Lawyers Have Truf Cards, Ensnaring Dandy Et Al In Persecution Of Planned David Ozora

JAKARTA - Cristalino's attorney David Ozora (17), M Syahwan Arey, admitted that he had important evidence that would be a truft card in the case of the persecution of the suspect Mario Dandy Satrio (20), which was triggered by AG's complaint (15).

Syahwan Arey said that even the victim of the persecution David Ozora is currently in a coma and cannot be asked for information, LBH GP Ansor has some key evidence that can prove the existence of a conspiracy to abuse his client.

"Although David's condition cannot be questioned, we have evidence to strengthen the conspiracy to abuse," said Syahwan during a visit to Voi.di, Friday, February 3.

He said, apart from witnesses, there were surveillance camera videos (CCTV), or chat evidence. Even so, Syahwan could not comment further because it was material evidence of the trial.

"We can't reveal it outside the court. We will report the truf cards later in court," he said.

In the case of the persecution of David Ozor, the police conducted an investigation and named several perpetrators and were charged with premeditated assault.

Mario was charged with Article 355 of the Criminal Code paragraph 1 subsidiary Article 354 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code, which is more subsidiary to Article 353 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code, which is more subsidiary to Article 352 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code. Then, Article 76c junto Article 80 of the child protection law.

Article 355 of the Criminal Code reads, (1) Heavy torture carried out with a plan first, is threatened with a maximum imprisonment of twelve years. (2) If the act results in death, the guilty one is threatened with a maximum imprisonment of fifteen years.

Shane Lukas is suspected of having a heavier article, namely, Article 355 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with 56 of the Criminal Code, subsidiary 354 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code junto 56 of the Criminal Code, more than subsidiary 353 paragraph 2 in conjunction with 56 of the Criminal Code, more than subsidiary 351 paragraph 2 and or 76c junto 80 of the child protection law.

Meanwhile, AG (Agnes) aged 15 years was charged with Article 76c in conjunction with Article 80 of the Child Protection Law and/or 355 paragraph 1 in conjunction with 56, subsidiary 354 paragraph 1 in conjunction with 56 of the Criminal Code, more than subsidiary 353 paragraph 2 in conjunction with 56 of the Criminal Code, more than subsidiary 351 paragraph 2 in conjunction with 56 of the Criminal Code.