stupidity of the allegations posted by the forum member. It's not worth responding too.
I thought you said that talking about Schapelle's case is irrelevant. Well, this is the case for the others. They have all been in there for an extremely long time. Bring them home!!
Rob. You have got it wrong.
Firstly. How dare you refer to my perceived contact with Meredes?
Gaile...
I have always written what I see and what I read. These are my opinions, and as you have shown, you disagree with them. I have also shown you the courtesy of letting you post and not deleting your comments despite your persistent personal attacks on Kay Danes.
You need to find another forum to express your outrage. Please!
Anonymous...
I cannot figure out your last comment, sorry. Perhaps it highlights the mindset of some Schapelle supporters; when you fail on the arguments you make it personal and then try and harass those with differing opinions out of making comments and seeking to support in their own ways.
I am not interested in you though. Anonymous means nothing. That said, I enjoy responding to anonymous commenters because they just do not have the courage of their convictions, and when called look for a cheap shot.
But keep 'em coming!
You, Rob allowed for someone to post as anonymous
Take it or leave it.
Anonymous...
You don't think it is appropriate? Really?
I wonder how appropriate it is for people to be making such assertions as an anonymous poster?
When you have the courage of your convictions to comment under your own name then perhaps you might be worthy of a little more consideration.
Maybe, if you go back and read the comments in their entirety, then you will see that I have said things like I admire Gaile for her passion to her cause. But, perhaps I should withdraw that as well?
The comments on Kay Danes are out of order and are inappropriate in the context of this thread and this forum. Personally, I think they are inappropriate period. That though is another topic altogether.
Yes, Anonymous, the Bali Nine is a separate case with a separate factual scenario. Schapelle Corby's mental illness is irrelevant to the Bali Nine case.
Gaile...
I can comment on your perceived contact with Mercedes Corby. Go back and read through the comments. You opened the door.
It is my blog, I will dare as I want to!
I also have the power to delete your comments, but I have resisted the urge.
Yes, so you say, I have got it wrong. Specifically, what have I got wrong? If I have made a mistake then I am more than happy to acknowledge that mistake here in an additional comment.
Gaile...
People are not really that anonymous.
Yes, you have told me before to turn off the anonymous post ability.
However, my view is that if you are truly committed to your cause, and your cause is Schapelle Corby, then you will post under your own name.
Apparently, not everyone is committed.
Kay Danes
I do not understand why you are not expending yourself to FPSS rather than defending yourself on Rob's blog. You have always put yourself up as primarily FPSS. I do not understand why you are are not putting yourself here as against FPSS.
Rob;
Why do you think the Indonesians are insisting on excluding drug offenders from any future PTA?
A good strategy could be spending less time on the computer and writing to the prisoners and thier families. They appreciate support... Just an idea! Greasing the palms of some of those people closer to the hell hole they're in could help?? Worth a try!?
Kay...
What difference does it make where I think things should go from here?
I, obviously, have no comprehension of the issue, the law, the politics, the international relations involved, or any personal contacts.
Just ask the anonymous posters to this thread. They will tell you!
I'm guessing everyone here knows Kay Danes well. Can she dance?? DWTS??
I guess they're hard at hearing or maybe cannot comprehend what you are writing since they seem very keen to make this a blog about me.
Such a shame.... I would have thought Schapelle's plight would have been more important!
Rob
Thank you for leaving my comments and your open. No. I will not go to another forum or website.
May I say, this is getting into a real dog-shit now? I think it would not have denigrated so if another person, who you have referred to, had not started this dog-fight. I am sure you know who I refer to. That is atypical. I have seen it all before.
I am amazed that with your qualifications that you have aligned yourself to that person. I am truly amazed that you have chosen that path.
Gaile
Gaile,
I'm wondering if you have anything positive to contribute to the discussion here. Surely you have something worthwhile to say about Schapelle's plight or what people can do to help support her? Isn't that what her supporters do?
No Rob.
I already know everything about Kay Danes. Her history. Her book. Her history as an incarcerated in Loas. Her book. Her history on various forums. Her attendance at CWA.Everyhing I know about her and more. Her history with me. Why she does not get on with Mercedes.
I think that Kay Danes would not know her left foot from her right foot...same as her brain.
Gaile,
I can only but feel sorry for you. How awful to be so filled with hatred for another person. Particularly one you have never met and do not know! I'm sorry for you. I hope that some good will come into your life and you will find some purpose.
In order to 'get along with someone' you have to have something to do with them. I don't have anything to do with the Corby's. I haven't had anything to do with them in a very long time. I have no connection to them at all. I do not need to associate with them to support Schapelle.
I think some people shouldn't drink red wine and post. LOL.
Gaile...
Nobody would have to defend themselves here if there was no attacking being done.
Kay is free to post here, as are you.
I have only asked that the posts be respectful, civil, and not personal attacks on other posters.
It is after all my blog. So, I think it to be a reasonable request. You called Kay out through your posts. Therefore, it is only fair that she defend herself. Or take any action that she believes is warranted under the circumstances.
But, once again, and it is with all due respect, this blog and this particular post is not about you, it is not about Kay, it is not about the evidence, but it is about Robin Tampoe getting struck off from the Roll of Practitioners.
Gaile...
You need to go to another forum if you wish to make the comments about Kay that you are making here.
I cannot stress strongly enough that this is not a forum to attack others, their credentials, their past, or their affiliations in the personal way they have been done here.
The reason this has degenerated into what it has is because it has become personal. My view is that it has not degenerated and it has not become a car wreck. To the contrary, the thread highlights the problems that any movement seeking to assist Schapelle faces in going forward.
There is a lack of focus on the issue, and that issue is Schapelle and her current plight. It is not on the evidence, it is not on FPSS, and it is not on Kay Danes.
I am not necessarily aligned with anyone. I have always spoken for myself and about the opinions I hold on the issues raised here.
If this means I have aligned myself with a particular group or individual in your mind, then so be it. I am generally aligned with myself.
Anonymous...
You truly are a waste of space!
Have you thought about taking your own advice and spending less time in front of the computer and more time writing letters seeking clemency and release for the Bali Nine?
Kay...
Maybe they do not consider Australia to be as tough on drugs? Or that sentences would be commuted to terms that do not reflect the seriousness with which the Indonesians consider the crimes to have?
Gaile...
Please get a hold of yourself. You are embarrassing yourself and the cause which you claim to support. There is absolutely, I repeat absolutely, no need for this:
"I think that Kay Danes would not know her left foot from her right foot...same as her brain."
The reason this has gone to the depths that it has is because of you!
Please focus on the issues.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is not about Kay Danes or the FPSS, this is about Schapelle.
I would have thought after all your comments proclaiming of your undying support for the young woman that you could rise above this pettiness.
If you can't then this thread will not stay open long. I will go back to comment moderation. With the view of weeding out any personal attacks on other posters.
Rob,
It's rather interesting. I can understand them not wanting to include Terrorists on a PTA, but really not sure what the discrimination is between drug offenders and people who commit say: murder, economic crimes, sex offenses...
Kay...
I accept that point.
However, what I was trying to say in a not so explicit way was this; for crimes like murder and manslaughter there is some equivalency in possible sentences. Nevertheless, murder can attract the death penalty.
Also for most economic crimes and also for sex offenses there is some equivalency in sentencing. That said, there has been a constant posturing to see some economic impact crimes like corruption have the ultimate sentence applied.
Whether this is intentional or not does not matter. It is not intentional, perhaps it is coincidental that those crimes are considered with respect to their seriousness in similar ways.
However, on the drugs side it is unlikely, for example, as a first offender that for 4.1kgs of weed you will get 20 years in the slammer. So, maybe there is the belief that drug crimes should be excluded.
Ultimately, I think they will be included in a PTA.
The only real exceptions will relate to those sentenced to death, these individuals will not be able to avail themselves of any deals under a PTA, obviously.
That said, I do not think a PTA is going to happen in a short enough time frame to be of any benefit to Schapelle with respect to any treatment she needs now for mental illness.
That's just me and my opinion :D
Rob: I was asking for the mere fact that it's good to get another person's view on these issues. I think you have some valid points there. So far as sentence equivalency, indeed, it is difficult to gauge the true position on that and there are varying points of view.
As I understand, the Indonesian legal process cannot be directly transposed onto ours and vice versa. Similarly too, Indonesian Narcotics law views cannabis as commensurate with other illicit drugs. So even though some might say it's only 'pot', the Indonesians view it differently.
Kay...
Indeed they do.
I have said many times, I just do not see the Indonesians throwing up their collective hands and saying, "You got us, You're right! Ms. Corby is free to go!" Maybe I am wrong on this, I guess in some people's minds.
I suppose some people assume it will happen one day because they feel so strongly about her innocence.
I have been trying to learn a bit about how the Indonesian system works. While I find aspects of it unfair (has anyone ever been found innocent in a drugs case?), I have to deal with it because it's painfully obvious that neither government is going to budge on it.
As a supporter, I would rather listen to and learn from people who can explain how the system works, so that I can know how to help Schapelle.
Ranting against the system does nothing but provoke those who are making decisions about her fate.
It makes me frustrated to see supporters attack and bully those who actually have knowledge, just because they talk about the reality of the situation. It reflects horribly on all supporters.
Sometimes reality sucks, but IMO it's more harmful to ignore it than to accept it and learn how to work with it.
Jacqui...
Thanks for dropping by and commenting, again.
I appreciate that people feel strongly about Schapelle's innocence, I really do.
I also feel that if there is going to be constant rehashing of the "evidence" that this might be better done in a book.
One that exams the "evidence" and the purported failings in the Indonesian system. My guess, is that there would be plenty of people interested in that kind of project. However, that in my mind is separate from the task at hand.
Indeed, sometimes the reality of a situation is not what we want it to be. However, I would agree that one must accept the reality deal with it and work out how best to move forward.
In this case, my understanding has been that the focus was shifting from arguing the evidence in the court of public opinion and focusing on getting Schapelle into a facility where she can receive specialist treatment for her mental illness.
Further, it was my understanding that the preferable outcome would be for Schapelle to be treated in Australia. And, if not here, then in an Indonesian facility that had the capability of treating the severe nature of her illness.
Now, that said, reality check time. Schapelle's Indonesian doctors do not share Dr Phillips assessment with regards to seriousness. The Indonesian doctors acknowledge that Schapelle is depressed, perhaps severely, but that the depression is treatable and treatable in Indonesia.
Therefore, my guess would be that with some good behind the scenes work by those with the ability to do it, would see Schapelle, best case scenario, in Bangli for treatment.
What about drinking white wine and posting? lol
Yes, it is quite clear that one or two (maybe three or more as there are too many nobodies) need to put a cork in it. Maybe we should provide them each with two corks, one for the bottle and one for the mouth. It's a wonder how these people have nine orifices and I'm sure are in control of at least eight of them, yet have no will-power to prevent vile comments from spewing out their ninth. It's sad.
I can respect the passion that many have, especially when the well-being of another is at stake. However, I often notice that those who tend to be closest to the offender, whether legitimately convicted or not, or their family are often clouded in judgement and go into protection mode. This is understandable as we all want to defend our family and friends as that's instinct, but only reinforces that they or we should not be put or left in charge of substantial and important tasks. Neutrality is key, especially when multiple parties need to be involved when seeking repatriation or anything that is truly above and beyond responsibility. I question the genuineness of those who feel it necessary to name drop who they are in communication with or who they know. This makes it seem more like they are more concerned with being a part of an entourage than fighting for someone's rights, health, et cetera.
Irene...
It all has become a little too personal.
I have been thinking about going back to comment moderation or just shutting the post down.
Perhaps I should just create another blog and move this post to there are forget about it.
If people then want to go and find it and comment on it then they can go for it.
Anyway, back to topic.
I am not one for delving in the tit for tat - and all those who know me will vouch for that.
Tampoe ...
Got what he deserved as far as I am concerned. I take it you all saw him on The Hidden Truth with his gutter-mouth comments about the Corby's. Odd thing is that before he made those comments, Mercedes resuscitated him when he was electrocuted in the pool just before the verdict. Strange how he turns and calls the person who saved his life "trash".
The other thing about The hidden truth is that it involves a camera following the Corby family for 3 months who for some reason are supposedly so highly involved in the drug trade (according to some who think Schapelle is guilty) that they would allow this! Go to your local Bandido's bikie club (or whatever) and ask them if you can follow them with a camera for three months. What will they say?
As for Tampoe making up the defence - thats what defence lawyers do, they provide an alternative and plausible explanation for the predicament their client is in. I find nothing odd with him actually making up a defence - I do have a problem with him declaring that he did; it brings the legal profession into disrepute.
The baggage handler defence has two parts. The domestic part is debunked - even I don't agree with that and it was a poor strategy.
But the international explanation has not been tested in court. Same airport, same terminal, same time, Schapelle's luggage being scanned at the same time cocaine was being unloaded from a South American plane, 2 bags go missing one has been attested to have held the cocaine. Identity of the missing bag is not known. Supposed "owner" of the bag in witness protection. Coincidence?
Nah, course not. Up to 15 baggage handlers touched her luggage that day - not one was interviewed as a possible suspect. Not one. Not one baggage handler has been charged with smuggling the cocaine either.
So either this has absolutely nothing to do with Schapelle's case or it has everything to do with it. And if its nothing, then it was a very bizzare day at Sydney.
The day that the informant rolled over to the NSW Crime Commision telling all about the cocaine smuggling on October 8 2004, is the same day Customs Internal Affairs Unit began an investigation into Customs personnel smuggling marijuana. Odd?
Rob,
Did you know that the value of the 10 Kg of cocaine purchased wholesale in South America + the value of the 4.2 Kg MJ also purchased in South America is about equal to the retail value of the MJ if sold in Australia (UN world Drug report 2006). Seems like the MJ was not the target drug to be smuggled that day, if you know what I mean. Perhaps it had a role of "insurance" if the coke was discovered.
Tampoe needed more self belief. Even Keelty was giving a clue: "there is little evidence to suggest that airport staff are smuggling drugs between states". If only he had listened and thought about the international connection.
almost on topic:
As for the PTA, I don't think that the unwillingness to include drug offenders is only related to Australia (AUS). I would suspect that these would be determined on the basis of sentence equivalency (which is quite complex in itself) for all types of offenses. Every country would therefore be different or perhaps Indonesia (IND) could just use a blanket response and say it's off the table for all future PTA's. I agree that a PTA will not be finalized for quite some time between AUS and IND, which will be of little help for Schapelle. Most PTA's take years to be completed and go under numerous revisions and changes within government offer great set-backs. However, if we are concerned with the bigger picture of human rights than this is an interesting topic of discussion. I may be wrong, but I don't think IND has a PTA with any other country. Therefore, I can't fathom the manpower or the hours that will need to be dedicated on all sides for their first PTA to be drawn and agreed upon. Where is IND likely to draw their influence from?
I must admit that this is not my area of expertise, so what I say/ask may not have any real substance, but I'm willing to learn from those who do.
What are the most common offenses to be excluded in PTA's worldwide? (capital offenses?)
(Using the term PTA loosely as I understand that other countries have their own equivalent acronym.)
IND has clearly stated their 'Tough on Drugs' stance. Could it be that they see that as their greatest problem within society and therefore don't want to show any leniency in the belief that such harsh (according to my westernized thought) punishments will lead to fewer (drug related) offenses?
Rob, The reason why my name is not underlined and highlighted in blue is because I am not a registered member of Blogger nor do I have a personal URL to link to. Simply, this site allows everyone to click on the 'Name/URL' radio button and type in their name and submit their comment.
So I'm afraid there isn't any conspiracy about how people post. I choose to post under my nickname / pen name, and everyone knows who I am.
Article 66 - The suspect or defendant shall not be burdened with the duty of providing evidence. In My Story, there is a photo of Schapelle pleading with the prosecutor to fingerprint the evidence. This was not a hard case, but the police made a meal of it. Weighng the luggage would have solved it in a an instant - so why would the defence at the airport want the luggage reweighed? Huh? At their insistance it would prove Schapelle guilty immediately - unless they knew that it would clear her name. Secondly, the police could have determined from whence the drugs came. Was that too hard? They believed it was from Australia, so why not get that proof? Yet Schapelle submitted a request to have this test conducted - against the direction of Article 66.
As for actions/support, one important thing to do is keep telling people about the miscarriage of justice Schapelle endured. And it was a miscarriage of justice.
When you dismiss solid logical arguments in a whim, you invite others to call to question your reasoning skills. It is well known that intelligent people have a greater sense of compassion and justice; not all of them become lawyers or judges. Yet I can see that there is a plausible scenario that has not been tested before the court.
I do believe the better system is one of innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I am never looking for proof of innocence and neither would people with a great sense of compassion or justice.
As someone who has expereince in the Indonesian Legal system, I ask you which judicial system do you prefer, the Indonesian system or the Australian. If the Indonesian, then what steps are you taking to campaign to have it implemented in Australia? In your answer can you please refer to the lack of recording of court proceedings /no stenographer in the Indonesian district courts and why you think that is a positive?
Brad...
The post was about Robin Tampoe so it is nice we are finally back on topic albeit briefly.
I have not heard the resuscitation story before, or if I have, I have forgotten it. Sounds like Tampoe is an ungrateful man as well.
It did not take long to get off topic.
On whether the Corby family are drug dealers is irrelevant in the sense that Schapelle cannot be guilty simply because she is related.
I understand that the Corby's have letters from the police stating that they have not been convicted or are under investigation for any alleged crimes.
This could mean two possible things; one, they have never been involved, or two, they have never been caught and the police have never been able to pin anything on them. As I have said, either way it does not matter to me. I am sure, though, it matters to the Corby's and their reputations.
It does not matter in Schapelle's case. Schapelle was not convicted in a Balinese court based on the unsubstantiated rumor that her family was involved in the drug trade.
I have not said that Schapelle is guilty because of rumors that the family is into drugs and drug dealing.
Brad...
You misrepresent what I have said.
I have not said that it is not the defense's job, or at least part of it, to offer up alternative scenarios or provide a pro-active defense.
What I have said is that the alternative scenario sometimes needs to be more than just an assertion, speculation, or conjecture. Sometimes it needs to have legs, it needs the defense to show how the alternative could happen and is the more likely scenario.
Making it seem the more likely scenario is casting reasonable doubt. Tossing out alternative theories that have no legs makes the defense look desperate and makes the defense look like it is clutching at straws.
The fact that Tampoe was later to say he had nothing on the baggage handler front and he was not telling the truth also served to discredit the entire baggage handling scenario in Schapelle's case.
I am assuming, by the international baggage handlers theory not being tested in court, we are referring to an Indonesian court? Only because Schapelle was tried in an Indonesian court.
Is it possible that this is a coincidence? Yes. Is it possible that they are related? Yes. Is it possible that it was just one of those days at Sydney International airport? Yes.
Are you suggesting that of all the bags that the baggage handlers could of chosen that they randomly chose Schapelle's boogie board bag?
Is the suggestion that the weed was always destined for Bali and they just needed the right sized bag to put it in? It seems strange that on the flight the only unopened bag of the right size was Schapelle's. Is it possible this was the case? Maybe.
Why would the baggage handlers make a mistake of whacking the weed in a bag to Bali to mask or deflect attention from a cocaine shipment if the weed was not going to be found until Corby arrived in Bali?
Wouldn't it make more sense to whack it in a bag headed for the baggage carousel with the other bags that came of the South American plane?
Or if it was for domestic distribution, a domestic flight to the agreed destination?
In any event, wasn't the idea to get the cocaine out of the airport by ensuring it bypassed regular procedures for customs checking? Why wouldn't this have worked equally well for the weed?
The fact that the alleged owner is in witness protection does not automatically mean that this is a conspiracy, does it? Or in particular, a conspiracy to frame Schapelle.
I do not find it odd. I also do not find that this means it is automatically related to Schapelle's case or the fact that an investigation was commenced is proof positive of her innocence.
Brad...
Was the weed insurance? Do we know for sure that the two are related? the cocaine and the weed that is. the proof of this to date seems to be coincidence that it occurred on the same day and within the same time frame, and therefore it cannot be coincidental but must be related.
I appreciate your arguments that the relevant baggage handlers were not interviewed with respect to the handling of Schapelle's boogie board bag. Without the video can we know who these handlers were?
If they were interviewed and state for the record they recall nothing out of the ordinary about the bag, then what? If they say, "nah, we did not notice any weed or the smell of weed," is this proof positive that it was not there or is it proof that they must be lying and planted it themselves? Or is it simply what it is? The baggage handlers do not recall anything out of the ordinary.
The posts tend to read that there is a huge conspiracy to frame Schapelle or protect the "real" culprits in this thing. Yet, the best offered is speculation, conjecture, and coincidence.
And, for stating such, I am labeled as a crappy lawyer with no compassion or a lawyer who prefers the Indonesian legal system to that of what operates in Australia.
It seems if I do not agree with you then I am not only wrong but stupid as well. Strange indeed.
Brad...
I have been contacted by people who know who you are and have vouched for your bona fides. More than anything I was using the lack of a link to highlight a more general point. No offense intended. Hopefully, none taken.
On the substantive stuff. Article 66 and the elucidation to it specifically state that this is to be read with respect to the presumption of innocence.
I really do not see the point of rehashing the evidence over and over again. I have made my reasons for this pretty obvious. I have also been trying to push the thread to the idea that there are more pressing concerns at this present point in time.
However, to each their own. I am guessing each person has their "own thing" with the Schapelle Corby case with respect to what interests and motivates them. For some, it is obviously the evidence and their claim that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
Could the bags have been reweighed? Yes. If I am not mistaken the body board bag was weighed with others and therefore would have required the "other bags" to be weighed at the same time?
My personal experience is that my bags have been weighed individually when I have been travelling with more than one. And, each has been subsequently labeled individually with a weight and a bag number (bag 1 of 2 or 3 or 4 or whatever the case maybe).
Would this have cleared Schapelle? Perhaps. Why perhaps? There would have undoubtedly been arguments about whether the scales were accurate, whether sometimes weights are rounded up or down a few kilos here and there. That said, it would have been useful to see what the weight was in the before and after scenario.
Does the failure to weigh the bags amount to a conspiracy? I am not convinced of that. I would add that not being convinced of something should have an adverse inference on my abilities of a lawyer or my intelligence. Then again, some people cannot help themselves when they are passionate about a cause to dismiss all others who do not see their way as being stupid or lacking in compassion or fairness or not having a sense of justice.
Too easy.
Brad (part II)...
The why questions you pose are interesting. The prosecutors only had to prove that the weed was there and the bag was one that belonged to Schapelle. They met that burden didn't they? Would that have been sufficient in an Australian court? Not on your life.
We are not in an Australian court though, and we are not operating under Australian rules of evidence. And, the fact that Schapelle Corby is an Australian citizen does not entitle her to be prosecuted in a manner that measures up to an Australian standard.
The argument that her human rights were and continue to be violated has more legs than the argument that Indonesian does not recognize a presumption of innocence or that the trial was inherently flawed and the fact that it was affirmed on appeal is proof positive of a conspiracy at all levels of Indonesian and Australian government to frame an innocent, albeit expendable, young woman from Australia.
No kidding, pretty much this whole thread has been Schapelle Corby supporters telling me about the evidence, telling me about the miscarriage of justice, how I lack compassion, how I am an idiot, how I am stupid, the list goes on (as always water off a duck's back).
I have hardly dismissed on a whim the things that have been put forward here in this thread. In fact, to the contrary, I have responded to each. The problem seems to be that my logical reasoning skills are in question because I do not agree with you or the propositions of others and make a case to the contrary.
I do not question your logic or reasoning or suggest that you are stupid. In fact, and once again to the contrary, I say things like "I appreciate your arguments or position", then argue against that proposition.
What I have said here is that the time for arguing the evidence is not now. I do not know how many times I have to say it, but I just do not see the Indonesians throwing up their collective hands and admitting to a frame. At least, not in the short term or in the time frame that Schapelle would need it to happen.
I am happy for you that you are not looking for proof of innocence. However, to suggest that anyone with compassion or justice would simply ignore the need for some proof of innocence seem flawed to me. Some proof of innocence might be as simple as reasonable doubt.
I would add though that reasonable doubt is subjective in many ways. Tossing up an; "I did not do it!" or "it was the baggage handlers" or "it was Indonesian customs officers", is not necessarily reasonable doubt in the minds of all observers.
In any event, wouldn't proof of innocence be the icing on the cake in this one?
With respect to campaigning for the implementation of the Indonesian civil law system in Australia...Brad, get a grip mate! The childish nature of the comment detracts from all the other points you are making. It marks you as a bloke when he does not get his way resorts to innuendo and perceived insults as a means of detracting attention from his own arguments.
Seriously, the comment was to silly for words.
Rob seems to think she'd prefer to put it on a connecting flight before a country that loves killing people (through dp). As she was a non-drug user the only motivation would be money. Why wouldn't she put it on a truck to Sydney if you think she did it? A lot less risky...
I think that Kay Danes would not know her left foot from her right foot...same as her brain. (Gaile's quote)
Gaile, the reality is Kay is famous. Maybe DWTS would give her a good focus point to review things (as it is for many of the celebrities on it).
Anonymous (whichever one you are)...
Once again, another anonymous poster with the courage of their convictions. It is painstakingly obvious that you truly believe in Schapelle's innocence.
Your modus operandi seems to be lies and bullying people into believing as you do or that person just gives up and says, it is not worth it! This is sad because those people come into this debate not necessarily to debate, but rather to learn and with a view to helping Schapelle in whatever way they can within the framework of what they personally believe.
In that context the evidence, guilt, and innocence are not the primary motivating factors.
Shame on you!
This is the point. I did not say that she would prefer to do any such thing. But, that seemingly does not matter. I have commented sparingly, if at all, about the motivations or the course the weed took and why on its alleged journey from Brisbane through Sydney to Denpasar.
In fact, I have only recently commented on this in an indirect manner in response to some propositions put forward by Brad. Which, I might add, are generally well thought out and reasoned, although I might not agree with him, I can still respect the arguments that he puts forward (it is unfortunate though that when I do not agree with him or accept his arguments as gospel he insinuates that I am stupid or a bad lawyer :D)
You, on the other hand, just cast about any old crap.
But, in any event, your questions should be directed to Schapelle with respect to why she did not put it on a truck to Sydney.
My guess would be that she would tell you exactly what she thinks of that question.
So, unless you have something constructive to say or to contribute to the off-topic arguments to this thread, then both yourself and Schapelle would be better served by crawling back under that anonymous rock from whence you came.
There's a word in German. Don't know how it's spelt. So correct me if necessary. Schadenfreude. LOL - definitely spelt wrong. It means making one feel glad they are not the other. This whole blog could simply be Rob's way of saying he's glad not to be in Schapelle's shoes... He is relentless... Many of the important questions asked here he has not answered.
Anonymous...
DWTS is hardly the point. Kay Danes is not the focus of this thread, this is in spite of many attempts to make her so.
The continuing need to bring her name into the discourse highlights how little idea some particular Schapelle Corby supporters have.
It is truly sad that this nothing post on Robin Tampoe has degenerated into a one-sided slanging match aimed at an individual that has nothing (I emphasize nothing) to do with this blog.
Kay Danes is, as everyone else has been, free to comment here. The mere fact that she did seems to have irked some to the point they feel the need to attack her personally for her efforts.
Sad, and poor form in anyone's book. It is an embarrassment for all those who have personalized their comments in this way and sort to attack an individual on a blog.
Anonymous...
You are a real piece of work.
List the questions you want me to answer. And, then when you provide a name and a set of contact details, I will respond directly to you. Otherwise, there is little point in responding to a person with identity issues and a problem with the courage of their convictions.
I think in the many posts that I have made to this thread I have endeavoured to answer all questions put forward.
The answers might not satisfy you because I do not go, "oh yes, you are right, why haven't I seen this before?"
If you are trying to suggest that in order to justify my arguments I must state unequivocally that I would want to swap places with Schapelle, you are more foolish than I have given you credit for.
I do not want to swap. Has it anything to do with gladness? Not on your life.
My arguments all along have been about getting appropriate medical treatment, showing some compassion. Your beef with me is that I won't toe the line about hos she is innocent and should be repatriated to Australia as a free woman.
To you, this is open license to spout any old crap that you want and to make insinuations on all manner of things. All done under the moniker of anonymous. You are a coward!
Schadenfreude, usually capitalized in German but not so when used in English. It generally means deriving enjoyment out of the troubles of others.
I do not derive any pleasure or enjoyment from seeing Schapelle Corby suffer under the weight of mental illness. To suggest that I do only further highlights a complete lack of class and honesty in your approach to dealing with those who hold a different opinion.
You really are an anonymous bully. It should not be long and your trolling ways will see you upgraded to cyber-stalker.
Enjoy your day!
No Rob, not appropriate to ask Schapelle such things. Often when people visit prisoners they talk about anything BUT their case and do so ONLY if the prisoner wants to. Thought you would know this...
Anonymous...
Mate, then why ask me what motivated Schapelle to put the weed in her boogie board bag rather than on a truck?
I do not claim to speak for her, or her family, or anyone else for that matter.
I think if you took the time, you might come to understand that I know a whole lot more than any of the anonymous posters and pseudonyms have given me credit for.
Yes, perhaps I could get on one of the Schapelle Corby tours being run by Eddie Hutauruk.
Unfortunately, I am not so inclined to take any tour and I am not desperate to say, "yes, I have met her, in fact I went to visit her in jail".
What my experience is with jails and incarcerated individuals throughout the world is hardly any of your business and concern. Thanks for asking though. I do not need to justify myself or my existence through name-dropping or invading other people's blogs anonymously to make myself heard and to feel like I am worth something.
Although, it seems that perhaps home invasions are something that go with the territory now, don't they?
To all anonymous posters...
From now on, I reserve the right to delete all anonymous comments that do not offer anything constructive to the discourse on this thread.
If you want to keep calling me out about my skills, qualifications, experience, knowledge, or anything else then put a real name that can be verified to the post.
Otherwise, it does come across as somewhat cowardly to offer your "critiques" from behind the veil of anonymity.
If you believe what you are writing, then have the courage of your convictions to stand behind what you say, openly.
It just gets boring, and there really is no benefit in trying to justify one's self to nameless and faceless posters.
Hi Rob,
There is only so much people want to discuss about Tampoe and his elimination from the legal profession. This discussion could move into discussing Trowell's case as well, only if you gave it direction. (do you think he will be disbarred, or get a mere slap on the wrist?).
If you wanted this thread to run a different course, why not give it direction: ask posters what they think about X part of the law, or what do you think of X about Tampoe or repercussions. Not doing so has only invited posters to steer this topic where they want.
There is one other reason why this thread has attracted so much attention (apart from the personal attacks against other posters) is that you have declared that you think Schapelle is guilty. For a lawyer who is not involved in the case, you are at liberty to express your opinion(s), but doing so opens discussion about your reasons and reasoning as well as your ability to comprehend all the aspects about this case and thus your credibility is put on the line. There are very few lawyers who run blogs about this case and fewer who have openly declared their opinion as to her guilt or innocence. I think you are the only one who has is running a blog and declared that you think she is guilty.
Consequently, your declaration defines you. And allows others to question your beliefs and criticise you if you make presumptions. This is the problem: you have made your declaration without considering all the facts, but then only with what was presented as evidence. Its what was not presented that is the problem with this case. And you dont seem to realise that. If you were representing someone in a similar scenario, I am sure you would be obtaining a different quantity of evidence.
Speaking of evidence, I have already alluded to the number of baggage handlers who were not interviewed. With Schapelle's luggage not being locked, the police thus assumed that baggage handlers in 2 countries and 4 airport terminals are immune to criminal activity. Its as if they assumed that her luggage either magically moved itelf from the Brisbane oversize luggage check-in counter to the Denpasar airport luggage carousel or that Schapelle couriered it her self including loading and unloading of the planes along the way.
Sorry, but anyone who doesn't see this as a breach of normal police inquiries is opening themselves up to ridicule. What evidence was collected and presented to the court was a mere fraction of all available information that should have been presented. And the police should have done more to follow through with their inquiries. They immediately assumed guilt the moment the MJ was discovered and decided that they had the guilty party.
Do you really think the Indonesian Police would ever want to admit they got it so wrong?
(More to follow later)
Brad...(Part I)
Here's the thing, there are other posts in this blog that are about Schapelle Corby and her plight that would be more on topic for either discussions of the evidence or other matters.
I have tried to give the thread direction. In terms of either keeping on topic (Robin Tampoe) or limiting the discussion to matters relating directly to Schapelle's mental illness and how it should be handled.
Most commenters have taken this to mean that open slather on the evidence is the game because, presumably, if all the evidence was admitted she would not have been found guilty and then she would not have been in a predicament where she is suffering mental illness.
I have tolerated this to some people's disbelief.
Maybe, if you had read all the comments and the other posts on related topics, then you would see that my statement regarding her guilt is very matter of fact and within a very narrow scope of argument.
Which I might add I have been attacked for.
Yes, by commenting on the case and offering up my opinions I expose myself to critiques of my arguments. This goes with the territory. However, your base argument is that if I do not agree with you it is because I do not comprehend the facts or I do not know them, therefore I am stupid and a bad lawyer.
Mate, that sounds like if anyone disagrees with you they are lacking in some department somewhere. Your only argument is to bully people into submission through constant repetition of one series of arguments, and then to insinuate anyone that does not agree with you is a fool.
Sorry mate, just doesn't cut the mustard. My declaration does not define me, people like you do.
Once again, the reason you define me as such is because you do not have all the facts and you do not have the ability to comprehend the ones that you do. Oops, doesn't that sound familiar?
The presumptions and assumptions are yours. Go back and reread what I have said in this thread. Unfortunately, for you, and for many others it seems, when guilty and Schapelle Corby end up in the same sentence you lose all power of reasoning and play the person and not the ball.
Brad (Part II)...
Perhaps one of the reasons few people and lawyers run blogs about the case is because they get hounded and harassed until they either shut it down or they just simply throw up their hands and say what's the point.
It seems that this particular thread and my blog has been targeted for no other reason than to shut down debate on Schapelle Corby. This is sad, seeing most of the posts have been favourable to seeing the young woman be repatriated.
Arguments about whether the conviction is fatally flawed and whether there has been a miscarriage of justice are arguments for another time. However, it is fair to say that trying to transpose Australian common law standards on the Indonesian civil law system is fraught with the types of problems that you find here.
If I was representing Schapelle in an Australian court, I would have done things in a particular way, and I might add that the court would have been receptive to those initiatives.
Had I been representing Schapelle or been involved in the case in Indonesia, then I would have done things differently as well. I was not involved then and I am not involved now, hindsight is always 20/20 (although I made my opinions known at the time on how things were being done poorly), the evidence angle is moot unless you are coming up with something knew.
The appeals process is over. Clemency or some other form of leniency is the option now.
The comment / idea / point that the baggage made its own way from the counter to the airplane and off again sans baggage handlers is inane, but I have addressed the point in your previous post.
With respect to this point, the better people to ask would be the police, wouldn't they? Particularly, as it seems that you are alleging that there is a connection and some sort of conspiracy to cover it up.
There were no statements that addressed whether this was a breach of normal police protocol in my response to you, were there? Are you suggesting that I am to be ridiculed?
Brad (Part III)...
Indonesian police and courts have no jurisdiction to follow up "evidence" in Australia. If the Australian police force did not follow up on the mass of evidence that existed here in Australia, then whose fault is that?
Surely, this cannot be the Indonesian court's failing can it? The defense, Article 66 of the KUHAP aside, could have been more forceful with the Australian authorities to provide the "evidence" that would exonerate or provide sufficient reasonable doubt, couldn't they? If they were forceful and the Australian authorities refused then whose fault is that?
On the determining of the origin of the weed. The Indonesian police, prosecutors, and the court considered they did not require any DNA evidence of the weed with respect to proving its origin. Would this fly in an Australian court, probably not.
However, it is an Indonesian court, the court was satisfied, and the conviction was handed down. This conviction survived multiple appeals.
To the salient point here. Is Schapelle Corby guilty? Yes, she is! The verdict of the court states this in unequivocal terms. This is a reality.
This has been my point all along. Unfortunately, you and others have tried to manipulate the above and question my credibility and other things.
But, you have missed the point, and you continue to miss the point. You do so because of the fascination for playing the person and not the ball.
There is about as much chance of the Indonesian police admitting that they got it wrong as there is that Schapelle Corby supporters will admit that they have got it wrong. Seems like a Mexican standoff to me where the victim continues to get victimized, pretty sad really.
There is more to follow? Really? I am not surprised. I will be waiting for the next series of comments on the evidence and how I am a bad person and a bad lawyer who must be ridiculed.
Have a fine day.
It's simple. You can believe in one thing, but certain things need to be present or from a prosecution view it's a loser. Say, if someone has been 'murdered' but the body of the victim never found. Most of the time, this means that until that DNA evidence is found, locking someone up based on circumstantial evidence just won't pass the post. The same can be said with the Corby case. Supplies found in her bag is not irrefutible evidence. Rob, I'm sure will disagree with this! LOL!!! May not even post it!! Go figure!!
Brad,
Rob's belief is that "well if someone has been convicted, they must have done it". This seems to be one of his core values.
Have you worked for the DPP Rob?
Are you stating your true beliefs on the Corby case or are you being commisioned by some agency to take a certain side?
Dear Annonymous,
For the record, I am not famous. I may be well known in some circles but I would never place myself in the category of being famous and nor do I want to be. I also have no desire to appear on DWTS. As you say, is something reserved for celebrities, a status symbol I have no desire for.
Anonymous...
Ahhhh, some things change and some things stay the same. I see that you still have not found the courage to post under your own name.
But, I am enjoying the challenge of playing the game.
Once again, trying to put words in my mouth or down on the page and attribute them to me. I do not know that I have ever said that the evidence is irrefutable that she is guilty, especially as it relates to having the weed found in her boogie board bag.
I have written about the burden of proof on the prosecution in this case. And, I have argued why it meets that burden. Other posters over the course of this thread have argued that it was insufficient even by Indonesian standards.
I have said, that they are entitled to their opinion, and I have let them arguing that here, openly. I do not have to agree with them, do I?
By not agreeing with them has allowed trolls like yourself to hide behind the moniker, anonymous, and question all manner of things about my character. To me, I find that cowardly, but that is just my opinion.
Nice analogy on the murder and the lack of body. But you should really have taken it further and highlighted how the person convicted of that murder sometimes gets off after the DNA does become available or it is retested highlighting a miscarriage of justice. This would seemingly be of more support to your overall argument of a wrongful conviction and miscarriage of justice, don't you think?
Yes, in the absence of a body, circumstantial evidence becomes more important in gaining a conviction in your analogy. That said, there was nothing circumstantial in who owned the boogie board bag or whether the weed was in it in this case, was there? Or is that refutable too?
To my mind what most posters have been arguing is refutable are things like how it came to be there, what her motivations would have been to do something so stupid, and the "evidence" that did not make it to trial.
Yes, go figure, indeed.
Anonymous...
Maybe when you have the testicular or ovarian fortitude to come clean with your identity, but until then you remain a troll.
An interesting troll who serves the purpose of highlighting why people avoid all things Schapelle related, including coming on board to a Free Schapelle inspired group or organization. Simply, if you do not agree with "us" 100% then you are against "us". Not a good advertisement for members.
No, have never worked for the DPP. All my criminal law experience is on the defense side of the bar table.
Go figure.
Nice to see you are 'starting' to see the light Rob!
Go with your values or be commissioned by your agency, THAT is the question...
Anonymous...
Missed the part on core values. However, I can see in the post that follows that one what your core values are.
Another post, another swipe. Too bad these are not paper-based because then I could cut them up in little squares and whack them in my bathroom (within reach of what I call the throne!)
You want to come up with a little more than that? Some irrefutable proof that I am being paid for what I write on the Corby case.
Just what I thought! Another attempted smear.
Sad really.
Kay...
What you're not famous? :D
The analogy of the murder and body is an interesting one. A high profile case to investigate is Daniel Morcombe. While there has been been suspects based on circumstantial evidence. Because 'Daniel' has not been found, the courts are unable to prosecute someone.
Unfortunately the only type of investigation the Indonesians are capable of is how to bribe for the best bidder!!
Anonymous...
Seeing the light?
Mate, never been in the dark (or under a rock)!
Which agency buddy? Do tell. Or it this the best you have, a smear?
I am pretty sure anyone passing through here can see what my values are. Particularly, that I am willing to post under my own name, and then defend my positions or acknowledge a mistake if I have made one.
You on the other hand, seemingly have the value that it is OK to hide behind anonymity and smear others without offering up any shred of evidence.
Yes, values, you should probably think about some of yours.
Anonymous...
Interesting to try and tie the Morcombe case to Schapelle's. It is a case that I am aware of, but it is not one that I have been following closely. So, I am not sure what you are trying to invite me to comment on.
I did not see you jumping up and down on the posts I did about the Bali bombers with respect to their convictions and ultimately their executions.
If Indonesians are only good for lining up the next bribe in an investigation, then perhaps that case was also flawed and the three of them were wrongly convicted and sentenced to death.
If I am not mistaken wasn't Linton Sirait sitting on that panel of judge's as well?
'Welcome to Indonesia
Where we're always glad to see ya
We'll show our appreciation
By giving you a permanent vacation'
I think Gaile has the idea by leaving you to your diatribe Rob. Your motivations are less then desirable. Schapelle does not need predatory pro-Indonesian people involved!
Anonymous...
Seriously, let's do the math on this one.
How many Australians visit Indonesia each year and how many are on permanent holidays courtesy of the Indonesian judicial system?
What diatribe? The only diatribe here comes from an Anonymous poster who thinks that it is fine to invade my house (in this case a blog), insult me, question my motivations, slander me, and then calls my courteous responses a diatribe.
Gaile comes and goes, but it seems she is always passing by to check out what is being said. I am not sure she is leaving me to anything.
You have no idea of my motivations.
This has nothing to do with being pro and anti Indonesian. You cannot be seriously suggesting that to be in support of Schapelle Corby you must be anti-Indonesian, are you?
If you are, then you might want to keep that one to yourself. I cannot see how if that idea ever got out that it would be of any benefit to Schapelle.
Predatory, get a grip of yourself. Most of the people who would be interested in helping Schapelle do not blame ordinary Indonesians for the actions of their government or their department of justice that run counter to what they might personally believe.
Your comment would suggest that you are more motivated by hatred for Indonesia more than you are the best interests of Schapelle.
But, that said, I will be happy for you to leave me to my blog and I would be happy for you to stop posting. Although, it is amusing in a weird way to watch someone do their best to undermine anyone who might be motivated to help another Australian in jail in a foreign land.
You seem to be a sad, twisted, and bitter individual.
Hey Rob,
Amazing that your blog is now close to half 1000! I know that quite a number of Indonesians read your blog so I would like to make sure they know that the sentiments of a few are not shared by the mainstream. Many of my friends are Indonesians. They are wonderful people.
Considering your beliefs Rob are that you 'think' Schapelle was NOT wanting a domestic tradeoff, rather actually going into a THIRD WORLD country (even when having a domestic changeover) this suggests you believe she was mentally disturbed long before being arrested. That is, the only motivation to do the alleged activity is for money. To think she would want to take it to a country where she would get peanuts $ compared to what she would in Australia is quite an accusation by you.
Obviously I don't agree with this - but for a moment let's just go along with it. Couldn't she 'plead insanity'. How would the case run? Same sentencing? Mental health workers on jury? Oh, I forgot it's one of those places that doesn't know what they are...
We don't know who you are and don't even know if you go along with what you type...
Anyway, what would have happened (turning back time) if this was the plea?
Kay...
It is strange that this particular post has morphed in the way that it has.
Yes, Indonesians are generally good people. Kind of like Australians in that way. Most Australians are good and reasonable people.
Oh well.
Anonymous...
Here we go again. You sound like a broken record.
I did not say anything about not wanting a domestic trade off. If I recall, I more than likely said I do not know what her motivations are or were at the time.
I probably also indicated that just being silly and potentially receiving so much less for the weed in Bali that she could conceivably have earned her on it does not rule out the possibility that she did it any way. Some people do stupid things.
Are we really sure that we want to explore at what point Schapelle Corby and her supporters thought about pleading insanity in light of the current claims of her mental illness and psychotic break from reality.
Just the mere thought that she was considering pleading insanity at the time of arrest or trial might give people a moment of pause at this point when most consider that she is suffering from a genuine mental illness.
The issue is not jury trials. There are provisions in the Australian law for criminal matters to be heard "judge alone". Generally, the defense will opt for this when the question of guilt turns on technical legal issues that might not be considered in a jury trial where emotion may cloud the legal issues.
Perhaps it is time to move on to something other than jury trials and the lack of them in Civil Law systems making those countries somehow less able in comparison.
You do not know who I am. Well, I am posting under my real name (this seems to be generally accepted by all who have posted comments here). You, on the other hand, are hiding behind a veil of anonymity in order to cast all sorts of insinuations about me and my character.
Is there any value in going back and seeing how this might have turned out had she pleaded insanity from the start? Not sure that there is seeing we cannot rewrite history.
The reality is no one would have signed off on it anyways, would they? Even if the argument was that you would have to be crazy to want to take 4.1kgs of weed to Bali in a boogie board bag.
You are trying so hard Rob. In your summary there, considering you are standing on one idea, you have not answered at all how the courts would have dealt with an insanity plea in court...
Overall, I can see how you stepped down from the bar. If that's how you would do your closing summary, I don't think anyone would be convinced. You have to really go at someone as a prosecutor not say "I don't know what her motivations were". How weak is that???
You are clutching straws - BIG TIME!!
This case is out of your depth. Interested in civil law?
Anonymous...
My guess is that you are someone who is trying to spread their version of positivity around under a bunch of pseudonyms and as anonymous. That aside.
I did not realize that I was being challenged to prosecute the case. I did not realize I was required to make arguments with respect to her motivations.
If I am not mistaken, if I was to make assertions about what her motivations were then I would be told something along the lines of, "you are a fucking moron", "you have never met Schapelle or her family", you would have to be a complete idiot to take weed to Bali, so that is proof positive that she did not do it", among a number of others.
It does not matter how Indonesian courts would have dealt with an insanity plea. The plea was not made, and consequently there was not any need to address her mental state at the time. Simply, you cannot rewind the clock and do it all over again and plead insanity.
If I were inclined to address what might have happened in the event Schapelle pleaded insanity at the time, I would be inclined to write a book.
However, more interesting is the idea of pleading insanity in the first place. Are you now suggesting that she in fact did it, she committed the offense, but she was insane? How common is it that people plead insanity when they are maintaining their innocence?
Normally, an insanity plea is used to mitigate the ability to comprehend the severity of the crime one has committed, isn't it?
I am pretty sure this was not my closing argument. Once again, I am not attempting to retry the case on the evidence or lack of it. To the contrary, I am examining what happens going forward. You, among a number of other commenters, are attempting to retry the case in this blog and trying to get me to prosecute it, while you defend it.
Not happening. The only arguments I have made are that she is guilty in the eyes of the Indonesian law, and that the Indonesian courts have affirmed that decision on a number of appeals.
Not weak, rather the motivations have not been addressed by me.
Clutching at straws? Once again, I am not prosecuting the case. So, I am not clutching at anything.
Anonymous...
Out of my depth?
Why? Because I refuse to entertain you by trying to re-prosecute the case in my blog?
Or, is it just a simple case of if I do not agree to all your propositions, speculation, conjecture, and circumstance that I do not understand anything about the case, and therefore I am out of my depth?
Sounds like anyone who disagrees with you becomes a target of derision.
Oh well, water off a duck's back.
Sounds like this Rob guy and whoever this anonymous person are both clutching at straws. That is, they are trying to turn something into a case, when it was undetermined by Schapelle's home country whether she would even be charged.
Both learn a thing about law. You're not a defendent until charged, and there needs to be evidence (through commital hearing etc...) for this to happen. Did that happen though?? No.
Curious - does anyone know if Kay Danes was part of the screening/casting process for the TV series "Trouble in Paradise"?
Anonymous...
Are you really different from the previous anonymous.
Schapelle Corby was not arrested in Australia. The Australian common law system does not apply in Indonesia's civil law system.
So, perhaps, rather than suggesting I learn a thing or two about the law, we focus on what Indonesian law demands with respect to the process and trial.
Kay Danes and her role in anything is irrelevant to this post.
Rob says:
The Australian common law system does not apply in Indonesia's civil law system.
You're absolutely right. At least you've proved one thing. That is, Indonesia doesn't have a legal system!!
Anonymous...
So, you are stating unequivocally then - any civil law country where the principles of Australia's common law are not applied has no legal system?
Big call!
Indonesia, like every country in the world does have a legal system. Equally, it's not a perfect system but show us one that is?
You didn't give any examples Rob of how an insanity plea has run its course over there. Guess they're probably dead from the dp and unable to tell their story. You're right Kay, not exactly 'perfect'.
Kay...
It is bizarre that the claim has now become that there is no legal system.
It is bizarre because even within the common law system we use in Australia, innocent people sometimes fall victim to the system and are incarcerated (this happens more often in detention centres for refugees and asylum seekers).
So, the Australian system is far from perfect.
The idea that Indonesia has no legal system is absurd. However, one needs to take the comments by anonymous posters with a grain of salt. This particular poster does not even have the courage of their convictions on this one to put their name to the comment.
In fact, most of the anonymous postings in this thread have been nothing more than indiscriminate swipes at any and everything without offering any support.
I am getting pinged by this particular anonymous commenter about not answering questions. I have answered all questions. Any that I have missed then anonymous is free to repost them and I will have a crack at an answer.
It seems that anonymous here has some inside information about Schapelle's state of mind at the time of the initial trial and is wondering out loud how an insanity plea might have played out. Anonymous, was one being considered?
It would seem to me that this particular anonymous poster has no genuine interest in Schapelle Corby of her current situation as it relates to the claims of mental illness.
By the time the evidence gets any rehearing in a court of law in Indonesia the mental illness might have already won out.
Sad really.
Anonymous...
Why bother? What relevance is how an insanity plea would have played out? Schapelle Corby did not plead insanity.
Furthermore, if we are talking about who is answering questions, then answer this:
Did Schapelle consider an insanity plea at the time?
Was she aware that insanity pleas are used to mitigate the seriousness of the crime?
Was she prepared to admit that she did it, but was insane at the time that she did it?
Then perhaps, I might consider running through how an insanity plea would have played out.
Interesting how you avoid crucial questions. You are right in saying innocent people being incarcerated in Western countries with a more thorough system (and yes, none is 'perfect'.) However, one can only imagine just how much more out of control by such countries as this that see human life as very dispensable.
Anyway, back on track. Firstly, you don't disagree with the verdict. Do you have copies of court transcripts to back up why you say such a thing?? I'm trying to look at it without being biased. You don't think much of DNA evidence. I'm guessing you are saying this because of the possibility of the defendent wearing gloves as well as her hair in a net to diminish the chances of hair fibres getting inside the supplies. That's your opinion. Despite no testing. Have you ever thought of CCTV footage, baggage weights?? We know from urine tests she was negative. So, now you know she was not a user you have to back that up with something of a psychiatric nature...
You opened a can of worms, now explain how an insanity plea would have played out...
Despite my personal belief that she is innocent. If she did it (and no one knows for certain because it was never settled one way or the other) I would double the sympathy for her... Schapelle would give criminals all over the world a bad name, because she wouldn't fit in. They have motivations for what they are arrested for. Here, that can't be seen. Prof. Paul Wilson stated this on the stand while those Indonesian judges with hearts of stone laughed... Yeah, real nice people...
Anonymous...
I have not avoided any crucial questions. You just have not done the research in reading all the posts and comments on Schapelle Corby that are contained within this blog.
Is human life dispensable in Indonesia because they have the death penalty on the statute books or are you alluding to something else which supposedly makes life dispensable? I think I have asked you this question before, if not, I ask it now?
Here is your modus operandi with a view to trying to back me into a corner and get me to agree with you or when I refuse to agree with you, you try and discredit me.
I did not say that I agreed with the verdict. What I did say was that I believed Schapelle to be guilty. I explained and clarified this within a very narrow set of definitions with respect to the prosecution satisfying the burden as they are required to do in Indonesia and convincing the judges.
You want to argue evidence and whether she would have been convicted in Australia, or alternatively apply the Australian common law system within Indonesia's sovereign jurisdiction.
Presumably on the basis that Schapelle is Australian and as such she has a right, no matter where she is arrested, to be tried in a manner that is commensurate with what she would have received in Australia.
So, I have answered that question.
I have read the transcript back in the day. I have not read it for sometime since. No, I do not have a copy with me. I am endeavoring to get one.
I think you might have trouble pointing out where I said that I do not think anything of the DNA evidence. In fact, I have indicated that a DNA test would have been of assistance to both sides irrespective of what the result of the DNA tests were.
However, hypothetically if the DNA test for fibres was done and there was no hair or skin, this would not have been reasonable doubt. The prosecution could have explained this away by saying that it was a professional operation where gloves and hairnets were used.
On the flip side, if there were hair and fibres, then the girl would be sunk. Much more difficult to explain it away.
Anonymous (Part II)...
Continuing with DNA. The most important of the DNA evidence would have been "origin", specifically origin of the wacky weed. If it was Indonesian then this would have made a mockery of the prosecution case.
If it was South American, then this would give credence to the theory of one of the commenters, Brad, that the wacky weed was in some way tied to the cocaine shipment, and that may have provided reasonable doubt. Then again the judges might have said possible, but we are not convinced that this is sufficient reasonable doubt. It would have been something that would have been a point to follow in the appeal process.
Has this answered the DNA question?
On the CCTV front. I have addressed this elsewhere. However, a request for the Australian footage was denied and then it was stated that no footage existed. Commenters have argued this point on this blog and have alluded to a conspiracy and other things. To each their own.
The CCTV footage from Bali would have assisted one side or the other. I have never disputed this to be the case. However, judges have some discretion with respect to whether they felt they needed to view the footage. They felt they did not.
In a perfect world it would have made sense to view the footage. As I have said numerous times, we do not live in a perfect world.
I have answered the baggage weights question previously as well. Weighing the bags may have been helpful, but then again it may not have been helpful to anyone. When it is all said and done, the bags were not weighed individually were they?
I recall that there were multiple bags weighed and a combined weight of 64kgs was recorded. If that is wrong, then feel free to enlighten me (I know you will).
However, I thought her boogie board bag was oversized and went through a different baggage gate, so I would have assumed that it was weighed separately. This I would need to look into again.
If there was a discrepancy in the weight, depending on whether it was higher or lower, would see arguments about weighing procedures and equipment. Particularly if different brands of machines were used, calibration techniques, whether some check in staff round down baggage weights or otherwise fudge exact weights.
Have I answered the baggage weight question?
Anonymous (Part III)...
Yes, her urine and blood tests were negative (if I am not mistaken). So, this would prove that she was not using at, and around, the time of her arrest.
This might have been more important if the prosecution was arguing that the 4.1kgs was for personal use. They were not arguing that she was a drug user with a really large habit, were they?
I ma not sure why I now need to back anything up with a psych defense. Are you suggesting that because none of the above apply, then by default this means she must be insane? Because who in their right mind would try and smuggle 4.1kgs of wacky weed to Bali.
Nope, I have not opened up a can of worms. I do not need to explain how an insanity plea would work. I have explained why I won't do it now or here at the moment.
She did not plead insanity, the clock cannot be wound back to start the process over, there is no real value in running through a hypothetical that will not happen in this case.
I am guessing that because Paul Wilson has Professor in front of his name that everything he said must be accepted as the truth beyond any reasonable doubt?
His evidence was heard and dismissed. As I recall, the judges provided reasons for why his testimony was not considered to be beneficial to them in making a decision.
I know you want me to speculate on what her motivations might have been, but as I have said, I am not acting as the prosecution in an attempt to retry the case here. I do not have to speculate on motivation nor do I have to provide a motivation. I could speculate if I thought there was any value in doing so. But, I do not see any value.
None of the posts or my subsequent comments have been an attempt to reargue the case. The most recent posts have in fact been looking at what options are available going forward.
Any more questions besides the, "how would an insanity plea play out?"?
Anonymous (Part IV)...
Speaking of answering questions.
Was Schapelle Corby considering an insanity plea at the outset?
You would need to prove to me that you are or were close enough to the family for me to believe your answer. The problem you have as an anonymous poster is no one knows who you are. So, people are more inclined to take whatever you say with a grain of salt, and quite possibly just ignore it as the ranting of a wanna be.
That said, if you could prove your identity, and an insanity plea was being considered then I would entertain the idea of running through how an insanity plea would have played out.
I note that in Tony Wilson's book there is an all to brief discussion on page 212 (if I am not mistaken about a Centrelink employee with face blacked out claiming that Schapelle was claiming disability benefits because of drug-related psychological problems.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19583063/Schapelle
Admittedly, this was part of the Jodie Powers fiasco. However, perhaps it has some relevance now with your insistence that I run through how an insanity plea might have played out.
So, answer a few of the questions I have posed to you over time and we can go from there.
What'd ya say?
Waffling on and clutching at straws. You seem to not notice there is so much we don't know and this whole case is saturated in doubt...
Maybe you're just out to shock people with your unresearched accusations...
This blog has become about an issue that really most people don't have a clue about, including you...
Anonymous (Part I)...
Clutching at straws? I hardly think so. Waffling on? About what?
This case is not saturated in doubt. Schapelle's supporters seem to think that it is saturated in doubt, so much so that some of them seem to think they will be able to organize a Royal Commission into the whole affair.
Schapelle's supporters have put some alternative theories out there but have not been able to turn up any new evidence that would from the Indonesian's perspective warrant a reopening of the case.
Schapelle's option is seeking clemency, at least at this point in time.
Me, seeking to shock? What unresearched accusations? I have made no accusations. I have said she is guilty and I have explained the reasoning and rationale for that belief from the outset.
Your problem is that you want to make this post into something it is not about, the evidence (unless we are talking about the evidence that sunk Robin Tampoe).
See, this it the thing. You have no real arguments to put forward so you ramble on about all manner of things and suggest that you have inside information on the case and consequently you know what it is about.
However, you fail, despite repeated requests to ante up and put what you know out there. Instead you tell everyone else they have no idea, and therefore they should not talk about the case or have an opinion about the case except if it is the same as yours.
To me, this sounds like the school-yard bully approach. It is interesting that the approach by some Schapelle supporters seems to be, "Do as I say, say as I tell you to say, or I will do my best to hound you into silence!"
Time to step up and admit that I have answered all your questions and you have failed in your quest to try and divert attention from the real issues in the case.
Anonymous (Part II)...
As a whole, anyone who happens to come across this blog and takes the time to read the comments will go away wondering whether or not it is worth their while to get involved in supporting Schapelle because it seems that some supporters will go to any lengths to make the potential supporters life miserable if they do not toe the "party" line.
Hopefully, though those same potential readers will rad and recognize that there are also good, smart people out there wanting to help Schapelle who are a little more conversant in the issues of law, politics, international relations, and the needs of prisoners in foreign jails, that they still might want to get involved.
Meantime, shame on you!
Blame it on the boogie!!
Anonymous...
Blame what on the boogie?
It would seem that the Indonesian court was sufficiently satisfied about how the 4kgs+ of wacky weed ended up in the boogie board bag (at trial and on appeal).
Maybe it is time to show a little vision and look forward rather than backwards, particularly with respect to seeing that Schapelle gets the treatment she needs to deal with her depression.
Justice Must Not Kill. The Indonesians are corrupt... While Schapelle may not have received the death penalty, it's an agonising slow death existence. Schapelle never had a proper trial. It was never proven one way or the other. To dispute this, you need to go through court transcripts etc... Funny thing about the internet. Those that hold such strong moral condemnation towards others that are judged, often are involved in the things they write about being so against...
Why don't you try speaking to 'higher up' people (like prof. Paul Wilson) rather then spending time with a bunch of randoms you don't know on the internet??
Anonymous...
Seems that we are getting the issues all mixed up here. The post and the discussion to date is not one about the death penalty and whether justice may or may not kill.
However, the proposition that the death penalty and corruption are linked is an interesting one. The US still sentences people to death. I guess this means that their judiciary is corrupt as well.
As I said, perhaps it is time for a rethink. You are getting the issues all confused here.
The post is not about whether Schapelle Corby received a fair trial. The actual post is about Robin Tampoe getting struck off the Roll of Legal Practitioners.
The comments have delved into some issues of evidence, but generally, my concern relates to Schapelle Corby's well-being and any treatment she requires for her depression.
Your logic is one of fallacy. Sorry, but if you equate a 20-year jail sentence with the idea that justice kills and the death penalty then you are quite simply over-reaching and stretching the reality; clutching at straws maybe?
Are you suggesting that I have something to gain from writing about Schapelle Corby or that I am corrupt? Big call on both counts. But, I would expect nothing less from someone who does not even have the belief or the courage of their convictions to use their own name.
"Higher up" because he has professor in front of his name or because he puts forward an idea that you agree with? Prof. Paul Wilson's testimony was heard and dismissed for a number of reasons, was it not? Would I find that in the trial transcripts or associated writings about the case.
This is not to say that Prof. Wilson is not an expert in his chosen field, but it is to say that he provided testimony and that testimony failed to convince the judges of Schapelle's innocence.
Expert testimony is often rejected. One expert witness is often produced to counter another expert witness.
Speaking of expert witnesses. Should we believe the report of Dr. Jonathon Phillips with respect to the seriousness of Schapelle Corby's depression or should we err towards the side of Dr. Thong that has a more everyday role in treating the depression of Schapelle Corby?
The point being "experts" in the same field often can reach different conclusions based on the same set of data. This does not have to be corruption or any other evil or sinister conspiracy.
I am hardly getting my information of random people on the internet. Well, except what I get from you, which is pretty random because you are an unknown quantity.
There's a new home for you Rob:
www.freeschapelle.com.au/forum
There is a section there called the guilty forum. Here, you can express all your 'opinions.' Be prepared to be challenged. You'll like it more then here - especially considering everyone has left you.
You make me laugh 'didn't change the judges minds'. They have never acquitted a single soul ever, why would they change their minds? They are proven to have hearts of stone. Oh, I guess you think they are compassionate??????????????
Interesting how you didn't answer the following:
Despite my personal belief that she is innocent. If she did it (and no one knows for certain because it was never settled one way or the other) I would double the sympathy for her... Schapelle would give criminals all over the world a bad name, because she wouldn't fit in. They have motivations for what they are arrested for. Here, that can't be seen. Prof. Paul Wilson stated this on the stand while those Indonesian judges with hearts of stone laughed... Yeah, real nice people...
I'm guessing you're wanting her to be guilty so that you can have more sympathy for her because you would have far less if you thought she were innocent??
Welcome to your new home...
For those who don't know, Justice Must Not Kill, is the slogan for the Australians Against Capital Punishment (AACP).
http://aacp.wordpress.com/about/
Created pretty much following the arrest of the Australians dubbed 'The Bali 9'.
Anonymous...
Ah, yes, the free schapelle forum.
It reminds me of Fox News Channel and their claims to be "Fair and Balanced". The premise of the particular "Guilty" thread that you refer is moderated is it not?
Not only will rude, crude, and downright mean comments be rejected, so will any questions that are too hard to answer. The only questions that will get through will be those where the forum think they have a ready made winner of an answer.
Nope, I do not need to justify myself by rehashing all of the material that made its way out in the 520+ comments here, over on another forum. Sounds a little like trolling to me. So, I will not be signing up at the free schapelle forum.
Besides, while you are still commenting here there is little need for me to seek out other places. And, if you stop leaving comments, then I am sure that I will enjoy the peace.
You don't need to bother yourself with me feeling lonely. The stats say that there are still plenty of people swinging by. In fact, more than ever.
So, finally, you are identifying yourself as a free schapelle forum member who has taken it upon themselves to "educate" me about the case. I bet Schapelle and her family are real pleased at some of the comments that have come out in this blog about the case from supposed supporters.
Nice job!
Here is the gist of your argument style, when the person you are arguing against does not come on board you endeavour to suggest that your opponent has said things that they have not.
I have never said judges are compassionate. Just because a judge does not acquit anyone has no relevance to compassion. Another argument based on logical fallacy.
I have answered the Prof. Paul Wilson question on a number of separate occasions. If you missed it in the numerous comments to this post, then I would encourage to go back and reread them (until you find it).
I do not need a new home, I already have one.
Kay...
Thanks for the link.
Five years is long enough for what Schapelle has endured.
Kay...
Which is sort of what I have been saying all along within the framework of addressing the treatment issues.
But, a good majority of the commenters here want to rehash the evidence and prove innocence.
And for this I have been labeled all manner of things.
Sad really when one considers that there is a bigger issue here than innocence at the moment, namely: there is still hope, albeit diminishing somewhat more rapidly as each day passes, to get the girl back to Australia.
But, unfortunately, supporters and those with the knowledge of how these things work cannot seemingly find common ground.
Give it a go Rob. You might find some like-minded friends on the forum. You STILL have not answered the question about being MORE compassionate of Schapelle being involved in this. Been brought up four times!!! Because those that say she is guilty (not of a domestic trade-off, but taking the supplies to a THIRD WORLD country) are really saying she was insane when detained. What kind of person would prefer to gain c$4000 over $40000? Maybe Rob is one of them???
Gaile rocks!!! Where is she?
Anonymous...
It is not about finding like-minded individuals. If everyone agrees on every point then there is no need for discussion is there?
Not quite sure what you mean by still not having answered the question about compassion. The compassion angle has been discussed to an fro since pretty much the beginning of the thread.
I have argued consistently about the need for treatment, and I have argued consistently that the sentence was too harsh even by Indonesian standards.
I have also argued pretty consistently that if the point of jail is to punish and to educate, then she has done enough time.
So, I don't really see the need to go any further into answering your question, I have answered it. Perhaps, you refuse to see that, perhaps I have to answer it in a particular way to your satisfaction for it to be answered?
We still on the domestic trade-off and insanity defense? Speaking of answering questions, there are a few that I have posed to you that remain unanswered. Car to ante up? Or remain comfortable behind your supposed veil of anonymity?
More insinuations about me and my character. You really are a case study in how to support a young woman in serious trouble in a foreign jurisdiction.
It is interesting though that you are more interested in puffing out your chest and blowing smoke, rather than addressing the issues and answering questions put to you.
Perhaps you do not use your real name because you are worried about how popular you might become and that a personality cult might develop around you.
Your brand of positivity highlights why so many people are not interested in the case anymore and why the recent five-year anniversary of Schapelle's incarceration drew barely a whisper in terms of media coverage.
Time for a change in strategy perhaps?
Give it a go Rob. You might find some like-minded friends on the forum. You STILL have not answered the question about being MORE compassionate of Schapelle being involved in this. Been brought up four times!!! Because those that say she is guilty (not of a domestic trade-off, but taking the supplies to a THIRD WORLD country) are really saying she was insane when detained. What kind of person would prefer to gain c$4000 over $40000? Maybe Rob is one of them???
Are you more compassionate because of what side you take Rob???
You don't have to invest in Schapelle's innocence to be a supporter. However, you can't say you believe she's guilty. What's wrong with you saying "I don't know??" You know deep down it was never proven...
Ask a teenager now while they know it all. Sadly, that sounds a bit like you Rob.
I seriously do think you have an alertior motive... Very sad!!
Anonymous...
You really are an embarrassment to the free schapelle forum.
You call me a teenager, but yet you seek to dictate the terms of debate through bullying those that have a different opinion to you.
You deliberately avoid answering questions. Probably because you do not have any answers, or you are not privy to the inner workings of what happened at the time.
The whole premise of your argument is that you can only be considered compassionate if you agree that Schapelle is not guilty. If you do not agree with that, then you must only ever state that you cannot know beyond a reasonable doubt.
Unfortunately, for Schapelle and for you, she was proven guilty. She was proven guilty in an Indonesian court of law. No amount of arguing the toss and rehashing the evidence is going to change that.
Perhaps, if you stopped for a minute and read what I said you would stop making a fool of yourself by arguing something that has not been said. My arguments for guilt are based on a very narrow definition. I have said this so many times I have lost count.
Unfortunately, you want to argue on a premise that does not
A Royal Commission held in Australia will also not change how the Indonesians view her guilt. It simply will not have any bearing on how the Indonesians deal with Schapelle Corby or incarceration.
I have said many times. For there to be further evidentiary hearings there needs to be new evidence. To which you give me Prof. Paul Wilson.
Alternatively, you pass off speculation, conjecture,and all manner of hypotheses as fact that prove reasonable doubt.
Sorry, but that is not new evidence.
Feel free to speculate what my motivations are, should be interesting reading.
Give it a go Rob. You might find some like-minded friends on the forum. You STILL have not answered the question about being MORE compassionate of Schapelle being involved in this. Been brought up four times!!! Because those that say she is guilty (not of a domestic trade-off, but taking the supplies to a THIRD WORLD country) are really saying she was insane when detained. What kind of person would prefer to gain c$4000 over $40000? Maybe Rob is one of them???
Are you more compassionate because of what side you take Rob???
There was evidence against Lindy Chamberlain. Does that mean she's guilty??
Please provide an example of how an insanity plea has played out in the courts there?
You have a fundamental belief that the courts never get anything wrong. Where does that come from???
If you don't look at this seriously, you are a lost cause...
Anonymous...
The first paragraph is a repeat of a previous comment. I have answered all those questions multiple times.
Question two, answered.
Question three: Yes, there was. No, it does not mean that she is guilty. It seems you are still trying to attribute comments to me that I have not made. A simple internet search will reveal plenty about the Chamberlain case.
Question four, answered. I have posed questions to you on this point, but you have, to date, failed to answer them.
There is no point in running through a hypothetical situation. Schapelle did not claim to be insane, and she cannot wind the clock back and do it now.
Question five: Once again, trying to attribute statements and beliefs to me that have not been made or held.
I do not have a fundamental belief that courts never make mistakes. If you read the comments here, then you would find statements to that effect. You, simply are fudging on the truth by trying to ascribe comments and statements that are not there.
You really are an embarrassment to the cause and to the free schapelle forum. You should be ashamed of yourself as your comments highlight that you will go to any length to discredit others, including misrepresenting the truth.
Pretty sad really. It seems that with supporters like you that Schapelle might be in for a much longer stay in Kerobokan than she should have to endure.
I have argued that she has already done enough time for the crime. I have also argued that even by Indonesian standards that the sentence was too harsh. And, further that she needs to be placed somewhere where she can get treatment for her depression. For that, you seek to discredit me?
As I said, you are an embarrassment.
I think I have looked at it seriously. Am I a lost cause because I do not agree with you?
That sounds like a rationale debate on the issues.
One question:
Would Schapelle (or anyone) prefer c$4000AUD over c$40,000
Answer: Y1 for Yes, N1 for No (that is ALL that is required)
Anonymous...
Mate, sorry. I have answered that question on so many occasions.
All that is required is for you to read through the comments. You will find the answer.
Thanks & have a nice day.
You have not answered that question. It's yes or no...
Perhaps your being glad there was no fingerprinting/DNA may be due to a traumatising experience that you've been through, but you need to remove this when having a fresh look at somebody else's circumstance... She requested such things, and was not allowed.
There is more of an investigation for someone to visit an Australian prison then how Schapelle was convicted. This is a fact...
One question:
Would Schapelle (or anyone) prefer c$4000AUD over c$40,000?? YES OR NO!!!
You would be a shocker on the stand. You'd be torn to shreds because of the inability to answer the question being asked.
Have faith and chin up...
Please answer in your next response with one word: Yes or No.
Anonymous...
Unfortunately for you, you do not get to come into my house and then dictate the rules of the game.
I have answered that question numerous times. If you are too lazy to go back through the comments and find it, then you really do not want to know what the answer is.
Get a new game, this one is old.
You truly are a clown. Point to the comment where I said anything about being glad that there was no fingerprinting or DNA evidence. Once again, you embarrass yourself and the Free Schapelle Forum with your misrepresentations (some might call them lies).
Nice insinuation on the traumatic experience front. Another attempt to deflect attention from your faltering arguments. Very transparent and very poor from whichever angle it is viewed.
I have visited a number of Indonesian and Australian prisons. I know the procedures for both, thanks.
Nice ploy to further divert attention from your losing arguments. I am not on the stand! I am not in a court, not even the court of public opinion.
You want a foil to attempt to retry the case. I am not the person. I have made the statements I have, and I stand by them. I have justified them and have argued as to why they are fair. I need do no more.
I have faith and my chin is always up. Then again, I am not in jail in Kerobokan convicted of smuggling 4kgs+ of wacky weed into Indonesia. And, it doesn't matter how much I think I might have made on it.
You can keep asking the same question if you want. I will keep giving you the same response.
But, have a nice day.
One question:
Would Schapelle (or anyone) prefer c$4000AUD over c$40,000?
Answer: Y1 for Yes, N1 for No (that is ALL that is required)
And for the rest of your waffle. You truly are an opionated person. Not very good at ONLY dealing with facts...
I feel sorry for the people you have visited. You're about as compassionate as a firing squad!
Ok. Since we now have to 'assume' you have said no. Why would she prefer $4000 over $40,000?
Everyone else has given up on you Rob. The forum has been told you are a lost cause...
Do you believe Schapelle had a fair trial?
Gaile is right. Leave you to your diatribe Rob. Not exactly going to win support from Corbys...
Most Schapelle supporters would have MUCH more respect for Robin Tampoe then you!
"The Innocent Should Not Be Punished".
For all we know, you could have inside knowledge as to how the supplies really got in there. (No wonder you hold your views) Of course, no one can assume this....
I think this blog is a load of slosh...
Anonymous...
See, this is why Schapelle Corby will end up doing so much more time than she would of otherwise had to. You, her supporters, and others have assumed too much.
At best it was naivety. At worst it was arrogance. Those involved at the time underestimated the seriousness of what was confronting her, and thought that you could play by whatever rules you wanted to play by.
Shame on you.
Would Schapelle prefer 4000 or 40000? I would not know. I do not know the girl. I would prefer 40000. But, it was not me transporting / smuggling drugs now was it? It was Schapelle who was caught. Maybe she bought into the myth of Aussie Gold and only after the fact did she realize that it was just that, a myth.
I do not claim to speak for Schapelle or her family. If you want to know what she would prefer, then ask her.
As I said, I am not here to try the case as the prosecution.
Waffle. Yeah, whatever. The only waffle here comes from you. You do not even have the courage of your convictions to post under your real name. My guess is that you do not even believe the drivel that you have written here. But, rather you have too much time on your hands and have nothing better to do.
Whatever the case may be, you are an embarrassment to the Free Schapelle Forum. You should return there.
You do not know who I have visited. But rest assured they do not need your pity. The compassionate as a firing squad comment highlights just how poor your arguments really are. The lost cause here is you and those like you.
Everyone else has given up on me? Does it look or read like I care on that front? Are you trying to educate me to the real facts that say Schapelle is innocent?
The forum feels I am a lost cause? Goes to show where the forum's priorities are, doesn't it? No wonder Schapelle Corby is still in jail. If the forum's sum total of existence is to waste time on the internet invading people's homes (blogs), then with a bit of luck we might see Schapelle some time after 2020.
Mate, you really do need to go back and read through the comments. You are way off track on so many fronts.
Once gain, you really are an embarrassment to yourself and to the young woman you claim to support.
Anonymous...
Do I believe Schapelle had a fair trial?
Go back and read the comments you might learn a thing or two.
You might also learn that the trial and appeal phases in this case are over. The Indonesians are not going to overturn the decision without new evidence.
This means that rehashing the old evidence as her supporters are prone to do is simply not going to cut the mustard.
You never know though. You might convince the Australian government to start up a Royal Commission. Not sure how the Indonesians will respond should the RC find reasonable doubt. However, there is no guarantee that the RC would return a reasonable doubt verdict.
Anonymous...
Why don't you? Why don't you just leave it alone? Why do you keep coming back?
Gee, I feel chastized that Schapelle Corby supporters would have more respect for Robin Tampoe than they would for me. Least we are partly back on topic with the original post.
I agree, the innocent should not be punished, in fact they must not be punished. But, unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.
However, in the eyes of the Indonesian court system, Schapelle Corby is not innocent. She is guilty as charged. Her defense team was unable to convince the court that the prosecution had not made their case.
What a weak argument and how very gutless of you to post anonymously and then to insinuate that I have inside knowledge of how the drugs came to be in Schapelle's boogie board bag.
You are a coward! You are an embarrassment to yourself and to Schapelle, the Corby family, and the forum. If you had any courage you would identify yourself.
No matter though. You are what you are. And, anyone reading this exchange will agree with me that to make allegations in this manner is gutless.
The whole blog is a load of slosh? Or just the posts about Schapelle? You seem to be operating under the mistaken identity that this blog is about Schapelle Corby. It is not.
You really do need to learn to read more broadly. It will help you to make more convincing arguments.
Hopefully, you will decide not to return. Your trolling ways are just becoming a tad boring.
Hi Rob,
I continue to read your blogs and so do a lot of other people. The fact of the matter is how you have stated, it won't get Schapelle any closer to home while people continue to antagonise others who are not willing to become 'true believers'.
You make a lot of sense Rob. It's unfortunate that some people only choose to see what they want to see and if you disagree with them, then you are called all manner of filthy names.
It can't be proved either way about Schapelle being innocent or guilty. The Indonesians have found her guilty so the family and supporters need to work within that scope. This is the reality of her situation. Indonesia holds the key not Australia. Writing to the Australian Government and abusing them only gets their back up. The writers become known as spammers or lunatics and soon everyone in Government gets fed up with hearing the rantings. Again, unhelpful to Schapelle.. hence why things are done a certain way and with successful outcomes. Too bad people don't get this!
Kay...
I don't think that it can be proved either way now. However, I have only really been arguing that the trial and appeal process is over. The game is no longer one of arguing the evidence or lack thereof. It is about, assuming her supporters are serious about seeing her home, how best to make her repatriation a reality.
Repatriation is unlikely to be a "one-step" affair. It is also unlikely to happen if supporters continue to want to argue the evidence in company with all Indonesian courts are corrupt and the judiciary is worthless.
It is too bad that the issues that are now important are being lost amongst issues that are no longer crucial to the question of repatriation.
Like Kay said it can not be proved either way now. We have to remember the Indonesians were the ones to burn the evidence without testing it all while Schapelle/family and her legal team demanded that not to happen. It's like finding a dead body for a murder case and cremating it without testing!!! How much more violating can people be??
If one reality has hit home to Rob during all this is that many lawyers do not comment on this case. This whole blog and arguing has no doubt proved why many in the profession would steer clear at forming judgements and loose talk based on media's so-called 'evidence'. Just downright unprofessional.
Also, because Rob has stated he cares for Schapelle would be hurtful and a downright insult to her. In 2006 a book was released where Schapelle was able to say her story. If I was in her shoes and a so-called lawyer allegedly wanting to support me turns around saying that my story (published book) is a pack of lies, I would be very hurt... The key to understanding anyone (especially prisoners) is to 'walk a day down their path.'
Tread carefully with Schapelle Rob. She is very fragile and wants to feel as much genuine support as she can. She certainly needs it...
Even Kevin Rudd reconciled early 2008 to indigenous people. One word, 'sorry'. That's all it takes Rob. We are the world...
Anonymous...
Let's not mess around here anymore.
You are a coward. You claim to be a Schapelle Corby supporter, but you are nothing more than a gutless bully.
Anyone who does not agree with you or toe the Corby party line is dismissed and derided as a fool. Anyone who has taken the time to read the original post, and the thread, will see this in a heartbeat.
You are an embarrassment to the cause you claim to represent and support. You are also an embarrassment to the Free Schapelle Forum, which seems to include friends and supporters who have a genuine desire to see Schapelle repatriated.
You, on the other hand, do not have anyone's interests in mind apart from your own.
Indonesian procedural law allows for the destruction of "evidence" once the trial and appeal phases are complete. This is the case for the case against Schapelle. She has no avenues of appeal left. What remains is clemency.
Your analogy is flawed.
You, obviously, will not accept this simple fact. Too bad for you.
Perhaps the reason that very few lawyers comment on this case is that they do not care or they are satisfied that there is nothing there that warrants their attention or discussion. Or they simply cannot be bothered to tolerate fools like yourself who come trolling, but do not have the courage to identify themselves.
My opinions are not based on loose talk, so-called evidence, or the media. Once again, you have not done your homework as "this whole blog" is not a blog about Schapelle Corby.
So, once again, your misrepresentations (some would not be so polite and just call them "lies") about me and the statements you allege that I have made are found wanting.
Your statement that my comment and opinion in this blog are unprofessional, highlights that you have no idea what professionalism is. There is absolutely nothing unprofessional about me commenting on a case in which I am professionally involved with.
If I was on a retainer to the Corbys, then I would be bound by an obligation not to divulge any privileged information or data. I am not on a retainer, so my opinions here have nothing to do with being unprofessional. It is just another diversionary tactic employed to divert attention from the fact that you have no sustainable arguments.
Nope, I have never said that I care for Schapelle. I have talked about compassion in the sense of the punishment being too harsh, I have talked about lessons learned, I have talked about the purpose of the sentence, and I have discussed the idea that she has done enough time for the crime. No where among there is any suggestion that I care one way or the other.
If the girl is hurt and insulted, then so be it. I would be surprised if she is either. She does not know me, and I do not know her. So, what I write is an opinion, and it is what it is, an opinion.
Once again, more lies from you. I never said that her book was a pack of lies. You have drawn a very long bow from the statement that she is guilty pursuant to the provisions of Indonesian law to dismissal of what was written in the book. You are obviously not skilled in the art of advocacy. You are failing miserably on that front.
Anonymous...
A little more to end off.
Mate, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and for you Schapelle still languishes in Kerobokan. Your advocacy in support of her is failing miserably. Perhaps it is time to swallow a little pride and get some help from those with real practical knowledge of matters such as these.
What will kill Schapelle Corby is the arrogance of her so-called and supposed supporters.
I have nothing to apologize for. I am not apologizing to you. I am not apologizing to Schapelle Corby. There is simply nothing to apologize for. Even the fact that I believe she is guilty does not mandate that I apologize for holding such an opinion.
It is time you moved on and contributed something worthwhile to the Schapelle Corby cause. You are certainly wasting valuable time commenting on this blog. And, even more importantly, you are doing more harm to Schapelle with your foolish misrepresentations and insinuations.
Naive at best, pre-meditated at worst.
Shame on you.
May time heal your wounds Rob. Often when people come together to support something like this that only talk about strategies for getting them home. That is, there is a boundary set up and there is no talk about the case whatsoever. Unfortunately you graffitied all over this and there is now a big stain on you for doing so. Saying sorry and only talking about repatriation for Aussies in foreign prisons would become more worthwhile 'if'you genuinely want to help Schapelle. And, from where I stand, am not convinced.
I see that Kay Danes has received her fair amount of criticism on this blog too. However, she has not be so reckless as to talk about her opinion on Schapelle choice of not guilty plea over an insanity one and domestic tradeoff issues etc... I'm hoping that she sees all that as irrelevant.
If you want to carry on with what you have been going on about 'the guilty forum' on the free schapelle forum has a spot waiting for you!!!
Sadly, when some people are so ignorant it takes a devastating event to make them wake up. I certainly hope that this traversty doesn't happen to you. It sadly has become a well known fact that travelling to Indonesia with unlocked bags could result in getting the death penalty. As Kay said, not exactly a 'perfect' system.
In our thoughts and prayers.
Anonymous...
For a troll, you are mildly amusing. Your comments to date have served to highlight that you do not understand the issues, they highlight that the issues you are somewhat familiar with you cannot sustain arguments on, and they also highlight some of the basic mistakes in advocacy that amateurs make. Particularly, playing the person instead of the ball.
This thread is not about me. This case is not about me. This case is about a young woman caught smuggling a large quantity of wacky weed into Indonesia. It has been about how she went through the trial process. It has been about how she went through the appeal process. And, it is a fact under Indonesian law that she has been convicted and is therefore guilty in the eyes of Indonesian law.
It would seem that the tide has turned in Australia as well with most polls showing that Australians feel she did it. I even posted one. Makes interesting reading.
Once again, to the lack of substance in your propositions and insinuations that are supposedly doubling as arguments.
I have no wounds to heal. The fact that you make such comments only serves to highlight to all readers that you are a coward whose only courage can be found in anonymity. If this was a game of chicken, then you would be the chicken. You simply, cannot sustain an argument without resorting to playing the man rather than the ball.
There are no boundaries. It is called focus. It is about focusing on the issues that people can do something about. The case is over as far as the Indonesians are concerned. There was a trial and several appeals.
So, unless you have something more than rehashing evidence that was deemed to be unnecessary at the time of the trial and appeals, then you have nothing. Her available avenues now are limited to one, clemency.
If you cannot deal with that, then you are doing Schapelle no favours by bagging all and sundry about an alleged abuse of her human rights.
Am I stained? I have posed numerous questions to you. You have answered none of them. Yet, you personally attack my character and reputation as an anonymous poster? The person lacking character here is you. The person that will have to deal with stains, is you.
Yes, this has been my point all along. You can only be a "real" Schapelle Corby supporter if you follow the rules of the game as set by the Free Schapelle Forum. And, you wonder why the girl is still in Kerobokan? Pretty obvious don't you think.
It must be pretty frustrating for those supporters that genuinely care about Schapelle and her future, her Australian future. I do not include you in that category because your comments here fail to convince me that you are a "real" supporter.
You seem to be able to talk the talk but cannot walk the walk. You seem to be aware of the basic argument framework but have a total inability to sustain that argument beyond the trivial.
Sad really, really sad.
Anonymous...
While we are at it. Here is a little more to ponder.
Yes, Kay received a fair bit of abuse. It was hardly criticism. Criticism needs to be couched into some degree of context. In the comments here there was little or no context, there was a lot of insinuating and slandering, but those doing the insinuating and slandering were neither very good at nor did they make any sense.
I am sure it was upsetting to Kay. I turned comment moderation on in order to stop the abuse. And, it was abuse, and it was coming from Free Schapelle forum members. Nice job, don't you think?
There is nothing reckless about talking about a not guilty plea or a plea of insanity. It was an anonymous commenter (you) who wanted to run the insanity defense. But, when challenged on why, you just refused to answer.
It was you that brought into the game the arguments for and against a domestic trade-off. If she is genuine not guilty of the offense then there is little value in trying to make a definitive statement on whether she would prepare $4k or $40K.
Kay can answer the relevancy issue if she so desires.
Am I ignorant? Big call from a person who does not even have the courage to post under their own name. I guess my ignorance is that I just don't roll over and say, "OK, everything is as you say it is".
Unfortunately, nothing much of what you have written here is accurate. You have seemingly preferred to play the man instead of the ball.
Are you suggesting that all the foreigners in Indonesian jails or on death row for drugs offenses are there because of unlocked bags? I am guessing that you have figures for this and would be willing to supply them or a link to them.
If you do have the figures and those figures show that the majority of the cases had nothing to do with unlocked bags, then you would be willing to accept that Schapelle must have been the exception to the rule or rather she was not the exception to that rule but fell right within the parameters of it.
The game you're playing is a double-edged sword that has little or no upside and a potentially devastating down-side.
Maybe it is time to focus on the things that you can change and not on the ones that you cannot.
Schapelle has some real predators out there ROB!!! Peace be with you.
I don't understand why you are so judgemental of her and such an angry person??
This Rob guy is way out of his depth and building a bigger hole for himself!!1
Anonymous...
I was kind of hoping that today would be a day where you would not comment. Your trolling ways, although mildly amusing, highlight why Schapelle Corby is in the trouble that she is in, and why she continues to languish in Kerobokan prison.
Schapelle has real predators? Really? Who? And, perhaps more importantly, why? Now, you are the one who has tossed predators into the mix. So, explain. Otherwise, it says you have nothing of substance to argue, and you are intent on just making the waters as murky as you can.
Judgmental of what? I have said she is guilty. I have explained and defined what this means. Unfortunately, you cannot get your mind around either the explanation or the definition. Therefore, you are unable to comprehend that there is no judgment being passed here other than a discussion of the judgment already passed upon her by the Indonesian courts.
Angry? Not sure that I understand what you mean. I am not angry about anything Schapelle related. As I said, I find you and your trolling ways mildly amusing, albeit increasingly boring.
You have not put forward any arguments beyond a bit of conjecture here and there. When you have been asked questions, you have avoided giving answers. Your comments on this thread only serve to highlight why Schapelle continues to languish in a Balinese prison.
Your comments today show that you are sans argument, sans sustainable argument, and that you continue to play the man and mot the ball.
Some other commenters reckon that they know who you are from the style of your writing. There has also been some speculation over at the Free Schapelle Forum as well as to who you might be.
To me you are just a person who has too much time on their hands and chooses to spend it trolling here. You have no arguments of substance. Your comment have highlighted this.
Anonymous...
I do not know whether you are the same person as the previous anonymous poster. To be honest I cannot be bothered going back to track the IPs to find out (I just save them into a file for future reference if I ever feel the need to use them).
Out of my depth? How so? Your throw away one-liners could do with a bit of explanation.
You normally dig holes as opposed to building them. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that I am going to the trouble of digging the hole and then bricking in the walls or something.
It is interesting that you anonymous posters believe that it is unprofessional and unethical and un all manner of things. Yet, see no hypocrisy in commenting and putting forward opinions of your own on the case.
It seems to me,and perhaps to many others, that you are more interested in dictating the terms of the discourse. Anyone who does not agree with you or toe the party line, then you seek to hound them into submission.
Unfortunately, for you, you have found that I won't be hounded into submission. I address your questions, respond to them, and then challenge you to do the same. So far, those people posting here as supposed supporters of Schapelle Corby have been found wanting.
Maybe, and just maybe, it is time for a new strategy and a more integrated approach to seeing Schapelle repatriated in the best interests of the girl herself and her health.
But, no, we still want to do the evidence dance while the girl you supposedly care for, are compassionate towards languishes in jail.
Might just be me, but I find your whole approach overwhelmingly unconvincing.
Have a good day.
Rob says:
It was you that brought into the game the arguments for and against a domestic trade-off. If she is genuine not guilty of the offense then there is little value in trying to make a definitive statement on whether she would prepare $4k or $40K.
That question refers to your opinion. You've stated one thing, but unable to describe the chronilogical order of events for Schapelle's flights - and what things did/suppose to happen (FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW).
Pleased to see you're opening up scope for various possibilities and seeing the doubt and fact that there was not enough evidence to convict this defendent...
I am very proactive and at peace with the amount of work that I do to support repatriation of Aussies in foreign prisons. What about you??
Why do you say things like 'have a nice day' after lashing out against me??
What are you trying to do with this blog???
If you want to know more about someone you don't slander them. You coax them in and make them feel like they want to know you.
Are you disbarred?
Anonymous...
Let's work backwards.
No, I am not disbarred.
This blog is not about Schapelle Corby. And, I hardly have to explain myself to you. You are anonymous. You do not even have the courage of your convictions to identify yourself. But, it is nice to know that you are at peace with yourself.
I would have thought that if you were at peace with yourself and comfortable with what it is that you do then there would be no bars to being positive and identifying yourself.
I have not lashed out at you. You have no arguments of substance, and you have spent your time commenting here questioning my character, my credibility, my skills, and my knowledge. You have also spent your time misrepresenting my opinions and statements.
Take your off the cuff remarks with respect to questioning whether or not I have been disbarred. You are playing the man and not the ball.
In advocacy this is indicative of someone who is uncertain and uncomfortable with their ability to sustain an argument in support of their propositions.
You have not taken the time to read my comments or the blog to get a feel for any of the things that you take issue with.
Lashing out, I hardly think so.
My work is not dedicated to that particular task. I was merely commenting in this post about the striking off of the roll of practitioners of one Robin Tampoe.
The comments on Schapelle have been restricted to defining and explaining guilt within the parameters of Indonesian law (which you fail to recognize) and suggesting that she has done more than enough time for the crime.
I am satisfied and comfortable with that. Yes, I am. The person that is uncomfortable with that is you. That, mate, is a problem for you and not for me. I am at peace.
Is your work something to do with being against capital punishment?
Sorry, I am not opening up to other possibilities with respect to the evidence. I have considered them for sure, who wouldn't? However, this does not mean that I am convinced of her innocence.
Once again, go back and read what I wrote. You are misrepresenting what I said or wrote. There was more than enough evidence in the eyes of the Indonesian legal system to convict this defendant (AKA Schapelle Corby).
If I am not mistaken the court convicted her, right? So, she is guilty in the eyes of the law.
No the domestic trade-off does not refer to my opinion. I made a statement of belief that Schapelle is guilty. I explained that, I defined that, and you refuse to see what I have written or what I am talking about.
This is your problem and not mine.
Really? There is a need for me to describe in chronological order the flights that she took that day in order to support my statement that she is guilty?
I hardly think so.
If it could be proved that Schapelle was innocent then her lawyers should have done this. Unfortunately they didn't and perhaps couldn't. They failed to explain how the drugs came to be in her bag. They failed to appropriately defend her case.
This has been the main problem for Schapelle right from the beginning. Even for someone who may be innocent, it is difficult to prove you are, when you are the one holding the bag.
We cannot turn back time so the only way forward now is to ensure Schapelle gets proper advice, on what is now... what.... the second or third time round this same block.
She should be becoming a model prisoner. She must accept the situation unless she can change it, she can't. She has to learn to play by their rules because she is under their control. No amount of fist shaking is going to change her unfortunate situation. It's about time her 'people' understood this. Nothing is ever hopeless if you are willing to do things the way in which they are meant to be done.
Kay...
This has been my point from the outset. I appreciate that people / supporters have arguments regarding the evidence and the trial process. However, the focus for me has been on the "going forward" issues.
I believe that it is critical that she gets the right advice on how to go forward. I also believe that it is critical to her long term welfare that she get the treatment necessary for her to deal with the depression she is suffering.
I believe that the treatment is being offered and there are issues about how that treatment might be being delivered in Kerobokan. If there are issues then the most likely step is placement in an appropriate Indonesian mental health facility.
Even if she is innocent, there are no reasons why she cannot become a model prisoner. It would ensure that there was a lot less of a media circus around her, it would ensure that she would get a couple of remissions each year.
Who knows, done in the right way she may even be offered a release way before the 20 years she was sentenced to have run their course.
I believe her situation is difficult, but it is not hopeless, far from it.
Rob, as you know, the Indonesians hold all the cards. They've already made it more than clear how things work and will work. Foreigners in such situations find it difficult to grasp these situations because they're brought up on all that 'justice will prevail' crap.Reality is far removed at times and it is a real shame when people don't or won't accept what is. Sure it's a horrible thing to live with when you have been subjected to an injustice but that's the whole point, you have to live with it.... if you are to ever survive in order to turn things around or make good from a bad situation.
For Anonymous who said that there are no lawyers publicly commenting on this case. Stephen Warne, Barrister, has an honours Law Degree from Melbourne University. He's discussing the case at length.
http://lawyerslawyer.net/2009/05/05/another-case-about-one-of-schapelle-corbys-lawyers/
Kay...
They do hold all the cards with respect to the idea of seeing Schapelle repatriated to Australia.
I really do not see the Australian government mounting a middle of the night "snatch" operation to whisk Corby out of jail and back to Australia.
Therefore, the parameters of the game are set by the Indonesians. It is not rocket science to realize that.
If "justice" was going to prevail in this case, then it would have done so already. Justice is not going to prevail. The sooner that reality is accepted the sooner the support for Schapelle can move to focusing on exclusively on getting her "home".
Once she is home, if her supporters want to go tooth and nail on the evidence, then go for it.
The idea that she is innocent and that sooner or later the Indonesians will realize this is naive.
It is time to focus on the issues that can contribute to getting her home.
Yes, there are other lawyers / barristers commenting on the case and the matters on the periphery. Stephen Warne writes some insightful pieces. I enjoy reading his "stuff".
He wrote a good piece on Tampoe and the fabricated defense. It was interesting to read through how he would have created reasonable doubt and ensured it was on the record. Whether or not he would have been successful is a different question.
Nevertheless, the "reasonable doubt" in this particular case was never properly done. The arguments about whether this was because of a hard-arsed judge who has never acquitted in 500 cases or the failings of the defense team are not the primary issue. The issue is that the reasonable doubt arguments were not done.
The baggage handlers defense was worth the effort. But, it required a whole lot more than it being tossed out there as the alternative.
As Brad, has noted previously, there were potential connections between the two cases that, if used in the right way may have been "enough" reasonable doubt, and as Stephen Warne points out, this could have been used to cast reasonable doubt in order that the court might have been inclined to acquit.
What I have been saying all along is that Schapelle is guilty because that is what she is in the eyes of the Indonesian law. However, I have never argued that there is not, and was not, arguments to be made for reasonable doubt.
That reasonable doubt does not come from the statements of criminologists, it comes from the "facts" of the case. But, I am not arguing the case on the evidence here, as that was not the point of the original post.
Unfortunately, there are some who when they see Schapelle and guilty in the same sentence lose all perspective and immediately jump into a standard blurb about the evidence and reasonable doubt.
My point, and the point of some others is that the trial and appeal phase of this case are over. If Schapelle is to be repatriated then rehashing and rearguing the evidence is not going to do it.
To each their own.
In the eyes of Indonesian law, anyone can become guilty. It's like lotto. For Schapelle, wrong place, wrong time. For a crime she would have got a slap on the wrist in Australia for; the Indonesians want to cause a slow death on her and enjoy seeing her suffer.
However, just to go and see a prisoner in Australia you need to do the biometric system (fingerprints) and go through sniffer dogs etc...
This is a yes or no question. Since being arrested, has Schapelle EVER had her fingerprints recorded by the Indonesians??? (this is a yes or no answer Rob - not a sermon please)
If so, when and what for???
If this Rob guy thinks the Indonesians are kind. Scary to think what his outlook/philosophies on life are???
What's the connection between this Rob Baiton and Kay Danes??
No need to bark like dogs. These two people seem quite vindictive...
Anonymous...
My blog, my rules. If I want to stand on my soap box and give a sermon, I can!
She would have received a lighter sentence in Australia. Maybe not a slap on the wrist despite being a first-time offender.
Big call on your part about the Indonesians wanting to cause her suffer and see her die a slow death. Two points: proof that the Indonesians want to see her suffering and see a slow death, and how is a statement like that helpful to Schapelle?
This is not about visiting prisoners, personally or professionally, in an Australian jail. Another irrelevant point.
I do not know whether Schapelle has had her fingerprints taken. I would imagine the answer, though, is yes. However, it seems like it is a loaded question to which you already have a pre-planned response for, no matter what my answer is.
My experience is that people resident in Indonesia, citizens and foreigners, are required to be fingerprinted at some stage. I have been finger-printed multiple times in Indonesia.
The purpose? To identify you if ever required.
Anonymous...
Your posts are always worth a laugh. I am having a chuckle to myself now as I respond to your puerile remarks.
See, the problem for you is that you come into my home and you attack me, my character, my philosophies of / on life and liberty, and my opinions about Indonesians, among other things.
To do this as an anonymous commenter is cowardly. You wanna call me out on my philosophy of life and on life, or my knowledge of Indonesia and Indonesians, why not have the testicular or ovarian fortitude to do it under your own name.
Anyone reading your comments well read them for what they are; a weak attempt to slander. You are an embarrassment. You are an embarrassment to yourself and to all decent Schapelle Corby supporters out there, particularly those with a genuine interest in seeing the girl come home.
This is not a post about Kay Danes or any relationship I may or may not have with her. This is your second problem as an alleged supporter of Schapelle Corby. You are more interested in playing the man than the ball. You are more interested in making disparaging remarks and insinuations about others rather than looking into the mirror and having a good long hard think about your own weaknesses and where things have gone wrong for Schapelle.
Maybe if you had, then the young woman would be home by now and kicking back on the beach with a new boogie board. But no, you would rather focus on the less important things in the grand scheme of things.
Shame on you.
Nice insinuation. Am I barking like a dog? Or merely responding to cowardly attacks from people who are fooled into believing that they are anonymous when they post under the moniker "anonymous"?
Vindictive? How so? There is nothing in any of these posts or comments by me that are intended to seek revenge or intended to cause hurt. In fact, to the contrary, the posts and comments have been dealing with some cold hard realities of where the situation is seemingly at, at least from my perspective.
That, my friend, is called an opinion. And, if I am not mistaken I am allowed to hold such opinions irrespective of whether you approve or not.
Was finger prints ever asked about in Schapelle's trial? In her book 'my story' (which Rob think is a pack of lies), there is a photo there of Schapelle demanding fingerprints to be taken where the prosecutor said not necessary. In Schapelle's show 'trial' the defence team demanded fingerprinting of the inner plastic bag (because the outside one was basically touched and used for the police to consume in their recreation time). Did you stick your hands all over it too Rob??? The judge placed his hands all over it saying 'it's been contaminated, we can't test it' and laughed hysterically....
Kay Danes keeps going on about the presentation etc... Big call, have you gone over that with the Corbys? It is a well known fact that she has gone against the will with prisoners families on various issues. The Corbys and the Rushs just to start with...
Gaile rocks...
Anonymous...
Whoever you are, you really do need to get a grip on reality here. You are embarrassing yourself, the Free Schapelle Forum, Schapelle, and her family.
Feel free to point to a specific reference where I have said that any book relating to Schapelle Corby is a pack of lies.
Is your point whether Schapelle's fingerprints were taken or whether the bag with the wacky weed was fingerprinted? The previous posted question was about Schapelle having her fingerprints taken, wasn't it?
To which I responded, I do not know, but I would imagine so.
Was the bag fingerprinted? There was no evidence presented at trial to suggest that it was. As you point out the court determined that it was not necessary.
Seriously, this is not about me. Why do you insist on playing the man and not the ball? It reflects badly on you, on Schapelle supporters, and on Schapelle. How puerile can you get? Did I put my hands all over the bag? Nice try.
What Kay Danes does with the Corbys and other prisoner's families is a matter for her and the families. However, if you want your comments to remain on this blog then you will refrain from publicly attacking Kay Danes or anyone else for that matter on this blog.
If you have a specific complaint about Kay or anyone else, then lodge it with the relevant authorities. And, then go about proving it. Otherwise, you expose yourself as nothing more than a coward seeking to defame and slander others from behind the veil of anonymity.
You are an embarrassment. You make this whole sad tale into a joke. It is time some serious reassessment was undertaken about how to proceed into the future.
What has happened to date, at least in an anecdotal sense, has not worked. Schapelle is still in jail and the prospects for release do not seem any better now than they did last year, or the year before, or the year before that.
Gaile rocks? Maybe she does (I have heard that), but this is also not a post about Gaile or how she goes about attacking Kay Danes, professionally and personally, in this thread.
As I have said numerous times, you want to attack me in these pages, then go for it. All comments from now on that attack other posters / commenters will be removed at my discretion.
So, get a grip of yourself and stick to the issues and the things that matter.
Annonymous... it's really quite sad that you claim to have so much compassion for Schapelle and yet you attack people who you don't even know, and who are actually quite supportive of Schapelle's repatration to a mental health facility. What good does it do to make people angry at Schapelle supporters.... or to cause them to think that they are all lunatics? It's a weird strategy.
As for my contact with the Corby's, I don't have any thing to do with them. I am not interested in the Corby's or becoming part of their entourage.
As for your ridiculous comments on the Rush family... I fully support whatever decisions they make. They after all, have their son on death row and are perfectly entitled to handle their case the way they want and they know this. If they had such a problem with me then don't you think they'd say something? They are after all very strong and capable people. I think they have far greater concerns on their mind... and you 'mate' seem to be either un-informed or perhaps you are trying to turn people off supporting Australians detained overseas.
I feel sorry for you. In all your writings you don't seem to have said anything useful that might help that poor girl. You just seem hell bent of being nasty to others. Not a very endearing quality. You have my sympathy. I will make merit for you that you do not remain in the darkness. :-p
The Kay Danes comments refers to previous posts made by other people. Gaile regarding the Corbys and another one around the time of Gaile's postings regarding the Rush family. So, it is second hand information and Kay you need to defend yourself to those posters, not me as I merely quoted them...
The Rob Baiton issue. He has no credibilty except for the ego rubbing from Kay Danes...
I didn't want to post again, but am left with no choice.
To ‘anonymous’ that suggested “It is a well known fact that she [Kay Danes] has gone against the will with prisoners families on various issues. The Corbys and the Rushs just to start with..."
That is simply incorrect. Kay offered advice that both families decided not to take. Which is free will. Kay then stopped making suggestions. Which is a far cry from what you are insinuating.
I know all this because it was my idea to utilize Kay’s contacts and diplomatic expertise for both families on the current issues. It was myself making many of the phone calls pestering all the parties - including pestering Kay - to do this.
‘Anonymous’ – you are not helping anybody with your inaccurate slander.
Murray said...
I didn't want to post again, but am left with no choice.
???
Why don't you leave Gaile out of this as well. She has been good enough to leave me alone so your baiting me won't work. I've answered past questions.
why don't you do something more productive and support Schapelle or the Bali nine, if you are here to support them at all.... and leave other people alone.
I think you are rather sick or disgusting. I'm not hear to rub anyone's ego. If you were a nice person and didn't go round attacking everyone, then perhaps people would have something nice to say to you too! :-)
Will the real anonymous please stand up? I agree with Kay. Who is Murray?
Anyway, interesting post put there from him - very random. I saw Kay's book 'families behind bars' at library. At least I know (from his post) that if I read it that all prisoners families have proof read what she published.
Kay...
Perhaps some people are destined to live in the darkness?
Anonymous...
Yes, much of what you have posted has been second or third hand. Much of what you have posted has been nothing more than innuendo and slander. Everything that you have posted has been of no assistance to Schapelle Corby, her family, or those that support her.
It is funny that you are trying to piggy back on Gaile's comments. Least she had the courage of her convictions to post under her real name, and let the cards fall where they may.
Kay Danes does not need to defend herself to you or other posters. If for no other reason than this post and this blog is not about her. Sounds like some have a little bit of envy about the fact that the woman has knowledge of and on these sorts of issues and is sort out for her opinion.
As to the credibility issue of one Rob Baiton. I had real trouble posting this because I am pissing myself laughing. My credibility is being questioned by a person who does not even have the courage to post under their real name.
How funny is that? You are a real piece of work, and a coward to boot. If you had any courage, you would be upfront about what you have to say and use your name and then defend your positions and arguments.
Do you really think that people are going to go, "well, if anonymous says so, then it must be so"...You need to get a grip on reality and come back to the real world.
Most people get bored with trolls. But, I find you increasingly amusing as you become increasingly desperate to discredit me. If I am so lacking in credibility and have nothing of worth to say or contribute, then why waste your time? Seriously, go back to wherever it is that you came from. I won't miss you, I swear.
But, if you do come back, then I am more than willing to go another couple of rounds with your credible self.
Murray...
Thanks for dropping by again and clarifying your involvement. It would seem that some do not believe you to be real.
I do not know that your comments will do much to convince some of the anonymous commenters here who seem hell bent on attacking others as a means of making people feel good about Schapelle.
The strategy is all arse about face. Attacking all and sundry that do not toe some agreed party line of events is ultimately going to be detrimental to Schapelle Corby and any efforts to see her repatriated.
Oh well.
Anonymous...
??? indeed.
Is that because you have nothing to say? And, this ??? means you need a little longer to come up with a suitable reply?
Kay...
Agreed.
Gaile must not be baited into this slug fest either. Gaile has refrained from entering the fray for some time.
I have asked on numerous occasions that people refrain from attacking other commenters to this blog. The idea was to drum up support for the idea that Schapelle has done enough time for the crime and needs to be repatriated.
This is a process.
Final note, if commenters want to have a go at me, then so be it. It is the nature of the game and comes with the territory.
Anonymous...
Indeed.
At the beginning of this thread, some 570+ comments ago, I asked that those that were posting as anonymous to post under a pen name / pseudonym or under their real name.
Just so that I could distinguish between one commenter to the next. The majority of people have done that. There are a dedicated few who want to use their supposed anonymity to attack others.
I see this strategy as detrimental to the stated cause that they want to promote; freeing Schapelle.
Once upon a time I believed that Schapelle supporters were careful about the image they presented. They made a point to refrain from abuse and bullying. They wanted to portray themselves as intelligent and rational.
I don't know what on earth happened. The comments I have read here don't sound at all like the supporters I knew.
I admit, I would get annoyed and retaliate to people who said horrible things like, "Let her rot"... but if someone puts forth an argument or opinion in a respectful manner, I have no problem with that. I thought other supporters felt the same.
Rob here has said nothing horrible at all. If you don't agree with anything he has said, why not respond respectfully, instead of resorting to abuse and putting words in his mouth?
By the way, I have read and commented on blogs from other lawyers on this subject. Here for example: http://lawyerslawyer.net/2008/07/06/robyn-tampoe-schapelle-corbys-solicitor/
Oops, sorry that link was already posted and discussed.
I don't think Annonymous is a Schapelle supporter at all. They may claim to be but their comments say otherwise. But for every nutter out there like this, there are some very good and decent supporters who shouldn't have to wear the wrap for this person's wild delusions.
I'd be laughing right along with you Rob if it wasn't so sad.
Jacqui...
Thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment, again (you have commented before, right?).
I find it all really sad in the big scheme of things. You do not have to believe the girl to be innocent to think and believe she has suffered enough or to have compassion.
The debates over the evidence, albeit interesting, are at the present time pretty futile.
The focus must be in getting Schapelle into a better set of surroundings to treat her depression. All her doctors seem to agree she has depression (and seemingly differ only on severity).
Generally, the tone has not been one of "let her rot" or "she deserves everything she got". Admittedly, some of those comments have been made, but they are a minority.
It is interesting that some of the anonymous posters / commenters have decided to make this about me and attack me in their comments. For me, this represents a change of focus or a lack of focus. I am not the issue, Schapelle is.
Personally, I think that with the passion and commitment some supporters have displayed here and in other forums combined with well-thought out arguments and a good strategy that things can work out well in the short to medium term.
Respect earns respect. Some of the comments left here by supposed supporters of Schapelle have been indicative of being a few sandwiches short of a picnic basket.
Focus is key.
Jacqui...
It has. But, leaving it a second time can do no harm :D
Kay...
I have written often that the comments of my trolls who claim to be Schapelle Corby supporters are not representative of all supporters.
I am laughing at the stupidity of changing focus from what is important to attacking me personally. It does not make any sense.
Laughing at the stupidity does not mean that I do not recognize that the whole thing is all really sad.
Murray said...
I didn't want to post again, but am left with no choice.
???
I think that this code perhaps refers to them asking why Murray is saying he is left with no choice but to post here. He doesn't exactly have a gun to his head to write in this blog???
Why is Kay sitting there with a crystal ball trying to work out who is a genuine supporter? lol What's her definition of a nutter. Some who doesn't agree with her on every single thing?
Anonymous...
I think Murray explained why he felt he had no choice. I understood what he wrote to be a clarification of Kay Danes role in the Rush case.
I really do not care who a genuine supporter is and who is not. However, the manner in which some people who have been commenting here anonymously and attacking other commenters can hardly be of benefit to Schapelle Corby.
It would seem that some of these anonymous posters work on the philosophy that if you disagree with us then we will harass and abuse you until you quit talking or writing about the case.
Crystal ball, Ufo's, government conspiracies.... lmao....just goes to show you don't know me at all. lmao
Boring..... anyway.... back to Schapelle...
Kay...
The conspiracy theories always seem to detract from the main issue, at least as I see it, which is Schapelle.
Question to Annonymous... something a little more constructive....How would you propose to get Schapelle transferred into a better set of surroundings to treat her depression?
Kay...
It is something that I am interested in reading or hearing as well.
I appreciate the fact that I am not privy to the inner workings of what efforts are being made or undertaken. However, it does seem that what is publicly available suggests that the prospects of repatriation do seem somewhat remote at the present time.
So, yeah, some constructive input with respect to either what is happening or how people can help would be a good thing.
There are petitions about getting repatriation for those Australians in custody in a foreign country. My advice, sign them all...
Australian government are very scared of Indonesia. Doesn't help with people like Rob saying how they think that the errors of the so called legal system there are no different to Australia. What's with that???
If Schapelle was convicted for murder she'd probably be home now. Go figure!!
Seems that Kay has retired with singling people out as nutters and now using this term as a collective.
I think sadly one of the big realisations of this blog is the understanding Rob has no desire to change. It would have to take some major intervention to change his corrupt views. It would have to take something catastrophic for him to review these strange belief systems...
My advice, stop making money out of Schapelle (especially when you accuse her being a liar) and get on with some real cases without writing about them on the internet.
Anonymous...
Oh dear!
I think you will find that what I wrote was something along the lines of all legal systems have problems and that they do not always get it right. So, what's with that? That, my troll friend, is a statement of fact.
See, once again, you cannot help but play the man instead of the ball. It is an interesting interpretation that you think that this blog shows that I have no desire to change. Simply, because I will not ascribe to your views of the case, you believe that gives you license to slander me at will.
You are a coward. You want to call my views corrupt, then why not ante-up and put your name to those comments. You are an embarrassment to yourself and the Free Schapelle Forum. There is nothing strange about my belief systems. If you had read my comments and posts, then perhaps you would be qualified to post something about what those belief systems are. But, as it stands, your comments more resemble spam than an interest in debating and discussing the issues.
Go figure!
Making money? How do you figure I am making money out of this blog?
I hardly called Schapelle Corby a liar. It would serve you well to go back and read the things I have written because you are misrepresenting what has been said or written. In the process you make yourself look foolish.
I find it interesting that you do not believe the Schapelle Corby case to be a "real" case. This sort of undermines the seriousness of the situation that Schapelle finds herself in, doesn't it?
I still get a kick out of the idea that you believe lawyers or others cannot write about cases on the internet. I am not involved with the Corby case in terms of being retained as a representative. Therefore, I have no obligations with respect to lawyer/client privilege.
You would note, if you read the solicitor and barrister rules, that there has been no breach of those rules either with regards to the comments made on this case.
Nope, I think it is time for you to find another pony to flog or record to play because your comments here have become predictable for their puerility.
Have a nice day.
It's not what you do say, it's what you don't Rob. Some of us are capable of putting 2 and 2 together. Why have you been deleting certain posts?
With the "???" remark - it explains itself. Are you saying people on this blog need referees to back up their claims...
You're a wheeler and a dealer...
And, yes, you are saying Schapelle is a liar. You don't agree with her claiming to be "not guilty". That was the exact words out of her mouth. So, in your eyes you're supporting a "liar" so how can we genuinely believe what you have to say. Some of us might be starting to believe that you are a liar!
I think it's incredibly sad that Schapelle's mental health issue is being squashed by the rants of Annonymous.
Furthermore, anyone who works with government, or has a basic understanding of international affairs and bilateral relations, knows full well that the Australian government has an excellent relationship with Indonesia.
In response to the murder analogy....But Schapelle was not convicted of murder. But say she had of been found standing beside a corpse found in her hotel room... and say she had of had the same legal team who took the same approaches as has been done in this drugs case, then you would probably find that the outcome would be quite similar.
Arguing her guilt or innocence is a rather moot point when you can't be convincing either way... and I mean, convincing to the Indonesian government and Australian Government.
Schapelle is in a terrible situation, like many other Australians detained in foreign prisons. She needs all the support she can get, even from those who think she's guilty. I'm sure it wouldn't matter one way or another to Schapelle if Rob doesn't shout her innocence, so long as he supports her repatriation and to say enough is enough... which he has done repeatedly and yet is being crucified for it. How odd that people who claim to care about Schapelle would seek to destroy support to her. I just don't understand it.
People can support Schapelle's repatriation to Oz if they believe she's guilty (even though she pleaded innocent).
I would have thought her supporters would be happy for all the public support she can get.
Are you saying those who believe she is guilty shouldn't support her coming home?
A persons outlook on life is a direct reflection of how much they like themselves.
This came up in conversation today. I thought it was something worth pondering.
Anonymous...
You are a bigger fool than I thought or that I gave you credit for. That said, I still find you mildly amusing for a troll. But, at the same time I find you incredibly boring. You are a one trick pony and your trick is out of date.
Be real specific about what posts I have been deleting. There is no comment moderation on, so anything that is posted gets posted immediately. The most recent comment that was deleted was a comment I made myself. If you want to read that comment it is over on the "Schapelle Corby -- What Happens Now?" thread.
Other than that the comments deleted were personal attacks on a particular poster that had no merit and no bearing on the discussion.
I somehow doubt that you can put 2 and 2 together. You have not even bothered to read what I have written here in the comments section. Simply, if you had, then you would be a little more respectful of the arguments I have been making. If you have, then you are deliberately misrepresenting what I have said, and for many that is lying.
If you are going to slander people, then yes you need references and evidence to back up your claims. Remembering that some of the defenses to defamation and slander are truth or the public interest. So, yes, you need to back up what you say.
Nice try. A wheeler and dealer? Of what? Got some proof? You are a coward.
Once again, go back and read how I defined her guilt. If you are half as smart as you think you are, then you should be able to work it out. I am not expecting an apology because you are neither man or woman enough to make it. But, most would agree that an apology is necessary and warranted.
I am pretty sure that you will not be able to point to a post or a comment where I have said that Schapelle is a liar. You can try if you want to. Furthermore, you need to go back and read the posts and comments so that you might learn and understand what I really said.
If you believe me to be a liar, then my friend, that is water off a duck's back. You are an anonymous and cowardly troll, so you calling me a liar really does not mean all that much. In fact, it means nothing.
In response to the murder analogy....But Schapelle was not convicted of murder. But say she had of been found standing beside a corpse found in her hotel room... and say she had of had the same legal team who took the same approaches as has been done in this drugs case, then you would probably find that the outcome would be quite similar.
Possibly. All perhaps because she's a foreigner. Worse still (in their eyes) a Westerner??
The point is that Rob's comments on which side he takes does not help her repatriation. If he believes she should have pleaded insane etc... It's all in the past. He should solely talk about repatriation and not give his side verdict. Much like you have done Kay. Well done!!
If you believe me to be a liar, then my friend, that is water off a duck's back. You are an anonymous and cowardly troll, so you calling me a liar really does not mean all that much. In fact, it means nothing.
Firstly, what is a troll? Is this a legal term? Secondly, if the liar thing means nothing to you - why are you wasting the time talking about it?
Post a Comment