Talk:Schapelle Corby/Archive 2

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)

Regarding "...even after it started to become clear that her family and therefore probably her were involved in the drug trade." This is an error in fact. Queensland police investigated the Corby and on July 5, 2008 of last year, said that investigations into the statements made against Mr Corby had been found to be unjustified. Copies of the actual police reports are available (in fact, I have copies downloaded). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpasse (talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

--- Someone keeps wanting to have a cite requirement for the statement: "The Australian Labor Party generally supported the government's approach to the case in not wanting to interfere in Indonesia's judicial system,"... There is NO cite needed here, it is well known the posistion of the ALP on this. The statement is true as is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.192.8.80 (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

I have re-edited the section on Michael Corby to include the fact that the Lateline program apologised for their allegations. Can someone advise why it was removed the first time? Icequeen8 (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Always remember that Wiki is American, so all spellings need to be of the U.S. kind, just as the commas must be inside the brackets.66.183.46.206 (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not our policy. For articles involving an English speaking country, in this case Australia, we adopt the spelling and date conventions used in that country.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. --Merbabu 02:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's in there.--Wehwalt 11:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * 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?


 * 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)

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)
 * 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.
 * 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)

Since there are many confusion over CCTV evidence, this should be added to the criticism against Corby's legal team section:

- images from surveillance videos of the check-in hall at Brisbane airport retrieved by forensic computer experts hired by Qantas was ignored by Corby's legal team. They also refused an offer of a tour of Brisbane and Sydney airports to show the baggage handling procedures.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16248175-31317,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/airport-evidence-ignored-by-corby-legal-team/2005/08/14/1123353548725.html

Andreas7735 (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Corby is a bogan
DELETED SLANDEROUS COMMENT FROM ARCHIVE Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * That is rubbish. The Australian Federal Police offered assistance to DNA test the drugs in which The Bali Police refused because they said it was not necessary - it was not the responsibility of The Bali Police to proof that Schapelle was guilty. It was not like The AFP demanded the drugs to be tested, it was simply a refusal of an offer of help. Please also note, there were not any recorded weight of the boogie board bag in Brisbane airport, the recorded weight was for all the items that were carried by Corby. Lastly, please remember that it was the Custom officials who handled the evidence with their bare hands so when it reached the Bali police there were already too many fingerprints on the bag. The Corby legal team failed to focus on this before the court.Andreas7735 (talk) 09:35, 13 June 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)

Much has been made of the lack of CCTV, but CCTV wouldn't have changed anything since Corby admitted there were drugs in her bag, and admits that she acknowledged that the bag was hers. And it's not usual procedure in drug prosecutions for the police to DNA-test drugs. Having said that, what her background is, bogan or otherwise, really doesn't have much bearing on anything. Callivert (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Corby has never admitted to owning the drugs. She has admitted to owning the boogie board bag. CCTV Footage from Brisbane airport could have shown Corby with her bag before checking it in. The footage could have shown the shape of her boogie board bag, her demeanor, it could have shown a lot of things. There was also a CCTV camera above the customs desk in Bali. This could have been used to verify Schapelle's version of events in court. She requested this footage, but it was withheld and the judges chose to believe the customs officer's version of events. --122.108.180.81 (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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:

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)
 * 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.


 * 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. rocketrye12talk/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)

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)

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)

Endastorey, you seem to talk in a very length style of something that can be said more to the point. Im a German who frequent Bali and my English is not perfect so I have to read your sentences over and over again to make sure that I get your point across.

1. if the article from the age is not a RS for the value of australian drugs in Indonesia then please tell me what is an RS for it? an official price list from the goverment of Bali? did you aware that those drugs are illegal in Bali/Indonesia? All illegal drugs trade in Bali is underground trade and would be a breach of law if you are involved. you made such huge and hefty assumptions about drug trade in Bali should be clear cut for anyone to see, there should be more links, etc. if you want to do drugs in Bali, first what you want to do is to have a secure connection, preferrably from fellow tourists or local dealer whos known to other consumer - though you'll get this fairly easily from local bar or club house in Kuta or seminyak. if you got caught by the police the first thing you want to do is to bribe them for you to get off, you dont want to get known or get persecuted and get written on the media and a record of crime conviction. theres no documented case of aussie selling to other aussies doesnt mean there wasnt any.

2. what is it about sympathetic, unsympathetic side and legal side of the article, wiki should be NPOV, legal side of the article may be unsympathetic to the Corby supporter but so what? if you read the original court proceeding transcript you would probably get the feeling that it was unsympathetic toward the Corby supporter, i have read them in early 2006 when it was still online. just to let you know as a previous drug user myself, indonesian marijuana cost around 425 US$/kg in Bali (250-300 US$/kg in Java) that's about 0.5$ per gram - much less than indian gunga or afghanis hashish, if you know someone who has done drugs in Bali, ask around, to verify my figure. whether you want to admit or not, youre actually asking too much for certainty of something that is actually should be kept uncertain. things like this arent something people / tourist would want to talk about because of the risk it bear. As a matter of fact, the wiki page and the talk page here, as of im writing this is inherently in "the sympathetic side". That's my opinion.

3. you said there is a spirit of the person, schapelle corby, who doesnt want to serve her sentence in australia, did you read her mother comment that schapelle did not want to be among the "big butch sheilas" in Australian women's prisons ( considering indonesian prisoners generally have smaller stature?), among other things there are remission system in Indonesian legal system which means your sentence could be reduced with good behavior, you can bribe officials to get some luxury even though it is prohibited? not to mention people, family, relatives, supporters can visit her anytime they want, provide her food etc something that is impossible to get in australian prison. Andreas7735 (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Petition to free Schapelle
From the article
 * In Australia, over 100,000 people signed a petition that they believe Corby should be freed. On the other hand, in Indonesia about 40 protesters gathered on 5 June 2005 at the Australian embassy in Jakarta calling for Corby to receive the death sentence, carrying placards with words such as '"Corby, drug dealer, must die"'.


 * Please provide a link to this statement that In Australia over 100,000 people signed the petition. The petition I can recall was an online Internet petition on www.petitionline.com. The Indonesians who protested on 5 June 2005 I believe was a response to an anthrax-hoax letter sent to Indonesian embassy on May 31, 2005 in Canberra, and a death threat letter to one of the Indonesian judges previously sent to Indonesian consulate in Perth.Andreas7735 (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Australians importing marijuana into Bali
The links below tell us that Jodie Power, who was Mercedes Corby's best friend smuggled marijuana at least twice into Bali.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2251846.htm http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23734510-421,00.html http://202.58.37.74/Articles/2008/05/21/Power_smuggled_drugs_into_Bali_friend_tells_court http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/power-smuggled-drugs-into-bali/2008/05/21/1211182852403.html http://au.news.yahoo.com/080521/2/16y0o.html http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2008/05/21/11398_gold-coast-top-story.html

The first link also tell us that Melissa Jane Clarke, a friend of Mercedes Corby of 15 years, testified in Mercedes-Ch7 defamation case, that they (Melissa and Jodie) smoked hydroponically grown Australian marijuana, which is of higher-grade than Indonesian marijuana which had heaps of seeds in it.

I think it deserves to be mentioned on the Wiki page since most of Schapelle Corby supporters contend that it was unlikely for Australians to import drugs into Bali and that the allegation Australian marijuana is of higher grade than Indonesia grown marijuana was nonsense.

Maybe it is relevant to mention that from the defamation case, there was a photo of Mercedes corby smoked a penis-like bong and her letter to Jodie Power when she smoked high quality Japanese marijuana. It is relevant because previously I believe Mercedes said she was never been into drugs.

Links below:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/photos-show-party-girl-mercedes-corby/2008/05/02/1209235149762.html http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23736866-5017268,00.html

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=561796

Andreas7735 (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a good point, but as the "Who would import marijuana to Bali, it is like coals to Newcastle?" POV never made it into the article, we shouldn't put this one in either. Certainly it was discussed on talk page, but it is not in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)