Introduction

Note that a downloadbale PDF version (right-click, 'save as') of the entire investigation is available via the following link:
The Hidden Truth

INTRODUCTION
The core issues of the Schapelle Corby case are the shocking systematic abuse of her legal and human rights and the brutal political 20 year sentence. This is documented by our onsite FAQ.

Who actually placed the marijuana in her board bag, and why, is largely peripheral to this. The harrowing show trial and dreadful injustice are rightly the focus of the campaign to free her.

However, some of the theories regarding placement and motive do provide rationale for many subsequent events, including the hostile media campaign, the dubious inconsistency of the AFP (Australian Federal Police) and the lack of support from the Australian government.


For these reasons, it is worth documenting just some of the most commonly mooted propositions:

1. The Corrupt Australian Baggage Handler Proposition

2. The ‘War on Drugs’ and Corruption Proposition

3. The 'Third Party Fixer' Proposition


Each of these tells a different story, with differing motives in play. They all, however, present issues and aspects which are extremely serious and disturbing. Around those issues, aspects and events it is also easy to envisage a host of other scenarios, in addition to those outlined above.

The most disturbing issue of all though is that despite all this, Schapelle Corby continues to suffer in a squalid prison cell.


SCHAPELLE CORBY

Weighed against these and other extremely plausible well supported propositions, the idea that Schapelle Corby:

• somehow obtained 4.2kg of marijuana having worked so hard just to earn the money for the flight, with no criminal record, and as a non-drug user

• placed it in her bag and then slashed the plastic bag open to release the smell

• chose to smuggle marijuana to a country where the drug is worth a tiny fraction of its Australian value

• somehow transported, undetected, the pungent smelling bag through Brisbane Domestic airport, Sydney Domestic airport, and Sydney International airport, past check-in staff, sniffer dogs, x-ray machines, CCTV, police, customs and baggage handlers

• put her full name and address on the board bag when she checked in

• openly proclaimed that she owned the bag when it was 'selected' by Indonesian customs

• protested about police/customs handling and therefore contaminating the evidence, which would actually have helped convict her had she placed the drugs

• formally requested that the marijuana be tested for country of origin, which would have added weight against her had it been from Australia

• pleaded for DNA and fingerprint tests which can only have harmed her had she placed them

• refused to even contemplate a plea bargain despite sentencing advantages

• begged for CCTV footage from Sydney and Brisbane airports when even a single frame of a pregnant board bag would have damned her

• requested footage from Denpasar airport which would have validated police claims had they been truthful

• acted out a script so wonderfully at the show trial that she would have swept the board at any Oscar ceremony

• and much more....

… the idea is clearly absurd. Yet she has suffered for so many years and continues to do so. A gross and clear injustice continues to remain unaddressed.



THE WHISTLEBLOWER FACILITY

Clearly, the above propositions raise a variety of unresolved issues. We therefore recently created a 'whistle blow' facility: the first of its kind anywhere on the internet.

If you have any information at all, with respect to any aspect raised, please do contact us via the following email address: inform[at]Schapelle[dot]net



Return to Schapelle.Net

Schapelle Corby's 'Trial'

The show trial itself [13] is extremely supportive of the proposition. Why else would a regime so blatantly and systematically abuse Schapelle Corby’s legal and human rights in the full glare of media focus? The list of abuses is staggering. Here is a small subset:

• Schapelle Corby did not have legal counsel at the preliminary interrogation at Denpasar airport.
• Schapelle Corby did not have an interpreter at the preliminary interrogation. She was interrogated by airline staff whose English-language proficiency has never been established and she did not understand Indonesian
• Best calculations suggest that Schapelle Corby was interrogated for nine hours in a state of serious travel fatigue
• Schapelle Corby’s access to a lawyer was hampered or denied for many hours
• As a result of the wanton contamination of evidence (manual handling) and lack of collection (no weighing of luggage, no CCTV recording presented to court, no x-ray of the bag, etc) Schapelle Corby was forced to seek evidence of any kind in a desperate bid to prove her innocence
• Schapelle Corby was refused access to the evidence (eg: the marijuana, for testing of origin)
• Schapelle Corby was denied the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
• The case attracted political interest and other interventions throughout
• There was clear demonstration of attitude in court by the judges prior to verdict
• The destruction of evidence despite pleas to the contrary is well documented
• The refusal to investigate (for example, to DNA or fingerprint the inner bags, to test the drugs for origin, etc) was a repeated feature throughout.

Even the behavior of the prosecution presented clear evidence of an agenda. If they actually believed that Schapelle Corby was guilty, why didn’t they:

• have the inner bags tested for fingerprints and DNA, when one small fragment would have proved their case?
• have the marijuana tested for origin, given that if Australia was the source it would have strengthened their case?
• collect and show the CCTV tapes from the airport to collaborate their version of events?

They blocked these and other attempts to collect evidence and stimulate investigation. Observers wonder what possible motive there could be for this behavior. One obvious conclusion is that they knew the outcomes (or likely outcomes) already, and were desperate to suppress them.

For good measure though, the regime appointed a judge who had never acquitted a defendant in over 500 drug related trials [14]. With even the president of the country
itself commenting, the case was never primarily judicial in nature.

They subsequently awarded what was demonstrably a wholly political rather than a judicial sentence, one which bore no resemblance to the norm for marijuana offences, and one which exceeded sentences often awarded for crimes such as murder, rape and even terror related crime.

All this suggests that they desperately wanted a high profile conviction, and were prepared to go to significant lengths, risking international condemnation, to achieve one.


Next: Denpasar Airport

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