On Tue, 31 May 2005 08:48:00 +0800, Dave Baker
How the f*** could she prove her innocence when all the evidence she tried to present was thrown out of court with the judges comment of (from the court transcript):
She must be convicted because drugs are a menace to Indonesia and police are more credible than civilians.
How is Corby's team supposed to know who put the dope in her bag - even the OZ Federal Police can't find an answer, although they did discover a major drug shipment using the the same baggage system on the same day?
I suppose this is just Coincidental. hey?
And the AFP are currently spending the time to investigate the matter - proving so far that baggage tampering is rife at Oz airports, and they have been used to move drugs around Oz.
How can Corby prove she didn't touch the bag if no fingerprint or DNA analysis was allowed to be carried out?
This was a cut and dry trial - as soon as Corby opened the bag she was guilty, because possession even without knowledge still confirms guilt - it wouldn't have mattered what her team found, she was already convicted.
(I quote the judge):
"She must be convicted because drugs are a menace to Indonesia"
It just dawned on me, you havn't even read the bloody transcript, and have no idea what the judge said about the evidence the defence team presented, or about the forensic evidence they asked to have done, but were refused.
I suggest you at least take the time to read the facts.
