Last month, this documentary was quite popular on Netflix, even though the case had been closed several years ago and the sentence had already been determined.

It tells the story of Jessica Wongso who was accused of poisoning Wayan Mirna in a cafe. This documentary involves several figures involved, from Mirna’s father, her twin sister, the cafe manager, to witnesses and especially the victim’s lawyer, Otto Hasibuan.

Because of this documentary, discussions started to spread about whether Jessica really killed Mirna? Was she just framed?

The way the story was told in this documentary was very sequential and dramatic. They don’t even hesitate to bring in several expert witnesses who have controversial opinions when they see the verdict being handed down.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, what was conveyed seemed less balanced because it showed more from one side, while the opposite side was less complete, so the direction was like leading opinion. But that’s natural, everywhere there is a defense which tends to be directional, because it is related to building conclusions, which ultimately leads to a decision by a judge.

Even so, it is certainly possible to look back at Jessica’s case to form public awareness of the law in our country. As long as the case is really studied from various sources, not just from one narrative.

For example, we can search on YouTube for the opinions of experts involved in Jessica’s case, so we can also see the prosecutor’s side.

That will answer the question that is still making noise on social media:

Why not do a thorough autopsy?

Is it true that the victim’s skin color did not turn pink?

One of the lessons learned is that it is normal for us to have subjectivity, especially in judging other humans, but just because someone’s behavior in our eyes is unpleasant, does not mean that what they say is wrong. It still needs to be examined by experts using proven methods that are already in practice. In my view, the prosecution has already be very careful, since this case was in the spotlight of many people at that time.

If we used the Anglo-Saxon court method (followed by English-speaking countries), namely having 12 jurors, perhaps the plot of this documentary would be more exciting. But it’s impossible, because we adhere to Common Law (based on Dutch law which is European law). Documentary makers have to be smart in making it interesting.

And it was quite successful, the proof was that it immediately boomed.

If asked, who actually benefits most from this Ice Cold story? So my answer is Netflix.😂

Have you watched this documentary? What do you think?

Feature image taken from pixabay