Good day my friend.

My name is “Simba”, and I am Schapelle’s White Lion. I have been a supporter of sorts since day one, and an active supporter since the day my heart would no longer allow me to sit on the sidelines waiting and hoping. Please take the time to read this article, which I offer for your enlightenment.

Before I continue, I should point out that my wife and I lost our son to illicit drugs 10 years ago. As such, I have no tolerance for illicit drugs or those dealing in them.

However, Schapelle Corby is not a drug dealer, a drug smuggler or a drug trafficker. She is not even a drug user.

Having known the Corby family since the early 90’s, I don’t have to think or believe that Schapelle is Innocent, I know she is. I could safely bet my life on it.

Despite this, there was marijuana in Schapelle Corby’s boogie-board bag. This fact is indisputable.

So, apart from the intimate knowledge that I have through my friendship with the Corby family, what else do I have to support the notion that she is “Not Guilty”?

THE BACKGROUND
Firstly, there was no motive. The value of the drugs in Australia would have been around $40,000 and in Bali around $5,000. So, who in their right mind would take a chance on receiving a death sentence, or a life sentence in a third world prison, just to lose $35,000?

Secondly, in the post 9/11 World that we live in, and fly in, with its security cameras, x-ray machines, drugs and explosives detector dogs, as well as random checks of baggage by Customs, the chances of Schapelle getting 4.2kgs of marijuana through two domestic and one international airport terminals in Australia was, and is, zero.

Let’s not forget that the inner of the two plastic bags had been slashed, further aiding in the release of the pungent odour.

WHO INSERTED THE DRUGS?
As such, questions like: did her father insert the drugs, or did her brothers insert the drugs, cease to be relevant. It wouldn’t have mattered if Santa Claus had inserted the drugs, they would not have got through.

Do I suspect her father of being involved in any way? Absolutely Not! He loved his daughter and vice-versa. She was his baby girl, the youngest of his children, and they shared a very special bond. She was the one living with him, and caring for him, as he slowly died of cancer. He would never have done anything like this to her. When he did finally die, in January 2008, she was the one and only family member who could not attend his funeral.

Do I suspect her brothers of being involved? Once again, Absolutely Not! The most admirable thing about the Corby family is their strength in the face of adversity and the way they rally together. They are very close-knit, and not one of them would ever do something like this to another.

Do I suspect baggage handlers of inserting the drugs, for the purpose of getting them interstate, then failing to remove them in Sydney? No, I don’t. There is no evidence to suggest that this method is used for the interstate movement of illicit drugs, with most drug dealers opting for the safer options of road and rail transport. As to why the Corby’s used this as part of Schapelle’s defence strategy, I will explain shortly.

THE BALI ANGLE
So, with no possible way of getting the drugs through from Australia, we are left with only one other option. The drugs must have been inserted in Bali, and this is what I believe occurred. Furthermore, I am not alone in this belief, since most of the Schapelle Corby support movement, with members all over the World, now believes it.

This belief is further supported when we look at the actions of the Balinese Police, the Prosecution, and the Judges. They would not have acted the way they did if the drugs had come from Australia.

The Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure, the Indonesian Human Rights Law, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Indonesia is a signatory, all state that a person charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure also requires that the Prosecution provide some form of secondary evidence with which to back up the primary evidence, in order to secure a conviction, the primary evidence in this case being the marijuana itself.

As such, it is reasonable to assume that the Balinese Police would have conducted a full investigation into this crime, both to assist the Prosecution in building their case against Schapelle Corby and to catch all those involved.

Any one, or all, of the following points could have been investigated, and if the Police had been doing their job properly one would have expected them to do so.

Fingerprinting the inner and outer plastic bags. Not done.

Weighing her checked in baggage with the drugs on the scales, and comparing this weight with the checked-in weight. If the two weights were the same then the drugs were in her bag at check-in. Not done.

Forensically testing the marijuana to determine its country of origin. This would have been necessary to prove that the drugs actually came from Australia and, had it done so, would have provided the Prosecution with a prima facie case. Furthermore, had Schapelle’s DNA been matched against the DNA of any hair or skin fragments found amongst the drugs, she would have had no choice but to change her plea to “Guilty.” Not only did the Police not do this, they refused to allow the Australian Federal Police to do it.

They also burned the remaining evidence in March 2006, well before Schapelle’s avenues of appeal had been exhausted, to ensure that the drugs could never be tested in the future.

Had forensic testing been conducted, and had it proven that the drugs were Indonesian, Schapelle would have been exonerated immediately and the finger pointed straight away at the Police.

Schapelle begged for these investigations to be carried out and even signed a consent form allowing the Australian Federal Police to forensically test the marijuana, in order to ensure a proper result.

Since when do guilty people beg for further investigations of their crime, knowing full well that the results will only further incriminate them?

Bearing in mind that the results of these investigations could just as easily have proven that Schapelle was innocent, we begin to see a motive for their refusal to do so. However, we have to ask the following question: How could the Police possibly have known in advance which way the results would go unless they were, in fact, the ones who had inserted the drugs into the boogie-board bag?

Last but not least, a Police investigation into how Schapelle had acquired, and intended to dispose of, 4.2kg of marijuana. Since Schapelle was also being charged with trafficking, as well as importation, it would have been necessary to establish that she did, in fact, have connections with a drug distribution network in Bali. Once again, not done.

Despite this being alleged as the first time that marijuana has ever been exported from Australia to Bali, no investigation of any kind was carried out in either country. It appears that neither the Balinese Police nor the Australian Federal Police had any interest in finding out who else may have been involved, in order to put a stop to what was, if true, a new and disturbing development in transnational drug trafficking.

ANOTHER IMPLICATION
The one spin-off from the Balinese Police’s refusal to conduct an investigation was the fact that Schapelle’s defence case suffered considerably. Indeed, with no evidence forthcoming from their non-investigation, her lawyers were forced to look to Australia for something, anything, with which to mount a defence. This suited the Police very nicely since it took the focus of attention away from them.

In light of known corruption amongst some baggage handlers, who use the travelling public’s baggage to import cocaine into Australia, particularly through Sydney airport, the possibility that the marijuana may have been inserted in Brisbane for transportation to Sydney was examined. Since Schapelle was innocent, it appeared to be the only possible explanation for the presence of the drugs in her bag. It was, of course, given real substance with the inclusion of John Ford’s testimony to the case.

Quite why John Ford decided to give the testimony that he did, I do not know, but his testimony was a story and nothing more. Schapelle, of course, saw it as her salvation. It made sense of the senseless and vindicated her protestations of innocence, but in the end it did not help her.

TACTICS AND INDONESIAN CCTV
So, having ignored all these legitimate avenues of investigation with which to provide some form of secondary evidence, the Police chose instead to resort to underhanded tactics.

They tried twice to trick Schapelle into signing a confession, both times written in Indonesian which she could neither speak nor read at the time, and they also tried to plant drugs on her in the Polda visitor’s room. Regrettably for them however, these measures all failed.

When Schapelle’s blood and urine tests returned a negative result for drug use, the Prosecution was in trouble. They had no hard secondary evidence and this is where they too resorted to underhanded tactics.

In a country where bribery and corruption is rife, and the dealings of the Police are above the law, they created their own secondary evidence, based on the testimony of the two Customs Officers and two Anti-Drug Squad Officers who were present in the airport at the time.

The testimony they gave was seriously at odds with the testimony given by Schapelle and yet, the CCTV footage from the camera above the Customs counter, which could and would have corroborated their version of events, had it been the truth, was never allowed into the courtroom, despite it being requested by Schapelle and her lawyer.

This footage would have given legitimacy to the Prosecution’s only secondary evidence, and as such, the fact that they did not request it themselves is significant. It leads one to conclude, logically, that the testimony of these men was a pack of lies, and this footage would have rendered it inadmissible as evidence.

Not only should this camera footage have been allowed into the courtroom, 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. When the Judge failed to comply with the request he sided with the Prosecution, and his impartiality was seriously compromised.

For him and the other two Judges to find Schapelle ‘Guilty’ of importing a Class One Narcotic, without any proof that the drugs even came from Australia, and without attempting to confirm that the testimony presented as secondary evidence was actually true and correct, especially when this evidence was being disputed, was an outrageous travesty of justice. They chose, or were ordered by a higher authority, to believe the lies of these men, yet they dismissed outright not only Schapelle’s sworn statements, but also her testimony, and the testimony of every one of her witnesses.

On the charge of trafficking, they found Schapelle ‘Guilty,’ even though the Prosecution did not present a single piece of evidence or testimony to support the charge. In so doing, they were then at liberty, under Indonesian Law, to impose a sentence in excess of 10 years, this being the maximum allowable for possession and importation alone.

In light of this, how can we possibly accept their verdict as a credible outcome, or condone the imposition of the 20 year sentence she was given? 20 years, in the squalor, hatred and violence of a third world prison, where the average life expectancy is only 10 years?

THE AFP AND AUSTRALIAN CCTV
Did the Australian Federal Government collude with the Indonesians in this affair? I believe they did.

They seized the CCTV footage from Brisbane Airport, which would have shown the flatness of Schapelle Corby's boogie-board bag as she checked it in.

The final story given by Qantas, no doubt upon instructions from a higher authority, after several earlier and conflicting stories had failed to deter those seeking this evidence for Schapelle’s defence - “The cameras were not switched on.”

A former airport Customs Officer who I worked with recently, told me that our major airports could have as many as three security camera systems operating at any one time, and the suggestion that the cameras were all switched off is complete nonsense.

They failed to act when the Balinese Police, Prosecution and Judges were breaking Indonesian Law in their endeavour to convict Schapelle.

They also failed to act when Schapelle’s basic Human Rights were being brutally violated.

THE MEDIA
When support for Schapelle in Australia was running at 90%, and her case appeared likely to seriously damage our relations with Indonesia, they commissioned the media to conduct the most shameful smear campaign ever waged against an Australian family, a campaign which continues to this day.

They wanted Australians believing that Schapelle Corby was guilty and that members of her family have been involved in the drug trade for decades.

Since June 2005, no family in Australia has been subjected to such extraordinary scrutiny. Every minute detail of their lives and associates, from former next-door neighbours to ex-best friends, and persons they were once photographed with, has been exposed and examined. And yet, every allegation has been found to lack substance.

Indeed, if we were to believe even a small number of the allegations made against Schapelle, her father, mother, sister Mercedes and brothers, it beggars belief that they could have been involved in the drug trade for so long without even a single charge, let alone a conviction, being brought against any one of them. And this after being subjected to the most intensive media and police scrutiny imaginable.

This use of the media by our government as a propaganda machine was, and continues to be, entirely inappropriate, but sadly it has proved very successful. Not only has the pendulum swung the other way, with most Australians now against Schapelle and believing in her guilt, there is also a disturbing level of hatred for her amongst a small minority.

The beliefs of the many and the hatred of the few are, of course, totally misguided, and must be turned around once more, somehow.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, let me say this. Schapelle Corby was, essentially, kidnapped by the Indonesians, using planted drugs for a politically motivated crime. The exact motive for doing this is unknown, but the most popular theory amongst her supporters is this, that the Balinese Police wanted a high profile capital drugs conviction to improve their international standing, and make them eligible for U.N. ‘War On Drugs’ funding.

If marijuana had been coming into Bali from Australia, as we have since been led to believe that it was, the Police would not have had to wait long for a genuine case. However it wasn’t, and there is no previously recorded case of such a thing occurring, so they decided to orchestrate a case of their own.

It was not Schapelle herself that they targeted, merely her unlocked boogie-board bag, which was the right shape and size for their purpose. Being one of the last items of baggage loaded on the plane in Sydney, it was one of the first items unloaded in Bali.

It is time for Schapelle Corby’s innocence to count for something. It is time for the citizens of Australia, and other nations alike, to realise the truth once and for all, and having realised it, to rise with one voice in support of her.

Using people power, we must insist that the Rudd Government of Australia negotiate Schapelle’s immediate release from Kerobokan Prison, not to serve out the rest of her sentence in an Australian prison, but to come home a Free Woman. Thank You.

I invite you, when next on the internet, to check out the following YouTube videos which support what I have been saying here. The first three were made by Australian supporters and the remaining two were made by a supporter in the United Kingdom.

Show Trial For Schapelle:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=MUlSJ6_c_Kc&feature=email

Schapelle and the CCTV Footage Part 1:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=T2uYe0nIJ1w

Schapelle and the CCTV Footage Part 2:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=9R3eeGLJKN4

The Schapelle Corby Nightmare:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=YR_lFMGo6H0&feature=email

Burying The Truth - Burying Schapelle Corby:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=CYCuzE16tQE&feature=email

FINALLY
Finally, I ask you to think long and hard about how you would feel if you were in Schapelle Corby’s shoes right now.

Think how you would feel if she were your daughter, your sister or your best friend.

I hope this article, and these videos, have convinced you of Schapelle’s innocence.

If they have, please copy and paste this article to an email, and send it to as many people as you know, asking them to do likewise.

If you want more information, read the background story on the internet using this link: http://schapelleintro.blogspot.com

Also, read a copy of “Schapelle Corby - My Story”, or “No More Tomorrows” as it is called in the UK and US, and weep for an angel trapped in hell.

IF YOU WISH TO HELP:
Do not direct your anger towards the Indonesians, as this will NOT help Schapelle.

Please write in a diplomatic way to the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, demanding that he instruct his government to negotiate Schapelle Corby’s release from Kerobokan Prison.

Please join us at: http://freeschapelle.com.au and become a Schapelle Corby supporter.

Please, at the very least, sign our Care2 petition to bring her home a Free Woman using this link: http://www.freeschapelle.com.au/20years.htm

Schapelle really needs your signature on that petition, right now. Thank you so much.

Best Regards,

Simba.
‘THE INNOCENT SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED’