Mario Dandy Denied AG's Testimony But Diamini Shane Lukas

AG's son's attorney, Mangata Toding Allo at the South Jakarta District Court (Rizky AP/VOI)

JAKARTA - AG's son's attorney, Mangata Toding Allo, said that his client had provided information regarding the alleged abuse case against David Ozora. However, the defendant Mario Dandy Satriyo had denied several testimonies.

Originally, the panel of judges decided that the trial was closed to the public when AG testified.

"There is denial from the MDS," Mangata told reporters, Tuesday, June 27.

However, Mangata was reluctant to convey the context of AG's testimony which was denied by Mario Dandy. The reason is that the statement relates to the status of his client who is a minor.

"That's what we can't comment further on because it's related to children," he said.

However, the defendant Shane Lukas agreed with all AG's statements. Moreover, his client has conveyed everything that is known in accordance with the investigation report (BAP).

"But Shane admits and justifies all statements from AG," said Mangata.

As a reminder, AG is also a defendant in the case of the persecution of David Ozora. He was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison.

Meanwhile, Mario Dandy was charged with serious abuse. He was charged with Article 355 Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 1 to 1 of the Criminal Code Subsidiary 353 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 1 to 1 of the Criminal Code or to 2 Article 76 C in conjunction with Article 50 paragraph 2 of Law No. 35 of 2014 concerning amendments to Law No. 23 of 2002 concerning Child Protection in conjunction with Article 55 Paragraph 1 to 1 of the Criminal Code.

Then, the defendant Shane Lukas was charged with Article 355 paragraph 1 to 1 of the Criminal Code Junto Article 55 Paragraph 1 to 1 of the Criminal Code and a subsidiary of Article 355 paragraph 2 in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 1 to 1 of the primary Criminal Code with Article 355 paragraph 1 to 1 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with 56 of the 2nd Criminal Code.