Through A Criminal Expert, Ferdy Sambo-Putri Candrawathi 'Arang' Status Justice Collaborator Bharada E

The defendants Ferdy Sambo and Putri Candrawathi 'attacked' the status of justice collaborator (JC) Richard totaling alias Bharada E who was recommended by the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK) in the premeditated murder case of Brigadier J.

The attack began when Hukun's advisory team asked criminal law expert Elwi Danil about whether or not there was a difference in the weight or quality of information from JC with other witnesses or defendants in a trial.

The expert also said that there were no rules or opinions stating that the value of a JC's statement was different. Thus, all testimonies will have the same weight.

"So, thus it can be said, even if he is a justice collaborator, his statements are the same as those of other witnesses who are not justice collaborators," Elwi said during a trial at the South Jakarta District Court, Tuesday, December 27.

Then, Elwi was again questioned about the information that needed attention in the process of proving whether he saw from the figure of the witness or conformity with the series of events with evidence.

However, he could not speak much about it. Elwi only emphasized the true authority of the panel of judges to assess the information revealed at the trial.

"When it comes to suitability between one fact and another, one statement and another will later become what is in the evidence that we know about the clues. That will be used by the judge as a means to give rise to his belief in evidence which is referred to as a clue," said Elwi.

The 'attack' is suspected to be related to the testimony of Bharada E who often conveys new facts at trial. One of them is the presence of a short-haired woman who had cried while leaving Bangka's house, South Jakarta.

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

In that case, 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 with a maximum threat of death penalty, life imprisonment or a maximum of 20 years.