An agenda changing at the speed of light and the forgotten Narin murder!

Our country has such an intense agenda that it is impossible not to get lost in the face of events that change in an instant.

While the tension in the Middle East and the “World War III” scenarios are at the center of discussions, you suddenly find the topic shifting to the question of “Is Israel a threat to Turkey?”

Women harassed on the street, young girls murdered by beheading, and armed clashes in the busiest parts of the city lead us to seek an answer to the question, “Are we safe on the street?”

Moving on from there, while discussing İmamoğlu’s “Fool” case, you suddenly find the “Newborn Gang” debate starting!

While the impact of this case is still ongoing, MHP leader Bahçeli invites Öcalan to Parliament at a group meeting!

After the terrorist attack on TUSAŞ, the message turns back to “determined fight against terrorism.”

The “noose” thrown by Dervişoğlu at Bahçeli is met with a sudden turn from the “reaching out” atmosphere of politics, with the message: “We will hang you with the noose hanging on the silent valet.”

While the agenda was “softening in politics,” it suddenly turns into “mutual defiance.”

The “drugs” brought into the country in a vehicle with diplomatic plates remains an insignificant detail within this agenda.

While we are tossed between topics like someone jumping into an “empty pool,” we would not be wrong to say that there are many people waiting for the voice that will fill these discourses to rise from the Presidency.

For this reason, in the final analysis, no matter what anyone says, until “that voice” is heard—the one that will draw the direction, determine the range, and set the boundaries—one should not expect anyone, including Bahçeli, to produce politics that are grounded in reality.

The development that took place within this fast-paced agenda must have caught the attention of only a few people, as it does not find much space on the agenda. That is the indictment submitted to the Diyarbakır High Criminal Court regarding the Narin Murder…

We should not overlook the indictment prepared for that case—which we have been following closely for almost two months, which we have all watched with anxiety and concern, and where calls were made to erase the village where the murder was committed from the map—and we should focus on this event that they want to remove from the agenda, rather than the agenda imposed upon us.

What happened to Narin before the murder, why she was killed, and even who killed her remained ambiguous throughout the entire investigation process. We see that this situation has not changed in the indictment either.

Aggravated life imprisonment is requested for the brother Enes, mother Yüksel, uncle Salim, and the confessor Nevzat, who are alleged to have committed the murder as accomplices. The files of the other suspects have been separated, and the process is ongoing.

While we do not expect any action to be taken against these individuals for the crime of intentional killing, there is a possibility that in a future indictment, some suspects could be charged with “aiding a criminal or concealing evidence of a crime,” or the file could be closed with a Decision of Non-Prosecution.

When you read the indictment, you see that it is actually a written version of a scenario you have already memorized.

So much so that you realize every piece of evidence written line by line in the indictment has been reflected in the press, and the findings written in the reports have been discussed in the public eye.

The details of the examinations conducted by the Forensic Medicine Institute, the statements of the suspects, the discussed scenarios, contradictory testimonies, the suspects' efforts to destroy evidence or mislead law enforcement, and HTS and base station (cell phone signal) data have all been written into the indictment by 3 Public Prosecutors…

However, the fundamental problem arising from the fact that this evidence and testimony, which should have remained confidential, were opened to public debate is also easily noticeable in the indictment. That is the fact that the confession from only one of the suspects, namely Nevzat, has changed over time…

You can easily see that every piece of information reflected in the public eye has been “fictionalized” by the suspect Nevzat. So much so that, in addition to the statements taken during law enforcement and crime scene reconstruction, there are two Prosecutor's Office testimonies dated September 10 and September 21. However, the plot described is different in each of them…

This is exactly what constitutes the fundamental problem of the judicial process that has turned into a lawsuit. The indictment is entirely based on Nevzat’s contradictory statements, and there is no determination supported by evidence as to who committed the murder, where, how, and for what reason.

So much so that the reason for the murder is included in the indictment as “an undetermined reason.” The place where the murder was committed is also based on Nevzat’s statements, but there is no concrete determination as to who committed the murder!

The claim that there was a relationship between mother Yüksel and uncle Salim, that Narin saw this, and that Salim killed Narin for this reason is not based on any eyewitness account, but on Nevzat’s third changed statement. Well, what is the role of brother Enes in this murder in this scenario? The explanation for this is not written in the indictment either. It only draws attention to the suspicion that mother Yüksel tried to protect her son Enes, acting on the knowledge that her daughter Narin was dead.

Well, if the mother wants to protect her son, could the person who committed the murder be Enes? But there is no statement from Nevzat on this matter. In his third statement, Nevzat says that Salim told him, “I killed this girl.” And at no stage is the name of brother Enes mentioned while Narin’s lifeless body was being disposed of.

This case and the trial process seem to bring many more debates with it. Whether the suspicion sufficient to file a lawsuit will be seen as sufficient for a conviction remains ambiguous.

After the hearings begin, the 4 defendants will face each other in the courtroom, and the other three defendants will have the opportunity to respond to Nevzat’s statements. It is difficult to predict where the evidence to be collected or the statements to be determined during the trial process will lead us, but it would not be wrong to say that the information leaks that occurred during the investigation phase and violated the confidentiality of the investigation are the root cause of the chaotic situation we are in.

Solving this murder is now a duty for all of humanity! I hope the judiciary can fulfill this duty properly and reach a fair decision.

Otherwise, given that trust in the judiciary is already declining, the conviction that little Narin’s death was “covered up by the family’s political connections” will prevail, and we can say that this will turn into a major social trauma that cannot be compensated.

Let us not forget that justice stands in place like a pole star, and everything else revolves around it. I hope this will be the case in the Narin Murder Case as well.