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.
SCHAPELLE
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
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
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
· Forensically test the marijuana to determine its country of origin and THC content. Proving that the marijuana came from
· Accessing the CCTV footage from the camera above the Customs counter at
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
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
Although they were never informed that their affairs and finances were being looked into, the
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?
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
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 Innocent Should Not Be Punished
1 comment:
Great blog on Schapelle. It cut straight through the crap and even made me chuckle at times (especially the comments about Howard! It's such a reief that he is gone!) Keep up the good work. The truth needs to be put out there!
Post a Comment