The Chief of the Team of Judges, Albertina Ho resumes hearing the case of Anand Krishna on Wednesday (5 / 10). The agenda of the day is the investigation of the alleged crime scene in Ciawi, West Java. The investigation adds a new series of discrepancies. Many of the testimonies given by the witnesses are in contradictory to their previous testimonies given in the courtroom by themselves. They are also the opposite of what they have given themselves to the police as written in their police investigation report.
Also present in this trial are the prosecuting witness Tara Pradipta Laksmi, the witness Leon Filman, Muhammad Djumat Abrory Djabbar, and Shinta Kencana Kheng. Shinta appears now even though a few days ago she already appeared at the Judicial Commission (KY). Shinta is suspected of having an "affair" with the previous presiding Chief Judge who has been now replaced, Hari Sasangka. The Judicial Commission and the Supreme Court (MA) have already accepted the report about the violation of code of ethics’ case.
During the investigation Albertina Ho want some clarification regarding the lighting in the crime scene. At the trial, Tara changes her testimony many times again. At first she says that the room was pitch-dark. But at the same time she can describe the room in detail. Anand’s lawyer, Dwi Ria Latifa SH explained, "So at that moment, the witness changed her testimony offhand. Now she says the light is not in the room but from the garden’s lights outside."
Ria Latifa also adds that her client is very cooperative. Her client gives the explanation about where he always sleeps. He even invites the team of judges to check the condition of the side of the bed that her client always uses. It is more squashed due to the weight of his body. This denies Tara’s information about the sleep position of his client. Tara herself falls silent again when questioned about this.
Anand's other lawyer, Nahod from the Law Firm of Gani Djemat SH, MH says that today Muhammad Djumat Abrory Djabar provides new information. His wife, Dian Mayasari has ever been abused in a room during a meeting attended by 6-7 people. Surprisingly, Abrory is not able to name one single person who witnessed this. "The witness can remember to make up new stories. But he is not able to recall any witnesses who saw the incident?" Nahod asked. In the meanwhile, Dian Mayasari herself always fails to meet Your Honor’s court calling.
Lawyer Darwin Aritonang SH regrets the absence of an important witness Demitrius Baruno. Judge Albertina Ho questioned Demitrius repeatedly because previously, Demitrius claimed to have seen the alleged harassment from a distance of 30 meters. Nahod explains, "But when the team of judges investigates and measurse the distance of 30 meters from the site, what they find is a ravine. So Demitrius has to either climb a tree or float in the air, if he actually told the truth to the judges in the courtroom. "
Witness Shinta Kencana Kheng’s testimony about the alleged sex party has also been challenged. But the fact is that the room is very small. It makes it impossible to have the party there. Shinta dodges and does not seem to be able to answer.
The spokesman of Anand Ashram Fans Community (KPAA), Dr. Arya explains that he and some friends have additional evidence, in the form of dozens of photographs and videotapes. There Shinta Kencana Kheng and Tara seem to be laughing joyfully and look cheerful. "Unfortunately in the pictures also reveal the faces of some personalities. They should seek the truth and do not justify what is clearly visible as a made up accusation intended to harm others. It is strange that those cheerful faces suddenly become crying faces when they meet Judge Albertina Ho. I am a doctor and have been using my experience over the decades, I can tell if somebody is pretending or not," explains Dr Arya.
In addition, Prashant Gangtani, Anand Krishna's son says he also regrets the attitude of Shinta Kencana Kheng. Initially the trials she was always brave, and she had even told the judge Hari Sasangka that she is willing to be open. "I get all the information and transcripts of the trial from my father’s lawyers. I don’t know what she indicates with this “willingness to be open”, because after giving the cues of “willingness to be open” Shinta Sasangka Day has seen Judge Hari Sasangka in the darkness of the night. It is weird that now she can cry and so on in front of a judge, "said Prashant
Darwin also regrets the absence of the activist Farahdiba Agustin who also claims to have been harassed. It is very far from the character of an activist concerning the truth. Moreover Shinta Kencana Kheng often mentions Farahdiba’s name.
Another witness, Leon Filman also provides clarification that does not make sense at the crime scene. "He testifies each time of my client comes, the water pump is always broken so that every time he can hear any noise from my client’s room. Especially in the trial, he mentions it happens only once," said Darwin.
In the trial this time when she sees the symbol of Jesus in the house of Maya Safira Muchtar, the Public Prosecutor (Prosecutor) Martha Berliana Tobing reproached, "You are Muslim, why is there Jesus?" Maya explains that in Islam, the Prophet Isa (Jesus) is also recognized as a Prophet and is respected. The lawyer, Dwi Ria Latifa says that one member of the team of judges justifies Maya’s comment, "That's a conviction." In addition, the prosecutor Martha also points to a picture of the spiritual teacher of the defendant. She asks, "Although it is beyond the indictment, I want to know whose picture is it?"
Other lawyer who accompanies the defendant, Andreas Nahod regrets things like that. "It's happened so often when the judges have not yet been replaced, when the presiding judge was still Hari Sasangka. Apparently, after the presiding judge has been replaced by Albertina Ho, the prosecutor still needs to ask anything that concerns a person's beliefs and completely unrelated to the indictment," says Nahod. The case will resume on October 19, 2011 in which Martha Berliana Tobing will read her demands.
In the meanwhile, one of the policemen securing the criminal site is asked about his opinion. He says that only from the way the witnesses answer the questions of the judge, he can already be conclude that the testimonies of the witnesses are very doubtful. "I'm just a policeman and I can already see the discrepancies in the stories of the witnesses, let alone somebody like Judge Albertina Ho," he says.