Schapelle - innocent?
In my previous post I stated that I support Schapelle because (1) she didn’t get a fair trial, because (2) the sentence she received was outrageous even if she were guilty and because (3) she may be innocent. I then went on to discuss some of the reasons that I believe Schapelle's trial was not fair.
In this post, I'm going to have a look at the controversial topic of innocence. I say controversial, because as Schapelle's detractors like to point out to us none of us really know whether she is guilty of drug smuggling or not. They then go on to point out that there is an obvious prima facie case against her, and that she was unable to provide any worthwhile evidence of innocence.
In my last post I pointed out that Schapelle had no chance to provide such evidence because of the mishandling by the authorities of the only evidence that could have convincingly cleared her. Nonetheless, I don't want to completely ignore the question of guilt vs. innocence either. But bear in mind that without that evidence we and the court are looking at a badly distorted picture.
In my opinion, it is reasonably likely that Schapelle is innocent, based on the following indicators:
1. From the night of her arrest, Schapelle was desperate to have her bags fingerprinted, her luggage weighed for comparison with check-in weights and video of her arrest introduced to refute the 'guilty reaction' testimony of the Customs Officer. If she were in fact guilty, this evidence would have convincingly demonstrated her guilt, yet she showed no hesitation at any stage in asking for the evidence.
2. One parking ticket in 27 years entitles her to benefit of the doubt. As criminologist Paul Wilson siad in court, she doesn't fit the profile of a drug smuggler.
3. My own instinctive reaction to her denials was to believe her. Various experts in body language have agreed with me. More importantly, the Australian public's reaction to her testimony was to overwhelmingly believe her. Various legal experts keep trying to tell us that she would have been found guilty in Oz as well. Absolute bulldust! 92% of Australians believed her testimony. Where were they going to find a jury to convict her?
4. The crime makes no sense. Prices are similar in Sydney to those in Bali but obviously the penalties are very different. Yes, I am aware of the Matthew Moore article that says otherwise. I am also aware that he has cunningly compared retail prices in Bali with wholesale prices in Sydney to create a false impression that there are excess profits to be made in Bali. Absolute rubbish. Which is why nobody else has ever been caught smuggling marijuana from Oz to Bali. It doesn't happen because it doesn't make sense. By the way, I've got to know Schapelle well enough to know that although she is not particularly well educated, she is genuinely smart. Far too smart to take on the death penalty for nothing.
5. There is a photo of Schapelle with her travelling companions, taken shortly before they left Brisbane. How anybody could think the relaxed smiling girl in that photo is about to play Russian roulette is beyond me. The Schapelle we saw in the trial is definitely no poker player.
6. Where is the distribution network? She was hardly going to sell 4.1 kg of marijuana herself during a two-week holiday. Yet it seems the Bali police, despite early bluster they would find her associates, have actually found nothing.
7. I have serious doubts about the role of the Bali police in all this. Despite regular requests from Schapelle and her lawyers (ignore Mick Keelty's comments on this topic - they aren't true) the Bali authorities have refused to test the marijuana to determine source or quality. Am I the only one that finds this hard to believe. They've stopped a courier with a large bag of marijuana yet they don't want to know where it came from. Interestingly, they also didn't want to know whether Schapelle's companions might have had drugs in their bags. I don't like conspiracy theories and I don't want to push this too far. But something ain't right about this.
Enough. There has to at least be substantial doubt in my book. In a subsequent post I will look at some of the popular arguments people use to convince themselves of her guilt. But not today.
In this post, I'm going to have a look at the controversial topic of innocence. I say controversial, because as Schapelle's detractors like to point out to us none of us really know whether she is guilty of drug smuggling or not. They then go on to point out that there is an obvious prima facie case against her, and that she was unable to provide any worthwhile evidence of innocence.
In my last post I pointed out that Schapelle had no chance to provide such evidence because of the mishandling by the authorities of the only evidence that could have convincingly cleared her. Nonetheless, I don't want to completely ignore the question of guilt vs. innocence either. But bear in mind that without that evidence we and the court are looking at a badly distorted picture.
In my opinion, it is reasonably likely that Schapelle is innocent, based on the following indicators:
1. From the night of her arrest, Schapelle was desperate to have her bags fingerprinted, her luggage weighed for comparison with check-in weights and video of her arrest introduced to refute the 'guilty reaction' testimony of the Customs Officer. If she were in fact guilty, this evidence would have convincingly demonstrated her guilt, yet she showed no hesitation at any stage in asking for the evidence.
2. One parking ticket in 27 years entitles her to benefit of the doubt. As criminologist Paul Wilson siad in court, she doesn't fit the profile of a drug smuggler.
3. My own instinctive reaction to her denials was to believe her. Various experts in body language have agreed with me. More importantly, the Australian public's reaction to her testimony was to overwhelmingly believe her. Various legal experts keep trying to tell us that she would have been found guilty in Oz as well. Absolute bulldust! 92% of Australians believed her testimony. Where were they going to find a jury to convict her?
4. The crime makes no sense. Prices are similar in Sydney to those in Bali but obviously the penalties are very different. Yes, I am aware of the Matthew Moore article that says otherwise. I am also aware that he has cunningly compared retail prices in Bali with wholesale prices in Sydney to create a false impression that there are excess profits to be made in Bali. Absolute rubbish. Which is why nobody else has ever been caught smuggling marijuana from Oz to Bali. It doesn't happen because it doesn't make sense. By the way, I've got to know Schapelle well enough to know that although she is not particularly well educated, she is genuinely smart. Far too smart to take on the death penalty for nothing.
5. There is a photo of Schapelle with her travelling companions, taken shortly before they left Brisbane. How anybody could think the relaxed smiling girl in that photo is about to play Russian roulette is beyond me. The Schapelle we saw in the trial is definitely no poker player.
6. Where is the distribution network? She was hardly going to sell 4.1 kg of marijuana herself during a two-week holiday. Yet it seems the Bali police, despite early bluster they would find her associates, have actually found nothing.
7. I have serious doubts about the role of the Bali police in all this. Despite regular requests from Schapelle and her lawyers (ignore Mick Keelty's comments on this topic - they aren't true) the Bali authorities have refused to test the marijuana to determine source or quality. Am I the only one that finds this hard to believe. They've stopped a courier with a large bag of marijuana yet they don't want to know where it came from. Interestingly, they also didn't want to know whether Schapelle's companions might have had drugs in their bags. I don't like conspiracy theories and I don't want to push this too far. But something ain't right about this.
Enough. There has to at least be substantial doubt in my book. In a subsequent post I will look at some of the popular arguments people use to convince themselves of her guilt. But not today.
posted by True Blue at 12:17 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home