My examination of the Surabaya District Court’s verdict reveals troubling peculiarities; not only in the judgment itself, but also in the manner in which the case was presented.

As we anticipate the inevitable appeal, this article aims to focus on the law enforcement methods in dealing with the case, and shed light to antedate the outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court.

As I meticulously examined the legal facts presented in the case, I was baffled over the source of evidence of the bottle assault inflicted upon Dini’s head in the elevator of the karaoke premises and the circumstances surrounding her position against Ronald’s car in the basement car park just before the October 2023 incident in which the car crushed Dini’s arm.

It turned out that there was CCTV footage in the elevator and the suspect’s statement in the dossier (BAP), followed by his affirmation in the crime scene reconstruction. Unfortunately, the CCTV, due to its angle, could not provide a clear visual of her position when the incident happened. This necessitated the investigators and the prosecutors obtaining the suspect’s confession followed by crime scene (Dini’s arm) photographs, which were supposedly taken by the crime scene investigator and/or medical examiner.

However, a critical void persists, one that both the panel of judges and the prosecutors seem to have overlooked: the period between the incident in the basement and Dini’s arrival at her apartment. The absence of witnesses and CCTV footage creates an evidentiary vacuum, leaving no compelling evidence in the timeframe that only Ronald was with Dini. This absence of evidence leaves room for speculation.

In my opinion, investigators could have leveraged location-tracking data from both Ronald’s and Dini’s phones, with a court warrant, to establish their whereabouts during this crucial timeframe. If they were consistently together, it would significantly bolster the probability that Ronald was the sole perpetrator of the violence against Dini.