The prosecutor deceived the court so effectively!...

In our article yesterday, we stated that two pieces of evidence would resolve whether the defendants currently on trial actually carried out the Hablemitoğlu assassination.

One of the pieces of evidence: The HTS records of the defendants from 2002. For more than a year, the expert report regarding these records has been awaited.

The second piece of evidence is the footage of the conference Hablemitoğlu gave at the Atatürkist Thought Association in Eskişehir 4 days before he was murdered. The importance and significance of this footage are as follows:

It will be examined whether two individuals suspected of following Hablemitoğlu at the Migros he visited on the day he was murdered were also present at the conference in Eskişehir, and whether they are among the defendants on trial.

Let us summarize the developments regarding the Eskişehir footage chronologically:

At the hearing last May, Zafer Ergün, who prepared the indictment for the case and also appeared in court as the prosecutor, requested an investigation into whether this footage was at the Ankara Counter-Terrorism (TEM) department, and if so, that it be brought in to be compared with other video recordings in the case file. On May 22, the court wrote to the Police Department and asked about the footage.

The Police did not respond at first. Upon the court's second letter on August 1, they stated: "The footage in question should be requested from the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office's investigation file numbered 2004/121619."

It seems the Eskişehir footage was in the investigation file prepared after the murder. If so, Prosecutor Zafer Ergün, who conducted the final investigation and prepared this indictment, must have never looked at the first file, as he had requested that the footage be brought in.

When the footage did not arrive during the hearings held last December, Hablemitoğlu Family Lawyer Ersan Barkın requested that a letter be written to the Police and the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office to have the footage brought in, while Prosecutor Zafer Ergün submitted an opinion that the footage should only be requested from the Counter-Terrorism department. The court then decided to request it from both the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office and the Counter-Terrorism department.

Following that decision, before the hearing held between March 4-8, the Counter-Terrorism department informed the court that "the footage could not be accessed because their archives were flooded during the July 15 coup attempt."

Upon this, we said, "Since the Police could not find this evidence, which is extremely important for clarifying the murder, the last hope is the Prosecutor's Office... Let's see if it will turn up inside the files there?!"

AND IT EMERGED FROM THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE FILE

On March 8, the last day of the hearings, the following occurred:

The defendants and their lawyers were asked for their comments on witness statements and incoming documents, and their requests were taken. After the statement by the Hablemitoğlu Family's lawyer, Ersan Barkın, who spoke first, Prosecutor Zafer Ergün requested a recess, citing the need to check some items from the judicial repository to submit his opinion. After the recess, Prosecutor Ergün announced that the footage of Hablemitoğlu's conference in Eskişehir was in the Judicial Repository.

Upon this, Ali Soykan, the lawyer for defendant Levent Göktaş, reacted as follows:

"The Prosecutor himself said that the Eskişehir conference footage was recorded in the Judicial Repository in 2018. In other words, he had it recorded himself. But he himself requested that this footage be brought from the Police. The Police first said, 'Request it from the Prosecutor's Office,' then reported that this footage was swept away in a flood on July 15. Since it was recorded in 2018, it means it could not have been swept away in a flood in 2016. This means the file is being manipulated by a clique within the Police. A criminal complaint should be filed against these officials who provided false statements."

At the end of the hearing, Prosecutor Zafer Ergün submitted an opinion for the footage in the Judicial Repository to be brought into the case file. The court also decided to have them brought in.

IT TURNS OUT HE HAD TAKEN IT A DAY EARLIER

Now let us come to the scandals that took place behind the scenes of this process.

Do you know what Prosecutor Zafer Ergün actually did while requesting the footage from the Court at the hearing on March 8?

He had taken this footage from the Judicial Repository a day earlier. Not just that, he had requested and examined "1 USB drive, numerous DVDs, 78 floppy disks, 32 video recordings, 1 photograph, 1 composite sketch, 11 CDs, 3 hard drives, 6 computer floppy disks, 1 hard drive card," all sealed, via an official letter.

Then, on March 8, while acting as he did in court, he returned them to the Judicial Repository with an opening-closing report signed by himself and the court clerk, stating, "No items were taken into custody, all items were returned complete."

Let us look at the actions taken by the Court, which was unaware of all these developments, in accordance with its interim decision.

The court requested the footage from the Judicial Repository with a letter dated March 12.

The Prosecutor responsible for the Judicial Repository gave the following response on March 14:

"It has been determined that the items in custody you requested for examination were sent to the Ankara Terror Crimes Investigation Bureau on March 8, and I submit for your information that the items in question should be requested from the Terror Crimes Investigation Bureau without involving our office as an intermediary."

It appears that; contrary to what Prosecutor Zafer Ergün stated in the opening-closing report, the footage and other items were not returned on March 8.

Indeed, the Judicial Repository only fulfilled the Court's request on March 22 and sent the footage.

HE EVEN CHANGED THE NAME OF THE CASE

There is another very important detail in the letter Prosecutor Zafer Ergün wrote to obtain this evidence from the Judicial Repository.

He requested that evidence by saying, "Within the scope of the investigation conducted by our Chief Public Prosecutor's Office into the FETÖ/PDY armed terrorist organization" and providing the number of the 2004 investigation file.

WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN?

After identifying these developments, let us read from the petition of Lawyer Ali Soykan, who applied to the Court:

"It is understood that Public Prosecutor Zafer Ergün, who prepared the indictment that is the basis of the case continuing in your court, whose indictment was accepted, in other words, whose investigation has concluded, obtained the judicial items from the Repository Directorate by misleading judicial authorities by changing the name of the Hablemitoğlu investigation, stating that the 2004 investigation is still ongoing and that the investigation is directed at the FETÖ/PDY armed terrorist organization, and that he opened their seals and examined them. At this point, it is legally impossible for the Prosecutor to examine them alone while hiding this situation from the court and the defense, and there is no explanation for this under the legislation."

Continuing his petition, Lawyer Soykan explained that Prosecutor Zafer Ergün "ignored even official documents because they were favorable evidence, that it is understood from witness Zihni Çakır's statement that he violated the confidentiality of the investigation, that there are allegations that he is a Bylock user, and that it has emerged that he did not include some statements of witnesses in the record," and stated, "The presence of the Prosecutor in the Hablemitoğlu case, which holds an important place in public opinion, has reached a dimension that harms the trial." He requested that the Court draw up a report regarding the fact that Prosecutor Ergün's obtaining and examining the evidence from the Judicial Repository clearly constitutes a crime, and that a criminal complaint be filed with the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office.

Do you see what has become of this important case, which Erdoğan said was "proof of their determination to clarify unsolved murders" and which the pro-government media presented with the air of "the Hablemitoğlu assassination has been solved"?!