Talk:Schapelle Corby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Schapelle Corby article.

To-do list for Schapelle Corby:

 edit - history - watch - refresh
  • Date of arrest
  • Media frenzy outside court
  • Prison life, assisting Renae Lawrence (Bali Nine)
  • Reorganization of article, people are adding sections to the end with little regard for organization
  • 'Yellow ribbon' campaign (see image in article of flyer on pole in Sydney for example)
Flag Schapelle Corby is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime.
WikiProject Australia To-do:

Talk page archives

Contents

[edit] External links

I and one other editor have been pruning external links from this article. I undertook to one (new) user to open the issue up for discussion. The link I was particulalrly concerned about was http://fairbloodydinkum.com/ which is to my mind a general link and falls within the category of material covered by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Any views?--A Y Arktos 23:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Editors with malicious intent keep removing valid links. They have continually remove the link to the original Schapelle Corby Supporters Forums whilst choosing to leave inactive domains in place. I would like to hear an explanation for this please.Bluetongue 08:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Forums are generally not accepted as valid external links. See Wikipedia:External links. Words such as "malicious intent" are also contrary to the assumption of good faith. Please review that also. If you disagree with any other external links in the article, you're welcome to remove them. -- Longhair\talk 08:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
"Forums are generally not accepted as valid external links" That's a funny thing to say considering some of the links you've chosen to leave in place are also forums. The Wiki is about Schapelle - the forum at www.schapellecorby.com contains not only discussion about Schapelle but also information about her situation. I have been reading this wiki since its establishment and the link in question as been there for months at a time. Why would you bother to remove that particular link whilst leaving other links that have displayed the default plesk pages for 3+ months. Some of the other links you have chosen to leave have not been updated for 12+ months. Bluetongue 09:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to assume here you failed to read over assume good faith. Please do so. I reverted the most recent edit, not reviewed the entire article. Now that you've raised the matter, I've remove the entire section titled Corby supporters sites as being unencyclopedic. -- Longhair\talk 09:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

ROFL!!! Now thats good faith!! Good on ya mate you're a real Aussie!! Bluetongue 09:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Travelling companions

Three of Corby's travelling companions testified in court that they had seen Corby pack her bag before leaving for the airport and that only the yellow boogie board and flippers were inside it. They also said that Corby did open the bag herself at the customs counter.

Can someone go through the court records or newspaper reports and identify who these companions were? The fact that they were her travelling companions already implies that there is a good chance they are not reliable witnesses (especially if she really was smuggling and they were all involved or aware). But if they were her relatives, this needs to be mentioned since it makes it seem even more likely that they may lie for her. I guess one was her half-brother, who were the others? Also can anyone check if there were any other travelling companions who did not testify? Nil Einne 06:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reefer Madness

I was disappointed to find this article devoid of any moral outrage over a young, non-violent girl being sentenced to 20 years in prison over possession of cannabis. My own outrage at the stupidity and hypocrisy of the thoughtless cruel self-righteous despots who rule our countries leaves me in no shape to add NPOV edits to this article. Hopefully some compassionate, loving dutch wikipedian; able to see through the lies and clouds of rhetoric can assess what, if, or the nature of bias here. Whatever happens to Schapelle Corby, science will vindicate her for possession of a drug no more dangerous and less addictive than tobacco. Time will vindicate her as collateral damage of an imperialistic US foreign drug policy imposed by kooks, lobbyists and their sockpuppets. Jeff Carr 12:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

By "this article", are you referring to the actual Schapelle Corby article, or this, its talk page? Whilst I agree with your views on the war-on-drugs, it would seem that including "moral outrage" on the main article would be POV. But maybe I've misinterpreted your message (?). Cnwb 22:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you even aware of the details of the case? The fact that she had 4.1kg indicates this wasn't a simple case of possession. Assuming it was here, she clearly was importing it for a reason and it seems unlikely to be for personal use. Given that she was importing it into Bali, Indonesia, a tourist haven but also a place were illict drugs are heavily frowned upon, we can assume she wasn't just doing it because she thought cannabis should be legal and wanted to provide people with it as a public duty. We can assume that financial gain was her prime motivator. And however your feelings about cannabis, surely you can see that someone who purposely and knowingly violates the law (whether or not that law is unjust) to make money is hardly someone who deserves our compassion when they get caught. Also, while I'm also reluctant to defend the US and acknowledge they've clearly used drugs as part of their foreign policy, you might be interested to know but most South-East Asian countries that have harsh drug policies have only had limited influence from the US in this matter. Their policies are primarily related to their views on drugs. I don't know what government you're talking about, I guess the Australian since you don't sound Indonesian. But surely you must recognise that the Australian government, even if they had disagreed with the substance of the drug policy (which that trafficking cannabis is wrong), which they don't, have no right really to interfere in a case that occurred in Indoesia. Surely you can see that it is the soverign right of Indonesia to choose to ban substances they feel are harmful to their community whether or not you agree with these decisions. It seems likely Corby was well aware of this ban so it's not as if it was a surprise to her. Really, it appears to me that her and her family are a bunch of profiteering drug traffickers who care little about anyone but themselves and have no qualms about who or what they use, or who gets hurt in the processes. I should add, that my feelings on cannabis are fairly neutral (not strongly supportive of it being illegal, not strongly opposed either). Nil Einne 13:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this paragraph above (where you ask about knowledge of the case details and criticise the points the guy made) I have several points:

a) having drugs in your bag isn't proof you knew they were there. It's like putting condoms in a granny's trolley at the supermarket and then laughing when she gets to the checkout. They didn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Schapelle knew the drugs were there. For this reason alone, the trial should've returned a no verdict. Specially if you look at point e) below.
b) 4.1kg is way too much for personal use, but...
c) she was unlikely to profit from taking pot to Bali to sell, cos it would sell for less there, and...
d) if she was delivering it to her sister (who lives there), again, it would probably be cheaper for her sister to buy it in Bali, and that would avoid the risk of passing through 2 sets of customs. Not sure how safe or available it is to buy pot there, nor the quality of pot in Bali though.
e) the bag wasn't fingerprinted
f) the pot wasn't tested to find out where it was grown
g) there is clearly a large problem with baggage handlers smuggling various drugs around and into Australia
h) how true are all the allegations of family involvement in pot growing etc. that are on the article page? I hadn't heard some of them before. Are they allegations or have they been proved?
i) She was travelling with family and therefore potentially risking all their freedom if she was caught. unlikely/likely?
j) strolling through customs with a huge bag of drugs isn't the most sophisticated smuggling method for a supposedly experienced drug-using family as the article claims.
k) the sentence was way too long regardless of guilt or innocence

Not wanting to argue the case too much in here, but these are all valid points I believe, therefore it's not unreasonable to ask that more outrage be shown in the article. SpookyMulder 13:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Spooky Mulder, although most of your points are inconsequential, even incorrect, there were undoubtedly flaws in the prosecution's case, yet none of these got around the fact that there was a prima facie case against her which she could not answer convincingly. Ie, she had the drugs on her, thus moving the onus on to her to explain how they got there. SHe couldn't. End of story. Her chances of acquittal would have only been marginally better in Australia. I'd put my money on her getting that conviction in an AUstralian court to. --Merbabu 13:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Isn't prima facie another way of saying "circumstantial"? They didn't prove intent, which is surely necessary in a smuggling case? You've heard of unknowing drug mules before, haven't you? And you must admit that having drug-smuggling baggage handlers is a potentially deadly problem in some countries.

I'm not a law student, but saying the fact she had the drugs puts the onus on her to PROVE a SPECIFIC other person put them there, well, how would she do that, if indeed they were planted by baggage handlers? It would be impossible, but in my view she needn't have to. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way round, regardless of prima facie.

Note similar arguments with a judge recently whose car was caught speeding but says it wasn't him in the car. My understanding from the paper is that they can't apparently convict him (or at least it's difficult) unless THEY prove it was him. HE doesn't have to prove it was someone else. He gets off, as far as I know. This has happened a couple of times recently.

I'm not sure that the points are incorrect either, from what I read in the papers. Maybe g). I think the fingerprinting point is very relevant.SpookyMulder 11:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Jeff Carr, what is your understanding of the term NPOV??? --Merbabu 03:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually your quite wrong. In most countries, having over a certain amout of drugs on your possession is accepted as proof of intent to smuggle. It's up to you to either prove that you didn't intend to smuggle or you didn't actually own the drugs and they were planted. Note the car argument is rather different since in this case, it's just your car. Whether or not you were in it is rather difficult to say and it's not unresonable to assume you weren't. Although AFAIK in a number of countries you would in fact be responsible unless the car was stolen (your car, your responsibility I guess). Check out Road-rule enforcement camera and note it says driver identification is only necessary in some jurisdictions. If you weren't driving, you'd have to name the person who was and I guess if the person accepts responsibility, you'd get off. Should the person fail to accept responsibility and it prove impossible to say who was driving, I assume you'd still be held responsible since it's your car (but not really sure about this). I'm not sure what happens if you can prove you weren't driving (e.g. being interviewed on TV at the time) but it's impossible to prove who was and the person you name doesn't accept responsibility. In any case, although it's obviously a rather complicated area of the law, it's clear that it's not universally accepted that they have to prove you were driving (and as I've said, this is rather different from when you're found with something in your possesion anyway) Nil Einne 09:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
In any case, if the police catch you with drugs or a body in your car, you'd have to prove that the body or drugs where planted not the police. As for point K, that's bullshit. She's lucky she didn't get the death penalty. Indonesia law has very strict penalties, especially for drug related offenses. This is well established. Point g is also bullshit. I have yet so see any evidence whatsoever that drug smugglers use planes to smuggle drugs domestically/around Australia. As so many people have pointed out, this is rather unlikely since it's a very high risk and there is no need. It's much much easier to use a car, truck, van whatever rather then go through a high security airport. Remember for interstate travel there are no customs. Point c (and also d) is also bullshit. It has been answered by many sources. Simple fact is, there is probably quite a high demand for cannabis in Bali from tourists. However tourists are reluctant to trust Indonesias for fear of police stings. However they'd probably trust a pretty white Aussie girl and they'd likely be more then willing to pay more then they would pay in Australia. Point i also seems a bit irrelevant. Who said her family wasn't involved? Indeed it's been widely speculated the bag actually belonged to one of her companions but she claimed it was hers since she thought they'd be more leniet with her. Point j has some relevance. Then again, a lot of people have done stupid things. It's also possible the drugs were hers or someone elses but she didn't plan to smuggle them to Bali but forgot to take them out or they ended up in the bag by accident. This will also affect a lot of the other points. If this were the case and she had admitted it, she might have gotten a more leniet sentence but she didn't. Really, if you'd read some more neutral sources, you might realise a lot of the arguments her supporters have put up are basically crap. If this is the kind of stuff she was relying on, no wonder she was convicted. Point E and F have some merit. But it comes back to what I was saying earlier and what the article. It was really her fault for relying on lawyers and people who apparently weren't particularly good since they came up with wacky ideas and hearsay rather then concentrating on the problems with the prosecution case (although I personally don't believe there was sufficent problems that a better lawyer would have gotten her off) Nil Einne 09:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
If you don't believe the first points I made, check out the Commonwealth of Australia law on drugs [1] and [2] Nil Einne 09:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Two other points. The granny-trolly thing is interesting. If you had say a mobile phone in box in your shopping bag that was definitely from the store in question and you leave the store and don't pay for it, AFAIK, the store would not to actually prove you put it there or were aware it was there. Simply having it in your bag is proof enough unless you can come up with resonable evidence to suggest it was put there by someone else. Now obviously if the store caught you on their CCTV camera they'd use that as evidence but if they didn't have any, I doubt you'd get off. Indeed, I suspect even if you admit you put it there but claim you'd intended to purchase it, you still probably wouldn't get off. The same would apply to condoms too except that condoms are a bit more difficult to prove actually came from the store in question or hadn't been paid for (if they were in your wallet or handbag for example, you could just say you keep them there for use which is plausible). You're somewhat right that it's rather difficult to prove that someone else put them there. But this is always going to be the case when you claim something isn't yours. I mean even had her fingerprints been on the bag and the soil used to grow the cannabis matched the soil in her greenhouse, this still wouldn't prove the cannabis was hers (since it's impossible to do so). It's still possible someone used a bag with her fingerprints and grew it on soil that was similar to hers. Perhaps they wanted to set her up or perhaps she'd left a bag inside her boogie board bag which they used. It makes her story seem even less likely but the law never deals in certainties only resonable doubt. And think about it another way. If anyone can come up with some wacky story and you always require forensic evidence to prove something in someone's possesion bellonged to them, then it'll be rather easy for smart criminals (especially in the pre-DNA days). Just take great care when handling your illicit stuff (drugs, guns whatever). You can be very brazen if you want. If you get caught, well just say it's not yours and someone planted it. You don't have to come up with resonable evidence to suggest this was the case. As long as there is no forensic evidence to tie you to the illicit item you get away scot free. Thankfully this is not the way the world works. Having something in your posession is usually sufficient evidence it's yours unless you can provide resonable evidence it's not Nil Einne 10:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Schapelle POV

Although nowhere near as bad as it was, this page still has a lot of pro-Schapelle POV.

For instance, I'm looking at the "comments from public figures" section which has a supportive message from Lindy Chamberlin (!), and another from Russell Crowe. How are the comments of a D-list celebrity and a movie star known for his outbreaks of irrational violence either encyclopaedic, or relevant to the article? The "Corby Supporters Sites" section is another example, tipping the POV in the article strongly towards Schapelle, and the "References" site is full of borderline-xenophobic rubbish from The Age, and contains not a single article from the Indonesian press, or anything that even remotely implies that she might possibly be guilty.

The lead in paragraphs are also poorly written, presenting a bunch of irrational arguments and convoluted justifications to prove that while her family appears to be armpit-deep in the drugs trade, poor Schapelle can't possibly be involved.

Full disclosure, I believe she's as guilty as sin, although I also believe that drug use and controlled trade should be legalised.

Lankiveil 20:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

I put in the Lindy Chamberlain comments as I believed they were relevant and interesting - Chamberlain seemed to consider Corby a kindred spirit, or something of the sort. If you can think of a way to convey the information in a way that is less likely to be taken as POV, then please feel free to edit it. As for Russell Crowe and that other bloke (whoever he is), they're celebrities, so they speak on whatever - and Crowe's comments were seen to reflect public sentiment at the time. - 220.237.30.150 23:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree somewhat however you're wrong about one thing. They reflected, Australian (and perhaps NZ) public sentiment. Not public sentiment which is a broad term implying that everyone everywhere agreed with this sentiment. I don't therefore personally have anything wrong with the inclusion of their comments but the media response and comments section is poorly written and arguably not NPOV because it primarily focuses on the Australian view and completely ignores the Indonesia view. Some quotes from Indonesians, more on their media etc would be good.
Also, there doesn't seem to be any mention how the media and public have decided to largely ignore the case, even after it started to become clear that her family and therefore probably her were involved in the drug trade. What I'm primarily getting at is how they decided to ignore the case once the new evidence came to light, rather then resurrect it as I expect they would have if new evidence had arisen that had suggested she wasn't guilty. BTW, to be clear, I think they wouldn't have cared much about her even if no evidence hadn't arisen although I do think they've forgotten about her to a greater extent because of it.
Nil Einne 13:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Should add that it would be especially good if we could find a response to the "no one could be that stupid" comment that is often made. Assuming that she was intending to import it (and she didn't bring it by accident which is still possible IMHO) I think anyone who has ever bothered to look in to the stupid things that criminals (or for that matter ordinary people) have done would know it's easily possible she was that stupid. I suspect if it had occured in the USA say or NZ or for that matter, Australia, or whatever she would be now in on one of those internet jokes about stupid criminals...(Not to mention how poor a defense, she couldn't have done it because no one would be that stupid it) Nil Einne 13:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, okay, "the dominant Australian public sentiment at the time." Better?  ;) I seem to recall there was mention of an Indonesian protest wanting to give her the death penalty on the page ages ago (both the protest and its mention) but aside from that, there hasn't been much on what Indonesians think or thought of Corby - most likely because the Australian media decided it 'didn't fit into the story' or something, or because Corby wasn't significant enough to the Indonesians. I think that the perception of Corby's innocence has changed - from being an innocent 'everygirl' to just being guilty, and so the media has stopped covering it. - 220.237.30.150 02:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Without citing eidence this seems slightly biased

"The Corby case generated intense controversy in Australia, where public opinion, which was generally in support of Corby and at times expressed publicly with a perceived anti-Indonesian bias, caused tension in Australia's relationship with Indonesia."

I take exeption to the bit where it states "which was generally in support of Corby". It needs be better written, cited with evidence (such as a FEW poles by diverse newspapers) or taken out completely. I personally had the perception that it was a 50/50 split in terms of support for corby in Australia, so i would like to see some evidence in support of the statement made up.--Alchemy101 04:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

ha ha - Do you live in Australia??? ;) I ask as if you had, you would have known that at the time it seemed almost all supported her side of the story. The fact that the majority of the country was supportive of her story was in fact the whole point to the thing. The national hysteria wasn’t just about a drug case overseas but an Australian wronged by a foreign court. On the other hand, it does seem now that less people are believing of her - and maybe your 50/50 suggestion could be more correct - now. Probably ‘cos the frenzy has calmed down a lot now and revelations about her family and their own run ins with the law. As for you specific question about polls, well there are polls and there are polls. I’d suggest that those from the tabloid press can be dismissed (one sensationalist show – “A Current Affair” - put it at 99% support for her!), although a more respectable paper – “Sydney Morning Herald” – out at just under 90% in favour. I agree a poll would be valuable - let me see what i can do - in the mean time i'd suggest leaving article as is. PS, personally I always believed she was more likely guilty than innocent. --Merbabu 04:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
"ha ha - Do you live in Australia??? ;) I ask as if you had, you would have known that at the time it seemed almost all supported her side of the story. The fact that the majority of the country was supportive of her story was in fact the whole point to the thing." That is due to media-bias. The media played it off as being a contest between Aus and Indonesia ... of course siding with their own country. I think you would find in Indonesia exactly the reverse is true - that 99% agree with their system in this case. They also played-off of the public's acceptance of drugs in Australia. A 20 year gaol term for smuggling cannabis seems to outrage many Australians, I myself see our system as failing because of not keeping drugs off the streets.
I put in a source that refers to polls running 90 percent thinking she was innocent.--Wehwalt 10:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Well yes I do live in Australia in fact and I believe that that the "majority of the country" statement was made without evidence other than the polls conducted by sensationalist/tabloid press and the coverage they played. I'm not so much as arguing that there wasn't support for Corby rather that we need more evidence other than "I live in Australia and I could clearly see that there was majority support for her" (and I'm not suggesting that YOU said this) because I certainly didn't.--Alchemy101 04:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures of Schapelle with drugs

http://www.farisqc.observationdeck.org/farisqc_images/Corby2.jpg

Schapelle with what appears to be joints and marijuana on the table. Granted, she's not smoking them in the photo, but her claims to not be involved with drugs or with anyone involved with drugs are obviously false.

These leaked photos would make a good addition to the page.

Personally I don't think it shows anything. A cigarette that could (and probably does) contain tobacco, etc. Also, inclusion of the image would be "original research" IMHO. Robert Brockway 18:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok the clip seal bag is a bit suspicious but they are used to store all sorts of things. Honestly the image proves nothing. Robert Brockway 19:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with Robert Brockway the image shows nothing incrimanating whatsoever.Bluetongue 09:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Corby

"Michael Corby has a close and long standing friendship with a man, who was recently charged with growing commercial quantities of hydroponic marijuana that he sold in sealed plastic bags." Who? Flage 08:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity comments

In the Celebrity Comments section, the subsection on cartoonist Darby Conley (who included a tribute to Corby in his comic strip Get Fuzzy) has been deleted with the summary, "remove insignificant trivia sub-section that adds no value." However, I don't see how this applies to the section about Conley's response any more than it applies to the sections about other celebrities' responses. It seems to me that we should either cover every celebrity who made a public comment on the case, or none of them. (My preference would actually be for the latter, despite having worked on this section.) Perodicticus 15:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the section ought to go. But I didn't think I was justified in proposing it in an article which has had a hard time reaching consensus.--Wehwalt 15:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
YEs - give it the chop. Similar to Wehwalt, the fact that I removed the cartoon reference doesn't mean I agree with the inclusion of the others. These should be serious articles and a whole section to celebs (Russell Crowe!!?!?!?) is ridiculous. Perhaps a 1 or 2 sentence metion within an existing paragraph is good. --Merbabu 00:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. Perodicticus 08:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed statement

It has been suggested that the original incorrect reporting may have been a factor in the Supreme Court's increasing of her sentence back up to 20 years.

I removed the above statement here because it seems rather dubious to me and it unsourced. As far as I know, the above photos were never evidence. As such, it would AFAIK be highly improper for the Supreme Court to give them any regard whatsoever in consideration of the case. This is the kind of thing we might expect from juries but from professional judges of a Supreme Court? I hope not... If a citation, can be found from a reliable source, it may be included but only as a suggestion from said source. For example if Corby herself or her family suggested it, then we need to mention this has been suggest by Corby/her famil not "it has been suggested" Nil Einne 08:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/h/Talk%7ESchapelle_Corby_1004.html"