The police finally succeeded in uncovering the murder case of Nasaruddin alias Acik (44 years) the gold skipper which went viral on social media. in 2021

Session on December 30, 2021

agenda: witness testimony

the witnesses examined:

1. Drs Anwar (the victim's family family)

2. Siti Halidjah P, I Pulalo

3. Juwan Misah

4. Rahman

5. Noya Aprilia Anggraini alias (Anggi)

Session date. January 10, 2022

agenda : Witness Examination

the witnesses examined:

1. Sunarmi alias Amik

Judges' names

Chairman : Eddy Soeprayitno S. Putra, SH., MH

Member I : Mathius, SH.,MH

Member II : Linn Carol Hamadi, SH

Courtroom : Kusuma Atmadja

Prosecutor :

1.Rahmat

2. Melva Yan Siagian, SH

In the video circulating, a woman is seen asking for help because her husband was the victim of a stabbing.

trial continues

with witness statements

taking place at the Jayapura District Court on Monday 10,1, 2022 agenda

trial will continue

with the specified time.

testimony of Witness Sunarmi alias Amik

- That the witness first heard information from the mother of Defendant Caca that Caca and Acik were robbed and at that time they were told to report to the Keerom Police, but the police who were picket said that the incident in Holl meant reporting it at the

Muara Tami Police so that the witness did not make a report at the police station. Keerom Police Station;

- Whereas the witness knew that Acik died when he arrived at the Keerom Police Station and was called by his friend named Santi;

- Whereas according to the witness' knowledge, Aci & Caca are legal husband and wife;

- Whereas the witness has good relations with Caca and Acik and often goes to Jayapura city;

- Whereas the witness explained that he had never seen Caca and Acik fight but were fine;

- Whereas the witness was once invited by Caca to go to a Café on the beachfront Holtekam while having lunch, there the witness saw a Caucasian Brewokan and a Caucasian Skinny Tall;

- Whereas the Witness heard from Caca that he likes Caucasians who are thin and tall (Mahdi), not Caucasians from Brewokan;

- The witness explained that he knew about the relationship between Mahdi and Caca because Caca was the one who told the story;

- Whereas the witness explained that he heard from Caca that Mahdi wanted to marry her but it was difficult because of the consideration of her children and husband;

- Whereas the witness explained that he did not inform Caca's husband that Caca had an affair with the reason that he did not want to interfere in other people's household affairs;

- Whereas the witness explained that Caca and Acik had no children but had adopted children;

- Whereas the witness explained that when he met Caca after the incident, at Ramela Koya Hospital at that time his clothes were covered in blood and crying;

Whereas the witness heard from Caca that they were robbed and Acik was killed by black people, totaling 4 people and some of them having bald heads and big and tall bodies;

Notes:

1. Witness in the testimony of Mahdi as the perpetrator of the murder;

2. The witness mostly heard information about the relationship between Caca and Mahdi from the defendant Caca himself had never heard it directly from Mahdi;

3. Mahdi's response to the witness that most of the witnesses were dishonest included:

- The witness said that they only met twice, while Mahdi's response was that they had met many times, both at Mahdi's boarding house in Arso and his boarding house in Entrop.

- Regarding marriage, the witness only heard one-sidedly from Caca

Witness Anwar's statement:

Profitable:

1. Caca cheated on 2017

2. The deceased was sick with diabetes

3. There is no expression of losing her beloved husband.

It means. Husband died, Caca was normal. She didn't cry or faint.

There is no information against Mahdi.

Witness Siti Pulo's testimony (video)

1. What benefits Caca looks like he pretends to cry but there are no tears

2. There was no attempt from Caca to contact the police or the family that her husband died. Even the attempt to come to witness.

The testimony of witness Juan Misah.

It is advantageous that the witness' statement regarding Mahdi who 

killed (in the BAP) was revealed in the trial the witness heard Mahdi's words were not clear

That's the point we have broken in the trial.

Witness Anggi's testimony

Just saw Mahdi burn a small women's bag. But don't know who owns it and don't know anything to do with this case.

Witness Rahmat car rental owner

That the witness saw that the car before Mahdi was used was clean and came back clean.

There is nothing against Mahdi.

The attorney for the Caucasians (mahdi) Yuliyanto,SH,MHAssociates commented firmly that

From all the testimonies that I have, I believe that

Mahdi is not the perpetrator of the murder, I will prove it at the next trial, and if it is proven then Caca should be charged with false statements at the Police BAP

caca's statement as a witness according to

Yulianto SH, MH added that the Mensrea had already started to read, only Aktusreus caca was in the car which would reveal everything

I, as a trusted attorney, will try my best in revealing this case, said Yulianto firmly

Why do I describe these two elements because in legal language the meaning is like this

the actus reus element (physical element) and the mens rea element (mental element). The actus reus element is the essence of the crime itself or the act committed, while the mens rea element is the inner attitude of the perpetrator at the time of committing the act.

Red Audry