The details of the case against Julian Moti are hardly irrelevant to the issue of his extradition to Australia to face charges a fortiori the fact that he is an Australian citizen does not make the original matter in Vanuatu irrelevant it is merely what gives the Australian courts jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to the Australian international child sex offender legislation And it is mischievous to describe the David Marr and Marian Wilkinson article in the Sydney Morning Herald which has been quoted and removed several times as a statement by supporters of Julian Moti Marr and Wilkinson merely point out in disinterested journalistic fashion the weaknesses in the case against him it verges on libel to describe this as being supportive of a person you apparently have already condemned as a paedophile Moti has never been tried he has addressed the question of whether he has a case to answer it was that which the Vanuatu Court of Appeal determined had not been properly established and which it remitted back to a second magistrate to reconsider You appear to conflate the three Vanuatu hearings into one Marr and Wilkinson entirely leave it as is proper in an impartial news item for the reader to draw his or her own conclusions as to the implications  if any  of the Australian DPP going after Moti so energetically in the political circumstances of the matter Or do you consider that any account of the Moti affair which does not condemn Moti and applaud the Australian DPP to be supportive of Moti You might usefully take counsel from the truism of the criminal law that one is innocent until proven guilty a matter which the Howard Governments minister of immigration and the DPP rediscovered no doubt to the considerable cost of the public purse when the inevitable action for malicious prosecution and wrongful imprisonment is brought by Dr Mohamed Haneef And I hasten to assure you that this does not make me a supporter of Julian Moti either