Thank you for that John, and thank you for the retraction. Your response will be very interesting, considering the ONLY evidence against Schapelle was/were the completely unsubstantiated statements of Indonesian customs officers . . .
Who did not speak English . . .
. . . which were completely uncorroborated by any hard evidence (despite requests for the same) . . .
In Australia, this is known as "Verballing," and has led to many miscarriages of justice . . .
And Australian magistrates are formally warned against this type of "Evidence" . . .
Further, the judge in Schapelle's case completely inverted the onus of proof . . .
Thus completely trashing the laws of his own country . . .
And ignoring one of the most universal legal principles (the presumption of innocence), which also applies in Indonesia . . .
Further, Schapelle was also convicted on a "Trafficking" charge with zero evidence . . .
So John, it will quite fascinating to see what magic rabbits you pull out of the hat, to convince anyone that Schapelle's conviction was "Safe" and "Just," considering . . .
1. There was not a shred of hard evidence connecting her to the drugs in her bag.
2. A trade in marijuana FROM Australia TO Bali does not exist (and never has), because of the glaring price differential.
3. She had no criminal record, and no criminal profile.
4. There exists massive hard evidence, re criminal and corrupt Qantas baggage handlers, who were using innocent airline passengers as unwitting drug mules at the exact time Schapelle flew - and there is also massive hard evidence of generalised airport corruption (The Wheeler Report, plus the testimony of senior police officers and customs officials, plus other more recent reports).
5. Much more serious crimes of extreme violence (and much more serious drug crimes), are routinely treated with a great deal more leniency in Indonesia.
And you may also be interested in the observations I just emailed to Carole Ferrier (Gender Studies at UQ) . . .
I believe what we are seeing here is a media-driven witch hunt, on the same scale as the Lindy Chamberlain debacle, and for the same reasons (to protect corporate interests, and hide corporate corruption). Baby-eating dingoes are very, very bad PR for huge investments in the Northern Territory tourist trade, just as drug smuggling Qantas baggage handlers (with criminal records as long as your arm), are very, very bad news for the national airline. I also believe the players behind this are very aware of the misogyny they're deliberately tapping into. Here's my graphic take on things . . .
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMN2neQ0Wh5ckwcue8ZPhEO2o3ymAdhxpGUiesegMSkvUsBWFnItLDV0EFHvA0OS3yu-QZmRIZ9B6Nyd0mAsoZ_WsHYd1i4GlsEG-7fJMSU6dKzyA9A55fMs7XO3E9tKkC4FwRc4ngz3s/s1600/witchy+jpeg.jpg
And here's the astute observations of Anne Summers . . .
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/prisoners-of-a-nations-prejudices/2005/06/16/1118869038377.html
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMN2neQ0Wh5ckwcue8ZPhEO2o3ymAdhxpGUiesegMSkvUsBWFnItLDV0EFHvA0OS3yu-QZmRIZ9B6Nyd0mAsoZ_WsHYd1i4GlsEG-7fJMSU6dKzyA9A55fMs7XO3E9tKkC4FwRc4ngz3s/s1600/witchy+jpeg.jpg
And here's the astute observations of Anne Summers . . .
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/prisoners-of-a-nations-prejudices/2005/06/16/1118869038377.html
