I'm 100% behind you rogindon, I watched the whole business closely and reached exactly the same conclusion. It's also worthy to point out that it seemed pretty obvious the Indonesian Government wanted to make an 'example' out of her from the beginning. And boy did they ever.

My solution: boycot Bali! The moment those tourism dollars start disappearing, you can bet they'll change their overboard drug policies pretty damn fast.

I am aware that although cannabis may be cheaper in Bali, it's not hydoponic, which is in demand, and which is what corby was carrying. I am also aware that you can't not feel an extra 4 kg in a boogie bag. I also know that I'd never ever ever go to Bali.

To Lisamaree,
It is possible that there is a market for high quality Australian marijuana in Bali, but Indonesian police refused an AFP offer to have the marijuana checked in this way to reveal its quality and origin – just like they refused to check the bags for fingerprints or to weigh the bags. Even if there was a market for the kind of marijuana found in Corby’s boogiebag, it is difficult to see how the price in Bali could have offset the cost of obtaining such high-grade ganja in Australia – not to mention the huge risk of carrying such a bulky prohibited substance unconcealed in an unlocked bag..

Regarding the claim that Corby must have noticed the difference in weight, she was not the only person carrying the boogiebag. Her brother James helped to carry the boogiebag along with Corby’s other luggage. All this luggage was being carried together by two people in a matter of minutes in the context of their excitement at having just touched down for a holiday in Bali. Even if she did notice the difference in weight, what was she to do? Tell customs that the bag felt heavier and ask them to check and see if someone planted something? She would still have been convicted because police and prosecutors in Bali consider possession alone to be sufficient for conviction and that is why they conducted no forensic tests.

One of Australia’s most experienced barristers Dr Phillip Opas QC put it this way: “Either she’s the greatest actress since Sarah Bernhardt or she’s innocent”. That about sums it up. He also said that he would “eat his wig” if he couldn’t obtain an acquittal were the Corby case to have been tried in Australia.

I wonder why you would never go to Bali. Is it possibly because you are doubtful you would treated fairly if you got into trouble with their legal system or are you convinced you would get a fair trial like you apparently think Corby got?

GOOD, that is what supposed to hear instead of any intelligence communication – however, what sort of communications lower races that who are from non-English background deserve at all?

<<MichaelK,

Suggest you learn English first before you post your opinions. Your opinions may be valid, but better to have them translated first..please....

Posted by rogindon, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 5:41:19 PM>

More precisely, to rogindon and alike-et.: understanding in-English-written messages especially if English is your native and one only language, is absolutely YOUR problem. This is not advice but a reality explicitly materialised around a globe most recently.

rogindon a barrister is game to suggest anything including self- promotional grandstanding illustrated with farcical caricatures such as eating his own wig - that is the stuff of spivs and circus sideshows.

Doubtless his advise, as a paid retainer of Corby's might have been less bombastic and more prudent.

It still does nothing to dispell the illustration I presented

Viz

Indonesian Customs Officer (ICO) “Excuse me, is this your bag”

Corby “Yes this is my bag”

ICO “Open IT”

Corby opens bag

ICO “ Why are your carrying this 4kg + bag of Drugs in your bag”

Corby “Oh I don’t know that must belong to someone else”

ICO “Do I look like I have just fallen out of a tree, smartass?”

Corby's bag, corbys drugs, corcbys responsibility, corbys crime.

Every drug dealer starts with "oh I know nothing about those drugs, I realise I have been caught, there must be some mistake".

The lies of the criminal class never change.

Are you saying it's not even possible that someone else put drugs there?

Do you accept that drug smuggling does happen that way, from baggage handlers hiding drugs in luggage? If you do accept that, why have you decided without any doubt of Corby's guilt?

What if drugs had been placed in your bag Col, and if you tried to tell someone they weren't yours, they just said: 'the lies of the criminal class never change.'?

The truth is you never know with these things, which is why they should have checked for finger prints and why they should have kept records of the scans etc. With as little evidence as they had, the case should have been chucked straight away.