Talk:Schapelle Corby

Talk page archives

External links

I and one other editor have been pruning external links from this article. I undertook to one (new) user to open the issue up for discussion. The link I was particulalrly concerned about was http://fairbloodydinkum.com/ which is to my mind a general link and falls within the category of material covered by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Any views?--A Y Arktos 23:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Editors with malicious intent keep removing valid links. They have continually remove the link to the original Schapelle Corby Supporters Forums whilst choosing to leave inactive domains in place. I would like to hear an explanation for this please.Bluetongue 08:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Travelling companions

Three of Corby's travelling companions testified in court that they had seen Corby pack her bag before leaving for the airport and that only the yellow boogie board and flippers were inside it. They also said that Corby did open the bag herself at the customs counter.

Can someone go through the court records or newspaper reports and identify who these companions were? The fact that they were her travelling companions already implies that there is a good chance they are not reliable witnesses (especially if she really was smuggling and they were all involved or aware). But if they were her relatives, this needs to be mentioned since it makes it seem even more likely that they may lie for her. I guess one was her half-brother, who were the others? Also can anyone check if there were any other travelling companions who did not testify? Nil Einne 06:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Reefer Madness

I was disappointed to find this article devoid of any moral outrage over a young, non-violent girl being sentenced to 20 years in prison over possession of cannabis. My own outrage at the stupidity and hypocrisy of the thoughtless cruel self-righteous despots who rule our countries leaves me in no shape to add NPOV edits to this article. Hopefully some compassionate, loving dutch wikipedian; able to see through the lies and clouds of rhetoric can assess what, if, or the nature of bias here. Whatever happens to Schapelle Corby, science will vindicate her for possession of a drug no more dangerous and less addictive than tobacco. Time will vindicate her as collateral damage of an imperialistic US foreign drug policy imposed by kooks, lobbyists and their sockpuppets. Jeff Carr 12:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

By "this article", are you referring to the actual Schapelle Corby article, or this, its talk page? Whilst I agree with your views on the war-on-drugs, it would seem that including "moral outrage" on the main article would be POV. But maybe I've misinterpreted your message (?). Cnwb 22:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you even aware of the details of the case? The fact that she had 4.1kg indicates this wasn't a simple case of possession. Assuming it was here, she clearly was importing it for a reason and it seems unlikely to be for personal use. Given that she was importing it into Bali, Indonesia, a tourist haven but also a place were illict drugs are heavily frowned upon, we can assume she wasn't just doing it because she thought cannabis should be legal and wanted to provide people with it as a public duty. We can assume that financial gain was her prime motivator. And however your feelings about cannabis, surely you can see that someone who purposely and knowingly violates the law (whether or not that law is unjust) to make money is hardly someone who deserves our compassion when they get caught. Also, while I'm also reluctant to defend the US and acknowledge they've clearly used drugs as part of their foreign policy, you might be interested to know but most South-East Asian countries that have harsh drug policies have only had limited influence from the US in this matter. Their policies are primarily related to their views on drugs. I don't know what government you're talking about, I guess the Australian since you don't sound Indonesian. But surely you must recognise that the Australian government, even if they had disagreed with the substance of the drug policy (which that trafficking cannabis is wrong), which they don't, have no right really to interfere in a case that occurred in Indoesia. Surely you can see that it is the soverign right of Indonesia to choose to ban substances they feel are harmful to their community whether or not you agree with these decisions. It seems likely Corby was well aware of this ban so it's not as if it was a surprise to her. Really, it appears to me that her and her family are a bunch of profiteering drug traffickers who care little about anyone but themselves and have no qualms about who or what they use, or who gets hurt in the processes. I should add, that my feelings on cannabis are fairly neutral (not strongly supportive of it being illegal, not strongly opposed either). Nil Einne 13:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this paragraph above (where you ask about knowledge of the case details and criticise the points the guy made) I have several points:

a) having drugs in your bag isn't proof you knew they were there. It's like putting condoms in a granny's trolley at the supermarket and then laughing when she gets to the checkout. They didn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Schapelle knew the drugs were there. For this reason alone, the trial should've returned a no verdict. Specially if you look at point e) below.
b) 4.1kg is way too much for personal use, but...
c) she was unlikely to profit from taking pot to Bali to sell, cos it would sell for less there, and...
d) if she was delivering it to her sister (who lives there), again, it would probably be cheaper for her sister to buy it in Bali, and that would avoid the risk of passing through 2 sets of customs. Not sure how safe or available it is to buy pot there, nor the quality of pot in Bali though.
e) the bag wasn't fingerprinted
f) the pot wasn't tested to find out where it was grown
g) there is clearly a large problem with baggage handlers smuggling various drugs around and into Australia
h) how true are all the allegations of family involvement in pot growing etc. that are on the article page? I hadn't heard some of them before. Are they allegations or have they been proved?
i) She was travelling with family and therefore potentially risking all their freedom if she was caught. unlikely/likely?
j) strolling through customs with a huge bag of drugs isn't the most sophisticated smuggling method for a supposedly experienced drug-using family as the article claims.
k) the sentence was way too long regardless of guilt or innocence

Not wanting to argue the case too much in here, but these are all valid points I believe, therefore it's not unreasonable to ask that more outrage be shown in the article. SpookyMulder 13:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Spooky Mulder, although most of your points are inconsequential, even incorrect, there were undoubtedly flaws in the prosecution's case, yet none of these got around the fact that there was a prima facie case against her which she could not answer convincingly. Ie, she had the drugs on her, thus moving the onus on to her to explain how they got there. SHe couldn't. End of story. Her chances of acquittal would have only been marginally better in Australia. I'd put my money on her getting that conviction in an AUstralian court to. --Merbabu 13:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Isn't prima facie another way of saying "circumstantial"? They didn't prove intent, which is surely necessary in a smuggling case? You've heard of unknowing drug mules before, haven't you? And you must admit that having drug-smuggling baggage handlers is a potentially deadly problem in some countries.

I'm not a law student, but saying the fact she had the drugs puts the onus on her to PROVE a SPECIFIC other person put them there, well, how would she do that, if indeed they were planted by baggage handlers? It would be impossible, but in my view she needn't have to. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way round, regardless of prima facie.

Note similar arguments with a judge recently whose car was caught speeding but says it wasn't him in the car. My understanding from the paper is that they can't apparently convict him (or at least it's difficult) unless THEY prove it was him. HE doesn't have to prove it was someone else. He gets off, as far as I know. This has happened a couple of times recently.

I'm not sure that the points are incorrect either, from what I read in the papers. Maybe g). I think the fingerprinting point is very relevant.SpookyMulder 11:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Jeff Carr, what is your understanding of the term NPOV??? --Merbabu 03:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Schapelle POV

Although nowhere near as bad as it was, this page still has a lot of pro-Schapelle POV.

For instance, I'm looking at the "comments from public figures" section which has a supportive message from Lindy Chamberlin (!), and another from Russell Crowe. How are the comments of a D-list celebrity and a movie star known for his outbreaks of irrational violence either encyclopaedic, or relevant to the article? The "Corby Supporters Sites" section is another example, tipping the POV in the article strongly towards Schapelle, and the "References" site is full of borderline-xenophobic rubbish from The Age, and contains not a single article from the Indonesian press, or anything that even remotely implies that she might possibly be guilty.

The lead in paragraphs are also poorly written, presenting a bunch of irrational arguments and convoluted justifications to prove that while her family appears to be armpit-deep in the drugs trade, poor Schapelle can't possibly be involved.

Full disclosure, I believe she's as guilty as sin, although I also believe that drug use and controlled trade should be legalised.

Lankiveil 20:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

I put in the Lindy Chamberlain comments as I believed they were relevant and interesting - Chamberlain seemed to consider Corby a kindred spirit, or something of the sort. If you can think of a way to convey the information in a way that is less likely to be taken as POV, then please feel free to edit it. As for Russell Crowe and that other bloke (whoever he is), they're celebrities, so they speak on whatever - and Crowe's comments were seen to reflect public sentiment at the time. - 220.237.30.150 23:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree somewhat however you're wrong about one thing. They reflected, Australian (and perhaps NZ) public sentiment. Not public sentiment which is a broad term implying that everyone everywhere agreed with this sentiment. I don't therefore personally have anything wrong with the inclusion of their comments but the media response and comments section is poorly written and arguably not NPOV because it primarily focuses on the Australian view and completely ignores the Indonesia view. Some quotes from Indonesians, more on their media etc would be good.

Also, there doesn't seem to be any mention how the media and public have decided to largely ignore the case, even after it started to become clear that her family and therefore probably her were involved in the drug trade. What I'm primarily getting at is how they decided to ignore the case once the new evidence came to light, rather then resurrect it as I expect they would have if new evidence had arisen that had suggested she wasn't guilty. BTW, to be clear, I think they wouldn't have cared much about her even if no evidence hadn't arisen although I do think they've forgotten about her to a greater extent because of it.

Nil Einne 13:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Should add that it would be especially good if we could find a response to the "no one could be that stupid" comment that is often made. Assuming that she was intending to import it (and she didn't bring it by accident which is still possible IMHO) I think anyone who has ever bothered to look in to the stupid things that criminals (or for that matter ordinary people) have done would know it's easily possible she was that stupid. I suspect if it had occured in the USA say or NZ or for that matter, Australia, or whatever she would be now in on one of those internet jokes about stupid criminals...(Not to mention how poor a defense, she couldn't have done it because no one would be that stupid it) Nil Einne 13:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, okay, "the dominant Australian public sentiment at the time." Better?  ;) I seem to recall there was mention of an Indonesian protest wanting to give her the death penalty on the page ages ago (both the protest and its mention) but aside from that, there hasn't been much on what Indonesians think or thought of Corby - most likely because the Australian media decided it 'didn't fit into the story' or something, or because Corby wasn't significant enough to the Indonesians. I think that the perception of Corby's innocence has changed - from being an innocent 'everygirl' to just being guilty, and so the media has stopped covering it. - 220.237.30.150 02:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Without citing eidence this seems slightly biased

"The Corby case generated intense controversy in Australia, where public opinion, which was generally in support of Corby and at times expressed publicly with a perceived anti-Indonesian bias, caused tension in Australia's relationship with Indonesia."

I take exeption to the bit where it states "which was generally in support of Corby". It needs be better written, cited with evidence (such as a FEW poles by diverse newspapers) or taken out completely. I personally had the perception that it was a 50/50 split in terms of support for corby in Australia, so i would like to see some evidence in support of the statement made up.--Alchemy101 04:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

ha ha - Do you live in Australia??? ;) I ask as if you had, you would have known that at the time it seemed almost all supported her side of the story. The fact that the majority of the country was supportive of her story was in fact the whole point to the thing. The national hysteria wasn’t just about a drug case overseas but an Australian wronged by a foreign court. On the other hand, it does seem now that less people are believing of her - and maybe your 50/50 suggestion could be more correct - now. Probably ‘cos the frenzy has calmed down a lot now and revelations about her family and their own run ins with the law. As for you specific question about polls, well there are polls and there are polls. I’d suggest that those from the tabloid press can be dismissed (one sensationalist show – “A Current Affair” - put it at 99% support for her!), although a more respectable paper – “Sydney Morning Herald” – out at just under 90% in favour. I agree a poll would be valuable - let me see what i can do - in the mean time i'd suggest leaving article as is. PS, personally I always believed she was more likely guilty than innocent. --Merbabu 04:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I put in a source that refers to polls running 90 percent thinking she was innocent.--Wehwalt 10:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well yes I do live in Australia in fact and I believe that that the "majority of the country" statement was made without evidence other than the polls conducted by sensationalist/tabloid press and the coverage they played. I'm not so much as arguing that there wasn't support for Corby rather that we need more evidence other than "I live in Australia and I could clearly see that there was majority support for her" (and I'm not suggesting that YOU said this) because I certainly didn't.--Alchemy101 04:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of Schapelle with drugs

http://www.farisqc.observationdeck.org/farisqc_images/Corby2.jpg

Schapelle with what appears to be joints and marijuana on the table. Granted, she's not smoking them in the photo, but her claims to not be involved with drugs or with anyone involved with drugs are obviously false.

These leaked photos would make a good addition to the page.

Personally I don't think it shows anything. A cigarette that could (and probably does) contain tobacco, etc. Also, inclusion of the image would be "original research" IMHO. Robert Brockway 18:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok the clip seal bag is a bit suspicious but they are used to store all sorts of things. Honestly the image proves nothing. Robert Brockway 19:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael Corby

"Michael Corby has a close and long standing friendship with a man, who was recently charged with growing commercial quantities of hydroponic marijuana that he sold in sealed plastic bags." Who? Flage 08:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)