MSAT Lawyer Alias Mas Bechi Calls 2 Witnesses Presented By Prosecutors Too Forced

MSAT alias Mas Bechi/DOK ANTARA

SURABAYA - The head of the team of lawyers Moch Subechi Azal Tsani (MSAT) alias Bechi, Gede Pasek Suardika, said that the two witnesses presented by the Public Prosecutor (JPU) were not qualified.

The two witnesses gave their testimonies at the follow-up hearing of the molestation case against the defendant MSAT alias Mas Bechi at the Surabaya District Court, Thursday, August 25.

"The two witnesses did not have the capacity as witnesses, because they did not hear, saw and experienced the events referred to in the indictment, so the two witnesses were too forced, because they were not qualified," said Pasek.

The two witnesses presented by the prosecutor were the parents of one of the previous witnesses and the legal counsel of the victim. The total number of witnesses who have been presented at the trial is nine people.

The witness's parents previously explained what was told by their child (the previous witness).

In this case, said Pasek, the witness also admitted that he did not know the victim and did not know the incident directly.

"The witness is the parents of witness B (previous witness). Then the parents of witness B do not know the victim, are not at the location, do not know the incident but only heard from their children. That is the first testimony," he said.

The testimony of the second witness was described by Pasek as an unprecedented event. Because, in this second testimony, the prosecutor actually presented legal counsel from the victim or the complainant.

"Secondly, this may have never happened. A testimony where the victim's attorney must be present to explain the case to be a witness. So the attorney becomes a witness," he said.

Pasek explained that the witness from the victim's attorney told about the incident based on the victim's story. Even though this witness himself said he was not at the scene.

"What is told has no value because it is not at the location. He is only a lawyer who hears from people's stories," he said.

According to Pasek, the qualification of the witness should have seen, heard and experienced the incident himself. Therefore, the witnesses presented by the prosecutors have been considered MSAT lawyers as not qualified as testimony de audite.

In this case, he considered the prosecutor only concerned with the number or quantity of witnesses without considering the quality of the witnesses and seemed forced.

"The handicap has been there since the investigation and it seems that he was forced to get P21. I heard from the trial that there have been 7 to 9 times P19 back and forth between the investigator and the prosecutor. If according to the rules, it should be SP3, it's a pity that the prosecutor has to work hard because the investigation is messy and full of engineering. ," he said.

Separately, the Public Prosecutor (JPU) Endang Tirtana stated that the statements of the witnesses he presented were in accordance with the indictment. The prosecutor believes that what the witnesses have explained has supported his side.

"The witness from the Public Prosecutor's Office is in accordance with the BAP given by the investigators. (The testimony) supports us," he said.