Why Schapelle is Innocent
- No one takes marijuana to Bali any more than someone would import it into Jamaica. No one takes cocaine to Columbia or heroin to Afghanistan. Taking marijuana from Australia to Bali would result in a huge financial loss.
- The drugs were in two large transparent Space Bags – the inner bag had been cut across its width to release the smell. The purpose of the outer bag appeared to be to prevent the marijuana from falling through this cut. This suggested that the drugs were meant to be discovered.
- This plastic ‘pillow’ was put into Schapelle’s boogie board bag and was visible as soon as the customs officer opened it for inspection. No attempt had been made to conceal it.
- Schapelle had no criminal record.
- Marijuana stays in the blood for over two months. Schapelle’s blood and urine tests were negative for all drugs.
- Schapelle was a beauty therapy student who had worked in a fast food store to save just over $1300 for her holiday. Such work ethics are uncommon for criminals with $40,000 worth of marijuana in their possession.
- Schapelle was not wealthy. No one attempted to explain how such a person acquires $40,000 worth of drugs without leaving obvious signs to family, friends, acquaintances, investigative journalists or police.
- Schapelle has maintained her innocence even when there are clear sentencing advantages to pleading guilty in Indonesia – repentance and remorse lessens the jail time and so the guilty plead guilty.
- Schapelle and her family immediately exposed themselves to the media in loud protest. The guilty tend to keep quiet hoping not to be noticed.
- This is the only time in Indonesian history where marijuana has been intercepted allegedly from Australia, but the origin was never proved.
- Schapelle begged both the Australian and Indonesian governments to investigate the origin of the drugs. Only the innocent beg for an investigation.
Suspicious Facts
- When the first junior police officers arrived on the scene they immediately handled the plastic bags without gloves. Schapelle protested and they laughed. The prosecution decided that they didn’t require fingerprinting and prevented the defence from having that evidence. However, the two beat cops who arrived within minutes of the discovery were either already aware of this decision or felt confident enough to determine what the prosecutor needed.
- The Bali Police refused to weigh Schapelle’s luggage and compare that weight with the figure printed on her ticket even after being asked to do so. Why didn’t the police want conclusive evidence of her guilt unless they already knew she was innocent? They said it was “not necessary”. However, they interrogated her for nine hours at the airport, fraudulently attempted to bully her into signing a confession written in Indonesian and summoned a doctor to take blood and urine tests which proved negative. Why was circumstantial evidence ‘necessary’ but definitive proof, “not necessary”?
- Schapelle formally requested that the marijuana be forensically tested and signed an Australian Federal Police form authorizing them to test the drugs on her behalf. When the AFP wrote to the Bali Police requesting a sample, the Bali Police responded with, “The services of the AFP will not be required.”
- By blocking all physical evidence the Bali Police effectively denied Schapelle a defence. This was allegedly the prosecution’s evidence. Why weren’t they demanding that it be collected?
- Since it was the Bali Police who determined what evidence would or would not be presented in court, it was they who determined the outcome and not the court. In such circumstances it is highly doubtful that Schapelle’s defence lawyers had the freedom to place her rights above the wishes of the Bali Police.
- The first piece of evidence the prosecutor needed to convict was to prove that the material was marijuana and that it was imported. After Schapelle had formally requested drug testing her lawyers stated that since the country of origin was not in dispute there was no need to test the drugs.
- The second piece of evidence the prosecutor required was to prove that Schapelle had prior knowledge of the drugs. According to Customs Officer Winata who couldn’t answer questions put to him in English by the media, Schapelle had said, “the marijuana is mine.” Schapelle has never faltered from her assertions of innocence. This lie convicted her but her lawyers didn’t even challenge the man, his memory or his competency in English.
- Schapelle was convicted of ‘importing narcotics’ and therefore the marijuana and its country of origin defined the crime. For the Bali Police to refuse the testing suggests that they knew that the marijuana came from Indonesia.
- The Indonesian government told Australia not to interfere because the case was an “internal Indonesian matter.” How can the alleged trafficking of drugs from Australia to Indonesia be an internal Indonesian matter?
- By not allowing the Australian police to have a sample of the drugs the Indonesian government demonstrated that they had no interest in investigating or prosecuting others at the source that may be involved. In fact, without a sample no Australian drug activity could even be tied to the Corby case. Why did Indonesia fight so hard against an investigation? The charge against Schapelle was an accusation that Australia was exporting marijuana to Indonesia and the Australian Government had a right to see the proof for the country of origin just as Schapelle did.
- Within days of Schapelle’s mother confirming that Brisbane airport had the closed circuit camera footage that would show Schapelle’s departure and the size of her boogie board bag, the footage went missing. After having claimed that the footage was in good order they later said that all the cameras had been under repair that day. Later they changed their story again and said Brisbane airport cameras are not turned on unless a person of interest is in the airport. This was never followed up or investigated.
- In spite of the fact that the charges meant Schapelle had committed a crime here in Australia, no investigation of Schapelle, her family, her friends, her assets or activities prior to her departure was ever carried out. In the Words of the Commissioner of our Federal Police, "It is not the job of the Australian Federal Police to clear people."
- Indonesia showed no signs of offence when the Australian police failed to investigate the Corbys. How could they not react to such indifference to the assertions of the Indonesian court?
Show Trial for Schapelle
Support Resources
Saturday, January 19, 2008
IMAGE OF A FAIR TRIAL?
The people of Indonesia rarely protest anything. They didn't protest to end corruption, to end military rule or even to end the frequent human rights abuses. On the rare occasions when people have, the protesters were shot. So, when we see young men of a military age such as these marching down the streets of Jakarta towards the Australian Embassy with signs that read "Australia not interfere" we are not seeing 'people power'. We are hearing the 'voice of the regime' - the Indonesian government.This Indonesian Government march occurred while Schapelle was on trial. They weren't interested in finding other culprits. They didn't care if they had the wrong culprit. The picture says it all.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Wednesday, 24 August 2011
Schapelle Corby: an Introduction
