This is an archive of past discussions about Schapelle Corby. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Ohh, come on..Neutrality of the language? If we start like that, nothing is really neutral, is it?
The article is well written, and I can tell you that it is much more neutral that it could/should(?) be. -- 129.67.105.56 (talk·contribs) 11:50, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) diff
Indeed, that's why the NPOV notice was removed. Check the history of the page and you'll see some deleted statements which made value judgements based on scant evidence. Captainmax 01:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone object to the nuetrality tag being removed now? Robertbrockway 06:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I do want to remove the POV tag as soon as we can. Do we have far to go to reach a concensus which would allow this? Robertbrockway 05:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would say no, since it's unlikely that the case will die away quickly, and has significance in Australia that reaches beyond present circumstances. Slacspeak up! 13:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There's no doubt this has galvanized Australia. My relatives in Qld. send me something on her everyday. I think this is the appropriate place. Bollar 13:46, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
I would just like to say that everything I read in the Wikipedia regarding Schapelle Corby made me sick! They are supposed to NOT be biased yet they STRONGLY IMPLY she is guilty giving some pathetic politically correct bullshit argument as to why we should support a brutal and fascist legal system!
This is the last time I will use Wikipedia!
This reads like the case for the defence! Where's the prosecution? Where are the details of the accusation?
See the opening paragraph. I don't really know what more we can relate. The case for the prosecution is simply that somebody didn't plant it on her. The case for the defense is that somebody did. Do we really have to say "The prosecution believes, however, that nobody planted the evidence".? Slacspeak up! 01:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, actually, you do. You have to avoid sounding like you are actually making the case for the defence. You have to try to produce something that an Indonesian would feel fairly represented the case. Grace Note 00:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
One of the major reasons this has become a cause célèbre in Australia is that that (the stuff currently on our front page) is the prosecution case; that's all they've got. And on the other hand, the stuff that "reads like the case for the defence" actually barely begins to cover the defence case. Securiger 20:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I believe there are many reasons it has become a cause célèbre here. Have you read transcripts of the prosecution's case? Does anyone have them? Are you suggesting that the prosecutor stood up and said there were drugs in her bag, end of story. Did they not interrogate her? Did they not present statements? Grace Note 00:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But even better than that, this in "Public Reaction": "Belief in Corby's innocence is reportedly widespread in the Australian population." Have you asked them all? Has anyone? Give quotes if you mean that newspapers have said so. Grace Note 01:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with this. It's the people "outraged" at her being in gaol that are the ones expressing their opinions. The rest of us who know she is guilty don't have much to say, because we've seen the course of justice run true. I wouldn't bother wasting money on a phone poll to express what I know the judges are going to deliver.
I concede that this is difficult. It's matter of "soft coverage" rather than opinion page pieces. The intention of that assertion is to state that the coverage is mildly pro-Corby. Given all we have to rely on is the coverage, it's extremely difficult to do otherwise. Slacspeak up! 01:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just quote the coverage, Lacrimosus. Don't make it look as though you are doing the opining. If people are saying so, then quote them saying so. I'm sure you could find something in the Courier-Mail saying Schapelle is innocent. Grace Note 02:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sure. I wrote the sentence you cite in one of the early edits. To be honest I believe plenty of wikipedia pages loosely cover media coverage with a sentence like this but I'm happy for it to be changed. I started the article and I do believe Schapelle Corby is innocent. Having said that I have tried to be NPOV.
Grace, do you have other specific concerns relating to neutrality, or was it just the sentence you cite? Robertbrockway 05:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have outlined them on User talk:Lacrimosus. I'll be willing to help fix them when I have time. I don't doubt that most Aussies feel Schapelle is innocent. However, it'd be better to show that for a fact, rather than give it as an opinion. Grace Note 07:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Grace Note, one problem is that newspapers don't do "guilty or innocent" type polls, which are probably illegal and certainly risk contempt of court. A number of polls have been done which indicate general sympathy with her plight; the only polls I am aware of that specifically asked about guilt or innocence were by bloggers, and hence unlikely to be scientifically reliable. But I would certainly support Lacrimosus, in that my anecdotal experience is also that the great majority feel not merely that Corby is innocent, but that the charges are absurd (the AFP has confirmed that smuggling cannabis from Australia to Bali is loss making deal, probably to the tune of AUD 28,000 to 36,000 in this case). However, if at all possible it really would be good if the public opinion aspect could be somehow covered in this article, because it's quite important; there's significant muttering about this case damaging the delicate nature of Indo-Australian relations, or finally killing off the struggling Balinese tourist industry. Securiger 20:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Securiger, your anecdotal evidence is original research. If you cannot find a source for saying it, you may not say it. I recognise that sourcing it is difficult but adhering to this rule is the only way of keeping our personal feelings about things out of our articles. Grace Note 23:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think calling this original research is a bit of a stretch, Gracenote. I could frankly care less about the case, but if you read any of the media coverage, I think you'll see that this summary is justified. There's been a lot of the concern Securiger notes, as well as quite a few letters to the editor and the like along the lines of "if she's found guilty, we should cut diplomatic ties with Indonesia", and very little coverage of any sort implying that she's guilty, or taking the Indonesian side at all. Ambi 23:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Then it would present no problem at all to cite it, would it? I don't doubt there is sympathy for Corby. I'm living in Brisbane and I'm well aware what the coverage has been like. But your and my impression is something Wikipedia doesn't include, any more than you'd include your impression of anything else. Are you suggesting that letters to the editor are a suitable source of analysis of events for Wikipedia? Apart from anything else, a letter to the editor does not represent the views of the general populace. It represents a/ the views of whoever wrote it and b/ as far as this is considered acceptable by the editor of whichever newspaper it appeared in. I say, quote the Courier-Mail saying this stuff, don't just let's suggest our mates down the pub are saying it. Grace Note 23:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This seems like a really pointless thing to spend time researching and citing. What's next -- a cite that the sun is up? Why not confine this sort of careful citation practice where it really matters, e.g. about the facts of the case. --Dhartung | Talk 21:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, if I see your personal opinion about the sun in that article, I'll be sure to question you there. Cite it or leave it out. Grace Note 22:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Downer's remarks
Read the article carefully. Downer actually suggests that it is positive that she has had her sentence reduced from death. He does not say it can be reduced. The ABC interprets him that way. For Downer's stance on the trial, which far from being particularly positive, is diplomatic, see [1]. It should be clear from that that while the gov't don't want Schapelle to be killed, and you can probably conclude they don't want her to have life for the crime, they are happy to allow Indonesia to make its own decision. What he says they are doing is trying to make sure she has as fair a trial as possible. Grace Note 02:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Defence Case
It is my understanding that Ford has no previous convictions. This I recall from previous reports. I just had a look and couldn't find any documents confirming this either way. I have removed the claim he is a "many times convicted criminal" pending a supporting report (either way). Robertbrockway 06:09 Apr 24 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, confused him with Vigenser. Ford is yet to be convicted of anything. My apologies. Grace Note 07:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Picture
I've put the image back in. I think the image is an accurate representation of Corby's current situation but I wish to propose a compromise (to avoid the article being left without an image again).
Grace Note makes a comment in User talk:Lacrimosus that the image should be replaced by a headshot. Such a head shot was uploaded by myself at the same time as the current image. I think it is an inferior image but would accept it as a compromose. The head shot can be found at Image:SchapelleCorbyInCellCloseUp.jpg. A third image can be found at Image:SchapelleCorbyAtAirport.jpg. I would not object to one of the alternative images being used at the top of the article with Image:SchapelleCorbyInCell.jpg being lower down. Robertbrockway 04:31 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Robert. I think the picture is a bit much to head the article with, that's all. I'd have absolutely no problem with using one of the other images up the top and the jail cell one lower down. Grace Note 04:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No problem :) I was just going to suggest the same thing (as per your earlier suggestion on User talk:Lacrimosus. No hard feelings :) Robertbrockway 04:59 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Regarding contacting the family again. I'd rather not. They have a lot on their plate and I don't want to bother them. Robertbrockway 05:14 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the understanding you've shown, Robert, and the effort you've put into it. I really appreciate that. Grace Note 05:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No problem and you too. We're all after the same thing in the end (NPOV high quality encyclopedia, etc) even if we may disagree at times ;) Robertbrockway 05:25 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
With due respect and regard to all the informed comment as above, it is not out of character nor off topic to show images of Schapelle in an extreme emotional state in the context of an encyclopaedic entry about her. We would not otherwise know of Ms Corby in a global sense without her misfortune. A subject's reaction to circumstance builds the reader's understanding of story; such is not much more evident than in Corby's case. It's news now; pretty soon it will be history. That's what encyclopaediae do best. -- 211.30.134.147 (talk·contribs) 11:21, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) diff
The chances of her not being sentenced to death are very low.
Please cite a source for this in the article or offer some further proof other than the statement itself. It's a potentially POV statement. Moncrief 02:46, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
The Official Schapelle Corby Support Website
Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I'd like to avoid the on-again off-again editing of a link to this site. Ie, I'd like consensus.
My proposal: We leave the site in but clearly state it is partisan/biased (exact wording to be established). We could even add a site with the opposing view if we could find one. Thoughts? Robertbrockway 09:10, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
No. It's not even informative. It's purely campaigning and, worse, ephemeral. I don't think we should publicise it at all. Grace Note09:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
This is an obviously appropriate link (regardless of your opinion re her guilt/innocence), and should be included. I don't agree with the use of the words "partisan" or "biased" — how about "Official Support Website" like it says? I'm open to including critical links, too. — Davenbelle 09:26, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
This is not a POV issue. The official, Corby family authorised site can be expected to be nothing other than biased toward Schapelle Corby. It belongs as is. If non-official sites are listed, opposing views may be appropriate for balance (if there WAS such a thing as a "shootSchapelleCorby.com" site). However, the family's own site is core information about the subject and can not logically be subject to balance. Grace shows intrinsic bias against Corby and should cease vandalising this article by removing pertinent information. -- 211.30.134.147 (talk·contribs) 12:18, May 8, 2005 (UTC) diff
I don't have any "bias against Corby". I'm for an objective article that sticks within the NPOV policy. The family's site has no information on the subject beyond what's here and should not be linked to. Worse than its utter lack of substance is that it is ephemeral. It's about "Schapelle is innocent", which will cease to be an issue if she is a/ released or b/ shot. This article is not called "Schapelle Corby is innocent", I'd like to remind those editors who believe it should be and promote advocacy for Corby. Grace Note12:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
The article per se obviously needs to refrain from advocating Corby's innocence, but simply including the link is not advocacy. I'd be all for trimming-down the rather verbose linked text. FYI, I'm far from convinced of her innocence. Grace Note, please refrain from removing the link while this discussion is occurring. — Davenbelle 13:15, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Adding this issue to Requests for Comment is a good idea IMHO. I think the site should be included as a link because it is the official site of one party to the issue which has brough Corby fame (and thus prompted the creation of the article). I hold this position regardless of my personal belief on the innocence of Corby. As a matter of fact I think the site is pretty bad and probably doesn't help the pro-Corby position much at all. Regardless of this I want consensus above all else. I will neither add nor remove the link at any future time. Robertbrockway 23:24, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
"Pretty bad" is right. It simply isn't informative at all. We should not be linking to the site of "one party to the issue" when the issue is a court case! It's outrageous. The idea of a link in Wikipedia is to provide the reader with further information. There is no further information at that site. It's simply advocacy, which Wikipedia ought not to promote. Grace Note00:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
The official website of the subject of the article is a logical and obvious choice for inclusion in the external links section. The article should be NPOV of course, but there's no requirement that the content of each and every link be NPOV. Gamaliel03:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Why? Give reasons. It's not the "official website" of the subject of the article. Did you even look at it? It's the Free Schapelle Corby website, supported by Mr Bakir. What requirements do you suggest links should meet? Should we just include a link to any page about a particular subject? I suggest the standard is that we ought to link only to pages that are informative for the reader. We know that her family thinks she should be released. The article here says so. We don't learn anything new from the website. Grace Note03:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't link to "any page about a particular subject" and nowhere do I remotely suggest such a thing. But I do think we should link to any page that is the official website of the subject of the article simply because it is the official website of the subject of the article. In that particular instance, and in that particular instance only, I think issues of the POV of the site and how informative the site is are secondary. I think the reader would expect such an obvious link to be in the article. Gamaliel03:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Surely we're not the first to encounter this problem. Can anyone provide examples of Wikipedia articles where the "official site" for one or both sides of an issue are or are not included as links at the bottom of the article? Robertbrockway 05:28, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Defense is American English, while defence is used in all other English-speaking countries. Note the latter redirects to the former. The last edit changed the former to the latter; which is appropriate here? Stephen Compall19:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
That's not true about having no preference. We precendent, and in this case, Australian English should prevail. (Or Indonesian English, if there is such a thing). func(talk)22:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Article structure
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think a bit of tidying up is needed particularly in the section on conduct of the case - we have two topics: the legal issues and the media reporting both in Austrlaia and Indonesia and we seem to toss backwards and forwards between the two. In particular the paragraph on the preganancy test is out of place. --AYArktos00:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Missing court proceedings
Why wasn't the court proceedings posted here. I understand that it was an open court and what was said in the court could be posted in public. What I really wanted to know is this "Did she pickup her bogie bag from the carousal and went through custom before she has taken by the police? Or did the custom officers took her bogie bag first and asked her "is this bag yours?". "
Death Penalty
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I hate to confess my ignorance, but today is the first time I've heard of this story. What strikes me about our article is a lack of discussion regarding the death penalty. Most western countries do not employ a death penalty for non-violent crime. Does anyone have facts/statistics on Indonesian and/or Australian penalties for drug-related crimes? func(talk)22:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Australia abolished the death penalty in 1973. In 1986, two Australians were convicted of possessing about 150 grams of heroin each in Malaysia and executed. The Prime Minister of the time called Malaysians 'barbarians', and there was much ill-feeling. see [2] for some more info.
According to Use of death penalty worldwide, Australia abolished the death penalty in 1985. So far as I can tell, 1973 was the year that the federal government passed legislation. The states followed by 1985, I don't know if the federal law preempts the state law. I'm going to change the 1973 to 1985. If I'm wrong, then Use of death penalty worldwide needs to be fixed too. --81.178.104.80 11:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC) Someone has removed the mention of 1973 before I could change it. --81.178.104.8011:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
According to this PDF, NSW was the last state to abolish the death penalty, which was in 1985. Queensland abolished in 1922, Tasmania in 1968, the Commonwealth in 1973, Northern Territory in 1973, Victoria in 1975, South Australia in 1976, ACT in 1983 and Western Australia in 1984. I'm something of the maintainer of Use of death penalty worldwide so I will add it to the page to clarify the situation there. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:02, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the Australia legal system works, but this is my understanding of how the USA death penalty works. Even in a state where the death penalty has been abolished, you can still be executed if convicted of a federal crime. I may be completely wrong but a similar situation may have existed in Australia, where you could have been convicted of a state crime in NSW and executed, even though the death penalty had been abolished for federal crimes. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
If Federal Law over-rides State Law in all cases where they are in conflict [3], then effectively the death penalty was voided from '73. The Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973 It's something of a moot point, though, as the last Australian to be sentenced to death by Australian law was executed in 1967 (Ronald Ryan). The act itself says 'where we would have previously considered death, take it to read life imprisonment instead', although not in those words. Why it took three of the states until '85 to catch up, I don't know. Interestingly, the current PM, John Howard, called for a public debate on the abolition of the death penalty in 2003, during the trial of Amrozi (the leader of the Bali bombings)
HTML comments
Someone seems to be using HTML comments inappropriately in the article. We have the article history to preserve provisionally removed text, the talk page for discussion and the edit summary for notes about changes made. Please do not use <!--comments--> for any of these things. Below are the items I found and removed:
A Gold Coast business man, Ron Bakir, is personally funding a significant part of Corby's defence. Bakir claims to have no relationship to Corby other than being from the same city<!--papers full of rumours about his relationship with her, actually-->
<!--Source added. NB "positive" characterisation gives impression of favourable views towards Corby-->
Media interest in the Corby case is intense<!-- and overall sympathetic to Corby particularly in its focus on her emotional state and health This simply isn't true. Most coverage has been matter of fact. I've been looking through the papers and it seems to me that they've just been reporting it quite fairly-->
On 21 April the trial reconvened (with Corby receiving a sedative before her appearance). <!--It's a followup to the reporting of her collapse and "hysterics" (media term, not mine) in the courtroom. (On 20 April, a Russian, Alexei Pestov, received a sentence of 10 months imprisonment and a fine of AUD 675 for possession of 2.5 kg of marijuana [4].)-->
Corby was compelled to take a pregnancy test due to a Bali newspaper's claiming she was sick from being pregnant to another foreigner in the jail. The result of the test showed she was not pregnant.<!--Note that she didn't choose to take it. [5]-->
A verdict is expected towards on May 27. Chief Judge Siriat has told an Australian newspaper that he has not heard anything to prove Corby is innocent. [6]<!--can't find Weekend Australian original -- if anyone has it please put it in here-->
I'm interested to hear what people think about the very question asked of her step-brother on live television this afternoon. Ignoring the verdict for a moment, do you think the Australian media hampered her trial, or helped? -- Longhair | Talk04:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Certainly not Channel Nine (Nein!) and their supposed 'journalism' (sensationalistic tripe, more accurately - the result of which is polarisation).--Cyberjunkie08:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
The media didn't really impact on the decision. She was guilty, at the very least, the evidence strongly pointed to her guilt. All the media did was force Australia to follow the capture, trial and sentencing of a young woman knowing they were going to feel bad for her, and now we have a situation where a lot of people are angry and upset over what is a pretty standard case of being caught with drugs and going to prison. Not to mention the massive white-supremist racism that has quickly surfaced from Australians, acting like Aussies should be above the law of some "primitive monkeys" and so on. And yes, Channel. 9 and Mike Monroe have the most to answer for.
As a former Queensland Police Officer I take issue with some of these remarks. The presence of the drugs alone presents a prima facie case but it does not necessary mean guilt under Australian law (due to reasonable doubt). I have serious issues with the chief judge repeatedly saying things like "The defence team were not able to prove innocence". In any reasonable legal system the onus must be on the prosecution as far as I'm concerned (and yes I know about Code de Napoleon).
We're talking about a court case where the customs officers screwed up finger print evidence. I can tell you that if a customs officer or police officer did that in Australia they would be in very serious trouble - it could even see the case thrown out. As far as I'm concerned the prosecution's case was based on scant evidence: far below the level of evidence I needed to successfully charge someone in Australia when I was a police officer. This provides reasonable doubt for me and this is why I am angry that she was found guilty.
The Indonesian people are suffering under a legal system that has not demonstrated fairness. By his own admission the chief judge has presided over more than 500 drugs cases and not once has he found a person not guity. Combining this fact with the poor level of evidence gathering demonstrated leaves me unable to respect the legal system of Indonesia. It just doesn't add up. I believe many innocent people are being convicted by the Indonesian legal system - far more than we would see in the Australian system. This is not ok by me.
It is simplistic to assume that just because people are criticising the Indonesian legal system they are criticising Indonesians. Your comments regarding the view Australians have of Indonesians are misrepresenting genuine concerns many people have with the proceedings of the court case. Robertbrockway 07;29 June 2, 2005.
Reading the Article
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
So far 2 people have put the verdict in without realising I'd already done so. I wish people would read the article before posting :) If you think the verdict should go somewhere else then remove the other places it is mentioned.
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have requested a copyright free photograph of Schapelle for the article from her family through schapellecorby.net. Robertbrockway, 22:48 Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
I was contacted by Mercedes Corby last night and given permission to use 3 images. All were uploaded to Wikipedia and one is currently in use in the article. Robertbrockway, 03:30 Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
I have screenshots (from news coverage) of the sentencing, that I will upload and provide for use if anyone thinks them necessary.--Cyberjunkie08:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Go ahead. Sadly, the "used with permission" pictures we have aren't under Wikipedia's guidelines anymore. -- user:zanimum
Zanimum, how do you mean they are not under the guidelines anymore? Is this an issue of copyright? I can go back and see exactly how Mercedes Corby phrased permission to use in the email. Robertbrockway 22:07 27 May, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, after looking at the pictures in question and seeing the "soon to be deleted" tag I reviewed the email from Mercedes Corby. I don't like posting sections of a private email but I will post as little as possible to establish our right to use and distribute the pictures:
I emailed Mercedes Corby and said "I'd like to use a picture in the article. Would you be able to provide a picture of Schapelle that can be legally used in the Wikipedia article (ie, without copyright concerns)? If such a picture is available just email it back to me".
Mercedes Responded (in part): " Attached is a photo taken at Schapelle's cell. This was taken by our camera.. Also if you are able to find the photo on the web of Schapelle, brother James and 2 freinds Katrina and Ally that was taken by Mums camera at the Brisbane airport so that one is fine to use aswell."
Attached to this email from Mercedes were 2 of the 3 images I uploaded to Wikipedia, the 3rd being the mentioned group image which I did locate.
After reviewing the wording of my request and Mercedes' response it is my contention the pictures are licenced under the GFDL. Robertbrockway 22:15 27 May, 2005 (UTC)
I found this public domain image we can use instead of the non-free one. anthony 12:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But what evidence is there that it is public domain? We can't assume that it is just because there's no copyright message. In any case, I think that that picture, being used as it is by her supporters to garner sympathy for the quote "Australian Beauty," means that it's hardly a neutral image. The one of her in her cell by comparison is more neutral. Slacspeak up! 21:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The evidence that it's in the public domain is that the page I got it from says "This work is in the public domain". I don't see it as any less neutral than that other shot, which doesn't matter anyway, because the other shot can't be used - it's not free. anthony 00:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I find the whole idea that images explicitly licensed for use on Wikipedia must be removed from it on the basis that they can't be used outside of Wikipedia wholly bizzare. I'd like to think that this policy is based on some sort of consensus rather than Jimbo's personal whim, so if someone could direct me to the place where that consensus was established, I'd be grateful.
But I digress. To be blunt: I know the Indymedia page says that, but I find no particular reason to believe it. Gabrielle Reilly or her associates uploaded that photo to Indymedia. In so doing, you can assume, they asserted it was PD. But what right did they have to assert that? Did they have copyright over the photo to begin with, or did someone else possess it? Speaking as someone who's seen copyright-violation images uploaded to an Indymedia site before, I'm suspicious. Asserting something is PD merely because it appeared on Indymedia is no more valid than assuming an image that a random editor uploads here automatically complies with Wikipedia copyright policy. The ultimate source of the picture is plainly not Chicago Indymedia - until that ultimate source is revealed, I think it's invalid for us to make assumptions about copyright. Slacspeak up! 00:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia was supposed to be a free encyclopedia. At this point I don't really care any more. I've provided what I believe to be is a public domain image. If Wikipedians would prefer to use a non-free image, there's nothing I'm going to be able to do to stop you. But at least you should remove the hypocritical statements from all over your website, claiming to be "the" free encyclopedia, when you aren't even "a" free encyclopedia. anthony 15:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Media coverage of the verdict
Something that might be added about the wide involvment of the medias in regard to the case is the fact that last friday in Sydney (the 27th), 3 of the five channels (ABC, 7 & 9) on free TV were showing the verdict live. On the others, network 10 were doing update during the adds and SBS was showing a news program from abroad (as is the regular programing at that time).
This is not meant with any subtext whatsoever, just a good example of the impact the case seem to have had in australia. --Marc pasquin 01:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality?
"There are also allegations that the attention and sympathy especially from the Australian public and media may be related to xenophobic sentiment and a unfair mistrust of Asian legal systems. Also, many think there was no motive for Corby to transport marijuana from Brisbane to Bali where the value is far less, and where it is readily available on the street not far from her prison (and even within it), i.e. it would be like smuggling ice to Eskimos."
This seems POV to me. (Of course, in the interests of full disclosure I believe that she is guilty).
I added some referencing to a Sydney Morning Herald article where it was alleged that Australian marijuana (in particular hydroponically grown marijuana) sold quite well in Bali for a few reasons:
Indonesian marijuana is quite poor in quality - rich tourists generally prefer the Australian stuff.
Due to the lack of entrapment laws in Indonesia, tourists can often be caught by Balinese police stings - and so prefer to buy their marijuana off other whites, who are less likely to be members of the Indonesian police.
I can understand the text on the (turns out to be non-lethal) white powder being sent to the embassy being removed. I believe that even though a link hasn't been established between the two events that this incident will have a bearing on the case, and especially its portrayal (spelling?) in Indonesia, but I can see why the lack of a clear connection between the two events has led to its removal.
That said, I cannot understand why the text on "smuggling ice to Eskimos" is allowed to remain whereas the text from the Sydney Morning Herald, a respected (within Australia at least) news source is not. If the view that there would be no point smuggling marijuana to Indonesia is allowed to remain, why not the view that there would be a point, especially if that view is put forward by a major Australian newspaper? The article seems POV and biased in favour of Corby to me.
"After the verdict, Downer also revealed that the government had provided financial assistance for Corby's defence and that an offer of two Queen's Counsel had been rejected. In the same interview, he renewed this offer in the event of an appeal and urged the Corby family to accept."
The reference linked to at the end of this paragraph, [7], does note the government's financial assistance for Corby's defence. But it does not state that there was ever any offer of two QCs for the original trial. It only states that the QCs were offered for the appeal. If no one can provide a reference for this other claim, I am going to delete it. --Susurrus 00:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I found this which disputes the Australian government ever offered any legal help at all. The article also says 'Foreign Minister Alexander said the offer had also been made in the past but was turned down.' -- Longhair | Talk 01:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That is a trifle vague, but at least it does put forward that claim. I will therefore use that reference as well at the end of the above passage. --Susurrus 02:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Excised text
I have removed from the article the following section:
Jokes which spread quickly by way of the Internet have a habit of emerging after an event, and the Schapelle Corby case is no exception. Some of the jokes currently doing the rounds:
I went past Schapelle's beauty clinic in Queensland and there's a sign up saying "Back in 20".
Hear about the new lawnmower, the Victa Corby? Holds 4kg of grass and guaranteed to run for 20 years.
There's a new beauty treatment called the Schapelle. It's a herbal treatment guaranteed to take 20 years off your life.
Joke's are inherently POV and entirely inappropriate within an encyclopædic article. Their inclusion serves only to trivialise an already controversial issue. "Sense of humour" should not need to be a consideration in contibuting this article, and it is my request that they be not re-added. However, I am not opposed to those wishing to document "societal reaction" starting an associated article, so long as it refrains from original research.--Cyberjunkie 10:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Most of this article is about societal reaction anyway. If you took away that, there wouldn't be much there.
Anyhow, I was just going to add another picture before I realised this section had been removed. Seems a shame to waste it now that it's loaded up, so I'll just put it here. File:Schapadlock.jpg--Isocyanide 18:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Spinoff products
Beside Ron bakir registering her name, I read in the magazine "the bulletin" that someone registered "CorbyCase" as a trademark for secure luggage.--Marc pasquin 01:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Retrial
There are currently two sections relating to the retrial, one where it hasn't happened yet, and one where the appeal was already rejected. Perhaps these could be merged somehow?
from intro
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Have removed the following from the intro. Don't think it's true (?), or verified. If it is, please quote source. Also not sure that it deserves such a prominent position.
"At age 17 she became a drug addict that nearly cost her life. It was then that she decided to turn her life around and became a beauty therapist." AndrewMcQ20:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Images
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The proliferation of not actually fair - fair use images in this article is pretty bad, and really entirely unnesessary.--nixie00:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Corby's 20-year sentence reinstated
An Indonesian court has reinstated the original 20-year sentence given to convicted drug smuggler Schapelle Corby.
Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
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 Arktos23:49, 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.Bluetongue08:45, 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. Bluetongue09:01, 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\talk09:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks like we have to go back to no links at all. I dont have time to play games with net cowboys who clearly have no life. Christ it must be awesome to be so powerful on the interwebs, your mummys must be so proud of all your good work so why don't you have the rest of the day off. Bluetongue21:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, then rather than try to insult people, find something else to do with your time. To continue now after that statement, you would be just a hypocrite. --Merbabu22:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone has continually tried to add several heavily "Schapelle is innocent" external links, and would do well to read WP:EL, particularly "Links To Be Avoided: Conflicts of Interest" and others. If someone can present a good reason for those sites to be here, that would be good. Achromatic (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Both the remaining sites seem to style themselves as "official sites". Ideally, we should limit ourselves to one official site, but I think we'd survive if it was two.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I seem to be a bit hoist by my own petard, as I had to delete a second link to the same site, this one styling itself as "official evidence." Given that the support of some Aussies for Corby is part of the story, I have no objection to one, or at most two, support sites being linked to. However, there is no vacancy.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Apropos of anything else, the site is not "Official Evidence", it's a transcript of the same opinion piece published in The Age that is discussed below in "CCTV Mess". Achromatic (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Travelling companions
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 Einne06:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Reefer Madness
Latest comment: 15 years ago17 comments10 people in discussion
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 Carr12:52, 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 (?). Cnwb22:15, 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 Einne13:21, 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.
SpookyMulder13:17, 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. --Merbabu13:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
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. --Merbabu13:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Also Spookymulder, in response to your point C, according to the documentary "Ganja Queen" The pot on Schapelle was hyrdoponic weed which is worth much much more in Indonesia and she actually could have made quite a profit off of it. If I remember correctly the documentary said that in Bali hydroponic marijuana is called "Aussie Gold". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finchizzle (talk • contribs) 20:58, 5 September 2008 (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.SpookyMulder11:14, 10 August 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 Einne09:53, 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 Einne09:08, 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 Einne10:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Nil Einne - I am very curious to hear how she could have provided reasonable evidence that the marijuana wasn't hers?
If you are found with drugs in your luggage and you know you didn't put them there, how do you prove it?
Schapelle could have proven her innocence if the Bali Police had followed mandatory investigative procedures. The Bali Police should have worn gloves when handling the evidence, they should have fingerprinted the bags, they should have weighed the luggage to see if the weight was different to the recorded weight at Brisbane Airport. They should have had the drugs DNA tested to determine the country of origin. They should have presented the CCTV footage in court to see if Schapelle was telling the truth about willingly opening her bag for the customs official. How could she prove her innocence when the police screwed up the case so badly? --JBrett (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, this is not a forum. If there were mandatory procedures that were violated, and if you have sources for it, see if you can improve the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Just what would have fingerprinting the bag have proven? - if hers were on it she knew about it, if they were not on the bag she used gloves... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.50.158 (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
