a fair trial for corby, but not in our media, page-37

This is the thinking of an airhead who loves this one, so called, expert on Indo Law and gives him the total crediblity he doesn't deserve. I don't understand why, since there are many, ever-growing number now, eminent QCs who believe otherwise.

I don't care what the media did and nor should the court.
The court should have the welfare of justice in its sights, irrespective of who it is in the dock and what other nations or other courts ever did or would likely to do.
I worry, when judges come out and say -well before the case is even heard, that this is a very common, everyday case of drug pushers. Such judges would, under normal circumstance, excuse themselves from the case. There is no greater proof of prejudice and courts cannot function with even the slightest inkling of prejudice. Can't happen! Shouldn't happen.
THUS:
The court should examine every piece of evidence and every circumstance surrounding or clouding justice and not be dismissive as this court has shown.
It is true that much of the evidence should have been supplied from our end but that does not allow the court to say, "well, it's not our fault that your goven't is so callous and uninterested in this same welfare of justice, so we'll punish you, anyway." A court run by conscientious judges would/should, at the very least wait until possible evidence emerges before a judgement is made. Let it wait. Why the rush? Even if it takes months, when one is certain that evidence could well emerge, then the chief judge should always hasten very slowly.
In this case, too many pieces of evidence were dismissed and too little was relied upon. On the balance of probabilities that an injustice was done is blutantly obvious.
There was no separation between the act of possession and of knowledge of possession. To say that something is on your body, thus you're in possession of it, is crude and primitive in itself, to say that something is in one of your belongings which you haven't seen for many hours and has been handled by a great many others, is clearly something that does not belong in a serious court. The next step would be, "we broke into your house while you were away and found this little packet of heroin, you're charged for possession of narcotics."
The step after that is, "we broke into your overseas house and found a packet of narcotics... blah blah blah!

This court had only the word of State officials. No independent witness. Although, I'd still like to know why a friend of hers who saw the boogie bag go into the airport free of pot was somehow silenced, or whatever happened with the letter sent by the Corby's lawyers to Qantas which Qantas shoved in a hole somewhere.

What exasperates me is not that Corby is an aussie but the fact that I don't know if she is guilty or not -and if a court does its job properly no one should be left in any doubt. They might disagree with the legth or austerity of the sentence but there should be no doubt left in anyone's mind that the defendant was treated with utmost respect, dignity and diligence in the persuit of her right to justice.
This did not happen in this court.