The Corby case.
Qantas staff to back Corby’s case06:01 AEST Wed Jul 27 2005
AAP
Qantas workers who handled Schapelle Corby’s boogie board bag are expected to testify there was nothing suspicious about her baggage.
The staff are expected to arrive in Bali next week to testify there was nothing suspicious about the appearance of her luggage when she checked in at Brisbane airport.
Fine, so the boogie bag did not look `suspicious and so what. That testimony does not serve as an argument for establishing reasonable doubt, contrary to Erwin Siregar’s claim that it
would help convince the court there was reasonable doubt the 4.1kg of marijuana was in her luggage when she checked in.
The crucial evidence is, what did the bag weigh when she checked it in, and Corby had to check the bag in because it was overweight, without inferring anything as to the presence or not of a pillow-case sized bag of weed.
It is staggering to ponder, the defence did not seek to secure documentation of weight from Quantas when they were preparing for the first trial of Corby, this is just the very sort of detail a Barrister would be considered derelict in not securing. It is Andrew Sorrell who made an even more telling comment on Faris’s site:
30/5/2005 | 10:44 am
If the addition of the 4 kgs was added AFTER the bag was checked in then why did she not insist that her luggage was reweighed in Denpasar and checked with the computer record in Brisbane?
Most people take less than 20kgs to Bali so the addition of 4kgs would certainly stand out.
Can anyone let me know.
Fingerprints, or the lack of them, have no bearing on the case, because finger prints do not impress very well at all on plastic surfaces, and other smooth shiny surface, they cannot be lifted by a detective off such surfaces. Faris Q.C., pointed out, even if they could be lifted, fingerprints are at best circumstantial evidence only, cases have to built on far stronger arguments than fingerprints.
Those who doubt the weed came from Australia, miss the bleeding obvious, the defence never denied and never even made a lame attempt to rebut that it came from Australia. To the contrary, the defence, in the first trial, agreed it did come from Oz since, that is contained in their assertion, drug smuggling baggage handlers planted the weed into the boogie board in the international terminal at Sydney airport. The test conducted on the weed showing it was high grade, hydroponically grown weed, suggestive of its Oz origin, is, therefore trivial by way of it being circumstantial confirmation of what the defence set out in the first trial.
Neither is this any help to Corby’s defence as pointed out by the lawyer involved on this matter of witnesses:
Meanwhile, a man labelled by his own lawyer as a “total bull***t artist” claims the drugs in Schapelle Corby’s luggage were meant for him.
The man has told News Limited newspapers he was offered $50,000 to collect the 4.1kgs of marijuana from Sydney Airport in October last year.
The plan fell apart when a Sydney airport baggage handler did not pass on the package and it ended up in Corby’s body board bag, the man who had demanded $250,000 for his story told the newspaper.
“I was supposed to make a quid out of picking up the package but it never went ahead,” the man said.
“I got a call telling me to forget it because the package had ended up with the Corby girl.”
So, again, Corby’s defence are clutching at straws:
Corby’s Indonesian lawyer, who is urging the federal government to grant the witness immunity from prosecution, says the man, who lives in Sydney’s western Suburbs, is vital in saving her.
Corby twigged on to one thing, unlike for the first trial, a media beat up serves her defence no good at all, and that she is in need of substantive evidence to do the work of at least establishing reasonable doubt and thus establishing justification of acquittal. Unlike the first trial, her defence has made efforts, such as they are , to discovering substantive evidence. Even then, they have still resorted to using the medja to somehow shift some burden onto the Federal Cabinet and, in particular, the Attorney General, for furnishing evidence.
Two federal Police investigations have been conducted into the baggage handlers employed at Sydney airport. Both investigations have yielded no discoveries which would even serve as circumstantial evidence, let alone the substantive evidence Corby’s defence requires to establish at least reasonable doubt for acquittal, and acquittal is the objective which was entirely ignored by the defence during the first trial.
There are further similarities between the preparations for the new trial and those for the first trial, further to using the medja to mount emotive demands and insinuations - though not so strident as they were in the first trial.
The first trial ran on:
1. Story telling based on allegations against the baggage handlers and specifying how the baggage handlers did the dirty deed.
2. Hearsay mounted as substantive arguments, inlcuding what were nothing more than witness to Corby’s character, according to their own view of Corbby which, while character witnesses can bring considerations to a Judge’s decision in sentencing, have no standing as evidence what-so-ever, not just in Indonesia but in any court in Oz too. To this, that is why a Western Australia Supreme Court Judge rejected polygrapah tests as not just pseudo-science but the `polygprah tester’ as nothing more than a character witness. That, to allow polygraph tests would lead to perversion of justice entailing, the risk anyone guilty of a serious crime being acquitted and those innocent of a criminal charge being convicted. That assessment of the value of polygraph testing, none at all it is just rubbish, was buttressed by the compilation of an extensive body of cases. It might be noted, independently of courts, the issue of polygraph `testing’ by various entities has yielded grievous and very damaging consequences.
In the case of the C.I.A. a KGB spy, having infiltrated the CIA was able to remain in place because he `passed’ the `polygraph tests’ while, loyal agents have been acted against because they failed the same `test’. It is disgusting that, even in Oz, there are still those pressing for the use of polygrapah tests in criminal investigations. `Polygraph’ is , obviously, a mis-spelling of the actual name for it, Poograph.
The two Quantas staff members will not be acting as character witnesses, but their evidence is still no more than hersay of a most trite order, `what the bags appeared like’. The question is, how much did it weigh when she checked it in with the clerk at the service desk for weighing, and charging for excess weight. What a bag looks like is meaningless, nothing to do with what is inside it and, what was its weight at check in and after it had been sent through to baggage handling room and collected at the airport in Indonesia.
3 The defence during the first trial made a series of ad hominem accusations:
a. Corrupt, drug smuggling baggage handlers did it.
b.The Indon. customs officials were corrupt and and did things to ensure Croby would be convicted of the charge.
That’s quite enough of a long chain of conspiracies to get Corby, as it were. The handlers were in on it, the customs were in on it from their own motives of course. Presto, Corby the victim. Assume the allegations are true, the defence did no work to substantiate those claims, they just told stories with very nasty ramifications, as the Sydney Baggage Handlers have found out.
Through the Oz medja -
c. The Judges are corrupt
d. The Govt. is corrupt
e. Judges and Govt. conspired against Corby and, the variation, the Customs, the police, the Govt., and the Judges conspired to
get Corby.
f. The Judge presiding on the first trial has never aquitted anyone of drugs charges in all of 500 cases and therefore, was
biassed against Corby and predisposed against Corby, and already, virtually convicted before the trial or early into the
trial.
The conspricay chain multiplied:
” Your honour, the baggage handlers, the customs, the police, the govt., the prosecutors, The Oz fed Govt., the Attorney General, the whole Federal cabinet, the Federal Police, yourself Mi’Laud, you are all in on it.”
Face facts, anybody else who would trot out that line would be thrown into a loony bin wearing the jacket straight.
The defence played hard against the man, the prosecution did not.
While defence and media have not indulged in such a loopy, stupid chain of allegations, story writing, ad hominem attacks against all and sundry, they are yet still at it. Oz QCs are ingnorant, incompetent interfering nobodies and, Indcoup relates this example of stupidity but, it has a twist:
Tantrum time
The Corby circus show takes another twist.
Superstar lawyer Hotman Paris Hutapea has threatened to quit the case after an Australian newspaper suggested that the Indonesian defense team had asked for funds to bribe the judges overseeing her appeal.
“I am considering resigning because the Australians are killing the case,” he said by telephone. ?They (the Australians) have called five times today. But I’m not picking up the phone because I’m still angry,” he said….
Indcoup’s comment is accurate in its aim:
I can understand why Hotman is so mad. The appeal judges are not going to like this news one little bit. They are being pushed into a corner: better for them to throw out the appeal rather than be accused of taking bribes. Perhaps Corby?s best hope now is a significant reduction in her prison sentence because the judges sure aren?t gonna find her innocent.
That is as ugly as the attacks against the Judge of the first trial, who in his decision made a few matters plain:, as one wrote previously:
I listened to some of the translation of the Judge?s delivery of his reasons and, unless I misheard, the statement was made to the effect: in the course of his arguments, Indonesian courts will not be subverted by public opinion and, the integrity of the courts will contuinue to be upheld by the Judges.
Correct me if I?m mistaken, but I understand that comment to be a reflection on what the defence launched, a media campaign, preceded by the extroadinary letter pleading letter form Corby to the President of Indonesia.
Next, the defence complained recently, the Federal Govt. must grant immunity to anyone who did the deed. The Attorney General announced just that, it would.The Federal Cabinet is not an obstacle on this count. No one creditable, however, has come forth. And mark, the defence, a couple of weeks after that declaration by the Attorney General, came out saying, the govt. must offer immunity, and has continued to repeat his strange nonsense.
4. Michelle Corby sent a letter pleading, `please, help me get released, this time not to the President of Indonesia but to Prime Howard. What is the Prime Minister supposed to do? Bring poltical pressure to bear in an attempt to make the President interfere with the judiciary? Who can tell what goes on between the defence team’s members except, at a guess, some woolly and wild notions of what to do.
5. The defence lawyer merry-go round, again: do I or do I not accept the services of the 2 Q.Cs.? After the first disastrous effort, one would have assumed it’s automatic, of course well take the second offer straight of the bat but, no Sir. The defence railed against Oz Barristers, then said, may be, no, yes, whined, `we need lots of expert help’. Why don’t they just put themselves out of their misery and dress two old continuously bickering, mutinous old grannies in silks and put them onto the team, no less effective and a lot cheaper.
Then, one day, Corby sacks her lawyers, the next, rehires them, then on other day frets, have I enough lawyers, and, are the two QCs on the way. The habitual prevaricator is really the very model of resolve and action in contrast to Corby in Arthur and Martha mode.
Then, after all the pregrinations of the feedle of brain and spine, they decided they should make an effort to find something, anything and then came the tantrums. The Q. staff won’t fly out to help, no criminal, who must be guilty of what I say they must be guilty of, is coming forward, the cry of the heart to Howard. Oh, well, one day defence will get round to mounting a defence, the day when, once again, the trial is done with.
Enough of comparisons. I wrote on the completion of the first trial:
Whoever runs the appeal case will have to put in some fast fancy footwork just to clear that mess up, salvage something from the wreckage of a mangled case, still leaving the work of obtaining, if available, evidence that will serve their appeal.
It seems, the appeal, is like the N.Zealand 1st 11 fronting up to the Oz 1st 11, in for another hiding with knobs on - the risk of a stiff increase in the sentence, due to the mess.
The defence were derelict in their duties when they accepted the brief for the first case. Right back then is when they should have done solid detective work and here’s the rub: What else didn’t the defence do during the preparations for the first trial:
A Barrister, on accepting a case, receives an initial summation of the case and statement from the client. The Barrister is obliged, on the strenght of that, to advise the client of probability of securing the case. The client must make the decision as to what they will do and instruct the barrister accordingly. The probability is based on the strength of the material so far supplied by solicitor and client. The Barrister isn’t reflecting on guilt or innocence but the substance of the case, e.g. `Look, it’s low, so if you wish to plead innocent of the charge, it’s best that you are not pulling the chain on this’ . The Barrister will, subsequent to instruction, leave no stone unturned in seeking substantive evidence. If the client is pulling the chain, diligence will not cover over a rotten case. The Barrister having diligently sought to discover evidence and found nothing at all to cast even reasonable doubt, could return to the client and say, `You wish to adhere to the claim, because, there is nothing to suport your claim’. It’s a matter of the client being truthful with himself first up: after all, penalties for criminals who pleaded innocent, when they are not, tend to be harsher.The essential point is, the QCs would have been rather more disciplined in advising Corby of the position, at the initial briefing, and at subsequent briefings. Firmer also in ensuring that she had to be sure in her instructions to them. For, while Barristers will run on insturction of, plead innocent when the client is guilty as charged, will do it to the best of their abilty, even though they have the client summed up and fully apprised of, their hands are tied becuase of the client’s instruction. Barristers make that plain to clients, ` we’d prefer that you do not tie the hands, don’t waste the effort by an indefensible instruction, that, though it might be unpalatable, if you are guilty, and the case is solid against you, we can do better and more for you if you instruct truthfully.
In summary, the defence was neither disciplined, nor diligent and, as a consequence, not firm enough with Corby . That showed, her lawyer pictured with Corby in the Prison, hugging her and having an emotional get together. That lawer did Corby no damned good at all by that. What she did was to make it easier for Corby to not face up to what she had to do with regards to what she had to furnish her lawyers with. The upshot, each reinforced the other’s weaknesses, and served only the commission of mistakes. Things have not improved since.
The prosecution did their job from beginning to end, from receiving the initial briefing and instructions, the discovery of substantive evidence, to the closing statements in court. Faris’s, Q.C, demonstrated they had with his summary and analysis of the case. All that can be said is, if the offer of the serices of two QCs pro bono had been accepted, acquittal might not have been secured but, but the defence would have been sound and stiffer than it was and thus served Croby far better.
The prosecution’s case rested on substantive evidence, their arguments were sound, they had done their job. They will do it again and, even better and with a different view of what penalty should be dealt Corby.
How not much at all of the defence has changed. One thing has changed: this is no appeal, it is worse than an appeal, it is a new trial. A conviction this time round will be worse for Corby, for this time, defence has been given the opportunity to not simply do as they did last time, work for the prosecution, but completely shred their case. That’s a given in view of, this time, all the resources which have been spent on making discovery, inclusive of two federal Police investigations, and those which been offered to defence to make discovery, inclusive of the offer of immunity to anyone who can supply direct, substantive evidence of what Corby alleges, someone else did it. Ten the silks ranging on behlaf of Corby, acquistion of `expert witnesses’, and so. Unlike all those who cheered it, one didn’t regard the declaration of a new trial, rather than appeal, as champagne cork popping stuff, the danger for Corby was all to clear as soon as the old trial was struck down and off the records and the new trial declared. To be blunt, if one were a Q.C. faced with trying to rescue a mangled case and all, it would be the last brief on earth one would wish to have landed on the old desk.
One would rule oneself out, of course. Couldn’t accept a case one regards as about as seaworthy as a concrete submarine, that would also be doing a job for the prosecution, but that is how bad the defence position is.Who can tell, they might get lucky, the Judge will be blind, deaf, dumb and dribbling from senile dementia.
