Post 2:
……………..continued
It is true that the Corbys do not come across well to the public. They are not particularly well-educated and some members of the family, such as Clinton and James, have done some dodgy things. But there would be hundreds of thousands of families with similar histories. It is just that we don't hear about them because they are not scrutinised by the media to such an extent. In the case of James, it is apparent that he broke into the house he did because he had heard that they had some connection to the drugs found in his sister's bag and was hoping to find evidence to free her. It was an utterly stupid thing to do, but that doesn't automatically translate to him being a family of drug traffickers. In fact, it suggests the opposite. And once again, the Australian police have never suggested that the Corbys are a family of traffickers, nor indeed that this incident was somehow indicative of that.
There is also the question of why anyone would import marijuana into Bali. There have been a lot of stories about the relative prices and one such is the idea that Australian pot is highly sought after in Bali due to its higher quality and would therefore fetch a higher price than in Australia. This is untrue and it has been confirmed by people in the drug trade and suppliers living in Bali. It would fetch much less in Bali than in Australia and Aceh in Indonesia has some of the world's best pot. It would be entirely uneconomical to traffic pot from Australia to Bali and totally unnecessary. It was also confirmed by a number of suppliers that they had never heard of this happening and that it was unrealistic: they wouldn't be able to maintain the supply, which would anger people. The rumours about THC content are unfounded.
To my way of thinking, all this points conclusively to Schapelle being innocent. But at the very least, it amounts to reasonable doubt. KUHAP does actually require that cases in Indonesia are proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but this standard was certainly not applied in Schapelle's circumstances. It also provides for innocent until proven guilty, but once again, this standard was not applied in Schapelle's situation. Indeed, the judges stated that she needed to prove her innocence and find evidence to support that conclusively. Irrespective of international fair trial standards, Indonesia did not actually uphold the principles and requirements of its own justice system.
In addition to this, Schapelle received a penalty far harsher than was suggested by other cases. Her penalty was actually, by far, the harshest ever for such a situation. For example, a woman who tried to import 15.22kgs of marijuana was sentenced to 15 years while another who tried to import 5+ kgs of cocaine was also sentenced to 15 years. Comparable cases to Schapelle's suggested she should only have received 3-4 years.
In Schapelle's case, there are a number of issues that are concerning from a human rights perspective. First of all, there is the specific issue of her innocence. However, second, even if you don't believe in her innocence, surely the above points raise questions about the situation and the legitimacy of the trial. Third, there are issues regarding the fairness of her trial, which also have a broader context relating to the Indonesian justice system. Fourth, there is the question of why the media has orchestrated such an enormous smear campaign full of half-truths. All of the information I have given is confirmable from official records. It is not a case of my word against anyone elses.
Schapelle's situation is just one human rights issue in the world. There are many. Not a day goes by when I don't feel the burden of the fact that there are too many to deal with. But nobody can address every single one - each one has supporters who feel that a particular issue is important and deserving of their time. It isn't a matter of one being more important than another; it is a matter of personal passion or interest. I took an interest in this one because of its complexity and the relevance to our region, just as I have an interest in others for other reasons. I wish I could address them all, but there aren't enough hours in the day.
What do I think happened with Schapelle? I have thought about that on many occasions. There are a few theories that are equally viable: that she was the inadvertent victim in a drug transportation operation involving baggage handlers; that she was set up by Bali customs to be bribed; that she was a decoy while other drugs were going through Bali airport. I can't answer with any certainty which one it is. But that is precisely the point: it isn't up to the accused to come up with conclusive evidence about what happened; it is enough to demonstrate reasonable doubt as to what happened. Which has been done in this case. And in addition to that, the Corbys actually did everything they could to prove her innocence, but were denied the ability to do that.