SCHAPELLE CORBY NEVER PROVEN GUILTY
by Roy Reeves Copyright (c) R. Reeves 2008
The subject of Schapelle Corby’s arrest in October 2004, and conviction and imprisonment in Bali in May 2005, continues to make the news even now, in mid 2008. A movie length documentary about this very subject, entitled “Schapelle Corby - The Hidden Truth” or “Ganja Queen”, was screened on Channel 9 in Australia in late June, and on HBO in the US in early July. Her book, entitled “My Story”, which has been available in Australia and New Zealand since 2006, has just been released in the UK and US, entitled “No More Tomorrows”. The Schapelle Corby story is far from over. As an active supporter of Schapelle Corby and the whole Corby family, I have studied her case in some depth. I am, of course, an ardent believer in her innocence of the crime for which she was arrested, tried and convicted. My personal opinion, and that of many other supporters, is that the marijuana was planted in Schapelle Corby’s boogie-board bag by the Balinese Police themselves, however, in this article I have elected to stick to the known facts rather than indulge in conspiracy theory. What I have discovered, during the course of my investigations, is the fact that Schapelle Corby was never adequately proven guilty under Indonesian Law, and as such should not have been convicted. The guilty verdict handed down by the Judges was, in the end, based on the unsupported testimony of two Customs Officers and two Anti-Drug Squad Officers. Their testimony was at odds with the testimony given by Schapelle Corby herself, and the CCTV footage from the camera above the Customs Counter at Ngurah Rai Airport, which could and would, I believe, have supported Schapelle’s testimony, and refuted the lying testimony of the four men, was never allowed into the courtroom. Article 8 of the Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 18 of the Indonesian Human Rights Law, and Article 14 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all state the following, in so many words: Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law. The onus was therefore on the Prosecution to prove guilt, rather than on the Defence to prove innocence, in Schapelle Corby’s case. However, they didn’t do this. Their case was weak and lacked evidence. Apart from the marijuana itself, the only other evidence they presented was the
20
HARD EVIDENCE
testimony of four men, and this testimony was unsupported by CCTV footage, which it could, and should have been, considering how important it was to the outcome of the trial. Since Schapelle’s boogie-board bag was unlocked from the time it left the Corby’s home to the time it arrived on the Customs counter at Ngurah Rai Airport, anyone could have inserted the plastic bag of marijuana into it during that time. For Schapelle to be guilty of importing a prohibited drug, the Prosecution would have to prove that she had put the drugs into the boogie-board bag herself or, at the
very least, prove that she knew the drugs were in there prior to opening the bag. She certainly could not have been found guilty of drug smuggling, since to smuggle means to convey secretly. Having the drugs in a clear plastic bag, inside an unlocked boogie-board bag with your name on, and then willingly opening that bag for inspection thus exposing the drugs, cannot be construed as conveying secretly! For Schapelle to be guilty of drug trafficking, the Prosecution would have to prove that she had some connection with a drug distribution network in Bali. Since she was there to help celebrate her sister’s 30th
VOL.8 #5 SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2008
birthday and have a holiday on the beach, to suggest that she intended spending her entire fortnight trying to sell the drugs off piecemeal in a foreign country, is nothing short of absurd. Any one, or all, of the following points could have been investigated by the Balinese Police, to assist the Prosecution in building their case against Schapelle, and if they had been doing their job properly one would have expected them to do so: • A check for fingerprints on both the outer and inner plastic bags in which the marijuana was packed. If her fingerprints appeared on either bag - Guilty. • Weighing the entire luggage that had been checked in under Schapelle Corby’s name at Brisbane Airport. Put the bag of marijuana on the scales at the same time, then compare this weight with the checked-in weight. If the two weights were the same then the marijuana was in her bag at check-in Guilty. • Forensically test the marijuana to determine its country of origin and THC content. Proving that the marijuana came from Australia, while not exactly proving that Schapelle was guilty, would certainly have advanced their case considerably. If, on the other hand, Schapelle’s DNA had been matched against the DNA of any hair or skin fragments found amongst the drugs - Guilty. • Accessing the CCTV footage from the camera above the Customs counter at Ngurah Rai Airport. The Customs Officer there, Gusti Winata, testified that Schapelle displayed signs of nervousness, was hesitant about opening her boogie-board bag, and pushed his hand away when he tried to open it. If true, this footage would have corroborated his story and would have proved that Schapelle had prior knowledge of the drugs in her bag - Guilty. This last point was as vital to the Prosecution’s case as it was to the case for the Defence, as we will see later. The presence of the marijuana in Schapelle Corby’s boogieboard bag was not, on its own, grounds for a conviction. Under Indonesian Law, the Prosecution is required to produce some form of secondary evidence, with which to back up the primary evidence.
were all denied. Not only were they denied by the Balinese Police, who refused to give the AFP a sample of the marijuana for testing, they were also denied by the Judge. This was a total obstruction of justice, as it severely limited Schapelle’s chances of mounting an effective defence. An investigation by the Police into how Schapelle planned to rid herself of the drugs could also have provided secondary evidence. Had a link between her and any one or more drug distribution networks in Bali been established - Guilty. To the detriment of the Prosecution’s case however, no investigation of this nature was ever carried out. Schapelle’s luggage and its contents were ultimately destined to go to her sister’s home, yet Mercedes and her husband were never questioned. An investigation by the AFP into how Schapelle might have grown or acquired 4.2kg of marijuana would have been quite in order. Working with their Balinese counterparts, to eliminate any further transnational drug importations of this type into Indonesia from Australia, would have been in the interests of both countries. Had a link between Schapelle and any known drug dealers in Australia been established - Guilty. Although they were never informed that their affairs and finances were being looked into, the Corby’s are fairly certain that they were. Clearly, however, there was nothing irregular about either, since no further investigation was ever carried out. Not one family member has ever been questioned by the AFP in relation to this crime. Had Schapelle been a drug user, particularly a marijuana user, and had she been caught using or possessing drugs of any kind following her arrest, this fact could also have been used as secondary evidence - Guilty. BELOW: Photo of Schapelle in her cell. © Rosleigh Rose
Had the results from any one of the first three points above favoured the Prosecution’s case, it would have provided them with secondary evidence. As such, it is reasonable to assume that they would have wanted these points investigated, and that the Police would have done so. The fact that not one of these points was ever investigated seemingly defies all logic, unless we look at the alternate hypothesis. These points, if properly investigated, could just as easily have proven Schapelle’s innocence, and they would have done. Were the Police just playing it safe, to protect the Prosecution’s case at all cost, or did they know in advance which way the results would go? If the latter is true, then how did they know? The only people who actually asked for these points to be investigated, pleaded for it in fact, were Schapelle and her Defence Lawyers. Schapelle even signed a consent form allowing the AFP to forensically test the marijuana, in order to ensure an impartial and fair result. Since the AFP’s brief in a case like this is to assist the Prosecution and not the Defence, asking for this forensic testing, fingerprinting of bags and weighing of luggage, would have been utter stupidity if Schapelle had, in fact, been guilty. The results would only have further incriminated her. As it was, her requests in this regard, and those of her Lawyers,
VOL.8 #5 SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2008
HARD EVIDENCE
21
Once again, to the detriment of the Prosecution’s case, Schapelle was not a drug user and her urine tests proved this. Nor was she, or has she ever been, caught in possession of drugs.
need to,” but in the end he never found the need. If the footage had favoured the Prosecution’s case, would he have found the need then? Let’s not underestimate the importance of this point. The testimony of these four men was the Prosecution’s only secondary evidence. They had nothing else.
Even now, when it would be so easy for her to descend into the darkness, and numb her pain with the wide variety of illicit drugs that are readily available in Kerobokan Prison, she chooses not to, even when so many of her fellow inmates have.
If these men were lying, and it’s reasonable to assume that they were, then the evidence was inadmissible and the case against Schapelle Corby was over.
So, with no fingerprints, no weight comparison, no forensic test results, and no investigation into how Schapelle had acquired the drugs or how she intended to get rid of them, when she tested negative to drug use the Prosecution found themselves with no secondary evidence. The Police did attempt to help them out, trying twice to trick Schapelle into signing a confession, both times written in Indonesian which she could not speak or read. They also tried to plant drugs on her in the Polda visitor’s room. However, these measures all failed. In the end, the testimonies of the two Customs Officers and two Anti-Drug Squad Officers, who were present in the airport at the time, formed the basis of the Prosecution’s secondary evidence. For the crimes of importing a prohibited drug and drug smuggling, Schapelle Corby was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in a third world prison. She was convicted on the strength of their testimonies, and their testimonies alone. Gusti Winata was the Customs Officer at the counter when Schapelle’s boogieboard bag arrived there. Winata testified that he asked her to open the boogie-board bag but she refused, saying there was nothing in there. She was nervous, and when he tried to open it himself, she pushed his hand aside and said, “No.” He proceeded to open it a bit, at which time she yelled, “No!” When the Judge asked if Schapelle agreed, she said, “No, he’s lying.”
The Judge would have had no choice but to acquit Schapelle of all charges and set her free. ABOVE: This photo of Schapelle’s face was attached to a card sent to her father in July 2007. © Rosleigh Rose
According to Komang, when asked about the bag of marijuana, Schapelle said, “This is mine, I own it.” In response to this Schapelle said, “I never at any stage stated that the marijuana belonged to me. Never, ever, have I stated that.” Komang’s statement was clearly a lie, since no one in their right mind would admit to owning the drugs, whether it was true or not. These testimonies were later backed up by the testimonies of two Anti-Drug Squad Officers, both of whom were in the airport at the time the boogie-board bag was placed on the counter. Despite being a considerable distance away from the counter in what was, at the time, a crowded airport, both claimed to have seen Schapelle push Winata’s hand away when he tried to open the boogie-board bag. Both also claimed to have heard Schapelle say that the drugs belonged to her, even though neither of them could speak English! It was Schapelle’s word against theirs.
Schapelle, on the other hand, testified that when James was asked if the boogieboard bag was his, she said, “No, no, it’s mine. Here you go...” and placed it up on the counter. She noticed that the zips had been tampered with but thought nothing of it and, without being asked to do so, willingly unzipped the bag for inspection. She was immediately struck by the smell and sight of the marijuana, and in a panic she zipped the bag up again. The second Customs Officer to testify, Komang Gelgel, gave the following testimony.
22
HARD EVIDENCE
People can easily lie, but cameras cannot. Had the CCTV footage from the camera above the Customs counter been made available in court as requested, it would have instantly corroborated one version of events or the other. Since it was Schapelle and her Lawyer Erwin who requested it, it’s logical to assume that it would have favoured her testimony. Initially, the Judge agreed to look into it, this later became, “We’ll get it if we
According to the Law of Indonesia, there would have been no grounds for a conviction. Not only should access to that camera footage have been allowed, the Judge himself should have insisted on it. The testimony of these men was both crucial and damning, and Schapelle had every right to request this footage for the purpose of refuting it outright. When the Judge failed to comply with the request he was, essentially, siding with the Prosecution. His failure to allow the footage into court, considering the importance of it to the case, was totally inexcusable. In the end, Schapelle Corby was never proven Guilty, she was merely judged to be ‘Guilty’, and by a Judge prepared to take the word of liars over that of an Innocent woman. For him and the other two Judges to find Schapelle ‘Guilty’, without attempting to confirm, or prove to the World, that the evidence upon which they would base their verdict was true and correct, especially when this evidence was in dispute, was an outrageous travesty of justice. Schapelle’s first appeal could have been based on this one point alone. Even now, it should be sufficient grounds for her conviction to be overturned. To this day, not one piece of evidence has ever been produced, by the Balinese Police or Australian Federal Police, which links Schapelle Corby with the plastic bag of marijuana found in her boogie-board bag on the 8th October 2004. The Innocent Should Not Be Punished!
VOL.8 #5 SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2008