Talk:Schapelle Corby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Portal	Schapelle Corby is within the scope 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.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime.
Assessment comments This 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.

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)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Schapelle Corby article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article was nominated for deletion on February 10, 2005. The result of the discussion was Delete.

Talk page archives

Contents 1 External links 2 Travelling companions 3 Reefer Madness 4 Pro-Schapelle POV 5 Without citing eidence this seems slightly biased 6 Pictures of Schapelle with drugs 7 Michael Corby 8 Celebrity comments 9 Removed statement 10 jail / gaol 11 Jodi Power 12 The Australian article 13 CCTV mess 14 Interstate transfer 15 Corby is a bogan 16 Mobile Phone found in Cell 17 Bias In Article 18 Stone 19 Value of drugs missing 20 I'm confused

[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)

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. Bluetongue 21:58, 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. --Merbabu 22:13, 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)

[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. --Merbabu 13:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is a Negative proof logical fallacy.--76.17.171.199 02:17, 10 May 2007 (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. --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)

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)

[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)

There was an article in the Herald Sun, Dec 10 2005 "Corby Pictures Taken Inside Jail" by Keith Moor and Sam Riches. This article is not online - what is the procedure for referencing articles in print? Anyway, you can read a copy of the article here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~djwolf/corby_pictures_taken_inside_jail.html

Here is an extract:

Police initially thought they were taken before Corby was charged in October last year with importing 4.1kg of marijuana into Bali. SA police commissioner Mal Hyde told Ms Rose in a fax this week the seized photos "do not appear to have been taken in a prison setting". But the second man taken to the jail by Ms Rose, who gave his name as Dave, contacted The Advertiser in Adelaide on Thursday and confirmed Ms Rose's statements the photos were taken inside the jail. He provided Ms Rose with copies of the photos, which she intends to take to Bali to prove to authorities they were taken in the prison after Corby's arrest. Bali prosecutors also want copies to use in their appeal against the decision to reduce Corby's 20-year sentence by five years. --JBrett (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You can use an offline resource, if you check around on WP, there should be instructions on how to format the reference. I'm unclear on whether what you've posted was a summary or the complete article? Also, do we have anything that indicates that these photos were actually used by either side in the appeal?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The part I posted on this page was an extract. The whole article is available on the website link. I haven't found information stating that the photos were used in the appeal. If I do find an article that mentions it I will let you know. This article states that the Bali prosecutors "wanted" copies of the photos to use in their appeal. --JBrett (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] jail / gaol

There is a mix in the article which needs to be normalized. I wasn't sure which was proper for this article so I didn't do it myself. gren グレン 10:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Gaol is the Australian spelling. I'm unsure what spelling Indonesia uses. When in doubt, why not use 'prison'? -- Longhair\^talk 10:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

JAIL is the Australian Spelling! Being Australian, I should know! Aleksei 07:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. I did years of public school education in Brisbane, and "gaol" was used exclusively (to the point of the teacher having to explain that 'jail' is how Americans spell 'gaol' when we ran across it in a book) Lankiveil 08:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I think it depends where you live and went to school. Where I live, "jail" is the common spelling and "Gaol" is mostly only used in the historical context. "Jail" is also used most commonly in the Australian news media. For example, all Australian News Limited publications prefer "jail" and their style guide specifically says not to use "gaol" Sarah 07:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Gaol is used only in reference to Australia so it seems okay as is. There is no need to normalise if we use gaol in reference to Australia and jail in reference to Indonesia IMHO Nil Einne 12:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Gaol" is the "official" Australian spelling, "Gaol Order", "Old Melbourne Gaol", "Adelaide Gaol", "Maitland Gaol", "Boggo Road Gaol" etc. Those who must use Americanisms prefer Jail. Avalon 22:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jodi Power

re: Jodi Power allegations

I think due to the latest news about this situation, I think there is going to be vandalism on this article overall and I see that there has been 1 count of it already this morning...semi protection maybe required? --Mikecraig 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism in manageable. I don't see a need for protection of any kind as yet. -- Longhair\^talk 23:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's sort through the various allegations and arrive at something balanced.--Wehwalt 23:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep makes sense, hopefully no IP type people be silly on the page....I believe that on tonight's (13 Feb) episode of Today Tonight there is a part 2 of the Power allegations..so lots more to add over the next 24-48hrs at least. --Mikecraig 23:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It never ends, does it?--Wehwalt 23:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Now Ron Bakir has back into the story regarding his "relationship" with Jodi Power...there is an article on his WP article about this --Mikecraig 02:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It says in the article that Jodi failed the first polygraph but passed the second. I was under the impression that she failed the first, but then passed TWO separate subsequent polygraphs. I didn't want to edit the article without checking first though...The stormwatcher 05:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what i understood. But the whole thing - the Corby's, Power, and Tabloid TV all seem to be fairly unreliable sources. Merbabu 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a discrepancy in the spelling of Power's name. Some publications are using "Jodi" and others, "Jodie". I think we just need to be careful that whichever spelling we use, we are consistent. Sarah 07:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Jodie" seems to derive from that pack mentality article in The Australian. Most sources in recent days seem to use Jodi I think we should use the latter spelling too.--Wehwalt 11:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Australian article

There seems to be flurry of activity on this article. And it appears that an encyclopedic rather than tabloid TV mentality is being maintained. Nice work. I just read this article from the Australian. It's an older one and an opinion peice, but it is high-quality. Maybe it could be used someonehow. [3] --Merbabu 02:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's in there.--Wehwalt 11:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CCTV mess

The article claims no CCTV footage of the day in question exists but this isn't sourced. As with a number of aspects of the case, this area has seen a lot of claims and counter claims. I seem to remember that Corby's lawyers claimed they'd desperately written to the airport several times but received no response. But then later the airport authorities claimed they'd offered to help even offered to help hire someone to help recover any footage but they'd received no response from Corby's team. The Australian government also appears to have said that CCTV footage exists of the day in question. Who's the one making the claim that no CCTV footage exists? Corby's lawyers? Or did no one make this claim and people are just assuming it doesn't exist because none has been used. However this isn't surprising since the Indonesian authorities appeared to have no interest in this footage (not surprisingly since there was no need for them to disprove a claim which had virtually no evidence supporting it) then we can presume that only Corby's team would have been likely to have looked at any footage. And of course, there was no way they were going to show any footage unless it backed up their claims. So if the only reason the claim is being made that no footage exists is because none has ever emerged then frankly, there's no evidence at all that none exists (indeed for all we know Corby's team may have viewed the footage and tracked Corby's bag from when she checked it in until when it was loaded onto the plane). We should therefore not be mentioning this claim. If Corby's team has at least made this claim, we should mention this. But we should still only mention it as a claim unless a number of neutral sources have stated that none exists. Nil Einne 15:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the claim that no CCTV footage exists as it remains unsourced after 6 months Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a video explaining much of the CCTV mess. It is Corby's mother speaking. I'm not sure if this is seen as an acceptable "source", but the articles below back-up what she is saying about the run-around they received when trying to obtain the CCTV footage.

Corby's mother, Rosleigh Rose: http://www.bluedogs.com.au

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/schapelles-last-stand/2006/08/25/1156012703783.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Evidence-lost-and-bungled-could-decide-trial/2005/03/04/1109700679630.html

Also, why would the Indonesian authorities not need to look at the CCTV footage? It would have shown the appearance of Corby's boogie board bag when it was checked in at Brisbane airport (I'm confused as to how check-in staff and security cannot detect 4.1kg of marijuana in a high-security airport). The CCTV footage from Denpasar airport would have shown whether it was Corby or the customs official telling the truth in court. JBrett (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by JBrett (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of that is in the criticisms section of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to find it. Are you referring to "criticisms of the prosecution's case"?--JBrett (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And, by the way, by all means put Ms. Rose's views in the article, but they should be labeled as such and that is not a reason to delete other content as "explained".--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, now that I know which section of the article you are referring to, I can confirm that the information is not there. Perhaps it was there once, but it has been removed. I will put the CCTV information in with the references. This is all it says at the moment:

"The bag of cannabis was not fingerprinted by the Indonesian custom officials or police, nor analysed to determine its source of origin."

"Indonesia police rejected assistance from Australian Federal Police to DNA test the cannabis and bag. On December 3rd 2004 Corby signed papers for her consent for testing to be done by the AFP but ::::Indonesian Police would not release a sample for testing."

--JBrett (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed a lot of this, as it is speculative - Indonesian authorities had no reason to give the AFP samples for testing, other than to placate the Australian public/media. To read this implies that Indonesian authorities had something to hide, and is definitely not citable. Even your previous remarks about "showing who was telling the truth", coupled with this, further that viewpoint. Achromatic (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What I posted was lifted directly from an online news source (I don't know why, but you deleted my reference to the news source). It was not my own words. Can you point out the source/reference stating that the Indonesian authorities had no reason to release a sample?
Releasing the samples for DNA testing could have determined where the marijuana was grown (Australia or Indonesia). In Oct 2007, the Jakarta Post reported that Indonesian Police asked the US for help with analysing a sample of Crystal Meth. They wanted to see where came from. It's unusual that they did not want the marijuana analysed. Also, can you point out the reference for "there was no obligation upon Indonesian police to weigh the luggage." --JBrett (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it all rather contradicted by the prima facie case, that once Corby was caught in possession of the drugs, the burden shifted to her to prove that it wasn't hers? I don't see how, once they established a prima facie case, the Indonesians had to do anything but wait to see if Corby came up with admissible evidence, which she didn't, to show the drugs weren't hers. "It's unusual that they did not want the marijuana analyzed." Is that "sez you" or "sez a rs"?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The only edit to a citation I made did not remove that citation - if you are referring to the Yahoo 7 link (Correction: I did remove a link to The Age. This reference was supporting a statement that says "the case lies on the undisputed evidence and the contested testimony of customs officials" - this is all quite standard for a criminal case, one side presents evidence, the other contests it - I don't see what value the reference adds - in any case, the article was first published as an Op Ed opinion). If you are referring to Blue Dogs - the website of Schapelle Corby's mother, that site fails NPOV on so many levels it's not suitable for a reference. You're in a quandary - if the words are not yours, you've plagiarized them - in any case, there are so many errors of grammar in that section I find it hard to believe that those words came unedited from a news source. There is no reference required beyond basic principles of sovereignty: the AFP would have zero jurisdiction in an Indonesian criminal trial - why would anyone expect otherwise? Indonesian authorities, indeed any authorities anywhere in the world, are not beholden to authorities outside of that jurisdiction. They may entertain things as a courtesy, of course, but to imply that something is hidden due to this not occurring is to engender suspicion without any necessary merit. Re drug analysis, I am certainly not an expert, but I do know enough of chemistry to understand that marijuana is an organic substance, whilst methamphetamines are chemical compounds and that analysis procedures for each are quite different. Where is your source for saying that the Indonesian police had the wherewithal to analyse one, the other, both, or neither? The fact that the Indonesian police did not weigh luggage at a certain point in itself exists. The implication in the article that to do so was a breach of procedure, was incompetent, was negligent, was to hide evidence of third party wrongdoing or corruption is entirely on the author to cite, when and if it isn't outright subjective opining. No references cited to this fact state that not doing so was a breach of Indonesian law. Achromatic (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Achromatic - I posted information from The Age (and included it as a reference), but you deleted it and now talk in circles about Indonesian law. The purpose of the article was not to discuss Indonesian law, it simply mentions several pieces of evidence that could have been used in the trial.
It was a prima facie case, so it was up to Corby to prove she did not import the drugs. How would she do this? Well, she would ask the police to weigh the luggage (to see if there was a 4kg difference in the weight), she would ask the police to take fingerprints, she would ask for the marijuana to be DNA analysed, she would ask to see CCTV footage from all 3 airports, she would ask for x-ray images. She did ask for it and was denied. This breaches the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The defendant has the right to examine incriminating evidence.
The case was not an internal Indonesian matter. It was a transnational drug trafficking crime. This is AFP jurisdiction (remember the AFP's involvement in the Bali 9 case?). If the drugs were imported this means a crime was committed both in Australia and Indonesia.
Speaking of a prima facie case, Corby had to prove that she did not import the drugs. How can they establish a prima facie case without proving that the marijuana was imported. (i.e. DNA testing)
Anyway, I can see it's pointless trying to explain. I know one is supposed to assume good faith, but it's quite clear that there is strong anti-Corby bias amongst the majority of editors here.
People are free to edit the article with an anti-Corby slant (without references). People are free to insult the family in this discussion page and you pretend to not notice it. However, if someone edits the article with valid points about missing evidence, you're onto it within minutes... either removing it completely or editing it to defend the Indonesian Police (without references). It doesn't matter if the editor does the right thing by including references - if they add anything remotely favourable towards Corby you'll change it . You'll then try to justify it by putting forward your point of view on International law, and try to belittle the editor by insulting their grammar
By the way, Wehwalt said I could use statements from the bluedogs video as long as I made it clear they were the views of Corby's mother. --JBrett (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re The Age citation - I read it. I'm not talking in circles. It's not the purpose of this article to hypothesise on her defence - claims that "this could have been done" and "that could have been done" are irrelevant without a reliable, neutral source saying that they should have been done but weren't. You say "The AFP could have examined the drugs". They could. Australia could have sent military forces to free her. The FBI could have conducted the examination. It doesn't matter, because there was no tangible reason for it to happen, and there was no onus on Indonesia to do so - you seem to keep missing this point, to imply that there was wrongdoing because these things didn't happen engenders inappropriate suspicion which is not borne out by relevant, reliable, objective sources. Another example, a Singaporean man here is arrested for vandalism, and is let off with a warning. Would it be just for Singapore to claim he should have been subject to caning/corporal punishment for the offense (whatever you may think of caning)? Of course not. So why is it appropriate to claim and act like Indonesia was beholden to Australia because the suspect happened to be Australian? AFP's jurisdiction? No. I'll even quote from their article here, "the AFP is Australia's international law enforcement and policing representative ... Internationally, the AFP maintains an extensive liaison network, posting officers in 33 overseas posts." Representative, not enforcement agency. Liaison, not enforcement agency. The Bali 9? That was a joint operation between the two countries. Schapelle was arrested as a result of an action by an Indonesian Customs official. Please don't claim that the AFP has jurisdiction in other countries. It does not. If you can find a single reliable source to cite that states that Schapelle was either arrested through a formal joint investigation between Australian and Indonesian authorities, or that the Indonesian government formally requested the assistance of the AFP, then do so. Because other than that, there is no jurisdiction to claim. It was never up to Schapelle Corby to prove that she did not import the drugs - she had them in her possession, sufficient under Indonesian law, and the only hope of a reprieve was to show that the drugs were not hers. These two things are not the same. The drugs were found in her bag at the time of her arrest, weighing them would show nothing.

You'll note, talking of AGF, that I was one of the people that said that labelling the section near the bottom of the article "Family Drug Links" was grossly inappropriate and needed to be changed. I have said, and I'll stand by it, if you can show any of the above things, with reliable citations, they will - and should - stand. But most of what I'm reading is simply what could have happened, what might have happened, what "should" have happened, and the same for what might not have happened. Wikipedia is not that. Wikipedia is supposed to stand as a record of what did happen and why, and what didn't happen and why.

I have no desire to make this an anti-Schapelle article. I am more than happy to work with anybody to try to preserve it as simply an expression of the above paragraph. Achromatic (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is supposed to stand as a record of what did happen and why, and what didn't happen and why."
I'm trying to point out "What didn't happen". The fact that the bags weren't weighed, fingerprints weren't taken, CCTV footage wasn't shown, marijuana wasn't tested - this was HUGELY controversial when Schapelle was arrested. There were news reporters on the scene, asking the police why they didn't follow through with these procedures.
If you don't think that the police should have followed these procedures, that's your opinion BUT THE POINT IS that this was a controversial aspect of Schapelle's case. It's just as controversial as the sections on "Related persons" and "Jodie Power's allegations". The lack of procedures and evidence was controversial and this deserves to be up there with every other controversy. --JBrett (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of it is in the controversy section isn't it? --Wehwalt (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is it controversial? If you want to show it as an issue, show what procedures were broken. Cite them, and the record stays. Most of the controversy flowed from differing legal standards, laws and procedures - that doesn't make things inherently wrong. You need to show where people erred in things, rather than hint at "they didn't do this, they could have done that" - "why?" is always the question. Explain the rationale for why this was an issue - different procedures than Australian procedures is a non-issue, in itself, why would there be any presumption that Indonesian officials should have followed Australian procedure, in Indonesia, purely because the accused was an Australian citizen. It matters not whether I think they should or shouldn't have done x, y, or z. What is not opinion is that if you are saying that they specifically DID NOT follow Indonesian procedure and law, show verifiable citations to back this claim up. A mere statement that "they didn't do this" in itself means not a great deal. Achromatic (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interstate transfer

I'm pretty sure I've seen at least one reliable source which has pointed out the idea that couriers would use complicated and risky schemes involving baggage handles acting in high security locations like airports for transferring drugs inter-state is ludicrous since it's much easier to use land transfer (given that there are no customs etc for inter-state traffic). If this source can be found, this theory should be mentioned since the inter-state transfer is such a key aspect of Corby's defence. We currently mention the AFP's statement but that's simply on the whether evidence exists, not whether such a thing is probable in the first place. Nil Einne 15:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corby is a bogan

I'm not one to jump to conclusions or beleive what the popular media tells me, but I know a liar and a bogan drug dealer when I see one.

My comment is that she is putting on a show like most low life criminals. Just look at her brothers excuse for breaking and entering

I'm not sure if I'll find it, but I recall some footage of her smiling and laughing with inmates in prision, while some show was going on or something. Then when she notices the camera she retreats, puts on a big pout and turns on the water works.

She is a fraud and if she was caught in Australia she would be promplty sentenced and no one would care. The problem is that we all seem to take it personally when another country arrests one of ours, regardless of their guilt. Look at her whole bogan family, cannabis drug dealers and users. Born into a criminal family.

My point is that some evidence of her guilt should stick on this page—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.239.175 (talk • contribs)

Corby's case was controversial because she was sentence to 20 years jail when no evidence was tested.

The Bali Police found drugs in her bag and that was the end of it.

Despite the fact that Corby was being accused of a transnational crime, they refused to have the drugs tested for origin and the Australian Federal Police did not demand a sample to assist their investigations. The Bali Police refused to weigh the bag (to compare it to the weight recorded in Brisbane), they refused to fingerprint the bag, they handled the evidence with their bare hands. They burned the evidence.

Is this OK with you?

THIS WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE in Australia, nor in any other civilised country. The case would have been thrown out of court due to police incompetence. Why is this constantly ignored? "Oh Corby is a bogan - she smiled and laughed in prison. She must be guilty". I'm speechless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBrett (talk • contribs)

You may be speechless, but judging by your entry, you aren't totally wordless. In any event, WP is not a forum. If you feel the facts are reported incorrectly, please feel free to make your case here on the talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I will put my case here on the talk page if I feel facts are reported incorrectly. I do understand that this page is not a forum, but the message I was responding to (i.e. "Corby is a bogan") is just someone's opinion and something you would find on a forum. Why did that go unchecked around here? Why is it only my response to it that gets your attention? Something odd is going on around here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBrett (talk • contribs)

Well, I am reluctant to delete from talk page. One person is sort of random. Two is a budding debate. BTW, I am American and am unsure what a bogan is anyway!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mobile Phone found in Cell

I just read on a news site that because of a Mobile Phone being found in her cell she will have her sentence up'd by 2 months. --MattyC3350 04:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

wel show us the proof so we can write it then--Zingostar 21:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias In Article

This article seems to have been written with a great deal of bias and lack of WP:Neutral point of view in several instances. The section entitled, "Family drug links" is clearly evident of this in the following ways:

• The first paragraph under "Michael Corby" discusses a misdemeanor drug violation by Corby's father, to which he denies being the owner of the drug. This information seems irrelevant to the article, considering the event was a minor infraction, Michael Corby claims that the drugs weren't his, and that it occurred over 30 years ago.
• The second paragraph under "Michael Corby" contains information that has absolutely no pertinence or connection to either the case of Schappelle Corby or her father.
• The paragraph discussing "Clinton Rose" has nothing to do with drugs, and I therefore question why it is under a section called "Family drug links." It also seems irrelevant to the article.
• In the section titled, "James Kisina's arrest," it does not seem appropriate to be placed under the heading, "Family drug links," as that heading does not take into account Kisina's claim that he broke into the house to affect his sister's case. The section heading seems to imply that Corby's mentioned family members and friends are all implicated with the drug trade and bear a form of influence or sympathy due to this connection.
• The section, "Jodi Power's allegations," does not not seem appropriate under the heading, "Family drug links," as Jodi Power is not a family member of Schappelle Corby. Furthermore, this section highlights allegations of Corby's prior drug use, however I question how pertinent this information is to her case, which has sentenced her based on drug smuggling, not drug use.

I propose that the entire section, "Family drug links," be deleted. This section is a clear violation of WP:Neutral point of view, and more specifically and egregiously WP:Biographies of living persons. This section is also misguided in its WP:Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. ___AndrewHG1 (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How are these points biased? Their inclusion in itself is not bias in themselves, indeed, the connections to Corby are what made them notable and hence reportable. Possibly there might be bias in the way they are written, but not the fact that they are written.

Maybe we should delete the sections on John Ford and the baggage handlers. Is it anymore relevant than the sections you want removed? Are they then not biased too?

And, how exactly is it a conflict of interest? --Merbabu (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the sections about John Ford and the baggage handlers are more relevant because they are pertinent to Corby's case, which makes her notable. The points I have mentioned are biased because they have clearly been introduced to create a skewed view of Corby, rather than outline the events that make her notable. The section about her father is clearly irrelevant, extraneous, and not notable. They also have nothing to do with Corby's situation. Additionally, the entire "Family drug links" section is mislabeled because it contains information that either has nothing to do with her family, drugs, or both. To reply to your last point, this article represents a conflict of interest because it appears here that the aims of individual editors have outweighed the aim of Wikipedia as outlined in several policies, ad nauseam. AndrewHG1 (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, let's deal with the COI issues. Whatever your issues with this article, it is not a conflict of interest - you are questioning the balance. This is a point of view issue. To be a conflict of interest, an editor has to be somehow involved with the article's subject - ie, if you could prove that one of the editor's was Schapelle Corby's mum, that would be a COI. Rather, you are simply talking about bias.

Secondly, while John Ford is clearly relevant, I would say that baggage handlers are no more or less relevant than Corby's family. In both cases, these are notable as they have been in the paper and have either supported or detracted from Schapelle's claims to innocence and are thus relevant. To suggest removing the family links, but then support inclusion of baggage handler issue (again no direct link established) would suggest bias on your behalf.

Thirdly, I'm not suggesting that this article is perfect, including in a POV manner - there is room for improvement in the sections you mention, but whole-sale removal is not the answer. --Merbabu (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Merbabu. There is no conflict of interest. I'm an American myself, with no stake in the outcome in any way. We won't riot either way.

I think the test we have to apply is, has there been significant mainstream news reporting of the questions at point? In each case, there has.

While Powers is not a family member, her allegations include family members. Regarding the father, well, that is what he say, we don't know if it is true or not, we've reported the allegation and the denial. Regarding Kisana, the section title is quite restrained, since it doesn't mention the conviction. The interested reader can read both his defense and the outcome of the case. The others have been reported in the papers, and we neutrally report them.

I can't say whether these are harmful to Corby or not, but they have been deemed relevant enough to be extensively reported, in the case of Powers on an ongoing basis as her relatives' lawsuit proceeds through the courts. But if you deem it unfavorable to Corby, please note that unfavorable does not mean a violation of NPOV. They are what they are, they are in the papers and they haven't been slanted in our account of them. They are appropriately sourced. They should stay.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing this debate, I would say that a renaming of the section heading would be appropriate. Howabout, 'Related Persons.' It is not only more relevant, but justifies a lot of the content that follows. rocketrye12 ^{talk/contribs} 22:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I gotta go with Rocketrye12 here, and have renamed the section, "Family Drug Links" listing her father as having a 35 year old marijuana possession charge is a bit leading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achromatic (talk • contribs) 07:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stone

I've deleted, for the second time, the conversion of the amount of marijuana that was seized from kilos to stones in the lede. Now, I can understand converting into pounds. But stones? What is the point? Do even the British use stones as a weight anymore, other than sometimes to describe peoples' weight? In my view, this adds nothing to the article, and unless there's some strong feeling the other way, I'll keep deleting it if it is put back in.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Value of drugs missing

As a European outsider to the case, I found a key component of the Schapelle story to be the value of the drugs and how the drugs were reported to be worth less (up to four times less) in Bali than they were worth in Australia. Generally speaking drug crime is committed for profit, and generally speaking the drugs between Indonesia and Australia flow the opposite direction, all in all, this is a key component for me to this entire story.

This article seems to see merit in discussing links between Corby's wider family and the drug trade in what can only be then viewed as a "guilt by association" attemtp in the absense of all defence materials. Can the article please be updated to cover this aspect??

Endastorey (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Endastorey 15-March-2008

WP:BOLD. Feel free to improve the article. But I recall articles that said that it made economic sense for drugs to be imported into Bali, due, as I recall, to hydroponic pot being more expensive in Bali than in Australia.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Endastorey. When Schapelle was first arrested, Australia's general reaction was, "You've gotta be kidding, no one takes marijuana to Bali". Later, Matthew Moore wrote an article for the newspaper, "The Australian" claiming that Aussie marijuana was huge in Bali. However, the article ignored the fact that no other Australian has ever been arrested importing marijuana into Bali, or selling drugs in Bali. Shortly after that article, rumours about the family started circulating in the media. I will try to improve the article with references to reports, but I expect my edits and references will be removed. Most supportive material I have posted previously has been removed. I think you can guess what's happening in the media and here on Wikipedia. --JBrett (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No Australian has ever been arrested for drugs in Bali? Interesting if true.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"I think you can guess what's happening in the media and here on Wikipedia. " Yes, it's a wikipedia-media conspiracy. Damn it, we've been sprung.

Please maintain discussions strictly about the article not our own theories, and keep it to reliable references. Otherwise, posts could be removed. --Merbabu (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No Australian (apart from Schapelle) has been arrested importing marijuana into Bali. Nor has any Australian been arrested selling it in Bali. They have been arrested for possessing/using, but not importing/selling. --220.237.65.238 (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of bread? If you find a RS that so states, it might be worth including in the article, or might not.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone and checked, and I can find no articles anywhere on the web which support Wehwalts "recollection" of articles that it made economic sense to import the drugs to Bali. There is absolutely nothing to substantiate this on the web. Endastorey (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Endastorey

Perhaps you overlooked this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article you cite isn't a RS for the value of australian drugs in Indonesia. Firstly, alleged street prices are being multiplied directly into the importation supply value which totally ignores that a shipment of this size would be sold bulk to a local supplier, who would break this quantity up and resell to between 4 and 8 dealer suppliers, and the dealers suppliers would then further break down the quantities, mix it with redunant bulking agents and sell it to dealers, who in turn would bulk it as much as they could and resell to street peddlers among the Australian community it appears.

In an economy such as Bali's, there could be many more links in the chain for storage, local official bribes etc. Each link in the supply chain adds significant profit margin commensurate with the death penalty risk involved for the trade, and as such the end deal price bears no equality to the supply price that an importer would have received for the shipment. The converse case is taken by the article when valuating the Australian value of the haul, but it does actually make a cloaked reference to its innaccuracy.

That said, "The Age" is not an authority on foreign drug prices, and their anonymous source can't be identified to asses their authority or lack thereof, and still, the information flies in the face all all publically available drug prices for the region.

The increased value of drugs is subtantiated by the anonymous source by him saying that customers are uneasy about buying drugs of the natives, and want to bring their own. Clearly Corby wasnt going to consume 4Kgs of the stuff among her party. Yet, there is no documented case of Australians being caught selling drugs to fellow Australians, and there would have to be if it was the case.

There are three sides you can take in this case, you can be sympathetic to Corby at all costs, you can be unsympathentic to her at all costs, or you can be objective and consider the symptahies and reasons for unsympathtic feelings towards her. The bulk of this biography outlines the court case, and adequately outlines the Indonesian states' case, which summaries the reasons why someone could be unsympathetic. There clearly is a whole sympathetic side which is absent from the article, and only the legal arguement side is protrayed.

I am a little bit too disjoint from the story to contribute more, I am from Ireland in Europe some 9 timezone and 16,000 kilometers from where the news breaks on this story, but from what I've self educated myself in from this distance, and with an impartial possibly unsympathetic mind towards the drugs trade, I do not see a balanced record of the events in this article, its comprised of scant pre-event history, wads of information on the case, and a regurgatation of the negative news generated headliners. It surely is entirely and equally valid and important to outline the sympathetic side, and one huge factor in this is the value of the drugs, and even if it is disputed, it should be documented and even documented as disputed.

The public feeling on this case has appeared to me to be split right down the middle, and the article gives no sense of why the circumstances support that. The press make a huge deal of the prisioner exchange deals, and how this and that could affect Corbys chances of serving out her sentence in .au, when it appears that she has already stated that she doesn't want to serve any of her sentence in Australia. That there is a spirit of the person that hasn't been documented. This is a biographical article is it not?

At any rate, from my social justice stance, I abhor the drug trade, and am totally bemused by the facts of this particular case and believe there is a cause for concern regarding the conviction. From my perspective, the newspaper article you quote is entirely worthless in establishing the value of the drugs in Indonesia. Enough said... Endastorey (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Endastorey

Uh, yeah, more than enough. Despite what you say, The Age, as a reputable newspapers whose news reporting is subject to editorial review, more than satisfies the standards for a reliable source under WP:RS. In any event, it is not necessary to establish the value (perhaps I used "economic" in a way broader than you expected, to denote foreign trade, informal though it is), but it is enough that there is a reason why drugs similar to what Corrie was arrested with flow into Bali. But I'm still not clear in what manner you propose to improve the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm confused

It says that she will be released in 2024. But that is 20 years from when she was originally in gaol. If she was sentenced to 20 years in 2005, then she should be released in 2025. Besuto (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

She receives remissions off her sentences, if she behaves herself. It's all in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)