A Curious Accusation from the Prosecutor's Office to the Court!..

One of the most important topics on our agenda last year was the claim that the assassination of academic and author Assoc. Prof. Dr. Necip Hablemitoğlu—the most significant unsolved political murder committed during the AKP era—had been solved. The media had already delivered its verdict before the indictment was even issued.

According to the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, the murder was committed by a group of officers from the Special Forces Command at the instigation of “FETÖ”.

One of the individuals stated to be affiliated with the “Levent Göktaş organization” was former Captain Nuri Gökhan Bozkır, who was involved in arms trafficking in Ukraine and also did business with our state. It was Erdoğan himself who announced that Bozkır had been captured by the MIT in Ukraine and brought to Turkey. Explaining that he had spoken with Ukrainian President Zelensky and said, “Please give him to us,” Erdoğan also emphasized that bringing Bozkır back was proof of their determination to solve past unsolved murders.

So, what happened during the trial process that our media, which had already delivered its verdict, for some reason did not follow or take an interest in?

When the first hearings of the case, held at the Ankara 29th High Criminal Court, took place last February, it emerged that journalist Zihni Çakır—a famous name from the Ergenekon plots upon which the indictment was based—had worked on the file together with Prosecutor Zafer Ergün and that the confidentiality of the investigation had been violated. Çakır, who was heard as a witness, also said that he had received a document stating that Bylock had been found on Prosecutor Ergün's phone.

At the end of the sessions in May, it was decided to release the detained defendants Levent Göktaş, Tarkan Mumcuoğlu, Nuri Gökhan Bozkır, Fikret Emek, Enver Altaylı, and Aydın Köstem. The reason for these surprise releases was the defense of Tarkan Mumcuoğlu, who was alleged to be the “trigger man.”

According to the indictment, Mumcuoğlu, who was serving in Kazakhstan at the time, had secretly come to Turkey via the TRNC on a military cargo plane, committed the murder, and returned to Kazakhstan.

However, during the trial, when his lawyers proved with photographs, HTS records, and the testimony of one of the Kazakh soldiers who received training from him at that time in the courtroom that Mumcuoğlu was in Kazakhstan on the date of the incident, the Court first determined that “the grounds for suspicion had largely changed in favor of the defendant,” “meaning that the perpetrator who pulled the trigger in the murder incident might not be Tarkan Mumcuoğlu,” and that “there was a possibility of a change in the legal classification of the crime, and that it would not be proportionate to decide on the continuation of detention at this stage.” It then decided to release the others, considering that “in this case, it would not be proportionate for these defendants to remain in detention without the trigger man being identified and without the connections of the actual trigger man, if any, with other defendants being revealed.”

IMPORTANT DECISIONS

Along with these releases, the Court also made the following very remarkable interim decisions:

- That all camera recordings of the late Hablemitoğlu's conference at the Association for Supporting Contemporary Life (ADD) in Eskişehir on December 14, 2002, be requested immediately from the Ankara Counter-Terrorism Department...

- That after these images arrive, they be compared with the camera footage from the Migros market that Hablemitoğlu visited on the day he was killed, and that a report be requested as to whether these individuals were among those who attended the conference, considering that two men aged 25-35, one slightly shorter than the other, walking together with a shopping cart in Migros could be the individuals following Hablemitoğlu...

- If it is understood as a result of this report that individuals similar to those in Migros were also seen at the conference, that a letter be written to the Ministry of National Defense to send the photographs, as well as cards showing leave, medical reports, and the units they worked in, of majors and lower-ranking officers and non-commissioned officers serving in the Special Forces Command MAK Regiment as of December 18, 2002...

- Since it is understood that the perpetrator who pulled the trigger may not be the defendant Tarkan Mumcuoğlu, that a criminal complaint be filed with the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office regarding the identification of who the actual perpetrator who pulled the trigger was and their relationship with the defendants in the file and other persons, if any...

These interim decisions, consisting of 60 items in total, were essentially like starting the investigation from scratch.

THE PROSECUTOR STAYED, THE PRESIDING JUDGE LEFT

Let us also note this detail:

During the first week of the hearings, the Court Prosecutor took the stand. But then something happened that is not seen in our judicial system: Prosecutor Zafer Ergün, who prepared the indictment, took the seat. We mentioned some of the accusations directed at Ergün during the hearings above. The defense lawyers requested that a criminal complaint be filed against Ergün for “violating the confidentiality of the investigation.” The prosecutor also objected to the releases, but this objection was rejected.

Let us describe the July part of the case. The hearing was adjourned when Ersan Barkın, the lawyer for the Hablemitoğlu family, requested the recusal of the judge.

The first reason for Attorney Barkın's objection to the panel was that the Court had expressed an opinion through the releases, and that this meant acquittal, not release.

The second reason was the interim decisions we mentioned above. According to Attorney Barkın, who asked, “Have these not been requested and examined until today?” the conclusion to be drawn from this was that the State practically knew the names and identities of the killers.

And what was the result? Just one week after this development, the duty locations of the Court's President and one member were changed!..

WHERE DID THE IMAGES COME FROM?

Let us come to the fate of those interim decisions.

On May 22, the Court requested the images of the late Hablemitoğlu's conference in Eskişehir from the Ankara Counter-Terrorism Department. When no response came, a second letter was written on August 1. In the response given two days later, it was suggested that “the images be requested from the 2004 investigation file of the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office.”

So, these images were in the investigation file created after the murder. Well, had Prosecutor Zafer Ergün, who conducted the final investigation and prepared the indictment, never looked at the first file? His request for the images in question in his opinion at the hearing in May, when those interim decisions were taken, was enough to show that he had not looked at it!..

WHY IS EVERYONE PLAYING DEAD?

As of last week, the trial continued with the new panel. Indictment Prosecutor Zafer Ergün took the seat again.

We are talking about a historic murder and a historic case. Last year, the “perpetrators” had been definitively found; but now, new “perpetrators” are being sought.

While this is the situation, neither the media nor the politicians care. The witnesses heard in the hearings are making very striking new allegations, and it is claimed that the evidence in the 2004 investigation was practically evaporated; but for some reason, everyone is playing dead. Hablemitoğlu's wife, Şengül Hablemitoğlu, and her lawyer, Ersan Barkın, are justifiably rebelling against this indifference.

At Friday's hearing, Attorney Barkın also reacted to the failure to implement the interim decisions, saying, “These decisions are looking for a killer from the Special Forces Command. If I were the Chief of General Staff and read this, I would jump. It is grave if it is true, and it is grave if it is false.”

The new Court President's response was also interesting; he used expressions such as, “There were interim decisions by the panel before us... Such things were done... 21 years have passed; we are doing our best.”

IS THE GOAL TO DRAG OUT THE CASE?

Now let us report the fate of one more of those important decisions.

You know how the Court decided to “file a criminal complaint with the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office to identify who the actual perpetrator who pulled the trigger was,” based on the fact that “the defendant Tarkan Mumcuoğlu might not be the perpetrator who pulled the trigger”; the result of this came three days before the hearing started.

The Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, stating that the trial “should be conducted in line with the evidence identified in the indictment regarding the defendants and the evidence to be identified during the trial,” evaluated the criminal complaint in question as follows:

“It is understood that while the trial of the defendants is still ongoing and the evidence from the investigation stage is being collected during the court stage, a criminal complaint has been filed in a way that will drag out the case subject to trial by stating that there may be other persons who may have been involved in the incident.”

Then, stating that “in accordance with the principle of ex officio investigation, if new suspects are identified along with new evidence, a criminal complaint should be filed with our Chief Public Prosecutor's Office with a decision to be given when necessary,” it was decided that there was “no room for prosecution.”

Let us content ourselves with asking, “If there is a suspicion of dragging out the investigation, will a criminal complaint be filed against the previous panel?” and let us draw attention to the signature at the bottom of this decision.

The signature of Prosecutor Zafer Ergün, the prosecutor of the indictment and the case, is at the bottom of the decision.

Who would say, “My buttermilk is sour.”!?..

The case will continue tomorrow. Looking at this picture, we may see new surprise decisions!..