On 24 April 2007, the Manado court handed down a decisive, unambiguous verdict clearing my Dad of all charges and declared that Buyat Bay was never polluted, the fish are safe for human consumption and the people are fine.

Now let’s rewind almost two years back to 27 April 2005. This day the Overseas Press Club (OPC) awarded New York Times reporter Jane Perlez the prestigious Whitman Bassow Award, which recognizes “Best reporting in any medium on international environmental issues”. The OPC panel of judges awarded Jane Perlez this honor because her reporting “detailed evidence in the village of Buyat Bay of skin tumors, rashes, breathing difficulties, and headaches.” But most noticeably, it is the claim that it wasn’t “until the Times series appeared [that] the Indonesian government and the mining company had turned a deaf ear to the problem” and that it was Jane Perlez’s series of articles that “forced the government to take legal action against Newmont”.

The moment the gavel fell for the third time, the chatter about appealing the verdict started. First it was prosecutor Purwanta who commented on the 24th of April 2007 that the there would be an appeal. Then on 25-April 2007, Deputy Hoetomo informed the press that the Ministry of Environment would support the appeal. This of course was a clear reversal of his earlier statement because on the 24th of April, 2007, Mr. Hoetomo had commented that they respect the decision of the judges. And once again on the 3rd of May, 2007 the Jakarta Post quoted prosecutor Purwanta’s intent to file an appeal on 7-May-2007.

While this kind of rhetoric regarding the appeal is a perfectly normal reaction from the prosecutors, the most pertinent question is whether or not an appeal is legally permissible in a situation of such an airtight acquittal? And a closer look at Indonesia’s law reveals that an appeal is indeed NOT permissible if the defendants are acquitted of all charges.

Over the last two months I’ve been asked a number of times what I was going to do with the blog once the case was over. Essentially I’ve said that I intend to maintain the blog for two reasons. First, if the case goes into appeal then I will continue the blog in support of my Dad. And second, I’ve explained that I want to help try to restore my Dad’s good name, which has suffered over the last thirty months. Over the next year, it is likely that academic papers, videos, and even books will continue to shed light on this hoax.

Starting with this blog I want to re-focus on the person whom I consider to be instrumental in instigating this hoax. And this person is Jane Perlez of the New York Times. In fact I believe that Jane Perlez has set a new standard in yellow journalism. First it was her false reporting! And then unlike the fish that never disappeared from Buyat Bay, Jane Perlez disappeared from the scene when my Dad’s defense started to present their witnesses in early 2006.

It is clear that Perlez first devised a story and then conjured up the facts to support it. No one expected a New York Times reporter to indulge in this kind of pop-journalism. But she did and my future blogs on this topic will show that the urge to embellish the Buyat story for mass appeal can be traced back to the encouragement that the newsroom managers in New York provided to Jane Perlez (the forthcoming blog on the Overseas Press Club’s award ceremony would show that Jane Perlez and her managers collectively camouflaged the scientific facts).

WALHI along with JATAM and ICEL continue to behave irresponsibly and are hurting Indonesia and its people. It has now become clear that unless there is a result that fits the narrow self-interests of individuals like Chalid Mohammed, Raja Siregar, Siti Maemunah and Achmad Santosa, they would continue their destructive campaign.

WALHI and their collaborators are clearly not interested in environmental issues because there are enough environmental problems in their backyards that can benefit from their campaign. Every creek and river that passes through Jakarta is polluted but WALHI has shown no interest in cleaning up these water bodies even though millions are exposed to the pollution from these water sources.

On Tuesday, literally within an hour or two after the court handed down a decision clearing my Dad and Newmont of any wrong doing in the Buyat Bay Case the Ministry of Environment stated in that they would respect the decision.

Yet, this afternoon 3:30 pm Jakarta time, the Ministry of Environment [KLH] held a press conference to announce that they would in fact “respect the decision” for about two days and are now supporting an appeal of the Buyat Case. This absolutely reeks of political pressure from outside forces.

It now appears that everything I wrote and posted earlier regarding KLH respect for the courts decision was wrong. It seems they no longer have confidence in the District Courts and the 50 plus points outlined by the courts 260 page verdict, for example:

When the verdict was read on the 24th of April-2007, the ruling articulated the scientific arguments with such clarity and authority that it will now set a new standard for environmental analysis in Indonesia. The verdict reflects a profound understanding of not only environmental science, but also of data quality and analytical issues. It is clear that the final verdict is based on the most advanced environmental analysis that has ever come to the attention of any court in the history of Indonesia.

The final ruling is unambiguous because it is based primarily on substance and technical facts. When I sat in the court and listened to the ruling I noted that each of the prosecution’s evidence was rejected soundly and decisively. The Judges had applied the most objective scientific knowledge and techniques to develop their argument for each rejection of prosecution’s claim.

Therefore, it is not a surprise that WALHI and JATAM are having a hissy fit. Take a recent comment from Siti Maemunah coordinator of the Mining Advocacy Network (JATAM) who said, “Newmont was found not guilty because of legal procedure, but not on the substance”. Such a statement only reflects the desperation and hollowness that should be more than obvious to the general public. It is clear that WALHI and JATAM have lost all credibility [link].

It must be stated that the court’s decision was not just a simple victory where my Dad and Newmont were acquitted of any wrongdoing but the judgment had a list of more than 50 points outlining why these allegations were not only unfounded but also it categorically stated that no environmental crime was committed in Buyat by Newmont. The decision was a slam dunk in all respects yet some are still trying to spin it as a victory by technicality.

I would like to announce today that in Manado’s District Court after about 53 trial sessions my Dad was found innocent. Needless to say, my family and I are extremely happy as this not only vindicates my Dad but, also vindicates David Sompie, Putra Widjayatri, Phil Turner, Jerry Konjansow, Bill Long and maybe most importantly the villagers of Buyat Bay can finally rest with the knowledge that there is no pollution!

My family and I would also like to thank everyone who has supported us over the last 30 months. That really includes everyone one on the legal team, the technical advisors, Newmont employees and everyone else who has contributed. Your dedication to this case and my Dad are greatly appreciated!

Tomorrow, the District Court of Manado (Sulawesi, Indonesia), will hand down their decision on whether or not my Dad is guilty of polluting the environment. If my Dad is found guilty he will face a three year jail sentence and a $60,000 fine. My Dad is an innocent man. And I am his nervous son. Let me tell you why he’s innocent and why I’m nervous.

This case exists because a group of regulators and the police abused their authorities to override the legal and scientific facts that conclusively showed that Buyat Bay is clean. To date, over 30 individual studies including the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO), Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) and numerous other institutions have categorically vindicated my Dad. The Buyat Bay case is a perfect example of how politics can influence police and prosecutorial efforts in Indonesia.

The evidence against my Dad essentially relies on two dubious pieces of evidence, police samples showing elevated levels of mercury and arsenic and a highly flawed technical report. The case took ugly turns from the beginning. When police investigators took samples, each split with Newmont, somehow the 24 samples taken that day, as the record shows, magically grew to 34 in court. In addition, the police samples found levels of mercury and arsenic that were vastly different than every other accredited lab analysis, including studies done by WHO and CSIRO.