The Sydney Morning Herald headlines screamed “We'll risk Schapelle's life in making appeal”.
Undoubtedly the “we” in the above meant Corby’s defence team. While the headlines could be a dramatic creation of the news media, it would have reflected the defence team's voiced inclination. One of them, Vasu Rasiah, admitted that the appeal may yet cause Corby her life, yes life, and not just a life sentence. However, he expressed confidence that the team could successfully have the sentence reduced, though it may be more difficult to win an outright acquittal.
Professor Paul Wilson, a Bond University criminologist, engaged by Corby’s defence team to testify to her truthfulness as a person (though this was rejected by the Indonesian court as a totally irrrelevant testimony), also supported the appeal decision (why am I not surprised?) just as he has supported the performance of the defence team.
This was the same Corby’s defence team who had the following witnesses flown into Bali to testify for Corby:
(1) a handwriting expert testifying to her good character based on her writing,
(2) a drug convict to provide hearsay evidence based on another piece of hearsay evidence,
and I suppose their icing on the cake of witnesses,
(3) a university professor of criminology who, after a brief session with Corby, informed the Indonesian court that he could tell Corby wasn’t lying (Hmmm, I wonder why the judges failed to release Corby immediately on hearing that?).
From this group of Corby's people, one of them made slanderous remarks about the prosecutor, and subsequently had to eat crow and apologise for that.
This was the same group of people who had her appealing to the President for clemency even before the verdict on her guilt was delivered. The premature appeal had virtually signalled her admission of guilt!
Again, it was the same group of people who had snubbed the offer of assistance from two Queen’s Counsellors, assigned to Corby by the Aussie government.
And from this group of people, one had registered a company in Schapelle Corby’s name (Schapelle Corby Pty Ltd) in Brisbane with himself as the SOLE director and shareholder. This was the same bloke, who claimed the company was set up with Corby as the shareholder, but when shown the ASIC documents proving his SOLE ownership of the company, replied “It’s all for the good of Schapelle.”
Somehow, I don't know why but I obtain the nasty feeling that some or one of these people are(is) treating Schapelle Corby as their(his) ‘private asset’, and for others to keep out.
When I consider Queen Counseller Tom Percy’s caution that the appeal may take Corby into deeper and more turbulent legal waters, and square his expert opinion against the makeup and poor performance of her defence team, I shudder at their highly ‘courageous’ statement that they are willing tor risk Corby’s life in making an appeal.
On the other hand, come to think of it, it’s only Corby’s life, not theirs'.