Francesco Darcy Jenson attorneys this afternoon, in his regards on his disappointment with the public prosecutor’s decision to demand 17 years in prison. Jupiter G Lalwani and Catharina Nutz conveyed the important points.
This demand makes it seem like the defendant’s position is almost the same as the main perpetrator of the shooting, even though the prosecutor himself placed the defendant as an accessory, not the perpetrator/participant.
A difference of 1 year does not reflect the difference; role, level of guilt, causal contribution in the main criminal act.
From the selective presentation of facts by the prosecutor, it appears that he ignored the facts at trial in that witnesses Mevlu Coskun and Tupou stated that the defendant was not in the group regarding weapons and did not know the plan. He was made a crown witness as a cross witness, but the part which was favorable to the defendant was not used/disclosed.
The neutral act was made “Auxiliary” without reminding of concrete evidence of the defendant Darcy’s knowledge and will.
He continued, in the witness statements, not a single prosecutor’s witness stated that he had ever seen the defendant at the crime scene either before, during or after the incident. There were no witnesses who linked the defendant to firearms or ammunition (physical control) even by witnesses Mevlut Coskun and Tupou.
The demand letter contains a presentation of witness testimony that is erroneously distorted, even changing information that is not conclusive to make it appear to be proof. Apart from that, information which did not support the Prosecutor’s construction was overlooked, which supported it was exaggerated, and some even had the subject moved.
On this occasion, Darcy’s attorney also saw that the victim died, the prosecutor also did not prove clearly and consistently who the main target was. If the main target referred to by the Prosecutor was Sanar Ghanim, then the shooting of Zivan Radmanovic was an incident that was not planned, or was not the target.
As a consequence, the construction of premeditated murder against Zivan R was not fulfilled because the consequences were different from the target in the Prosecutor’s own theory.
The prosecutor is obliged to prove the elements of planning and intentionality completely and legally to conclude that there was premeditated murder against Sanar G.
Without proving these elements in their entirety, the incident experienced by Sanar G cannot immediately be qualified as attempted premeditated murder as the construction of the charges.
They have written to the Attorney General’s Office in Jakarta regarding the prosecutor’s actions which are considered unethical and the report from Darcy’s legal team has been followed up further.
The next hearing will be on Wednesday, February 18 2026, to hear answers to the reply submitted by the legal team and the defendant.
By : Daniel Herry
