Prosecutors Are Concerned About The Reason Ferdy Sambo's Subordinates Are 'High Initiative' When They Break The CCTV DVR

JAKARTA - The public prosecutor (JPU) questioned witness Chuck Putranto who took the CCTV DVR from Irfan Widyanto on the grounds of fear of being misused. In fact, Irfan is a member of the National Police.

The questioning began when the prosecutor questioned why Chuck asked the CCTV DVR, who was at Irfan Widyanto at that time. The former Korspri Ferdy Sambo immediately said he was initial in securing it so it would not be misused.

"Why at that time did the witness have the initiative to ask for CCTV that was secured by Irfan at that time?" asked the prosecutor during a trial at the South Jakarta District Court, Thursday, December 15.

"Because I thought at that time so as not to be abused as a SPri Kadiv Propam," replied Chuck.

The prosecutor, who was surprised by the testimony, asked Chuck to elaborate on the matter of not being misused. In fact, Irfan is a member of the National Police.

Then, Chuck mentioned the reason for securing the CCTV DVR from Irfan so that irresponsible other people would not be taken.

"Witnesses, the Head of the Propam Division, should have known the witness who secured the evidence, didn't the witness know that there was an incident on the 8th of the witness when he saw the body of Yosua, who secured it, wasn't it the Criminal Investigation Unit at that time?" asked the prosecutor.

"Because as far as I know his position is not inside the crime scene, outside the crime scene that I knew at the time," said Chuck.

"Does it mean outside the house?", said the prosecutor.

"Yes, what I know is that what Irfan sees is outside CCTV, which means I think CCTV is CCTV outside, not inside," said Chuck.

Chuck Putranto was originally presented as a witness in the obstruction of justice case for the defendants Hendra Kurniawan and Agus Nurpatra.

In that case, they were charged together to obstruct the investigation into the case of the death of Brigadier J. Thus, they are strongly suspected of violating Article 49 in conjunction with Article 33 subsidiary Article 48 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 32 paragraph (1) of the ITE Law Number 19 of 2016 and/or the second indictment of Article 233 of the Criminal Code subsidiary Article 221 paragraph (1) to 2 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 1 to (1) of the Criminal Code.