The 12 media errors that influenced the judiciary in the Narin murder case

The murder of Narin Güran became the subject of one of the most mediatized trials in recent years. The trial has concluded, and three members of the family were sentenced to life imprisonment. However, neither the media's self-proclaimed experts, nor the valuable commentators on screen, nor the gendarmerie, the police, and ultimately the judiciary, were able to fully clarify this murder.

This is not an allegation. Even in the reasoned decision of the Diyarbakır 8th High Criminal Court, a coherent narrative regarding how the murder was committed cannot be established; it is also explicitly acknowledged that the motive for the murder could not be determined. Furthermore, the Court could not find the answer to the question of why Salim Güran, instead of taking the body himself and hiding it in the stream, gave it to Nevzat Bahtiyar, thereby making him a partner in a very important secret (which still remains unknown).

Indeed, the President of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Regional Court of Justice, who dissented from the chamber's approval decision during the appeal, also specifically emphasized that the motive and the manner in which the murder was committed could not be determined. The Chamber President had listed the legal deficiencies in the investigation and trial in 14 points.

What caught my attention most in the President's detailed dissenting opinion was his highlighting that "the defendants' statements changed according to the new situation that emerged following the news and discussion content on social media and TV bulletins." The President had clearly observed the media's influence on the trial in the statements.

"The statements of the defendant Nevzat, which were credited by our court..."

I penned the Chamber President's dissenting opinion, which did not receive much attention in the media, under the headline "What if the Güran family is truly innocent?" Thus, I tried to draw the media's attention to the legal deficiencies pointed out by the President.

Naturally, upon reading the President's findings, the question "How influential was the media in this investigation and trial?" formed in my mind as well. To find an answer to this question, I carefully examined the court's reasoned decision.

Although the court mentioned evidence such as reports, HTS records, and narrowed base station data, the main basis of the decision was the statements of Nevzat Bahtiyar. Furthermore, the court did not accept the statements of anyone from the Güran family, especially Salim, Yüksel, and Enes, as true, and based its decision on Nevzat Bahtiyar's account. Indeed, the reasoned decision stated, "The statements of the defendant Nevzat, which were credited by our court..." Thanks to this, Nevzat Bahtiyar escaped with a 4.5-year prison sentence.

Can you imagine? The court based its decision primarily on the statement of one defendant, but in reality, that defendant's statement had changed due to news and discussions in the media! That defendant changed his statement at least three times, and in all three, he described the occurrence of the event differently!

Such being the case, I thought I needed to go back to those days and scan the news, commentaries, and even TV programs from that period to uncover the media's influence and journalistic errors during this process.

First, I collected the news and commentaries in the media from August 21, 2024, when Narin went missing, until the first days when the trial began. Thus, I both prepared a roadmap for myself and created a flow chart so that those reading my analysis could see the atmosphere created in the media during those days. (*)

The breaking point

The story of this murder and trial in the media began with reports that one of Narin's red slippers was found 3 kilometers away, one day after she went missing.

Immediately afterward, reports were published stating that the slipper did not belong to Narin. Reports of baseless tips, followed by news that brother Enes Güran had bite marks on his arm and scratches on his back, and that the gendarmerie was cross-examining family members and that the uncle, in whose vehicle Narin's DNA was found, had been detained, followed.

I think this was the breaking point; Narin's body had not yet been found, and the calendar showed September 1, 2024. From that day on, suspicions in the media focused on the Güran family.

Then, a woman in the village shouting "Go and lie, okay" to the crowd during Narin's funeral, and AKP Diyarbakır Deputy Galip Ensarioğlu's words to Sözcü TV, "There are things we sometimes don't know, and sometimes things we know but shouldn't say. Because the family are also our friends," were important developments that caused the media to focus entirely on the family.

Interestingly, during this period, the suspects' statements and almost every development in the investigation were reflected in the media within hours. It seems that the prosecutor's office, which requested a confidentiality order, was not very bothered by this either.

The media accused the family first

After Narin was laid to rest, news and commentaries followed one after another: that her brother had also been killed, that Tavşantepe was, according to some, a village of village guards and, according to others, a Hezbollah village, that immoral relationships were taking place in the village, that Narin was killed because she witnessed a relationship that was not meant to be seen, that the entire Güran family was involved, and that they misled the gendarmerie during the searches.

While it was stated that the family was guilty, there was talk of the red slipper, which later turned out not to belong to Narin, being placed near the tents of Syrians, and of contradictory statements regarding this matter. There was also a focus on the gendarmerie being misled by fake tips and a fire being started in the village on the evening of August 24.

In fact, it was the media itself that believed Nevzat Bahtiyar before the court and accepted his account as the truth. Moreover, there was almost a consensus on this issue between the pro-government media and the opposition media.

On September 10, immediately after his capture, the first news reports about Nevzat Bahtiyar always used the headlines "Confession" and "Confessor." This discourse was dominant in news on Akşam, Habertürk, Haber Global, Hürriyet, Medyascope, Sabah, and Sözcü TV.

However, it was unclear how much of what Nevzat Bahtiyar said was true, and his statements contradicted each other. Despite this, the possibility that Nevzat Bahtiyar himself committed the murder was never dwelled upon in the media; this possibility was not even mentioned.

In particular, the findings of commentators, experts, and writers on TV evolved into the judgment of "Actually, the whole village knows about the murder and is hiding it," and "Collective murder." The formed opinions were defended as if the truth had been reached and proven.

For example, Nazlı Çelik, who presents Star TV's main news, declared a verdict, saying, "Everyone stayed silent; everyone closed their eyes, covered up the murder, acted as if they hadn't heard, seen, or known anything. A village consisting of members of a huge family forgot their humanity"; and Fatih Portakal branded them as a "Dark family" on Sözcü TV.

Hürriyet also ran the headline "Devil's triangle: The whole family is involved" without concrete data. In another report, it interpreted the fact that some villagers installed cameras in their homes before Narin's body was found as a sign that "they knew beforehand that Narin had been killed."

Evaluations such as "They knew Narin had been killed and did these things to prevent the body from being left near their homes" were also made on Now TV and A Haber. On Halk TV, it was said, "Many people have prior knowledge about this. It is a fact that emerged in the studies conducted on the phones in the statements to law enforcement that 80 percent of those detained in the village, most of them, changed and cleaned their phones and deleted their WhatsApp conversations."

However, it was not true that almost everyone in the village deleted their phones. Indeed, even Diyarbakır Bar Association President Nahit Eren said during a hearing, "The entire Güran family, sorry, let me not say entire, 6-7 people, I won't name names... deleted all call records on their phones." In the "case of harboring a criminal" opened in addition to the Narin murder case, it was determined that only uncle Fuat Güran deleted his phone records!

The media had taken sides

In fact, what should not have happened occurred during this investigation and trial, and a large part of the media had taken sides. Among the journalists who set up headquarters in Tavşantepe Village, those who began to see themselves as police or prosecutors were in the majority. In news, commentaries, and discussions on screen, broadcasts were mostly made with the conviction that uncle Salim, mother Yüksel, and brother Enes Güran committed this murder.

As a result, days before the murder trial began, the media had created the legend that the whole village knew about the murder beforehand and was hiding it. Once such a legend was created, the court's decision surprised no one. The decision was accepted as is and was not sufficiently discussed in the media.

Although reports like "The trial is over, but the killer is still missing," as in Sabah newspaper, appeared, the media brushed this case aside with small news items such as approval in the appeal, application for appeal, and rejection of the release request, and left it to age in the archives.

Two developments have occurred regarding the case in recent days; the first was the recall of Diyarbakır Gendarmerie Commander Major General Selçuk Yıldırım to the center. It was alleged that Yıldırım's statements during the investigation caused discomfort in Ankara and at the Gendarmerie General Command. The second is that the Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Public Prosecutor's Office prepared a notification for the approval of the sentences. Now, this file is before the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals for a clean review...

I have also completed my analysis, which took some time; I listed the news and commentaries that were influential in the investigation and trial process regarding the Narin Güran murder, but which later clearly turned out to be wrong. Actually, if I had continued working, the number might have increased, but I decided to stop at 12; the article would both be too long and I would have to spend more time.

Already, 12 errors are enough to show what kind of journalistic line was followed in the Narin Güran file. Here are the 12 headlines that I identified by examining my media scan, the court's reasoned decision, and the appeal decision, which influenced the public and the court, but which later turned out to be wrong:

Error 1- Gas station employee: "Narin was lying unconscious in her uncle's vehicle!"

When uncle Salim Güran was detained on August 31 and arrested on September 2, Narin's body had not yet been found, and Nevzat Bahtiyar had not been caught.

Immediately after the detention was announced, a report titled "Proof of strangulation in the car: There is death fluid on the seat and steering wheel" was published in Akşam newspaper. The discovery of Narin's DNA on the seat of the driver's seat of the vehicle created a wave of excitement in discussion programs on news channels as proof that uncle Salim could be guilty.

The media followed this lead. On September 4, reports titled "Turkey has been searching for Narin for 15 days: A terrible claim from a gas station employee! Was she lying unconscious in her uncle's vehicle?" were published. These reports, published on A Haber, Gerçek Gündem, Halk TV, Takvim, CNN Türk, Karar, T24, and Türkiye, were based on "a post made on social media by a gas station employee named Murat Çınar Çatalca."

This person wrote that Salim Güran only bought wet wipes from the gas station that day, that Narin was lying in the front seat wrapped in a blanket "unconscious or strangled by hand," and that the footage had been handed over to the gendarmerie.

The truth: There was no such gas station employee, and the account was fake

After Nevzat Bahtiyar was caught, in his first prosecutor's statement on September 9, he said that "Salim Güran showed something wrapped in a blanket inside his car and said, 'You will destroy this,' and that he saw Narin's body in Salim Güran's vehicle and took it from there." He even repeated this statement exactly during the "site showing and discovery" which was also filmed with a camera. These statements matched the "gas station employee's" social media post! Although he described his meetings with Salim and other details differently in his second statement on September 10, he still said he took the body from the car.

However, in his prosecutor's statement on September 21, Nevzat Bahtiyar completely changed his claim that he took Narin's body from Salim Güran's vehicle:

"Salim Güran called me. We went to Arif's house together. I saw Narin Güran lying motionless on the ground. After putting her in a blanket, Salim Güran gave me the body. I took the body in my arms, left, and went down towards my residence to put it in my vehicle."

The claim that he took Narin's body from the Güran family's house overturns his previous account regarding the murder; it erases most of his first two statements!

It is unknown whether it has anything to do with Nevzat Bahtiyar's change of statement; but shortly after the change of statement, it turned out that the Facebook account opened in the name of the "gas station employee" was fake, that there was no such employee, and that the information shared was not true. Reports in this direction were published on October 2.

The court accepted as true Nevzat Bahtiyar's last statement, which he also repeated in the hearings, that "he took the body from the house, first took it to his barn, put it in a sack there, and carried it to Eğertutmaz Stream with his own car." Thus, the court concluded that Narin was not killed in her uncle Salim's vehicle and that the body was not transported by that car.

However, the court was still of the opinion, based on Nevzat Bahtiyar's words "Narin Güran had foam-like fluid in her mouth," that this fluid might have been smeared on Salim Güran's hand, and that he might have wiped his hand on the seat. Salim Güran rejected this accusation by saying "Absolutely not," and said, "It is normal for Narin's DNA to be found in my car; I would be surprised if it wasn't. It is a family car."

But in the court's reasoned decision, it was stated, "It is clear that after Narin was killed, either Narin herself or an object that had touched Narin's lifeless body was transported by Salim's vehicle." The court made a decision based on assumption, not evidence; but the Chamber President who dissented from the appeal decision also pointed out that an incomplete investigation was conducted on this matter.

Although the blanket was not found and the "gas station employee" turned out to be fake; the reports titled "A terrible claim from a gas station employee! Was she lying unconscious in her uncle's vehicle?" published before Narin's body was even found, contributed to uncle Salim Güran and the family being perceived as guilty.

Error 2- Narin was killed because she saw the forbidden relationship between her uncle and her mother!

About a week after Narin went missing on August 21, with the detention of her brother Enes, her uncle Salim Güran, and then all family members, various scenarios began to be written in the media. Mostly, it was voiced that Narin might have been killed because she saw an event she was not supposed to see.

In fact, in the first statement Nevzat Bahtiyar gave to the gendarmerie on September 9 after being caught, there was no claim about a relationship between uncle Salim Güran and mother Yüksel Güran. In his interrogation on September 10, he added "sexual intercourse" to his first statement, saying, "I did not ask why and how he killed Narin, and I don't know. However, it was being talked about in the neighborhood that Salim Güran had relationships with Narin's mother Yüksel Güran and his own uncle's wife M.G."

The reason for such a change in Nevzat Bahtiyar's statement within a day is unknown, of course. But Didem Arslan Yılmaz said on her program on Show TV on September 9, "I say 99 percent. According to my news source, there is a relationship between the mother and the uncle. The reason for the murder is that the child, according to the allegation, witnesses the relationship between her mother and her uncle..." and rumors in this direction spread rapidly.

Immediately afterward, "forbidden relationship" news intensified in the media. On September 11, one of the scenarios in Hürriyet's headline "Four scenarios in the Narin murder" bore the headline "Did she see the forbidden relationship?" Hande Fırat also included the words "According to high-level officials, Narin may have been killed because she witnessed a scene in their own home" in her article.

Hürriyet carried the "forbidden relationship" allegations to the peak on September 17 with the report "Plan in the house, murder in the barn: Narin witnessed a twisted love triangle involving her uncle, mother, and an aunt," and Show TV with the report "Twisted relationships in the dark village, terrible secrets spilled out."

The allegation of a relationship between the uncle and the mother was carried to an even further dimension with the report titled "Unbelievable events in Narin's death! Her uncle might be her father!" on Sözcü TV.

In his third statement, which he gave about 10 days later, Nevzat Bahtiyar claimed that Salim Güran told him, "I killed Narin because she saw that I was with Yüksel." After that, reports like "Forbidden relationship confession: It turned out that the villain who buried Narin in the stream also confessed to the murderer uncle's forbidden relationships," as in Sabah, ran wild in the media.

The truth: There is no sexual relationship between the uncle and the mother

Nevzat Bahtiyar repeated the claim that Narin was killed because she saw the relationship between Salim and Yüksel Güran in court as well. But his claim must not have been very convincing, as the presiding judge, reminding that the time Narin was last seen on the path to the house and the minutes Nevzat went to the house were close to each other, asked, "When did he have intercourse with Yüksel so that Narin saw it?" Nevzat Bahtiyar replied to this question, "I don't know. I hadn't seen it." Salim and Yüksel Güran also vehemently rejected this claim by saying "slander."

Indeed, in the court's reasoned decision, it was emphasized that "the conviction arose that defendant Yüksel did not have a relationship with defendant Salim during the event." However, the court still accepted Nevzat Bahtiyar's account as true and Salim Güran's defense as a lie. This acceptance was based on the conviction in the court's reasoned decision that "Defendant Salim made this statement to defendant Nevzat in order to hide the real reason because they killed the victim Narin together for a reason that our court could not understand either."

Thus, the court reached the judgment that Salim Güran committed the murder to hide a reason more important than "sexual intercourse" with his brother's wife Yüksel Güran, but for some reason, he gave the job of covering up this murder to Nevzat Bahtiyar. However, the court could not find that very important "real purpose" either.

The President of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Diyarbakır Regional Court of Justice, who dissented from the appeal decision, found this decision of the court "contrary to reason, logic, the ordinary flow of life, and the patriarchal structure of the region." The President expressed the view, "It is contrary to the law to reach a conviction and reasoning in the form of mind-reading based on abstract assumptions, without expressing a conviction within the scope of evidence regarding what the real purpose for Narin's murder was, which is more important than the seeing and hearing of the relationship between Yüksel and Salim."

Error 3- Narin's sister was also killed by being pushed down the stairs at home!

Following the realization that Narin had been killed and the detention of family members, a fury of news reports broke out on social media and in the media: "Was Narin's sister also killed?", "Her sister's file opened: Tülin Güran's suspicious death is also being investigated."

In reports published in newspapers such as Sözcü, Yeni Akit, and Yeniçağ regarding this death, which was described as a "suspicious death," it was claimed that "it was said that Tülin Güran lost her life by falling down the stairs," and that this claim was also being investigated.

In some reports, it was claimed that Tülin Güran "died of pneumonia." The date of death was also stated as 2009 in some reports and 2019 in others.

Fatih Portakal also said on September 9, while presenting the news program on Sözcü TV, "A dark family. Everyone knows who slaughtered this girl. Her sister's departure from life is also full of question marks." Then, the following claims were voiced in the report that appeared on the screen:

"One of Narin's cousins took her own life years ago; another cousin attempted suicide and remained paralyzed. It turned out that her disabled sister Fatma Güran (it should be Tülin Güran, but it was written incorrectly in the report) also lost her life five years ago by falling down the stairs. Suspicious death and dubious events turned the arrows towards the Güran family."

The news about the sister turned into "suspicious child deaths in Narin's village" and "numerous child graves in the village" reports within a short time. Kenan Kıran's report in Sabah titled "Tavşantepe's silent deaths! 9 out of 15 child deaths are from the Güran family" and the video shared by journalist Emrullah Erdinç from the cemetery titled "Who do the three nameless graves belong to?" further deepened the mystery over the child deaths that occurred in the village in the last 38 years.

The truth: Tülin Güran, who was born disabled, died in the hospital where she was being treated for pneumonia

The reports that the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor's Office included Tülin Güran's death in the investigation and asked the hospital for the cause of death were true.

However, the documents from the Diyarbakır Children's Hospital proved that Tülin Güran, who was physically disabled, died in 2009 at the age of five while being treated for pneumonia. Contrary to the claims in the news, the death report at the hospital contained the information that "there was no suspicious situation or finding of trauma" in Tülin Güran's death, and that an autopsy was not performed because she died while being treated.

Thus, the scenarios that Tülin Güran was killed by being pushed down the stairs were debunked. But of course, these reports also played an important role in the intensification of suspicions towards the family.

The news about Tülin Güran's death also came up in the hearings. Upon the judge's question, Yüksel Güran said that her daughter was born disabled; she complained about the accusations on this matter:

"Police officers blamed me for Tülin's death; why did Tülin die? If Tülin hadn't passed away at Dağkapı Hospital, I swear they would have opened Tülin's grave. 'You killed your daughter Tülin.' Everyone knows, thank God, there is already a report.

'You threw Tülin down the stairs, what kind of mother are you?' They interrogated me for Tülin inside that police station. They showed me as guilty for this file, I was in the detention cell at the end, he was coming, he shook his finger at me: 'Look, I'm going to Dağkapı. If your daughter didn't pass away there, your life is already ruined.' They went to Dağkapı Hospital, they got my daughter's death report. Can there be such a lack of conscience? I lost my daughter 17 years ago."

Naturally, Tülin Güran's death was never mentioned in the court's reasoned decision. Because it was certain that there was no criminal aspect to it. Some of those who gave the wrong news did not even see the need to correct the news; the unupdated errors remain in the digital archive.

Error 4- Enes Güran uses drugs!

The news and commentaries that Narin's brother Enes Güran uses drugs began with the different interpretation of what mother Yüksel Güran said on the program on Show TV on August 26.

Mother Yüksel Güran was saying on the program, "I went up to the roof, spread my bed, I looked, Enes's voice is coming from next to the barn. 'I don't see him,' I said, 'Enes is there. Last night a dog ate my turkey.' I said, 'My son, come.' Two of his friends were there too. I looked, he is smoking, 'What a pity, how can you smoke at this age,' I said."

To avoid being fined by RTÜK, the word there was beeped, and it was written as "s..." at the bottom of the screen. When written like that, that "s..." word was interpreted as "banned substance" and "drugs" on many televisions and social media.

One of those who described that word as a "banned substance" was CNN Türk News Manager Nihat Uludağ. In the program on September 13, he said, "The mother had said 'Enes uses a banned substance.' Narin had seen him abusing an animal. The mother had pointed this out. At the point reached, this has also weakened."

One of the claims in CNN Türk's report on September 18 titled "Why was Narin killed? 10 different claims" was that "Narin saw her brother using a banned substance. Upon this, brother Enes Güran, who was under the influence of the banned substance, strangled his sister to death."

The truth: It was proven that Enes Güran does not use drugs

However, those who interpreted the beeped "s.." word in that broadcast as drugs were being unfair. Indeed, the program's presenter Didem Arslan Yılmaz tried to correct the error by rebroadcasting the mother's speech on the program on August 28.

Yılmaz said, "RTÜK does not want the word cigarette to be used. Tobacco is perceived as a banned substance, drugs in the region. No, sir, he is smoking. It is not a banned substance, it is tobacco." But despite Yılmaz's effort, the news and commentaries that Enes uses drugs continued.

This question was also asked to the older brother Baran Güran later, on October 29, on the program "Neler Oluyor Hayatta" on Kanal D. Baran Güran said that Enes "has not even used cigarettes throughout his life, and this was revealed in the tests performed."

Baran Güran repeated these words of his in court later as well. During the hearings, Lawyer Elif Aslı Şahin, the attorney for the Ministry of Family and Social Policies, asked, "Did Enes have a tendency towards violence or substance use? Have you ever witnessed an anger management problem?" Baran Güran replied to her, "I have never witnessed it in any way. I can say this clearly. You can tell the whole village too. Enes is the one who does not fight with anyone in the village in any way."

This issue also came up while Enes Güran was explaining during his statement that his mother called him while he was smoking that day. The Presiding Judge asked, "Is it cannabis or cigarettes? In Diyarbakır, cannabis is also called 'straight cigarette'." Enes Güran replied, "No, we were smoking cigarettes."

Later, the Presiding Judge announced the report in the third-day hearing, saying, "I received a message. A report has been issued regarding Enes. It was negative." Thus, the claims that Enes Güran uses drugs were also put to an end. The claim that Enes uses drugs was never mentioned in the reasoned decision either.

Error 5- His worker told Salim Güran on the phone, "He hasn't died yet!"

The news regarding uncle Salim Güran's phone conversation with his worker Ramazan A. was first published on September 13 by Halk TV and Demirören News Agency, with the words "He hasn't died yet" brought to the headline. The same conversation was repeated in Akşam, Gazete Oksijen, Haber7, Sabah, and Türkiye in the following days. It was given as a headline in Hürriyet as "Two chilling words."

According to these reports, Salim Güran had deleted the calls and messages on his phone, but an image study was conducted, and the Kurdish conversation he had with his worker Ramazan A. was recovered. In this conversation, which was stated to have entered the investigation file, Salim Güran was saying, "Something of yours has fallen in that corner at the end; something of yours is on the slope at the end, the corner of the slope is stone, one is on the ground." Ramazan A. was replying to him, "Okay, it's not with me yet. Okay, he hasn't died yet."

The emergence of such a conversation further reinforced the perception that Salim Güran killed Narin and that he acted very cool-headedly after the murder.

The truth: The translation from Kurdish was wrong, he was not saying "He hasn't died yet"

In fact, such a conversation did not fit at all with the information that had emerged until that day and even with Nevzat Bahtiyar's accounts. The Diyarbakır Bar Association, suspecting that the translation of the Kurdish words "ne mıre" might have been done incorrectly, requested a new expert examination.

Anadolu Agency announced the new translation text made by the expert with the news it passed on September 20. According to this, the words "He hasn't died yet" were not in the Turkish translation of the Kurdish conversation. Ramazan was saying, "One is on the ground, haaa," and Salim was replying, "Okay, I'll go and get it now."

Thus, the truth of the conversation emerged, but the news that "He hasn't died yet" was said on the phone continued for about a week. Moreover, most media outlets didn't even correct the wrong news later...

This phone conversation also came up in court. Diyarbakır Bar Association President, intervening Lawyer Nahit Eren, after having the Kurdish conversation listened to in the courtroom again, asked, "What do you mean by 'take the thing where something of yours fell'?" Salim Güran replied, "We usually hide that illegal (electricity) device there at the bottom of the stones, under the grass. It could be that, there is nothing else. What am I going to say to Ramazan?"

Upon this, Nahit Eren said, "So this is not a chat about Narin. Now, after making this correction..." and moved on to another topic.

Thus, it was finalized that that phone conversation was not about Narin, and especially that the expression "He hasn't died yet" was never used. The judges didn't even dwell on this conversation anyway... It was never mentioned in the reasoned decision either.

Error 6- The blanket and carpets in the house were washed to hide the murder!

By September 26, the conviction that the murder was committed in the house or the barn had firmly taken hold in the media. Journalists and experts who spoke and made statements on discussion programs on television were focusing on these two possibilities. CNN Türk's report "The execution decision may have been taken a day before; Plan in the house, murder in the barn?" was one of them.

The report on the Süperhaber site, "Yüksel Güran washed the laundry and carpets on the day her daughter went missing, took two baths," also supported the thesis that the murder was committed in the house. But this news was not dwelled upon much in the first days.

On October 7, first in Yeni Şafak and İnternet Haber, the report "It was finalized that Narin was killed in the house: Were the carpet and blankets on the balcony washed to destroy evidence?" appeared. Then, the reports "Evidence destroyed in the Narin murder found hanging on the balcony," published on Halk TV, Cumhuriyet, and Karar, strengthened the interpretations that "the blanket and carpets were washed to destroy evidence."

The truth: It could not be proven that the carpets were washed

During the interrogation at the prosecutor's office, mother Yüksel Güran was also asked the claim that the carpets in the house were washed. Yüksel Güran replied to this question, "I did not change the carpets. However, due to people coming and going to the house, as far as I remember, on the fifth or sixth day, my sister Yasemin came to me and asked if the carpets were dirty and if I had a clean carpet. I said I had a clean carpet. Yasemin took the clean carpet and laid it down. My old carpet is still in the house, unwashed."

Indeed, halktv.com.tr corrected its report, in which it announced that it had found footage proving the claim that "the carpets were washed" with the report "Evidence destroyed in the Narin murder found hanging on the balcony" published on October 7, with a new report three days later. In the new report of halktv.com.tr titled "The veil of mystery regarding the carpets on the balcony in the Narin murder has been lifted!", it was said, "It was determined that the carpets seized by the gendarmerie were not washed and coincided with mother Yüksel Güran's statement. It was stated that the carpets were taken from the house shortly after the event and there was no trace of any washing on them."

In the report prepared after the examinations conducted at the Van Gendarmerie Criminal Laboratory, it was stated that a DNA profile belonging to a male was found on only one piece of carpet, and no findings related to Narin were encountered.

Intervening Lawyer Nahit Eren evaluated the finding of only one person's DNA on the carpets as proof that the carpets were washed. Eren said, "37 carpets, rugs, runners are taken from that house, some are taken while laid out. Only DNA belonging to two people comes out of the swab sample taken from 37 carpets! Wouldn't there be hair on them?" Nevzat Bahtiyar's lawyer Adnan Ataş also expressed similar views.

Enes Güran's lawyer Mustafa Demir also argued that the gendarmerie did not conduct a healthy examination, saying, "They only looked with blue light, because they were looking for something like blood or death fluid, there is no other DNA, they clung to something. No, the carpets were washed, that's why there is nothing. Well, who told this to the press? Again the gendarmerie, I claim."

Yüksel Güran's lawyer Doğuşcan Kurucu also argued that the criminal examination report showed that "the carpets were not washed and no determination could be made regarding external intervention."

The witnesses also did not confirm that the carpets were washed, but most importantly, no concrete evidence could be found that the carpets were washed. The claim that the carpets were washed remained in the media's archive only as an assumption.

Error 7- The aunt told that mother Yüksel and her son Enes were struggling in the barn!

The main source of the interpretations in the media that brother Enes actually participated in the killing of Narin was the bite on his arm, the scratches on his back, and the bruise under his eye. Enes Güran was detained due to these marks, but the reason for these marks could not be solved in the Forensic Medicine. Enes Güran was saying that he bit his arm himself in the bathroom on the third day of Narin's disappearance out of grief, and that the bruise on his eye was while searching for Narin in the cornfield.

Various scenarios were put forward on this matter as well. The most interesting was the report published in Sabah and Takvim on August 30: "It was evaluated that the fact that it could not be determined who the bite marks on Enes's arm belonged to might also have had an effect on him taking a shower three times that day."

Just as the news and discussions on this subject were continuing, a report titled "The aunt told the secret in the barn: His mother bit Enes's arm" was published in Akşam newspaper on September 17. In this report, it was stated that aunt Hediye Güran said that Narin's mother Yüksel Güran was very angry at her son Enes that day, that she stated "the mother and son were struggling in the barn where it is thought Narin was killed on the day of the event," and that she said, "The mother bit Enes's arm, but I don't know why. I know the mother beat Enes. She was very angry."

Naturally, Akşam's report caused a stir, and channels like Haber Global and CNN Türk, as well as sites like Yeni Akit and Star, quoted it as is.

The truth: There was no struggle in the barn in the aunt's statement

However, such an event was not mentioned in the statements Hediye Güran gave to the gendarmerie or in the prosecutor's interrogation. Moreover, the aunt had given the exact opposite information.

Hediye Güran explained that she went to Yüksel Güran's house twice that day, that in the first one she took the laundry she left for her to wash, that Enes Güran, who opened the door, said his mother was sleeping, and that when she went again around 15:00, Yüksel Güran had woken up and they sat together for about 1.5-2 hours. Hediye Güran was explaining that Enes also woke up after she left, that she did not see him when leaving the house, but that she saw him returning to the house when she was leaving.

Moreover, Hediye Güran did not express the slightest observation that Yüksel Güran was angry and that there was a problem between her and her son Enes.

Furthermore, contrary to the reports in Akşam and other media outlets, Hediye Güran's statement did not accuse Yüksel and Enes Güran, but supported their statements. Indeed, Hediye Güran was tried in the other case with 16 defendants due to these statements. The court, reaching the conviction that "she gave contradictory statements regarding the hours the event took place, claiming he was sleeping in order to protect Enes Güran" and that "her statements were created to hide the facts regarding the Narin murder event," sentenced Hediye Güran to 3 years and 6 months in prison.

Enes Güran's lawyer also objected in the appeal application to the court's rejection of Hediye Güran's statement, which refuted Nevzat Bahtiyar's accounts, without justification.

Also, it was not confirmed that Enes Güran took a bath three times that day.

Error 8- Numerous weapons and ammunition belonging to Hezbollah were found in the searches in the village!

Those who participated in the protest march organized by DEM and the non-governmental organizations it partnered with in Diyarbakır on September 9 chanted slogans, "May the hands reaching out to Narin be broken," "Killer Hezbollah, collaborator AKP."

The same evening, the claim "Hezbollah influence is being talked about in the village where Narin was killed" was brought to the agenda in the broadcast of Sözcü TV. First, an image of M. Sadık Karacoşan, who served as the headman in Tavşantepe Village for 42 years, was broadcast. In this image, headman Karacoşan was demanding the removal of the police checkpoint placed next to the mosque at the entrance of the village, arguing that "the police treated the villagers badly and they couldn't even go to the mosque."

The interesting part was that this image was broadcast on "Rehber" television, which is close to HÜDAPAR, and then became news again in İLKHA, which is also close to HÜDAPAR. As is known, HÜDAPAR is also a political party that is an extension of Hezbollah.

A day later, in the report "Where is Hezbollah in the Narin murder: The reason for the publication ban is weapon stockpiles" published on Odatv, it was said, "It was stated that the reason why the murder was wanted to be covered up by the family was so that Hezbollah weapons would not be revealed." It was stated that "numerous weapons and ammunition belonging to the terrorist organization Hezbollah were seized" in the searches in the village.

Odatv's report was quoted on news sites such as Yeni Yaşam and Medya Faresi. In addition, reports titled "Hezbollah riddle in Narin's village" on Sözcü TV and "Claim that Narin's family is connected to Hezbollah" on Tele1 were published.

Following the Hezbollah news, posts claiming that the documentary "Hezbollah's Cell Houses," prepared by Rıdvan Akar for "32.Gün" in 1998, was filmed in Tavşantepe Village were published on social media. These posts were also published as news in Yeni Yaşam newspaper.

The truth: Images of older brother Baran Güran from the DEM rally emerged

Establishing a relationship between the publication ban and Hezbollah and weapons was not correct. Because the publication ban imposed on August 29 was lifted on September 9, exactly when these Hezbollah claims began to spread after Narin's body was found.

It is also wrong that "numerous weapons belonging to Hezbollah were found" in the searches in the village. Not only did no information on this matter emerge in the case file, but no other reports confirming this claim were published in the media either.

What was true was that the gendarmerie, while trying to find Narin in the first days, found 380 AK-47 Kalashnikov brand long-barreled rifle bullets hidden in hazelnut cream boxes, a transparent plastic tomato paste bucket, and white flour sacks, wrapped in towels, in Arif Güran's barn. An investigation had been launched for the crime of violating the Firearms Law No. 6136 regarding the ammunition, which was determined to be illegal. Salim Güran also reiterated in his statement in court that 380 bullets were found.

The Hezbollah documentary broadcast on the "32.Gün" program was not filmed in Narin's village. Teyit.org determined that the documentary was filmed in Yolaç (Susa) Village, which is connected to the Silvan district of Diyarbakır. The name of Yolaç Village was mentioned in the documentary; the sign of the village's mosque was also visible in one frame. There is an 87-kilometer distance between Tavşantepe and Yolaç.

There is no information or document showing that Tavşantepe Village is completely under the influence of Hezbollah/HÜDAPAR and that the majority are from the organization. HÜDAPAR officials also stated that the village was not theirs.

An approach linking the murder with Hezbollah had been displayed by DEM in the first days. But this attitude changed in the following days. DEM Diyarbakır Deputy Sevilay Çelenk said, "If you look at the family's photos, I think you can understand from everything that they have nothing to do with Hezbollah or anything." Çelenk made the assessment that "rumors of Hezbollah, counter-guerrilla, village guard village, etc., criminalize Tavşantepe Village and the villagers."

In the elections in Tavşantepe, HDP was the first party in 2015, İYİ Party in 2023, and AKP in the local election in 2024. While AKP received 100 votes in the last election, DEM received 32 votes, and HÜDA PAR received 16 votes. This shows that the village is not as homogeneous as claimed politically.

Salim Güran also said in court, while explaining that he had no problem with the parties, that he "chased away" DEM's food vehicle on the days Narin was being searched "because they came by following the journalists."

Moreover, it turned out that Narin's older brother Baran Güran shared images from DEM Party rallies on social media. Upon this, reports titled "Narin's brother Baran is at DEM demonstrations! The silence spiral in Tavşantepe and the DEM Party factor" and "Images emerged that Narin's brother Baran Güran is a PKK sympathizer" were published in the pro-government media such as Takvim and Yeni Şafak.

As a result, no concrete information or document emerged that Hezbollah/HÜDAPAR or DEM dominated the village. No statement regarding the political organizations in the village passed in the court and appeal decision. However, news and commentaries in this direction were influential in the polarization of journalists and all interested people in the Narin Güran murder, acting from their own political positions.

Error 9- The "secret witness" went to the command and told what he knew!

On the day after Narin's body was found on September 8, a report titled "A secret witness gave a statement to the prosecutor's office regarding the place where Narin's lifeless body was found and those involved in the murder" appeared in Akşam newspaper.

That morning, it was said on the program on Halk TV, "A secret witness living in the same village goes to the gendarmerie command, requests that his identity remain secret due to his life safety, and tells what he knows about the event." It was stated that the body was found after the secret witness's accounts to the prosecutor, and then 24 people were detained.

That evening, the report "Secret witness is being solved in the Narin investigation; secret witness confessed! Uncle and family are in cross-examination" was also broadcast on Sözcü TV.

Even after the trial began, the claim that "there was a new secret witness" was put forward on A Haber. On the afternoon of November 8, the second day of the hearing, Sabah News Coordinator Abdurrahman Şimşek said on the program on A Haber, "There is a confessor. This confessor gave strategic information that will largely change the course of the investigation. He came with explanations that will demolish what was told. From this, we understand: The killer is not the uncle either." Şimşek, who said that digital evidence regarding what this witness, who newly entered the file, told was also reached, pointed to brother Enes.

The truth: There was no secret witness

Actually, there was no "secret witness." On the afternoon of the day Narin's body was found, in the early hours of September 8, Nevzat Bahtiyar had been caught and immediately admitted that he himself buried the body in the stream.

Already, most of the media realized in a short time that Nevzat Bahtiyar was not a "secret witness" and stopped talking about a "secret witness." Moreover, it was not a matter of Nevzat Bahtiyar going to the gendarmerie himself and wanting his identity to remain secret; he had been caught.

When the gendarmerie determined that a red vehicle went to Eğertutmaz Stream during the hours Narin went missing, they first suspected not Nevzat Bahtiyar, but his son. When the gendarmerie went to his son's house in Çarıklı Neighborhood, they found Nevzat Bahtiyar there; Nevzat Bahtiyar surrendered by saying, "The person you are looking for is not my son, it is me. I was guessing that you would come to me sooner or later."

Nevzat Bahtiyar had started talking after being caught in this way. However, his other statements, which he changed later like Nevzat Bahtiyar's first statement and which contradicted each other, continued to be mostly described as "confession" in the media.

Of course, in those days, there were also a small number of journalists like Barış Terkoğlu and İsmail Saymaz, who did not agree with the majority's definition of "confession" and said that Nevzat Bahtiyar's statement "was not logical." İsmail Saymaz, after the emergence of the first statement, said on Halk TV, "There are illogicalities in Nevzat Bahtiyar's statement. There is a side in this statement that clears himself. A substantial reason is needed for a person to take the body of a person killed by someone he encountered and go and bury it in the stream. The headman has been arrested for ten days. Why is this one silent, why hasn't he spoken? Why are you afraid? I estimate that this person had active participation in the crime." However, the trial did not proceed in this direction.

In addition, the report that there was a "new secret witness" put forward on A Haber during the hearings and that this witness's statement would change the course of the case also did not turn out to be true. Immediately after the hearing of this claim, the presiding judge made the statement in the hearing, "There is no secret witness statement that reached our court."

However, Abdurrahman Şimşek, who put forward the "new secret witness" claim, did not make a correction regarding his report either. Even the report published on Sabah's website is still there in its wrong form.

Error 10- She didn't want to go to the Quran course, her mother sent her specifically!

Ferit Demir, who connected to the "Gündem Özel" program on Halk TV on the evening of September 9, said that the murder was clarified, it was now known who killed her, and only the reason was being investigated. For Salim Güran, he also said, "I don't know if he will confess tonight. But there is information that he confessed to killing her. There is information that he also did not say why he killed her."

Ferit Demir said, "I interviewed the mother twice. I felt that the mother knew something. But I also felt that she couldn't say something. There was inconsistency in the mother's statements," and voiced the following claim regarding mother Yüksel Güran's role in the murder:

"Narin needs to go to the Quran course at one o'clock. But Narin doesn't want to go. 'Mother, I don't want to go,' she says. The mother also confesses this. And the mother wants to send her specifically. 'Go,' she says, 'My daughter, go.' And Narin goes around two o'clock. After she goes around two, the mother says this; the mother's own confession: 'My daughter, we will be at your uncle's at four, you come directly to your uncle's.' Narin will leave at four, but she leaves the Quran course at 3:15. After leaving, she comes directly towards the house. Whatever happens, that early departure causes Narin to be slaughtered."

Ferit Demir was voicing the claim that "mother Yüksel Güran sent Narin to the Quran course specifically that day, even though she didn't want to go."

The truth: The mother did not send her, on the contrary, Narin wanted to go insistently

However, Salim Güran completely rejected the murder claim during the investigation stages and in the trial. There was no situation such as "confessing to the murder" at any stage of the investigations.

It is also not true that mother Yüksel Güran admitted that she specifically sent Narin to the course, who did not want to go to the Quran course. On the contrary, Yüksel Güran was saying that she did not want to send Narin to the Quran course that day, and that she could not break her heart upon Narin's insistence on wanting to go.

Even interestingly, Yüksel Güran had explained that Narin insisted in the interviews she made with Ferit Demir two days after Narin went missing, the first of which was made on the balcony of the house and the second in the living room:

"I looked, Narin was dusting the television. Suddenly her eyes went to the clock. 'Ayy,' she said, 'I forgot the Quran course.' She was going for the first time, ha... I said: 'My daughter, don't go, it's hot, the course is already finished.' She did her finger like this, 'The Imam gives four hours, we still have time. Mother, I beg you. When I leave the course, I will go to your uncle's,' she said."

What the mother said in front of the camera was also summarized in halktv.com.tr's report "Her mother had given the sign to Halk TV in her first interview!" Moreover, mother Yüksel Güran, in her statements at the prosecutor's office and in court, also conveyed that Narin insisted on going to the Quran course, just as she said in front of the Halk TV camera on August 23. In court, she also explained the conversation that passed between her and her daughter at that time by saying, "I said, 'My daughter, don't go. It's hot, don't, don't.' I couldn't persuade her. She persuaded me. She went and got up, I said to her: 'Okay my daughter,' she screamed. She was very happy."

No other information or testimony emerged that proved that the mother's statement that "Narin herself wanted to go to the course" was not true. Ferit Demir's interview with Yüksel Güran on August 28 was focused on the subject of "Narin would not get into a stranger's car"; going to the Quran course was not talked about; therefore, Yüksel Güran's statement regarding going to the course was always the same.

Error 11- The stones on Narin were too big for one person to carry!

Nazlı Çelik, who presents Star TV's main news, started the program two days after Narin's body was found by saying, "Slowly the facts are emerging." Then she said, in summary, the following:

"Statements, confessions, the work done for 19 days, organized brutality are becoming more and more evident. Besides details such as the red vehicle that carried Narin's lifeless body to the stream where it was found, the stones lined up on Narin's lifeless body being too big for one person to carry, and the green headscarf found on Narin when she was found, all eyes are turned to, the mother. The mother, described as the black box of the murder."

Nazlı Çelik, by saying "the stones lined up on Narin were too big for one person to carry," was claiming that Narin's body was hidden there by more than one person.

In addition, how many stones were placed into the water on Narin's body also became a subject of speculation. In the report by Özgür Cebe from Sözcü titled "Hot development: '3 stones' detail in the Narin murder! Confessor contradicted," it was written that Nevzat Bahtiyar "claimed in his prosecutor's statement that he covered the top with one large stone after hiding the body in the stream bed," but "Gendarmerie Criminal Crime Scene Investigation teams recorded in the minutes that there were three large stones on top, where Narin was found."

Thus, "Three mysterious stones" news, posts, and commentaries emerged. Naturally, the questions of who placed the other two stones followed.

The truth: The stones were 30, 25, and 20 kilos

Actually, the stones left on Narin were not that big, very heavy. In the images of the prosecutor's statement on September 10, when asked about the size of the stone, Nevzat Bahtiyar indicated by opening his hands to both sides, and upon the prosecutor asking "15-20 kilos?", he approved with his head.

There was no mystery to the "three stones" issue either. The problem only stemmed from the taking of the statement at the prosecutor's office and the words being passed into the minutes differently. Nevzat Bahtiyar's words had passed into the statement minutes as "I put a stone on it so that the sack would not be found by someone. The size of the stone was around 15-20 kilos. There was also one more stone next to them. I did not put brushwood on it. It was already covered, there was also brushwood next to it."

When watching the statement images, it was understood that Nevzat Bahtiyar carried and brought one stone, put it on Narin, but used the two stones next to them to hide it more. Since the brushwood already covered it immediately, he did not feel the need to put other brushwood on it.

However, Bahtiyar said in court, as in his third prosecutor's statement on September 21, that "he left only one stone," and that he did not remember the brushwood on it. However, the Gendarmerie's Crime Scene Investigation minutes do not confirm this statement of Bahtiyar. In the minutes reflected in the investigation file, it was stated that there were three large stones and brushwood on the sack where Narin's body was found on the edge of the stream; these stones were also 30, 25, and 20 kilos in weight.

In court, the prosecutor did not dwell on this difference in Nevzat Bahtiyar's statement. Bahtiyar, after saying "he left a single stone," continued his questions by saying, "Okay, Salim Güran goes to the place where our girl Narin's lifeless body was found by giving some information at 22:44 in the evening and from camera footage, do you think? You are talking about a single stone or 2-3 stones, right? There is extra brushwood on the lifeless body, could Salim Güran have done this?" He replied, "I have no idea, I didn't see it."

The prosecutor, later reminding these words of Nevzat Bahtiyar, asked Salim Güran, "Are you the one who added the remaining two stones and the brushwood?" He also rejected it by saying "Absolutely not."

Thus, the three stones issue could not be fully clarified in court, but the court board must have seen no suspicious situation, as it did not dwell on the number of stones in the reasoned decision.

However, whether it was one or three stones, it was clear, as Nazlı Çelik said, that "these stones were not too big for one person to carry." It was understood that Nevzat Bahtiyar could carry stones of this weight on his own. Because he is a plasterer, works in construction, and was able to easily carry Narin, who weighed about 25 kilos, from the car to the edge of the stream by himself.

Error 12- Secret meetings were held in the uncle's house to cover up the murder!

One of the developments that attracted attention before the start of the trial was the reports published in Akşam, CNN Türk, Sözcü, and Halk TV: "Flash in the Narin Güran murder! 'Lost 8 days' detail! The 8-day camera recording in the uncle's house has been deleted."

In these reports published on September 29-30, it was stated that the eight-day recording in the camera that recorded sound and images in the house of the older uncle Erhan Güran, one day before September 8, when Narin's lifeless body was found, was deleted. Information was given that the camera recording was sent to TÜBİTAK to be resolved.

Then, without knowing exactly what was in the images, posts and commentaries that a "family meeting" was held to cover up the murder were published.

The truth: They questioned and beat the shepherd by asking "Did you see Narin?"

TÜBİTAK could not recover the deleted camera images, but mysteriously, the recordings were sent to the Diyarbakır Bar Association with a tip; they also presented them to the court. The image that entered the case file was also watched in court.

Shepherd Ahmet Akgün, who was seen being pushed and shoved in the images, was also heard as a witness in the hearing. Ahmet Akgün, who is Nevzat Akgün's cousin, explained that Erhan Güran asked, "Did you see anything?", and that he said he didn't see anything, and that he was already with the animals all day. Ahmet Akgün said, "I said I didn't see anything. They got angry and beat me, they did it even though I had no fault. Then they apologized."

Uncle Erhan Güran also said, "We gathered so that if someone knows something, they should speak. If it were secret, we wouldn't have gathered under the camera." Erhan Güran, who spoke in line with what Ahmet Akgün said, noted that they asked "Did you see Narin?", and when he said "I didn't see anyone," they reacted by saying "Are you going home with your eyes closed? You are lying," and that the young people took him to the back side." Erhan Güran also said regarding the beating, "There is no excessive beating. I mean, one or two slaps were thrown."

The trial process showed that the gathering in front of Erhan Güran's house was not "secret," and that they gathered not to cover up the murder, but to find information regarding Narin's disappearance. It was confirmed by the statements of both sides that shepherd Ahmet Akgün was questioned and beaten by asking "Did you see Narin?"

Basic journalistic rules were ignored

While preparing the article, the journalistic error that caught my eye first was that respect was not shown to the grief, reputation, and personal rights of the family who lost Narin and the people in that village. An approach was displayed as if it were free to use every kind of humiliating expression not only about the Narin family but about everyone in that village.

The concern for ratings, clicks, readership, and attracting attention in the media had taken precedence over objectivity and basic reporting rules. Many reporters, writers, and presenters had become a party. Some were also acting with their emotions; they were mixing reporting with emotionality.

Such being the case, journalistic rules such as the necessity of checking whispered rumors, not publishing unverified information, stating sources in the news, and maintaining distance with news sources were ignored.

In fact, the journalistic errors in the Narin murder deserve a comprehensive academic study. My study inevitably remained limited. Communication academics can conduct broader, more detailed research based on this analysis I prepared.

My main purpose in this analysis was -as I stated at the beginning- to uncover the media's role in the Narin Güran case and the journalistic errors. It was to identify the errors brought about by journalists acting like prosecutors, police, or detectives instead of approaching all data objectively, and to produce journalistic experience through these errors.

I hope that -even if unintentionally- the journalist friends and media outlets who made the errors I mentioned will also draw lessons for themselves from the results of this analysis; and prevent the repetition of the errors. Thus, the journalistic errors in the Narin file will turn into added value on behalf of our profession.