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   
      
   "L Sternn"  wrote in message   
   news:7vr0d15g5dffo35l1nf5a5gg1gkb2nlf24@4ax.com...   
   > On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 02:57:42 GMT, "LDL"    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>"L Sternn"  wrote in message   
   >>news:8mauc190l470nmfj3qiksf8hvd57frbf2v@4ax.com...   
   >>> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 02:09:09 GMT, "LDL"    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>"adchin"  wrote in message   
   >>>>news:42cabce6$1_2@news.tm.net.my...   
   >>>>> LDL wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Then put me in the class of the not yet accused.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Now wouldn't this make a mockery of the Indonesian judicial system ?   
   >>>>> What   
   >>>>> happened to the third option, of people who are innocent ?  Say if   
   >>>>> Indonesia has a population of 200 million, and you have 20 million   
   >>>>> guilty,   
   >>>>> the rest of the population is "not yet accused" then ?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>And just how many guilty parties have used this loophole.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>OJ Simpson, Greg Domosavich, Michael Jackson??, et al   
   >>>   
   >>> I personally think OJ did it but I honestly don't know if Michael   
   >>> Jackson is guilty of anything other than being freakish and very rich.   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't know who Greg Domosavich is, and the only references Google   
   >>> returns for it are 2 posts you've made to usenet.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Most innocent people can easily prove their case and those who didn't   
   >>>>are   
   >>>>just not smart enough.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> So instead of ""Liberty and Justice for all", you believe in Liberty   
   >>> and Justice for anyone with a high enough IQ?   
   >>   
   >>I don't believe in letting criminals off the hook that easily.   
   >   
   > You mean you don't believe in letting innocent people who are only   
   > guilty of not being "smart enough" to get off the hook that easily.   
   >   
   > By your logic, we should put you on death row.   
      
   As I have said previously, forensic science can quite easily show a person   
   who in "innocent" rather than not guilty of a particular charge. so by my   
   logic, there is a distinct difference between the innocent and the guilty.   
      
   So by what evidence shall you put me to death row or is it that you are   
   being futile?   
      
   >>  Most people   
   >>in society works hard to make a living without the legal thieves (the   
   >>government through taxes) taking away their savings but to have other   
   >>thieves and criminals taking away possessions of the innocents and commit   
   >>horrendous crimes, I prefer harsh punishments to them.   
   >>   
   >>In retrospect of Schapelle Corby, her trial was made and her defence was   
   >>shattered.  You and I will never really know if she is guilty or innocent   
   >>by   
   >>herself.   
   >   
   > Which is precisely why she shouldn't have been sentenced to rot in   
   > jail.   
      
   And what if she is lying?  The sentence is appropriate to the Indonesian   
   people although they prefer to really rot in jail.   
      
   >>The evidence brought before the court was quite fine.  It sounds   
   >>like that you wish to listen to a voice of a buxom 27-year old female than   
   >>take the evidence in itself.   
   >>   
   >>I had on many occasions brought the defence of the baggage labels against   
   >>the weight (which is enough evidence to totally clear her name) but   
   >>Schapelle's defence team never picked that up.  Unless Schapelle's defence   
   >>team is totally stupid or is it that they are attempting to create a   
   >>"reasonable doubt" case which is a common strategy of a criminal.   
   >>   
   >>I am asking you to refute that claim?   
      
   Your silence is quite deafening.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)