admin

You dont address one thing I say in my post. You just launch into the next chapter. Thats ok tho, I am a big boy.


What a strange thing to say . You just told us all that the Bali police were trying to fool Schapelle into signing a confession. If more than half a thrown out then why were you making such a big deal out of this?

What an absolute load of hogs wash! You are trying to tell me that if we could proove that someone who Schapelle never had met had put the pot in her bag that this wouldnt lead to her innocence? You are joking right?


You write as if you were in the room with them at the time this happened. Where did you get your concise record of these events from?

They didnt systermatically remove all the evidence. Seriously mate you are ONLY seeing things how you want to see them. I explained how the actions of the Bali police could have been conceived as incomptence and you continue to ignore it and speak as if there is no chance that this is anything then a massive plot on behalf of some people in Indonesia. They were already aware of the bali 9 when Schapelle was arrested. If they had to 'catch a fish' as you claim then why the heck would they go to all this trouble to set Schapelle up when they just had to sit tight for a few more weeks and they would get 9 aussies with dope strapped to their body. Please answer that question won't you.


Yes but they were surprised? Noone had ever tried to import so much dope into Bali before. How could they not be surprised? See my above question as to why the didnt wait for the Bali 9 who they were already well aware of. They knew they were going back to Bali and they knew it wasnt for a bloody fishing trip. So why didnt they wait for them? A guaranteed bust. All the proof in the world would be right there for the world to see. Maybe you think the Bali Police set up the Bali 9.

Are you trying to sound like a pompous ass? I have shown beyond ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that there have been MASSIVE problems with baggage handlers at aussie airports. Numerous people arriveing in Indonesia with drugs in their bags. Prepared to go on TV for no other reason then to let people know that is it happened to them it could happen to Schapelle. How do you explain this? They are making it up? You have said

Your never addressed by replies about the use and distribution of marijuana in Australia. Do you read any other posts apart from your own? I'm not having a go at you I just havent ever seen you say anything in response to anything other than what you have written. Just an observation. We have already had one pot user register and tell us about his experiences? Did you read them? You are 100% wrong about drug use and distribution so you need to start factoring that into your replies.

Schapelle's trial was a complete shambles there is no doubt about it.

__________________
Aussie Boards A forum for all Australians.

Murray

Heh - I wasn't joking but I see your point. I am more used to reading DJ, I hardly miss any, but I get my chair comfy too. This is one lively discussion!

There are differing points of view to where the MJ originated from.
And the Corby's keep informed.
The annoying thing is the MJ was never properly tested.

Nothing worse than a bloody mystery.

admin

Mate there is absolutely no doubt there have been crucial errors made in Indonesia. We all agree with that. Hopefully this is soemthing thaqt can be pursued legally. My main concern is that the last appeal is already under way so I hope like hell that Schapelle's lawyers are giving it all they have got!

I have kept an open mind but at this stage I see nothing that indicates, to me anyways, that the Bali Police have deliberatly set Schapelle up. I believe DjWolf has more to tell us so I will keep that open mind.

Cheers Murray - have a good day mate

__________________
Aussie Boards A forum for all Australians.

Zebedee

Well I think we are very lucky to have such an esteemed contributor. I thank you for simplyfying your posts for those, like me, who were struggling to follow the originals.

I do have some questions though. You posted;

The customs officer had taken the four pieces of luggage to the luggage scales because he believed that Schapelle was guilty and that the weight of these four bags would total 4 Kg lighter than than the figure listed on Schapelle's ticket - 65Kg. He was countermanded by officers of the Bali Police who did not want this evidence to exist and for the next eight hours these four bags sat next to the scales, unweighed.

Where on earth did this come from? I've not read anywhere that the bags sat next to the scales for eight hours. I have read this;

1) 65kg is a lot of bags. Therefore the 65kg must be the combined weight of the luggage belonging to all four travellers, Ally, Katrina, Schapelle and James.

2) Ally and Katrina went through customs with their bags and were outside the airport (My Story page 41).

3) Schapelles and James' bags were left sitting at the customs counter (page 41).

4) All of this before Schapelle was even questioned by any officials – they were questioning James but Schapelle was still in the general airport area (page 41).

5) Schapelle further says “The suitcases weren't kept as evidence, as Ally and Katrina took theirs home that night. If they'd been kept, everything could have been weighed, which would have have instantly proved that I didn't do it. The whole thing would have been sorted out straight away. But we didn't know things like that at this point.” (page 47-48)

That last sentence again. “we didn't know things like that at this point.”

So where do you get this information from?

Schapelle had said to a policeman, "Why don't you weigh the bags and you'll see" or something to that effect. When Mercedes arrived she asked a cop to weigh the four bags and he didn't answer. Later Mercedes again asked the police to weigh the four bags. Then when it was obvious nothing was going to happen Mercedes asked a customs officer and he said that he would do it. Later, Mercedes noted that the bags were next to the scales but was unable to verify if the bags had been weighed.

So you paint this picture of the two sisters running around pleading with anyone that would listen to weigh the bags and in her book Schapelle says – actually we didn't think of it!

That apart, as you're the Law Graduate (Hon), maybe you can answer a few questions that further puzzle me?

1) As the bags, apart from the boogie board bag, were either sitting round the airport unattended or in fact outside the airport it's fair to say anyone could have added or removed items from any of the bags. Therefore how on earth can these be used by either side to prove a fact? Remember two of the bags had already gone through and were outside the airport before customs 'discovered' the contents of the boogie bag.

2) Were did you get this information? Surely a Law Graduate (Hon) wouldn't fabricate the whole episode simply to support a point. Would they? Of course not. So what is your source?

3) This I also found puzzling, especially from a Law Graduate (Hon);

When they could not frame her for the second piece of evidence, they chose the hearsay evidence of a customs officer who lied that Schapelle had said: "the marijuana is mine".

Help me out here. We are all pretty confident that he lied. However, as he testified in court to something that he stated he knew to be a fact ie Schapelle said “the marijuana is mine” - then it's not hearsay.

He testified as to what he heard her say not as to the veracity of what she said, simply that she said it. Therefore it is not hearsay. But then a Graduate of Law (Hon) would know that. Wouldn't he? This is the stuff of week one semester one isn't it?

I'm not for one moment defending anything the Indonesian authorities did before, during or after Schapelle's arrest. But I'm with Admin, less pomposity, shorter posts* with theories based on fact not fanciful supposition.

*Having just submitted my longest post ever ...

DJ Wolf

For the sake of Brevity lets call the Planted in Bali theory the PIB theory and the Australian baggage handler theory, the ABH theory.

It's fine if you feel a need to 'defend' against my assertions, but it may be better to simply pick out what you like. I don't mind clarifying anything but since any assertion I make is based on observations of many different things, it is rare that any conclusion I make comes from one source. Consequently, while you may disagree with a point I make, I will be supporting that point with other information. Anyway, this is a look at what we actually believe and how it all came about. It's a look at some of the things our government did and why.

When Schapelle was arrested, it didn't take long for the entire Australian population to get involved. The TV footage showed us an attractive young woman who had been accused of importing marijuana into Bali. When Australians became incensed by this, the Indonesian reaction was that we only cared because she was an attractive female. That could not have been true since she is still attractive and the majority of Australians now think she is guilty. So what changed the figures of a 98% belief in her innocence (60 Minutes figures) to what has recently been estimated as a 10% belief in her innocence? Shouldn't whatever we believe at least try to answer this?

A huge section of population knew that no one takes marijuana to Bali where some of the most potent marijuana on the planet sells for a pittance. Within days we learned that she was a beauty therapy student who had no money and had worked long hours in a fish and chip shop to save up for her ticket. We learned that the drugs had not been concealed which made no sense whatsoever and that she had no THC in her system, no criminal record. In fact, it was almost as if the drugs had appeared by magic. And as we saw her cry and say, "I don't know who has done this to me" Australia knew she was innocent and demanded action.

We had watched Alexander Downer pressure the Indonesian government to arrest and prosecute Abu Bakr Bashir and our government certainly didn't hold back when it looked as if he were going to get a light sentence. So when Mr Howard said, "We cannot interfere. We must respect the sovereignty of the Indonesian court," the general opinion was mixed. Most people thought this was a delaying tactic to allow our diplomats to make some 'back room' deal while others believed that the Australian government was waiting to see if Indonesia would get it right and acquit her since she was obviously innocent.

Then Mathew Moore wrote an article in the Age (26th May 2005), "Why Aussie marijuana is a big hit in Bali." The same article, word for word, on the same day, was printed in the Sydney Morning Herald under the name, "Bali Buyers who crave Aussie Gold." Channel 9, in their 60 Minutes Special, used Moore's narration over vision of ‘Bali tourist’ to make the same points for their 'Guilty' side of the argument and then Moore put up a copy of this video onto his web-site and it remained there for months.

When this article appeared almost everyone believed that Schapelle was innocent and so he wrote it in the face of popular belief. We would expect such an article to face the toughest criticism and be scoured for inconsistencies, assumptions and contradictions. Since it challenged all that we thought we knew about the illegal drug trade and lowered our international reputation to that of a drug-exporting nation it at least deserved some ****ysis, comment and follow up but there was nothing. It did its damage by allowing the possibility of Schapelle's guilt and was never mentioned again.

For those of you who haven't read my critique of this piece of garbage, let me summarise it for you. Moore claims that since most of the Indonesian drug dealers on the streets of Kuta are under-cover police, the tourists don't feel safe buying marijuana from Indonesian dealers at $20 per ounce. They much prefer to pay $600 per ounce for "Aussie Gold" from Western dealers since safety has no price. I admit that most people would accept this at face value and at first glance it seems reasonable. However, you don't have to be that intellectual to see the logical flaws. For the drug to have gained the trade name "Aussie Gold," a lot of it must have been sold and it is not a name that it would go by if it were being sold in Australia. What Moore is actually saying is that Western dealers with pockets full of marijuana are selling drugs to the tourists that under-cover Bali Police are targeting. Not only are these Westerners breaking Indonesian law they are working in competition with the Bali Police, under the noses of Bali Police who are also amongst the tourists under-cover. Not one Western dealer has ever been arrested and no 'Aussie Gold' has ever been seized. NONE.

Moore had no motive to write this article and it is very clear to me that it was commissioned by the Australian government to clear the way for Schapelle's guilt. What is truly disturbing is that this article was never ****ysed and its lies never revealed by any competing newspaper, television program, or the thousands of students of English and journalism throughout the country.

Then our government did nothing knowing full well that the people would initially be angry with them. They called for calm, called for patience and tolerance but they too understood mob psychology. First, the people were confused. Everything about Schapelle made her appear so innocent that the government had to have a good reason to risk the wrath of voters. As government muckrakers pushed negative jokes and pictures around the net and the corporate intranets the people began to think that perhaps the government’s investigations had revealed ‘secret knowledge’ and that appearances were deceiving. How else could they explain the government’s firm stance on something that should have caused a protest? Pretty soon, as could be predicted, insecure people started to big-note themselves by saying that they were privy to this ‘secret knowledge’. They knew Schapelle or a friend of a friend knew Schapelle and her family were all into drugs. This is how it was done.

Here is my problem. As supporters, we know that Schapelle is innocent. We know that there was no ‘secret knowledge’, no reason for the government to believe she was anything but innocent. Why didn’t the AFP do a thorough investigation of the Corbys and present their findings to the court? Why have the Corbys never been convicted or cleared of a crime allegedly committed in Australia? Do you really believe that our government made the choice between saving Schapelle and protecting Australian baggage handlers because the Australian public certainly doesn’t? Why is the premise that the choice was actually between saving Schapelle and protecting the Indonesian justice system so difficult to swallow? If you believe Schapelle is innocent then either the government is incapable of believing what was plain for all to see or they are protecting someone. Whoever they are protecting is guilty.




Not really sure what this means but I liked it!

DJ Wolf

My last post took quite a while and I guests so I didn't see the later posts. I will answer everything now.

First Admin:

On the matter of confessions. I regard Admin's point as being point scoring without any regard to honest debate. Had Schapelle signed that confession written in Indonesian, was I suggesting that the Indonesian court would throw it out because she couldn't understand the language and that it was therefore evidence of coertion? Of course not. What's more you know I wasn't saying that. Obviously, the fact that Schapelle didn't speak Indonesian was irrellevant to their purpose. Is this an example of future debate?


Did you actually understand the point I was making? To quote you: "if we could prove that someone who Schapelle never had met had put the pot in her bag that this wouldnt lead to her innocence?" Sure, this would make her innocent as soon as you prove that Schapelle had never met him. How would you do that? The same way you prove that Schapelle never knew the dope was there? It is almost impossible to prove a negative.

As for the story I told concerning the events surrounding the luggage weigh in: I don't know why Schapelle glossed over this part in her book because this was the story that Mercedes told and I have accepted this story without question. According to Mercedes, when she arrived Schapelle told her that she had asked a policeman to weigh her bags. Mercedes followed up and asked a customs officer... well, you have her account there. Schapelle's account doesn't focus on this aspect at all and whether this was Schapelle's decision or Kathryn's I have no way of knowing but I will get it confirmed.

First of all Schapelle was arrested on 8th of November, 2004. In December of 2004, Scott Rush was in an Australian court for other offences. Scott Rush's father, Lee Rush didn't even contact the AFP to tell them that his son was travelling to Bali to commit a crime until April of 2005. The Bali 9 weren't arrested until April the 17th of the same year. So you got that one wrong.

I did not ignore your assertion that the Bali Police's action's "could have been conceived as incomptence" - that's called hedging, by the way. They were conceived as incompetence by you - that is after all what you believe - but you never supported this assertion. Since the effect of deliberately contaminating fingerprints, denying Schapelle the right to collect evidence by denying her request to have the luggage weighed and denying Schapelle written request to have the marijuana forensically tested by the agency of her choice thereby denying the defence the right to examine the evidence they left her only with divine intervention - that the guilty culprit would come forward of his own accord. That is not a defence.

Since every 'mistake' they made benefitted them and not Schapelle, it is you who must prove that these matters of 'incompetence' weren't done deliberately to achieve what they actually achieved. So far, you haven't done that.

As for drug distribution in Australia... Please be specific. That marijuana is moved by plane around Australia? Is that what you are referring to? The last time someone got caught with a commercial quantity of marijuana on a plane was an elderly Chinese gentleman caught at Adelaide airport with several kilos in his hand luggage. The media made a meal of it when it truly wasn't that big a deal. The reason why the media turned it into a front page story was because it proved that marijuana is transported by air.

Hold on, it wasn't an Australian baggage handler operation... it was in hand laggage... So when was the last seizure of a commercial quantity of marijuana at an Australian Airport - passenger hand luggage or baggage handler? Give up? The elderly Chinese gentleman in 2005. It seems that Schapelle's 4.1Kg was the last marijuana that baggage handlers put through an Australian airport in 2004. Do you get the irony?

Now Zebedee:

I do admit that the version of the baggage weighing I've retold does need confirmation and that's easy to do. I don't know how long it will take to get it though.

The fact is that I'm not just a law graduate but it has helped with work that I've done. But that's not the point you were making. Do you have a problem with educated people? Since I mentioned my law degree in reference to a point of law I do not consider that I was in any way being pompous. What's more, those who must rely on personal attack do so for lack of an argument.

Since almost your entire argument is based on Schapelle's memories and actions and mine are, to the best of my knowledge, based on Mercedes recollections, it could well be that both are true or that I am in error. I will get confirmation as soon as is possible since I believe this is an important argument.

Now this: Before I respond, I see no reason for point scoring or making someone look foolish. Sure, I'm confident of my position but I don't want to win if I'm wrong. The following point is not about Schapelle or the injustce she recieved but is rather about me and my point of view. Well fine. But If I seem to be defensive it is because I get called names and asked to explain points that I regard as no more than mind games.

My problem with your point is simple. Whatever Schapelle said would be hearsay since he is reporting what she said. Since I'm not familiar with the rules of hearsay that apply under Indonesian law, I cannot say whether it was regarded as hearsay evidence or not.

However, your point is moot because Schapelle never said "the marijuana is mine." Schapelle said, "It's mine" indicating the boogie board bag. She never mentioned the word, "marijuana" and so his testimony was a lie and he was not stating something he knew to be fact at all.

Zebedee

DJ

I've responded to your points in bite sized chunks. Starting with;

If I'm interpreting your post correctly this particular theory is that the drugs were placed in Schapelle's boogie board bag in Bali, that the Australian Government knows this and that they have done nothing. I see little in your post that supports this.

Matthew Moore's piece of garbage (totally agree with you) was aimed at justifying why Australians would smuggle marijuana into Bali. Again I agree with you that it was sensational nonsense without foundation and should have been attacked by his peers. My point is that it does not support your theory and is irrelevant to this debate.

I have to take your word that no marijuana has been seized in Bali where the source has proven to be from Australia. I see no reason to doubt it as I'm sure we would have heard long and loud if such a seizure had happened. Again this doesn't support your theory but yes it further degrades Mathew Moore's plausibility, if that was possible.

So far so good. However three points to consider.

Firstly I don't think any of the proponents of the 'ABH theory' have suggested the drugs were intended for Bali. The theory is that this was an interstate shipment that was not collected at it's intended destination ie Sydney. We know corruption and the wearing of camel heads was/is rife within Australian airports and this has been well documented here and in the public domain.

Secondly if the drugs were placed in Schapelle's bag in Bali then we have to ask why. To make an example of a pretty white Australian girl? No because they originally thought they had caught James. To justify international funding for their internal anti drugs program? Maybe, but why marijuana, which the majority of the rest of the world regards as a fairly innocuous drug, why not cocaine or heroine?

Thirdly, if it was planted in Bali, why so much? This has always troubled me and I've never had a satisfactory answer. Given that we know Indonesian law doesn't differentiate between marijuana and heroine, why a pillow sized bag of drugs when a quarter of that same drug would have had exactly the same result? Better still, why not the equivalent weight in a more compact drug?

Zebedee

Moving on I have to say I think your posts have enlivened a forum whose members were scratching their heads thinking what do we talk about now. Most went into a bit of a lull after the delightful Ms Powers surfaced.

I plead guilty to point scoring in my previous post. I was having a bad day and it was either score cheap points or kick the dog. The dog won, always does. In my defence I wasn't the first to use 'pompous', admin was. I just happen to agree with him and I think if you re-read your earlier posts you probably will too.

As to 'the weighing of the bags', whether we accept Schapelles recollection or your recount of Mercedes version, the point I was trying to make is that by the time anybody thought of it it was too late. By the time they opened the boogie board bag at least two other bags had been taken out of the airport and subsequent to that a third was sitting unattended in the customs area. So if the bags were weighed and their total was 61kg then the prosecution would simply argue that items were removed when the bags were unsupervised by officials. I suspect the officials present at the time realised this shortly after their grotesque round of back slapping.

Hearsay? I wandered into the realms of useless minutiae with this so let's allow that one to drop. Still think you're wrong though.

Zebedee

Now to the questions you pose at the end of your post.

Why didn’t the AFP do a thorough investigation of the Corbys and present their findings to the court?
Why would they? It's not their job. Have you ever heard of the AFP conducting an investigation to prove the innocence of anyone charged or convicted of a crime overseas? Have you ever heard of the AFP conducting an investigation to prove the innocence of anyone charged or convicted of a crime in Australia? You have more experience in this area than I so maybe I'm off track – help me out.

Why have the Corbys never been convicted or cleared of a crime allegedly committed in Australia?
I assume you mean in relation to Schapelle. Probably because she's innocent.

Do you really believe that our government made the choice between saving Schapelle and protecting Australian baggage handlers because the Australian public certainly doesn’t?
No I don't. I find that about as plausible as an Australian government sacrificing one of their citizens to 'protect the Indonesian justice system'. The question posed is also predicated on the fact that the Australian government have the means or knowledge to save Schapelle. Exactly how do they do that?

Why is the premise that the choice was actually between saving Schapelle and protecting the Indonesian justice system so difficult to swallow?
Because you have not given a reason. Why would they? What's in it for them? If this is to be accepted then you have to acknowledge that the Australian Government has already pulled the pin on a PR grenade which, with a Public Service that leaks like a sieve, can blow in their face at any time. The risk would have to justify the return. So what is the return?

That's it for me. No name calling, no references to Law school. (Apart from that one:)).

admin

Ok .

__________________
Aussie Boards A forum for all Australians.