WHAT’S NEXT FOR NEIL BANTLEMAN?
Canadian Neil Bantleman sits in a court detention cell before being found guilty of sexually abusing children at an elite international school in Jakarta, Indonesia and sentenced to 10 years in jail.
The verdict and sentence in an Indonesian court against Canadian teacher Neil Bantleman was issued emphatically by the judge — declaring him guilty of child sexual abuse and sentencing him to 10 years in prison — but questions over the fairness and openness of the trial makes the verdict an unsatisfying and unsettling end.
Bantleman, 45, a native of Burlington, Ont., who was an administrator at the Jakarta International School, was arrested last July, along with an Indonesian teaching assistant, and accused of raping three preschool students.
The case immediately took on unusual airs, as the elite school is a favourite for children of foreign diplomats, expatriates and Indonesia’s wealthy. It has 2,400 students aged three to 18 from about 60 countries.
Thursday’s guilty verdict in the high- profile case was immediately rejected and lampooned by Bantleman, his family and supporters.
“Today is a miscarriage of justice,” Bantleman said before being led out of court, to cheers and applause from supporters from the school, according to Jewel Topsfield, Indonesia correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald, reporting from the Jakarta court. “We will continue to fight until the truth comes out,” he said.
His brother, Guy Bantleman, attacked the case for being “shrouded in secrecy ( and) a lack of transparency.”
“The judge basically threw out every piece of evidence, every witness that the defence put up through the case,” he said. “It’s mind- boggling. There hasn’t been a piece of evidence that has actually proven anything.”
The strange trial, however, is unsatisfying even to those who believe Bantleman committed the rapes, said Jack Hewson, a freelance journalist based in Indonesia who covered the case and the verdict.
“It’s ridiculous,” he said, that the verdict in such a case does nothing to prove a man’s innocence or guilt.
He noted that an aggressive public relations campaign on Bantleman’s behalf is underway.
“There has not been an objective observer at all and now it’s become a media trial, with the defence trying to get their point out. It’s left us in a complete no man’s land.
“There are still three children with two parents each who decided it was worthwhile putting their child through this. One is suing for $ 125 million but the other two aren’t.”
But questions and doubts were inevitable because of the trial process and the judge, he said.
A lack of any independent observers, odd evidence accepted as fact and an obvious animosity the presiding judge displayed toward Bantleman and his lawyers all prevent the verdict from bringing closure.
The evidence and testimony against Bantleman was heard behind closed doors, ostensibly to protect the child victims in the case. However, the identities of the children were openly discussed in the lengthy verdict, read over six hours in public.
Nuraslam Bustaman, the presiding judge in the panel of three, summarized some of the evidence she accepted pointing to Bantleman’s guilt. She accepted much of the expert opinion and testimony from prosecutors’ witnesses and seemed to reject much of the testimony of witnesses called by the defence.
Some evidence seems odd, such as drawing from a sex counsellor’s testimony that Bantleman had sex with his wife once a week as suggestive he was more likely to be a pedophile.
Testimony from one psychologist who said a boy spoke of a “magic stone” that had been inserted into his anus so he would not feel
The judge basically threw out every piece of evidence, every witness that the defence put up through the case.
pain during molestation was accepted by the judge but no object was found or presented in court.
And while Bantleman’s lawyers presented thousands of letters of support for their client testifying to his good character, the impact was not as intended: The judge took the tone and tenor of some of the letters as threats or attempts to influence justice and deemed them the sort of thing a guilty man would do.
The Bantlemans promised an appeal, to Indonesia’s highest court if necessary.