Friday, May 28, 2010

Schapelle Corby - Federal Corruption Chief, A Movie Hero, or Movie Villain?


Dear Philip,

Very recently I sent "John," in your "Operations Area," this letter, about the Schapelle Corby issues. He's always refused to tell me his surname. I followed that missive up with a phone call the next day.

I wanted the name of "John's" supervisor, plus some immediate (and basic), information re the assessing officer in this case, such as their background, experience and any potential conflict of interest - plus copies of your formal policies and procedures, re the assessment process.

However, "John" sniggered when I formally requested these things, and refused to give me the name of his senior officer, or when I could expect to get that initial info.

Could you please look into this for me. I need the name of "John's" senior officer, so I can liaise with them, plus that simple info, ASAP.

Further, could you please personally confirm you've received these 29 core questions. I've also forwarded them to Tony Negus and Brendan O'Connor (amongst others), and asked for direct answers.

If Tony and Brendan fail to give direct answers, could you please follow this up, and ensure the veil is lifted on this ongoing mystery, e.g. the fate of the investigation into the Australian source of the drugs which were (allegedly), smuggled by Schapelle. Three crimes were committed within Australia, export of $40,000 worth of marijuana, plus cultivation/production and supply of $40,000 worth of marijuana. Who committed those crimes?

Obviously, I don't have the formal power to demand answers (if they fail to respond). That ability rests with you.

I'm sure you (like most other reasonable people), can see the centrality of those questions. If you can't, I guess that would seriously call your abilities into doubt.

I'll phone your office soon, to verbally confirm you've received this formal correspondence, and get an indication/estimate of when you will get back to me.

As you probably know by now, this ongoing dialogue with Government can (and will), be taken into the International arena if necessary. These are more than mere words, it's a building dossier of evidence.

And of course, it's also an invaluable resource for a screenplay of this epic story. Personally, I've already nominated Bernard Hill for Mick Keelty's role. So Philip, while we're on the subject, who do you reckon should play you on the silver screen? Any opinion?

Regards, Kim

Addit to the above, Monday 31st May 2010

Just rang ACLEI, and asked to speak to Philip Moss (re the above). I was told he was "In a meeting," and not available. I asked what time he would be free, but they were uncertain. I gave ACLEI my home phone number, and asked if Philip could return my call. I said that if I hadn't heard back by close of business, I'd ring again by about 4pm to-day.

Addit (same day, Monday 31st May 2010), at 5.05 pm

Well, I've been on the phone quite a bit to-day, so I'm not sure if ACLEI tried to call me back (they may have), but I managed to get back to them myself around 4.30pm. I was treated with the utmost courtesy, and put straight through to Steve, who said he was the Executive Director there. We chatted for a while, and he was very pleasant and professional (thank you). He said that I would be getting a formal response from ACLEI, probably by tomorrow, acknowledging my concerns.

After that, he said it was difficult to estimate the length of the assessment process, which includes formally deciding if these matters are within their jurisdiction. I chipped in at that point and said I felt the crime of "Exporting" $40,000 worth of marijuana through an Australian airport was (and is), a "Federal" crime, but the crimes of "Cultivation/production" and "Supply" could be a Queensland Police matter. I assumed that Steve, with his expert knowledge and background, would be able to sort that one out.

I also acknowledged Steve's difficulties when he said that obviously, internal investigators are not the most popular of people, and have to keep their methods and plans under wraps (for obvious reasons).

I pointed out that the core of my concerns was not any special "Inside information" that I have, because I don't have any. The core of my concerns was getting answers to these 29 core questions, which I'm not empowered to ask (and get answers), but which he is empowered to ask, and demand answers.

The biggest example I gave was the complete, simultaneous disappearance of all frames of CCTV (that could possibly relate to Schapelle and/or her luggage), from three Australian airports. Every airport was a formal crime scene, relating to the export of $40,000 worth of marijuana, and as such, every frame of relevant CCTV should have been expertly preserved by the AFP immediately. Why didn't they do it? And why did NO frame ever come to light?

I also suggested that Steve should interview Ray Cooper.

Anyway, we parted on a friendly note. I said that if I hadn't heard anything within 4 weeks, I'd get back to him. He said that would be fine.

Addit (same day, Monday 31st May 2010), at 9pm

Whilst Steve, Executive Director at ACLEI, is perfectly correct to say that the very nature of their investigations means they have to be highly confidential, it's imperative for this confidentiality to be balanced with transparency and accountability. A practical way to achieve this would be to maintain appropriate (and needed), confidentiality during the investigations, but once they're finalised, produce a public availably report based the answers to these 29 core questions.

Obviously, the high profile nature of these matters puts the outcome of this inquiry very firmly in the "Public interest" basket.