Canadian Government abandons falsely-accused Citizen in Indonesia

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Then the government can probably appeal directly to what passes for the justice member over there to review the case and to work on bringing the prisoner home to complete his sentence. At its most extreme they can go after the diplomatic relationship over there, and apply sanctions and reduce aid. Are you saying this is what they should have done?

But the Canadian government can't do much during the trial, they can make sure that they have adequate council, and observe the trial but that's about it.

I've always thought when I'm travelling abroad that if I get in trouble and get thrown into jail for some reason, the Canadian embassy will not come to my aid and I'll have to find some other means to defend myself. As far as I understand it, the sentiment is usually "you got yourself in this mess and we'll only help out a bit for what you actually need".

TL;DR: Don't rely on the Canadian government to bail you out of anything. Delusions of grandeur.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

This guy is 100% innocent until there is some evidence proving his guilt. It sickens me time and again people convicting someone with no evidence.

Once we learn more we will know more, but until then, he is innocent.

Other than he was found guilty. And other than kids testifying that he did it. So unless you have evidence of judicial impropriety he is guilty.

No there are lots of questionable things about the trial based on the info coming from the family but to me we need to let their justice system playout and here what the Canadian Government and not the families opinion on the trial.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by driveway

However, the testimony of the victims was then sealed. The defence was not allowed access to it. The accused were then asked, under oath, to respond to the accusations, without being allowed to know the specifics of what they were accused of.

Is this true? This immediately invalidates anything resembling a fair trial and is utterly unacceptable. Any verdict that stands under these circumstances is a sham. No one can defend themselves under these circumstances.

To be clear, I don't care if there is video of him doing it, I don't care if there are forty eye-witnesses, you cannot have a trial where the defendant is unable to specifically respond to the facts as presented by the prosecution. They might as well have skipped the whole court process.

[Calgary14]

I didn't follow this case too closely but from what I read it sounds like a farce - was there ever any concrete evidence that he committed the crime, and is it true the defence wasn't able to properly present their case (ie. medical expert testimony, coworkers who corroborated the defendant's story etc)?

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by driveway

Not only is he not a pig, but nothing actually ever happened to the child in question, it's a money-grab by the mother.

Perhaps one thing that isn't pointed out enough- tuition at the school is apparantly $30,000US a year. Im not suggesting that wealthy people arent capable of attempting a scam like this, but the fact that we are dealing with incredibly wealthy families makes this a less likely scenario imo. Certainly not impossible, but I do think a lot people are making the assumption that the victims are indonesian kids coming to school barefoot in rags with families that would jump at an opportunity like this.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Calgary14

I didn't follow this case too closely but from what I read it sounds like a farce - was there ever any concrete evidence that he committed the crime, and is it true the defence wasn't able to properly present their case (ie. medical expert testimony, coworkers who corroborated the defendant's story etc)?

IIRC it wasn't that the judge wasn't able to present their case, it sounds like the judge discounted their testimony and presentation.

There are lots of grounds for appeal, it sounds like they had a a biased judge.

It sounds like the Judge also wasn't happy with the family waging their war through the media there, and probably punished the defense team because of that.

This will get kicked up to the next level of their justice system, but I think the important thing is for the defense team to control the families use of the media.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by GGG

Other than he was found guilty. And other than kids testifying that he did it. So unless you have evidence of judicial impropriety he is guilty.

I must have missed the evidence part, was there any? Serious question.

Originally Posted by GGG

No there are lots of questionable things about the trial based on the info coming from the family but to me we need to let their justice system playout and here what the Canadian Government and not the families opinion on the trial.

Lost you on this one.

[Flabbibulin]

Oh my, this is pretty pathetic-

A prosecution witness, "sexologist" Dr Naek L. Tobing gave evidence Bantleman only had sex with his wife once a week, when the "norm" was every day or two to three times a week. As he also did not masturbate he would be seeking sexual outlets, he claimed.
He also did not masturbate according to the well-known Indonesian sexologist.
"There is a question how could he release his sexual desire," said Chief Judge Nur Aslam Bustaman. "These conditions could create abnormal sexual behaviour."

http://www.smh.com.au/world/teachers...v2.html?stb=fb

[vanisleflamesfan]

nm

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Oh my, this is pretty pathetic-



http://www.smh.com.au/world/teachers...v2.html?stb=fb

That would be hilarious if it wasn't also horrifying that the "sexologist" is being considered a legitimate witness.

[Vulcan]

So if he had sex more often this "sexologist" would label him a sex addict.

[tvp2003]

Reported widely this morning -- Bantleman criminal conviction has been overturned and he has been released from prison.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Darkwater

Oh yeah, he NEVER touched the kid. #### you. That sick #### is guilty.

Sorry what?! You just said this in the Kane Rape thread:

"Hope it ends well. Rape is ####ed..but so is ruining a life on bull#### grounds.Seriously, I hope it ends well. "

Where in the heck are you getting your information? I would love to hear your grounds for why you think this guy is guilty? So far you have backed none of your claims up. Ridiculous.

[Nage Waza]

I made several posts in this thread asking for evidence that people were using to justify their claims of guilt. Not a single response.

Now he has been released, I hope some of the posters read what they posted in shame.

[CaptainCrunch]

Not to shift the conversation, but the bottom line is he went through their justice system and was released, it was the right result, especially based on the judge in the last trial.

But I don't get what people think that the Canadian Government can do against a sovereign government especially in the case of accusation of sexual abuse of children.

Its not like Canada is going to drop in special forces troops to pull him out of the country, its not like there's a ton of pressure that the Canadian Government can apply if that government basically says "Mind your knitting, he has to stand trial and if he's found guilty he pays the price"

The government can have the conversation at a ministerial level, they can observe the trial, they can try to apply pressure, but most governments are going to leave these things in the hands of their justice system, unless your dealing with a tin pot dictator who is the justice system.

There's very little pressure that can really be applied.

I mean I get that families are upset, but it irks me a bit that they expect a miracle intervention, its rarely if ever is going to happen, and if it does, its usually not for the right people and the result is the wrong one.

look at Jean Chretien's intervention with the Khadr trial in pakistan.

[Nage Waza]

Captain, the issue I had was the wide net they dropped on assorted people, locking them up for a very long time. Perhaps an investigation to determine what the evidence was and holding passports would have been sufficient. I would never have my hopes up in Indonesia, that place simply does not value human rights.

Although he is in their country and follows their rules, it would be wrong for those of us in countries with human rights to not criticize.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Captain, the issue I had was the wide net they dropped on assorted people, locking them up for a very long time. Perhaps an investigation to determine what the evidence was and holding passports would have been sufficient. I would never have my hopes up in Indonesia, that place simply does not value human rights.

Although he is in their country and follows their rules, it would be wrong for those of us in countries with human rights to not criticize.

I don't know if I disagree, but I was talking about the expectation that the Canadian government could do anything to help anyone before the trial gets to its conclusion.

About all a Canadian government Official can really do, even at a minister to minister level is request access, and ask for assurances of a fair trial.

Then if the person is found guilty work to get him to a Canadian Prison.

This is especially true in a case involving possible child molestation.

[Nage Waza]

Captain, the issue I had was the wide net they dropped on assorted people, locking them up for a very long time. Perhaps an investigation to determine what the evidence was and holding passports would have been sufficient. I would never have my hopes up in Indonesia, that place simply does not value human rights.

Although he is in their country and follows their rules, it would be wrong for those of us in countries with human rights to not criticize.

[CaptainCrunch]

You're making that statement around thinking that their investigation and justice system works the same as ours, or that we can expect that they'll be treated the same way as suspects in our justice system.

Their detention system works a lot different, in that a judge can order a detention of 5 years, or 60 days can be ordered without a judge being consulted.

You can't argue that with or without a passport, he's still a risk to flee in their interpretation, they're probably not going to give him the benefit of the doubt and release him from detention.

Look the second trial judge was a farce, the witnesses were a farce, but somewhere along the lines the prosecutor thought he had a case he would win with.

[Nage Waza]

Trust me, I don't think their legal system is the same as ours in any way at all.

I can still criticize the system, but I would also criticize someone for wanting to work there at all under the obvious limitations.