This is Schapelle Corby related news. However, the main subject of this little post is Robin Tampoe; a one-time lawyer for Schapelle Corby.
Robin Tampoe (photo courtesy of here) became involved in the Corby case very early on. He provided pretty bad advice, in my opinion, because his own ego required that he piggy back on this case in order to make a name for himself by using someone else's legal predicament to further his career. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, this has backfired in a big way and has in fact ended his legal career as he has been struck off the role of legal practitioners.
The advice was indicative of someone not knowing the intricacies of the Indonesian legal system and also highlighted a substantial lack of understanding of the substantive law that applies in Indonesia. In this sense, the writing was on the wall for Corby as soon as Tampoe became involved. However, the advice is not the reason for his striking off, but rather his conduct as a lawyer and handling of client information.
It was certainly a Forrest Gump kind of a moment in the type "stupid is as stupid does". Simply, Tampoe came into possession of confidential information which he then divulged to the world on TV. This information related to prior criminal convictions among members of the family. After being dumped from the Corby legal team he then went on to add insult to injury by disparaging them in the documentary, "Schapelle Corby - The Hidden Truth", by calling the family "trash".
The Legal Services Commissioner initiated the action based on an allegation that Tampoe breached client confidentiality. In essence, he failed to uphold the lawyer - client privilege that certain communications are subject to. In a written judgment of Justice Roslyn Atkinson of the Queensland Legal Practice Tribunal, Tampoe was found guilty of professional misconduct. Atkinson then ordered that Tampoe be struck off the roll.
On a side note. It is interesting to see that in the current Manohara case two of Indonesia's senior lawyers, Todung Mulya Lubis and OC Kaligis, have left the legal teams of Prince Tengku Temenggong Mohammad Fakhry and Manohara Odelia Pinot respectively, and then gone on to make some disparaging remarks about their former clients relating to their respective intents to resolve that matter. I wonder, any ethics or professional misconduct issues there?
919 comments:
1 – 200 of 919 Newer› Newest»This can only be a good thing for the legal profession. Clearly this little vindictive man was driven by his own pathetic belief of self importance. It is doubtful that he had any real intention of assisting that girl, rather it appears that he and his ex-friend Ron Bakir had the spotlight as their combined agenda. Embarrassing talk of books and movie rights were doing the rounds on the grapevine here on the Gold Coast where these keystone cop characters once resided. Karmic forces have once again prevailed over those who seek to use others for their own ill-gotten gains.
Anonymous...
I get lots of people posting as anonymous. So, I tend to prefer people to adopt a pen name so that I can distinguish one anonymous from another.
I guess you reap what you sow. May be this is karma or maybe it is justice.
In the end, Corby remains in jail in a foreign land and one of the reasons for this is the bad advice she received from Robin Tampoe.
I wouldn't mind having Mr. Tampoe going in to bat for me. I think he's a bit of a genius & love his work. I only wish he were still on the register, as I could surely use a brilliant mind to help me with my legal load...
Blog Sprog...
Thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment.
Do tell! I would be interested in hearing the other side to the Robin Tampoe story. I am assuming that you know more about the man than I. This is based on your assertion that the man is a genius and you would like to be able to be able to recruit him to help you out with your workload.
I have to be honest and admit I have only heard bad things about the man. So, if the Corby affair was an unfortunate and isolated incidence then I would be willing to add a postscript to my post to reflect that there is a whole other side.
Cheers
I have had personal experience with this bottom dweller and he has got only part of his dues. This waste of space had one agenda and that was publicity.....
Anonymous...
Thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment.
It seems that his intervention has led to some serious consequences for Corby, including her being assessed as being clinically insane.
Rob. I completely agree with what you say as to how people will not use their name. Interesting I found this site while searching for info to put on Schapelle's forum (where I am known as Toucha)about Tampoe. I have been there for Schapelle since the beginning and for the sake of new members have been providing info including the day of verdict, May 2005 which of course included Tampoe (and Bakir). It is indeed distressing where Schapelle is at now, which I am highlighting on her support forum. Going back to May 2005 and indeed THT was a 'mis/carriage? of sensationalism IMO' whereas Ganga Queen which was shown in the US was far more to the TRUTH. Which leads me to believe that Tampoe and Bakir got some $$ out of The Hidden Truth. Just my personal opinion that is. It is time that everyone re-visits what happened and what is happening now to Schapelle. You can easily google the main forum site.
Gaile Williams
Gaile...
Thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment. Comments are always appreciated.
I will drop by and check out the forum and perhaps do a post here about it and a link to it.
I admire the passion that people have in support of Schapelle Corby and in particular her innocence.
I have been consistent in my criticisms of Tampoe and Bakir. I must also admit that I have been pretty consistent in my criticisms of Mercedes Corby as well.
The people around Schapelle really blew the chance for this thing to be dealt with in a way that would have resulted in an acquittal or little more than time served.
In many ways I feel sorry for Schapelle that she has been served up as an example of how Indonesian law can work.
Yet, despite the arguments put forward as to why this is a miscarriage of justice and why there is reasonable doubt and the like, I am still not convinced of Schapelle's innocence.
The fact that the bag was not fingerprinted and the marijuana not DNA tested is hardly convincing reasonable doubt. Neither is the idea that 4.1kgs of weed is a lot and would have been noticeable both for its size and smell going through the airport in Brisbane. Also not a lay down winner for reasonable doubt.
I have posted elsewhere on my blog about Schapelle and my views. Feel free to comment on any posts you like and set me straight where you feel I have erred.
I also have followed the case from the outset as I was living in Indonesia from 2002 through April 2009.
Once again, thanks for commenting.
G'day Rob
To this day, investigation by the Qld Police Service have shown no involvement by any of the Corby's in the drug trade. They hold certificates from the QPS to show that. Also the AFP have found no evidence of drug trafficking from Australia to Indonesia. There is no Australian grown MJ for Sale in Bali. Never has been. You have lived there and would know the local price.(Check with the Bali Police). There is no evidence that shows Corby had the marijuana in her bag prior to departure from Australia. Poor legal representation including Tampoe resulted in her being jailed. It is my belief that the drugs were inserted in Bali as a diversion for a larger shipment of hard drugs passing through the airport that day. For Corby, wrong place, wrong time.
"Check the local price of mj with the Bali police" (Nev) - that's funny, and true too. Most people do not realize that public perception on this issue ( and thus public belief in Schapelle's innocence) turned on a single unsustantiated article published in May 2005 - coincidentally right before Schapelle's verdict was announced. The article claimed that so much Australian marijuana is sold on Bali's beaches that it has its own trade name ( Aussie Gold) but failed to provide the name of a single Australian caught selling it in Bali. The lie has since been endlessly repeated, again always with no specific names, dates or trial results of the alleged aussie gold dealers/smugglers. Is Schapelle just the first one that got caught? Do the Bali police ( who are themselves known to sell drugs on Bali's beaches) not mind the competition? Here's a blog post analyzing and debunking this pernicious article(I am not the blogger). http://mooresaussiegold.blogspot.com
Nev...
Thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment. If I am not mistaken you have commented on another post in the past. Comments are always appreciated.
I appreciate the arguments regarding the Queensland Police investigation, and the fact that the Corby's hold certificates and all. So, just addressing this point alone. This is not doubt in the sense of beyond reasonable doubt, is it?
Let me provide an extreme example to illustrate the point. A man beats his wife, the wife never reports it and never seeks medical treatment, there is no record of the beatings ever taking place outside of the testimony of the wife, the husband then claims; hey, it cannot be true because it has never happened in the past, the police do not have anything on me, it is a frame!
Just because the police do not have any prior evidence and Corby has no prior convictions, according to the argument, then this is proof that she is innocent this time. I would say, not necessarily so.
I am not involved in the drug culture and really could not say with any authority what the cost is. I have not bought any and have not inquired.
I have heard that there is aussie wacky weed for sale in Indonesia. However, I have always wondered why and the need for it considering Indonesia has a pretty large garden in its own backyard, known as Aceh. Even so, this in and of itself is not proof that there is no trade and that it does not happen.
Agreed, there is no evidence that the weed was there before her departure. There is also no evidence that it was not, except for it being found in a boogie bag she claimed at the airport on arrival in Denpasar.
Agreed. Schapelle received bad advice and this was not only from Tampoe and Bakir, but also from her sister.
Yes, this is indeed a possible alternative theory for the alleged frame. However, proving reasonable doubt sometimes needs a little more than producing an alternative theory. This is where the baggage handlers did it theory came unstuck.
Yes, certainly wrong place and wrong time.
Nev, I am not convinced of her innocence. This is still the case even after reading the Aussie Gold blog that the Desert Rat has linked in. However, I would make the point that leaning towards guilt does not mean that I think she got what she deserved.
The sentence was too harsh, even by Indonesian standards, and the consequences of her actions with respect to any lessons that had to be learned have well and truly been learned. It is time that the Australian government make representations on her behalf and get her back to Australia and into a facility where she can be treated for her mental illness.
Desert Rat...
I am not sure that Schapelle's innocence and guilt, as well as the public perception in Australia, turned on this one article.
The best way to debunk the article would be to provide facts and names that can be cross-checked in another article.
Similar to the analogy that I used above in response to Nev. Maybe she is the first caught and maybe for her it is the first time she has been caught. Just because no one has been caught in the past and Schapelle had not be caught in the past does not by default mean it never happened in the past, does it?
If the Bali police are known to sell weed on the beaches of Bali then there must have been arrests and court cases that can be cited. I will check on my own, but if you have links then that would be much appreciated.
But, without a list of names and cases of Bali police officers caught in the act, then it is a similar claim to the one that Schapelle must be guilty because there is a photo of her with a drug dealer. A photograph taken in a Bali jail showing her talking to a fella looking to capitalize on her infamy is hardly proof of anything.
I have checked out the link, thanks.
Rob.
Gaile...
Yes?
So what you saying is that you never saw in the time you lived in Indonesia that you SAW and KNEW that DEALERS were supplimg MJ which came from Australia - origin proved?
Are you saying that you knew without a shadow of a doubt that MJ was being brougt into Indonesis for commercial and resale purposes?
Not for personal use?
In effect. With all of your years in Indonesia as you have said, that, knowing that locally sourced dope is available. Why then when would any Australian be male or female, take dope to Bali? when dope is readily available in Indonesia? It beggars belief. Tell me why anyone would do that?
It is well documented that MJ - dope is readily available on the streets in Indonesia/Bali/
Gaile...
What I am saying is that I am not involved in the drug culture. I have not asked about buying any "specially sourced" weed from Australia. And, I am also saying that I have no idea what it costs.
That said, I am saying I have heard rumours that there have been instances and I have even spoken to people who reckon they have bought the stuff. Can I say unequivocally one way or the other, no.
Once again, on the origin proved issue. I was not buying the stuff that I heard was Australian sourced. Therefore, I really was not into the idea of demanding DNA testing of the wacky weed to prove its origin. Most of the people I have spoken to aren't into requiring DNA tests on their stash.
Generally, if someone told them it was Aussie Gold they would probably believe it, even if it was Aceh silver or bronze.
I think I said I heard rumours, this would hardly be me saying that I am sure beyond any reasonable doubt and that I felt strongly enough about it that I went out looking for some with a view to getting it tested.
The rumours and gossip is out there, and it is what it is. I have not referred to it as fact because I cannot say beyond any reasonable doubt that it is true.
What I have said, and maintain, is that I really cannot see the need for importing weed when there are such large volumes available locally. However, this in and of itself does not prove that there is not a demand for it or a trade in it. I just do not know and to all intents and purposes really do not care, as I am not a smoker.
I once talked to an Indonesian fella who knew an Australian fella who was busted in Bali with wacky weed that he allegedly brought in with him from Australia. This is all hearsay and unverified.
I am guessing it is this sort of thing where the Aussie Gold "myth" originates.
Hope that clarifies where I am coming from.
Gaile...
Seems you got another comment in while I was typing my rather long response.
Yes, I am saying just that. Not so much that it beggars belief. Anything is possible even when it would appear to be totally unnecessary.
I really do not see the need for importing wacky weed. However, I am also saying that this in and of itself is not reasonable doubt.
Well done for listing those links, Rob, which tend to remain hidden.
Another aspect which has always annoyed me is the political direction of the media. Just look at the number of serious public interest issues covered in that PDF you list:
www.schapelle.net/propositions/hiddentruth.pdf
Incredible stuff. But what did the media do? They went after the dying father of a girl being crushed to death in a hell hole: and all they actually found was that he once smoked a joint at a party.
To those of us outside Australia, it is obscene. Something else obscene? Australia has a mentally ill citizen dying in a foreign pit yet the government doesn't lift a finger to help. What the hell is wrong with them?
Also, I assume you have seen this:
www.journoz.com/schapellecorby/ ?
Anyway, thanks again. She is 100% innocent by the way.... how much evidence of this do people actually need?
Anonymous...
I would be one of those people that needs a little more convincing that she is 100% innocent.
I haven't seen any evidence that she is innocent. What I have seen is speculation, alternative theories, and an attempt to create reasonable doubt, but I have not seen evidence.
I call things as I see them and understand them. So, if someone tells me there is a photo of Schapelle Corby and a drug dealer and that this photo is evidence of her guilt, then I call that as I see it - absolute crap.
I could be photographed with a lesbian but that does not make me a lesbian (no apologies for the extreme analogy).
So, similarly Corby being photographed with a drug dealer does not make her a drug dealer, a courier, or guilty.
I agree with the idea that it is time that the Australian government make moves to deal with the Corby "issue" in light of her mental state.
I do not agree that this involves bringing her home and releasing her. I believe that it involves bringing her home and putting her in a secure facility where she can serve whatever is agreed to be the remainder of her sentence and get the treatment she deserves as a human being.
Your profile, Rob, says to me that you are a lawyer. And you have said you were in Indonesia from approx 2002-2009. Would you extrapolate to me in what area of law you were involved in? Mining/ Mineral Exploration or Oil Exploration, Government/External Law or general practice for example? Or in a specific area other than that? Thanks. Gaile.
Gaile...
Does it matter?
I have actually spent the majority of my professional life in Indonesia since 1993.
I have been involved in all facets of Indonesian law, civil and criminal.
I also have worked extensively in international criminal, human rights, and humanitarian law.
Do I feel that I have sufficient understanding to comment on the legal process in Indonesia? Yes.
Hope this helps. Although, I would be interested to know why you need to know ;)
A very good comment here.
Quote:The best way to debunk the article would be to provide facts and names that can be cross-checked in another article.
Another thing which I do not think many people in Australia know NOW about is that Alan Jones, one of - if not the best known - RESPECTED radio broadcasters in Australia is in full support of Schapelle Corby. In the Woman's Day magazine last week he was quoted at length. As he has also done an interview via live radio. Available via Schapelle forum. Also an email that was sent to a forum member is posted on the forum.
This means Rob, as I am sure you will realise, that Schapelle's situation is not to be fooled around with now and not to be taken lightly.
For wont of anyone not having mentioned it here, Schapelle is in severe depression and has self-harmed herself already.
Do YOU want to see that? Do YOU want to help?
Will you just stand aside? I understand as you have said that you are a 'sitting on the fence guy'. That's ok. But will you let her self-destruct because of what the Indonesians (may or may not have caused)?
People like you can help. If you want to. Only if you want to. The rest of people will just be non-events.
Gaile
Rob. Our posts keep crossing.
Thanks for extrapolating. I guess you would not have started your blog if you had any doubts about Schapelle's handling by the Indonesians and her human rights.
The reason why I needed to know was to ask you - and understand why - you started this blog regarding Schapelle. Why did you?
Thanks. Gaile
Gaile...
I will check out the Alan Jones interview, and perhaps blog about it if I find it has something useful to add to what has already been said and written.
I don't know what else to say on Corby's condition. I have said consistently that I would be for her being brought back to Australia and placed in a secure facility to serve out the rest of her sentence and get the necessary treatment she needs.
I have consistently said the sentence is too harsh. I have consistently argued that she has been punished enough. I do not know the woman, but I have not been arguing that she got what she deserved nor that she should be allowed to kill herself.
I am hardly fooling around when it comes to her condition.
I am not sitting on the fence. In fact, I think that she is guilty. What I have consistently said is that I am not convinced of her innocence despite what I have read by you and others.
However, this should not be construed as meaning that I could not be convinced to change my mind. Yet, for me to change my mind I will need more than alternative scenarios, speculation, and conjecture. If there is evidence there, then let's have it.
If your question regarding my legal experience in Indonesia was aimed at whether I would be able to provide insights on Indonesian criminal law, the chances of Schapelle being transferred and the like, then yes, I am willing to help in whatever way I can.
Once again, I do not have to believe that she is innocent to understand that she does not deserve to die in jail for the crime she has been convicted of, or to want to help.
My blog is not an exclusively Schapelle Corby deal. I write about her because I think it is an interesting series of events. I think it serves as a warning to other Australians about how bad things can go. I write about it because I think it is important that the story remain in the minds of the general public.
I believe that it is time that the Australian Government became more proactive in seeing what is becoming an increasingly more tragic event, come to an end.
Finally, I write about Schapelle Corby because I think she has suffered terribly for her crime, and this suffering is now so very disproportionate to the initial crime.
Hope this sheds some light on my motivations.
While I believe that Schapelle is innocent, I understand that I can't prove it. But what I do see all over this case is reasonable doubt.
1) Schapelle has had no known connection with drugs or has any kind of police record.
2) Her family was cleared by QLD police of any connection to drug traffickers.
3) In order for her to be guilty, she would have had to place a pillow-case size clear platic bag filled with mj placed on top in an unlocked bag with her name on it through Brisbane International, Sydney Domestic, and Sydney Internation airport security without it being notice.
4) The bag of mj was also slashed which means the odor would have been obvious.
5) The bag was completely out of her control for around 12 hours and handled by several others.
6) Upon the discovery of the drugs, none of her companions bags were checked.
7) No weights were compared to those in Brisbane.
8) The immigration officer that found the drugs claimed that Schapelle said the drugs were hers, yet at the trial could not speak a word of English.
9) Formal requests to have the bag fingerprinted were denied by Indonesia.
10) Formal requests to have the mj DNA tested for origin were denied by Indonesia.
11) The drugs were contaminated by Indonesian officials including the presiding judge.
12) The judge bragged about never finding an accused drug trafficker innocent in over 500 trials, before the trial even began.
13) There was no investigation in Indonesia as to how or where she was going to alledgedly sell the drugs.
14) If the drugs came from Australia, then a crime was committed there as well. So why were there no raids by the AFP?
15) Why in a post 9/11 world was there no CCTV footage at any of the airports?
You may be able to hypothecially pick apart some of these, but as a whole? No way. Seems like everyone BUT Schapelle is acting suspicious.
The likely scenario (and no I can't prove it) is that the drugs were placed in her bag at the Bali airport (we know for a fact that Schapelle's bag was one of the first off) by airport workers looking for a bribe and credit for a "drug bust" (not exactly unheard of in Indonesia). Unfortunately, the Corby defense mucked things up and Indonesia went into defense mode and Australia went into damage control mode and Schapelle went into Hell.
I have received your email to me thank you Rob.
The most pertinent things you said were:
I don't know what else to say on Corby's condition. I have said consistently that I would be for her being brought back to Australia and placed in a secure facility to serve out the rest of her sentence and get the necessary treatment she needs.
I have consistently said the sentence is too harsh. I have consistently argued that she has been punished enough. I do not know the woman, but I have not been arguing that she got what she deserved nor that she should be allowed to kill herself.
I am not sitting on the fence. In fact, I think that she is guilty. What I have consistently said is that I am not convinced of her innocence despite what I have read by you and others.
Once again, I do not have to believe that she is innocent to understand that she does not deserve to die in jail for the crime she has been convicted of, or to want to help.
I believe that it is time that the Australian Government became more proactive in seeing what is becoming an increasingly more tragic event, come to an end.
Finally, I write about Schapelle Corby because I think she has suffered terribly for her crime, and this suffering is now so very disproportionate to the initial crime.
Hope this sheds some light on my motivations.
Thank you Rob. That is all we can look for and hope for. Compassion now. Supporters are sending World Wide Chain of Compassion letter. It does not matter if people think Schapelle is guilty or not - obviously we think otherwise - it is a matter of getting her back to Australia to serve a sentence rather than be in squalid conditions where she will surely die.
We, our supporters knew, a long time ago, that someone who is incarcerated for, say, 20 years, their life-span is about 10 years. That is a fact. We did not want to go there. But now, 5 years in for Schapelle we know it to be a fact. We just did not want to talk about it or even think it was a possibility.
And now it is.
I hope you will help.
Thanks
Gaile
KD...
Yes, if I was so inclined I could go through them one by one and pick them apart for why they would not fly in a legal sense. I am not so inclined as I really do not see the point.
However, what you seem to be relying on is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence, hearsay, conjecture, and speculation.
Is it enough to be reasonable doubt? Maybe, maybe not. Even reasonable doubt requires some circumstantial evidence to get a good run. This is why the baggage handlers did it theory died almost as quickly as it came about.
All I would say is that likely scenarios prove nothing. There really is nothing more that I feel I can say on the likely scenarios front.
I believe that the issue has gone beyond whether Schapelle is innocent or guilty. Her current plight demands more immediate attention.
It needs this attention from both Indonesian and Australian authorities.
I am not a shrink, but the girl seems to be suffering serious mental anguish, and is supposedly harming herself. This must be dealt with sooner rather than later.
Gaile...
I am always contactable at rob[dot]baiton[at]gmail[dot]com
Ah, but based on some of your responses to other comments, I could to argue that you too are realying preponderance of circumstantial evidence, hearsay, conjecture, and speculation. So I think we have a draw.
And another problem as you just demonstrated is that the questions I brought up have been brought up many times before, by many others yet no one seems inclinded or able to address them.
Yes, in a legal sense I'm sure that there would be more needed to present these questions in a court room. But a courtroom is no longer an option. However, public support would go a long way in getting Schapelle home which needs to happen quckly. This is where reasonable doubt goes a long way in getting people on board and pushing their government officials to do something.
The average person doesn't know the ins and outs of the legal world, but what I brought up are legitimate questions might just get someone to think beyond the media crap they have been fed and realize that no one should lose their freedom, mind, and possibley their life when there is more than enough reasonable doubt that she acctually committed a crime.
KD...
I would never concede a draw :D
Is that a challenge to address them one by one. I don't feel inclined because I cannot see the point. This is particularly so when you say a court is not an option any longer.
My lack of inclination is not because I cannot do it one by one. I am not the person to get into this debate with (then again, maybe I am :D).
I am not sure that I agree that you need reasonable doubt to get people on board. The simple fact that Schapelle Corby is an Australian citizen in a foreign jail under severe stress and suffering from a diagnosed mental illness that has led her to self-harm must be enough to convince people that enough is enough.
That is just my opinion though.
But, lemme know if you seriously want me to address each of these issues you raised one at a time.
Rob,
Thanks for offering to go through my points, as you are the first one I've encountered in many many attempts to make that offer. So, hats off to you. : )
But as I think we both agree, you would address these in a legal sense so if I were using this strategy in a courtroom then yes I would be eager to take you up on your kind offer. However, as we both know, at this time in this case courtrooms are a thing of the past.
It is of my opinion that quiet diplomacy is what will bring Schapelle home. I also believe that the Prisoner Transfer Agreement argument is just an excuse. You don't need to look much further than the recent situations involving the US and N. Korea and Myanmar to know that.
I also believe that to get the Australian government to get serious about this there needs to be some kind of push from the general public. It's my belief that people would be more willing to push if they believe that Schapelle is either innocent or that there's reasonable doubt about her guilt. That's why I'm pushing the reasonable doubt angle.
I know that you believe she's guilty, but are still willing to voice your belief that it's time to bring her home, (again, hats off) but I think you're probably in the minority of the "she's guilty camp".
But priority #1 right now is to get her home, so anything you can do to help acheive that goal is more than welcome. : )
Rob
We all have our own opinions and there are years of litigation and reams of paper to go through if we want to. That facts are a) there are die hard people who are convinced she is guilty b) there are those who are unsure and c) there are supporters who believe she is innocent. That's the bottom line. Taking all of that into account we must consider what the successive governments in Ausralia have not done/should have done to date. Taking that into account, and bearing that in mind - should Schapelle be left to die in Indonesia for 4.2kgs of grass? I think not.
KD...
This has been my point all along. That in terms of whether she is innocent or guilty is now irrelevant to the much more important point of ensuring that she gets the necessary treatment to survive the remainder of this ordeal.
The court of public opinion is going to be a much easier task than a legal one. However, perhaps easier is not the right word. A concerted and coordinated effort will be required.
A prisoner exchange is not necessary. I have made this point often. Diplomacy is. I have also been saying pretty regularly that it is time for the Australian government to be proactive on this one.
Gaile...
I think you know that I agree with the proposition that Corby does not deserve to die in a Balinese prison.
Rob your wife beater parallel only works until you do a little investigating. If there was no previous police reports of abuse, the police could then ask friends, neighbours, family, local shopkeepers and family doctors for any previous history of violence or injuries.
In the Corby case not only couldn't the police find a link, Channel Seven employed private investigators to find dirt on the family. Nine SBS Ten and the ABC would of paid huge sums to anyone that would come forward to testify. There would have been dopers coming out of the woodwork trying to cash in, had they really been able to buy drugs from the family. The family have lived under a microscope.
As far as all the evidence to support Schapelle's innocence being circumstantial, every piece of solid evidence was denied.
There is no evidence that the marijuana was ever in Australia.
There is no evidence that she put the marijuana in the bag or that she had any knowledge of the marijuana.
She was convicted solely because the marijuana was found in her unlocked bag, which she had no control over for 11 hours and the testimony of a customs officer that can't speak english, who stated she admitted the drugs were her's in english. Schapelle asked for the cctv above the customs counter to prove her version of events. Denied!
Shun...
Thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment. Comments are always appreciated.
Nothing that you have said about Schapelle or the Corby family is new. I have heard all these arguments before. In fact, they have been made by commenters to this thread already.
The analogy works in the very simple sense. For you to be right you must assume that family, friends, and neighbours are aware of the violence or have been told about it. This assumption is not always one that holds true.
That aside, you are welcome to your opinion and you are always welcome to share it here.
I have made my position clear on the case, and have answered the issues you have posed elsewhere. So, I do not see the need to rehash those responses here.
Once again, thanks for dropping by.
http://www.rose.id.au/schapellecorby/
Rob. Hello. I think you should keep an 'open mind' on this. Shun spoke to Alan Jones. As I have told you, Alan Jones is in complete support of Schapelle, both by radio interview and Woman's Day article 2 weeks ago.
I have a question for you Rob.
What do YOU think that YOU could and would do to bring Schapelle home to Australia?
Gaile...
Funnily enough, thinking that Corby is guilty does not mean I do not have an open mind with the prospect that she is innocent. To the contrary, everything that I have said to date is indicative of someone who can be convinced.
All of the points that Shun has made in her comment I have addressed elsewhere on this blog and other places in cyberspace.
I really do not see the point of rehashing the arguments against these points over and over again.
But, I have never argued that Schapelle Corby is guilty because her family are drug dealers. There are rumors to that end. But rumors do not hold water for me. In any event, just because your family does drugs or are dealers does not make you a drug user or dealer by default.
Unfortunately, many of the comments here, and in other places, dealing with the case are blinded by the passion for one's point either way on innocence or guilt.
I have checked out the link. Thanks for inserting it.
Rob. I DO see the point and I beg to differ.
You said: I really do not see the point of rehashing the arguments against these points over and over again.
I say that these points ARE to be discussed. You, like the majority of people are saying - "no she is guilty and all done and dusted" because the Indonesians SAID SO. I disagree.
I say there is complete injustice and complicity between the Australian and Indonesian Governments and the Indonesian Customs Officers and the Indonesian Police.
I challenge you to prove to me otherwise that this was not the case. Or could not have been the case.
You lived there. You are a lawyer. I want you to prove to me that there is absolutely NO WAY that Schapelle Corby was not victimised and could be possibly innocent.
You tell me WHY she can be guilty Rob. Unequivocally.
Rob. You dissapoint me to even think that you would take notice of rumours.
Here is the definition of 'a rumour'
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4ADFA_enAU344AU344&defl=en&q=define:rumour&ei=IqawSuO8Hoj8tQOE553qDQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Gaile...
To be perfectly honest, I am not sure that I am all that worried that I disappoint you. I do not know you from eve. I know you only marginally better than Schapelle Corby.
Maybe you need to go back and re-read my comment and exactly what it was I said about the rumours. Because, having re-read it myself to check what I wrote, it seems pretty clear that I gave no credence to the rumours. I think what I said was that "rumours do not hold any water".
To each their own on what that means. But, I would reckon that the following sentences after that make it pretty clear.
The reason I do not see the point in rehashing the same old stuff is for this very reason. I am not going to convince you no matter what I say or write. You are convinced that Schapelle is innocent and any one who begs to differ does not understand or is operating under a partial set of facts. So, simply, what's the point?
I, on the other hand could be convinced that the young woman is innocent. I have an open mind on this. What is before the courts and what is provable, at least in my mind, permits me to argue that she is guilty.
Gaile...(part II)
What you have offered are "facts" which you consider prove reasonable doubt. Many of the facts are premised on the "fact" that all Indonesians are corrupt, all Indonesians who work for the Indonesian government have an agenda, and that Schapelle was targeted, and then a conspiracy was put into place that saw the Indonesian and Australian governments working collaboratively to ensure that Scahapelle Corby never saw the light of day.
Now, if I have to prove unequivocally that my belief in her guilt (on what is available and verifiable), then it would be only fair that you be required to do the same. Can you see why I really not into covering the same ground over and over and over and over again.
To be honest, on what "evidence", and I use the term loosely, is available I can make the argument that the prosecution has satisfied the burden of proof for a conviction. I can also make an argument that the defense has not done enough to create reasonable doubt.
Is this sufficient to satisfy you that there is absolutely no way that Schapelle Corby is innocent. My guess would be that it would not. To be honest anything is possible. However, it is one thing to be possible, it is a whole other thing to give the possibility enough legs that it creates reasonable doubt.
It is also worth noting that the Indonesian system is a civil law one and not a common law one like in Australia. So, the procedures and mechanisms are not exactly the same.
I don't think that if you took the time to read all the posts I have done on this issue over time that you will find that I have said this is "done and dusted".
Although, that said in a legal sense from the Indonesian perspective it is pretty much so. The only viable legal recourse now without new evidence would be clemency (pardon) from the president. What my experience and knowledge tells me is that this would require an admission of guilt.
To rehash...Can I prove that she is unequivocally guilty, No. Do I have to, probably not. Can I make an argument that based on the available "evidence" there is enough to convict, I can. Is that unequivocal, no. Anything is possible.
Can you prove to me that she is unequivocally innocent, probably not. Could you do enough to convince me that there is a probability of innocence, maybe (depends on what you have as "evidence" and it needs to be more than what has been put forward to date).
Strangely enough this post actually started out about Tampoe and how his behaviour sealed Corby's fate. And, how what transpired afterward saw the fella struck off the roll. But I am happy to roll with the punches as far as comments go.
That said, I am not sure where else this thread can go from here.
As I said, I am more than happy to help with insights on how the law and the legal system worked in this case. And, in any other way that I can. Although, I think I am done with arguing the case of why she is guilty because there are more important issues at stake at this particular point in time, like Schapelle Corby's well-being.
I agree with you Nev. The MJ being put there as aversion for heavier drugs coming through.
Rob Balton said 'if Bali police were selling MJ on beaches there would be court cases'- maybe not, Rob, perhaps no one busts them because it's okay for them to do it.
Holden...
Thanks for dropping by an leaving a comment. Comments are always appreciated.
I don't know whether to feel a little battered and bruised seeing I am in the minority on my own blog. Such is life.
Nev's theory is an interesting one. However, it is, and remains, a theory to date. At least with respect to Schapelle and her case. Is it possible? Anything is possible.
Has someone been able to prove the hypothesis to date, not that I know of. If they could then this would be grounds for the case to be reopened and I would be blogging profusely about it and lobbying anyone and everyone that I could to see Corby get another day in court (and released pending the outcome of any subsequent hearing).
Holden, I have been asked numerous times to prove unequivocally that Corby is guilty. I don't know that I could convince you even if I thought it was unequivocal. That said, I truly believe anything is possible, but going on the available evidence there was enough to convict.
Are there points that can be debated such as fingerprints, DNA testing of the weed, and the like, yes. Do these prove reasonable doubt? I do not think that they do.
Balinese police are no more permitted to sell drugs on the beach than would an Australian copper on a beach in Australia.
To each their own.
I think what some of the confusion is that Rob is coming from a strictly legal standpoint in his "guilty" stand. Based on the Indonesian judicial system, enough pieces were present to get a conviction.
However, as I think we can all agree, a conviction (no matter if you're in Indonesia, Australia, US, etc.) does not necessarily equal guilt. Plus, Indonesia's system does not require the burden of proof that would be required to get a conviction from a jury in Australia (at least based on what was presented).
Hi Rob, As you have already stated; you cannot prove Schapelle's guilt,anymore than I could prove her innocence. Perhaps the real question should be "Why is this?" The answer is that no evidence exists any longer that could prove either viewpoint. This in turn raises it's own question; "Why not?"
When the accused is denied access to all evidence that could clear them and clearly set out court procedures are ignored in direct contravention of KUHAP ,serious doubt as to the soundness of this conviction must remain.
You say that she should be returned to Australia to recieve treatment, but serve out her sentence in a jail here. I would suggest that any treatment would be negated by her realization that those who failed to uphold her human rights in the first place, had become her de-facto jailers.
In view of the fact that the family have been cleared of drug involvement by the AFP and the Queensland Police : the financial might of CHs7&9 + the ABC
+the OZ. press have failed to produce evidence of wrongdoing; why are you of the opinion that Ms Corby is guilty?
Brian.
Hi Rob,
I think Robin Tampoe had good intentions when he offered to represent Schapelle Corby. I just think he didn't know what he was really getting into perhaps.
Hi Rob
When you say... Going on the available evidence there was enough to convict.....
The Marijuana was in her unlocked bag,that is one piece of evidence.
The second piece could have been DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, cctv footage from Ngurah Rai airport or the combined baggage weight to show a discrepancy from check in.
All of this was discarded for the
testimony of the customs officer Winata. His testimony that Schapelle stated that the drugs were hers is what convicted her.
Are you aware that the defence were not permitted to cross examine Winata and his competency in english was not permitted to be challenged?
Winata testified that Schapelle stated that the marijuana was hers.
Yet Winata took Schapelle's brother James into custody and Schapelle could of walked out of the airport with Ally and Katrina.
No mention of this was brought up at trial as the defence were not permitted to cross examine an officer of the court.
When Schapelle requested the cctv footage to verify her version of events, the judge ruled it was unnecessary.
Schapelle's efforts to prove her innocence were thwarted at every turn and yet you say there is enough evidence to convict.
If Schapelle stated the drugs were hers, WHY did he take James into custody?
It was only when they found that James was a minor, that they pointed their attention to Schapelle.
KD...
Yes, in a strictly legal sense.
Yes, a conviction does not always equate to guilt. The various innocence projects have proven this beyond a reasonable doubt.
On the burden of proof. I would also agree to a certain extent. The Indonesian system is probably not geared towards exploring every possible alternative scenario and having evidence presented on each.
Generally, the burden on the prosecution is to present their "evidence" and the defense sets out to refute that. The burden is to simply produce two pieces of evidence that would convince a judge of guilt.
So, with respect to the previous paragraph on the Indonesian system, the prosecution in a similar case in Australia would have undoubtedly done things differently (I would have done things differently) in terms of adducing a lot more than a minimum two pieces of evidence.
Islandman / Brian (Part I)...
Thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment. Comments are always appreciated. Although, I have to say I am starting to feel a little bit under siege and like I may in fact be the only one who is willing to make an argument for guilt in a strict legal sense.
Yes, this is what I have said in a certain sense. I think, more specifically, the comments were along the lines of not being able to prove guilt to a level that would satisfy those who believe her to be innocent.
I would disagree though that the intent of what I said was that she was not guilty. However, I am open-minded enough to be convinced of innocence.
The fact that DNA evidence was not obtained is interesting, perhaps even problematic, because on face value it would seemingly close this case one way or the other.
I would have argued that the DNA evidence would not only have been possible in terms of the weed, but if Corby or one of her family had handled the weed or the bag, then fingerprints and perhaps even microscopic skin samples would have been present.
Yet, the fact that neither was done does not necessarily cast reasonable doubt. It does, though, I agree, raise questions as to why?
I am guessing that if I ask specifically which procedures and which articles of the KUHAP you refer to that you will enlighten me?
The serious doubts on the soundness of this conviction in an Indonesian sense?
This case has been under a pretty harsh spotlight from the outset and has been subject to a number of appeals and reviews. If there are serious doubts then why is it that none of the appeals have been successful?
Is the suggestion that this is a conspiracy across the whole judicial process and signed off on by the Indonesian and Australian governments? Or is it merely a case that everyone knows that Indonesia is a corrupt place so there has to be serious doubts on any conviction?
Islandman / Brian (Part II)...
The human rights to which you refer would be to a "fair" and speedy trial? With fair referring to access to all the "evidence" allegedly arrayed against you in order to develop an active and reasonable defense.
Or, are there human rights she has as an Australian citizen arrested abroad that the Australian government failed to recognize or uphold?
The Australian government has always said that Australian citizens will be offered consular assistance, but this must always be interpreted as, if you are accused of breaking the laws of the country that you are visiting then you are at the mercy of those laws. Whether this is right or wrong in a human rights sense is another debate.
Yes, I am saying that it is time for her to return to Australia and get the treatment she needs. I cannot see any motivation for a doctor of Dr. Phillips standing to jeopardize his professional credibility by lying about Corby's condition.
So, statements from the Indonesian shrink that everything is fine and dandy are self-serving.
Best case scenario would be that the Indonesian government shows some compassion and releases her for return to Australia and she gets treatment here and there is no additional time to be served.
The point I have been making, and perhaps it has not been made as clearly on this thread, is that I do not see a clemency / pardon / release without some admission of guilt on Corby's part.
Although, I think some pro-active approaches on the part of the Australian government might see a deal struck that Corby return to Australia for treatment and serve out an agreed remaining term of imprisonment.
I do not think that I have ever said that this is a family problem in the sense that the other Corby's have been accused of being drug dealers and therefore by default this is proof of Schapelle Corby's guilt. It is not proof of anything.
I really do not know how to say this more clearly than I already have numerous times in this thread and numerous times in other threads around cyberspace.
I appreciate that the AFP and Queensland police have cleared the Corby's and also your point on the local Australian press extending considerable sums to dig up dirt that they could not find. The Jodie Power case being a case in point.
But with all due respect, is your argument that because of the above acknowledgment and the failure of the press to gain dirt that she did not do it?
Is it not possible that this was a one off or a first time offense?
Why do I think she is guilty? I think that it has been established that I think her guilt has been proven in a strict legal sense to satisfy the Indonesian judicial system.
Are there arguments on the quality of that legal system and whether she would have been convicted with a similar set of "facts" in Australia are different debates.
As I said, if you can point me to the specific KUHAP article and procedures to which you refer, then I am more than likely to make a specific post on this blog (not that many people read it) and analyze those issues.
DFK...
Perhaps.
It was pretty clear, pretty quickly, that he was in over his head.
Shun...
Are you saying that there were not two pieces of evidence presented to convict Schapelle?
That there was only one piece of evidence presented which was that Schapelle said the drugs were hers and the conviction is based solely on this testimony?
Yes, the weed was in her unlocked boogie board bag. Yes, the other things that you mention could have been adduced in court had they either been granted or were available.
Granted in the sense of permitting the weed to be DNA tested (my understanding is that the Australian government would not have needed very much of a sample to do this).
Or, available in the sense of the CCTV footage (my understanding was that there was not any available because none was recorded or it had been recorded over, aside from any orders from the judge that it was not necessary).
Yes, I was (am) aware that there were issues regarding the competency generally, and English competency specifically, of the relevant immigration and customs officials involved.
Yes, I was also aware of the fact that JK was the first target, and that Schapelle walked over and claimed the boogie board bag as hers. In hindsight, perhaps she should have kept walking.
Shun, with all due respect to your arguments, the prosecution was required to come up with two pieces of evidence that convinced the panel of judges that Schapelle was guilty as charged, they did this.
Now, would this have been sufficient in an Australian court. No. The defense would have been afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the witness and raise the competency issue at the very least.
Yet, having taken a battering and feeling a little bruised after these series of encounters with those steadfast in their belief that Schapelle is innocent, I am putting together another post exploring all of the problems with the conviction. This might take a little while as I am trying to track down a copy of all of the decisions from day one.
I am not convinced she is innocent (it is possible for the conviction to be problematic or flawed and the accused to still be guilty), but I am more than happy to put into play why it is time she should come home.
Hi Rob,
I used to think that Schapelle was guilty. Now I believe she is enduring a miscarriage of justice.
Brad...
Thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment. Comments are always appreciated.
I am sure that you are not the only one. I am also sure that many of those that have commented on this thread hope that there are more people like you out there in the real world.
Hi again Rob
During the trial when Winata testified that Schapelle was reluctant to open the bag. Schapelle couldn't help herself,she jumped up and yelled "he's lying!" She then requested the cctv footage be brought into evidence to prove her version. Chief judge Linton Sirait replied "we will get it if we need it" It was never admitted into evidence despite it being probably the most vital piece of evidence that was available. There would have been no doubt who was telling the truth. If Winata was telling the truth what possible reason could there be for not showing it?
To me, this screams that the tape would have proved Winata was lieing.
What civilised court would not allow evidence that would prove the prosecutions case beyond doubt?
Shun...
With a bit of luck I may be able to get a hold of copies of the decisions. They normally are given to the relevant parties and their lawyers.
And with even more luck a copy of some of the transcripts. I will write about what I find out.
Perhaps to be clear, I understand the points you are making and what you believe they say about the process and whether there was and continues to be a miscarriage of justice. I get all that.
I would also agree with the proposition that if the CCTV footage is available, why not use it. This would be the case even if the CCTV footage was neutral as to who was lying and who was telling the truth.
It probably was a critical piece of the puzzle for that particular set of facts.
Once again, and to be clear, I am not dismissing your points as invalid or unworthy. I had and continue to argue why the conviction was possible under Indonesian law. I have not argued that there are not problems.
To illustrate this point. Linton Sirait as the Chief Judge, along with the other judges on the panel are the arbiters of the facts in a civil law system. Therefore, they have the discretion to decide when they have been suitably "convinced" of a certain fact.
This explains the response of, "we will get it if we need it". This implies that if the testimony of the witness is unconvincing then the judges have the discretion to go and look at other supporting 'evidence' in order to find the convincing that they need.
Is this a comparable standard to Australia or an Australian court, I would suggest, not. I would imagine that the Australian court would grant a little more leeway for cross-examination and would probably demand a viewing of the CCTV irrespective of what it shows. This might be done with or without the jury depending on the probative evidentiary nature or value of the video.
I can, and perhaps this will be the notion explored in the next post I do on Schapelle, argue why the conviction is flawed, why it is dangerous, and why it should not be allowed to stand.
(I can do this without necessarily being convinced of her innocence, which is what I have said all along)
Had she engaged experienced lawyers she wouldn't be in this mess.
Yes DFK
And perhaps this is where the Australian Government via the Consulate in Indonesia have stepped in immediately and got rid of Tampoe and Bakir. In fact, if that had happened Tampoe and Bakir would not have got involved in the first place. Refer my 'perhaps' above - should read - SHOULD HAVE. But no. That would not have interfering in the judicial processes of another country, that would have been providing the best support the Australian government should have given to one of their citizens.
DFK...
Almost certainly she would not be where she is now.
Interestingly, the choice to go with Hotman Paris for while was also misguided. This is no disrespect to his skills as a lawyer and advocate, but the case gave him an opportunity to indulge in his two favorite past times; being in the media spotlight and bashing Australia.
Gaile...
To be honest consular support I would argue is an obligation incumbent upon the Australian government when there citizens get into trouble overseas, no matter what the trouble.
Recommending good local lawyers / advocates is so far from meddling in the sovereign affairs of a foreign state that it is an excuse of the softest kind, weak actually, on the part of the Australian government.
Hi Rob,
I can see you are a hard man to convince that Schapelle is innocent.I am a staunch Schapelle Corby supporter, and a very close family friend.
Indonesian Law does require only two pieces of evidence to convict.
On the charge of possession & importation, the Prosecution had the marijuana as primary evidence. Their ONLY secondary evidence was the testimony of two Customs Officers and two Police Officers.
If these men were lying, their secondary evidence would have been inadmissible, and Schapelle could not have been convicted.
The testimony these men gave was totally at odds with the testimony given by Schapelle in relation to what transpired when the boogie-board bag was placed on the customs counter. It was her word versus theirs.
Schapelle begged the Judge to allow the footage from the camera above the customs counter to be introduced into court as evidence, to prove that she was telling the truth, and these men were lying.
Given the utter importance of this footage, to both the Prosecution’s case, and the case for the Defence, don’t you think that the Judge should have allowed it, should have insisted on it in fact?
Don’t you find it odd that the Prosecution did not ask for this footage themselves? Were these men trying to prove that Schapelle was guilty, or simply say she was, knowing that the Judge, who had never acquitted anyone in over 500 previous drug related cases, was statistically almost certain to find Schapelle guilty?
Even though the following had the potential to prove guilt, if she was guilty, Schapelle asked for them all:
Fingerprinting of the plastic bags, denied by both the Police and the Judge.
Weighing her bags and the drugs, and comparing this weight with the checked in weight, denied by the Police.
Forensic testing of the drugs to establish their country of origin, denied by the Police.
Finally, after being denied all of the above, she was denied CCTV footage to prove that she was telling the truth and that the Prosecution’s witnesses were lying.
Can you explain why the Balinese Police refused to test the marijuana for country of origin, and why they refused to allow the AFP to do it?
Can you explain why they burned, untested, ALL the marijuana in March 2006, before Schapelle’s avenues of appeal had been exhausted, bearing in mind that International Law requires a sample of evidence to be preserved?
Could it be that the marijuana was Indonesian, and they didn’t want this fact revealed?
On the charge of trafficking, the Prosecution had the marijuana but NO secondary evidence. No link between Schapelle and a drug distribution network in Bali was proven. No investigation of any kind was carried out in Bali, and during the entire case no mention was made of a single person believed to be involved with Schapelle in disposing of the drugs.
This did not stop the Judges from finding her guilty of trafficking, which allowed them to impose a 20 year sentence, instead of the maximum 10 years permitted under Indonesian Law for possession and importation alone.
Even by your standards, which demands iron clad proof of innocence before you will believe it; do you not see anything amiss with Schapelle’s case?
A young woman with no criminal record, who does not use illicit drugs (proven through blood and urine tests following her arrest), and with no financial capacity to purchase them, suddenly decides to create history by being the first person ever to export marijuana from Australia to Bali.
She does this by placing them on ON TOP of her boogie-board (no effort made to conceal them), in an unlocked boogie-board bag, with her name clearly written on it.
Upon arrest she then begs for every kind of investigation that she can think of, investigation that will only further incriminate her if she is guilty.
She refuses to admit guilt, even when there would have been sentencing advantages in doing so.
Even now, when she is suffering unspeakably, and seriously mentally ill, she steadfastly maintains her innocence.
Rob - did you mean "agree"? Instead of argue?
At a very late stage the Australian Government offered the services of QC's (from Australia). That possibility as a result of the very vociference of supporters at that late stage.
I have been meaning to ask you about Hotman. Such a joke. carrying around a gold-plated pistol and even getting some singer/actress to support Schapelle. That was such a joke. Yes to further his own ends in a highly visible case was his intention, in my opinion.
And yes. It was the 'mantra' of the Australian government/s that "we cannot interfere in the judicial processes of another country".
Having the most appropriate legal representation, whether had been Indonesian legal representation(which would have been wise)working together with Australian solicitors would have been the best way, and the Australian Government consisted in their 'mantra'. In my opinion the lack of providing such suitable legal representation for Schapelle from the outset - means that the Australian Government in a covert manner - aided and abetted in Schapelle's conviction and lack of success during her appeal. And hence in her current health situation.
Here is an example. Let's say that some mining company (and we have a recent situation with the Chinese government accusing an Australian who was an executive of a mining company and living in China, whilst being an Australian citizen). That is an extreme situation but let us say that a similar thing happened and such a person was incarcerated in the US or Canada, or indeed the UK. I am sure that the Australian Government would be giving all assistance. At the instigation of the mining company (based here). and they would get it from the Government for sure.
But Schapelle? No. An expendable pawn in the politics between Indonesia and Australia.
For example, PM Rudd made a phone call to SBY last weekend I think it was - to try and smooth over the waters regarding the AFP investigation into the Balibo 5. (You will find it on google).I don't want to get off topic here. That is just an example. Why could he not do the same for Schapelle, especially now?
Since they are such good pals - why can't he pick up the phone and call SBY for Schapelle?
A Presidential pardon on compassionate grounds?
Simba...
Thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment. I cannot remember if you have commented elsewhere, but thanks for this one. Comments are always appreciated.
I have read your blog.
I don't know that I am that hard to convince that Schapelle is innocent. Before this whole thread got out of control in the to and froing, my argument was always that I believed her to be guilty.
This was always a strict legal interpretation of whether or not the prosecution had met the burden for an Indonesian court. I still believe that it did.
This should not be construed as meaning that there are not issues with the conviction. Issues in this case referring to the possibility that an argument can be made that the verdict is so flawed that it is unsustainable.
I have been, admittedly, living in my own little world and had never really bothered to write a post exploring these flaws. However, I am intending to do that now that so many of you have called me out on the guilt front.
I am not convinced that she did not do it. For me whether she did or did not can be separated from the legal issues of the trial.
The arguments regarding motive that you raise in your blog make sense, but by and of themselves do not automatically prove innocence. People sometimes do stupid things even where there is no obvious motive to do so.
The UN funding angle is also an interesting one that I am guessing could be verified by finding out whether that funding was forthcoming.
Gaile...
Nope, meant argue.
There are perfectly capable lawyers in Indonesia. There was really no necessity for Australian lawyers to be very publicly involved.
Indeed. Why doesn't the PM make that call?
OK. I certainly agree there were lawyers in Indonesia. It was up to the Australian Government to find them. The Corby family, primarily Schapelle herself, Mercedes, and Schapelle's mum were co-erced by unscrupulous character preying on a family who had never been exposed to anything like this in their life. In a strange country. This is where the Australian Government should have been very pro-active. It could even have been yourself.
Gaile...
This is what I meant by arguing that consular assistance must include the Embassy (or the nearest Consulate) supplying a list of local lawyers with acknowledged expertise in certain matters.
This is hardly interfering in the sovereign rights of a nation to administer its own affairs.
It could have been. But Tampoe and Bakir were a little quicker off the blocks.
I should probably preface this blog by explaining that I am Schapelle's uncle and was in Bali that weekend for Mercedes 30th. When Schapelle was first arrested she was taken to Polda Police Station, here she was met by consular official Brent Hall.
Schapelle asked him if she should ask for the mj to be DNA tested for country of origin. He said "please don't ask me that."
She tried again, he once again said "please don't ask me that it could mean my job" a third time she asked his advice. This time he said "don't get the mj tested"
When Schapelle related this to me the next day I thought ... fair enough he may not want to take the chance that the mj was possibly grown in Queensland which could give the prosecution more evidence,
after all the death penalty was a real threat at this early stage.
What I couldn't fathom, was why wouldn't he just say don't test the drugs in the first place.
Surely that was part of his job description, to give advice.
Why could he get into trouble for telling her not to test the drugs?
It is only with hindsight that his words become sinister.
I now believe he was told to advice Schapelle not to have the drugs tested. He didn't want to give her bad advice, but when she pressed him he had to do as he was told. If he was told to tell her not to test the drugs, then his hesitation fits perfectly.
You see Rob when you are on the inside looking out at all the events that have transpired, it is chrystal clear that Schapelle is innocent and that the government knew this from the very beginning.
The media have also colluded with the government, Matthew Moore's Aussie Gold is a good example of this. Look at the timing of his article, his story was a complete fabrication designed to fool the Australian public into believing that Australian marijuana was been freely sold in Bali to expats.
Total rubbish and yet not one journalist has ever challenged this article. This article put us in league with other drug yielding countries like Thailand and Columbia and yet no politician or police force voiced any concern.
I have no doubt that if you do the research Rob, you will also become a staunch supporter. I have yet to meet a person educated in the facts of what has transpired and is transpiring, that still believes in her guilt.
That is very very interesting Rob. To the best of my knowledge this was not done by the Australian Government. There is no evidence of this having happened to the best of my recall. Rather, I recall that Bakir 'the white crusador/knight' and side-pal solicitor Tampoe decided that they were going to represent and "rescue" Schapelle.
The best references about Bakir you can see here.
http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADFA_enAU344AU344&q=Schapelle+corby+white+knight+bakir
The fact is that Bakir said at one stage that his receptionist/secretary alerted him to a girl from the Gold Coast in Australia and that he decided to take up the cudgeon. Also, lost in time/cyberspace now, is that I believe that Bakir owed Tampoe about $90,000 in fees for either legal and/or real estate dealings. This was Bakir's way of paying off the $90,000 by paying Tampoe.
btw Rob. Did you say that neither of them do now reside on the Gold Coast, QLD, Australia? Interesting.
Shun...
I appreciate the upfront on the uncle side. But, it does give you a much closer perspective to the events as they unfolded. I also appreciate that. I also respect your position as to the inside looking out.
It is bizarre that he thinks it would cost him his job. I would agree that the only way this could have cost him his job was if he was advised to assist only in particular ways. Alternatively, there was a fear at the DFAT that they did not want to be seen to be too pro-active on this one.
In some ways, I should have been paying more attention at the time. Hindsight is always 20/20 which is not all that useful now.
The way I would have seen it, was that no matter what the result / outcome the origin of the drugs was vital. If the Indonesian authorities refused to provide a sample then this could have been used in support of the alternative theories that are now being advocated that these particular plants originated in Bali.
Even if the DNA tests showed that the plants originated in Queensland this would not have been fatal to the case at that point in time.
The testing of the drugs could have put paid to the Moore article as well. To be honest, I have heard rumors about Australian weed being sold in Indonesia (not just in Bali) but in all the years of having lived there, as I said in response to one of Gaile's comments, would not be able to say that I had ever seen any.
I really do not see the point anyway in importing weed to a place like Indonesia. The hydroponic arguments don't hold water because Indonesia would seem more than capable of mastering hydroponic technology.
Thanks for sharing.
Gaile...
No idea what either of these individuals are up to.
Yep. it is like taking sand to the Saraha Desert.
Not logical. Nothing correlates at all if you look and think about the situation.
These 'individuals'. Tampoe I think will go 'to ground'. Bakir will 'rise again'. He has a brother I believe on the Gold Coast who is fairly 'high profile' in his own right. Have read about that.
Gaile...
I am guessing that Tampoe needs to find a new line of work. Outside of that, I really not that interested in what either of them are doing.
I think what some of the confusion is that Rob is coming from a strictly legal standpoint in his "guilty" stand. Based on the Indonesian judicial system, enough pieces were present to get a conviction.
However, as I think we can all agree, a conviction (no matter if you're in Indonesia, Australia, US, etc.) does not necessarily equal guilt. Plus, Indonesia's system does not require the burden of proof that would be required to get a conviction from a jury in Australia (at least based on what was presented).
KD: With due respect, you are also making a comment from a purely legalistic view. Are you a lawyer? I think that what Rob and others are stating here is that Indonesian judicial system has 'burden of doubt'. You need to be more specific in your comments so that we can address each individually.
What we need to do is address the situation/s individually, not the whole process, so that we can discuss them.
That is, they are to be discussed rather than a 'blanket umbrella'. It is time to discuss the individual facts rather than the whole 'process'.
Points of law etc et al are for the jurisdiction and that is not what is being discussed here. I leave that to the lawyers.
I should make sure that I preface my comments and unable to quote what I was doing for KD's comments. So. My previous post related to her previous post above mine. I am sure you can follow it.
Thanks
Gaile
Gaile...
I got it. This is now my most popular post in terms of comments. I am not sure that Robin Tampoe deserves it.
I will leave KD to answer the questions posed.
Although, I am not so sure about the burden of doubt point. I think I was talking about the burden of proof and the idea that two pieces of evidence that convince the judge are sufficient.
We have been arguing / debating / discussing, at least I thought we were, about the sufficiency of those pieces of evidence and the considerable amount of "evidence" or "facts" that were not admitted into evidence.
In many respects the points of law issues are sort of a case of closing the barn door now that the horse has bolted.
My understanding now is that the more pressing issue is getting Schapelle back to Australia so that she can be treated, preferably as a free woman, but back to Australia in any case.
I have received a couple of emails asking me to confirm if I am 'KD' posting on this blog. I wish to stay categorically that I am NOT.
Kay Danes
International Humanitarian
Foreign Prisoner Support Service
**state (not stay)
Kay...
Thanks for clarifying. Hopefully, I have not caused you any bother.
Cheers.
Hi Rob,
No bother really, just a little confusion from a few who contacted me. Any contributions to political discussions, I will sign my name so that there is no confusion.
cheers,
Kay
Kay...
Okey dokey.
Have a good weekend.
Rob said
"My understanding now is that the more pressing issue is getting Schapelle back to Australia so that she can be treated, preferably as a free woman, but back to Australia in any case."
That is absolutely correct Rob. We need to get Schapelle home to Australia for her health and welfare as soon as possible. The other things like talking about the way her judgement are really extraneous now. I think we should focus on getting her into the appropriate care that she needs now. This can only be done by PM Rudd asking PM of Indonesia to give a presidential pardon, in the absence of a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) which has been touted by some since the time of her original incarceration. Nothing has happened in 5 years. A PTA takes years to put in place. Schapelle will possibly die before that. Probably. Or, if she is alive, will be in a mental institution. (Does Indonesia have one? and if so what are they like?) It has been noted that prisoners like Schapelle have a lifetime of 10 years. If they have a 20 year sentence. Statistically. Hers at this time is less, given what we know now, recent medical reports.
Given all of that. Does anyone want to allow Schapelle Corby to live her life in that/those situations? Conditions? Third world conditions?
When will she die? And how?
I think not.
It is patently obvious that Schapelle will die anytime now unless we do something. She has gone out of reality at times and that is a big worry.
Schapelle tried to stop Renae from the Bali 9 ripping her arms with a razor. Now Renae is stopping Schapelle doing the same.
There are regularly comments attached to media newsapaper articles. They are typically "you did the crime now do the time". Over years I have watched these brain-dead comments.
Rob. What started out as a Robin Tampoe topic has gone way beyond that. You said and I agree. You could maybe decide at what stage to split it and maybe to a Schapelle topic.
Rob. There is no time to waste now.
Rob said
"My understanding now is that the more pressing issue is getting Schapelle back to Australia so that she can be treated, preferably as a free woman, but back to Australia in any case."
That is absolutely correct Rob. We need to get Schapelle home to Australia for her health and welfare as soon as possible. The other things like talking about the way her judgement are really extraneous now. I think we should focus on getting her into the appropriate care that she needs now. This can only be done by PM Rudd asking PM of Indonesia to give a presidential pardon, in the absence of a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) which has been touted by some since the time of her original incarceration. Nothing has happened in 5 years. A PTA takes years to put in place. Schapelle will possibly die before that. Probably. Or, if she is alive, will be in a mental institution. (Does Indonesia have one? and if so what are they like?) It has been noted that prisoners like Schapelle have a lifetime of 10 years. If they have a 20 year sentence. Statistically. Hers at this time is less, given what we know now, recent medical reports.
Given all of that. Does anyone want to allow Schapelle Corby to live her life in that/those situations? Conditions? Third world conditions?
When will she die? And how?
I think not.
It is patently obvious that Schapelle will die anytime now unless we do something. She has gone out of reality at times and that is a big worry.
Schapelle tried to stop Renae from the Bali 9 ripping her arms with a razor. Now Renae is stopping Schapelle doing the same.
There are regularly comments attached to media newsapaper articles. They are typically "you did the crime now do the time". Over years I have watched these brain-dead comments.
Rob. What started out as a Robin Tampoe topic has gone way beyond that. You said and I agree. You could maybe decide at what stage to split it and maybe to a Schapelle topic.
Rob. There is no time to waste now.
Rob said
"My understanding now is that the more pressing issue is getting Schapelle back to Australia so that she can be treated, preferably as a free woman, but back to Australia in any case."
That is absolutely correct Rob. We need to get Schapelle home to Australia for her health and welfare as soon as possible. The other things like talking about the way her judgement are really extraneous now. I think we should focus on getting her into the appropriate care that she needs now. This can only be done by PM Rudd asking PM of Indonesia to give a presidential pardon, in the absence of a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) which has been touted by some since the time of her original incarceration. Nothing has happened in 5 years. A PTA takes years to put in place. Schapelle will possibly die before that. Probably. Or, if she is alive, will be in a mental institution. (Does Indonesia have one? and if so what are they like?) It has been noted that prisoners like Schapelle have a lifetime of 10 years. If they have a 20 year sentence. Statistically. Hers at this time is less, given what we know now, recent medical reports.
Given all of that. Does anyone want to allow Schapelle Corby to live her life in that/those situations? Conditions? Third world conditions?
When will she die? And how?
I think not.
It is patently obvious that Schapelle will die anytime now unless we do something. She has gone out of reality at times and that is a big worry.
Schapelle tried to stop Renae from the Bali 9 ripping her arms with a razor. Now Renae is stopping Schapelle doing the same.
There are regularly comments attached to media newsapaper articles. They are typically "you did the crime now do the time". Over years I have watched these brain-dead comments.
Rob. What started out as a Robin Tampoe topic has gone way beyond that. You said and I agree. You could maybe decide at what stage to split it and maybe to a Schapelle topic.
Rob. There is no time to waste now.
Gaile...
I am a little too lazy with splitting it up and moving all the comments around. Besides I am not that tech savvy.
I would just encourage commenters to leave their comments on one of the other more relevant posts.
Rob, from your comments throughout this thread, I get the impression you think Schapelle received a fair and legal trial.
Primary evidence: A bag of marijuana in an unlocked boogie-board bag, which could have been placed in there by anyone during that bags journey to Bali. Surely, even by Indonesia's lax standards, the Prosecution will have to prove some connection between Schapelle and the drugs.
The ONLY secondary evidence they present, the testimony of 4 men. NO attempt made by the Prosecution to support this testimony with the hard evidence of the CCTV footage from the camera above the Customs Counter, which was readily available for their use. Why? Because these men are clearly lying, and this footage will invalidate their ONLY secondary evidence, rendering a conviction impossible under Indonesian Law.
Schapelle's sworn statement, her testimony, and the testimony of every one of her witnesses is disallowed.
On the strength of this, a Judge who has never acquitted a defendant in over 500 previous drug related cases, aided and abetted by two other Judges who have never acquitted a defendant in their entire careers, finds Schapelle guilty of importation and trafficking in a Class 1 narcotic.
He then imposes a 20 year sentence, the highest ever given in Indonesia for a marijuana related crime, more than murders, rapists and terrorists often receive.
Rob, if you think this represents a fair and legal trial, with a fair and reasonable outcome, then I, and every other person on this thread arguing in favour of Schapelle, is wasting their time.
Simba...
Impressions can be deceiving I guess.
I do not know that I said any where that Schapelle received a fair trial. What I have said consistently is that the prosecutors met the burden. Two pieces of evidence and convince the judges that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime.
That is hardly arguing that the trial was fair.
Could the prosecutors have done more, yes. Should they have done more, the verdict and the subsequent appeals suggest that they did enough.
Should the judges have allowed more, perhaps. However, they have the discretion to make judgments on the admissibility of evidence and they did so.
Was it fair? Once again, I do not think that I have argued the trial was fair or just.
On the sentence front, I have argued that the sentence is too harsh even by Indonesian standards for the crime alleged to have been committed.
It seems that my statement that she is guilty according to Indonesian law has granted you license to put words into my mouth and seemingly the mouths of anyone who dares to sate something different from you.
The reality is that without new evidence there is not going to be any reopening of this case. The drugs have been destroyed. If the CCTV tape ever existed, then I am guessing it would probably have disappeared long ago.
So, unless the DNA of the weed was done secretively and the results never released but happen to be sitting on someone's computer somewhere I do not see the likelihood of another appeal being forthcoming.
Another reality, as I have explained to others is that there are a couple of choices here and a couple of outcomes. Some more favorable than others.
I really do not see a presidential pardon without an admission of guilt.
Is a compassionate release possible, yes. The choices here would be either released with time served and deported to Australia. Or, released into the custody of the Australian government on the proviso that she receives medical treatment for her mental illness and serves out some agreed sentence before being released.
The other less favorable outcomes would be that the Indonesian government takes the word of their shrink on the ground who says that Schapelle is fine and she stays incarcerated in Kerobokan.
The legal arguments regards to evidence are all interesting and one day, perhaps soon, I intend to make a post on them.
However, once again, I would have thought the more critical issue for Schapelle supporters is getting her home before the self-harm she seems intent on doing becomes a final and fatal act of a desperate woman.
I would have figured that even you would have agreed on that point.
Simba...
I should probably add, I am not the person you need to convince. I would have thought a better target would have been the Prime Minister of Australia, the Foreign Minister of Australia, the President of Indonesia, the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, the relevant Embassy and Consulates of the Republic of Indonesia.
Come to think of it. If the supporters of Schapelle Corby, irrespective of whether they think her innocent or guilty, could come together to coordinate a campaign of protest outside the Indonesian Embassy and various Consulates, then this would be sure to get news play both here and in Indonesia.
This would squarely put Schapelle back in the consciousness of Australians and Indonesians alike. It might also spur the Australian government into some diplomacy.
Just a thought.
Rob,
Rest assured that supporters of Schapelle all know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that she is innocent.
The question of her guilt or innocence never arises.
We are also actively campaigning, 24/7, to have her returned to Australia for medical treatment, and then to hopefully walk free, as she should be.
Engaging people like you in these types of debate are a sideline, aimed simply at balancing the equation, and providing some pro Schapelle input.
I am still not convinced that the Prosecution proved their case, and since Schapelle had the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, even under Indonesian Law (Article 8 of the Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 18 of the Indonesian Human Rights Law), they should have been required to do more.
The Judge should have required them to PROVE the testimony of their witnesses, which they could easily have done with the CCTV footage from the camera above the Customs Counter. He should have given Schapelle, whose testimony was totally at odds with that of the Prosecution's witnesses, the benefit of the doubt, considering the harshness of the sentence that he eventually imposed.
Of course, with 500 convictions in 500 cases, it wasn't in his nature to give defendants much of a chance, was it?
We all know that Schapelle was judged guilty, but was she proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, absolutely not!
If that footage had been presented, and had corroborated the testimony of the Prosecution's witnesses, it would have been a different story.
As to why her appeals all failed; the Indonesians don't like to lose face. They were always going to uphold the findings of the Denpasar District Court, this was never in doubt.
One of the witnesses presented by the Defence, during her first appeal, was the very man who had written the laws under which she was tried and convicted. He said that unless they PROVE she tried to smuggle the drugs into the country, they must let her go.
His testimony was ignored.
Simba...
I am happy for you and for her supporters that you know this and are convinced of it. As I said, I am not the one you need to be convincing of this.
It is probably worth noting that the idea of "you people" I find a little belittling. But, I guess sometimes people lose perspective. However, I do not know of an occasion where I find myself calling someone I disagree with "you people", that's just me though.
I think if you took the time to read what I have written then perhaps you would quickly come to the conclusion that you are wasting your time on me. I have only said that I think she is guilty, and that the prosecution satisfied the burden. You disagree, and I get labeled "you people".
I have been pretty balanced in what I have said about Schapelle and her case and sentence. I am not the person you and the other supporters of this young woman need to be wasting your time on.
You are not providing balance. It would be better for you to devote your 24/7 attention to someone who says stuff like "the girl is guilty as sin" or "she got what she deserved" or better still, those that continue to push the Aussie Gold line or that all the Corby's are drug dealers so Schapelle must be a drug dealer too.
I think if you read what I have written closely enough you will see that I have not said these things and have questioned their validity.
The idea about losing face is garbage. There are plenty of court decisions that get overturned on appeal. This case did not. It hardly has anything to do with face.
On the innocence and guilty issues as they relate to the KUHAP and the Human Rights law. These arguments are somewhat moot considering that she was considered innocent, the prosecution presented their case, the judges found her guilty. In the most basic of senses this would comply with the provisions.
You are better off arguing whether the trial was fair in light of evidence that could have been adduced was not or was actively rejected without sufficient legal reasoning.
Now though, in light of me moving into the "you people" category, I do not really see the point in offering to help. I do not know Schapelle Corby, I do not know her family, I do not know you, her fate makes no difference to me personally or professionally. I was not involved in the defense.
My interest in seeing her come home was I think that she has suffered enough. I have made my positions and arguments on why this is perfectly clear elsewhere.
But then again I am not much of a humanitarian according to Sam.
Okay Rob, I will give you credit where it is due. You have, at least, said that Schapelle should now be allowed to come home for medical treatment.
That's more than can be said for a large percentage of sickeningly uncompassionate Australians, who seem quite comfortable with the idea that Schapelle should just be left in Bali to rot and die in misery, in the squalor of a third world prison cell.
As Schapelle is a dear friend of mine and I know she is innocent, despite the outcome of the sham trial to which she was subjected, I nonetheless find it personally offensive when anyone considers her guilty. And never moreso than now, when her mental health has deteriorated to the point where she is officially insane, and has already attempted to take her life, twice, by slashing her arms with broken glass.
Quite how you can consider that the prosecution satisfied the requirement for secondary evidence by placing four men in the witness box to lie their heads off, I don't really know.
Using that arguement, one could say, "Don't worry about hard evidence, who needs it? When all else fails, there's always good old fashioned lies to fall back on. This Judge never acquits defendants anyway, so it'll be fine."
Schapelle's trial wasn't a trial, it was a pre-sentencing hearing. Up against a Judge who had never acquitted a defendant in 500 previous drug related cases, she never stood a chance.
She was convicted of importation, yet the Prosecution failed to prove that the drugs came from Australia.
She was convicted of trafficking, yet the Prosecution failed to prove that she had any connection with a drug distribution network in Bali. In fact, they didn't even attempt to prove it.
She was then given a 20 years sentence; a sentence that looks very likely to become a death sentence if she is not returned to Australia very soon.
If this is the Indonesian legal system, I hope I NEVER find myself as a defendant in one of their courts!
Because the Judge found those previous 500 defendants guilty, do you think they were all ACTUALLY guilty? Statistically, this is highly unlikely, so I wonder how many other hapless souls are rotting in prison for crimes they did not commit.
Simba...
I think you are missing the context of the argument that I make.
I am arguing very simply that Schapelle is guilty due to the fact that the prosecution satisfied the burden as they are required to do under Indonesian law.
Are there problems inherent in that? Yes. The problems are that the prosecution could have done more and the judges could have demanded more. However, they were not required to. and consequently did not.
The second piece of evidence of witness testimony could have been sealed beyond a reasonable doubt perhaps if the CCTV was available and was requested.
Yet, as I have argued the judges have the discretion, as they do in Australian courts to interpret what the law says with respect to evidence. Not demanding to see the tapes if the judges were convinced would fall within the scope of that discretion.
Yet, I can still see the validity in the arguments put forward by yourself. Personally, I think the tapes should have been adduced in open court or provided to the defense.
With respect to Linton Sirait's record of 500 convictions in 500 trials, I have not done the research to comment.
I am a Schapelle supporter but I don't know if she's innocent. It really doesn't matter to me because I support her because I think she is a human being that didn't get a fair shake coz her lawyers weren't that good. If she had of got someone who knew the way the system worked then she wouldn't have got twenty years. the Indonesians gave her the right to a trial which is more than what some countries over there give people. That she had incompetent lawywers doesn't automatically mean the trial was unfair. Plenty of people are tried in asian courts and it's easy for foreigners to say "the customs officer didn't speak english fluently'.. what a cop out that is. Yet Aussies can make themselves understood when they are bargaining down the prices on goods that are only about 5 bucks!
Corby had the drugs in her bag and her lawyers didn't present a very good defence. So whose fault is that? Not the court. The fault is the incompetence of the lawyers!
Schapelle Supporters are so busy attacking people who don't believe she's innocent when they should allow people to have their own opinions. After all, the demographic that will bring pressure to bear on her situation is not those who think she's innocent but rather, those who think she's done enough for that crime.
Rob I would think that all of my comments are relative to this topic of Schapelle. Albeit it started off with Robin Tampoe
Schapelle is guilty due to the fact that the prosecution satisfied the burden as they are required to do under Indonesian law.
And this is what happened.
So all in all Schapelle had no hope. She was in a deep hard place. And the only way she has a hope of getting out of this hell is with people who believe in her. Those people, like me, believe in her and will fight for her - until she comes home. I am not going to give up. Why? Because she is innocent of what she has been accused of. Bottom line.
Gaile Williams.
DFK...
I think it is an interesting demographic as well. I have been arguing for a while a similar position. The only real legal avenue available to Schapelle Corby in Indonesia, without new evidence, is a pardon from the president or some other type of clemency, like a compassionate release.
Irrespective of what I believe on innocence and guilt, I feel she has been punished enough for the crime that she was convicted of. Could I be convinced of her innocence at some point, perhaps. But, that is not the point for me right now.
Gaile...
I don't know that I said anything about relevance to Schapelle. I think I said something about whether Tampoe deserved the comments on a thread about him.
I was thinking of spinning all of the Schapelle Corby posts off into a blog of their own.
On the guilty comment. That is all I have been trying to say. Not that it is not possible that she is innocent.
Your passion is admirable, as is your devotion to the cause. I am not saying, and have never said, that people should give up on her because she has been convicted of a crime.
I disagree. When you say the only way she has a hope of getting out of this hell is with people who believe in her, that is very naive.
The people who fought for the rights of David Hicks did not HAVE to believe he was innocent.
No one has been able to prove if Schapelle is innocent. If they had of been able to then her situation would be different.
Her hope now is limited because of all the damage her family have done... and by supporters getting on radio and blaming Indonesian customs for putting the drugs in her bag is a really stupid move.
DFK...
Thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment, again.
I agree, the simple reality is that to get Schapelle out of prison is going to require that those who support her so whole-heartedly, now reach out to those who might not be convinced of her innocence but are convinced that she has suffered enough.
Interesting point on David Hicks and it has probably been blogged about and written about elsewhere. It is something that I had thought about exploring in relation to this case as well. At least from the guilt vs. innocence perspective.
Is the point about the radio about the Alan Jones interview? I seem to be hearing quite a lot that Alan Jones has gotten on board with her supporters. Is this where the, "customs did it" stuff comes from?
The idea about losing face is garbage. There are plenty of court decisions that get overturned on appeal. This case did not. It hardly has anything to do with face.Quote/unquote
Give me an example. A high profile example.
I want an example of a high court decision which was overturned in Indonesia. A high court decision which had been overturned in favour of a non-Indonesian company or person.
Rob
You are way behind the times. Good try. No way you can connect Alan Jones to the latest news and there is no way he had anything to do with comments. That is a very insidious situation to even suggest. If you care to look at the forum you will find that all of this information was found by a forum member via FOI (Freedom of Information) some time ago, and is readily available on the forum. Everything that has been said has already been posted on the forum.
If you even deign to look back into the forum into the archives, you will find that we knew all of this long ago. We have to archvie each year, but I can assure you we knew of this and it is recorded on forum if you care to check.
If you want someone to help you to check this information which we have - no problems. Just go onto the forum and ask for directions and or help.
Gaile...
Asian Pulp and Paper was overturned at the Supreme Court in favour of the foreign party bond holders.
Is one example enough?
Gaile...
Seriously, get a hold of your emotions. There is nothing insidious in anything that I posted in response to DFK's comment. It was merely a question to solicit information about something of which I cannot make a connection.
I have not read or listened to the Alan Jones related interview, I just remember you saying something about it. Hence, my question to DFK is relevant in that context.
It has nothing to do with being a good try at anything. This is the problem, and perhaps a turn off, for many would be supporters of Schapelle Corby, namely that any efforts to better understand the situation are met with derision.
Way behind the times, maybe.
quote:
HUMANITY IS WHEN YOU STEP OUT OF YOURSELF AND YOUR FRONT DOOR.
Gaile...
Can you resend the forum address?
And, a direct link to the Alan Jones support that you refer to.
I have searched and not been successful.
Thanks.
Gaile...
Nice quote.
Is that what motivates you?
Is the insinuation that if people do not believe that Schapelle is innocent then they are not humanitarians or have no humanity?
OK. Point taken. Mea culpa.
I will ask someone else to extrapolate on what Alan Jones did and will be continuing to do so.
I do not have the hard copy of what he did in Woman's Day.
I will ask someone else to do that.
Regards
Gaile
Yes. I suppose that is what has always movitated me, or where I have felt and do feel.
Not exclusively for Schapelle. I also support others.
I thought I had given you the support site for Schapelle:
http://www.freeschapelle.com.au/forum/
Gaile
Gaile...
You have...thanks.
Rob,
My comments are nothing to do with Alan Jones. There was a radio program on a little while ago and it was a family friend talking about the possibility of customs planting the drugs.
http://www.truthnews.com.au/radio/wordpress/?p=466
The Indonesian Embassy in Canberra may or may not have seen/heard this. Usually they monitor for all news on Indonesia and report back to Indonesia. If they heard this interview I can't see how it would help Schapelle's plight.
DFK...
Thanks for the clarification and the link.
DFK...
I have listened to the podcast. I wonder who this "John" fella is. He did not seem to be playing the Devil's Advocate but more a secondary support or lead in to the "facts" that "Roy" was going to be making.
There was lots of speculation about what might of happened and theories about why there is no motive.
There was some interesting points made though.
However, the idea that Indonesian's did it and it was all a set-up for drugs funding, albeit interesting, is something that is unlikely to help.
In essence, reading between the lines, Schapelle is innocent and you (Indonesia and Indonesians) have set her up. I cannot see how that helps. Even if it were true and provable.
The time for arguing her innocence is over. The Indonesians aren't interested in her being anything other than guilty.
Tampoe may have had the right idea trying to throw the blame to the Aussie baggage handlers. It was after all the only defence but flimsy at best because any 'evidence' was circumstantial.
Anyway, she's pretty well stuffed because any chance she may have had to go home to Australia was blown through mismanagement of the case. They should leave lobbying and advocacy to the professionals.
DFK...
I think that it is over as well.
Thanks for the comments.
Rob & DFK,
You are right in one regard. The subject of Schapelle's innocence is now, largely, superfluous to the arguement for her repatriation to Australia. Her needs are purely medical, and very pressing.
Regardless of innocence or guilt, she has served more than sufficient sentence for the 'crime'. She is suffering a severe mental illness, has already attempted suicide twice, and needs to be treated properly in an Australian psychiatric hospital, away from a prison environment.
If and when she is returned to Australia, her conviction will stand, all her supporters know this.
This does not make her guilty though. Judged guilty, yes, actually guilty, NO!
As to the possibilty that the drugs could have been inserted in Bali, the circumstantial evidence is very compelling.
See: http://www.schapelle.net/propositions/
The only hard evidence that could have proved this, was the marijuana itself. Had it been forensically tested and found to be Indonesian, Schapelle would have been exonerated immediately.
Schapelle signed an authorisation allowing the AFP to forensically test a sample to establish the country of origin(hardly something she would have done if the drugs had come from Brisbane), but the Bali Police refused to give the AFP a sample.
The Bali Police never tested it themselves, and they subsequently burnt it all, in contravention of International Law which requires a sample of the evidence to be preserved. They did this before Schapelle's avenues of appeal had been exhausted.
Why would they do this, unless they had something to hide?
Simba,
By saying that the drugs could have been inserted in Bali is not going to help Corby. This will only provoke Indonesians to keep her there.
Do you know for certain that the forensic tests would have exonerated her. For example: if the drugs came from Australia how does that exonerate her? The Indonesians would simply say 'See she's from there the drugs are from there, case closed!'
Where is the evidence that Schapelle signed an authorisation allowing the AFP to forensically test a sample to establish the country of origin. Has anyone seen this document? I have not seen it. Only I have heard people saying it exists.
The Bali police didn't need to test the drugs because they knew what it was and they knew it was in her possession. She even admitted that it was in her possession and that she knew it was Marijuana. That she could not prove who else it belonged to, was beside the point. That was up to her lawyers to prove.
Indonesia has sovereign rights which over-ride International law. There is no governing body that can tell them how to run their judiciary!
They destroy the evidence because they know that it was going nowhere. That her lawyers had no further proof of her innocence. How did they know this, because her lawyers are Indonesian and it's standard practice that they would have consulted with the Prosecutor and possibly the judges in looking at further options. Had her lawyers truly been working to her advantage, they should have requested a sample be preserved. They should have made this request directly to the Indonesians that a sample be subjected to testing, not allegedly request to a foreign authority (that being the AFP).
Poor Schapelle got hoodwinked and let down by incompetence. The Indonesians didn't have to set her up.
Western logic and western judicial processes do not work the same in Asia. It is a different culture.
She is guilty because the court says she is. The only way forward for her now is to accept that. She must accept this reality because it will not change. Then she can take care of her mind, and her sister can stop fighting in the tabloids and then when she is behaved, then she can make an appeal to the Indonesians for mercy. This is the only way she will ever return to her country. Sadly, this is now her reality. Telling everyone that she was set up by the Indonesians is going to put a nail in her coffin. People need to stop tormenting her with these false hopes.
Simba...
If the arguments are now superfluous regarding innocence and guit, then it is perhaps time that Schapelle's supporters focused on what is not superfluous.
I disagree that if she were to return to Australia for treatment she needs to be away from the prison environment. She is a convicted drug trafficker and therefore the best case scenario is a prison psych ward.
The only provisio here would be that if the Indonesian authorities say we're done with it, she's out of here, do as you will, not our problem anymore. This I don't see happening.
On the forensic testing of the weed. This could have gone either way and if it was found to come from Australia, bit DFK has dealt with this.
I have read most of the forum stuff and most of the blogs about the "compelling" circumstantial evidence.
I am wondering though what avenues of appeal Schapelle had left after the weed was destroyed. As far as I recall, the Indonesian system allows for the destruction of "exhibits" or evidence once the process is concluded and not before.
I would agree with the idea that the sooner this case stops playing out in the tabloids the better it will be for Schapelle.
Someone wrote that the District Court decision would never have been overturned on appeal because Indonesians would have to save face. If this is true, then antagonizing Indonesians through the tabloid press with circumstantial "evidence" is only going to force Indonesians to "save face", is it not?
Perhaps it is time for Mercedes to take a different tack in the approach to securing her sister's release.
DFK...
Good points.
I agree 100% with your logic Rob. Corby should be sent to a prison psych ward because there is no way to over turn her conviction. Surely her health should be the priority and then if she stays alive then she can appeal for Clemency.
I don't know why her sister does everything through tabloids. It does nothing to help Corby's plight.
Hello Rob and DFK
Have been watching comments here.
There are some points I would like to make.
Firstly Rob, I know you will not like this, but I take umbrage at you referring to Schapelle as a 'drug trafficer'. I do not believe that, in fact, it is and has been PROVEN that she is. This is exactly the type of comment - verbatim - that the media has referred to her - and has contributed to the general perception of the Australian populace by reading such a 'label' on Schapelle.
The next point I would like to make is that the media 'hounded' Mercedes unremittingly. And continues to do so. Mercedes has come out in support of her sister -and why not? I would do the same if media contacted me in regards to Schapelle.
I am quite sure that Mercedes would rather not to have been contacted by media. The inference is that Mercedes has 'used the media' whereas quite the opposite is true.
There is something else I would like to bring into the equation here. Rupert Murdoch owns so much media (worldwide)that IMHO had he 'gently' been told by the Asutralian Government to 'back off supportiveness for Schapelle' then that would happen. News Limited owns Jakarta Post to the best of my knowledge. Many reports have come from Cyndi Wockner there and have then been posted on all the News Limited media sites here in Australia. As another aside, I recall, and I cannot remember the name, of a reporter for the Daily Telegraph in Sydney a few years ago who was definitely supportive of Schapelle. That person either has been gagged or no longer works for the Daily Telegraph.
None of Schapelle's supporters, or Mercedes have invited coverage of Schapalle's situation. And do not do so. And yet the media takes glee in reporting - in their own words - news on Schapelle which has only been detrimental to her. That is why myself and other supporters have consistently written to the journalists who publish such articles advising them a) of inaccuracies and b) lack of journalistic ethics.
I myself did this with the ABC show, Nightline and they subsequently retracted (hardly to be noticed) their comments.
We - supporters - cannot stop the media getting headlines - usually via Newscorp. When Schapelle was hospitalised some time ago, there were people camped to get photos of her and all kinds of subterfuge simply to gain information which they (in Bali) could then turn into a headline. Sickening. Chequebook journalism. News Limited. Once that is gained, it gets spread all over Australia because Murdoch owns not only a mainstream paper in each Australian state, but it filters down even to local community papers.
Check if you like but this is what happens.
And that, is what has been happening for years. Mercedes is NOT using the media. She - like Schapelle - is a victim of the media.
One of the only people, Alan Jones, well-respected, has had the guts to come out in support of Schapelle. He is not stupid as I am sure you will agree. And did not do so lightly. Firstly with a radio interview and secondly with a magazine article.
Rob
I was certainly the one - if not others to make the following comment on forum:
Someone wrote that the District Court decision would never have been overturned on appeal because Indonesians would have to save face. If this is true, then antagonizing Indonesians through the tabloid press with circumstantial "evidence" is only going to force Indonesians to "save face", is it not?
As I have just said, no supporters encourage tabloid press , and neither does Mercedes Corby.
It is endemic with Asians IMHO to 'save face'. I go further to that and say that the Indonesian judicial system needs to 'save face' and that is the crux of the situation. Therein lies the condundrum.
Will? the Australian Government get pro-active? Or will PM Rudd pander to them?
That is the bottom line. PM Rudd WOULD be able to get Schapelle home but does he have the guts to do it?
It's a standoff situation. Does Australia need Indonesia more than Indonesia needs Australia?
So the ball is in Rudd's court so to speak.
It is as much a potential international incident' as the Balibo 5 and other incidents. It is politics and politicians at the highest level. and what they do.
In the fullness of time, I believe that the Australian Government and PM Rudd will have to be held accountable for Schapelle Corby.
DFK...
Gaile has answered your tabloid query.
Gaile...
I have often wondered about whether Mercedes courts the tabloids. She does have a media person, right? A publicist or PR person who manages all the media interest.
If she is being hounded by the press, then she could refuse to comment, she could refuse to entertain their requests for interview, or simply ignore them. I appreciate that the press might be in her face 24/7 but she could still turn them away.
The stuff on Rupert Murdoch is where it gets a little bizarre for me. The argument is seemingly that RM thinks Schapelle is innocent but has been told by the Australian government to back off. The idea that pro-Schapelle reporters are being moved on or forced to quit hints at a much bigger conspiracy than just Indonesians planting weed in a boogie board bag to gain some UN funding.
What you are suggesting is that Australia is not only complicit in the sting and subsequent cover-up but in fact is an active participant.
On whether the media is being courted or not, I would pose this question. Has Mercedes or anyone else intimately involved taken money for exclusive interviews from any news organization? If she, or anyone else, has, then this would put paid to the idea she has never courted the media of which the tabloids are part.
With all due respect to Alan Jones, and I have respected him since the Wallabies toured the UK in 1984 and Mark Ella scored a try in every test, just because he believes her to be innocent does not seal the deal. This does not make her innocent.
You can take umbrage, that is your right, but despite her supporters arguments on the evidence, however she is according to Indonesian law a convicted drug trafficker and she is doing 20 years for that crime. You believing in her innocence does not change that fact. It is time that her supporters realized that arguments on the evidence, unless there is new evidence to be presented, is past.
yeah right... and I suppose the media hounded her to take her clothes off for Ralph Magazine too?
Poor Mercedes. Poor Schapelle! Everyone else are the bad guys... it's all a gigantic conspiracy to make her suffer.
She's been convicted of a criminal offence. She'll just have to live with that... and that's the point, find a way to deal with it... stop crying poor me... and stop blaming everyone else!
There are plenty of families hurting and plenty who want theirs home too and they don't ever make the news or do exclusives in magazines!
I know plenty of people in the media and the Corby's are not victims. They are participants and how they choose to handle things results in how they are treated or perceived by the public.
Gaile...
Endemic makes saving face sound like some sort of illness or disease. It is this sort of thing that runs counter to the idea of wanting to help Schapelle and gives her false hope.
Unfortunately, it is not the crux of the problem and nor is it a conundrum. The District Court decision was not overturned because in the opinion of the higher court the evidence did not warrant it. What is saving face about that?
The Rudd government should get pro-active, but this is going to be, and has to be quiet diplomacy and must be done under the radar. Commissioning psych reports and publishing them in New Idea is not conducive to this idea.
The Rudd government must also as a matter of course consider what impact any approaches it makes about Schapelle will impact on other Australians imprisoned in Indonesian jails.
I really do not think it is as simple as pandering or having the guts to go for it. Rudd is not pandering and even if he went full throttle at it there is no guarantee that he would be successful. Indonesia is a sovereign state with its own laws. By calling Indonesia a third world, fourth rate legal system, that is totally corrupt is not going to facilitate a speedy return.
But let's say that the stars align and the Indonesian authorities or powers that be say, "yes, a release is possible, and a shortened sentence to be served in Australia is possible, but Schapelle must first admit guilt".
Would she do it to get out and to get back to Australia? I am not asking should she have to. I am asking if such an offer was made what would she do?
I cannot see what is so difficult to comprehend with respect to continually bagging the Indonesians and insinuating that they set Schapelle up, that this is not going to help her in the long run.
I do not see this as a stand off situation about who needs the other more. Schapelle Corby is not a game breaker for the Australian / Indonesian relationship. On that front, neither is Balibo.
If I am not mistaken Schapelle Corby was caught during John Howard's watch and not on Kevin Rudd's.
Perhaps the fullness of time will tell us many things.
DFK...
Oops, posting at the same time.
I do not believe Mercedes to be a victim. She might not be able to stop the media hounding her, but she certainly has the ability to refuse to deal with them.
She doesn't.
The size of the conspiracy that is being suggested here is so large that it is just not manageable.
DFK
Now you come out with your true colours. Interesting to see.
This is the problem with open threads. Sooner or later someone sick and twisted appear to push their hate filled agenda.
DFK appears to derive pleasure from Schapelle Corby's suffering and seems to have a pathalogical hatred of Mercedes Corby. Schapelle Corby is dying for gods sake! What does it take? Do twisted people like that want her to go home in a box?
I am not from Australia, but I am fast learning to really dislike the place.
She is a mentally ill citizen of yours in serious trouble, yet your government have just left her!!! That is absolutely uncivilized. Sorry but it is. That is how Australia is increasingly being seen.
This impression is further embellished by people like DFK, cheering on the sidelines whilst the terrible suffering continues.
What is wrong with you people? Something is seriously wrong with your society.
To the rest of the world, the persecution of this family is obscene. It really is. You ought to be ashamed.
My heart continues to go out to an innocent.
Gaile...
I will leave you to sort out true colours with DFK.
But, I am still interested in hearing about whether Mercedes Corby has ever received any money for interviews on her sister's plight.
Anonymous...
I prefer my anonymous commenters to adopt a pen name so that I can distinguish you one from the other. Besides, in makes a far more compelling case if you put your name to that support like Gaile has.
I admire her passion despite not always agreeing with her positions, but I respect her commitment.
DFK can defend himself, but I hardly got the impression that he is laughing on the sidelines.
Did Mercedes Corby get her gear off for Ralph magazine or is this another of the myths being perpetrated about her and her family?
It is not as simple as having a mentally ill citizen abroad. It is worth noting that she is not only mentally ill, she is a convicted drug trafficker, and she is doing her time in another sovereign country.
This is a different situation from two journalists deliberately straying into North Korea or some bloke swimming across a lake in Burma. Sending Paul Keating, or John Howard, or Bob Hawke, or even Gough Whitlam is unlikely to secure Corby's release.
Obscene? Really? Where are you from and perhaps we can find some obscenity in your part of the world too.
Point of interest. DFK = KFD back to front.
Hi Rob,
Your blog was an interesting read. I really look forward to the next one you will be doing about the Corby case.
I have been reading through the blog comments and think it's great that you have provided insight into how the Indonesian courts operate. It has cleared a few misconceptions up for me.
It's not often that I get to read blogs from people with Indonesian law experience so I am grateful that you have the patience to explain. It's not easy because people tend to become very emotional when discussing the case.
Anonymous...
Is this another conspiracy theory? KFD as in Kay [something] F Danes?
I have never met Kay personally, but have read around the traps that she has done really good work.
I am not familiar with her involvement, or lack thereof, in the Schapelle Corby case. If she is reading, then perhaps she may want to answer any questions that arise for herself.
Yes, open forums allow all sorts to participate, and from all sides of the equation. I have not deleted or edited comments, they appear as they come. This is true even for comments that are critical of me, my intentions, my blog, or my knowledge.
However, this is why I blog under my real name. I believe that if you hold an opinion then you should believe in it enough to defend it publicly when it is criticized. This thread highlights that not every one is prepared to do that, not even to adopt a pen name.
Jacqui...
I try hard.
Yes, in this particular case there are many people on both sides of the equation that let those emotions run forth.
Thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment. Comments are always appreciated.
The stuff on Rupert Murdoch is where it gets a little bizarre for me. The argument is seemingly that RM thinks Schapelle is innocent but has been told by the Australian government to back off. The idea that pro-Schapelle reporters are being moved on or forced to quit hints at a much bigger conspiracy than just Indonesians planting weed in a boogie board bag to gain some UN funding.
Ah. Now it is interesting. That you have seen that. A couple of scenarios here. PM Rudd of Australia has given $3billion to Indonesia and also has given a lot of $$$ to an African country to secure a seat - place on the UN.
Very astute you are. And so are we.
Rob,
You are being played like a piano, mate. DFK is KFD backwards. KFD? That would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_and_Kay_Danes.
Joanna S? Sidekick of the aformentioned.
Jacqui? An innocent bystander, whose identity is being used.
You are being manipulated by those supportive of the status quo.
I'm just telling you mate, as a friend.
Larry Ho
"It is not as simple as having a mentally ill citizen abroad. It is worth noting that she is not only mentally ill, she is a convicted drug trafficker, and she is doing her time in another sovereign country."
Convicted? The world sees a show trial and a grotesque abuse of human rights. What do you see?
It sounds like you have been a bit brainwashed by the media Gaille refers to.
She is a mentally ill citizen as referred to above, and the government are just watching her die.
Really civilized that, isn't it.
Yet you join the sick fruitcakes above by going after her sister? Nice.
Gaile...
Australia would have given this money to Indonesia anyway in some shape or form.
I am surprised though that you have not put into writing that despite RM believing that Schapelle is innocent he has decided to tow the guilty line in order to secure Indonesian media assets.
Never said you were not astute, did I?
Larry Ho...
Thanks for the heads up.
Also thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment. Comments are always appreciated.
So, it is not fair to say that she has done some good work post the Lao incident?
Manipulated for which status quo?
I have believed Schapelle to be guilty for some time. So, if I flip now to the innocence side on what has been presented to date in this thread, then wouldn't I be being manipulated by those who support the young woman's innocence?
Anonymous...
Put your name to your ranting and I will consider a response.
Otherwise it is hardly worth the effort. You are not adding anything to the debate that others who have the courage to use their name or a pen name have not made before.
Enjoy your evening (it is evening here in Australia).
Larry Ho...
Just an aside.
In an open forum and one where people have the ability to post anonymously, under a pen name, or as themselves, how does one tell who is manipulating who?
I am Larry, which is my real name, unlike DFK for example.
I am just trying to help you, mate.
I can't comment on Kay Danes, nor do I want to. I am drawing your attention to what has happened on your blog. You can make your own mind up what you think of it.
On Schapelle, I suggest that you do some objective research, because it is clear that you haven't. Have you seen this PDF? http://www.schapelle.net/propositions/hiddentruth.pdf
And there is a lot more like that too which has been hidden.
Show trial. Humans rights abuse. And you are happy with it. Very nice.
Larry Ho
PS - The name facility doesn't work anyway.
Larry...
Yes, I have read the PDF file at the link provided.
It would be interesting to hear what you think my position is outside of saying that she is guilty.
This is what is amusing to me in a perversely funny kind of a way, anyone who does not agree with the proposition that the young woman is innocent is derided as a fool, a fool who lacks any objectivity.
But it is always nice how her supporters say things like "Show trial. Humans rights abuse. And you are happy with it. Very nice." in order to belittle those who do not agree with them or all of the propositions put forward.
There are lots of things that are clear here Larry, mate.
The hearing was by no means a show trial or a sham. The defense left a whole lot to be desired. Whether the trial meets the exacting standards of Schapelle Corby's supporters is a different argument.
Schapelle's human rights to a fair trial? Or are we talking about the degrading and inhumane way that she is being treated in jail? Or is the argument just whatever is in the PDF file?
My responses on this thread and the posts elsewhere are fair. If mistakes in fact have been made, then they have been corrected, and I have let Schapelle's supporters have free reign to voice their opinions. So, it is hardly a case of presenting only one side of the story.
On the Kay Danes front. Whether you comment or not that is up to you. Yes, I can make my own opinion on this and draw my own conclusions. Although, I fail to see what Kay Danes' interest in the Corby matter is and what she gains from it in terms of what DFK has posted here besides a little publicity. Of this I am not as well informed as perhaps I need to be. I guess I am trying to figure out what benefits she derives from this whole affair.
You disappoint me.
"The hearing was by no means a show trial or a sham"
Sorry, but it was. If you hadn't made your mind up already perhaps you would have cross referenced the events at the trial with the UN's charter on human rights.
Perhaps you would have noticed that Schapelle's team was refused the right to cross examine witnesses.
I could go on, and on and on, but it is pointless. Do your homework, mate.
I won't even bother discussing your lack of compassion for a poor soul suffering, or the political nature of the the 20 year sentence, or the political aspect in Australia. These are all matters which appall decent people, and which as stated above, is even having an impact upon how people overseas see Australia.
The fact that you are comfortable with this defines you as a person. If you are happy with that, so be it.
On Kay Danes, perhaps you should do some homework on that matter too.
Larry
I am surprised though that you have not put into writing that despite RM believing that Schapelle is innocent he has decided to tow the guilty line in order to secure Indonesian media assets.
Quoted above.
I AM SURPRISED THAT YOU HAVE THE TEMERITY TO POST THIS WITH NO FURTHER COMMENT OR COGNISANCE OF THE SITUATION.
Did Mercedes Corby get her gear off for Ralph magazine or is this another of the myths being perpetrated about her and her family?
Mercedes actually talked to me and Schapelle and family members and friends and we all said - do it.
Anyone who has a problem with that - tough.
Terrific pics in Ralph magazine.
Here is the link:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24799451-5012980,00.html
I think the point Larry is probably making is that the word you seem to have lost sight of Rob is JUSTICE. This happens with a lot of lawyers.
Anyone who thinks that Schapelle suffering like this after 5 YEARS is in any way justice must indeed have a pretty sick mind.
FIVE YEARS. How much pain do you want? She has already lost her sanity. Do you call that justice?
The fact that some people are trying to sell that cruelty as acceptable in some way really is shocking and vicious.
Rob
I refer back to this.
On whether the media is being courted or not, I would pose this question. Has Mercedes or anyone else intimately involved taken money for exclusive interviews from any news organization? If she, or anyone else, has, then this would put paid to the idea she has never courted the media of which the tabloids are part.
Yes. Jodie Power did. Reportedly $100,000.
Apart from this, Mercedes has never courted media to my knowledge, rather the opposite.
Rob
One does not win a case like this without justice deserved.
Gaile
Mercedes Corby has won her defamation case against Channel Seven.
Corby, sister of Schapelle Corby - jailed for attempting to smuggle marijuana into Bali in 2004 - had claimed that she was grossly defamed in the Today Tonight programs.
The claims were that she had asked her then best friend, Jodie Power, to smuggle drugs into Bali; that she had confessed, herself, to smuggling marijuana; that she was guilty of smuggling marijuana; that she was knowingly involved in Schapelle Corby's smuggling and that she had possessed marijuana.
Ms Corby further complained that the program conveyed the meaning that she was a threat to the safety of Ms Power, who had made strong claims against her and the Corby family in the television programs and that Ms Corby had denied Schapelle Corby's lawyers the chance to prove Schapelle's innocence.
Justice Carolyn Simpson, who gave directions to the jury for three hours today, said that it had been conceded on Ms Corby's behalf that she had smoked marijuana but only on a few occasions years ago.
It has been argued by Stuart Littlemore, QC, representing Ms Corby, that technically during the brief time she had handled marijuana, she had "possessed it".
But the jury had to decide whether such an allegedly fleeting contact with the drug made it "substantially true" that Ms Corby was guilty of possession.
After six hours, the jury found Seven's defence of truth had failed on all but one of the defamatory imputations, namely that Ms Corby had possessed marijuana.
Ms Power shook her head and was visibly upset after hearing the verdict, and had to be calmed by those around her.
As they left the court, Power shouted "liar" in Ms Corby's direction, as Ms Corby embraced her lawyers.
Outside court, Ms Corby told reporters it had been a difficult time.
"I've still got more to do but I'm really happy with the outcome," she said.
The parties will have to return to court tomorrow to address the imputation found to be true.
During the hearings, Mr Littlemore said his client was "an ordinary Australian" subjected to a "trial by media" solely because her sister, Schapelle, was "locked up in a stinking jail in Bali".
Schapelle Corby is serving 20 years in prison after being convicted of smuggling 4.1kg of cannabis into Indonesia inside a bodyboard bag in 2004.
Seven paid Ms Power $100,000 for the interviews and also gave the 35-year-old two all expenses paid overseas holidays.
In her evidence, Ms Power said she had seen Ms Corby, 33, use marijuana, speed, cocaine and shabu - a type of methamphetamine.
The jury was shown two photos of Ms Corby with a pipe, shaped like a penis, which Ms Power said was used to smoke marijuana.
Ms Power also alleged Ms Corby had admitted to her that she had internally concealed marijuana and smuggled it into Bali, and had asked her to do the same.
When she took the stand, Ms Corby denied the smuggling allegations, rejected claims she took cocaine, shabu, and speed, and also denied selling marijuana or speed.
She said her drug use was limited, and her own letters referring to her drug use were written when she was "young and immature" and trying to look "cool".
Mr Littlemore contended Ms Power's brain had been "fried" by her own drug use, which the court was told had rendered her delusional.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/jury-out-in-corby-defamation-case/2008/05/29/1211654190387.html
I hope we can now move on from this 'witch-hunt' with Mercedes and concentrate on Schapelle's plight. And get some productive conversations happening if you would like it to be so.
Regards
Gaile
Rob - thank you for your patience with us Schapelle supporters and your civil replies to comments you disagree with. It is gracious of you to allow a thread of this length by strangers on your blog. Two questions:
1. Does your openness extend to other realms? Can we all come to your house and drop potato chip crumbs in your sofa?
2. You believe Schapelle is guilty but deserves better treatment, in Australia. Lots of Aussies agree with you on both counts and we often run into them on other comment sections, though not for conversations of this length or on this level. Schapelle's only immediate hope is for us to energize and mobilize enough of these people to put pressure on PM Rudd. ( Yes, I have written the pm and so have others on the forum, and some of our letters are quite brilliant if I do say so myself. But it is numbers of letters, not content, that matter. At the end of the day most politicians just count noses, and it helps if they are Australian noses. You can tell from my use of z's that my furry nose resides elsewhere).
So as a sympathetic outsider, what would you advise? You have said some things you think Schapelle supporters should NOT be doing ( rehashing the specifics of the trial, accusing Indonesia) as you think these things are off-putting to many of those who would otherwise support her. What do you think we should do instead? What, in your view, is the most useful way to convert sympathetic fence-sitters or those in the "she's prob. guilty but has suffered enough" camp into active supporters?
You people are mad! Actually DFK is the place where I work. I'm an accountant. I just don't want to use my real name because I want to separate my personal opinions from my professional identity.
It seems to me that you have taken my comments and twisted them. I have no hatred of the Corby's, I'm merely saying that she has been convicted by a court and there's no point arguing about that. Supporters of hers seem to run like pack wolves and bullying people who don't agree with their views.
Now you accuse me of witch hunting Mercedes Corby. In your twisted minds you also think that I am Kay Danes. What's with the paranoia? As far as I can tell she hasn't said anything terrible about any of the Corbys.
Here you attack the blog owner when all he's actually supportive of getting Schapelle back home. So why gang up on him and why attack me when we are merely saying the same thing repeatedly, that there's no point bagging the Indonesians if you want Schapelle to come home.
I work in accountancy and the numbers just don't add up!
Could Larry Ho and DFK and KD be part of this person's long list of pen names? They are all one in the same after all....Steve Addison, Morpheus, Lisa Harding, Christine Bowran, Sara Hollins, Steve Binary, Rachel James, Emily Clarke, Jan Felding, Gerald O’Neill, Nicola, Laura Hart, KateM, JournoOz, and countless others yet to be uncovered ....
http://www.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/comp.security.misc/2002-03/0683.html
You can be who you want to be on the internet darling.
Larry...
With all due respect my world is not about to collapse because I disappointed you.
Cross-referencing? Seeing you seemingly have some expertise in this area, why don't you just lay it out for all to see? That way those that support your proposition can agree with you, and those that don't can then address the specifics of why they don't!
It always seems to be the way that when people do not agree with what is being put forward, they are sick, inhuman, uncaring, vicious, stupid, and myriad of other insults. Why not educate those who do not believe rather than just say it is all out there, so go research it for yourself?
Larry, you need to wake up and smell the coffee, do a little research of your own. If you had read all the posts and the comments, then you would see that I have been pretty consistent in a couple of things; Schapelle's guilt, the sentence being manifestly excessive, and that it is time for her to be treated properly (perhaps in Australia).
Nah, mate, I do not think you have done the research on what my positions are on the matters at hand. Rather, you see someone who thinks she's guilty and decide to tee off.
You can see that when it comes to fairness, I let you comment as you will. I do not delete, edit or in any other way modify what you write. So, I guess I am not all one-eyed.
My homework on Kay Danes? Be a little specific, please. What am I supposed to find. I have been reading up, but unless you give me the specifics of your criticisms of her then I am at a bit of a loss as to what I am looking for or what you expect me to find.
Gaile...
I am referring to incidents in the past couple of years where RM has tried to muscle in on some local media assets.
I am not sure that I get what you are shouting about.
If it has to do with Mercedes, then I think the questions are legitimate.
Gaile...
The question was did she do it? You have answered this. Thank you!
I wonder whether Ralph would have been interested in doing the photo shoot if she had not been Schapelle's sister.
I was not, and did not, suggest the photos were trashy or exploitative or anything else. I did not say I had a problem with it, but I was questioning why do it, though.
The second part of the question was has she profited from the interviews, particularly the exclusive ones?
My simple point was if she is getting paid, then who is courting who? Even if all the money was going into a Schapelle Corby Fighting Fund or to other worthy causes does not invalidate the original question, does it?
Gaile...
Thanks for the link.
Anonymous...
Thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment. Comments are always appreciated. This is even the case when people are taking a personal dig at me. Probably less appreciated if the dig is at my family or other innocents in this particular debate.
I would prefer my anonymous commenters to adopt a pen name. I really do not care who you are in real life. It just makes it easier to distinguish one anonymous from the other without me having to go to the extreme of tracking ISPs.
No, I have not lost site of JUSTICE. In fact, if Larry had taken the time to read all the posts and the comments, and if you had as well, you might just find, lawyer or not, I have not lost site of JUSTICE.
My argument has been conducive to the idea of Schapelle Corby being repatriated and treated in Australia. This is a separate issue to whether I believe the woman to be guilty or innocent.
Jail is not a summer camp. She was expected to suffer, mental illness is never out of the equation, some people can never adjust to being deprived of their liberty, and this is probably intensified or exacerbated in people who believe and maintain their innocence.
It is worth noting that sometimes justice is downright ugly. There were not a lot of Australians jumping up and down when the death penalty was carried out against Australians in foreign jails elsewhere in the world. So, in many ways it is not surprising that the issue of a woman doing a 20-year stretch in a Bali jail has not piqued the imagination except amongst the dedicated few no matter where they stand on guilt or innocence.
This is also a separate issue to JUSTICE.
I have consistently argued that the sentence is too harsh, even by Indonesian standards. So, perhaps if you had read more widely on the blog and amongst the comments you would have recognized this.
In any event, I do not think that this is what Larry means, except in the most general of senses. I think he is referring to specifics of why he thinks me to be an idiot and lacking in compassion; I cannot and do not see it the same way as him. He is right, and I am wrong, therefore I am an idiot lacking in compassion. You can read my response to Larry if you want to see what I think about his arguments.
Jail is what it is. Some people survive it and some do not. I have not been trying to sell anything, other than perhaps now is a good time for an intervention and some appropriate medical treatment.
Gaile...
The argument was not whether Jodie Power courted the media or the media courted her, was it? Yes she was paid to dish on the Corby's and in particular Mercedes penchant for drugs and drug running.
To all intents and purposes the Jodie Power interview was exposed for what it was; a hatchet job. Channel 7 made a serious error in judgment in thinking that Mercedes would roll over and let that one pass.
She sued and she won, and she won a sizable payout supposedly. I cannot say on the size of the payout as a matter of fact as I am not, nor do I expect to be, privy to the details on that. However, good on her for standing up and making it known she had been defamed and this kind of activity had to stop.
However, the fact that Mercedes was defamed and the disproving of the allegations regarding Mercedes is still not proof of Schapelle's innocence, is it?
As I said, the Channel 7 interview with Jodie Powers was a hatchet job and it was exposed for what it was.
Although, if there was some grand conspiracy against the Corbys then it must not have extended to cover the Powers story.
It is not a witch hunt. There are legitimate questions in amongst all the to and fro with respect to the issues regarding Mercedes and her use of the media or the media's fascination in her that have not been answered.
Wow, this is confusing. I have not seen anybody on this blog say that Schapelle deserves to be suffering after 5 years, they have said the opposite in fact.
As for Mercedes, I don't see any witch hunt, just comments about her choice to go to the media.
According to those with legal background, the trial was up to Indonesian standards. These standards don't seem right to us, and Rob has gone to great lengths to explain why. The judge has to be sufficiently convinced that the person is guilty. He may not want to see all the evidence before he is convinced. It doesn't sound like justice to us, but what can we do? Change their entire system?
From what I can understand, many of the "breaches" are things that are not normally upheld in practice in the Indonesian courts. This indicates a problem with the system as a whole, so it's difficult to single out one case. I don't want to speak too much about it as I really don't know enough. Perhaps Rob could let us know if/when he looks into it.
I can understand this disappoints supporters... but what I can't understand is why it's bringing out such ugly and paranoid behaviour.
Seriously, read the comments back. It actually scares me, it's like reading the words of a jilted lover who is about to go on a shooting rampage. I'm a committed supporter and I'm scared by this behaviour. I can't imagine what it's doing to people who may be considering joining the support movement.
BTW, my name is Jacqui and I am using my real name. If people want to use their name, they can click on the "Name/URL Link" below and type their name in the Name field, no need for URL.
Desert Rat...
1. Sounds a little stalker-ish to me. But I have had people drop by and drop crumbs about the place...but it does tend to attract the rats!
2. If you do say so yourself. I would agree it is a matter of numbers. Pressure will build with numbers. My point has only been that antagonizing the Indonesians with possible alternative scenarios that it was a set-up and the Indonesians are responsible for it is only going to galvanize them into holding firm and using Schapelle as an example to others; mess with us and you will lose.
I just do not see that strategy being in the best interests of Schapelle or supportive of the idea that she should be repatriated for treatment and then she completes her sentence here or is released, whatever the agreement is between the two sides.
Personally, I would be focusing on the mental illness, the self-harm, the real risk of death. I would be looking at building a dual-pronged lobby; one in Australia and one in Indonesia. If a lobby of Indonesians can be built that are supportive of Schapelle's release then there will be pressure building from both sides.
There are plenty of Indonesians who could be sympathetic to Schapelle's plight. Particularly among those who consider jail to be for the purposes of not only punishing but providing an opportunity for rehabilitation and ultimately integration back into the community.
If you are focusing on the mental illness then a psych report from an eminent Indonesian shrink would go a long way to debunking the current view in some Indonesian circles that she is fine, a little depressed but otherwise fine.
Just some thoughts.
Anonymous...
I am guessing you could be on that list as well.
This is the beauty of the internet, you can be whoever you want to be, until you defame someone or piss them off enough that they decide to track you down.
Thanks for dropping by and commenting. Comments are always appreciated. Are you one of the previous anonymous commenters or a new anonymous?
This is why I prefer my anonymous commenters to adopt a pen name and be equally anonymous to me but distinguishable from other anonymous commenters.
Thanks for the link.
DFK...
Thanks for clarifying and adding to your position.
I am used to getting bagged on my own blog some people just cannot help themselves :D
Daffney...
Darling, indeed you can.
Hi Rob,
I received an email from one of your bloggers alerting me to the fact that I am once again, topic of discussion.
I really am quite disappointed with these people but it is not a reflection on Schapelle. She would be oblivious I'm sure.
My position on Schapelle Corby is more than clear. I have endeavored to respond in the best interests of Schapelle's plight whenever I am contacted by media. My responses have always been balanced in consideration to the fact that she is but 1 Australian detained in a foreign prison, and that I appropriately, when asked, seek to ensure my comments do not compromise her plight in any way.
I do find it rather disturbing that these people are claiming to be Schapelle Supporters yet they are seeking to undermine and discredit me, and now blatantly so. For a number of years, I have tried to keep the focus on her plight and more recently, supporting the views of her psychiatrist, Doctor Phillips, that she be moved to a place where she can receive appropriate care.
I think some of these people may be driven by a wider agenda, are misguided and perhaps too caught up in their own desire to be well thought of by the Corby family.
My interests are purely in Schapelle's well being and that has been said publicly as well as privately. I continue to do whatever I can to generate a popular view that she has served long enough and should be considered for repatriation. I am not interested in arguing the guilt or innocence because it is a mute point.
As for me gaining anything from her plight, I guess that means that I must be gaining something from all the prisoners on the FPSS website too?
Some people may find this difficult to believe, but there are people in the world who don't have ulterior motives. They have lived through, in my case, torture and trauma, and simply wish to share what they can to help make others aware of the issue of foreign internment and international judicial process. It doesn't get more simple then that.
I'm a volunteer advocate and have been for the last 7 years since my release from Laos. Given that I was subjected to unlawful arrest and wrongful conviction, I merely use my voice to highlight the plight of others, in the interest of promoting awareness of human rights, judicial process and social justice.
If I am to be condemned by these so called Schapelle Supporters, then that's really quite sad but it should not reflect on the supporters who are not afraid to be more open minded. They are out there Rob.
I find that from time to time there will always be those who are insecure in their own positions and will seek to destroy another's credibility. It is just in some people's character to be like this.
Thank you for allowing me to have my say on your blog, although I would prefer that I didn't have. I do hope that people will get back to the discussion that is more helpful to Schapelle's plight.
Regards,
Kay Danes
Advocate
Foreign Prisoner Support Service
Jacqui...
I would have to go back and check all the posts and comments to be sure. But, I would hazard a guess that somewhere someone has said something along the lines of "she is as guilty as sin" and "she deserves everything she gets and has received to date".
I think she is guilty. But, I also think that if the point of jail is to educate, not only the accused but others contemplating similar actions, then the lesson has been taught. Whether it has been learned by others is a moot point.
I think that Schapelle's mental illness is real, and I think she has suffered, and I also think that it is time that she was receiving appropriate treatment.
The simple reality is she is not getting the treatment she needs, because if she was then there would not be such regular relapses into the deep depression she is seemingly suffering from.
I do not understand the fixations on certain people and the animosity between individuals. I have asked for some input on this front and been told to research it for myself. OK, but I have not turned up anything that explains it to me.
Thanks for dropping by and commenting again.
Kay...
I am not sure whether to apologize for any inconvenience or wonder what it is that makes you a target for the vitriol.
I will leave your comment to speak for itself.
You're welcome.
I do not moderate comments, probably because I have not had any really outrageously offensive comments.
I have also not had anyone come and comment and say that they are so offended, that I should delete the offending comment. However, if I did, then perhaps I would consider deleting a comment.
I also believe in frank and open discussion. And, a right of reply.
Thanks Rob. The sad thing is that Schapelle's situation now is tenable. All of her legal appeals have failed and are exhausted.
I have been made aware that the Psychiatrist report is being translated to Indonesian and will be submitted to the Bali authorities. It's a bit like shutting the gate once the horse has bolted. But in any case, I do hope it yields results. There are no guarantees. Also, merely submitting documents is not effective. You have to walk these things through carefully through departments, and that's usually done by people who have experience in diplomatic negotiation. We've seen many successful outcomes, in other cases, in the last five years, taking this sort of approach.
In my opinion, a valuable opportunity to help Schapelle was lost recently with the visit to Bali by Dr. Philips.
Many advocates, legal professionals and diplomats observing this case, all agree that it would have been more productive to have had a round table discussion with the head of the hospital where Schapelle was moved previously, the prison doctor, Schapelle's local doctor, DFAT, representative lawyer and Dr. Philips (all done quietly behind the scenes) and worked out some solution to the problem that clearly exists. This way would have been less provoking and far more appropriate as a diplomatic intervention.
Of course, people are entitled to choose which way they do things and certainly I have no problem with that. But none of the endeavours over the last five years have achieved anything productive, in fact, numerous Government ministers have told me personally and some, even publicly, that these have been counter-productive.
Meanwhile Schapelle's options are running out. There will be some coverage of her plight in various magazines over the next week or two, given that it is the anniversary of her arrest. But will any of this change the situation? Hopefully it will generate sympathy that she has served enough time and needs to be moved to a proper care facility either here or in Indonesia. The reality however, is that it is entirely up to Indonesia what happens to Schapelle.
It is Indonesia who must be appeased, not attacked and anyone who has any dealings with international affairs will understand this.
Kay...
Thanks for the additional comment.
That is pretty much what I have been saying; things have not been working out as they were expected to, so now is as good a time as any for a change of tack.
I guess we will see.
Mr Baiton,
I am the 'Joanna S' referred to here and I was NOT the person who made the post under the name of 'Joanna S'. I have not even visited this blog until today when I was informed that someone was posing as me on here.
Could I please have a way of contacting you privately so you can confirm that I am the real 'Joanna S' and also discuss something regarding this with you? Could you also please remove the post from the person posing as me, but also retain any information you have about them as I will be pursuing them legally? I do not want to post my email address publically.
Jo
Rob,
Being found guilty in a court of law, usually means that a person is guilty, providing they have had a fair trial.
A fair trial is one in which the defendant is given every opportunity to prove their innocence, if they are in fact innocent. This entails the defendant being granted access to any evidence that their legal team requires to prove innocence.
In Schapelle's case, her legal team were not granted access to the marijuana evidence, for the purpose of ascertaining it's country of origin, nor were they granted the right to have the plastic bags fingerprinted. Finally they were denied access to the CCTV footage from the camera above the Customs Counter. Not only were they denied the right to have this introduced as evidence, they were not even permitted to view it outside the courtroom.
Even you would have to admit that in the past, courts in all parts of the World have, on occasions, made errors of judgement when handing down verdicts.
I have known the Corby family for 20 years. I am a close friend of the Corby's. I KNOW that Schapelle is innocent, regardless of the fact that her legal team failed to prove this in the Denpasar District Court. Her legal team did not provide a good defence, I admit that, but being denied access to so much vital evidence did make their job extremely difficult.
The bottom line is this, Schapelle IS Innocent, I would bet my life on it. As such, 5 minutes in jail was too long, 5 years is an outrage. 20 years will be a death sentence, a slow and agonising death.
Justice, in the true sense of the word, has not been served.
I appreciate that Indonesia has a terrible drug problem, but punishing Schapelle for a crime she did not commit, is not going to solve this.
Simba...
I appreciate that you are a friend of the Corby family and you believe in Schapelle's innocence 150%.
I am arguing she is guilty under Indonesian law. I have not argued that there were not issues worthy of further discussion at the time with respect to how the trial was run.
The appeal process was followed. And, the appeals with respect to the conviction were dismissed. This has been argued by some supporters of Schapelle as Indonesians trying to save face.
The question I have for you is this, even if the UN or a number of countries were to declare that there were some inherent problems with the manner in which the trial was conducted that bring into question the validity of the conviction, do you expect that there will be sanctions or some other measures taken against Indonesia in this particular case?
The debates about the evidence are moot, the debates about the process and procedures followed are likely only to antagonize an solidify local Indonesian opposition to showing any compassion, particularly when there are suggestions that the circumstantial evidence points to Indonesian customs officers and police planting the drugs.
Once again, and as I have consistently argued, I do not see how this helps Schapelle in her current situation.
In any event, the evidentiary arguments are moot because the avenues of local appeal are done. Unless, there is new evidence to come forward that was not available at trial or appeal.
Justice; maybe, maybe not. However, I have argued all along that the sentence is too harsh even by Indonesian standards. I have also made the point publicly and privately that it could have been worse as well.
I have also been arguing that something needs to be done with respect to her treatment for mental illness, I only differ with the majority of her supporters in how this must be approached.
Most countries have drug-related problems. I agree putting Schapelle Corby in jail for 20 years is not going to resolve this. However, if the Indonesians were looking to make a statement about the seriousness with which they are going to tackle trafficking, then they have probably succeeded in that regard.
Joanna S...
I have posted those details previously.
Or you could track me down on FaceBook and send me a message through there.
I am not sure that I have retained any information about the person who posted as Joanna S. I will have a look, but unless there is something that does it automatically in the blogspot format, then I am not using anything to collect people's data.
Which posts are you asking me to remove?
I have told you mate that you are being played like a piano. You are.
DFK an accountancy place? Funny one that. It made me laugh.
You need think about possible agendas for those posters Rob. That is always a good place to start. Everyone has one.
You have one. You are emersed in your profession and see the case through those eyes. In my opinion it makes you reluctant to see case events as they really are. It makes you eager to defend the Indonesian court despite what transpired. It makes you want to believe that Schapelle Corby is innocent even though the balance of evidence says the opposite.
Back to agenda. Some people benefit from the status quo. I'll leave you to think about that one.
Lastly, I am Larry, but it is obvious that a lot of the posters above are not who they claim, are adopting multiple names, and are bizarrely accusing me of this to cover their tracks. But they make a lot of mistakes if you look closely enough.
Agenda Rob, mate. Think about it.
Larry Ho
It is getting late, so one last point before I depart. It is on the matter of research.
On most aspects of this you are not digging deeply enough Rob. You appear to take the first authoritive type comment and accept it too readily. That is what I meant by cross reference. Some of what you accept as facts are nothing of the sort.
This applies to your view of the trial, to this thread, and to a couple of other related matters.
You need to dig much more deeply to uncover the truth.
I'm just trying to guide you, mate, by asking questions and opening issues for further contemplation.
At this point I will love you and leave you.
Larry Ho
Constructive discussion on what might help people understand the current plight of Schapelle Corby would be better served as opposed to cryptic messages.
I'm fairly certain, after reading all his posts that Rob Baiton is not fooled by anyone and if he chooses to believe that Schapelle is guilty then what's the big deal?
Alot of people think that she's guilty but a growing number of people are beginning to think she has served enough time and she should either be repatriated home or transferred to a medical facility.
Why not allow people to think what they want, if it means building support for Schapelle's repatriation. Isn't her life and health important enough to set personal feelings aside and focus on that, in stead of trying to undermine people who support her?
Rob,
What are your thought's on why none of the evidence was tested? This girl was facing the death sentance and received a 20 year sentance that is harsh by indonesian standards and they would not even allow the most basic of testing be done. If they beleived in her guilt why not do the tests?
If her luggage was weighed it could of been compared to that of check in, had they done fingerprints it would of helped, dna testing to find origin and grade.
How can anyone say she received a fair trial when they did not allow her the right to be innocent until proven guilty?
Larry...
So be it! I am being played like a piano.
I am thinking of possible agendas, including yours.
Now, DFK is an accounting place, right? So, it is not possible that DFK is an accountant who legitimately does not want to mix his personal and professional activities?
Yes, you are Larry Ho. Well, at least this is what you tell me, but I have no chance of verifying that without having a little more information about you. I am guessing a Google search would probably reveal quite a number of Larry Ho's. Yet, I really do not see the point.
Why wouldn't I be being played like a piano by you as well.
I wonder whether you are a shrink? You seem to know more about my thought processes than most others. I would reckon though that you are a little of base and out of your depth on this one.
I am enjoying the cryptic messages. For the reason that they highlight all the problems that exist with those that have an agenda. Your agenda is perhaps to portray yourself as a Schapelle supporter but in fact are really into subverting support for her by posting as you do.
Rather than the cryptic messages, you could lay it all out on the table; what it is you think the agendas are, some specific links to the information and data you think proves your case in support of Schapelle.
What I do note is that real Schapelle supporters have no shortage of links in support of their case (agenda) and have no fear of posting them here. A quick scan of the majority of comments who identify them as being intimately involved in the cause shows that they are the ones who put the links out their and challenge one to check the links out (sometimes a little too aggressively, but they are committed and passionate about their cause).
On the not digging deep enough. I have addressed in previous posts. If you have information or data that would let me get deeper into it, why not supply them? It makes no sense! There are millions upon millions of documents on the internet. I just did a search of Schapelle Corby on Google and it pops out 149,000 hits.
How deep do you suppose I go? All 149,000?
I am always contemplating and analyzing the information and data that comes to me. That is what I do. Unfortunately, your cryptic messages do not help illuminate the way.
Cheers
Kay...
To be honest, I know longer think this is an issue about the evidence and the processes.
I have consistently said that it is now time to focus on what is in the best interests of Schapelle Corby in light of the Phillips report that says she is certifiably insane.
I have disagreed with the strategy to date, and have been asked what I think would be a better strategy, I offered suggestions. If people disagree with me, then so be it.
I am thick enough skinned not to be worried by any criticisms. I am prepared to listen to whatever people have to say. There is a difference between listening and blindly accepting everything others say.
My point too, why not co-opt those who support her from whatever base into a movement targeting a release from prison?
Rob darling it is great to see ego stroking is alive and well and you're not feeling to beat up darling.
Kay "I'm fairly certain, after reading all his posts that Rob Baiton is not fooled by anyone and if he chooses to believe that Schapelle is guilty then what's the big deal? and battered ego"
Rob "I am not sure whether to apologize for any inconvenience or wonder what it is that makes you a target for the vitriol.
It does make one ponder as to why Kay is being targeted........darling.
Rob,
The problem now as I see it, is that there is little room for movement. The Indonesians have been backed into a corner where if they show her any special favour then that undermines them to the Indonesian people. Likewise, the Australian Government is stuck because they have 260+ prisoner's and their families, AND support networks looking closely at what they do here. So they can't make a special case of Schapelle. And as the Government has already confirmed, the only way Schapelle will come home, will be under a Prisoner Transfer Agreement, when we eventually get one and assuming she meets the application criteria. Discussions on the PTA are back on track as I have been informed by the Home Minister himself. So we can only continue to encourage the government to seek to include a contingency for those prisoners who may be ineligible for transfer due to one aspect of the PTA, but could perhaps qualify for a humanitarian inclusion. This is what I am continuing to push behind the scenes, having worked with the Treaties Department on other PTA's.
The best that can be done at this point would be to make sure she is treated for the depression and whatever else is going on there.
Then after all the heat dies down, a proper negotiating team tries a diplomatic intervention for clemency. My only concern is the timing and the ability to do that sort of thing properly when clearly there are elements that are set to undermine the successful of that type of strategy.
Hi Rob
I saw your comment about 'links'. Have already sent you the letter to PM Rudd which you kindly posted. Just this afternoon I emailed you another link which I felt you may find informative. And another I hope to get to you over the weekend. It would be utterly impossible to check out all the google entries, however, most of it all is 'embedded' in links from the forum.
WHO magazine apparently has an article on Schapelle this week. I'll get my copy on the weekend to add to my collection of Schapelle magazines on the coffee table. Everyone who comes to my home does not get out without seeing the latest magazine article.
I should also add here, which I think is fairly pertinent, that I have a number of friends (apart from those I have met on the forum over the years) who support Schapelle. But most of them shy away from 'belonging to a forum' or even writing on a blog. That's ok. But it does lead me to wonder just how many supporters are out there who also fit the above profile. There was a poll done a few months ago and apparently the demographic of the most supporters were those people around 45-60yro, which also correlates closely to an informal meeting/discussion a forum member had recently. Same age group.
Rob
Re your comment about clemency. I think Schapelle should be pardoned by SBY on the grounds of compassion and she could then come home and placed in a private hospital to receive the treatment she needs for as long as necessary.
Now, many will say - but what about other prisoners? Fair enough. But this is an exception insofar as her mental and physical situation is. This is something that PM Rudd, who I am sure would like to be known as a 'statesman' could achieve with SBY as a one-off.
The harsh reality is that if something is not done SOON there could be dire repercussions. How do you think Australians would react if, indeed, something terrible DID happen to Schapelle (which is a quite distinct possibility).
The backlash against PM Rudd and Indonesia would be unprecedented IMHO. And, just as the general Australian populace have been influenced by the media-smears they won't be caring about intricacies (between the two governments) all they will care about is that one of 'theirs' is gone. In fact I would go so far as to say that the media themselves would aid and abet that.
How do you think Alan Jones would react? What about his listeners?
Think about it.
And I refuse to believe that out of "x" many journalists in this country - that every single one of them believes she is guilty. It's just not possible. And I can understand that they would not want to lose their jobs. But I bet there are a lot of talks around the water coolers to that effect.
Instead of Schapelle being a 'political pawn' which she is - there is a political time-bomb all primed and ready to go........
I rest my case.
Anonymous...
Thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment. Comments are always appreciated. I am not sure whether you are a previous anonymous poster to this thread or not.
This is why I ask that anonymous posters adopt a pen name so that I can distinguish commenters. This is also, sometimes, problematic with some allegedly posing as someone they are not.
Nevertheless, to answer your question. It is a good question, why was the evidence not tested in certain ways that would seemingly clear Schapelle or seal her fate if the tests went the other way?
I think we are rehashing arguments that have been made numerous times before. Yet, if needs be, we can do it all over again.
I have always argued she is guilty because the prosecutors met the burden that they must meet under Indonesian law. I am not arguing the merits of whether this standard meets any international guidelines or whether it breaches any international obligations Indonesia may have treaty or convention based.
I have also argued that the defense failed to prove the alternative case that they were arguing. This is, in my opinion, as much a failure by the lawyers representing Schapelle as it is not convincing the judges of the preponderance of circumstantial "evidence".
However, it is a fallacy, or a myth, that the Indonesian system is based on a presumption of guilt or it does not recognize a presumption of innocence.
There have been arguments within this thread about whether the prosecution submitted the requisite two pieces of evidence (at least a primary piece and a supporting piece). You can read them if you so wish or need to.
The crux of the matter is that the system is based on the judge being the arbiter of the facts and then determining guilt or innocence based on the facts presented. In essence, the prosecutors need to convince the judge of guilt and the defense needs to muddy the waters sufficiently that the judge(s) is not convinced of the guilt.
For example, should Linton Sirait allowed the defense to cross-examine the customs officials to determine English language competency. My personal opinion, is yes. However, the judge has a degree of discretion to decide how the trial progresses. So, if LS was convinced of the testimony then there would be no need in his view to hear any cross-examination.
Does that appear to be a violation of a basic human right? To many it does. But, the reality is that it falls within the scope of standard trial practice in Indonesia.
Should LS have examined the video that Schapelle and her legal team claimed would support her assertions that the customs officers and police were lying, he probably should have. For the simple reason that it would have bolstered the prosecution case that Corby was desperate or it would have bolstered the defense case that the customs officers and police were embellishing want went on during that fateful day.
But, once again, see the previous point on judicial discretion and convincing the judge. If he found the custom officers and police credible, then he may not have been convinced of the need to view the tape.
Is it fair? To some, it is so unfair that it is reason enough to void the conviction. The appeals process that transpired determined that there was no sufficient miscarriage of justice to warrant orders being made to the lower court to re-examine certain pieces of evidence.
This was written off as saving face. To continual plug away at the idea that the Indonesians are responsible and that they planted the drugs seems, at least to me, to run counter to what is in Schapelle's best interests at this point in time.
Daffney...
Do you have something constructive to put forward to the discussion? Ego stroking, now that is funny! You really have missed the point of the whole discussion on this thread, haven't you?
Too cryptic!
If you have something to say about why Kay Danes is being targeted then you should have the courage of your convictions to put it on the record.
But enjoy the weekend and any stroking, of your ego, that might come your way.
Kay...
I am running the risk of being told of some mutual ego stroking here.
Good luck.
A PTA would be a hopeful addition to the bilateral relationship with Indonesia, particularly for those families with loved ones who may benefit from any such agreement.
Gaile...
I have received your email, but to be honest have not checked out the link yet.
I will have a look at the local newsagency for the Who magazine (this week?).
On the supporters front, I recently posted something in this thread about the need to co-opt those into "the movement" to see Schapelle (particularly if it is viewed that a PTA will take too long to finalize) placed in suitable medical care or released into suitable care in Australia.
It is worth pointing out that there are probably a lot of "potential" supporters out there who honestly believe that she has done enough time and needs to get appropriate treatment. These potential supporters might also not be too fussed either way on the arguments about evidence, but rather see a young Australian woman struggling under a severe and excessive sentence.
Maybe it is time to devise a strategy to start co-opting those individuals into your movement. I believe that larger numbers of voters demanding quicker action on compassion might help, both in Australia and in Indonesia.
Nevertheless, I also agree with Kay Danes that the Australian government is between a rock and a hard place with respect to making specific representations on Schapelle. All the families of all the Australians imprisoned overseas are watching to see how this unfolds and will demand the same if there is success.
Just a thought.
Rob
A PTA has been touted ever since the beginning. What has happened? SFA.
I have spent I don't know how many hours over the years reading comments on how and why it should be done etc etc etc and NOTHING has happened.
To the best of my knowledge it will take YEARS to get one in place and I think this was recently confirmed by Rudd's government. I think there was something in train but it 'stalled'.
No Rob, it is too late for a PTA for Schapelle.
Fine for one to be 'negotiated/put in place' for future Australian prisoners. I fully support that.
BUT IT IS TOO LATE FOR SCHAPELLE.
That really belongs under a different topic. Where I could read about it if I wanted to but I have more important things to do for Schapelle now than to find time to read what I have read all about before. For years.
Gaile...
I don't know what else to say. My argument has been that clemency on compassionate grounds might be possible. It is highly unlikely, but it is possible. However, assuming clemency was offered and involved spending another 4 or 5 or 10 years in a prison psych ward, is this a goer for Schapelle and her supporters.
Alternatively, a pardon. I have argued on this front that a pardon requires an admission of guilt and then some signs of remorse to be exhibited by the convicted person. Schapelle has steadfastly claimed that she is innocent. Would she flip over and admit guilt in order to gain a pardon and get home? More to the point, does she have the mental capacity to make that admission of guilt?
The law of averages would support the idea that there have to be journalists out there who believe in Schapelle's innocence. What are they not being heard, who knows. I am not convinced that there is a conspiracy of silence to try and rub Schapelle out from history.
I am also not convinced that the death of a convicted drug trafficker in an overseas prison is going to be a relationship breaker for Australia and Indonesia.
Alan Jones might be popular and he might have a lot of fans out there in radioland. But, once again, I do not think that Alan Jones is going to be the breaker in this one either. Undoubtedly, he will get some mileage out of her death (which I sincerely hope does not happen, she does not deserve to die for this crime), but it will blow over, there are other Australians languishing in prisons in foreign lands.
I am not convinced that Schapelle is a political pawn. And, I am also not convinced that it is a political time bomb. That is just me though. There was nothing in your posts to date or the links and materials that I have read that convince me of that. Maybe I am just too hard to convince.
Gaile...
I agree. Any PTA agreement will probably not come soon enough for Schapelle Corby if she does not get some treatment for her depression and mental illness.
Yet, trumpeting the idea that she has been set up by the Indonesians, that the trial process was flawed, Indonesians in the law enforcement sector are all corrupt and worthless, and that Schapelle is a pawn in some political game, are all likely to galvanize the Indonesians to holding firm.
If Schapelle were to die in Kerobokan then the public view in Indonesia would be that it is sad, but she was a convicted drug trafficker. A serious crime that has serious repercussions if you get caught.
In Australia, the government will put out a statement noting their condolences to the Corby family and then going on to say that Australians must realize that there are serious consequences for those who deal and traffic in drugs in foreign countries.
Yes, there are more important things than a PTA, but are Schapelle Corby's supporters prepared to focus on those and not on the continual rehashing of the deficiencies in a trial verdict that is not going to be overturned?
This is what I have been trying to explore over the now 190 comments on this thread.
Hi Rob
Exploring what is ‘within those 190 comments’ is daunting indeed. That’s why I am sending you links for you to peruse and which may give you a deeper understanding of those comments.
But I do stand with my comment that I think Australians would be outraged if anything happens to Schapelle.
Schapelle’s supporters, I can assure you, ARE focusing on getting her home as soon as we can. As evidenced by the letter to the PM for example, which you have posted here. The re-hashing of deficiencies is simply that. And all has been posted on forum prior to this. We know that the media and government/s have been monitoring the forum (and others before it) for years so there is nothing new for them to see. Here or elsewhere.
And Rob, at the end of the day it is the Corby family who decide and approve of initiatives as they are kept informed at all times. And no doubt they will keep the family informed via governmental officials of any headway in that area.
If the government is making ‘overtures’ with Indonesia. Fine. As I said, I welcome it. But I hardly believe that the Indonesians are influenced by anything they read. Rather, they were more upset with the new head of the AFP re-opening an enquiry into the Timor situation as I am sure you read about. I noted that PM Rudd personally called SBY to try and ‘clear the air’ one Sunday a couple of weeks ago.
If anything, that would have done more harm for Schapelle. But does not stop us in our endeavours. That’s politics and that’s all we have been dealing with for years.
Gaile...
Indeed, daunting. But, I am going through them.
I will check out any new links that you send through. I have read a lot over the last few days and admittedly have a much more thorough understanding of the arguments being made by Schapelle's supporters.
On the outrage. I was not expecting to change your mind or view. I would say that we have different perspectives on the whole case and this might also explain the divergent opinions as to what sort of outrage, or lack thereof, might happen.
I was not pre-supposing to speak for Schapelle or the Corby family. I do not know them other than through the press, I was merely arguing and making suggestions on my understanding and experience of Australia and Indonesia. Any decisions that are made on the tack taken I would assume rest with Schapelle and her family. Which is the way it must be.
I don't think I said that the PM could not call the Indonesian president and broach the subject of Schapelle. As you point out, if he can do it regarding the AFP and the Balibo investigation, then he could do it on Schapelle's behalf.
However, there are two points I would make; I do not think that he has because of the risk that all families of Australians in prison would be demanding that the PM make representations on their behalf (this is in spite of any arguments one might be able to make on urgency or differences in circumstances), and secondly I cannot see the Indonesians looking favourably on any approach at the moment.
Well, I beg to differ on the idea that Indonesians do not care about what is written about the Schapelle Corby case. However, I would guess we are going to differ on a number of things relating to the case.
Hi Rob
Well at least, as you say, with the (190+ now) comments you have been digesting you have a deeper understanding of Schapelle’s supporters and what we stand for and why.
Perhaps I should clarify that I am well aware that many Australians (and others) are incarcerated in foreign prisons. I was a supporter of Nick Baker (a UK citizen), who got home from Japan after a very long ordeal. Also Alan Hodgson, who is incarcerated in Ghana. I am close to both their mothers. From a distance, Scott Rush (one of the Bali 9) where one of my friend’s (from the forum) is very close to Scott’s family and regularly visits Scott and at the same time, Schapelle. Starting to get involved in an Australian called Nick Palfreyman who is incarcerated in Bulgaria. All of this after I first became aware of Schapelle. But my primary efforts are for Schapelle. There is only so much one can do. So many hours in the day.
Who is to know? Perhaps PM Rudd has already made a personal/preliminary/feeling out type of call to SBY regarding Schapelle. If so, that would be a step in the right direction. And of course, would not be made public at all.
As I said, the government will directly keep the Corby family informed of any developments. Which we supporters may not be privy to – as it should be. Given the sensitivity of the situation. In the meantime we need to keep up our endeavours of which Mercedes and family are fully informed.
I agree with your comment that we may come from diverse directions. Quite understandable – and logical. That is (probably) why you created your blogsite. And most definitely I am enjoying seeing ‘your perspective from Indonesia’s legal point of view’. Thought-provoking albeit a lot I have already deduced. Not that I agree with it – as you say.
It’s too bad that the Indonesians would not consider Schapelle’s situation, or any representation favourably at the moment – as you put it. That may be so but I have a different perspective.
And that is: if I don’t do anything and anything happens to Schapelle – if she dies
I will always ask myself “is there anything else I could have and should have done?”
And I don’t want to live with that.
Rob,
Clearly you have spent too much time being in a corrupt country like Indonesia...
I really don't think innocence/guilty talk of any description should be allowed. It is totally outdated. Schapelle has been punished so much and should be released along with the other nine Australians. They have all well and truly done a LOT of time.... Big message to the rest of us. Keep clear out of that disgusting place... Human life means nothing there. Very sad!!
Gaile...
I gathered that from your posts that you will not rest until you see Schapelle home. I do hope you enjoy success and I do hope Schapelle gets to breathe the air of freedom once again.
Anonymous...
I can see that you have the courage of your convictions to put your name to your comment.
Yes, Schapelle Corby is a convicted trafficker and the Bali Nine are convicted traffickers and smugglers and mules. So, I agree, it is no longer about the evidence. That part of the process is done.
Indonesia is far from being a disgusting place. Indonesians are on the whole wonderful people. I would say the same thing about Australians, on the whole Australians are wonderful people. There are always those that are less than wonderful no matter what country one visits.
Human life means as much in Indonesia as it means to others in other countries. If you are going to argue, for example, that Indonesians obviously value life less because they permit the death penalty is just too simplistic an argument to sustain. It is too bad you cannot see that.
However, it is probably sadder that you do not have the courage of your convictions. It is sadder that you hide behind the veil of anonymity that you think this kind of commenting affords you.
But anyway, to each their own. You obviously do not have the courage to argue the point under your own name, then so be it.
Have a nice weekend.
It is worth pointing out that there are probably a lot of "potential" supporters out there who honestly believe that she has done enough time and needs to get appropriate treatment. These potential supporters might also not be too fussed either way on the arguments about evidence, but rather see a young Australian woman struggling under a severe and excessive sentence.
Maybe it is time to devise a strategy to start co-opting those individuals into your movement. I believe that larger numbers of voters demanding quicker action on compassion might help, both in Australia and in Indonesia."
Spot on... I have been thinking this for some time. There are many people who will never be convinced that she is innocent, but they do agree that she should be brought home. Why use precious energy trying to convince people that she is innocent, when she needs urgent attention for her condition? IMO supporters should be making the most of this newfound sympathy, not chasing people away with sticks because they don't scream her innocence from the rooftops. The public pressure is vital to getting her home for treatment.
At the moment her fate is in the hands of Indonesia anyone who wants to see Schapelle come home can't afford to piss them off. I would think it's better to wait until after she is home to argue her innocence.
Rob,
You sound like a pretty crummy person when it comes to law. It is not about opinions. If a member of a jury feels the defendant probably commited a crime they have to retire with a not guilty verdict...You can feel in this case she probably did it, not good enough mate... It is ONLY your opinion. Then again you probably want nothing to do with Western law since you're so well acquainted with third world type. They are barbaric... Sounds like you're in training...
This case is in the media - and probably hard to get out of, unfortunately. Just an idea. I think Mercedes would be good on Dancing with the Stars. Her charity could be foreign prison support services to help money to get Schapelle out. The rehearsals are really intense and Schapelle would need other family members there for about 10 weeks to look after her... What do you guys think???
Free Schapelle!!!
Jacqui
I agree wholeheartedly. As you know. It is what we are doing now to bring her home that is important. However this is a blogsite which started off with Robin Tampoe, which is how and why some of us got here.
Discussing on a blogsite past history is part and parcel of the original topic posted. One thing led to another. But I do not believe that has taken the impetus of anything we are currently doing to get Schapelle home is impaired by comments on this site. Indeed, this blog has now got a lot of thought-provoking comments which others (apart from the forum) may look at. And that is, maybe, some more supporters, clandestine or not.
Schapelle’s fate was in Indonesia’s hands, long ago, when she said Saya Tidak Bersalah to the judges.
Jacqui. What else can we do apart from what we are already doing? And how?
Schapelle dancing with the stars? And donating proceeds to FPSS? I think NOT.
Post a Comment