Time For SBY To Step Up To The Plate...

The Fact Finding Team appointed by the President of Indonesia, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono or SBY, has held a press conference to relay their findings and what they intend to put in writing to the president. It is worth noting that the fact finding team, or the Team of Eight as it is known, have no real powers to stop the investigations by the police or the Office of the Attorney General (AGO).

Nevertheless, considering that SBY went to the trouble of appointing the team means that if he does not follow through on what the team finds, then he will look like he is dragging his feet and this can only be a negative in the long-term for the president and his legacy.

The fact finding team has reported that the police and the AGO do not have a case against Chandra and Bibit. The evidence that they offered up to the team as proof of the case has been deemed inadequate. It has been deemed to be insufficient to sustain the indictment and it has been deemed to not be sufficient to get a conviction. This is a pretty big slap in the face for both the police and the AGO.

It is worth noting that this is also a pretty big slap in the face for the president as well. He steadfastly refused to become involved and his reluctance to do so has shown him to be weak on ant-corruption measures and willing to do whatever it takes to avoid making the hard decisions and upsetting the apple cart. The failures in this case will continue to haunt SBY for some time. They might also be instrumental in undermining any legacy that he thought he might be leaving with respect to being a reformer and corruption fighter.

What the interim report does put into play now is how should those who remain be dealt with. This is particularly so for the lead actor in this charade, Anggodo. Anggodo by his own admission has seemingly said he was trying to bribe members of the KPK and had disbursed money for that purpose. If there is no evidence, and the fact finding team says that there is not, then Anggodo must be charged with obstruction of justice type violations and making an attempt to bribe members of the KPK.

Furthermore, the Chief of Police and the Attorney General must also be investigated to determine what they knew and when. It seems that both were either involved in the construction of the case against Chandra and Bibit or were aware early that it was a fabrication. Both men have fronted the relevant Commission at the DPR and claimed that there is evidence of the extortion and bribes being completed, In essence, they have suggested that both the police and the AGO intend to pursue the matter to its conclusion.

The only way that either can avoid the pink slip treatment is to prove that to all intents and purposes they were "just doing their jobs". Somehow this seems unlikely.

It appears that round three, four, and five have gone to the KPK as well. The police and the AGO are taking a beating in not only the courts of law but the court of public opinion as well.

Time to give this one up.

Roy Suryo...

Perhaps it is only fair to give the man his full title, Kanjeng Raden Mas Temenggung Roy Suryo Notodiprojo or KRMT Roy Suryo. After all, if you have a royal sounding title you have probably earned it. Roy Suryo, as he is known to his mates, is a self-proclaimed and self-taught expert on telematics. If you do not believe him, then you should just ask him.

The man is never short of a comment, and funnily enough is pretty regularly called in to pass expert commentary. Some of his better performances have been to equate bloggers and hackers as being one of the same. As a witness for the prosecution in the ongoing Prita Mulyasari dispute he offered up in his expert testimony, allegedly, that Prita intended to distribute the email because she sent it to all her friends, and did not CC or BCC the email. Therefore, this was sufficient to prove that the intent to defame had been made out.

He is close to the President, and has in fact speared the president and the president's party for large sums of cash to set up a website.

But, even more interesting is that this fellow is the master manipulator and promoter of an image, his own. So, the idea that he was seriously being considered for the position of Minister of Communication and Information should be taken with a grain of salt. It would have been a bad choice because he would have come to the position with a good number of Indonesian citizens questioning his expertise, his skills, and his ability to perform the role.

However, for his part, Roy Suryo contacted the press to let them know that he was OK with the president's choice not to appoint him to the ministerial role. Yet, at the same time as saying that he understood the president's choice, he was going on the offensive and after the person that is expected to get the nod for the ministerial slot, Tifatul Sembiring.

Sembiring has been outed as a polygamist. Although, polygamy is discouraged, it is not illegal. Provided that it is done in a manner that conforms to the prevailing laws and regulations then it is legal. Nevertheless, Roy took the opportunity to openly question whether Sembiring's polygamy would impact on his ability to do his job as the Minister of Communication and Information. I would have figured that communication and information would have had to be something that Sembiring was good at with two wives.

Seriously though, here is a fella that cannot distinguish between bloggers and hackers wondering out loud whether polygamy is going to be a hindrance to Sembiring in doing his job. Seems a little on the rich side for me.

It is worth noting that in all the high profile cases of late that Roy Suryo has appeared for the prosecution, there has been a vigorous defense put on highlighting the fact that Roy Suryo's standards as a telematic expert or in the field of digital forensic science are lacking. This is particular so in the case of Ananda Mikola and Marcella Zalianty.

I am not an expert on telematics or technology in a general sense. However, I would be concerned if I was an Indonesian and the idea of making this bloke the minister was in fact real. He really has not shown over the years to be up to the job.

That is not to say that Sembiring has shown himself to be up to the job either. But, his practice of polygamy is not a key indicator in his job performance or ability to do the job, is it?

Syekh Puji Goes To Trial (and gets acquitted)...

Syekh Puji went to trial in the Ungaran District Court charged with committing sexual abuse on a child. The sexual abuse charges stem from his marriage to an underage girl. I have written about this case elsewhere, and you can find those posts here.

In essence, the Syekh was facing charges relating to violations of Articles 81(2) and 82 of the Child Protection Law and Article 290 of the Indonesian Criminal Code. I also believe that there are charges relating to a violation of the Marriage Law. I have not seen the indictment or read the verdict dismissing the case.

However, the presiding judge in the trial, Hari Mulyanto, dismissed the prosecution case because, in his opinion, the indictment was incomplete, vague, and by default, flawed. Consequently, Mulyanto ordered that the Syekh was free to go and resume his life free of the charges laid. In that sense it is not really an acquittal, because in a technical sense the judge has issued a preliminary ruling stating that the case cannot go forward to trial because the indictment does not make the grade.

Prosecutors, apparently, intend to appeal the verdict. But, what is interesting was that the prosecution seemed to indicate that they will go away and improve the indictment. This suggests that the first time out the prosecutors did not bother to cross all the "t"s and dot all the "i"s.

Appeals in Indonesia generally require that there be new evidence available that was not available at the time of the trial or that there has been an error by the judge(s) in the application of the law. Unfortunately, prosecutors failing to do their jobs is not new evidence or an error in the application of the law.

There seems to be little doubt that the Syekh married an underage girl, and there seems little doubt that he consummated that marriage after her first period, what seems to be in doubt is the ability of the prosecutors to close the deal on this case.

Energy Drinks To Be Banned In NSW?

One would think that the NSW Government has more pressing matters than the total banning of energy drinks, then again perhaps not. There has recently been a report that a number of Year 7 students suffered some side effects after drinking the energy drinks on their way to school. It is alleged that these energy drinks caused the youngsters to suffer a little dizziness and nausea.

The government's reaction, ban them! Unfortunately, for the NSW Government, these drinks are usually registered as a dietary supplement at the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). So, the simple conclusion is that under Australian law these drinks are legal despite the high levels of caffeine that they include.

The Primary Industries Minister, Ian Macdonald, has stated that the NSW Government is looking into ways that the drinks can be banned and removed from the shelves. This is not going to happen anytime soon. A much better approach would be to reclassify the beverages concerned so that they may only be purchased by individuals over 18 years of age. Therefore, anyone selling them would be required to ask for proof of age before making a sale.

The science suggests that some of these drinks contain 12 to 15 times the recommended level of caffeine in terms of intake. However, the fact that these drinks have been registered as dietary supplements would also suggest that they are not dangerous. Nevertheless, this clearly requires a caveat, namely: anything that is abused can be dangerous. Excessive drinking of alcohol is dangerous, for example.

To suggest that there is anecdotal evidence that energy drinks are dangerous is a little bit on the simplistic side, as there would be an equal amount of anecdotal evidence that suggests that even greater levels of consumption than those noted do not cause any specific side effects.

It will be interesting to see whether this blows over or whether the NSW Government goes all out in order to not only restrict the sale of energy drinks but to ban them altogether.

Hambali and the Bali Bombings

Riduan Isamuddin (AKA Hambali) was arrested in Thailand in 2003, and after having been the alleged recipient of some free travel around the world to a number of ghost prisons, ended up in Guantanamo Bay as a guest of the US. This is presumably for the duration of the war on terror. However, since Barack Obama has taken office, it has become a little uncertain as to what lies ahead for some of these detainees.

In any event, there is little doubt that Hambali gave up a fair bit of intelligence under the enhanced interrogation techniques used on him, like waterboarding. Nevertheless, even with the favourable rules of evidence that the military tribunals were going to be working under, the US has some doubts that it could currently make a case against Hambali for the Bali Bombings. Hambali was the head of a Jemaah Islamiyya cell that had operational responsibilities for Malaysia and Singapore. This cell was known as Mantiqi One.

The problem is apparently not a lack of evidence, but rather a lack of evidence that prosecutors would be able to adduce and then use in court to prove Hambali's guilt. Nevertheless, it is generally thought that Hambali ordered the targeting of "soft targets" and was the main man when it came to funding the bombings.

Yet, the US authorities are a lot more confident that they can link him to a string of other bombings in Indonesia. It has only been this year that the Indonesian authorities have been granted access to Hambali for interrogation purposes. This is interesting in itself as the majority of Hambali's alleged crimes have occurred in Indonesia and have predominantly killed Indonesians. The two series of bombings that the authorities believe present as the strongest cases against Hambali are the Marriott bombing of 2003 and the Christmas Eve bombings.

If the military tribunals are reconvened, and the rules are not drastically changed, then it would seem that military prosecutors would seek to see Hambali charged with murder and then pursue the death penalty for him.

Can Rape Be A Joke?

Can rape be a joke or perhaps an accident? The Victorian County Court, before Judge Tim Wood, is soon going to have to determine this very issue. The case involves a buck's night, the best man, a stripper, and a strap-on pink dildo. Yes, the makings of a very interesting story and turn of events that have resulted in claims of rape and the rape being nothing more than a joke.

The rape is alleged to have occurred in 2007. Perhaps alleged is the wrong word as the event occurred and all parties agree that it occurred. The substance of this issue is whether the event is rape.

The stripper, Linda Maree Naggs, is accused of using the strap-on pink dildo to violate the best man. After unequivocally stating that he did not want to have the dildo stuck in his anus, Naggs went ahead and did it anyway. This was done in spite of his insistence that he did not want to be violated. It has always been a case of "No" means "No" when one discusses the wishes of a woman declining sexual intercourse. Simply, "No" does not sometimes mean "Yes" or "Maybe" or "just do it as I am only playing hard to get." No means no, and this standard must not differ between women and men.

Naggs has pleaded not guilty to rape.

There is little need to get into the nitty gritty details and specifics. However, suffice to say, the alleged rape caused physical injuries to the best man. And, at this point there was some push and shove, and a demand for a refund of the stripping fee. Naggs refused and then threatened to call in some bikie acquaintances to settle the matter.

The best man kept the black-strapped strap-on pink dildo as evidence and this was tendered to the court.

Rape can never be a joke!

Postscript...

This post has been amended slightly from the original posting for the purposes of accuracy with regards to the names of victim and the prosecutor in the case.

Baby Swinging Video -- Update

I have written about this particular case a couple of times before, here and here. The case of Chris Illingworth and the baby swinging video posted on Liveleak after watching it and downloading it from YouTube. This is an interesting case as it has the potential to set a precedent as to what constitutes child abuse material under Australian law.

The case, which was subject to a recent committal hearing in the Maroochydoore's Magistrates Court in Queensland, has now been ordered to go to trial. A date for that trial has yet to be set.

There are a number of concerns in this case. First, is that there is no evidence to suggest that the child in the video clip that was posted, was in fact harmed. There is evidence of a speculative nature that the child may have been hurt. This evidence is speculative because the person giving it has not physically examined the child in question. She, Dr. Susan Cadzow, is basing that testimony on nothing more than having watched the video with respect to this case.

Second, whether the intent of the parliament when they passed this particular law was for this purpose. There is no doubt that the legislation is designed to protect children from violence and harm. There is no direct evidence that this child has been harmed. Furthermore, it is thought that the man and the child in the video are part of a circus troupe, and possibly operating somewhere in Eastern Europe. Police have yet to locate either the man or the child.

It seems that when this finally does go to trial that Illingworth and his lawyers are going to argue that this is not child abuse. At best this is a training video for circus performers. A novel argument and one that seemingly has some legs.

The moral of this story is that Australians need to be careful what they watch, let alone what they post, while online. The cold hared reality is that if the police continue to interpret the law in the manner this case suggest that they are, then even watching this type of video online means that the viewer is liable for a term of imprisonment of ten years.

I guess I am not going to be talking about whether I have watched this particular video anytime soon.

Manohara Odelia Pinot -- Part XII -- Indonesian Embassy in KL Strikes Back

The Manohara (photo) saga continues. For more on this case as written by yours truly, look here.

If the issues in this case, specifically the allegations of rape and abuse, were not so serious then this case would almost be fun to watch. Manohara and her mother, Daisy Fajarina, have been vocal in making claims against just about everyone who they feel have slighted them in some way in this whole affair. The Indonesian Embassy in Kuala Lumpur was no exception.

Mano, as she is now know affectionately, and her mother, have suggested that the Indonesia Embassy deliberately thwarted any attempts to deal with the matter and in fact was pro-active in keeping Mano in Malaysia because they had been bribed by the Kelantan Royal family.

This piece is not about whether the claims are true or false per se, but rather about the legal implications of making them. And, then failing to produce any evidence in support of those claims. It would not be a first for an Indonesian Embassy and the officials that work within to be accused of corruption and to have that proved. However, in the cases where the allegations were made, subsequent evidence was furnished in order to establish guilt, and then convictions were obtained.

The Indonesian Embassy in Malaysia has laid out in chronological order all of the efforts that they undertook with respect to the Mano case. Could they have done more? Perhaps. However, the claim was that they did not do enough. Therefore, this raises the important question of, "legally how much does an Embassy have to in order to protect its citizens who get into trouble abroad, either legal or personal?"

The Indonesian Embassy in Kuala Lumpur has also indicated that it is intending to sue Mano and her mother if the pair of them cannot come up with evidence to prove their claims. It would be interesting to see how the presidential candidates respond to the Indonesian Embassy threatening a victim of alleged domestic violence in this way. Interesting in the sense of whether they jump on board like they did in the Prita Mulyasari defamation case or just try and avoid it like the plague.

Although, the incumbent president has had a say on the matter here (in Indonesian). Nevertheless, it was pretty much run of the mill stuff. Generally, "this is a serious matter"; "better that Manohara talks to the Minister of Foreign Affairs"; and, "I have instructed the ambassador in Malaysia to watch the developments in this case closely."

Kompas has a detailed account of the chronology of events here (in Indonesian).

My personal opinion is that the burden of proof lies with those making the allegations. In this case the burden of proof in terms of proving the two primary allegations, namely: the Embassy did not do enough and that it accepted bribes, lies with Mano and her mother. If they fail to do so, and if one truly believes in the idea that all are equal in the eyes of the law, then Mano and her mother must be subject to the prevailing laws and regulations governing their conduct.

Despite the threats, the Indonesian Embassy in Kuala Lumpur has expressed their desire to facilitate any action that Mano and her mother want to take in Malaysia.

A simple defense is truth. Hopefully, Mano and her mother have truth on their side and can prove it.

Trivia -- Interesting Facts...

It has been a while since I posted some interesting, or not, piece of trivia. Generally, these tid bits are only every going to be useful in games like trivial pursuit or Jeopardy or maybe Who Wants to be a Millionaire. But, they are fun.

Did you know any of the following:

1. That each year insects eat one third of the world's food crop;

2. That human thighbones are as strong as concrete;

3. That apples, not caffeine are better at waking you up in the morning;

4. That the evidence of a bloodhound is admissible in an American court of law;

5. That a raisin in a glass of champagne will float to the top and then sink to the bottom over and over again;

6. That the average human body contains enough iron to make a 7.62cm nail;

7. That bulletproof vests, fire escapes, laser printers, and windscreen wipers were all invented by women;

8. That the first known contraceptive was crocodile dung, and was used by Egyptians as early as 2000 BC;

and,

9. That the human brain generates more electrical impulses in a day than all of the world's telephones combined.

Enjoy!

Heath Ledger and Mary-Kate Olsen -- An Update

It is being reported that federal prosecutors have decided not to pursue the case of whether or not the prescriptions used by Heath Ledger to obtain the drugs that formed the lethal cocktail that killed him at this point in time.

What this means is that the federal prosecutors do not have sufficient evidence to pursue any one particular person. Therefore, the subpoena that might have been used on Mary-Kate Olsen to compel her to testify is no longer valid. Apparently, the subpoena was reliant on the federal prosecutors pursing the case. If they do not pursue the case then the subpoena cannot be enforced.

However, deciding not to pursue the case at this point in time does not mean that it could not be pursued at some later time should evidence become available that a crime has been committed.

Anwar Ibrahim -- Arrested

The allegations are clear but the charges are not, at least according to Anwar's lawyer. Sankara Nair, Anwar's lawyer witnessed the arrest , and has stated that the police did not indicate what Anwar (pictured) was being charged with. Anwar was arrested as he arrived at home and was immediately taken to Kuala Lumpur police headquarters.

The arrest sparked an SMS frenzy with all members of the Keadilan Party and the members of the opposition coalition receiving SMS messages to gather outside the police headquarters and rally for Anwar's release.

It is going to be interesting to see how this all plays out. The "victim" or the person making the claims here is Saiful Bukhari Azlan, a volunteer in Anwar's office. Saiful is 23 years old. It might be the cynic in me, but after the allegations were made several photos emerged showing Saiful posing all smiles at the Deputy Prime Ministers office. This in and of itself has no real significance except how does a 23-year-old with no real reason to be meeting with the Deputy PM get access to the DPM office? More to the point, why is a volunteer from Anwar's office meeting with the DPM?

For old conspiracy theorists like myself there is something to be made of all these coincidences.

Having been charged and convicted for sodomy before it seems that these would be the easiest allegations to be made. Yet, the previous charges were ultimately thrown out or overturned by Malaysia's highest court. This really is shaping up as a he said, he said show. Unless, young Saiful has some incriminating evidence then I am not sure where this goes. I am not an expert on Malaysian law so I cannot authoritatively say.

It must be noted that some Ministers have been suggesting that there is evidence and that Anwar will need to provide a reference DNA sample. I am not sure why he would need to do that. I would have thought that last time around the police would have required Anwar to submit DNA and his sample would be in the system. But if there is DNA evidence, I wonder whether it is of a similar kind that captivated US audiences during the Bill Clinton / Monica Lewinsky caper and the President's semen stain on the good ol' blue dress.

Sodomy charges if proven see the perpetrator liable for a term of imprisonment of up to 20 years.

The question though is, are these trumped up charges that are aimed at subverting the opposition movement for democratic change and restoring some of the authoritarian practices of the past?

I will be watching as this will be quite a story for sure.

Faith & Evidence

Been doing a little reading and thought this might be something worth pondering among friends or a broader audience...

The statement of "faith being inversely proportional to evidence" is interesting for its simplicity!

Simply, with more evidence we would need a corresponding reduction in the amount of faith required to support an argument. In contrast, where there is a reliance on faith there is the inference that the position being proferred lacks sufficient evidence.

I pose this faith & evidence question with respect to God and religion. I only do so because I recently read a statement to the effect that "when are human beings going to acknowledge that the presence of God is all around us"...I am not sure what presence needs to be acknowledged here but I am guessing that it refers to the idea that the world in which we live had to be created and that it could not just "be"!