•    HOME   
•    NEWS   
•    BUSINESS   
•    INTERNATIONAL   
•    TECH   
•    SPORTS   
•    LIFE & TIMES   
•    OPINION   
•    MY JAKARTA   
•    BLOGS   

Prosecutors have nobody but themselves and their weak cases to blame, an expert said on Thursday, considering that the South Jakarta District Court did not sentence any of the three murder defendants in the Nasrudin Zulkarnaen murder trial to death.

“It is much like selling products. If they are of poor quality, do not put a high price tag on them,” said Adrianus Meliala, a noted criminologist from the University of Indonesia, referring to the cases presented to the court against murder mastermind Antasari Azhar and his co-conspirators, Sigid Haryo Wibisono and Wiliardi Wizar.

“Prosecutors could not put up a strong case to prove that Antasari, Sigid and Wiliardi were indeed involved in a sinister conspiracy to kill. And yet prosecutors demanded death for all three.”

The district court on Thursday sentenced Antasari to 18 years in prison, while Sigid was sentenced to 15 years and Wiliardi to 12 years.

A fourth defendant, Jerry Hermawan Lo, was sentenced to five years in prison, representing only one-third of the sentence demanded by the prosecution for being an accessory.

Adrianus said he believed prosecutors had demanded the death sentence for the three codefendants to ensure the judges did not acquit them.

“If the prosecutors had not cornered the judges by demanding death, the three could have been acquitted,” he said. “They gave the panel of judges little room to free Antasari.”

Adrianus added that such a tactic was rare in the country’s legal history.

Legal experts have widely criticized the prosecution for presenting little evidence and misleading testimonies in such a prominent murder case, and for seeking the maximum sentence. Prosecutors also controversially kicked off the trial by giving lurid details of an alleged sexual encounter between Antasari and a female golf caddie.

Prosecutors have in several of the case hearings sparked outrage among legal circles.

During the trial’s opening, for instance, the indictment read to the court by prosecutors was different than the one in documents provided to the defense. In another example, the gun held as evidence in court was different from the one used during the re-enactment of the case.

National Police Chief Bambang Hendarso Danuri’s name was mentioned numerous times. Prosecutors alluded to his knowledge about Antasari’s personal problems with the murder victim, and said Bambang had ordered a surveillance team to monitor the victim at Antasari’s request. And yet Bambang was never presented as a witness, despite repeated calls from defense lawyers.

A forensic doctor, two IT experts and several other special witnesses also delivered damning testimonies that seemed to contradict key facts listed in the indictment, such as the bullet size, the distance of the shooting and the allegation that Antasari had sent a threatening text message to Nasrudin’s cellphone prior to the murder.

Presiding Judge Herri Swantoro had even asked prosecutors to recall police ballistics expert Maruli Simanjuntak and forensic doctor Abdul Mun’im Idris as witnesses to clarify the conflicting opinions they presented to the court.

Roy Haryanto, an expert marksman and military shooting coach, told the court that an amateur would not be able to handle, much less shoot precisely, a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver — the gun presented by the prosecution as the murder weapon. After holding and checking over the gun, Roy also said parts of it were broken and needed extra effort to be used properly.

Mun’im Idris had earlier told the court that according to the nature of Nasrudin’s head wounds, they were probably caused by shots from an FN pistol.

An IT specialist presented as an expert witness said a threatening text message sent to the victim was not sent from Antasari’s phone, and could have easily been sent by a third party using a Web service to duplicate Antasari’s phone number.

But the sentences handed down to the four men have themselves now become the subject of controversy, raising even more questions about the controversial case.

Antasari, the convicted mastermind, was given the same sentence as Daniel Daen Sabon, who was convicted at the Tangerang District Court in December of carrying out Nasrudin’s murder.

“Death sentences were sought for Antasari, Sigid and Wiliardi, but they received between 12 and 18 years in jail for being the brains behind the murder,” said Minola Sebayang, a lawyer for one of the hitmen convicted by the Tangerang court. “Life sentences were initially recommended for all five convicts in Tangerang — lighter than those in South Jakarta — but they received 17 and 18 years, which is relatively heavy for being the accomplices.”

“Disparate court verdicts such as this contribute to the already unpredictable justice system,” Minola added.

Antasari has claimed that prosecutors were gunning for him because he helped jail a leading prosecutor in 2008 for bribery.