I was just reading Cherry's post.
I may have misread your understandably emotional response to that post but:
1. There has already been a copycat accusation of abuse at a prominent National Plus school in Jakarta. They even state the abuse takes place in a secret room. I think there is a lot for schools to feel very nervous about in Indonesia. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015 ... sment.html
2. The mother who started this whole catastrophe was quoted on the night of the verdict as saying there were more instances of abuse and more students and teachers are involved. If I was a teacher at JIS, I would be feeling very nervous right now - keep your passport at hand.
3. The way the judicial system handled this case (combined with social attitudes in Indonesia) created something of a perfect storm in which this disaster could unfold. I find it inconceivable that in most developed countries a judge could as part of her judgement claim that the accused inserted a 'magic stone' (her words!) into the child in order that the child would not feel pain during the assault - that is space cadet stuff. There was the McMartin Case in the US in the early 80s. I think if you live in a country that has 'rule of law', you are vulnerable to accusations, but not nearly to the same extent as in a country like Indonesia.
Neil Bantlemann Guilty!!
Discussion
I understand that some of the claims may be hurtful to those sensitive to the case, but that doesnt change the claim that the prosecutions case doesnt have merit, there is at the base of the case a complaining victim, alleging inappropriate misconduct. Whatever value or weight we give to the merits of that accusation do not make it disappear.
I dont have access to the evidence to examine, what I have are reports made by other organizations who do not have government access to the evidence or the results of the investigation. reports are not facts and media articles are not evidence.
We do not know what is only privy to the judicial officers of the court.
The only issue I had no doubt of was that this was going to be the outcome. No one walks into court with this type of accusation and comes out white as snow when its over. Anyone who thought anything different was going to happen in Indonesia was deluding themselves.
Its not a "copy cat" into its proven its a "copy cat", the accusation could well have merit.
Indonesia is in many ways "undeveloped".
There could be more instances of misconduct. More important than a passport is taking precautions including:
1) Never be alone with a student.
2) Ask a fellow teacher to witness student teacher interaction, in absence of that record the interaction. Store these conversations on the cloud to a secure server.
3) Do not socialise with students, outside of school.
4) Do not share proximity with students in environments such as drinking establishments or night clubs.
5) Have available contact information for your embassy and identify potential legal representation.
6) Have a friend who you keep in regular contact with, if you go missing (are arrested) they can follow up with locating and assisting you.
I dont have access to the evidence to examine, what I have are reports made by other organizations who do not have government access to the evidence or the results of the investigation. reports are not facts and media articles are not evidence.
We do not know what is only privy to the judicial officers of the court.
The only issue I had no doubt of was that this was going to be the outcome. No one walks into court with this type of accusation and comes out white as snow when its over. Anyone who thought anything different was going to happen in Indonesia was deluding themselves.
Its not a "copy cat" into its proven its a "copy cat", the accusation could well have merit.
Indonesia is in many ways "undeveloped".
There could be more instances of misconduct. More important than a passport is taking precautions including:
1) Never be alone with a student.
2) Ask a fellow teacher to witness student teacher interaction, in absence of that record the interaction. Store these conversations on the cloud to a secure server.
3) Do not socialise with students, outside of school.
4) Do not share proximity with students in environments such as drinking establishments or night clubs.
5) Have available contact information for your embassy and identify potential legal representation.
6) Have a friend who you keep in regular contact with, if you go missing (are arrested) they can follow up with locating and assisting you.
Re: Neil Bantlemann Guilty!!
I would be interested to know if any educators who are following this post thinks what PsyGuy written has any merit whatsoever.
If u do, let me know and I will try and do a better job to outline that there is really 0% chance that these two men committed any crime against any of these children.
I am not going to try and convince this guy. The reality is following those 6 steps he just outlined would have done these 2 men no good whatsoever. Ferdi, for example, had never even met the boy. One of the cleaners who was convicted in December was not even rostered on duty at the time the 'offence' took place - all of this evidence was ignored in both cases.
If u do, let me know and I will try and do a better job to outline that there is really 0% chance that these two men committed any crime against any of these children.
I am not going to try and convince this guy. The reality is following those 6 steps he just outlined would have done these 2 men no good whatsoever. Ferdi, for example, had never even met the boy. One of the cleaners who was convicted in December was not even rostered on duty at the time the 'offence' took place - all of this evidence was ignored in both cases.
Discussion
See thats the problem I have with your position you can say 0%, because you dont know, you believe, there may not be sufficient evidence to prove the accusations to some standard of doubt, but you dont "KNOW".
How do you know Fredi never met the boy, do you have video of every waking moment of his life? Rosters can be changed, and being on the duty roster doesnt mean you cant still be on the premises.
Believing and knowing are two very different things.
How do you know Fredi never met the boy, do you have video of every waking moment of his life? Rosters can be changed, and being on the duty roster doesnt mean you cant still be on the premises.
Believing and knowing are two very different things.
-
interteach
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:25 pm
Re: Neil Bantlemann Guilty!!
Yes, PsyCho, believing and knowing are two different things.
So perhaps and perish the thought that you might know more about the case before pontificating about it.
Not that such a course of action has ever stopped you before.
You haven't demonstrated any close knowledge of the case, so perhaps your tone-deaf posts make sense at least to you, but what you are posting is essentially pointless and elementary opinion given your lack of knowledge.
Again, not that such a course of action has ever stopped you before.
I suggest that you consider education to be a humanistic activity and attempt to view it as such.
So perhaps and perish the thought that you might know more about the case before pontificating about it.
Not that such a course of action has ever stopped you before.
You haven't demonstrated any close knowledge of the case, so perhaps your tone-deaf posts make sense at least to you, but what you are posting is essentially pointless and elementary opinion given your lack of knowledge.
Again, not that such a course of action has ever stopped you before.
I suggest that you consider education to be a humanistic activity and attempt to view it as such.
Re: Neil Bantlemann Guilty!!
Psyguy,
You are absolutely correct: we do not know what exactly happened.
But, the reason people are getting upset with you is that, in the absence of a FAIR AND IMPARTIAL trial - and I am sure that even you would agree that this trial was not fair and impartial - we have a moral obligation to consider the defendants not guilty.
You like to set yourself up as a fountain of knowledge as to all things international, so you must know that in many countries, like Indonesia, the standards of justice and evidence and innocence fall far below anything that reasonable, impartial, and decent people would deem even barely acceptable.
Just let it go. Forget about having to be right all the time and show some support for a fellow IT.
You are absolutely correct: we do not know what exactly happened.
But, the reason people are getting upset with you is that, in the absence of a FAIR AND IMPARTIAL trial - and I am sure that even you would agree that this trial was not fair and impartial - we have a moral obligation to consider the defendants not guilty.
You like to set yourself up as a fountain of knowledge as to all things international, so you must know that in many countries, like Indonesia, the standards of justice and evidence and innocence fall far below anything that reasonable, impartial, and decent people would deem even barely acceptable.
Just let it go. Forget about having to be right all the time and show some support for a fellow IT.
Re: Neil Bantlemann Guilty!!
Thank you Senator and Interteach for your responses. However, I suspect that a lengthy missive from PG is on the way.
A visiting author came to JIS earlier this year and posted this. It does give a neat summary of the implausibility of the prosecution's case. http://www.chriscrutcher.com/free-neil-and-ferdi.html
Crutcher does cite a Lie Detector test, which he claims did not point to the guilt of Neil or Ferdi. To give you a taste of how ridiculous this trial was, at the trial, the police witness said that many of their answers to questions in the polygraph test did indicate a "defensiveness" in answering questions. When the judge asked to see the data, the policeman told her that he had left it at the police station. The judge asked him if he could draw the results. When Ferdi stood up to complain, he was yelled at and told to sit down.
I am not making this up. The polygraph test was used by the judge as one reason why she found the 2 men guilty.
To believe the prosecution's case (and the judges' decision) you have to believe that 1 child was sodmized, over a period of months, by a half a dozen different cleaners and then also by 2 teachers, without, at any time, exhibiting physical or emotional distress at school (or at home until March 2014). As one of the expert witnesses whose testimony was ignored by the judges said, any small 5-6 year old child who endured that degree of physical violence would have been unlikely to survive. The child was also taken to at least 2 doctors in Jakarta and 1 doctor in Singapore who examined the boy and could not see signs of rape. The medical testimony used to imprison the cleaners and the teachers was from the Jakarta Police Hospital. The testimony from the other doctors was either ignored or ruled inadmissible by the court.
Desperately sad and certainly deserving of empathy and compassion.
A visiting author came to JIS earlier this year and posted this. It does give a neat summary of the implausibility of the prosecution's case. http://www.chriscrutcher.com/free-neil-and-ferdi.html
Crutcher does cite a Lie Detector test, which he claims did not point to the guilt of Neil or Ferdi. To give you a taste of how ridiculous this trial was, at the trial, the police witness said that many of their answers to questions in the polygraph test did indicate a "defensiveness" in answering questions. When the judge asked to see the data, the policeman told her that he had left it at the police station. The judge asked him if he could draw the results. When Ferdi stood up to complain, he was yelled at and told to sit down.
I am not making this up. The polygraph test was used by the judge as one reason why she found the 2 men guilty.
To believe the prosecution's case (and the judges' decision) you have to believe that 1 child was sodmized, over a period of months, by a half a dozen different cleaners and then also by 2 teachers, without, at any time, exhibiting physical or emotional distress at school (or at home until March 2014). As one of the expert witnesses whose testimony was ignored by the judges said, any small 5-6 year old child who endured that degree of physical violence would have been unlikely to survive. The child was also taken to at least 2 doctors in Jakarta and 1 doctor in Singapore who examined the boy and could not see signs of rape. The medical testimony used to imprison the cleaners and the teachers was from the Jakarta Police Hospital. The testimony from the other doctors was either ignored or ruled inadmissible by the court.
Desperately sad and certainly deserving of empathy and compassion.
Reply
@interteach
You are absolutely correct I do not KNOW, my issue is that no one else "KNOWS" either (save the defendants and the victim). What I do know is that the verdict was guilty, thats known, and we can armchair debate the legal and societal issues all day, but there is no base of information available other than media reports and the media isnt privy to the whole picture.
~It is irresponsible to form conclusions in the absence of data~
@senator
Im only concerned with data, and the available data indicates they are guilty (that was the verdict).
I agree they did not receive a fair or impartial trial by any western standard, but thats really the issue. We are applying a western standard of jurisprudence to a non western country (Indonesia). A lot of westerners tend to think that they bring their native "rights" with them, and if there is one mantra of the DOS and the foreign office its that "you are subject to the laws of your host nation, the embassy can not assist you with legal problems". The issue should be did they receive a trial consistent with that nations practice of jurisprudence? As you indicate the standards of evidence and burden of proof are lower than those expected in a western country. The defendants either knew the risks going into the country or should have, and when you make that decision to go your also making the decision of accepting those risks and standards of legal protection.
No offense, but I dont want to show support for a convicted child sex offender.
@hallier
Improbability is not impossibility. I see nothing in the Crutcher article that would indicate the prosecutions case was not possible, testimony and memory of a small child who undergoes such trauma could easily account for errors in the events. Whats the lesson in that, if your going to hurt a child, hurt them bad enough that they cant remember clearly what happened? A "magic stone" could simply be a cognitive defense and manifestation for something else. Maybe the child shifted their memory and cognitive perspective to a mental image of a place (the aquarium) while being assaulted. Maybe the officer really did leave the polygraph data at the office, was he specifically instructed and ordered to bring it with him? Even if he was, people forget things. Does that mean his testimony MUST be false?
Of course your yelled at and told to sit down when you interrupt proceedings, your attorney and counselor makes objections and motions to the court.
I would use the polygraph evidence to, absent some indication the officer who testified is lieing, thats what your supposed to do (assuming polygraph evidence is admissible in the jurisdiction).
"Unlikely" to survive is not impossible to have survived, is your claim its only true if the actions are fatal?
Why wouldnt a judge believe the testimony of its own national medical experts? If its inadmissible than the judge cant consider it. Happens all the time. LE has a murder weapon but some procedural error or chain of evidence, etc means they cant use it in trial. Courts have rules for the admission of evidence.
You are absolutely correct I do not KNOW, my issue is that no one else "KNOWS" either (save the defendants and the victim). What I do know is that the verdict was guilty, thats known, and we can armchair debate the legal and societal issues all day, but there is no base of information available other than media reports and the media isnt privy to the whole picture.
~It is irresponsible to form conclusions in the absence of data~
@senator
Im only concerned with data, and the available data indicates they are guilty (that was the verdict).
I agree they did not receive a fair or impartial trial by any western standard, but thats really the issue. We are applying a western standard of jurisprudence to a non western country (Indonesia). A lot of westerners tend to think that they bring their native "rights" with them, and if there is one mantra of the DOS and the foreign office its that "you are subject to the laws of your host nation, the embassy can not assist you with legal problems". The issue should be did they receive a trial consistent with that nations practice of jurisprudence? As you indicate the standards of evidence and burden of proof are lower than those expected in a western country. The defendants either knew the risks going into the country or should have, and when you make that decision to go your also making the decision of accepting those risks and standards of legal protection.
No offense, but I dont want to show support for a convicted child sex offender.
@hallier
Improbability is not impossibility. I see nothing in the Crutcher article that would indicate the prosecutions case was not possible, testimony and memory of a small child who undergoes such trauma could easily account for errors in the events. Whats the lesson in that, if your going to hurt a child, hurt them bad enough that they cant remember clearly what happened? A "magic stone" could simply be a cognitive defense and manifestation for something else. Maybe the child shifted their memory and cognitive perspective to a mental image of a place (the aquarium) while being assaulted. Maybe the officer really did leave the polygraph data at the office, was he specifically instructed and ordered to bring it with him? Even if he was, people forget things. Does that mean his testimony MUST be false?
Of course your yelled at and told to sit down when you interrupt proceedings, your attorney and counselor makes objections and motions to the court.
I would use the polygraph evidence to, absent some indication the officer who testified is lieing, thats what your supposed to do (assuming polygraph evidence is admissible in the jurisdiction).
"Unlikely" to survive is not impossible to have survived, is your claim its only true if the actions are fatal?
Why wouldnt a judge believe the testimony of its own national medical experts? If its inadmissible than the judge cant consider it. Happens all the time. LE has a murder weapon but some procedural error or chain of evidence, etc means they cant use it in trial. Courts have rules for the admission of evidence.
Re: Neil Bantlemann Guilty!!
PG - I give up. You're not going to convince me and I certainly won't be able to convince you.
For those who have read about the case and are interested in offering support, there are 2 Facebook pages: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1510822339131020/ (this is public and was started by Neil's brother) and https://www.facebook.com/groups/withyouneilandferdi/, which was started by JIS parents and teachers.
I hope most international school teachers on this site will offer their support and won't take the position of PG, which was best summed up by his line: "No offense, but I don't want to show support for a convicted child sex offender."
For those who have read about the case and are interested in offering support, there are 2 Facebook pages: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1510822339131020/ (this is public and was started by Neil's brother) and https://www.facebook.com/groups/withyouneilandferdi/, which was started by JIS parents and teachers.
I hope most international school teachers on this site will offer their support and won't take the position of PG, which was best summed up by his line: "No offense, but I don't want to show support for a convicted child sex offender."
Comment
Evidence (not a lack of convicting evidence) would convince me.
I would suggest caution to ITs out there publicly supporting a convicted sex offender. An IS/parents/students doing a social media review and search may not approve of a member of its staff supporting a convicted sex offender. Which may be cause for disciplinary action up too and including dismissal or contract withdrawal.
I would suggest caution to ITs out there publicly supporting a convicted sex offender. An IS/parents/students doing a social media review and search may not approve of a member of its staff supporting a convicted sex offender. Which may be cause for disciplinary action up too and including dismissal or contract withdrawal.
Re: Neil Bantlemann Guilty!!
Sometimes you have to be brave and stand up for what is right, PG.
If someone confronted me about my support for these 'convicted child sex offenders', I can only hope I do a better job of convincing them of my actions than I have done of convincing you.
What follows is the twitter address of Neil Bantleman's wife - https://twitter.com/TBantl
She posts some links to details about the McMartin case in Florida in the 80s. In that case, some innocent folks became 'convicted' child sex offenders. Thankfully, with support, they were able to prove their innocence and now in the USA at least, the ways in which children are interviewed has been changed so that such miscarriages of justice are less likely.
If someone confronted me about my support for these 'convicted child sex offenders', I can only hope I do a better job of convincing them of my actions than I have done of convincing you.
What follows is the twitter address of Neil Bantleman's wife - https://twitter.com/TBantl
She posts some links to details about the McMartin case in Florida in the 80s. In that case, some innocent folks became 'convicted' child sex offenders. Thankfully, with support, they were able to prove their innocence and now in the USA at least, the ways in which children are interviewed has been changed so that such miscarriages of justice are less likely.
Reply
@hallier
Whats right about defending convicted sex offenders? You dont know its right. According the court and the government of Indonesia they are guilty of a child sex offense. What are you going to say too "defend them"' that they didnt do in court. All it is going to sound like is excuses for someone that as far as they and you know is guilty. Why risk your job, career, and professional/personal reputation for someone you dont know and dont know they are innocent. You really want to be dismissed with a letter of reference and possible notification to your agency and BOE office that you were dismissed for "Inappropriate association with a convicted child sex offender". I dont care how right/brave YOU think it is, I dont want my name or resume anywhere near that. What would it possibly do for me? I see zero upside and benefit and potential problems that there just isnt any pay off for the risk.
Do you think parents, students are going to care, or the board ownership (which isnt likely to be composed of educators). The parent is going to Google you, and the kids are going to search your FB profile, find the post, and then all the media reports behind it and it only takes one of them to go to the admin team and ask "why is this teacher supporting a convicted child molester". Then if your lucky your admin/management calles you in and tells you to "fix it" worse they dismiss you or let you resign for unprofessional conduct. Why put yourself in the position of losing your job and ruining your career even if the probability is very low, when there is zero benefit.
Whats right about defending convicted sex offenders? You dont know its right. According the court and the government of Indonesia they are guilty of a child sex offense. What are you going to say too "defend them"' that they didnt do in court. All it is going to sound like is excuses for someone that as far as they and you know is guilty. Why risk your job, career, and professional/personal reputation for someone you dont know and dont know they are innocent. You really want to be dismissed with a letter of reference and possible notification to your agency and BOE office that you were dismissed for "Inappropriate association with a convicted child sex offender". I dont care how right/brave YOU think it is, I dont want my name or resume anywhere near that. What would it possibly do for me? I see zero upside and benefit and potential problems that there just isnt any pay off for the risk.
Do you think parents, students are going to care, or the board ownership (which isnt likely to be composed of educators). The parent is going to Google you, and the kids are going to search your FB profile, find the post, and then all the media reports behind it and it only takes one of them to go to the admin team and ask "why is this teacher supporting a convicted child molester". Then if your lucky your admin/management calles you in and tells you to "fix it" worse they dismiss you or let you resign for unprofessional conduct. Why put yourself in the position of losing your job and ruining your career even if the probability is very low, when there is zero benefit.
Re: Neil Bantlemann Guilty!!
First they came for the Socialists...
That's probably why.
That's probably why.
-
wrldtrvlr123
- Posts: 1173
- Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:59 am
- Location: Japan
Re: Neil Bantlemann Guilty!!
Some people would apparently be OK with the way minorities were lynched in the South back in the bad old days. After all, they were convicted by someone, of something (just because it wasn't up to modern western standards doesn't mean they didn't deserve it).
Re: Neil Bantlemann Guilty!!
Hallier -
thanks for posting those links - much appreciated.
thanks for posting those links - much appreciated.