Where Are the Hablemitoğlu Images That Came from the US?

Last week, we addressed a new absurdity in the trial regarding the assassination of academic and author Assoc. Prof. Dr. Necip Hablemitoğlu, which took place 22 years ago; we pointed out that the statements made in court by journalist Abdurrahman Şimşek, who was heard as a witness, did not match what he said in an interview he conducted with one of the defendants, Nuri Gökhan Bozkır, in Ukraine in 2020.

Let us begin with the latest development regarding this.

Ali Soykan, the lawyer for one of the defendants, retired Colonel Levent Göktaş, filed a criminal complaint with the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office last Thursday. Presenting the SEGBİS transcript of Şimşek's testimony in court and the footage of his interview with Nuri Gökhan Bozkır, Attorney Soykan requested that an investigation be launched and a lawsuit be filed against Abdurrahman Şimşek on charges of "giving false testimony, violating the confidentiality of the investigation, and attempting to influence the court."

They Searched for the Footage in Their Possession for 7 Years (!)

There was an issue regarding footage in the Hablemitoğlu assassination case that we have brought to the agenda many times before. Let us briefly recall it.

This subject, which would determine the course and even the outcome of the case, concerned the footage from a conference titled "The Threat of Reactionism and Turkey" that Hablemitoğlu gave in Eskişehir on December 14, 2002, four days before he was killed, and from the Migros store where he shopped just before he was murdered on December 18. In accordance with the court's decision, these two sets of footage were to be compared to investigate whether the two individuals thought to have followed Hablemitoğlu at Migros were also present at the Eskişehir conference, and to check for similarities between these individuals and the defendants being tried in the case.

The Migros footage existed, but the Eskişehir footage did not. This led to correspondence with the Ankara Police Department. The police first said, "Ask the Prosecutor's Office"... Then, they reported that "the police archive was flooded on July 15"... Ultimately, it emerged that the footage was in the courthouse evidence locker, and furthermore, that the indictment and trial prosecutor, Zafer Ergün, had taken them from the evidence locker before the trial, examined them, and then resealed and returned them to the locker.

In the words of a defense attorney, this action by the prosecutor was "concealment and destruction of evidence." Indeed, a criminal complaint was filed against him with the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK), and his withdrawal from the case was requested.

Returning to the footage; after the sought-after items were found and delivered to the Court, both sets of footage were given to an expert on April 4 for the necessary examination and comparison. Three months later, on July 8, the expert prepared their report and submitted it to the Court. Until that day, it was known that two people had followed Hablemitoğlu at Migros; however, the report stated that "it is thought that 3 people followed him." Additionally, "photographs of suspicious individuals thought to show physical resemblance" to these three people among those who attended the Eskişehir conference were marked. In response to the question of whether these identified individuals were among the defendants, the expert noted that "detailed facial photographs useful for comparison could not be obtained due to the distance of the individuals thought to have followed Hablemitoğlu at Migros from the camera," and recorded that "a re-examination and evaluation of all footage will be conducted if current photographs of the defendants are provided alongside those from the date of the assassination."

In the last hearing this past July, the reaction of Ersan Barkın, the lawyer for the Hablemitoğlu family, to the fact that the footage could not be found for a long time and to the expert report was as follows:

"As for the Eskişehir conference footage; this is not ordinary footage. It was filmed by the police, either officially or unofficially. Because it did not film Necip Hablemitoğlu, but the audience. If such footage existed, why was it not included in the file for 22 years? Why did the police write that it was flooded on July 15?.. Now, if it is said 'They do not resemble' when matched with the defendants' photos, will the state close this file? Until today, it was said there were two suspects at Migros, now a third suspect has appeared. Who gave the expert the information that these people were suspects? Who is the person who said the 6 people marked by the expert at the Eskişehir conference were suspects, and what is the basis for this?"

Get the News from Sabah Again

Continuing his remarks, Attorney Ersan Barkın drew attention to an article by Ferhat Ünlü from Sabah Newspaper and spoke as follows:

"Ferhat Ünlü wrote in his article that the Migros footage was blurry, but that the state sent this footage to the US to be clarified, and that the clear footage is in the file. Where is this footage? Ferhat Ünlü knows the file, but I do not. If there is clear footage, why was blurry footage given to the expert?"

To better understand what we will explain next, let us quote that article by Ferhat Ünlü. In the article titled "The First Unsolved Murder of the Millennium," written on December 22, 2019, when there was still a confidentiality order on the investigation, Ferhat Ünlü stated, "In line with the information I compiled by utilizing special information I obtained in interviews with three separate sources who have researched and investigated the Hablemitoğlu assassination in the past, as well as open sources," and explained the following:

"The camera footage of the two people who conducted physical surveillance on Hablemitoğlu before the murder was sent to the US because it was blurry. It was cleaned there and added to the file. There is infinite benefit in the prosecutor accessing this footage as well. Because this footage could provide a match with the images of Bozkır and the other person."

The Journalist Knows, Does the Prosecutor Not?

A very interesting and important claim, is it not?

Then let us look at what is and is not in the investigation file. First, let us share a record regarding the Eskişehir footage, which could only be found last March (!) and was combined with the Migros footage and sent to the expert.

In the 59th item of the "List of materials within the scope of the investigation file" dated October 19, 2018, it is stated that in the envelope numbered 17, in addition to "computer CDs containing hidden camera footage belonging to the Migros store," there were also "CD recordings of the conference Hablemitoğlu attended in Eskişehir on December 14, 2002."

So, could the Prosecutor not have seen these?

You know how the last expert stated that the Migros footage was not clear; from the records, we see that since 2017, for some reason, only the Migros footage was repeatedly sent to the Police Criminal Laboratory for examination, "the facial features and physical descriptions of the targeted individuals were clarified," and they were returned to the evidence locker. We understand this from the following statement regarding the envelope numbered 20, in the 60th item of the "list of materials":

"Migros footage, 2 video cassettes labeled as 35 improved images from 34 criminal [lab]."

Stating that these "improved images" that entered the records in 2018 were not given to the expert who conducted the final examination, and furthermore, that they were not among the materials the evidence locker sent to the Court on July 25, let us come to Ferhat Ünlü's claim that the footage in question was sent to the US, cleaned there, and added to the file.

There is also a Police report dated July 26, 2017, in the investigation file. Article 9 of the report states exactly the following:

"In the research conducted upon the instruction to deliver the footage belonging to the business named Migros, where Necip Hablemitoğlu shopped before he died, to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office for examination; it is understood that the footage belonging to the business named Migros was sent to the US for examination on the date of the incident, but that the CD with 'Hablemitoğlu (copy) Philips Video Timelapse DCFL03-I00291B' written on it was found within the current investigation file in our directorate, that the footage belonging to the business named Migros was found inside the CD, and that the photographs belonging to the footage were found inside the CD envelope with 'Migros footage 120 photographs (improved images from the US)' written on it; the aforementioned CDs (2 pieces) are presented in the attachment for examination."

So, Ferhat Ünlü's claim was true; that final footage of Hablemitoğlu was sent to the US, improved, and returned in the form of exactly 120 photographs.

But hold on; this footage, which the Police presented as 2 CDs, did not enter the evidence locker records, and therefore, it is not in the Court either!..

For now, let us suffice with asking, "Why did these improved images from the US not enter the records, and where are they now?" and end with another section from that article by Ferhat Ünlü.

"I hope the investigation does not share the same fate as any of the old investigations that have turned into a labyrinth over 17 years, or rather, have been turned into one. With the self-confidence that they will not be caught... the murderers who have walked around freely for years and the decision-makers of the murder will also be caught and held accountable," he had wished.

Unfortunately, as we can see, first the investigation and then the trial have been turned into a complete labyrinth!..