New Book on Schapelle Corby : Another Smear Campaign?

Don't fall for the new book on Australian Schapelle Corby, sentenced to 20 years in an Indonesian prison for bringing 4 kilos of pot into Bali. The book claims Schapelle's now deceased father put the pot in her boogie board .

While the book doesn't go so far as to claim there is evidence that Schapelle knew the pot was in her board (its premise seems merely to be that after she was busted, she took the fall for her father, who died in 2008,) multiple media outlets are leading with incendiary headlines that Schapelle's guilt is now established. The author, Journalist Eamonn Duff, who works for the Sydney Morning Herald, has been coming up with these Corby family guilt scenarios for years. [More...]

The problems with his theories are outlined in Part 3 of this Expendable Report, Primary Sources Of The Character Assassination Of The Corby Family, starting on page 19 (or start here or here.)

[T]he police... were clear about the nature of Duff's reporting, describing the McCauley claims as "laughable". They explained that they had known about McCauley's claims for 12 months, had investigated them, and had found them to be false.

They made a number of very direct formal statements to get the message across. For example: "An investigation made by Queensland Police into statements made against Mick Corby found these statements to be unjustified". And, "Queensland Police has no evidence to link Mick Corby with involvement in the drug trade". This could hardly be clearer.

Here are the police certificates finding "no disclosable court outcomes" against Schapelle's father, mother and sister.

Eamonn Duff writes for The Sydney Sun-Herald, so obviously they are going to promote his book. I recommend avoiding their reporting and following other Australia news outlets instead.

I wonder if he got permission to use Schapelle's face on the cover of his book. Or doesn't she own the right to her likeness in Australia? Do convicted offenders lose that right when they lose the right to proceeds from their own book?

Why should a reporter make money off Schapelle when the Australian Government forfeited most of the proceeds generated from her own book? Why should Schapelle, who has always maintained her innocence, not be allowed to earn money from her account of how she was wrongly convicted, while a journalist can rake it in on a book proclaiming her guilty, based on unreliable sources, hearsay and speculation?

The public takeaway from the news articles on the book undoubtedly will be that Schapelle was knowingly acting for her father. How many will notice this interview with Duff yesterday in a paper he doesn't work for:

Duff said yesterday it was not clear whether Schapelle knew the drugs were in her bag. However, he added: "I think it's fair to say that she was well aware that her father was entrenched in the marijuana game for three decades."

Or that his conclusion she took the fall for her father is really just his personal speculation:

Duff believes Schapelle's affection for her father - who always denied knowledge of the drugs - prevented her from revealing the true story.

If Duff does not claim, and has no evidence to support Schapelle knew the drugs were in her boogie board when she went to Bali, what is the purpose of this book? If she didn't know, she's not guilty. Why isn't this the headline?

Duff's theory also strains credulity. Are we really expected to believe that a woman doing 20 years in a hellhole of a prison would not tell authorities about her father being the source of the pot once he died and could no longer be in criminal jeopardy? That her sister or mother wouldn't come forward after his death if this story were true? Schapelle Corby has been teetering on the brink of mental illness the past few years of her imprisonment, but I doubt she, or any daughter, would believe her father would want her to stay in prison to protect his posthumous reputation.

Schapelle has had a clemency request pending for the past year. The negative publicity generated from this book could be damaging. The Sydney Morning Herald has pimped the book so much the last few days I'm no longer going to read or link to their articles on any topic.

The myriad of doubts about Schapelle Corby's guilt are as strong today as ever. She should be released. Indonesia should send her back to Australia and Australia needs to work harder to free her. A 20 year sentence to a foreign hellhole of a prison, that is home to terrorists, child molesters, rapists and murderers, for 4 kilos of marijuana would be obscene, even if guilt were clear. In Schapelle's case, it's simply an unacceptable travesty.

There are beautiful beaches all over the world. There's no reason to go to Bali. As for the book, I'll pass on that as well.

All of our coverage of Schapelle is accessible here.

< Herman Cain: Witnesses Saw Him Talking to Sharon Bialek | Wednesday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If I Were Her... (none / 0) (#1)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 02:29:32 PM EST
    ... I would ride that wave right out of prison.  If they are going to play some silly game with his reputation at least make some use of it.

    Then worry about clearing his name, use the book deal money to finance that.  If it's possible to recapture those funds once it's determined that no crime was committed by Corby.

    um, to make money? (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 06:00:50 PM EST
    If Duff does not claim, and has no evidence to support Schapelle knew the drugs were in her boogie board when she went to Bali, what is the purpose of this book?

    there was a time when a book such as this, filled with speculation, innuendo and lacking any credible evidence, would never have seen a printing press. those days are long gone. if people will buy, some publisher will print it.

    Her clemency request (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 10:44:32 AM EST
    By law, will only be considered if shevrenounces her plea of innocence.

    That's just (none / 0) (#4)
    by sj on Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 10:51:52 AM EST
    wrong on so many levels.  What kind of mind creates a law like that?