Today The Bharada E, Strong Ma'ruf And Bripka RR Sessions, 17 Witnesses Will Be Presented

The follow-up trial of Brigadier J's death was combined with three defendants Bharada E, Bripka RR, and Strong Ma'ruf on Monday, November 7. (Rizky A-VOI)

JAKARTA - The follow-up trial of the alleged murder of Nopriansyah Yosua Hutabarat alias Brigadier J with the defendants Strong Ma'ruf, Ricky Rizal alias Bripka RR, and Richard Karya alias Bharada E was held again today. The plan is for 17 witnesses to be presented by the public prosecutor (JPU).

"Yes, the plan is for 17 witnesses to be presented by the public prosecutor," said Ma'ruf's legal adviser, Irwan Irawan when confirmed, Monday, November 28.

The dozens of witnesses included the Personal Staff of the Head of the Propam Division, Novianto Rifai, the Young Forensic Examination of the Panji Zulfikar Sidik Forensic Computer Sub Division, Subbid Senpi Balmetfor Puslabfor Bareskrim Polri Sopan Utomo, Head of Logistics Affairs for Public Services of the Linggom Parasian Siagahaan.

Then, the Head of the Litpras Ropaminal Division of the National Police Propam Harun Yuni Aprin, Sesro Provost Div Propam Polri Sugeng Putu Wicaksono, the casual daily worker (PHL) of the Head of Propam Polri Ariyanto, and the driver of the former Head of Criminal Investigation Unit of the South Jakarta Metro Police Audi Pratowo.

Ada pula, Kepala Tata Usaha dan Urusan Dalam Divisi Porfesi dan Pengamanan Polri Toni Ridho Nugroho, dan Kabag Gakkum Provost Divpropam Polri Susanto Haris.

Then, there are also witnesses who are defendants in obstruction of juartice. They are Agus Nur Patria, Chuck Putranto, Arif Rahman Arifin, and Baiquni Wibowo.

Finally, the Public Prosecutor will also present CCTV entrepreneur Tjong Tjiuung or Afung, and two former Ferdy Sambo assistants, namely, Sartini alias Tini and Rojiah alias Jiah.

In this case, Strong Ma'ruf, Bripka RR, and Bharada E were jointly charged with the murder of Brigadier J. They are considered to support the plan made by Ferdy Sambo.

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.