The judge NEVER bragged about the 500 cases. It was the media that did that.
Simply it happened in a country that is out of the jurisdiction of Indonesia. The evidence can be seen as staged just to help Schapelle Corby. Also the evidence was refuted that domestic smuggling can be easily transported via the road and the security of carrying a pillow case of dope through Sydney airport is hightly unlikely from the baggage handlers.
That was the problem of both Schapelle Corby and the airport. For a long time whenever I have travelled, I have made sure that the check in counter writes the baggage weight on the ticket (there is a space there to fill), initial and release their id number.
That doubt has been refuted so should Indonesia believe Australia's word for it?
She was to explain as to why this got into her luggage. Her response gave the appearence as the sham explaination filled with holes.
There is a good article in today's Age about the evidence against Schapelle Corby.
That is your opinion and you are welcomed to it.
My reasoning for Schapelle for a reasonable trial was that it was under scrutinary by the media. The Australian media gave vitually a one-sided event including Channel-9's episode.
A reminder that Schapelle Corby is 27-years old and therefore NOT A CHILD anymore.
My daughter would not be stupid enough to get herself into that situation. She has seen me with glad wrap and a large label deterring anyone to tamper with the luggage without authorisation. When I pack her bags, I also do the same for her.
I did this long ago and people called me paranoid but look whose laughing last.
That is what she said so did anyone do a hair test?
There you have a perfect time line that would date about two to three years.
I am smart enough to ensure that she will not get into those situation.
We have seen that coming a long time ago and already made precautions when everyone said I was paranoid.
The evidence she produced keep being refuted
Keep to the story and to the facts. If you are using hypothetical, my answer is simply to avoid situations that can get you into trouble.
Should Schapelle be innocent then her stupitidy has got her there so why in hell is my tax paying money being spent of a stupid woman who obviously incapable to look after herself and is a 27-year old adult.
So far my daughter and I with my wife have travelled often to South East Asia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Hong Kong, PR of China, Macau. All of the countries except Hong Kong and Macau have the rest penalty for drug trafficking although the laws in Hong Kong and Macau are changing.
Throughout our travels, we have taken extreme caution and never trusted any baggage handlers anywhere in the world including Australia. Out baggage are always kept within arms reach and never left in any storage area.
The thing is that when you leave Australia, you are NOT under the protection of Australia any more. Be street smart when in another country and don't be so flippant when over there so therefore behave yourself as you are a guest of that country.
