As said by Eastwest Loco

"I have personally paid a bribe to make a traffic infringement go away and have been present when a US citizen has bribed his way out of a Visa overstay. This is much more serious, but there is always a price."

Care to elaborate or will you plead the 5th under cross? A more dumb statement I haven't read for a LONG time.......thanks for the giggle.

Well ,If we are going to play amateur sherlock holmes and proclaim someone guilty without being privy to the evidence how about the identity of the other gunman on the grassy knoll????


Then again QF will want to ban any advertising on that book because the taxi driver who dropped the gunman off on the grassy knoll flew QF on his next holidays!

However any publicity is OK for Lee Harvey Oswald because he had been on a skiing holiday a year previously at a certain resort in Japan.

I agree with EWL. I've paid a "traffic fine" in cash on the spot too. Just pull out the wallet and ask how much the official fee is for the Fine/Visa/ whatever.

Schapelle and her handlers were too stupid to take a very low profile and buy her way out, as many others have before and since.

To believe that this doesn't happen in the East (except perhaps Singapore) is totally naive.

Given the fact that the passenger surrenders control of the baggage from the point of check in, retrieving the baggage at the point of disembarkation it is a sad indictment of legal process that one of the most important legal principles involving a nexus between the accused and the evidence must exist. As the passenger does not control their baggage it is difficult to conclude legally that the accused is in fact guilty at the point of disembarkation.

That is however assuming the law continues to abide by those rules. As Keg alludes to, there have been a number of investigations into carriage of narcotics via domestic flights. I know of such investigations too.

When you consider that all bags can be opened, and often are, no watter what your locking device, is it plausible it was not put there by her? The answer is affirmaitve.

Consider if you will the situation in the United States. A bag can be opened and searched by the "TSA" and the search need not be in your presence. It remains however grounds for legal conviction if something is found, depsite the search being conducted away from the accused. I as flight crew, cannot believe such rubbish is not challenged, it doesn't follow established legal principle.
In assessing the particulars of this case, just remember she lost control at the point of check in...The bag passes through a number of "secure" (my emphasis) areas, through a number of hands to arrive overseas a number of hours later to be retrieved by the accused.

I'm not sure the failure belonged to the airport, QF or anyone else. However, the system could well have failed! Anybody who understands legal principle realises that the necessity to prove the connection between check in baggage and baggage retrieval assumes you are in control of the bag, which you are not. This raises the prospect that reasonable doubt exists........

Well said QFinsider but it is a pity that the same definition of reasonable doubt is not applicable in Indonesia unless of course the son of a senior minister is in your group.

The other point I would like to know is who was the clown that advised or rather did not advise against young Schappelle wearing a low cut top with a push up bra to an Indonesion court.

Not only the weight, but did you see the size of that 4kg of green? Not exactly an inconspicuous size change to the bag in question :suspect:

Here Here :D :D

Im not surprised Q doesnt want it advertised and i dont blame them, depending on how far the accusations go in the book.
Does anyone know what rights Q have to prevent/pursue Libel Slander on their personel etc?

And as said earlier, being a convicted drug smuggler, making profits off of the book like she is is almost as bad as what she was convicted of and shouldnt be allowed, take the profits and give them to some worthy charity, or customs, anything but her families pockets.

Turbz:cool:

EWL has it in one - this thread is (should be) about QF not wanting to give a book publicity, and in executing this policy, has unwittingly given it more publicity than if it had just kept schtum - thus calling into question the thinking behind its decision and therefore the competence of those who made the decision.

And for the armchair lawyers out there... what about bailment on terms after the bag was surrendered? It amazes me that apparently no-one in her camp has sought to go after QF or SACL etc. on civil grounds in Australia, where the burden of proof would be lower, namely simply the balance of probabilities. A half-decent QC/SC should be able to get a few jurors on-side quite quickly, given the camel-suit incident and other bits & pieces that have popped up in the news. That, then, could not harm her appeals in Indo courts.

One thing I have learnt from this is to always demand that the weight of the checked be recorded at check-in. IME it's rarely done. I've been given some funny looks but I'd rather get a funny look at check-in than to have to explain something in a small room at the other end... :eek:

She's not at all helped by all these other nongs who seem to get pinged in Indo on a regular basis these days. Don't these people read the papers/watch TV, etc. and see what happens to them? :ugh:

Advice From a QC
 

In discussions over lunch with a QC mate some time ago about Schapelle Corby, I was given the following advice in dealing with police/customs/etc. , to avoid self incrimination and provide maximum room for your ultimate defence if you are in danger of getting Corbyised. Pity Schapelle didn't know this. - never give a direct answer - ever.

Customs: "Is this your bag?"

Sunfish: "It looks like my bag"

Customs: "Did you pack this bag yourself?"

Sunfish: "It looks like the bag I packed"

Customs: " Are these your drugs?"

Sunfish: "I reject that allegation...and so on

P.S. That is why you hear John Howard "reject that allegation" all the time. It sounds like a denial, but it isn't really anything at all one way or the other.

It is a very good point especially as most of us go through some country's customs hall every time we go to work.

Our bags have been out of sight and therefore our control for up to 20 hours or so.Blind Freddy could open the usual lock and if you fly into or out of the US you have the TSA who can and do open your bags without you being present.

When asked " Did you pack your bag"...you can answer "YES"

"are you aware of the contents of your bag"....." I was when I packed it but not now as the bag has been out of my sight for nearly 20 hours"

The problem is that with most western countries that line of discussion is possible but with some other countries you might as well be bashing your head against a brick wall.

I didn't watch the show, but did I hear correctly...that the Lawyer made up the whole "baggage handlers put the drugs in the boogie board"???

I believe the TWU are chasing an apology, but I'd like to see if Qantas will demand the same for their employees. Also, how can this "lawyer" be allowed to continue practicing law if he's admitted to fabricating stories for a defence???

Lawyers...:suspect:

Buster I did watch the show and according to her lawyer he made up the defence after hearing it on an ABC radio show. The previous defence was going to be the Indo's planted the drugs for bribery purposes. The lawyer pointed out this would offend the indo's and not be that logical with the amount of dope found, could have used a small amount for the same result, also how could they be sure of their intended victims cash resources. They were looking for an explanation that would be credible, defendable and the media could run with. There were some strange media toying scenes with Miss Corby coming across as a victim, which she may very well be, of what though?

Breaking news The West Australian

Union demands apology

Schapelle Corby's legal team owes an apology to Australian airport baggage handlers over a made-up claim they planted marijuana found in the convicted drug smuggler's bag, unionists say.
Corby's former lawyer Robin Tampoe has revealed he made up the baggage handler theory after hearing a talkback program where callers were discussing alleged corruption among airport staff.

In a documentary on the case that aired on the Nine Network on Sunday night, Mr Tampoe said: "Baggage handlers didn't put drugs in the bag, nothing to do with it."

"Now she (Corby) believes it. They all f****** believe it. It's not true."

Transport Workers Union (TWU) Queensland secretary Hughie Williams said on Monday he was "very angry" to hear the damaging claims had been invented.

"It was a very, very serious matter ... to make such an allegation at that time against people who had nothing to do with it and it's proved now beyond all doubt now that they had nothing to do with it and it was a fabricated story - I think those people should give all baggage handlers a public apology," Mr Williams told ABC Radio.

He said he never believed a baggage handler had been responsible.

"Those people conspired to make up a story that baggage handlers could, or more, did put the marijuana in that boogie board and I think that's a disgrace for any lawyer, or anybody in public life, or anybody at all, to make such an outrageous allegation," he said.

Corby, 30, who is serving a 20-year sentence in Bali's Kerobokan prison for importing the drugs, maintains her innocence despite all of her appeals being rejected by the Indonesian courts and government.

She sacked Mr Tampoe, who no longer practises law, after she was sentenced to 20 years' jail.

AAP

Noticed in the news, just this morning, that the accusation that the baggage handlers planted the "stuff" was made up by her lawyer! (Channel 7 "Sunrise" News... Now, the media doesn't make up stories... Does it? Well, it wasn't "Today Tonight"!)

don't Qantas record the weight of check in items that are not a standard bag? How do they account for the weight of the board in there load sheet?

"Also, how can this "lawyer" be allowed to continue practicing law if he's admitted to fabricating stories for a defence???"



A TV reporter last night, (Ch.9), said he wasn't practicing law any more!

I turned it off.

Well if it has done nothing else it has made us all aware of the consequences if the stuff is dumped upon us. I arrived SIN sans the padlock which was locked on it in BNE. I called customs, refused to touch the bag, insisted on a dog going over the bag, and a customs officer to go thru it. This was done with the minimal of fuss, and the usual good manners of the Singaporians. I had no intention of ending up on the end of a rope, or spending the rest of my life in Changi. Lesson is don't even pick it up if it doesnt look right, and make a hell of a noise if you are even remotely suspicious. As for Shapelle, who knows, its like the Azaria Chamberlain thing, everybody has their own opinion. Up here on the Gold Coast the Corbys were not exactly known for their church going, but does that make her guilty, probably not, regardless she has done enough time in that hellhole, and should now be released. It is a bit of a standing joke, as you can buy that crap anywhere in Bali.

If we demanded an apology every time some Plaintiff or Defence Lawyer suggested that .... "someone else (policeman, wharfie, doctor, teacher etc etc) did it" .... we'd have more "sorrys" than a Labor Party conference ..

QFinsider
Very good post. Makes a lot of sense.

Sunfish
I have seen/experienced this quite a bit in Indonesia. Corruption is rife and nothing is as it seems. Most Australians also seem to have no problem fitting in when travelling there.
She may well be guilty (everyone has an opinion) but a conviction from an Indonesian court does not necessarily mean this is so. If she was guilty, maybe she should have played the game as they used to say in my Army days.

Yep, just like that Aussie fellow that was also convicted for drugs and firearms (Chris Judd or Judge I think). He was caught, he admitted it, paid some dough and was convicted to time already spent in goal.

There was also someone recently who some members of this board may know. He was charged (drugs) and convicted, but he too played the game and is now free. From what I heard it wasn't cheap though. But it did become complicated once the Australian Embassy got invloved, as the Indonesian couldn't be seen to be corrupt. Once the media and govt involment died down, the game could be played.