The 'Third Party Fixer' Proposition

The proposition that the marijuana was placed in Schapelle Corby’s bag by a third party at Bali airport with unidentified sinister motives is not one which has been widely considered, but it is in fact extremely credible.


BACKGROUND & MOTIVES

The suggestion that someone placed the drugs for a motive other than direct financial benefit is sometimes dismissed because the alternative motives themselves are not immediately obvious. Upon consideration, however, it is clear that there are in fact a number of profoundly significant possibilities.

One example relates to politics. It is glaringly obvious that an Australian facing an Indonesian court on a charge of trafficking where the evidence amounts to nothing other than the dodgy insertion of a few kilograms of marijuana would generate significant political friction between the two nations. This in fact is precisely what transpired.

The wish for political friction, and deterioration of the relationship between Australia and Indonesia, would benefit the objectives of many parties, including those who seek confrontation between Muslim communities and the West (to whom that particular relationship is strategic). Indeed, it is clear that ultimately the Australian government sacrificed Schapelle Corby’s human rights to stabilize that relationship.

This is a high return serious motive, which would involve the sort of operator and budget which would make the placement of the drugs themselves a mere formality.


But there are a host of other possible motives too, including for example a hatred of Australian or western tourists by a single twisted individual. This possibility was recently articulated via an incoming email:

When Indonesia invaded East Timor in the mid 70s after Portugal abandoned it, the Australian government looked the other way and said and did nothing. For a quarter of a century the Australian government claimed that it had no problem with the invasion and that it respected Indonesia’s territorial integrity – all for the sake of continued trade with our big aggressive northern neighbor. Unspeakable atrocities occurred over those long years and we did nothing.

Then around 1999, after Indonesia’s President Soeharto (Suharto) was ousted from power, Australia joined numerous other voices pressing the Indonesian government to allow the East Timorese to decide if they wanted to be a part of Indonesia or not. The Indonesians viewed Australia as a two-faced traitor. The vote was cast and the East Timorese voted “No!”

After the vote, hundreds of thousands of pro-Indonesian East Timorese civilians fled for their lives to West Timor and numerous other parts of Indonesia, including Bali (several thousand fled to Bali). They included farmers, business people, teachers and government employees of all kinds, and their families. East Timor was their paradise. Most of the tens of thousands of Indonesian troops based in East Timor were from the Udayana Military Command in Bali.

Are you getting the picture? Several thousand civilians and tens of thousands of military end up back in Bali, their lives completely in turmoil. And who do they see all around them living the good life? Australian tourists buying their sisters and daughters and Australian soldiers swilling beer on leave from their peace-keeping duties in East Timor. The potential for a seething hatred must have existed.

The years passed. How many ex-Timorese soldiers in Bali were reassigned to non-military functions such as the Bali police force? How many former Timorese civilians found jobs at Ngurah Rai Airport as baggage-handlers or security guards? And how many of those never really got over the indignity of their forced eviction from East Timor?

In my opinion, the potential for malicious acts, such as planting illicit drugs on innocent travelers, is definitely a possibility.

And there are many other potential scenarios like this too, such as the wish to cause embarrassment to Qantas Airlines or Sydney or Brisbane airports, or perhaps even the possibility of national hatred, as suggested by another correspondent:

The timing of such malicious behaviour fitted the recent events. Throughout 2003 and 2004 there was much Australian coverage of Indonesian legal prosecution of the 2002 Bali bombers, and related matters. Much vitriol accompanied the first trial of the prominent scholar Abu Bakar Bashir. The prosecution case against him was not strong, but he was nonetheless convicted of minor charges, receiving a light sentence.

The precise philosophical affiliation of our unseen operator could be a number of things, but it enough for such a person to decide: So Australians are unhappy with the results of Indonesian justice? Let’s see how they like the results of this!

The proposition therefore is amply supported in terms of a wide and varied range of potential motivations.


THE DRUG PLACEMENT OPERATION

The mechanics of the operation are again well described via an incoming email from yet another party:

The unseen operator had no interest in drug trafficking, or in the price of marijuana in Bali. Marijuana is suitable for its illegality, its conspicuous bulk in volume and its recognizability. The operator made his investment, perhaps in concert with the supplier, or perhaps by less conspicuous means. All he needed was access to luggage areas in the airport and the right moment to make the insertion.

The means are modest, the risk from airport security as is now obvious is low, and once done the operation is assured of some level of success. Even an early acquittal for the unlucky traveler would be worthwhile, because in the ensuing controversy judges could be accused of special leniency to Australians or worse, and all objectives are partly met.

Indonesian justice however is rigorous and strict, The burden of proof of innocence rests on the accused, and without sound evidence the case for the defense is difficult, if not impossible. The controversy is predictable. The unusual nature of the charge creates a widespread belief in Australia that the accused is innocent, while in Indonesia the association between Australians and drugs is all too plausible.

And:

From there it just keeps getting better. The accused, horrified at her arresting officers describing her words and behavior as incriminating, calls them liars. Australians start behaving badly and Indonesian reaction is unsympathetic. Offensive remarks about Indonesian justice and Australian arrogance and criminality are made by parliamentarians in each country, and the eventual sentence is severe.

Corby has an unusually close connection to Bali. Her sister is married to a Balinese, and she has been there herself a number of times. Some have seen in this fact a greater likelihood of guilt, but if I throw a rock at a passing tourist bus, should it be a surprise if the passenger I hit is a frequent traveler on route to a familiar destination? Corby knows that taking her own boogie board is cumbersome but worth the effort. She’s done it before and it makes perfect sense. No need to worry about locked luggage, there’s no problem.

Meanwhile the unseen operator had to hit the right target. The right target was a young Australian on holidays, the sort of person who quite likely has some connection, directly or indirectly, with recreational drugs. The specific item chosen for insertion was a boogie board bag. Bulky recreational luggage is not the sort of thing a resident of Indonesia or elsewhere in Asia, or an international traveler. is likely to carry around,

For the first piece of physical evidence we have only Corby’s own evidence, and that of her traveling party. The one drawback with Corby’s boogie board bag is that while it has plenty of room, it was too light. The extra 4 kg might have been noticeable to the owner who may have discovered it before customs did. The unseen operator broke the carrying strap of the bag, so that the owner would not pick it up, but rather drag it or place it on a trolley, which is exactly what happened.

Corby testified that the strap was broken as evidence of John Ford’s improbable clumsy drug trafficker, She did not seem to understand that it was broken for a reason. The unseen operator was a luggage expert.

And finally:

The unseen operator’s last problem was the customs service at Ngurah Rai airport, and it is here that there is sound evidence of his existence, because his one miscalculation was to underestimate the thoroughness and modernity of Indonesian customs.

Customs officer Igusti Ngurah Nyoman Winata testified that he first became aware of the suspicious nature of Corby’s luggage when he scanned incoming items through an x-ray machine, prior to passenger collection. In cross examination he stated he did not unzip the luggage, nor cut open the marijuana wrapping. Corby’s defense lawyers challenged this point because they wished to question Winata’s honesty in order to cast doubt on his account and because they wished to query the procedures relating to handling of evidence. Corby herself has expressed dismay at the casual manner in which her arresting officers handled the physical evidence, but that was after the arrest. In doing so they don’t seem to have taken seriously the possibility that Winata was telling the complete truth. Winata may or may not have unzipped the luggage to have a closer look, but he has no good reason to cut open the wrapping. Even if he did unzip the luggage, the transparency of the wrapping would have confirmed his suspicion. Direct examination of the marijuana could wait until after the arrest, as in fact took place. There was even ample opportunity for petty pilfering were Winata and his colleagues so inclined.

The unseen operator however had little faith in customs. His substantial investment is wasted if customs didn’t detect it, and he was anxious that the value he aimed for be achieved. Not even transparency was enough, so he added smell. A quick unzip by the most casual inspector would achieve the desired outcome.

The marijuana wrapping consisted of two vacuum sealed plastic bags, one inside the other. Even with rough handling the compressed contents were unlikely to burst both layers. There were no sharp objects in the boogie board bag.

If Winata did not cut open the wrapping, who did and why, if not our unseen operator? I am unable to offer any plausible alternative.

SELF PERPETUATUON

Clearly therefore this proposition is more than just tenable. There are sound rational arguments to support it, and plenty of supporting evidence for the explanation.

Once the fuse had been lit via the third party, the motives and self-interests described in the sections covering Proposition 1 and Proposition 2, drove events forward at pace.

Events in both Indonesia and Australia took on a life of their own, with tragic consequences for the innocent and bewildered Schapelle Corby.



Return to Main Propositions Page

Denpasar Airport

The actual placement of the marijuana, at Denpasar airport, would in some respects have been a formality. However, it is worth pointing out a number of aspects relating this.

The Slashed Bag
The marijuana was in a large transparent space bag within the board bag: the inner bag had been slashed across its width with a blunt instrument to release the smell. This was presumably done to make sure that it was detected by the customs officer

The Tampered Zip and Placement
No attempt had been made to hide the drugs within the outer board bag. In addition, the zip of the board bag had been tampered with and moved to the center, by accident (in the rush to stuff the marijuana inside), or by design (to make it more straight forward for the customs officer to open). The shoulder strap of the bag had also been broken.

The Role of the Bag
Schapelle Corby’s boogie board bag was one of the first pieces of luggage removed from the aircraft, and was thus a good target for insertion. Equally, it was almost empty, making it a prime candidate.

It was also a unisex bag, which contained surfing gear, with the name ‘Schapelle’ providing no clue whatsoever to a native Indonesian that the owner might be female. Indeed, a correspondent recently commented “One can easily imagine the clear vision of a male surfer, bleached dreadlocks, DOPE tattooed on his knuckles, and a string of convictions back home in Australia. All boxes thus ticked, including that of a more compliant Australia, who would have immediately pre-judged this ‘surfer druggie’ as guilty”.

Schapelle’s Brother
It appears that so immersed were they with this expectation, that they detained Schapelle Corby’s brother for 30 minutes, despite Schapelle herself stating that the bag was hers!

Trafficking Requirement
Equally, the charge of “trafficking” requires the involvement of other parties: so why was Schapelle’s sister, Mercedes, who was waiting for her at the hotel and who later arrived at the airport, not arrested? Or indeed, any other party at all? Why no investigation?

The Requirement for Complicity
Our correspondent continues: “It would have been quite a shock to discover that ‘Schapelle Corby’ was in fact a non-drug-taking, very attractive and visibly innocent ‘snow white’ young woman, with no criminal history at all. It was also a real fly in the ointment. With a druggie-surfer, the Australian government would have had little option but to remain relatively silent. Now though, the Indonesians required some level of complicity.

The anticipated execution plan was also de-railed, as every human rights, religious and documentary group not under government control would have been all over the case and all over the evidence. But this particular buck (the capital offence requirement for specific funds: see later) was passed on relatively quickly courtesy of the Bali 9, whom the Australian Federal Police (AFP) conveniently allowed to fly to their death sentence.”


Next: Australian Complicity

Return to Main Propositions Page

International Politics & High Finance

Indonesia is a net recipient of direct and indirect United Nations funding for the international 'War on Drugs' and related crime. Not that the source of this inward investment is limited to just the UN - far from it. Funding is awarded from a variety of international sources.

It is important to understand that ‘War on Drugs’ involves serious money: billions of dollars. One agency alone, the UNODC (UN Office on Drugs and Crime), had an annual official budget of US$332 million last year [8]. One obvious fact stemming from this is that recipient nations seek the biggest cut of this that they can possibly attract.

It is also important to understand that it isn't simply a matter of cash donations. Investment is often allocated via 'projects'. A nation and its regime will benefit fiscally by the very presence of a project office and staff in their territory. It is a complex mix of funding, but it is funding on a truly substantial scale.

Naturally, nations and regimes compete extremely vigorously in this lucrative international 'market'. And, the UNODC, for example, does indeed have a project and project staff in Indonesia [25] [24].

But how do the UN (and the other sources) determine where the investment and money goes? Clearly, they don't just stick a pin in a map and pour money at random. No, it is applied for and in theory it has to be justified. Recipient nations will have to demonstrate that there is a major drug production, import, or export issue. The stakes are extremely high.

High profile cases like Schapelle Corby's, the first ever Australia to Indonesia smuggling case in history, are therefore extremely valuable. This fact frames the mood music to the whole show trial and subsequent events.

INDONESIAN CORRUPTION
Corruption is a major problem in Indonesia. Scratch the surface with Google and detailed reports are presented aplenty describing this.

Such is the level of corruption that the United States government’s official website states that “Indonesia has laws against official corruption and an effective anti-corruption commission; but despite these laws, corruption in Indonesia is endemic.” and that “Corruption of Indonesia’s judiciary is pervasive and poses a significant threat to the country’s counter drug strategy” [9].

The UN should always make sure that before allocating any investment at all, the recipient regime has a robust and corruption free judicial system in place. But they don't. They should make sure that there is no scope for corruption before allocating investments, as should all inward investors to regimes like this one. But they don't.

Indeed, in June 2008, even one of the UN's own agencies (UNDP: The United Nations Development Programme) published a report describing a new initiative in this area, under the helpful title “UNDP’s Anti Corruption Activities in Indonesia” [10]. Good work… but what about 2004/5?

The implication of all this, of course, is that it isn't only the higher echelons of the regime’s apparatus who may gain advantage from the investment and funding obtained. With corruption demonstrably rife, such investment creates a bigger pot for a substantial number of operatives to feed from.

In 2004/5 there was therefore significant motive in place at almost every level within the system. There was an inherent culture in place which itself supported and promoted this motive.

Tragically, Schapelle Corby found herself in the middle of this corrupt motivational and high finance mire. What followed was: the show trial, the legal and human rights abuses, the terrible inhumane sentence, the burning of the evidence…


Next: The Bali Police

Return to Main Propositions Page

The ‘War on Drugs’ and Corruption Proposition

The proposition that the Indonesian regime, or individuals holding posts within the apparatus of that regime, placed the marijuana into Schapelle Corby’s bag to help secure substantial ‘War on Drugs’ funding or other revenue is compelling.

Clearly, the regime and their operatives had plenty of opportunity, homegrown marijuana was in plentiful supply, and the potential rewards throughout the chain were enormous.

This proposition is best explored from a top-down perspective:


International Politics & High Finance

The Bali Police

Schapelle Corby's ‘Trial’

Denpasar Airport

Australian Complicity

References



Return to Main Propositions Page