Refusal to Test for Fingerprints or Determine the Quality and Origin of the
12 October 2004:
police “confirmed that the marijuana was of high purity and quality and would
for about 14 times the price of locally grown marijuana.”.Sugiarto said that high-quality marijuana heads were
known on the streets of the tourist island as “lemon juice” and sold for
about 70 million rupiah ($10,535) a kilogram. He said local cannabis, sourced
from Aceh, is known as cimang
or Aceh Gold and sells for only 5 million rupiah a
How can the police “confirm” the quality of the marijuana without conducting
used the following conversion rate: Rp 6644 =
$ 1.00, which is accurate for that month. He claims that 4.1 kg of “lemon
juice” is worth
$ 43,193 and that 4.1kg of local cannabis from Aceh
Sugiarto’s claims with the information from an
article1 published in The Jakarta Post one week before Schapelle
Corby’s trial begins. On 19 January, Sugiarto
estimated the value of 4.1kg of “lemon juice” at
$ 17, 677 - less than half the value that he claimed it was in October 2004.
Why is there such inconsistency?
why would an Australian citizen risk life in prison or a firing squad for less
than $18,000? How much is 4.1kg of high quality Australian-grown marijuana worth
the same month that Schapelle Corby was arrested, a man was arrested in
for possession of 1.56 kilograms of marijuana2. The prosecutor told
the court that the defendant had purchased the marijuana for Rp
2 million per kilogram and sold it for Rp 2.2
million a kilogram. These figures put the value of 4.1kg of local cannabis at
In October 2004 Sugiarto made unsubstantiated claims
about Australian marijuana. He created the impression that it had long been
but provided no proof. He made reckless claims about the value of this
hypothetical Australian marijuana on the streets of
for which he provided no proof, and he also more than doubles the price of
local marijuana at that time.
Monday, 11 October 2004:
police said it was the largest quantity of cannabis taken into
, and the first such case involving an Australian.4
Lubis takes her former client Bobby Griffiths to inspect the marijuana at the
police station to determine its quality, and introduces him to the local police
as “an expert”. “I know good stuff from bad,” says Bobby, “and this
stuff was average, it wasn’t like the high-quality stuff you got big money ...
I know good shit from bad. You could just tell.”
He based his evaluation on personal experience and prior usage in his younger
1 November 2004:
lawyers say they will this week request a meeting with consular officials to
seek help from Australian authorities to have their own independent forensic
tests conducted on the drugs to determine the
content or strength of the marijuana in a bid to prove if it is from
. Before the Australian Federal Police can conduct the tests there must be a
request from the Australian Embassy.
defence says they have not received any positive response to the request nor to
requests for information from Australian Airlines on the weight of the luggage
when it was checked in at
airport. “We did contact the
through the consulate but we are still waiting for their response,” Lubis
said no fingerprint tests had been conducted on the bag “because too many
hands had touched the bag after its discovery.”6
25 November 2004:
a radio interview Alexander Downer (Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs)
we are trying to do at the moment is get an analysis done of the cannabis that
was found in her boogie board bag, which was over four kilograms of cannabis.
That's an awful lot of it.”
said they also wanted to examine the plastic bag in which the cannabis was
we can establish where the cannabis came from, that might or might not be of
is a very curious case this - cannabis is, I am told, much cheaper in Bali than
it is in Australia, so why would somebody be taking a large amount of cannabis
from Australia to sell in Indonesia.
quality (of cannabis from
) is apparently better. I accept that is one possible explanation, but the price
difference is apparently absolutely enormous.” 9
sighted Schapelle Corby’s signed consent for the tests to be done, the
formally offered assistance to the Indonesian police to conduct
tests on the cannabis. 12
claims, as a result of a request from Schapelle Corby’s defence team to the
Australian Government, the
wrote to the Indonesian National Police offering forensic assistance (including
fingerprinting) in relation to their investigation.13
Australian Consulate General in
have confirmed Schapelle Corby’s consent viaa memo62
three months after Schapelle Corby's arrest and after repeated requests to have
the evidence fingerprinted, the defence lawyers confront Sugiarto.
had the bags brought to his office in Lubis's presence. "He confirmed the
inside bag had not been removed. He said he would have it fingerprinted,"
family were advised that the Indonesian police would not give any of the
cannabis to the
week in January, 2005:
is informed by Lubis that there are two plastic
bags. Lubis said: "Mr Sugiarto
was not aware of the inner bag until I informed him. He was astounded and
ordered the bags brought to his office so he could see for himself. I told him
the inside bag was not contaminated. If it had any fingerprints on it, they were
put there by the drug dealers who packed the marijuana. It is important
evidence. Mr Sugiarto said he would have it
6 January 2005:
says the internal bag was still uncontaminated until today when it went to the
prosecutor with other evidence.15
DFAT spokesman says: Indonesian authorities have declined an Australian offer to
conduct tests on the marijuana to determine where it originated. Downer offered
the assistance of Australian Federal Police to test the cannabis to find out
where it was grown due to the unusual nature of the case.
spokesman says: "Australian Federal Police had offered assistance to the
Indonesian National Police (INP) in regards to the testing of drugs in the
matter. However the INP have declined assistance at
this time." 16
news sources reveal a serious contradiction between the
police’s version of events in January 2005 and statements made by the
in April 2005. The
police claim that the
did NOT approach them to test the marijuana, and the
claim that they DID seek permission to test the marijuana.
chain of events is reported as follows:
Downer met with the defence team in Australia in November, he called the case
very curious and offered
help to test the origin of the cannabis - something that required Schapelle
Corby gave her consent in December 2004 and the
said it had offered to help determine where the cannabis was grown.
spokesman said Indonesian police had declined the offer of help.
Bali police said - some time
in January 2005 - the
had NOT asked to test the drugs. Sugiarto
told AAP: "The
never asked to test the drugs [and] we never asked them to test the drugs. We
have our own forensic lab and our tests are enough to prove that what Corby
brought in to
is marijuana. What else would we need to check the marijuana for?"
6 January 2005
police handed all evidence and paperwork to the prosecutors.
VasuRasiah said he had repeatedly warned the Australian
government that once the case went to the prosecutors it would be off-limits; he
did not actually want to help Schapelle Corby; "When Lily (Lubis)
police to do the tests, they laughed at her. They said: 'The girl's own
government don't want to do anything, why should we do it?' “
defence team said it had also sought
help in conducting fingerprint tests on the plastic bag.
police said the bag could not be tested for prints because it was contaminated,
but Rasiah maintained there were two bags: one
containing the drugs and another on the outside.
VasuRasiah said the lack of Australian government help
afforded to Corby was in stark contrast to that for Christopher Packer, another
Australian being held in
. Packer, a multi-millionaire yachtsman from
, was arrested in
in November on suspicion of arms-smuggling, but was expected to face court soon
on reduced charges related to failing to declare half a dozen guns to Indonesian
VasuRasiah said: "The Australian government talk
about corruption in
. They should look at their own system. Why are they running around in circles
looking after Packer, but not
lawyers accuse the Australian government of forsaking their client. VasuRasiah said: "We have lost all faith in the
and the Australian foreign ministry. They promised us they would help, but it
was lip service all the way. They have done nothing and now what do we have in
her defence? Absolutely nothing."17
these events with Keelty’s April 2005 Media
Statement. Keelty said that the
wrote to the Indonesian National Police offering forensic assistance (including
fingerprinting) in relation to their investigation and the head of
police wrote back to the
some time in January 2005 stating that
assistance was not required with forensics. 18
what is the truth?
See also the special supplementary reference 62)
27 January 2005:
day of the trial.
This was a 30-minute hearing. The prosecution case is presented first. Schapelle
Corby appears in court for the first time. Among other things, the prosecutors
Corby had admitted owning the marijuana.
repeat claims by the police that the marijuana is ‘high-grade’ and would
sell on the streets for about 14 times the price of locally grown marijuana.
made no mention of:
to search or weigh the four pieces of luggage
to take fingerprints.
·VasuRasiah said that next week they would attempt to
force Indonesian police to test the marijuana to see where it came from.
"At the next hearing we will request the court to do this testing, because
it's very important to her case.”
·VasuRasiah said the defence lawyers would apply for
technical experts to conduct tests on the marijuana. No scientific tests have
been done by
police. Tests on the pollen can determine where the marijuana was grown, but
when Australian Federal Police offered to do the tests,
police claimed they were not necessary.
also want fingerprint tests on the two plastic bags containing the marijuana.
this date, Downer has said
will appeal for clemency if Schapelle Corby receives a death sentence but makes
no mention of the concerns he voiced in an interview with John Laws on
25 November 2004
sources 19 to 22)
Thursday, 27 January 2005:
the police and the prosecutor have refused repeated requests by defence lawyers
to fingerprint the evidence.
lawyers say it is clear from their actions that neither the police nor the
prosecutor has given Schapelle Corby her basic right before law, a presumption
of innocence until proven guilty.
lawyers say the police and prosecutors have a strong assumption of guilt. Their
attitude is that the marijuana was in her luggage, so she must be guilty, and
they are not pursuing evidence that might prove them to be wrong.
for the prosecutor's office told the Herald: "There is no need for the
[fingerprint] tests. I think what is important now is that she admit that the
marijuana belonged to her. It is common that she denies it. It always
bag has the fingerprints of half a dozen customs and police officers who handled
it without wearing gloves at the airport, a media conference and at police
headquarters. Sugiarto, told the Herald
: "The bag is contaminated.” He and his senior drug investigator
both handled the bag with bare hands in the presence of Lubis.
police said it was still possible to fingerprint the bag to see if Schapelle
Corby’s prints were on it.
is mainly interested in a second bag which contained the marijuana and which was
inserted upside down inside the outer bag. Customs did not remove this bag to
open the seal, but slit it open at the bottom to get at the marijuana.
told the Herald the bag would not be fingerprinted because "it is no longer
sources 23 and 24)
3 February 2005:
second court session.
Corby told the court she had asked Winata to test the bag containing the
marijuana for fingerprints before handling it, but he refused. She said other
officials had touched the bag and its contents.
show customs officers handling the marijuana through the bottom of the internal
front of the three judges, the internal drug bag was taken out of the external
bag and handled freely by a number of court officials, including customs officer
Winata, prosecutor Wiswantanu and assistant judge I Gusti Lanang Dauh.
the close of court, defence lawyers made a formal application to force police to
test the inside bag for fingerprints. They also demanded the marijuana be tested
to determine its origin and quality.
Sirait said he would consider these requests. "There's still plenty of
time," he said.
sources 25 to 28)
17 February 2005:
fourth court session. The prosecution closed its case today.
lawyers are still waiting for the chief judge’s decision regarding
fingerprinting the bags.29
3 March 2005:
fifth court session. The defence begins. It
is reported that, from the outset, prosecutor Wiswantanu insisted that the only
way he would accept that Schapelle Corby was innocent was proof - visual or by
weight - that the marijuana was not in the boogie board bag when she checked it
. Or visual evidence of someone putting the drugs in the boogie board bag.30
first witness for the defence: Professor LoebbyLoqman,
an academic from the
, who had helped draft
's narcotic laws.
Loqman agreed the fact police had failed to test for
any fingerprints on the two plastic bags which contained the drugs was
"less than perfect". 31
Bakir returns to
after his first trip to
to meet Schapelle Corby and the defence team.
said although the defence case hinged on determining the origin of the cannabis
found in her boogie board bag, the Australian government had failed to order a
test on the drugs.
spokesman for Downer today denied the accusations, saying the Australian Federal
Police had offered assistance to the Indonesian police with testing but the
offer had been declined. 32
4 March 2005:
Opposition foreign affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, says after speaking to
Schapelle Corby’s lawyers late last year, he wrote to Downer and the Deputy
Prime Minister asking them to help ensure Schapelle Corby received a fair trial.
"I particularly requested the Howard Government to assist Ms Corby's legal
team on evidentiary matters which may be important to them.”
says Indonesian police rejected the Government's request for federal police to
test the drugs to determine their source.
today, both Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said
they were concerned by some aspects of the trial but did not elaborate.33
4 March 2005:
Opposition Leader Kim Beazley says he shares Mr Howard's concerns but he is
still hoping for a positive outcome in
rejects the claim that the Government is not doing all it can to help. He says
the Government will help her defence obtain whatever information it needs.
Downer says a request to test the drugs to determine their source was refused.
"The defence came to see me and asked if I could ask the Australian Federal
Police to test the cannabis themselves to find out its source," he said.
of course the Indonesian police control the cannabis so I got the Federal Police
to ask the Indonesian police if that could be done but the Indonesian police
refused to allow the Australian Federal Police to conduct that test." 34
4 March 2005:
Federal Government expressed concern about the trial.
said the Indonesians refused requests by the Australian Federal Police to test
the cannabis. The
wanted to test the drug to ascertain its source. "The defence lawyers
wanted it done, we asked, and yes, it's true the Indonesian police didn't agree
to hand over any of the cannabis for testing.”
Downer said the Indonesians said they "were perfectly capable of doing that
sort of testing themselves".
said today he was "not an expert on this topic" but it would be
unusual for someone to smuggle cannabis into
, where it was relatively cheap and plentiful.
would they do that?" Mr Downer asked.
we are concerned about this case and we are following it very closely." 35
13 March 2005:
is interviewed by Monica Attard:
it bother you when you heard the evidence that the Indonesian police had refused
the assistance of the Australian Federal Police in testing the drugs and in
fingerprinting the bag?
I wasn’t exactly surprised but I mean we obviously made that request and that
request was rejected. This is in
, this wasn’t in
and it’s their sovereign right to make those decisions.
Were you unhappy with that decision?
We made a request so obviously, so ipso facto that was what I wanted.
Would you be prepared to approach the Indonesian Foreign Minister on this issue,
your counterpart over there since he…?
I’ve discussed the case with the Foreign Minister, I’m not going into the
details of that but I have mentioned it to him.
And was he understanding?
“Well, It’s a matter for the courts” is of course going to be his response
and it was.
And you’re satisfied with that or did that displease you?
Well I mean look, come one. You cannot expect the Indonesian Foreign Minister to
ring up the judge and tell the judge to acquit someone. No country is going to
run on that basis, that would be an outrage. 36
This confuses the issue. Attard was not suggesting that Schapelle Corby be
acquitted. The point was that she be allowed access to the evidence.
Thursday, 24 March 2005:
seventh court session.
The defence case continues.
was supposed to be the last day the defence could present evidence, but they
sought and were allowed an adjournment to arrange to bring a Victorian prisoner
named John Ford to
was reported today that PM Howard also takes a personal interest in her case,
saying the government was doing everything it could to help her. "We will
do everything that we are properly and reasonably asked to do (by defence
lawyers) to see that any relevant evidence is presented.” 37
2nd April 2005:
Wockner rounds up the case so far:
handling of the case has not shone a positive light on the Indonesian
investigation or on Australian authorities, our airlines or our airport
security. It seemed everywhere they turned in
, they hit a brick wall.
had been unsuccessful in getting any video surveillance tapes from Brisbane or
Sydney airports which might have showed the bag during the luggage handling
phase, and in their battle to have the drugs independently tested for their
the hurdles included:
marijuana not being tested for its origin, with conflicting accounts from both
police forces over this issue.
plastic bags containing the drugs were not fingerprinted, because police
believed too many hands had touched them. 38
3 April 2005:
President SBY arrived in
this evening for a four-day visit to
tells the Ten Network everything possible would be done to keep Schapelle Corby
alive, including personal representations by Prime Minister John Howard.
rejected the suggestion a guilty verdict would harm relations between the two
countries. "In Schapelle Corby's case, she has been represented, she has
had the opportunity to bring in evidence (and) the court adjourned the hearing
to enable fresh evidence to be brought before it. I think the Indonesian
authorities have co-operated with our requests and I don't think a finding of
guilt will affect our relationship with
11 April 2005:
said the defence team had "put up a strong case that this couldn't possibly
have been put in the bag by Schapelle Corby". 41
17 April 2005:
defence team have received information that the prosecutors will ask for a life
sentence and a fine when the trial resumes this week.
VasuRasiah criticised the proposed request for a life
sentence. He said such a request would demonstrate that prosecutors had taken no
account of the witnesses the defence team had produced. "That [sentence
request] is not fair. If it's true, then it shows there is no system of legal
fairness in this country," Mr Rasiah said.
boldly come and help a country that does not have a fair legal system?"
Rasiah said the judges had told prosecutors they
should consider all the evidence presented, but they were interested only in the
fact that her bag contained marijuana. "[They] would not take any other
evidence," Mr Rasiah said. "They have the
balls to say I will only consider the importation, the fact the bag was tagged
in her name, and the goods were in her bag."
said Schapelle Corby should not be convicted of importing drugs if this was not
done knowingly or without her consent. "Prosecutors should find the truth.
These guys aren't interested in any other evidence." 42
Monday, 18 April 2005:
defence lawyers have accused Australian police of a cover-up and warned their
"bewildering" lack of cooperation may have condemned her.
should explain to the Australian public why they had refused to assist
Indonesian authorities with finger-printing the plastic bag containing the
19 April 2005:
says that claims made by VasuRasiah
(18 April) are baseless.
an example of his cooperation with the defence, Keelty
says: “... as a result of a request from Ms Corby’s defence team to the
Australian Government, the
wrote to the Indonesian National Police in December last year offering forensic
assistance (including fingerprinting) in relation to their investigation. The
police wrote back in January 2005 stating that
assistance was not required. 44
21 April 2005:
tenth court session. The prosecution makes its sentence demands.
The 7.30 Report, Damien Kingsbury says the judges presiding over this trial have
a much less stringent approach than their Australian counterparts. “The level
of legal training is pretty low by international standards. Some judges are
trained internationally, but these three, I understand, are not. That means that
their understanding of rules of evidence and so on and their capacity for
evidence to be tampered with or to be otherwise modified is pretty low. Again,
they're not going to be looking at the niceties or the fine points of the
judicial process. They're going to be looking at essentially the prima facie
evidence and judging accordingly.” 45
Kingsbury suggests that rules of evidence do exist in
, so what are they? This is a fair enough evaluation to make of those three
judges, but what about the judges who presided over the High court and Supreme
court appeals? Their understanding of the “fine points of the judicial
process” and rules of evidence must be far superior and their adherence to the
rule of law should be their first priority, and yet they found no fault with the
26 April 2005:
Corby and her defence team are preparing their final submissions for Thursday 28
April. One of the points the defence will argue:
does a girl, who comes to Bali for a holiday, bring drugs from
worth $40,000, to
where they sell for $5,000? 46
28 April 2005:
eleventh court session. The defence team delivered its final submission, and
then Schapelle Corby spoke.
highlighted the claimed deficiencies in the case:
prosecutor had told the court the marijuana was of good quality but the
defence reminded the judges it had never been tested.
described the prosecutors as "street magicians" for claiming the
marijuana was of high quality even though they had always refused their
request to have it tested to find out its potency and where it was grown.
"Now the same prosecutors who rejected our demand to conduct tests on the
marijuana have stated that marijuana is of very high quality," they said.
prosecutors, whose role is to uphold the law, have failed in committing their
duty to look for the truth and justice.
prosecutors have manipulated the facts to imprison an innocent tourist,"
highlighted Schapelle Corby's modest earnings compared to the value of the
4.1kg of marijuana in Australia, which they said was around $50,000 and which
they estimated would only sell for $10,000 in Indonesia.
sources 47 and 48)
29 April 2005:
a radio interview Damien Kingsbury says: “... the Indonesian judicial system
really does have a number of flaws in it ... The rules of evidence are very
poor, the training of both the judiciary and the defence teams is often very,
very poor, and they don't have rules of sub judice and so on ... This is not
even to mention, of course, the capacity for judges to be influenced by external
sources – political influence, bribes, and so on.
: So what do you consider the main flaws in the Indonesian justice system as it
applied in this case?
KINGSBURY: Well, there's essentially an assumption of guilt that appears to
apply here. The rules of evidence certainly have significant holes in them, and
had the evidence been handled properly, I think that there would have been at
least reasonable doubt to assume that Schapelle Corby was not an active drug
: When you say the evidence handled properly, you mean before the case came to
KINGSBURY: That's right. I mean things like fingerprinting, the weighing of the
drugs, checking that against the original baggage weight when the baggage was
checked in and so on. I mean, these things could have shown that there was
external interference in the process, and raised doubt. 49
12 May 2005:
thirteenth and final court session.
defence repeated that they had continually requested the plastic bags containing
the drugs be fingerprinted – to no avail. 50
High Court and Supreme Court appeals 2005:
the two appeals the defence lawyers again asked for the cannabis to be tested
but the judges refused. 54
20 August 2005:
Lynne Milne, a lecturer and forensic palynologist from the
’s Centre for Forensic Science reveals:
was asked to work on the Schapelle Corby case but was not able to access samples
due to a communication mix up. "I may have been able to work out where the
cannabis came from as it tends to collect the pollen of the region where it was
Palynology is the study of pollen.
26 August 2005:
Lynne Milne reveals on
volunteered to test the drugs but Indonesian officials wouldn’t release a
the process of organizing the test sample, the trial went into the next stage
where a sample couldn’t be released without the – as she understands it –
the prosecution and the judge’s permission.
believes pollen could finally solve the mystery: Where did the drugs really come
still not too late to test the marijuana. As long as the drugs were sealed in
bags they could be tested in a hundred years’ time. Pollen hangs around for
millions of years if it’s in the right condition.
already helped police bust several major cases in
Milne is often called upon to identify the origins of cannabis seized in police
She does not say when she was asked, or volunteered, to work on the case, but
best guess is around December 2004. Nor does she say who asked her to
work on the case (was it the AFP?).
19 January 2006:
a news report reveals that James and two other men have appeared in court on
drug charges. An hour later Hutapea says he
wouldn’t be surprised if the Supreme Court increases Schapelle Corby’s
Robin Tampoe says “... everything filters back to
the prosecutors. They know exactly what is going on in
so it certainly won't paint her in the best possible light as far as the
judicial system over there is concerned."
the Supreme Court announces they have reinstated Schapelle Corby’s 20-year
sentence and ordered the evidence destroyed. The court says they made the
decision on 12 January. Why did they wait a week? Normally these things are
leaked hours after the decision is made – usually by a court official who
phones the press with the hot news.
the defence, prosecution and Denpasar Court
have still not received official word from the Supreme Court.
30 January 2006:
contradict every previous claim they have ever made regarding testing of the
marijuana and fingerprinting:stating
that when the
explained to the defence lawyers that any result from the testing for
fingerprints inside the bag or
testing of the marijuana would also be passed onto the Indonesian police, her
lawyers declined the offer to carry out the tests. 51
31 January 2006:
Rose said the
family wanted to have the marijuana forensically tested, but that Indonesian
police wouldn't allow it. Rosleigh said Schapelle
Corby signed the papers authorising the testing. "We were pushing to get it
done but they (the Indonesian Police) stopped us because the marijuana came from
," Ms Rose told the Ten Network.
) is reported saying today that the defence lawyers rejected the offer after it
was explained that any results would be given to Indonesian authorities. He goes
on to speculate in his characteristically interfering manner:"I think the reality was if it was tested, and the tests didn't come
out with what the defence counsel expected, then it
may assist the prosecution and not the defence.” 52
If, as Keelty claims, the defence never wanted the evidence tested why does he
wait until this point to make this revelation, which contradicts everything the
has said previously? Note here the recent decision by the Indonesian courts to
destroy the evidence (hence, there will be no way to disprove this public
1 February 2006:
article repeats the
claim that the defence lawyers rejected an offer to
-test the marijuana to determine the drug's origin.
says her family and legal team had pushed for the marijuana to be tested but the
Indonesian Government had refused. "We were pushing to get it done because
we were positive the marijuana came from
," she said. "There's been no investigation done (about the drugs'
origin) whatsoever." 58
17 March 2006:
evidence is burned despite a last-minute plea from the defence to have it
marijuana has never been tested for origin and Mr Siregar
had implored prosecutors to keep it should new evidence be found about the true
owner of the drugs. Schapelle Corby has exhausted all avenues of appeal unless
fresh evidence comes to light.
the marijuana burned behind him, Mr Siregar pointed
to the flaming drum, describing it as a "big problem" if the case were
re-opened and there was no marijuana left to test or to compare.
Siregar said the defence team was still working on
an extraordinary appeal in a bid to win her freedom. However, the prosecution
refused to delay the destruction, which was ordered by the Supreme Court.
Siregar said "we don't have a chance any more
to bring this evidence to the court when there is an extraordinary appeal".
17 March 2006:
Siregar, who watched the burning, said he was
concerned the evidence had been destroyed. "If we find new evidence and
then reopen the case, and they want to check, the evidence is no longer
Siregar said he failed to convince prosecutor I KetutArthana to delay the destruction and admitted that
there was no obligation to stall the burning, because the case had already been
he said, they should have waited in the interests of "finding the
31 March 2006:
replies to a letter sent to PM Howard by a Schapelle Corby supporter in January
2006, both posted on FreeSchapelleCorby.net:
In relation to the testing of the marijuana, I can confirm that the
made a general offer of assistance to the Indonesian National Police (INP) in
December 2004, however due to the finalisation of the police investigation this
offer of assistance was declined. As you are aware the
can not directly intervene in the legal processes underway in
unless there is a direct request for assistance from the
or the INP. This advice was provided directly to Ms Corby's lawyers. It was the
responsibility of Ms Corby's defence team to initiate this request through the
Indonesian Courts. I can also confirm that the
has not received a request for assistance from the INP or the Indonesian Courts
for any forensic assistance in this matter before or after the conviction of Ms
Ellison is Keelty’s boss. Ellison’s remarks contradict Keelty’s claims of
5. The Bulletin website, 6 April 2005, The Trials of Schapelle.
6. Freeschapelle.net, 1 November 2004, Australian facing death penalty. http://www.usp.com.au/fpss/news-indonesia06.html
7. The Daily Telegraph, Thursday, 4 November 2004, Bag Tracked Before Drug Bust. I downloaded this article from SOS. One of the members had copied it from a site called The International Hempology 101 Society, www.hempology.com
8. The Daily Telegraph, Thursday, 4 November 2004, Bag Tracked Before Drug Bust. I downloaded this article from SOS. One of the members had copied it from a site called The International Hempology 101 Society, www.hempology.com
9. Transcript of Downer interview with John Laws, Radio 2UE, 25 November 2004.
Also from: Freeschapelle.net, 25 November 2004, Corby case is very curious: Downer, http://www.usp.com.au/fpss/news-indonesia11.html#TWO
61. Freeschapelle.net: extract of letter Reply from Chris Ellison, 31 March 2006 – scroll down to Kay Dane’s article 'When will the nightmare end?' http://www.usp.com.au/freeschapelle/index.html#NEWSUPDATES
Special Supplementary Reference
the testing of the marijuana, there follows the transcript of an official
CONSULATE GENERAL -
FILE NOTE -
3 DECEMBER, 2004
Consul-General, Brent Hall visited Ms Corby at 1400hrs on 3 December and
role, ie; That the
have no jurisdiction in Indonesia, and could not be involved in testing without
a formal request from the Indonesian authorities, which Ms Corby said she now
fully understood, but remained a little concerned that the Indonesian police may
not do the tests properly.
Corby then reiterated that she was innocent and therefore she had decided that
it is in her interest that the tests be done. Ms Corby then confirmed to the
Consul General (Brent Hall) and consular assistant that she gives her consent
for the tests requested by her lawyers (as attached).
FILE NOTE -
7 JANUARY, 2005
(Mike Phelan) then advised us that the head of the
police (Kapolda) had officially advised that the
will not be able to have the cannabis for testing.
above information has been taken from the files for Schapelle Corby and to the
best of our knowledge was true and correct at the time.
Consul. End of doc.
image of the original document is available.
Schapelle: Please don't let her become a forgotten soul.