'Oki can be prosecuted here'

'Oki can be prosecuted here'

JAKARTA (JP): The prosecutors of Harnoko Dewantono, alias Oki,
the alleged killer of three people in Los Angeles, U.S., said
yesterday that the defendant's lawyers had included irrelevant
material in their rebuttal.

In the third session of the trial in the Central Jakarta
District Court which was held in two phases, J Kamaru, who leads
the team of prosecutors, in a 13-page reply to the rebuttal said
that part of the rebuttal was substantial case material and
evidence.

In its rebuttal on July 4, Oki's team of lawyers stated that
the Central Jakarta District Court does not have the authority to
prosecute the defendant because the crime took place beyond its
jurisdiction, and that the indictment was inaccurate, unclear and
incomplete as to have raised doubts.

Oki is being tried in Jakarta for allegedly killing Suresh
Gobind Mirchandani on Aug. 19, 1991, Gina Sutan Aswar on Nov. 20,
and Eko Tri Dewantono in Los Angeles.

In the first court session, J Kamaru when replying to the
defendant's rebuttal concerning the prosecutors' authority, cited
Article 156 of the Criminal Code Procedure which states that a
defendant or defendant's lawyer has the right to demand that a
case be dismissed if they can prove the court does not have the
authority to proceed with the case, or that the indictment is
unacceptable.

Kamaru referred to Article 5(1) of the Criminal Code and
Article 86 of the Criminal Code Procedure to affirm the
prosecutors' authority to process the case.

He denied there was any inaccuracy, vagueness or
incompleteness in the indictment.

"The indictment includes the dates, months and years of the
crime with a sentence 'from the year 1991 to the year 1992 in Los
Angeles'," he said.

Henry Yosodininggrat, who leads the defendant's team of
lawyers, said that the claim of "premeditated murder of Suresh
Gobind Mirchandani" in the indictment contained insufficient
information because the prosecutors did not mention the months
Suresh failed to pay Oki his monthly payments for the business
Oki sold him.

According to Henry, it is important that the months be
mentioned as it related to the prosecutor's accusation that the
defendant had been enraged and offended by Suresh which led the
defendant to murder Suresh.

He also said that not enough evidence had been given by the
prosecutors, such as the red Audi car in which the defendant had
allegedly killed Suresh. As evidence, the blood stains in the red
Audi car are important to indicate precisely where Suresh sat
when he was allegedly shot by the defendant.

The defendant's team of lawyers claimed the indictment against
Oki was based on imagination.

The presiding judge, IGK Sukarata, adjourned the case until
July 23. (26)