Warning to Tourists - Local Laws May Differ - with Major Consequences
May 27th, 2005, 07:02 PM
#21
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth, the Australian government and Qantas were both already in the process of investigating similar suspicious activity among the baggage handlers at some airports, before Corby's situation occurred.
Personally, I too don't think it passes muster here. Come on, I've known a lot of very out-there characters over the years, many with no sense at all. None of them would have been so stupid as to check 9 lbs of pot onto a plane, much less in their own bag.
On the other hand, imagine what a great diversion that amount would be if someone else's well hidden stash slipped by in the ruckus. Maybe quietly picked up on that luggage belt and wheeled off while Corby was the star attraction?
The Herald Sun out of Melbourne quotes her lawyer, in response to the prosecutions appeal for harsher sentencing: "Go to hell". Australians, my wife among them, are not happy and I don't blame them.
May 27th, 2005, 07:07 PM
#22
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How the poor people who've never left their village off on Sumatra would or could have steered things differently though, I have no idea. Especially since it's Aceh that was hit by the Tsunami, an area that has been constantly attempting to gain independence from Indonesia for years.
I'm still glad to have sent assistance.
I'm still glad to have sent assistance.
May 27th, 2005, 07:10 PM
#23
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finding the dope in her bag doesn't even make a strong <i>circumstantial</i> case. It is an isolated data point that doesn't appear to have been connected with any other.
Are her fingerprints on the packaging? Is her saliva on the gummed seals? Have residues of the same batch of cannabis been vacuumed from her house or car? Were fibers from her carpeting or clothing or pets collected from inside the packages?
I don't know. But since the news reports don't mention it, I doubt it.
Are her fingerprints on the packaging? Is her saliva on the gummed seals? Have residues of the same batch of cannabis been vacuumed from her house or car? Were fibers from her carpeting or clothing or pets collected from inside the packages?
I don't know. But since the news reports don't mention it, I doubt it.
May 27th, 2005, 07:56 PM
#25
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ohmy god-I can't believe some of these responses-too much! Clearly the "CSI effect" is in evidence here, not to mention extreme naivete! A 20 year old beauty assistant would NEVER want to smuggle pot into Bali so she could make some money on the side, buy some fancy clothes, maybe a nice car, in other words, keep up with the rich crowd-no never, that could never be. And no one has EVER tried this before, have they??? No one in Bali on holiday would ever want to smoke pot, would they? Sheesh! The fact that she's 20 years old and thinks she's invincible (rather than incredibly stupid) of course, doesn't play into this scenario at all, does it?
And as far as the baggage handlers, IF there was something causally linked to their operations and this foolish young woman's actions, believe me, it would have come out, but there isn't. Not one bit of evidence, folks! That's not to say that there isn't some smuggling going on, that goes on at many major airports, and various Drug Enforcement Agencies of various countries around the world have surveillance cameras going on in the baggage area to determine just who is doing what there, in order to bring a case. But to somehow link ongoing investigations with this woman's drug case, intimating darkly that there is some sort of "conspiracy" going on, and a "terrible miscarriage of justice" is just risible in the extreme.
It's always something, isn't it? Either a conspiracy or a miscarriage of justice. People can somehow not accept it if one of their fellow countrymen, particularly a woman, gets convicted in another country-she just CAN'T BE guilty, can she? Such a scenario is utterly impossible, because, well, no one could be stupid enough to put 9 lbs. of mj in her checked bag, right?
And that group of Middle Eastern men who were convicted in the first WTC bombing, they couldn't have possibly been so stupid as to come back to the Ryder truck rental place to demand the return of the 400 dollar security deposit on the Ryder truck used to bomb the bldg., claiming it had been stolen, now could they?
No one is ever guilty as charged, no one murders anyone (OJ never murdered anyone). NO ONE ever is carrying controlled substances with an intent to distribute, are they?
Even the Australian PM, John Howard, accepts the verdict-he knows what went down here-it's only the latest in a long line of got-caught- in- another country- with- drugs routine. Yawn.
So I'd not put too much stock into that baggage handler BS-again, her defense is just the airport variation of the garden variety "somebody else planted it in my bag" defense. You think that baggage handlers haven't been blamed before at airport drug busts? I can assure you they have, and screeners too. Many times. But unless there is a causal link, 9 times out of 10, it's to no avail.
Any brand-new prosecutor in any "western" country could try this case cold and get a guilty verdict within 20 minutes.
And as far as the baggage handlers, IF there was something causally linked to their operations and this foolish young woman's actions, believe me, it would have come out, but there isn't. Not one bit of evidence, folks! That's not to say that there isn't some smuggling going on, that goes on at many major airports, and various Drug Enforcement Agencies of various countries around the world have surveillance cameras going on in the baggage area to determine just who is doing what there, in order to bring a case. But to somehow link ongoing investigations with this woman's drug case, intimating darkly that there is some sort of "conspiracy" going on, and a "terrible miscarriage of justice" is just risible in the extreme.
It's always something, isn't it? Either a conspiracy or a miscarriage of justice. People can somehow not accept it if one of their fellow countrymen, particularly a woman, gets convicted in another country-she just CAN'T BE guilty, can she? Such a scenario is utterly impossible, because, well, no one could be stupid enough to put 9 lbs. of mj in her checked bag, right?
And that group of Middle Eastern men who were convicted in the first WTC bombing, they couldn't have possibly been so stupid as to come back to the Ryder truck rental place to demand the return of the 400 dollar security deposit on the Ryder truck used to bomb the bldg., claiming it had been stolen, now could they?
No one is ever guilty as charged, no one murders anyone (OJ never murdered anyone). NO ONE ever is carrying controlled substances with an intent to distribute, are they?
Even the Australian PM, John Howard, accepts the verdict-he knows what went down here-it's only the latest in a long line of got-caught- in- another country- with- drugs routine. Yawn.
So I'd not put too much stock into that baggage handler BS-again, her defense is just the airport variation of the garden variety "somebody else planted it in my bag" defense. You think that baggage handlers haven't been blamed before at airport drug busts? I can assure you they have, and screeners too. Many times. But unless there is a causal link, 9 times out of 10, it's to no avail.
Any brand-new prosecutor in any "western" country could try this case cold and get a guilty verdict within 20 minutes.
May 27th, 2005, 08:19 PM
#27
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 12,848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree that the "it's not mine" defense is, in a word, lame.
"Finding the dope in her bag doesn't even make a strong circumstantial case. It is an isolated data point that doesn't appear to have been connected with any other."
Doesn't make a strong circumstantial case? The drugs were in her bag! Do you actually think that the Indonesian police would spend the money necessary to do a fiber or saliva analysis, or send a forensics team to Australia to vacumn her house or car? How ridiculous! By that standard, no one would ever be convicted of anything--because it would be too expensive to build a case and prosecute.
This type of "special" justice for travelers has been par for the course for years in many countries, especially where drugs are concerned. In the 70's, traveling abroad with my school, we were told very bluntly that getting caught with drugs in Turkey or Tunis or Morrocco was tantamount to a death sentence for a young American traveler--and worse, for girls. I guess it's still true.
Obviously, this young woman wasn't well-connected enough to get off, and doesn't have enough money to grease the skids and palms that could have made this all go away.
"Finding the dope in her bag doesn't even make a strong circumstantial case. It is an isolated data point that doesn't appear to have been connected with any other."
Doesn't make a strong circumstantial case? The drugs were in her bag! Do you actually think that the Indonesian police would spend the money necessary to do a fiber or saliva analysis, or send a forensics team to Australia to vacumn her house or car? How ridiculous! By that standard, no one would ever be convicted of anything--because it would be too expensive to build a case and prosecute.
This type of "special" justice for travelers has been par for the course for years in many countries, especially where drugs are concerned. In the 70's, traveling abroad with my school, we were told very bluntly that getting caught with drugs in Turkey or Tunis or Morrocco was tantamount to a death sentence for a young American traveler--and worse, for girls. I guess it's still true.
Obviously, this young woman wasn't well-connected enough to get off, and doesn't have enough money to grease the skids and palms that could have made this all go away.
May 28th, 2005, 03:39 AM
#30
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, thank you, hollaplez, for your succinct and useful contribution to the debate. When you've gathered your thoughts I'm sure we'd all be pleased to hear them.
Spygirl, the young lady in question is 27, a reasonably experienced traveller who's made several trips to Bali, and has been married and divorced. None of this guarantees enough nous to stay out of trouble, of course, so I'm stating it for the record only.
Robes, as per my previous post it does seem that there's a market for dope in Bali where sold by tourists to tourists. But I agree that you could quickly sell that stash almost anywhere in Australia for much more, and I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would run the risks entailed in running it into an Asian country. I must be missing something, (wouldn't be the first time).
Spygirl, the young lady in question is 27, a reasonably experienced traveller who's made several trips to Bali, and has been married and divorced. None of this guarantees enough nous to stay out of trouble, of course, so I'm stating it for the record only.
Robes, as per my previous post it does seem that there's a market for dope in Bali where sold by tourists to tourists. But I agree that you could quickly sell that stash almost anywhere in Australia for much more, and I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would run the risks entailed in running it into an Asian country. I must be missing something, (wouldn't be the first time).
May 28th, 2005, 06:04 AM
#31
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spygirl, she's 27. That's a world of difference.
I promise I'm not a conspiracy theorist and have both Indonesian and Australian relatives that I live very much. I have no doubt that I (and you) have no real inside knowledge of the case, as evidenced by my use of media for news and your making repeated statements about her youth at age 20. So anything we say here is just conjecture and for the ineffectual purposes of our own navel gazing, I think we'd we forced to agree.
That said, about the farthest thing from it really, but when major evidence has been publically and completely ruled out without examination, it's not cause for confidence in the ruling, sorry.
Now I know those in diplomatic and political circles, such as John Howard (who I also am not that impressed by, by the way) have a different set of rules and priorities that may well place international relations over individual well being. Evidence the relationship between the US and China. I don't take it as a sign of endorcement one way or the other as they try to calm the waters. Honestly, the rest of us don't live in that world and aren't overly enamored of it. Just a built-in necessary function. Sort of like the loo.
Whether or not she was dumb enough to stuff 9lbs of pot (no hash was involved either, btw) into a suitcase is anyone's guess. That's not even what the Australian side of this is complaining about. All the complaint is, is that she didn't get a fair trial - by western standards. And she didn't. By all personal and professional accounts, other than those of the court, she was essentially allowed to provide no evidence or witnesses on her own behalf.
But that's the point of this thread, it seems. Be aware that standards in other places are not the same as ours. I think that's a pretty wise thing to remember and that this is evidence of it. I certainly feel that there's enough evidence that I'm willing to take into account in forming my own opinions that allow for the fact that these things can even happen to people who are not in the wrong. Yes, most of them ARE in the wrong and she's not the first Aussie to get busted. Which should tell you, from the outcry, that there's more to this case than others.
Take care, flying this weekend and got to get ready, just in case I don't get back to this one before Fodors gives it the big flush.
I promise I'm not a conspiracy theorist and have both Indonesian and Australian relatives that I live very much. I have no doubt that I (and you) have no real inside knowledge of the case, as evidenced by my use of media for news and your making repeated statements about her youth at age 20. So anything we say here is just conjecture and for the ineffectual purposes of our own navel gazing, I think we'd we forced to agree.
That said, about the farthest thing from it really, but when major evidence has been publically and completely ruled out without examination, it's not cause for confidence in the ruling, sorry.
Now I know those in diplomatic and political circles, such as John Howard (who I also am not that impressed by, by the way) have a different set of rules and priorities that may well place international relations over individual well being. Evidence the relationship between the US and China. I don't take it as a sign of endorcement one way or the other as they try to calm the waters. Honestly, the rest of us don't live in that world and aren't overly enamored of it. Just a built-in necessary function. Sort of like the loo.
Whether or not she was dumb enough to stuff 9lbs of pot (no hash was involved either, btw) into a suitcase is anyone's guess. That's not even what the Australian side of this is complaining about. All the complaint is, is that she didn't get a fair trial - by western standards. And she didn't. By all personal and professional accounts, other than those of the court, she was essentially allowed to provide no evidence or witnesses on her own behalf.
But that's the point of this thread, it seems. Be aware that standards in other places are not the same as ours. I think that's a pretty wise thing to remember and that this is evidence of it. I certainly feel that there's enough evidence that I'm willing to take into account in forming my own opinions that allow for the fact that these things can even happen to people who are not in the wrong. Yes, most of them ARE in the wrong and she's not the first Aussie to get busted. Which should tell you, from the outcry, that there's more to this case than others.
Take care, flying this weekend and got to get ready, just in case I don't get back to this one before Fodors gives it the big flush.
May 28th, 2005, 06:14 AM
#32
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robes, I'm leaning to what you're saying.
Or what if it's cheap home grown, worth squat in value? And so unmissable that it would <i>have</i> to instantly set off alarms on arrival?
Meanwhile, a small discreet toiletry bag stuffed inside a tasteful roll around is being wheeled past, carrying a vacuum packed and airtight pack with $100K of cocaine. Hey, who's still hand searching bags while the bust of the century is going on?
Now, a conspiracy theory would be that the Indonesian gov't was in on what was in the vac pac that made it through. I'm not saying that This is just me thinking so really simple way to get something through. And if a slow witted person like myself can think up an idea like this up in a few minutes, why is it such a difficult idea that people with time, motive and opportunity could to do the same?
Or what if it's cheap home grown, worth squat in value? And so unmissable that it would <i>have</i> to instantly set off alarms on arrival?
Meanwhile, a small discreet toiletry bag stuffed inside a tasteful roll around is being wheeled past, carrying a vacuum packed and airtight pack with $100K of cocaine. Hey, who's still hand searching bags while the bust of the century is going on?
Now, a conspiracy theory would be that the Indonesian gov't was in on what was in the vac pac that made it through. I'm not saying that This is just me thinking so really simple way to get something through. And if a slow witted person like myself can think up an idea like this up in a few minutes, why is it such a difficult idea that people with time, motive and opportunity could to do the same?
May 28th, 2005, 06:29 AM
#33
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if a young lady had been to Bali many times without luggage being searched (and I've been many times to Europe without being searched) couldn't she assume that she wouldn't be searched this time? Mom always felt if I had chocolate frosting around my mouth that I ate the cake even if I blamed the dog.
May 28th, 2005, 06:35 AM
#34
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well sure she could. I think the point was about the quality or process of the trial. There seems to be no shortage on the official thinking that she could have done it. I think the outrage is coming from the fact that it was already a foregone conclusion that this is what happened and no evidence to the contrary was necessary.
May 28th, 2005, 07:49 AM
#35
I know the "it's not mine" or "I didn't do it" defenses sound lame, but innocent people are convicted pretty regularly and if you didn't do it, what are you supposed to say? And if you didn't do womething, why on earth should you show "remorse"? Exactly how do you prove that you did not do something? The answer, of course, is that you do not have to, the prosecution has to prove that you did the crime, even in Indonesia. Just having the drugs in her luggage isn't enough. Shouldn't there be some evidence other than that before someone narrowly misses a death sentence and gets 20 years? Somewhere along the line, shouldn't there be some tiny attempt to find justice?
May 28th, 2005, 08:32 AM
#36
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alan Dershowitz was interviewed by Larry King a few years ago. King asked him if many of the people he has defended over the years had, in fact, been guilty. Dershowitz replied, cheerfully, "almost all of them." King asked him if this bothered him. Dershowitz: "Not at all. Would you like to live in a country where most of the people on trial were innocent?"
Unfortunately, that statement may not apply to all countries.
I have no idea if the girl is innocent or guilty. But the "somebody else put it in my bag" defense is standard. Recently, a HS girl on a track team I coach was caught shoplifting with some other girls. She of course said another girl put the stuff in her bag. Exactly what my daughter said years ago when she was caught shoplifting. It's automatic.
Unfortunately, that statement may not apply to all countries.
I have no idea if the girl is innocent or guilty. But the "somebody else put it in my bag" defense is standard. Recently, a HS girl on a track team I coach was caught shoplifting with some other girls. She of course said another girl put the stuff in her bag. Exactly what my daughter said years ago when she was caught shoplifting. It's automatic.
May 28th, 2005, 10:41 AM
#38
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fascinating thread...one of the few I feel compelled to respond to..
If a non citizen was found to have drugs in their luggage entering the US do you really think they would have a different type of trial than this young woman? I think these lawas are archaic and pointless in many cases, but the US would not treat someone much differently than Indonesia did - we would have more of a semblance of listening to evidence but I think the result would be much the same. International drug smuggling is taken very seriously in many countries...
If a non citizen was found to have drugs in their luggage entering the US do you really think they would have a different type of trial than this young woman? I think these lawas are archaic and pointless in many cases, but the US would not treat someone much differently than Indonesia did - we would have more of a semblance of listening to evidence but I think the result would be much the same. International drug smuggling is taken very seriously in many countries...
May 28th, 2005, 11:37 AM
#39
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,876
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australia has much the same VERY stringent drug laws. They are trying to get her sentence to be served in Australia instead of Indonesia. Driving while drunk in Europe if viewed very seriously also. I didn't see much in the NYTimes that suggested she was innocent. She escaped the death penalty. They do not want drugs.
