Course : English

Topic : Text Analysis

GUILTY AS CHARGED?:
NEW DOCUMENTARY REIGNITES DEBATE ON JESSICA WONGSO'S INFAMOUS CASE

Guilty?: The new documentary from Netflix shed lights on the controversies surrounding Jessica
Kumala Wongso’s trial in 2016 for the murder of Wayan Mirna Salihin. (Courtesy of Netflix/-)

Radhiyya Indra (The Jakarta Post) Jakarta ● Sat, October 7, 2023

The Jakarta Post

Yuris was referring to Ice Cold: Murder, Coffee and Jessica Wongso, the first documentary that
streaming service Netflix produced in Indonesia, directed by Rob Sixsmith.

The documentary focuses on the sensational case of Jessica Kumala Wongso, an Indonesian living in
Australia who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for the premeditated murder of her friend Wayan
Mirna Salihin at a coffee shop in 2016.

The controversial trial prompted several documentaries as well as public speculation, but the new
Netflix documentary, released on Sept. 28, has sparked new interest and debate among the public as
it has portrayed the case in a different light seven years later.

Widely referred to as the “cyanide coffee case” because of Mirna’s possible cause of death, the
incident created a months-long media circus and drew millions of viewers on national television.
“There has never been a similar case [in Indonesia] that has attracted as much public attention as

1
this one,” Hardly Stefano, commissioner of the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI), says in
the documentary.

Because the case fell under extreme public scrutiny in Indonesia and neighboring countries, Stefano
likened it to O. J. Simpson’s trial for the murder of his ex-wife in the United States. But unlike O. J.,
Jessica was neither famous nor a public figure prior to committing murder.

“I just couldn’t understand why this happened to me,” Jessica said in a Zoom meeting in January
2022 from the Pondok Bambu women’s prison in East Jakarta.

Compiled with new and original interviews, the documentary considers Jessica’s opinion for the first
time since her imprisonment.

“It’s been really difficult, it’s just really hard to stay sane every day,” she said, adding that the media
frenzy was “traumatic” for her.

Jessica, known as “the smiling coffee killer” for her unrelenting smile, said the judges’ decision might
have been different if public attention had not been so intense at the time.

But her interview was cut short by a prison guard because it had “gone too far”. In response to this
scene, the Law and Human Rights Ministry’s Corrections Directorate General spokesperson Rika
Aprianti said that the interview violated the permit regulations.

“The interview did not relate to the prisoner’s human development intent as required in the Law and
Human Rights Ministerial Regulation,” Rika said on Oct. 1, as quoted by detik.com.

Evidence reconstructed

Ice Cold presents various sources to reconstruct the case’s timeline, including witnesses and
prosecutors integral in the trial, as well as friends and family of Jessica and Mirna.

But what sets this documentary apart from others is its supportive inclusion of Jessica’s arguments,
which had previously been overshadowed by the public’s perception of her as the “crazy lady”, as a
street food seller puts it in the documentary.

“There was a ton of confusing and sensational chatter at the time,” Mirna’s twin, Sandy Salihin, says
in the film.

Every ounce of Jessica and Mirna’s backgrounds and personal lives were spun into speculation by the
millions following the case. Most people assumed that Jessica’s motive was rooted in the rift in their
friendship that started when Mirna criticized Jessica’s then-boyfriend.

The film also depicts almost the entire chronology of the trial in the Central Jakarta District Court,
which lasted from June 15 to Oct. 27, 2016.

It follows the court drama and shows how some scientific evidence, like the differing doses of
cyanide found in the coffee and Mirna’s body, led experts to draw different conclusions. The fact
that Mirna’s family did not allow her body to be autopsied further added to the confusion.

The film also highlights how Jessica was victim of negative profiling in court because of her
mannerisms. “If she wasn’t guilty, she would’ve been crying [in the courthouse],” Mirna’s father Edi
Darmawan Salihin says in the documentary.

2
All smiles: Jessica Kumala Wongso (fourth left) smiles as her lawyers consoled her after judges found
her guilty of murder at the Central Jakarta Court on Oct. 27, 2016. (Courtesy of Netflix/-)

Experts brought by the prosecutors claimed she was vengeful because her body language and facial
expressions did not display remorse. Forensic psychologist Reza Indragiri debunked this argument in
the documentary, saying that “empirical research” is an obsolete theory.

The film wrestled with the controversial verdict and whether the evidence presented against Jessica
was enough to put her in jail. “We relied on circumstantial evidence,” public prosecutor Shandy
Handika says in the documentary, adding that evidence from CCTV footage around the time of death
was more than enough to prove that only Jessica could have committed the crime. But some, like
Jessica’s chief lawyer Otto Hasibuan, argued that there is no hard evidence proving that Jessica killed
Mirna.

Different light and new debate

With the documentary’s new angle, more social media users in Indonesia and abroad have started to
lean more toward Jessica’s side, in contrast with 2016. “[And] I thought the US government was bad.
This was such an unfair case, no full evidence was shown,” user @thatchickalex_ said on X on Sept.
30. Freelance illustrator Nunu believed that many viewers watching the trial on TV in 2016 had no
other sources to rely on, hence the almost uniform opinion that Jessica was guilty.

“As a member of Gen Z, I was part of that crowd that was swayed by the media’s one-sided
reporting,” the 24-year-old told The Jakarta Post on Wednesday, adding that people were now more
critical of the trial regardless of who they think is guilty. Ira, a 24-year-old law graduate, thinks that
the prosecutors might have forced their hands a bit in this case since their credibility was on the line.
“In a country where the judicial system does not rely on a jury, the public sort of became the jury.

So, public opinion did have a strong hold on the case,” she told the Post on Thursday.

Indonesia’s justice system does not use a jury trial system, and instead uses a bench trial involving a
judge or a panel of an off number of judges to form a verdict after examining evidence in the court.

3
Failed effort: Jessica Kumala Wongso’s chief lawyer Otto Hasibuan speaks about his steadfast belief
that his client is innocent in the documentary. The subtitles read “I am confident that she is
innocent.” (Courtesy of Netflix/-)

Former Supreme Court justice Gayus Lumbuun, however, opined that the judges’ verdict was
already backed by enough evidence as defined by the Criminal Law Procedures Code (KUHAP), which
includes witnesses and expert admissions and how they point to the defendant being guilty. “That is
enough valid evidence, and the verdict was based on this,” Gayus said to the Post on Thursday.

Deputy Law and Human Rights Minister Edward “Eddy” O.S. Hiariej says in the documentary that
Jessica and her lawyer simply lost because they were the ones who “couldn’t provide any hard
evidence or experts to convince the judge that she wasn’t a murderer.” But Erasmus Napitupulu, the
executive director at the Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, believes that it only casts a light upon
Indonesia’s flawed justice system.

“It’s how the Indonesian criminal justice system was able to find someone guilty despite lingering
doubts. If you hypothetically think of Jessica’s case as reasonable, then I’ll let you imagine how other
cases are carried out in Indonesia,” Erasmus says in the film.

Committed: Edi Darmawan Salihin, father of the late Mirna Salihin, talks about his attempt to send
his daughter’s killer to prison. (Courteys of Netflix/-)

Adythia Utama, a Jakarta-based documentary filmmaker, assessed that the documentary itself is
quite neutral in its presentation. Facts supporting the argument that Jessica is guilty, like her 14
criminal offenses in Australia, are still shown in the latter half of the film. “Every documentary has an
angle, and chances of bias always exist,” Adythia said to the Post on Thursday. “But I think, at the
end, Ice Cold wants to expose the ways in which Indonesia’s judicial system is flawed,” he added.

4
Questions:
Answer the following questions as complete as possible. Please always check your spelling &
grammar.
A. Identify and write the sentences based on each tenses and the Passive of the text above.
No Remark Sentence
1 Past tense Forensic psychologist Reza Indragiri debunked this argument
in the documentary, saying that “empirical research” is an
obsolete theory.
2 Present tense The film also depicts almost the entire chronology of the trial
in the Central Jakarta District Court.
3 Present Continuous NIHIL
tense

4 Past Continuous Yuris was referring to Ice Cold: Murder, Coffee and Jessica
tense Wongso, the first documentary that streaming service Netflix
produced in Indonesia, directed by Rob Sixsmith.
5 Future tense I’ll let you imagine how other cases are carried out in
Indonesia,” Erasmus says in the film.
6 Present Perfect tense the new Netflix documentary, released on Sept. 28, has
sparked new interest and debate among the public as it has
portrayed the case in a different light seven years later.
7 Conditional sentence “If she wasn’t guilty, she would’ve been crying [in the
courthouse]
8 Passive voice But her interview was cut short by a prison guard because it
had “gone too far”.

B. Identify the legal terms and the meanings in the text.

B. Answer these questions which designed to encourage critical thinking and a deeper
understanding of the issues in the article:
1. What is the focus of the Netflix documentary "Ice Cold: Murder, Coffee and Jessica Wongso,"
and why is it generating renewed interest in the case?
The documentary focuses on the sensational case of Jessica Wongso, an Indonesia living in
Australia who was sentenced to 20 years prison for the premeditated murder of her friend
Wayan Mirna Salihin at a coffee shop in 2016. And the case generating renewed interest
again because of the transfer of the debate about the irregularities of this case from the
courtroom to the public sphere.

2. How did the media coverage of Jessica Wongso's trial compare to other high-profile trials,
both in Indonesia and internationally?
The judicial system in Indonesia does not use a jury trial system, but instead uses a bench
trial system that involves a single judge or a panel of several judges to make a decision after
examining evidence in court.
3. What were some of the challenges that Jessica Wongso faced during her trial, and how did
the media frenzy impact her? Jessica received many intimidating questions from the
prosecutor and she was rejected by the judge for the defense statements made by her
lawyers. And the impact affected Jessica's psychology because she had to always try to
maintain her sanity while in prison and she also received various bad perceptions by
netizens such as being denounced as a Crazy Woman.

5
4. How did the documentary present Jessica Wongso's perspective on the case, and why was
her interview with the media cut short? Jessica was the victim of negative profiling in court
because her behavior was deemed to show no remorse or sadness and her media interviews
were cut short because they were deemed to be out of line and the interviews were deemed
to violate licensing regulations because they were not related to prisoner development as
required by the Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation.

5. What role did scientific evidence play in the trial, and why did it lead to differing conclusions
about Jessica's guilt? The role of scientific evidence in the trial is to seek and find the
material truth of the case. The evidence resulted in different conclusions from the experts
due to the different doses of cyanide found in Mirna's coffee and body.

6. What were the arguments made by both the prosecution and the defense regarding Jessica
Wongso's guilt, and how did experts weigh in on these arguments?

The presence of cyanide in the victim's body, the victim Mirna died as a result of ingesting
cyanide poison, the motive for the murder because the defendant was jealous of the victim's
happy married life and the defendant's movement in the form of visible hand movements
from the bag to the table. And the experts considered the results of the forensic
examination, the defendant's digital footprint and the opinions of witnesses in court.
Sumber: Pembacaan Tuntutan, Jaksa: Mirna Tewas Akibat Sianida (beritasatu.com)

7. How has public opinion about Jessica Wongso's guilt evolved over time, and what factors
have contributed to this change?
Most people assume that Jessica's motives stemmed from a rift in their friendship that
began when Mirna criticized Jessica's boyfriend at the time.
One day, they were at a coffee shop. Jessica came first and ordered a cup of coffee for
Mirna. Moments after drinking the coffee, Mirna was unconscious. Seeing this incident,
Jessica was silent and did not panic. This led to a lot of public speculation that Jessica was
the one involved in Mirna's murder with the cyanide contained in the coffee. However, after
the investigation, many irregularities were found. One of them was when Mirna's family
refused Mirna's body to be autopsied. So it is not yet clearly known the cause of Mirna's
death, whether it was due to cyanide or something else.

8. What role does the absence of a jury trial system play in Indonesia's justice system, and how
does it impact the public's perception of cases like Jessica Wongso's?
Giving full power to judges to be able to decide a legal case through written laws and
regulations, statements from prosecutors and defense attorneys, and scientific evidence.
And this has an impact on public perception because it is considered one-sided and only
concentrates case resolution through the judge's belief.

9. What are some of the contrasting opinions presented by legal experts in the documentary
regarding the evidence and the judges' verdict? The opinion that the judge's decision was
supported by sufficient evidence as stipulated by the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP),
which includes witness and expert testimonies that show that the defendant is guilty and
that this is sufficient as valid evidence. It then argued that Jessica and her lawyers lost
because they were the ones who "could not provide strong evidence or experts to convince
the judge that she was not the killer".

6
 10. In what way does the documentary aim to shed light on flaws within Indonesia's judicial
system, and what does this imply about the broader legal context in the country? by
presenting the judicial process that occurred in Jessica’s case which was rushed and without
concrete evidence and showing contrasting opinions between the prosecutor, experts and
Jessica’s lawyer. The implication in the context of law in this country is that the whole world
will se how bad the justice system in Indonesia is.

***Do your best!***

ALRIGHT CAPTAIN!

Answer :

B. The legal terms and the meanings in the text.

Guilty means committing a crime or being responsible for it. In a criminal case, guilty means the
admission by a defendant that they have committed the crime they were charged with, or the
finding by a judge or a jury that the defendant has committed the crime.

Charge is a formal accusation of criminal activity. The prosecuting attorney decides on the charges,
after reviewing police reports, witness statements, and any other evidence of wrongdoing. Formal
charges are announced at an arrested person's arraignment.

Trial a judicial examination of issues of fact or law for the purpose of determining the rights of the
parties involved.

A premeditated intent to kill requires that the defendant had intent to kill and some willful
deliberation (the defendant spent some time to reflect, deliberate, reason, or weigh their decision)
to kill, rather than killing on a sudden impulse. Prior planning and deliberation are often closely
intertwined

Murder was defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought
is a legal term of art, that encompasses the following types of murder: "Intent-to-kill murder"
"Grievous-bodily-harm murder" - Killing someone in an attack intended to cause them grievous
bodily harm.

Women's prisons are special correctional institutions designed to detain and retain women involved
in criminal activities. The aim is to provide punishment or rehabilitation in accordance with
applicable law, taking into account the safety and welfare of female prisoners.

Imprisonment is a form of punishment by detentiona person's freedom due to committing a criminal

The judge's decision is a statement made by the judge as a state official who is authorized to do so,
pronounced at the trial and aims to end or resolve a case or problem between the parties.

Judge/s A court judge is an official who carries out the duties of judicial power, to examine, decide
and resolve criminal cases and civil cases at the first level.

7
Witness is someone who has information who voluntarily or is forced to provide evidence of
testimony in a criminal case regarding a crime or dramatic event through their senses (e.g. sight,
hearing, smell, touch) both verbally and in writing and can help determine important considerations
in a case. crime or incident. A witness who sees an incident directly is also known as an eyewitness.
Witnesses are often summoned to court to give testimony in a judicial process

Evidence is information or facts that support or point out the truth or the existence of a statement
or claim. In law or science, evidence is used to validate an argument or theory. There are different
types of evidence, including physical evidence, documentary evidence, witnesses, and so forth.

The trial of state justice in Indonesia was the authority to investigate and decide matters in the first
degree. State courts ruled on criminal, civil, state enterprise, religion, military, and administration.
Every county or city in Indonesia usually has one state court. The trial was presided over by a
chairman with administrative authority and jurisdiction. The state court is part of Indonesia's three-
tier judiciary system, the Supreme Court, and the state court.

The courthouse is a physical building or facility where legal and judicial proceedings take place. It is a
place where judges, lawyers, defendants, witnesses, and other relevant parties gather to judge and
decide legal cases. The courthouse is usually equipped with courtroom, administrative offices,
waiting rooms, and other support facilities such as the law library, detention cells, and conference
room. The courthouse must be designed and arranged in such a way as to ensure security, order and
comfort for all parties involved in the legal process.

A lawyer, also known as an advocate or lawyer, has legal qualifications and license to provide legal
counsel, represent a client in legal proceedings, and provide assistance in legal solutions. A lawyer's
main duty is to represent the legal interests of their clients and help them understand their rights
and obligations within a legal context. Lawyers may work in various fields of law, including criminal,
civil, state enterprises, family, business, and much more. They may represent individuals, companies,
governments, or other organizations in a variety of legal cases.

The prosecutor is a legal professional serving as a public prosecutor in a criminal judicial process.
They have the responsibility to represent the interests of the people and the state by filing an
indictment against the accused accused of criminal ACTS. Additionally, the prosecutor gave police
counsel during investigations, examined cases filed by the police, and determined whether the case
was worthy of trial in court. In some countries, prosecutors may also play a role outside of criminal
context, such as in civil, administrative, or state ordinance laws.

An indictment is a formal act or process in which the prosecutor or public prosecutor presents a
charge against someone suspected of committing a crime in the court. The charges contained details
of the alleged crime, including the time, the place, and the nature of the act. It also includes
expected penalties or penalties if the accused is found guilty. Indictments are required as part of a
legal process to begin a trial against the accused. This gives the accused information about the
actions they are accused of and enables them to prepare their defenses. The prosecution also
provided a basis for the court to decide whether the case would be tried or not.

The judicial system refers to the system of courts that pass judgement on whether a person or legal
entity has broken the law and impose appropriate punishments.

A jury is a group of people empowered to make findings of fact and render a verdict for a trial. The
judge decides questions of law, including whether particular items of evidence will be presented to
the jury. The parties may, however, request a bench trial, where the judge decides issues of fact and

8
law (of a person) not guilty of a particular crime, or having no knowledge of the unpleasant and evil
things in life, or (of words or an action) not intended to cause harm.

Criminal law, the body of law that defines criminal offenses, regulates the apprehension, charging,
and trial of suspected persons, and fixes penalties and modes of treatment applicable to convicted
offenders.

The Code Prosecutor gives guidance to prosecutors on general principles to be applied when making
decisions about prosecutions.