Kuat Ma'ruf-Ricky Rizal Read Pleidoi Today, Denying All Prosecutors' Charges In Brigadier J Case

JAKARTA - Strong Defendants Ma'ruf and Ricky Rizal alias Bripka RR will read out a memorandum of defense or plea in the premeditated murder case of Yosua alias Brigadier J today. Both of them will compactly deny the demands of the public prosecutor (JPU).

Kuat Ma'ruf's camp stated that they had prepared a memorandum of defense. It contained the issue of Kuat Ma'ruf's non-involvement in the murder scenario as stated in the charges.

"Firmly denied several important aspects concerning our client. For example, our client stated that there was an interrogation with Benny Ali on July 8, 2022 (describing the scenario)," said Kuat Ma'ruf's legal adviser, Irwan Irawan when confirmed, Monday, January 23.

Then, regarding the knife will also be explained clearly. This is because the knife was always considered to be an element of Kuat Ma'ruf's involvement in a premeditated murder.

"So that our client knows the scenario by bringing a fruit knife. It is not true that it was taken to the Duren Tiga crime scene, in fact, it was left in the car," said Irwan.

Meanwhile, Ricky Rizal's camp stated that things were not much different. Later, all the elements included in the prosecution's dossier will be refuted.

"We will refute all elements considered proven by the prosecutor," said Ricky Rizal's legal adviser, Erman Umar.

Erman claimed that the elements listed in the former charge were very different from the facts at trial.

Ricky Rizal will also ask the panel of judges to release him. Of course, the reason was that he was not involved in the scenario or the murder of Brigadier J.

"Yes, Ricky's condition is that he hopes he can be released by the judge, because he feels he is not wrong," said Erman.

Kuat Ma'ruf and Ricky Rizal were sentenced to 8 years in prison in the case of the alleged premeditated murder of Brigadier J. Both were considered to have known about and were involved in the execution process.

In the prosecution, both prosecutors considered that they fulfilled the elements of Article 340 in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) 1st of the Criminal Code.