Criminologists Consider Putri Candrawati Harassment Can't Be A Motive For Ferdy Sambo, Only Claims That Are Not Evidenced

Defendant Putri Candrawathi (Irfan Meidianto-VOI)

JAKARTA - Criminologist from the University of Indonesia (UI), Prof. Muhammad Mustofa assessed that the alleged harassment of Putri Candrawathi could not be used as a motive in the alleged murder case of Brigadier J. The reason is that there is no strong evidence or support for harassment.

Mustofa's opinion began when he mentioned the motive in general, it must be strengthened by the existence of evidence and supporting witnesses.

"Artinya kalau tidak ada bukti tidak bisa menjadi motif?" tanya jaksa dalam persidangan di Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan, Senin, 19 Desember.

"You can't," replied Mustofa.

"In this case there is no such motive? No evidence?" asked the prosecutor.

"Nothing," said Mustofa.

Then, Mustofa assessed that so far the alleged harassment has only been based on the information of Putri Candrawathi. So, it cannot strengthen the series of events in Magelang.

"There was anger experienced by the perpetrators who were involved in Magelang. But it was not clear," said Mustofa.

"It's not clear. Does that mean there is no evidence in that direction? Does that mean it can't be a motive?" asked the prosecutor.

"You can't," said Mustofa.

Putri Candrawathi admitted that she had been harassed by Brigadier J at Magelang's house, Central Java, on July 7. In fact, as the trial went on, Brigadier J's actions were no longer called harassment but rape.

The reason for the rape, which Ferdy Sambo called the motive for the murder of Brigadier J.

For information, there were five defendants in the alleged murder case of Brigadier J. They are Ferdy Sambo Putri Candrawathi, Strong Ma'ruf, Bripka Ricky Rizal, and Bharada Richard

They were jointly involved in the murder of Brigadier J at the Police Complex, Duren Tiga.

Ferdy Sambo is referred to as planning the murder. Meanwhile, Putri and three other defendants supported and helped the former Propam Kadiv.

Thus, they 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 to (1) of the Criminal Code.