Psychologist Call Bripka RR Faced With Ambigu Conditions Regarding Harassment Of Putri Candrawathi
JAKARTA - Forensic Psychologist, Nathanael Sumampouw, assessed that the defendant Ricky Rizal alias Bripka RR was faced with ambiguous conditions when he saw and heard the series of incidents that occurred in Magelang on July 7.Meanwhile, the incident that was considered ambiguous was the alleged abuse of Putri Candrawati by Brigadier J."Why do I say ambiguous that according to Ricky's statement, this has never happened before, when this night had happened before, then this ambiguous caused the person concerned or the parties who were there to be confused," said Nathanael during a trial at the South Jakarta District Court, Monday, January 2.Several series of events that confused Ricky Rizal, namely, the cry of Putri Candrawati when calling Bharada Richard totaling.Then, Ferdy Sambo's wife who was found lying in front of the bathroom. Then, Strong Maruf chased Brigadier J while carrying a knife, and Putri Candrawarthi who called Yosua into the room.With this ambiguous situation, Ricky said that he took risk mitigation steps by taking a firearm belonging to Brigadier J. The goal is to avoid the impact of the problems that can occur."I see this as a decision taken in an ambiguous situation. Since the person concerned understands as a senior or as a leader on the device, he must take certain action," said Nathanael.Nathanael is a mitigating witness presented by Ricky Rizal's camp in the alleged murder case of Brigadier J.Ricky Rizal was charged with jointly committing premeditated murder against Brigadier J. He allegedly assisted in the process of planning and did not thwart any malicious intent or report the murder that occurred at the Ferdy Sambo official residence at the Police Complex, Duren Tiga, South Jakarta, on July 8.Meanwhile, in this case there were five defendants, namely, Ferdy Sambo, Putri Candrawathi, Bharada E, Strong Ma'ruf, and Ricky Rizal, who were charged with violating Article 340 of the Criminal Code, subsidiary to Article 338 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 55 Paragraph (1) 1 of the Criminal Code. They face the maximum sentence of death, life imprisonment or for a maximum of 20 years.