Sunday April 22, 2012 -
As concerns the Schapelle Corby case 'the truth' often depends on who you ask. This is certainly true at least in Australia, where opinion was once overwhelmingly in favor of Corby's innocence at the time of her conviction in 2005. By 2008, public opinion in Australia started to change dramatically to the point where (according to a recent poll) most Australians believe Corby guilty- but, she should be freed having served almost 8 years of an excessively harsh sentence. Well, that's nice isn't it, but there is a hugh difference between being guilty yet shown compassion, and being innocent of the charge entirely. An innocent person doesn't need compassion as much as they need simple justice. Yet the real question here is, was justice really done? Or was an innocent woman left to take a fall, while certain 'officials' of the Australian government and AFP turned their backs on the situation?
There is an old expression that states: "It's not what you believe that really counts, it's WHY you believe it. As concerns the Schapelle Corby case, it's not difficult to understand why public opinion reversed itself. After years of 'official' apathy, and a cruel and disreputable media blitz aimed at discrediting her and her family, Schapelle Corby became, quite simply, a "convicted drug smuggler" in need of compassion. No justice needed eh? Yet the truth does not change with the direction of the wind, and a lie is still a lie, regardless of which 'official' or media outlet spouts it. So if you think Schapelle Corby is guilty, ask yourself why you believe that. If all you can come up with are the many so-called 'true' stories you have heard or seen on the tube, then perhaps you need to re-access the foundation of your opinion. It is a fact at this point in time, that the vast majority of the negative publicity about Schapelle Corby has been proven false. Her father was not a drug dealer. The paid story about Schapelle and her sister using drugs is false. If you think she is guilty because the newsperson always starts the latest report with the words-"convicted drug smuggler Schapelle Corby"...........then you should never leave the house so as to be safe from strangers offering you candy. However, in all fairness to the people in Australia, there is nothing much you could have done concerning the Schapelle Corby case, regardless of what your opinion was. You didn't get her convicted and you could not have saved her- not at the time of her conviction anyway. But, there are some people in Australia who had the knowledge and power to make a difference, yet they left an Australian citizen in a foreign country to fend for herself, and knowing very well she was probably not guilty. No, you won't hear that one on the local state-run network.
Before someone asks I will tell you in advance- My opinion is that Schapelle Corby is innocent of the crime for which she was convicted. And, I will tell you WHY I believe that. First off, once you know the real facts of the case, it pretty much comes down to common sense. Now I will say outright that many people in Australia are not in possession of all the facts- you were never meant to be. Consider the following:
Let's assume for a moment that Schapelle Corby is a regular Australian woman of at least average intelligence- there is nothing that suggests otherwise. She is arrested in Bali for trying to smuggle in over 9 pounds of marijuana in her 'boogie-board' bag (which is a large bag). When the marijuana is discovered in her bag by Bali customs agents, she claims she has no idea how the 'weed' got into her bag, and that she did not put it there. Not surprisingly she is arrested and incarcerated. She goes to trial the following year on the charge and is convicted of the crime and is sentenced to 20 years.
Now, the above is pretty much common knowledge, and if that is all there was to it- then I would think she was probably guilty myself. However there is much more to it than that, but a little common sense is necessary in order to weave between the buffalo chips. First off, Corby's journey began at Brisbane airport, going to Bali via Sydney. If the weed was hers in her bag from the beginning, she would have to have gotten it through 2 airport securities- at Brisbane and Sydney. Stop right there. I find it extremely hard to believe that a person can get over 9 pounds of marijuana undisguised and stuffed in a boogie-board bag through security check points at 2 major Australian airports undiscovered, only to be 'nailed' by customs agents on the scratch-ass island of Bali. Stop, I would rather believe in the tooth-fairy. And, to top it off, who in their right mind would bring that quantity of weed from Australia (high priced) to Bali- where it is worth 10 times less. You would have to be dumb as a stump selling weed from Australia in Bali- you would lose 90 percent of your money. As for the question of 'personal' use- I am assuming of course that Schapelle didn't find it necessary to travel around with a lifetime supply.
Well I don't know about you but I am not buying any of that- no pun intended. That just strains credibility big time. I think what really happened was quite simple and logical, yet much more sinister. And there is evidence to back up what I think. What I believe happened- and I am certainly not alone in my belief- is that the marijuana was never suppose to leave Australia, with Schapelle's bag being used without her knowledge by drug dealers to transport the marijuana from Brisbane to Sydney- with 'inside' help. The inside help was of course employees at the Australian airports in question- most likely a baggage handler whose job it is to transport the passengers bags to the plane and load them. This would explain how Schapelle's boogie-board bag made it through the security check points at both airports. All it takes is just one bag handler at each airport. It would have worked like this:
Schapelle arrives at Brisbane airport with her companions and her boogie board bag makes it through the security check point because there is no marijuana in her bag. After the security check but before it is loaded on the plane in Brisbane a baggage handler puts the marijuana in her bag and notes the baggage number. The plane then goes from Brisbane to Sydney, and on arrival at Sydney airport the passenger's bags are unloaded- you guessed it- by more baggage handlers. The inside man at Sydney airport would know exactly which bag had the weed in it, having been contacted in advance by the inside man at Brisbane. Now it is a fact that at Sydney, Schapelle's bag did not get checked at all and no record exists of the bag even being weighed (which is required)- it simply 'disappeared' for a short time. Now at this point the marijuana should have been removed from Schapelle's bag, having reached it's intended destination in Sydney, but someone obviously 'missed the drop', or got cold feet, or thought they smelled a set-up, and the bag with the weed ended up on the plane to Bali. And you all know what happened then.
The above is not simply a theory. There is evidence to support that is probably what happened- or something very similar. At her trial/appeal Schapelle's defense team contended that the marijuana was possibly put in her bag without her knowledge by baggage handlers at the airports in Australia. Well, the Indonesian court was not quick to buy that possibility and after commissioner Keelty's public statement regarding the issue, Schapelle's fate was sealed. The following is what he said:
"There is very little intelligence to suggest that baggage handlers are using innocent people to traffic heroin or other drugs between states".
Now, is that a true statement? Former head of operations for the AFP's Internal Investigations Ray Cooper stated pretty much the opposite to the Nine Network, but unfortunately, not in time to help Corby's case with her legal options having been spent. This is what he had to say on the matter:
...It was well known by the AFP that unwitting passengers were being used as 'mules' to shift drugs between Australia's domestic airports. (He further stated that) ...His investigations suggested some state and federal police were in league with the smugglers.
Seems that 'insiders' at the airports smuggling drugs using passengers was not uncommon, and what happened to Schapelle Corby was not that unusual. We only know her name now because someone 'missed the drop' at Sydney airport and she ended up with unwanted 'extra baggage' on her arrival in Bali. It could have happened to anyone, but it ended up being her, perhaps only because her bag was big enough to hold that much marijuana. There is little doubt at this point in time that more than a few people had evidence that could have greatly helped her case. What I have shared with you above is only the tip of the iceberg. If you want a good dose of the truth concerning the Schapelle Corby case, watch the documentary on her by "Expendable.tv" and they have the documentation to back up what they are reporting on. In my mind there is no doubt Schapelle Corby was sacrificed in 2004, in order that certain politicians and police could avoid public embarrassment by having to admit that either the security of major Australian airports were unsound, or that drug smugglers were indeed operating successfully at airports with help from the inside. No, it's much easier to turn your back on a lone victim, than to face a rather sticky and embarrassing situation. As concerns Schapelle Corby, with justice lacking and faced with many more years in prison, is compassion alone of any real use?