Is Schapelle Corby Guilty?

Much of Australia (including myself) will have been glued to Channel Nine during the last couple of days to watch the 5 hour coverage of the Schapelle Corby Case formatted for television into an infotainment type mini series.
Up until now I have never formed an opinion as to whether I think Schapelle guilty or innocent.
The Corby family does certainly seem to be what some Australians might call 'rough and hardened sorts'. Someone told me that the father (or is it stepfather)? was a bikie; he looks and acts like he may have been? The whole family seem to be pretty rough sorts - and I'm sure there'll be many who might condemn them for this fact alone.
One of the brothers is a surfie; who claims he doesn't take drugs - nor has ever been exposed to them. In fact the whole family seem to be denying ever using or being exposed to drugs.
I find this extremely unlikely. Particularly in this day and age in Australia. And this family also seem to be from sub-cultures where a far higher exposure to drugs would be the norm.
I would imagine that all of them would be 'drug savvy' and would have met many, many people who regularly take drugs and probably most of them themselves would have had the odd toke or two or much, much more.
They don't really seem like what many Australians would call 'nice', decent, happy or honest types - but does this mean that Schapelle is automatically guilty of knowingly transporting 4.2 kg of marijuana in her boogie board?

What about the accusations made about certain baggage handlers?
There certainly appeared to be some big gaps in airport security that I'm sure might allow transfer of drugs interstate or internationally to be non too difficult. Though these may now have been addressed more by the addition of extra security measures.
Convicted South Australian Drug Lord (MaCauley) might know more about this sort of smugglers network but how much he may choose to disclose in his attempt at a lesser sentence is an entirely different matter.

I think the Corby family made some bad choices regarding lawyers etc and misguidedly relied on 'glitz and distraction' from the real facts in order to get Schapelle released. Perhaps they are guilty of thinking that 'trial by media' may be their best form of defense. I never got the impression that any of them were being completely honest. However my question still remains; does this make Schapelle guilty?
They may have been just merely trying to minimize their 'drug savviness' and the likelihood of cross cultural conflicts and in the process lost any credibility they may otherwise have had. They may have been caught between a rock and a hard place.

Their dope smoking, dope growing neighbour didn't even know how to pronounce the word hydroponic; I think he just wanted to protect Schapelle by making his confession to growing his own 'bushies'; not thinking or believing that she deserved her 20 year sentence.
Personally I would like to know more about the family background and how they earned their livings before assessing the likelihood of whether and why Schapelle may have risked taking that 4.2kg of marijuana into Indonesia.
Never does any clear motive seem to have been given and I think it is important not to overlook this is assessing her possible guilt.

Schapelle Corby's former lawyer described the Corby family as "ungrateful and nasty".
I certainly wouldn't want to tangle with them. They're not the sorts I would make friends with too easily either.
And to an extent I agree with him. I believe that because they were not being entirely honest they felt they could dump him hard when the (mutually agreed) approach taken by him didn't pay off. Though much of the dishonesty, I believe is/was motivated by the political gulf between Aussie and Indonesian culture.
Being from an Australian drug taking, drug savvy family doesn't necessarily mean that Schapelle tried to smuggle 4.2 kg of marijuana into Indonesia. For whatever reasons the Corby family felt it important to paint an untrue picture of themselves, their lives and their histories to the Indonesian courts.
They might have been in a catch-22 type situation.
Whether or not Schapelle may have been able to have been proven not guilty if the truth were told is an entirely different and challenging matter.

But then again perhaps it was intended that her younger juvenile brother should be the 'mule' though I am still unclear how and why this might be so. That her brother was transporting it for whatever reason rings far more true for me. Perhaps at the last minute Schapelle decided to protect him. Or he himself panicked and gave the board to Schapelle who unwittingly claimed it as hers.
And this family sure seems to have a lot of inner anger that gets displaced all over the place - including onto their unsuccessful lawyers and backers.
Their defense lawyer, Mr. Tampoe said, "I have never seen a more ungrateful, nasty piece of work than this woman (Corby's mother, Rosleigh Rose) and this family,''.
I agree that they did seem to decide to dump their frustrations and anger onto him unfairly.
And Mr. Tampoe has paid a very high price for his association with the family; he no longer practices law cos of the notoriety this case gained him.
Though he did confess that it was a defense ploy to accuse the baggage handlers that, surprisingly enough he says the whole family chose to take on board as fact and who even now continue to act accordingly.

Mercedes Corby seemed to have taken on the role of being the 'big family organizer'; the one who advised the rest of the family on how to act and on what to say and what not say. There are pictures available freely on the internet that show her smoking from a 'mull pipe'.
I believe that when Mercedes got married in Indonesia (somewhat mysterious of itself) that she 'went straight'. She now has a young family.
This kind of 'going straight' behaviour is not too unusual here in Australian culture and I doubt there are many people who knowingly or not are not exposed to drug-takers on a regular basis in their daily lives in some way.
Whether or not drugs should be legal is an entirely different debate.

Mr. Tampoe also alluded to comments from the then foreign minister, Alexander Downer who reportedly advised him that he should "examine her brothers". If indeed Mr. Downer did say this I would imagine his advice would have been based on something akin to an internal ASIO fact-finding mission of some sort or other.
In fact this supports my original instincts; that the gunja may have belonged to one of her brothers.
Schapelle's younger half- brother James Kisina was initially carrying the boogie board bag before Corby identified it as hers.
The family dynamics were/are complex and I think there are very large undercurrents and subplots in this family camp with more than a few secrets and lies going on.
3 of 6 of the Matriarch's, Ros's children have been, or are in jail.
Schapelle's younger brother worried me; he seemed to have a lot of rage that might find an explosive outlet some time in the future. From a profiling point of view it would support his feeling of inner self hatred and self directed rage if indeed his sister were taking the rap for him.

I'm interested too that prominent forensic criminologist Dr Paul Wilson sappeared to be publicly supporting the family and would be interested to know his reasons for doing so. It is also interesting that here in Australia forensic science would likely have been used in deciding where these drugs came from and perhaps also it could have been decided which family members may have come into contact with the drugs.
Perhaps forensic evidence may have helped clear up many of the mysteries of the case.
And certainly I doubt there would have been any 20 year long sentences to be handed out. Even if Schapelle were guilty she most likely would have served any given sentence by now.

The show seemed to manipulate its' viewing public and left many questions still unanswered for me. There are many points on which I would like more facts and the show took many liberties in the way many of the interviews were aired.
I think a key player, often overlooked is that which was played by the South Australian man convicted of transporting 100 kilos of marijuana across state borders and into northern Queensland. I call this man a Drug Lord as opposed to a mere drug dealer.
Also I find it mysterious that Schapelle refused to see her sister's friend Jodie who tried to visit on her in prison on Schapelle's birthday - and was her refusal at the direction of Mercedes - and if so why? What were the sisters colluding on?
I'd also like to know what circumstances led the Corby family to choose Bakir and Tampoe for Schapelle's defense?

When interviewed by a journalist the (later convicted) Drug Lord MaCauley told the journalist that he would give very direct evidence relevant to the Corby case if his impending and consequent sentence were to be considerably lessened. This certainly seemed to consequently happen; he received a mere 18 month sentence for trafficking 100 kilos of marijuana cross border.
Whether or not Ros knew this man when she claimed she hadn't met him is something I feel I need more information about before trying to decipher the significance of his visits to Schapelle and the photos of him taken with her that are now extremely prominently displayed on his lounge room wall. In fact this aspect of the show struck me as very mysterious and certainly did nothing to help sway my verdict either way.
Even the comments that he made to the family on the way into court may have been taken out of context. I have completely no information on which to base an opinion of why these photos were taken nor what could be the possible advantage to either parties.

I still am not sure if Schapelle is guilty or not - and I've so far watched around 4 hours. Perhaps her younger brother who was traveling with her gave her the boogie board at the last minute when he realized that it had attracted the attention of customs officers.

Of all the victims of this case I feel that Ron Bakir copped the most and the hardest. At this point I tend to believe Schapelle as she protests her innocence. But I also believe it is highly likely that she knows more than she has admitted and perhaps this can make her guilty through association.
Does she deserve 20 years in jail?
I don't think so.

Do I think she will serve 20 years in jail?
I don't think so.
But how her sentence might be lessened I also do not know at the moment.