PRIME NEWS POST

The INDONESIAN (JAKARTA)— The death of Sutrimo, which has emerged amid the case against former Senior Prosecutor for Special Crimes (Jampidsus) Febrie Adriansyah, reveals a number of striking parallels with the death of Brigadier Nofriansyah Yosua Hutabarat, the case that implicated Ferdy Sambo.

It must be noted that patterns of similarity do not automatically constitute proof of identical crimes. The Brigadier Yosua case was adjudicated in court as premeditated murder accompanied by obstruction of justice. Meanwhile, the cause of Sutrimo’s death has not yet been definitively established, and no public evidence has been presented indicating homicide, a staged crime scene, destruction of evidence, or involvement by any specific party.

Nevertheless, the lessons from the Sambo case teach us that such parallels cannot be dismissed merely because criminal elements have not yet been proven. It is precisely at this early stage that caution and investigative independence become critically important.

1. Both Were Insiders

Brigadier Yosua was not an outsider who happened to be near Ferdy Sambo; he was an aide who lived and worked within his superior’s private circle, privy to activities, communications, and internal dynamics unknown to the public.

Similarly, Sutrimo was no stranger to Febrie Adriansyah. He reportedly worked for decades as a household assistant or head of household staff. This position would have potentially given him knowledge of daily routines, movements of residents, access by visitors, and information never formally recorded. In many cases, insiders become unwitting witnesses to significant events due to their proximity to centers of power.

2. Extreme Imbalance of Power

Yosua was a police brigadier, while Sambo was then Head of the Polri Professional and Security Division with the rank of Inspector General—a vast chasm of authority.

Read : 16-Hectare Land Dispute in Labuan Bajo: Ramang and Syair to Undergo Second Phase of Questioning at Bareskrim

Likewise, Sutrimo, a household employee, stood in stark contrast to a senior law enforcement official who once oversaw corruption cases valued at trillions of rupiah. In such lopsided relationships, loyalty, economic dependence, compliance, and fear often converge, leaving the subordinate profoundly vulnerable.

3. Location of Death Tied to Superior’s Sphere

Yosua was killed at Ferdy Sambo’s official residence in Duren Tiga—a fact that proved pivotal in uncovering the true nature of the conspiracy.

Sutrimo was found at Klinik Mordent, a facility reportedly linked to Febrie Adriansyah’s circle and located near one of his residences in Kebayoran Baru. It remains unconfirmed whether this was the actual place of death, where he fell ill, where his body was moved, or simply where he was discovered. Even so, the connection between the victim, the location, and his superior’s environment warrants thorough investigation.

4. Remains Rapidly Transferred to Home Region

Following his death, Brigadier Yosua’s body was immediately taken to Jambi. His family raised questions about inconsistencies, leading to a second autopsy that became the turning point in cracking the case.

In Sutrimo’s case, his body was also swiftly transported from Jakarta to Banyumas and buried the same day—with the key difference that no forensic autopsy was performed beforehand. Regardless of the family’s differing responses, in both instances the victim’s remains were removed from the scene before a full examination could be conducted, narrowing the scope for further inquiry.

5. Early Narratives Emerge Before Investigation Concludes

Initially, the public was told Yosua’s death resulted from a shootout triggered by alleged sexual harassment—a narrative that collapsed once forensic evidence, CCTV footage, and witness statements revealed the truth.

In Sutrimo’s case, early accounts cite diabetes, sudden illness, or heart attack. There is no evidence these explanations are fabricated, and such conditions can indeed cause death. However, without a proper autopsy and scientific examination, any medical explanation remains a presumption, not a definitive conclusion.

Read : Permahi: PKH Task Force Not Serious About Disciplining PT TMS Nickel Concessions in Southeast Sulawesi

6. The Critical Role of Digital Evidence

CCTV footage proved decisive in dismantling the false narrative surrounding Brigadier Yosua. Electronic recordings ultimately contradicted the constructed story.

In Sutrimo’s death, CCTV from Klinik Mordent, hospital records, digital storage devices secured by investigators, the victim’s mobile phone, location data, financial transactions, and digital communication trails may prove equally vital. Such evidence can help reconstruct who last interacted with the victim, when he was present at specific locations, and the sequence of events leading to his death.

7. A Circle of People Holding Fragments of the Truth

The Sambo case exposed a network of individuals—witnesses, accomplices, and those controlling evidence—who each possessed different pieces of the puzzle.

In Sutrimo’s case, there are also reportedly multiple parties with partial knowledge: the person who summoned him back to Jakarta, someone who provided Rp5 million, those who saw him last, the individual who arranged the ambulance, and those who organized the repatriation of his body. These people are not necessarily comparable to the perpetrators in the Sambo case, but the structure of events suggests the truth lies scattered across several accounts.

8. Risk of Institutional Conflict of Interest

Ferdy Sambo was a senior police official when Brigadier Yosua died, granting him extensive access to internal institutional networks.

Febrie Adriansyah was also a senior official at the Attorney General’s Office who handled major cases and possessed broad institutional connections. There is currently no evidence that Febrie controlled or interfered with the investigation into Sutrimo’s death. Yet precisely because of his former standing, the inquiry must be rigorously safeguarded from conflicts of interest, personal allegiances, and institutional influence.

Read : IDR 1.3 Billion Allegedly Missing, BRI Unit Pakong Sued: Spotlight on Banking Security Systems

Do Not Repeat the Same Mistakes

These parallels alone do not justify labeling Sutrimo “the second Yosua” or Febrie “the second Sambo.” Shared patterns are not equivalent to identical crimes.

Still, the most profound lesson from the Brigadier Yosua case is this: power can shape narratives, influence witnesses, manipulate evidence, and skew institutional responses when left unchecked. Sutrimo’s death may not be a criminal act. Nevertheless, circumstances that could hinder the truth are already apparent: the victim was an insider close to a powerful figure; the location is linked to his superior’s circle; the body was quickly buried without autopsy; and key evidence relies on digital traces and the accounts of those who last saw him.

Therefore, the state must not prematurely close the door on questions before all facts are subjected to scientific scrutiny, transparency, and independent investigation.

If these parallels are ignored, Indonesia risks repeating the gravest error of the Brigadier Yosua case allowing power to write the story before forensic science can uncover the truth.