Is Schapelle Corby a Victim – Part II?

Reader help required!

In my previous post on this case, I said this:

When Schapelle Corby was first arrested for smuggling 4.1kg of marijuana into Bali in her unlocked boogie board bag, my first thought was, ‘You idiot’. But that thought only lasted about a second. Because my second thought was, ‘Hang on a second – something about this just doesn’t make sense.’
There was a crucial little piece of news regarding this case last night, that I managed to only catch the tail end of, and I am now left with an even more gaping question.

This news related to whether or not the bag within her bags, so to speak, was or was not covered with her fingerprints.

Early on in the piece, Professor Paul Wilson, criminologist at Bond University, said: ‘I don't think there's real evidence of intent on her part. There's no solid forensic evidence such as fingerprints, for example. There's no distribution network which has been found in Bali. And I think lacking this information, it's very hard to come to the view that she's guilty.’

Apparently, from day one, Schapelle Corby had asked that the plastic bags containing the drugs be tested for fingerprints. ‘Despite repeated requests from the defence team, the bags have still not been finger printed’.

It seems to me that this most basic pieces of evidence would pretty much sow up the case (one way or another). And I find the fact that prints weren't taken absolutely incredible.

- If it wasn’t, then I’m even more convinced than ever that she probably is the victim in this case (true, she could have worn gloves, but excluding every last shred of possible evidence (hair, skin, fibres - etc) is almost impossible - a level of investigation the Indonesians clearly thought unnecessary).

- If it was, then Tiberius was right – she was simply incredibly dumb (who smuggles drugs from a first world country, where they’re expensive, into a third world one, where they’re cheap), and she’s probably toast.

Now, after much searching, I find little reliable reference to prints (or otherwise) on the drugs bag, other than what I have already mentioned.

If the bag was not fingerprinted, then I'm afraid my final conclusion regarding this case is probably being born out:

What bothers me is that the Indonesians appear not to be asking the same questions. Are they really hell bent on clobbering what they sincerely believe to be a drug courier? Or are they still paying us (and any Australian they can get their hands on, as the recent ‘gun-running’ nonsense over Christopher Packer tends to suggest) out over Timor? I guess only time, and her eventual sentence, will tell.

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them