Another Oddity in the Coup Trials: Former Diyanet President Mehmet Görmez Could Not Be Found!...

What we know about the beginning of the July 15 coup attempt can be summarized as follows:

Pilot O.K., who was serving at the Army Aviation Command, went to the MIT (National Intelligence Organization) and stated that an operation would be carried out against the MIT that night and that Undersecretary Hakan Fidan would be abducted. While the officials placed a listening device on O.K. and sent him back to the Army Aviation Command, first the Deputy Undersecretary of the MIT and then Undersecretary Hakan Fidan went to the General Staff to report the tip-off. The Chief of General Staff at the time, Hulusi Akar, sent Land Forces Commander General Salih Zeki Çolak, along with Chief of Staff İhsan Uyar, to the Army Aviation Command to check if there was any activity there, while Hakan Fidan, having left the General Staff, returned to the MIT and the then Diyanet President Mehmet Görmez had dinner with the former President of the Syrian National Coalition, Moaz al-Khatib. Meanwhile, a delegation that went to the Army Aviation Command, which the current Chief of General Staff Metin Gürak also joined later, reported that there was no abnormality and left the premises. However, immediately afterward, helicopters taking off from the Army Aviation Command bombed Ankara and the MIT headquarters.

Coming to the present day, we have learned that; the 17th High Criminal Court, which heard the Army Aviation Command case, after sentencing the defendants, filed a criminal complaint regarding activities directed at the MIT, and following this, in 2019; a separate indictment was prepared against 13 suspects on charges of "depriving Hakan Fidan of his liberty and damaging public property." The then-Undersecretary of the MIT, Hakan Fidan, also filed a complaint.

The indictment in question was first sent to the Criminal Court of First Instance, but after it issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction, it was decided that the 14th High Criminal Court should hear the case. Following that indictment, which had never been brought to the agenda until today, a case was opened quietly. The trial, in which Hakan Fidan and the MIT Undersecretariat are the complainants, began on December 1, 2021, and a total of 7 hearings have been held to date.

In the sessions in question, upon the request of the defendants, “that he had a meeting with Hakan Fidan around 22:00 and had information regarding the helicopter fire” it was reported that Mehmet Görmez’s testimony as a witness was accepted, and it was decided to issue a notification to his address.

I observed the 8th session of this trial yesterday. In the case heard in the courtroom within the Sincan Prison campus, in addition to the defendants and their lawyers, the lawyer for Minister of Foreign Affairs Hakan Fidan was also present.

DID FİDAN SEND HIS FAMILY OUT OF ANKARA ON JULY 14?

The presiding judge gave the floor to the defendants after announcing that the expert report regarding the footage of the events that took place in the MIT region on July 15-16 had been added to the file.

Defendant İlkay Ateş stated that the report lacked an assessment regarding how accurately the camera footage reflected reality, adding: “The footage I requested has not arrived. If it is claimed that the first shot was fired at 22:30 and continued until morning, all the footage should be provided. The MIT has destroyed evidence.” he said.

When the presiding judge noted that a pilot had examined the footage, Ateş continued as follows:

“There is talk of 20-millimeter ammunition being fired. Does the TSK have any helicopters capable of firing this ammunition? For example, Cougars could do it, but there is no finding regarding this. As for attack helicopters, there are Atak and Cobra models. Such an assessment cannot be made based on a helicopter that does not even appear as a silhouette in the footage. I believe this report was prepared using information taken from the internet. There was also a report in the 17th High Criminal Court. When we evaluate both together, the last shot appears to have been fired at 05:28. This has nothing to do with the MIT. It passed by from a distance. It is clearly a Sikorsky. They say it started at 22:30; however, there is only 15-20 seconds of footage from 23:45 here. I don't think we can reach much of a conclusion with this report. Some footage lacks a time and date. Who removed these and why?”

Defendants Murat Bolat, Zafer Dolu, and Ümit Alper, argued that they had proven they had nothing to do with the events at the MIT during the main Army Aviation case, while the then-Army Aviation School Commander Ünsal Coşkun stated that the report sent by the MIT to the TBMM indicated the first shot was fired at 22:38, whereas the Army Aviation indictment contained information that the first helicopter took off at 22:52. Özcan Karaca also explained the following:

“This case was wrongly constructed from the beginning. Your level of knowledge is not sufficient to conclude this. You do not recognize the types of helicopters. We say there is an expert report. When one says 'whiskey,' some might think of a drink. A 'Whiskey' is a twin-engine helicopter; it is impossible to identify it. If they say Atak, there are no Atak pilots among the defendants. There is only a silhouette of a Sikorsky, and there is no Sikorsky pilot here either. For Hakan Fidan to be deprived of his liberty, someone would have to land from the air and open fire continuously, and someone else would have to hold him. Who could have held him? By what means were Hakan Fidan and Mehmet Görmez—whose address will likely remain unfound—deprived of their liberty? There are missing people in this case, and if there are any, they are the wrong people. There should be a team that descends by rope, is armed, and wears masks. Come on, let's give up on this matter without dragging it out any further.”

Defense attorney Ayşe Süeda Ünal pointed out that the helicopters identified as having opened fire appear to be different, and that it has not been determined which defendant used which helicopter at what time, while Attorney Ayten İzmirli stated the following:

“Which specific action by which defendant caused harm to the complainant Hakan Fidan? The trial cannot be concluded without him appearing. MIT Undersecretary İbrahim Kalın also appears as a complainant. Both names must absolutely attend. Hakan Fidan must point out, ‘This defendant obstructed my freedom.’ There are many questions to be asked. For example, if Hakan Fidan were to come, I would ask, ‘Why did you send your wife and children out of Ankara on July 14? Did you know something?’ Furthermore, the original, unedited versions of the footage must be added to the case file.”

When Fidan’s lawyer stated that the expert report had not been served to them, the Presiding Judge had the file checked and, upon learning that it had only been sent to the defendants and their lawyers, said, “Get a printout, it’s only a few pages anyway.”

The Curious Reason for Not Summoning Fidan

The Presiding Judge, regarding the rejection of the request to hear Fidan, “It was rejected because they did not directly meet or encounter the defendants.” provided the explanation.

Upon this, a defendant asked, “Did people who never saw each other commit this crime?” The presiding judge replied, “We will evaluate that during the decision phase. The prosecutor will present a sound justification.”

Whistleblower O.K. and Secret Witness Abdullah Code

Following the statements of the defendants, the court proceeded to hear the witnesses, all of whom had been sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment in the Army Aviation case.

Former Major Deniz Aldemir, whom O.K. claimed had told him about the operation targeting the MIT, was the first to be heard. Arguing that he learned of O.K.’s statements from the press, Aldemir said, “He was my personnel. He was a troubled individual. What he says is absolutely not true. If it were, I would already be a defendant in this case.” he stated.

Defendant İlkay Ateş also claimed that they wanted O.K. to be heard, but that his name no longer even appears in any MIT documents and his whereabouts are unknown, while Deniz Aldemir explained the following:

“Things proceeded based on O.K.'s testimony. I requested that he be heard as a witness at the Court of Cassation, but he is under protection for reasons I do not know. We could not get Hulusi Akar and Salih Zeki Çolak to appear either. I believe O.K. is being used by a focus I am unaware of. If a coup was going to happen, why did MIT, which saw him for the first time, put a device on him and send him? When Salih Zeki Çolak arrived at the Army Aviation Command, he knew the names O.K. had provided. Why did he do nothing to stop it? They trusted O.K., but they did not take action. This means someone wanted it to happen this way. I did not trust O.K. because he is someone who lies very easily when he is cornered. We went to the USA together. Especially in terms of morality, by renting houses with men and women... I don't want to say it openly. He was someone with certain weaknesses. I sat him down and talked to him, saying, 'You are married, the state sent us, we have responsibilities.' The carrot-and-stick approach works very well on him.”

One of the witnesses, former Colonel Oğuz Yalçın, stated that he was at a wedding on the night of July 15, and that he went to the barracks after being informed that Salih Zeki Çolak had come to the Army Aviation Command and requested a plane for Hulusi Akar's flight to İzmir, and that he had called all personnel, continuing as follows:

“I learned later that this was a fake order. The ones who did this are Hulusi Akar and Salih Zeki Çolak. I went because we had never witnessed our commanders deceiving us or seen them give a fake order. This fake flight order is what started the incident. What a coincidence, everyone including O.K. left the barracks at 22:00, only we remained. Call these two names and ask them whether they gave a fake order or not. O.K. was someone who had been working with MIT for a long time. Unless he comes here and repeats what he said, his statements cannot be credited. A person who makes such a claim must come and explain it. You are not calling him as a witness either.”

In response to this, the Presiding Judge said, “According to the letter from the Prosecutor's Office, there is no investigation or case opened against O.K.” he said.

Upon a question from defendant İlkay Ateş, Oğuz Yalçın said the following regarding the secret witness codenamed Abdullah:

“Some time after July 15, I was taken from Sincan to the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor and the unauthorized secret witness Abdullah were there. There were also two plainclothes police officers. We sat down. The prosecutor and Abdullah spoke of a prepared statement, similar to a testimony, and offered that if I recounted these things, my family and I would be taken abroad. I did not accept. The prosecutor and the police joked among themselves, asking, ‘How much torture can Oğuz withstand?’ I told this in court as well. When Abdullah was heard as a witness, he said, ‘Yes, I was there,’ and did not deny it. Abdullah is one of those who calls me a ‘FETÖ member.’ The same Abdullah also calls Hulusi Akar a ‘FETÖ member’; however, while what he says about me is accepted, what he says about Akar is not. The names of O.K. and Abdullah must absolutely be mentioned in this case.”

WHAT DID THE COMMANDER ASK THAT NIGHT?

The last witness heard, the former captain who was the company commander of the attack helicopters, Taha Fatih Çelik, also responded to İlkay Ateş’s question, “What did Land Forces Commander Salih Zeki Çolak ask when he arrived on the night of July 15?” with the following claims:

“When I was taken to Ankara on February 7, 2017, this was the issue the prosecutor was most curious about. Because of Çolak’s contradictory statements, they were also hesitant. Metin Gürak, İhsan Uyar, Hakan Atınç, and Ünsal Coşkun were with Çolak. They sat in a way that they could see the hangar and asked, ‘Can our attack helicopters catch the President’s helicopter while escorting it?’ Army Aviation Commander Hakan Atınç did not answer, probably because he did not know. I said, ‘It can catch it if the fuel and ammunition are low,’ and I even recounted an incident in Van regarding how we caught the President’s helicopter. Then he said, ‘Let’s also demonstrate how these attack helicopters fire in residential areas.’ They are all witnesses to this. The prosecutor was also curious about this, but it did not make it into the indictment.”

GÖRMEZ COULD NOT BE FOUND AND THE DECISION TO HEAR HIM WAS ABANDONED

Following the completion of witness testimonies, the Presiding Judge announced that one witness could not be reached and that the notifications had been returned, asking, "What was his name, Mehmet?" before requesting the Prosecutor's opinion.

The Prosecutor requested that the hearing of Mehmet Görmez be waived and that the case file be handed over to him to prepare the final opinion on the merits.

The Presiding Judge stated that, given 2.5 years had passed since the start of the case and considering the current stage of the proceedings, the requests to hear witnesses were intended to delay the trial, and subsequently decided to refer the file to the Prosecutor for the final opinion. The Judge noted that the Prosecutor would submit his opinion between sessions, and while scheduling the final defense of the defendants for the hearing on April 29-30, he added, "If we can finish in two days, the verdict could be announced."