XPost: alt.drugs.busts, aus.legal, aus.politics   
   XPost: soc.culture.indonesia, soc.culture.malaysia, talk.politics.drugs   
   XPost: uk.politics.drugs   
   From: enquires@asio.nsw.gov.au   
      
   "The Pragmatist."  wrote in message   
   news:qrrrc1ljn77pgtoj0bkglravbf3t0ui3eh@4ax.com...   
   >   
   >   
   >>Most innocent people can easily prove their case and those who didn't are   
   >>just not smart enough.   
   >   
   > Proving innocence is not easy at all, usually depends upon whether the   
   > accuser listens to and consider all evidence, I consider that this was   
   > not done in the first trial. The judge himself admitted that he was   
   > not particularly interested in some evidence and seemed determined to   
   > add her to his list of guilty from an early stage of the trial.   
      
   The judge (one of the three) openly admitted that he has convicted all that   
   went past him but that does not mean that it would have been the same.  Also   
   he was one of the three judges as you seem to forget.   
      
   > Secondly there was a serious lack of evidence gathering procedures at   
   > the airport, as I understand it refusal to fingerprint evidence. There   
   > were differences as to what the officials thought Corby meant by her   
   > comments at the airport and what she considered was her meaning.   
      
   Been watching CSI too much?   
      
   Fingerprinting doesn't mean a thing and also it could prove her to be wrong   
   if her fingerprints are on it then she would get the death penality.   
   Secondly she could have used gloves to cover her fingerprinting in order to   
   keep the defence upon doubt (common strategy for criminals like OJ Simpson   
   etc.)   
      
   There is one piece of evidence that her defence never attempted to do and   
   that is airport baggage labels for checkin luggage shows the total amount of   
   the luggage and the total weight.  To Schapelle's defence is that all she   
   has to do is to weigh her total luggage (which she had never done so).  If   
   the marijuana was planted it would be approximately 4kg above the weight   
   shown on the baggage label.   
      
   The label is printed at checkin and the properties of the label is a plastic   
   film and the adhesive is extremely tamperproof.  It contains various   
   information like the flight number, the name of the passenger, the ticket   
   number, the destination airport in the 3-letter code, the total amount of   
   luggage and total weight.   
      
   Secondly you can request the check-in staff to varify that on her ticket   
   which does provides space.   
      
   > Colloquial variations of English are such that saying "if something is   
   > in your luggage then it must be mine" does not necessarily mean it IS   
   > yours or "Yes I put it there." Especially if you are surprised or   
   > horrified at the finding.   
      
   Already explained that above.  Her defence with regards of the check in   
   labels would have solved it.   
      
   > Brad   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)