No one knows for sure if she knew it was in the boogie board pack but the point is that we Australians do not wish any of our citizens to suffer "cruel and unusual" punishment in jails in which you might die of neglect, disease and malnutrition long before your excessively long sentence is completed. Also, a death sentence for being a mule is out of order. Get them all back here.

Ludwig: "a person who is entirely innocent and who doesn’t for one moment suspect that there is anything wrong with their luggage, wouldn’t have noticed the extra weight or the apparent small bulge."

It wasn't a "small" bulge and it would have increased the weight by perhaps a third.

You didn't answer my question: who was responsible if she wasn't?

This is the best article I have ever read on the Corby fiasco..

[url]http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,15470184-25717,00.html[/url]

Dear Antiseptic,

You asked, "Who was responsible, if she wasn't?"

Obviously, the person who put it there.
And you've got a wide choice, from any of her
family members, to any of their friends, to air-port
baggage handlers.

Only the guilty person knows. It may even be Schapelle
herself.

But while the doubt exists - and it does, as to her guilt,
the sentence imposed on her is far to severe.

The Australian Government should at least try to negotiate in
bringing her home. She can serve the rest of her sentence
in Australia. Leaving her to rot in Indonesia is simply
not serving any kind of justice - considering the corrupt double-standard system, under whose laws she was tried.

Bleeding hearts for convicted drug traffickers....

The only doubt in Corby's case was created by Today Tonight and its mirrored tripe on Nine. Even more so since the laywer came out and said he made up the 'baggage handling' rubbish.

No one would choose a fate like that, but they practically did by knowingly importing drugs (ESPECIALLY the 'nine') into a nation renowned for executing people.

Bring them home?.....why?. They did the crime over there. They SHOULD be recharged when they get back and serve out another sentence here.

If it was my daughter? (or whatever), obviously I'd be doing everything I could to get her back. Doesn't change the facts, or the reality though.

well at last I get to post this response. first i woz brickwalled this mornin by the 4-in-24-hours-on-one-general-thread rule and then i wuz snotted by the 10-in-24-hours-on-general-threads rule this evenin. pffff. (oh whinge whinge Ludnuts)

^^^^

“…who was responsible if she wasn't?”

Wouldn’t we all love to know, Antiseptic.

The dope bag was destroyed without being fingerprinted. As Corby’s father said, if it had been fingerprinted, they would not have found her prints on it… and may well have found those of the culprit.

How could the Indonesian police stuff up so profoundly as to have allowed this to happen?

What does it say about the state of law enforcement and the legal system in Indonesia? What about the basic principle of law that someone has to be proven guilty or found to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before they can be convicted?

How could Corby possibly have been found guilty without this crucial piece of evidence having been properly examined, and without anything else pointing convincingly to her guilt?

How could the whole deal be based entirely on the fact that the stuff was in her boogie board bag…. a bag that could have easily been opened and tampered with by a whole bunch of people?

Did the whole Indonesian case turn into a charade of trying to cover up the police ineptitude at not fingerprinting the bag, in an attempt to avoid chronic national embarrassment for such a blunder? Was the psychology then one of; ‘this girl MUST be convicted or else we’ll [the Indonesian authorities] all look like complete fools’?