A couple of flaws there nomorecatering:
Firstly, NOONE admits to trafficking drugs when they are sprung in a country which has harsh penalties for it. That includes Australia. The jail system of every country is full of people who maintain their innocence, including those with lengthy criminal records.
Secondly, yes it is a case of not guilty because she's an attractive female. Talkback radio, surveys, and letters columns (as unscientific as they generally are) are flooded with people who simply say 'just look at her - there is no way she could smuggle drugs'.
Thirdly, her behaviour was denoted as suspicious by customs officers both upon arriving at the terminal (hence why they went after her) and upon being challenged to open the bag. She denied it. The court took the word of the authorities over hers. The same thing would happen in any country. That's why you can't fight a speeding fine or anything else in Australia by simply saying 'the police officer is lying' and not having substantial evidence to back it up. She didn't have such evidence.
I just can't understand the Corby hysteria. Maybe she wouldn't have been found guilty here. Maybe she would have (although the penalty would undoubtedly be minimal). There is NO opinion from ANY commentators with a legal background that I've heard suggesting the judgement was in some way corrupt. On the contrary, most suggested that she did not have a strong case (and some have been abused for saying so), and that she would have to purely rely on 'reasonable doubt' being established. In the eyes of Indonesian law, it wasn't.
Last edited by DutchRoll; 27th May 2005 at 07:45.