Sunday, September 6, 2009

Schapelle is a political pawn

Any doubts in peoples minds that Schapelle Corby is a sacrificial political pawn,
rather than a drug courier should be expelled after reading the following post,
written by DJ Wolf of Perth WA. It is well known that the Australian Govt.will go to almost any lengths to avoid upsetting Indonesia, demonstrated by their complicity in aiding and abetting the cover up of the murder of the Balibo Five journalists.
In failing to demand that the drugs found in Ms Corby's bag be identified as being of Australian origin, the Howard Govt.effectivly announced to the world, something that was (and remains)untrue: that Australia is a drug exporting nation!
Howard diverted the public's understandable rage at his cowardice by effecting an almost complete media blackout concerning the case ; followed by an orchestrated demonising of Schapelle and her family; where the most outlandish claims were allowed into print, radio and TV. The fact that all of these claims proved to have no foundation was (and still is)ignored by the mainstream media, with the result that the Australian public remain appallingly ignorant of the facts of the case.
This is manifest in the dreadfully callous comments posted whenever the tabloid magazines run yet another 'Schapelle article' and invite 'opinion'!

by DJ Wolf on Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:58 pm
When Schapelle was first arrested everyone in Australia and I mean EVERYONE thought she was innocent. We knew nothing about her but that would not have mattered. She could have been a known drug criminal and it would have made no difference because NO ONE takes marijuana to Bali. For our American readers I want you to imagine someone arrested at Columbia's airport taking cocaine into Columbia. I'm quite sure the arresting officers would be asking the guy if he was a dissatisfied customer and explaining that they don't take returns. NO ONE takes marijuana to Indonesia from anywhere and even according to the Indonesian authorities no foreign marijuana has ever been siezed in Indonesia - no foreign drug dealers have been arrested there and Indonesia is regarded as one of the major seed baskets for marijuana. At the same time, Australia has never exported any illegal drugs to anywhere. We neither import nor do we export marijuana since the cost structure of the marijuana market in Australia makes any transnational trafficking prohibitive. And, Australia cannot produce any other drugs at a price that would make export a profitable enterprise. Everyone knew Schapelle was innocent because the crime itself had no motive.

I really think people lack a proper understanding of what exporting illegal drugs entails. It is not just a drug crime. Everyone knows that Columbia exports cocaine but we also know that the Columbian government is not at fault. Being a Columbian politician takes bravery since opposition to the cartels can get them dead very quickly. The Columbian government does what it can and they get a lot of foreign support and aid to fight the War on Drugs. However, imagine if the Columbian government turned about face and taxed the Cartels claiming that cocaine was a legitimate business and they didn't care that cocaine was being exported. And, if Americans and other foreigners were being poisoned by this drug it wasn't their concern. If this were to happen, the Columbian government would not be guilty of a 'drug crime' but rather of an act of war. If the cartels were merely poisoning other Columbians this would be regarded as a local criminal issue - a drug crime. However, by exporting cocaine the cartels are committing treason by attacking other nations with poison without their government's sanction.

With the ruthlessness and discipline exercised by these cartels I'm certain that they could transport and distribute their cocaine in the buyer countries far more efficiently than leaving it to the domestic underworld of these countries but the cartels don't do this. Columbians DO NOT import cocaine into the USA. They sell the cocaine but it is American citizens who import the stuff and it is distributed to the American public by other Americans. What's more, this principal applies to all transnational trafficking. Afghani warlords and their 'men' are not walking the streets of Sydney selling heroin nor do any Afghan citizens courier or sell any heroin anywhere but in Afghanistan. In almost every transnational trafficking case, the courier is either taking the drugs through the country in which they were caught or they are a citizen of the country to which they are importing.

Within hours of Schapelle's arrest the Australian government went into damage control and what we got from the very beginning was spin. This would not have happened had our government thought there was any possibility that she could be guilty. They didn't knock down the front door of the Corby home and in fact never searched or investigated the Corbys ever. If our government thought there was even the possibility that an Australian citizen had orchestrated or was somehow involved in being the first person ever to export illegal drugs from Australia and the first person ever to import marijuana into Indonesia which set a new trend in International trafficking the Australian Federal Police would have arrived at that person's home the moment they heard of the arrest - time would be everything. They would not have shown disinterest saying "It's an Indonesian matter" since such an attitude would be interpretted by the international community as being indifferent to the War on drugs and not caring that an Australian citizen had attempted to poison the youth of Indonesia. Not only would the Australian authorities investigate the Corbys, their home, their assets, their friends, their connections and their finances but they would do this publicly with continuous updates to the media so that the world would see that the Australian government takes attacks by its citizens upon other nations very seriously. And, to label this crime as just another drug crime would be much like catching a terrorist with a bomb in his luggage and charging him with a customs breach of importing a prohibited explosive material without the proper paperwork, labels and declaration. It is the intent that defines the crime.

Even if our government didn't know if Schapelle was guilty or not they still needed to find out. Since it involved another nation, Schapelle's guilt or innocence was a matter for national security and diplomatic intelligence. For ASIO, our intelligence service, to rest on "We don't have a clue" would not be a good career move and we can assume that they did what they do until they were completely satisfied. So we can estimate that the Australian government knew the truth or suspected it and went about confirming it from the time they heard that an Australian had been arrested in Denpassar.

Some people have suggested that Australian baggage handlers were responsible but this doesn't fit at all. If any Australians played a part, it would not have just been the Queensland Police or the New South Wales Police who investigated this crime. It would be a matter of national security and no criminal organisation would cover for anyone involved since the intense investigation would shut down any airport criminal activity and the drug world would suffer from a level of scrutiny never witnessed before. If any Australians were involved there would be no reason to not investigate the Corbys since the Indonesians would have no reason to care if the guilty Australian was Schapelle or someone else. In addition, if any Australians were involved then it became Australia's responsibility to investigate and was no longer an "Internal Indonesian matter" as Chris Ellison called it.

So when you decide who you think is responsible don't forget to judge by the reactions of those involved. Howard had the opportunity to use his rhetorical "outrage" as he did with the 'white powder' attacks to say that no Australian would ever be allowed to believe that attacking Indonesia and poisoning their children was ever a good idea whether it was Schapelle or another Australian. The fact that he didn't and the AFP didn't even search the Corby home tells us not just that they knew Schapelle was innocent but rather that they knew she was innocent because they knew who was guilty and this completely rules out any chance that the marijuana arrived in Bali as a result of an unpredictable, unknowable mistake by unimportant, unobserved blue collar workers in Sydney or Brisbane.

The reason why Howard and Rudd did nothing (and you can lump in the Greens, the other parties and the independents) is because the Indonesian authorities had a vested interest in convicting Schapelle and ONLY Schapelle. My criticism of all our parliamentarians (as well as the USA who whitewashed the murder by Indonesian troops of two American aid workers) is that they could have feigned ignorance of who committed the crime and acted as if Schapelle or other Australians were guilty. In such a case, the Indonesian's refusal to hand over a sample of the drugs to enable an investigation here should have been brought up at the UN in regards to Indonesia's sincerity concerning the war on drugs and their desire to see the possible flow from Australia to Indonesia stamped out. What they should not have done is to make this case about Schapelle and her rights in a case being tried in a foreign country but rather about the necessary assumption within the charges that Australians, any Australians are deliberately exporting drugs to Indonesia in what could only be called an attack upon their sovereignty.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Shapelle Supporter's Network

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Revealing Article from the South East Asia News

Hi, hav’nt posted here for awhile, but coming across this article on another blog called ‘ Towards Justice’ I felt that I should post the link to the story here without delay! It is from the South East Asia News (Seanews) and shows, in roughly the chronological order that the events took place, Schapelle Corby’s ‘trial’, the aftermath in Australia and the cover up of the drug smuggling, going on at airports around this country. It also highlights the almost unbelievable corruption at the top of the AFP and state police forces and that of the then ministers in the Howard Govt. who suppressed knowledge of it , from reaching the public. It was written by Glen Clancy.

This Must Be Read!

If the link does not work, type in

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Reply to Lynne's Comment

Thanks for your supportive comment: it is refreshing to know that there are other people 'out there' who are also concerned about the way the media are suppressing the true facts of this case,
while promoting lies and innuendo about the family to sell papers and boost ratings.
Also, it is amazing that all those who constantly profess to be bored with the whole 'saga' always find time to vent their spleen whenever comments are invited!
I'm not sure how you found your way here; whether by chance or via the freeschapelle forum link, but welcome anyway!
If you would like to be among like minded people, please go to:-
Here you can just observe, post on the public comments section, or register and discuss how to combat the media offensive and help to find practical ways of bringing Schapelle home ,a free woman.

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Tide Of Opinion Turning For Schapelle ?

After an unusually scurrilous piece of reporting by Caroline Overington in the Weekend Australian
on 5-6July 2008; concerning the late Micheal Corby (father of Schapelle), Roger A Smith of the CLA (Civil Liberties Australia) was moved to write her this letter:-

This article is also filed under Opinion, Drugs & Alcohol, Justice Access, Criminal, Detention, Human Rights, Home.

or click an image to submit this article to that blog site digg newsvine Facebook
About Us | Privacy Policy | © Civil Li

Monday, May 12, 2008

Hi, Back again!.Thanks for the comment Sergio; confirmation that the link works!

As I stated in my introduction, part of the reason for this site is to draw attention to the continuing plight of Schapelle Corby; an innocent woman fraudulently jailed by the Indonesian'justice' system.
When it became obvious to the police and prosecution(one and the same) that she could not be convicted under the rules of their own Judicial Constitution, they simply 'moved the goalposts' and made up the rules as they went along. They were aided and abetted in this fraud by the judges themselves, who blatantly denied the use of any evidence that could have helped the defence.
Shamefully, they were also abetted by the Australian Govt. who failed to insist that the Indonesians 'stick to the rules' which would have asssured a dismissal of the case.
The fury of the Australian public with the guilty verdict obviously had the govt. worried and in his usual style, Howard,(our man of steel!) ;rather than confront the diplomatic fallout that would result from his public condemning of this travesty of justice ,chose a course of action of which he has proven a past master:- blame the victim!
There followed a period of almost complete media silence complemented ,strangely, by no protests from any opposition MPs. We were lulled, skillfully, into believing that the Govt. were working quietly, behind the scenes ,to gain her release when the 'white powder' scare at the Indon. Embassy occured. Howard could hardly wait to accuse Schapelle supporters of this'crime' and assured us that it was ,in fact a'biologically active agent' and the perpetrators would be brought to justice! I was able at the time ,on talk back radio,to express the opinion that the substance would prove to be harmless, for the Indons would be unlikely to send themselves anything dangerous! When it tuned out ,inevitably, to be flour (plain or self-raising, was not reavealed) the apology from Howard was notable by its absence!
There followed an insidious campaign of slurrs against the whole family; even to the extent of the local 'plod' being instructed to state ,to those who inquire, that the family (Corbys) were well known to police and had been under surveillance for some time. Besides being a breach of security (should it be true) it also flies in the face of statements by the police at Loganlea and the Gold Coast that they have never had reason to investigate the family. Since the AFP, with all of their recources, have found nothing with which to charge any of the family, this status obviously has not changed.
Mick Keelty could of course put paid to all of this baseless innuendo with a simple statement to clarify the situation, but it would seem that his (then) political masters prefered the 'status quo!
After a very public dressing down over his opinion that there was no evidence to support Howard and Ruddock's 'children overboard' statements; he has obviously decided to 'play it safe' and do as he is told. Hopefully, the new Govt. will instruct him to observe that which is not only legally correct but that which is morally correct and that he will take note! Why am I not holding my breath!
When (and if) Mercedes wins her case against CH7 et al, perhaps she could then pursue all those ,who in letters columns in most daily tabloids, claim to have bought drugs from the family or know friends who know friends who know that the family were involved! To have such letters eagerly published , their addresses (real and email) must have been supplied. Time for some supenas?
As for the aforementioned 'plod' perhaps some close questioning may reveal where the orders for these defamitary statements originated.

Following is an elegant and concise account of the "Trial" and associated events penned by a fellow supporter known to me only as "Simba" It speaks for itself, and is just as I obtained it.


Article 8 of the Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 18 of the Indonesian Human Rights Law, and Article 14 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all state the following, in so many words: Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law.

The onus was therefore on the Prosecution to prove guilt, rather than on the Defence to prove innocence, in Schapelle Corby’s case. However, they didn’t do this. Their case was weak and lacked evidence. Apart from the marijuana itself, the only other evidence they presented was the testimony of four men, and this testimony was unsupported by CCTV footage, which it could, and should have been, considering how important it was to the outcome of the trial.

Since Schapelle’s boogie-board bag was unlocked from the time it left the Corby’s home to the time it arrived on the Customs counter at Ngurah Rai Airport, anyone could have inserted the plastic bag of marijuana into it during that time.

For Schapelle to be guilty of importing a prohibited drug, the Prosecution would have to prove that she had put the drugs into the boogie-board bag herself or, at the very least, prove that she knew the drugs were in there prior to opening the bag.

She certainly could not have been found guilty of drug smuggling, since to smuggle means to convey secretly. Having the drugs in a clear plastic bag, inside an unlocked boogie-board bag with your name on, and then willingly opening that bag for inspection thus exposing the drugs, cannot be construed as conveying secretly!

For Schapelle to be guilty of drug trafficking, the Prosecution would have to prove that she had some connection with a drug distribution network in Bali. Since she was there to help celebrate her sister’s 30th birthday and have a holiday on the beach, to suggest that she intended spending her entire fortnight trying to sell the drugs off piecemeal in a foreign country, is nothing short of absurd.

Any one, or all, of the following points could have been investigated by the Balinese Police, to assist the Prosecution in building their case against Schapelle, and if they had been doing their job properly one would have expected them to do so:

· A check for fingerprints on both the outer and inner plastic bags in which the marijuana was packed. If her fingerprints appeared on either bag - Guilty.

· Weighing the entire luggage that had been checked in under Schapelle Corby’s name at Brisbane Airport. Put the bag of marijuana on the scales at the same time, then compare this weight with the checked-in weight. If the two weights were the same then the marijuana was in her bag at check-in - Guilty.

· Forensically test the marijuana to determine its country of origin and THC content. Proving that the marijuana came from Australia, while not exactly proving that Schapelle was guilty, would certainly have advanced their case considerably. If, on the other hand, Schapelle’s DNA had been matched against the DNA of any hair or skin fragments found amongst the drugs - Guilty.

· Accessing the CCTV footage from the camera above the Customs counter at Ngurah Rai Airport. The Customs Officer there, Gusti Winata, testified that Schapelle displayed signs of nervousness, was hesitant about opening her boogie-board bag, and pushed his hand away when he tried to open it. If true, this footage would have corroborated his story and would have proved that Schapelle had prior knowledge of the drugs in her bag - Guilty.

This last point was as vital to the Prosecution’s case as it was to the case for the Defence, as we will see later.

The presence of the marijuana in Schapelle Corby’s boogie-board bag was not, on its own, grounds for a conviction. Under Indonesian Law, the Prosecution is required to produce some form of secondary evidence, with which to back up the primary evidence.

Had the results from any one of the first three points above favoured the Prosecution’s case, it would have provided them with secondary evidence. As such, it is reasonable to assume that they would have wanted these points investigated, and that the Police would have done so.

The fact that not one of these points was ever investigated seemingly defies all logic, unless we look at the alternate hypothesis. These points, if properly investigated, could just as easily have proven Schapelle’s innocence, and they would have done. Were the Police just playing it safe, to protect the Prosecution’s case at all cost, or did they know in advance which way the results would go? If the latter is true, then how did they know?

The only people who actually asked for these points to be investigated, pleaded for it in fact, were Schapelle and her Defence Lawyers. Schapelle even signed a consent form allowing the AFP to forensically test the marijuana, in order to ensure an impartial and fair result.

Since the AFP’s brief in a case like this is to assist the Prosecution and not the Defence, asking for this forensic testing, fingerprinting of bags and weighing of luggage, would have been utter stupidity if Schapelle had, in fact, been guilty. The results would only have further incriminated her.

As it was, her requests in this regard, and those of her Lawyers, were all denied. Not only were they denied by the Balinese Police, who refused to give the AFP a sample of the marijuana for testing, they were also denied by the Judge. This was a total obstruction of justice, as it severely limited Schapelle’s chances of mounting an effective defence.

An investigation by the Police into how Schapelle planned to rid herself of the drugs could also have provided secondary evidence. Had a link between her and any one or more drug distribution networks in Bali been established - Guilty.

To the detriment of the Prosecution’s case however, no investigation of this nature was ever carried out. Schapelle’s luggage and its contents were ultimately destined to go to her sister’s home, yet Mercedes and her husband were never questioned.

An investigation by the AFP into how Schapelle might have grown or acquired 4.2kg of marijuana would have been quite in order. Working with their Balinese counterparts, to eliminate any further transnational drug importations of this type into Indonesia from Australia, would have been in the interests of both countries. Had a link between Schapelle and any known drug dealers in Australia been established - Guilty.

Although they were never informed that their affairs and finances were being looked into, the Corby’s are fairly certain that they were. Clearly, however, there was nothing irregular about either, since no further investigation was ever carried out. Not one family member has ever been questioned by the AFP in relation to this crime.

Had Schapelle been a drug user, particularly a marijuana user, and had she been caught using or possessing drugs of any kind following her arrest, this fact could also have been used as secondary evidence - Guilty.

Once again, to the detriment of the Prosecution’s case, Schapelle was not a drug user and her urine tests proved this. Nor was she, or has she ever been, caught in possession of drugs.

Even now, when it would be so easy for her to descend into the darkness, and numb her pain with the wide variety of illicit drugs that are readily available in Kerobokan Prison, she chooses not to, even when so many of her fellow inmates have.

So, with no fingerprints, no weight comparison, no forensic test results, and no investigation into how Schapelle had acquired the drugs or how she intended to get rid of them, when she tested negative to drug use the Prosecution found themselves with no secondary evidence.

The Police did attempt to help them out, trying twice to trick Schapelle into signing a confession, both times written in Indonesian which she could not speak or read. They also tried to plant drugs on her in the Polda visitor’s room. However, these measures all failed.

In the end, the testimonies of the two Customs Officers and two Anti-Drug Squad Officers, who were present in the airport at the time, formed the basis of the Prosecution’s secondary evidence. For the crimes of importing a prohibited drug and drug smuggling, Schapelle Corby was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in a third world prison. She was convicted on the strength of their testimonies, and their testimonies alone.

Gusti Winata was the Customs Officer at the counter when Schapelle’s boogie-board bag arrived there.

Winata testified that he asked her to open the boogie-board bag but she refused, saying there was nothing in there. She was nervous, and when he tried to open it himself, she pushed his hand aside and said, “No.” He proceeded to open it a bit, at which time she yelled, “No!” When the Judge asked if Schapelle agreed, she said, “No, he's lying.”

Schapelle, on the other hand, testified that when James was asked if the boogie-board bag was his, she said, “No, no, it’s mine. Here you go...” and placed it up on the counter. She noticed that the zips had been tampered with but thought nothing of it and, without being asked to do so, willingly unzipped the bag for inspection. She was immediately struck by the smell and sight of the marijuana, and in a panic she zipped the bag up again.

The second Customs Officer to testify, Komang Gelgel, gave the following testimony. According to Komang, when asked about the bag of marijuana, Schapelle said, “This is mine, I own it.”

In response to this Schapelle said, “I never at any stage stated that the marijuana belonged to me. Never, ever, have I stated that.”

Komang’s statement was clearly a lie, since no one in their right mind would admit to owning the drugs, whether it was true or not.

These testimonies were later backed up by the testimonies of two Anti-Drug Squad Officers, both of whom were in the airport at the time the boogie-board bag was placed on the counter.

Despite being a considerable distance away from the counter in what was, at the time, a crowded airport, both claimed to have seen Schapelle push Winata’s hand away when he tried to open the boogie-board bag. Both also claimed to have heard Schapelle say that the drugs belonged to her, even though neither of them could speak English!

It was Schapelle’s word against theirs.

People can easily lie, but cameras cannot.

Had the CCTV footage from the camera above the Customs counter been made available in court as requested, it would have instantly corroborated one version of events or the other. Since it was Schapelle and her Lawyer Erwin who requested it, it’s logical to assume that it would have favoured her testimony.

Initially, the Judge agreed to look into it, this later became, “We’ll get it if we need to,” but in the end he never found the need. If the footage had favoured the Prosecution’s case, would he have found the need then? e never felt the need

e never felt the need

Let’s not underestimate the importance of this point. The testimony of these four men was the Prosecution’s only secondary evidence. They had nothing else.

If these men were lying, and it’s reasonable to assume that they were, then the evidence was inadmissible and the case against Schapelle Corby was over.

The Judge would have had no choice but to acquit Schapelle of all charges and set her free. According to the Law of Indonesia, there would have been no grounds for a conviction.

Not only should access to that camera footage have been allowed, the Judge himself should have insisted on it. The testimony of these men was both crucial and damning, and Schapelle had every right to request this footage for the purpose of refuting it outright. When the Judge failed to comply with the request he was, essentially, siding with the Prosecution.

His failure to allow the footage into court, considering the importance of it to the case, was totally inexcusable.

In the end, Schapelle Corby was never proven Guilty, she was merely judged to be ‘Guilty’, and by a Judge prepared to take the word of liars over that of an Innocent woman.

For him and the other two Judges to find Schapelle ‘Guilty’, without attempting to confirm, or prove to the World, that the evidence upon which they would base their verdict was true and correct, especially when this evidence was in dispute, was an outrageous travesty of justice.

Schapelle’s first appeal could have been based on this one point alone.

Even now, it should be sufficient grounds for her conviction to be overturned.

To this day, not one piece of evidence has ever been produced, by the Balinese Police or Australian Federal Police, which links Schapelle Corby with the plastic bag of marijuana found in her boogie-board bag on the 8th October 2004.

The Innocent Should Not Be Punished

Thursday, May 1, 2008


Well ,here we are! It's been a few days since I first set up this blog ( or should I say ,had it set up for me! ) so thanks to those at Blogspot. Ever since of course, I have been too busy to actually sit down and write anything at all or been too 'stuffed' at the end of the day to be bothered!
I have things that I wish to talk about ,but not in a rambling 'stream of conciousness' kind of way.
This is just to find out how it all works, so It'll be a few days before we get serious, or funny, or whatever!
Be warned, however, that the appalling treatment of Schapelle Corby by the Bali 'justice' system, the (then) Australian Govt. and the Australian media, will feature strongly in what I discuss!
Must run off to work !