Oki should not be prosecuted here: Lawyers

Oki should not be prosecuted here: Lawyers

JAKARTA (JP): The lawyers of Harnoko Dewantono alias Oki who
is on trial for a triple murder in Los Angles, U.S., said at the
Central Jakarta District Court yesterday that it is beyond the
jurisdiction of the Central Jakarta Prosecutor's Office to
prosecute the defendant.

"It is certainly not that we want the defendant to be
acquitted from the charges, but it is rather part of our
responsibility to remind all of us to keep from misapplying the
law," said one of the lawyers, Henry Yosodininggrat.

According to the indictment, Oki, 32, murdered his Indian
business partner Suresh Gobind Mirchandani on Aug. 19, 1991, his
Indonesian woman friend Gina Sutan Aswar on Nov. 2 1992, and his
younger brother Ery Tri Harto Dharmawan.

The 14-page rebuttal titled Dakwaan Imajiner (Imaginary
Indictment), read by lawyers Henry Yosodiningrat and Nurhasyim
Ilyas, also stated that the dossier on Oki was inconcise, unclear
and incomplete so as to have raised doubts about the indictment.

The team of nine lawyers said that according to Article 173 of
Criminal Code, the Jakarta Provincial Prosecutor's Office and
Central Jakarta Prosecutor's Office do not have the authority to
process any crimes committed beyond their jurisdiction. The
dossier on Oki thus violates Article 143 paragraph 2(b) of the
Criminal Code. Article 143 paragraph 3 states that a dossier by
the public prosecutor should be concise, clear and complete and
must otherwise be rejected.

Henry said before the court presided over by IGK Sukarata
that, beginning with Suresh's murder, the prosecutors had created
a serial of murder stories resembling those of Agatha Christie's.

"We did not find any information from witnesses or experts,
letters, clues or the defendant's explanation (as legitimate
evidence required by Article 184 of the Criminal Code) that can
be used as the material or basis to indict the defendant," Henry
said.

"Without mentioning the months, the indictment is incomplete.
Mentioning dates is very important if charging someone with
premeditated murder, say for instance the purchase of the gun
on May 1, 1991," Henry said.

The charges also claim Oki killed Suresh because he had failed
to pay monthly installments for the dry cleaning service he
bought from the defendant. The statements are also obscure as the
prosecutors did not mention what months Suresh had defaulted on
his payments, the lawyers said.

In response to the indictment of slaying Gina Sutan Aswar,
Nurhasyim Ilyas, who read the rebuttal later, said that not
enough evidence had been given by the prosecutors. "There's even
no witnesses or other evidence that can be used against the
defendant. Neither did the prosecutors state exactly when all the
boxes used to keep the victim 's body were prepared and by whom,"
Nurhasyim said.

The indictment on slaying the defendant's own younger brother,
according to Nurhasyim, is libelous and obscure. The place and
time of the event are not specified clearly, he said. "This shows
doubts, and it is harmful to the defendant's legal rights,
especially when the defendant needs an alibi."

The trial was adjourned until July 16 to hear the prosecutors'
reply to the rebuttal. (26)