schapelle corby, page-102

I'm not certain but I think it was Emanuel Kant who said words to the effect "It is wrong to imprison an innocent man even for half and hour and even if it means a million people will be saved by doing so."

Circumstantial evidence -which is all Shapelle's accusers had- does not make a person guilty. Dismissing evidence which the prosecution does not like does not help someone prove his/her innocence.
Political interference -and there was an inordinate, overwhelming amount of that a the time- muddies the waters even more and works towards sides drawing themselves into a corner from which it would be too hard for them to get out. It became a case of Australia vs Indonesia and there was no way sensible minds could salvage the truth from the clutches of self-serving politicians.
The fact that judges were politically motivated, boasted about the number of death sentences they had handed out, postured like village clowns, also contributed to turning a court trial into a shameful, circus.
And I saw not a speck of serious investigative journalism anywhere.

Butwhat was worse, was the fact that the case most lucidly exhibited the trade mark of the Howard era: Couldn't give a stuff about aussies overseas.
It was an era that gave sensible aussies nightmares. An era they'd love to forget -but which, of course they mustn't. Ever!