Defendants in bungalow hidden camera scandal appear in court for the first time: Here are their testimonies
The business owner and his friend, who were arrested in connection with a hidden camera scandal at a bungalow in the Sapanca district of Sakarya, have appeared in court for the first time. The court panel decided to address missing procedural matters and adjourned the hearing, while the defendants claimed they had no knowledge of how the hidden camera inside the light bulb ended up in the bungalow. A brief tension between the defendants' relatives and the complainants following the hearing was resolved by police intervention.
In the incident that occurred on March 30, the Kozan family, who rented a bungalow in the Sapanca district of Sakarya from Istanbul, discovered a hidden camera concealed inside a light bulb that had a full view of the structure's bedroom and jacuzzi area.
The family went to the police and filed a complaint. Following the report, teams launched an investigation and detained the business owner, Hüseyin K. (31), and his friend, Tansel S. (48).
The two suspects were arrested and sent to prison after giving their statements. The indictment prepared regarding the incident and accepted by the Sapanca Criminal Court of First Instance requests that both individuals be sentenced to between 1.5 and 4.5 years in prison for the crime of 'violating the privacy of private life'.
DEFENDANTS APPEAR IN COURT FOR THE FIRST TIME
The defendants appeared in court for the first time in the case heard at the Sapanca Criminal Court of First Instance. While the complainants, party attorneys, and detained defendant Hüseyin K. were present in the courtroom, the other detained defendant, Tansel S., participated via SEGBİS from the prison where he is being held. In the hearing, which began after identity verification and the recording of incoming documents, detained defendant Hüseyin K. gave his defense first. Due to the SEGBİS system repeatedly shutting down during the defenses due to technical issues, the court panel decided to have the detained defendant Tansel S. brought to the courtroom and took a 2-hour break in the case. In the hearing that continued after the break, the detained defendants gave their defenses, and the complainants filed their complaints.

"I SAW NO DIFFERENCE, I PUT IT IN THE STORAGE"
Giving his defense in his first hearing, detained defendant Hüseyin K. said, "I reiterate the statements I gave during the investigation. On the day of the incident, while I was dealing with those in the other bungalows, the detained defendant Tansel was dealing with the complainants in the other bungalow. On the day of the incident, March 29, I had settled non-case customers into the bungalow and left. It was Tansel who welcomed the complainants and settled them into the bungalow. I contacted the complainants for the reservation. I received part of the bungalow fee, as I recall 16 thousand liras, from Mesut Kozan, and Tansel received the other part because he was dealing with the check-in. Before the complainants arrived, I found the light bulb with the camera on March 7 and sent a photo of it, asking what it was; I don't remember what he wrote back to me. It didn't occur to me to say this during the investigation. I didn't see any difference between this camera-equipped bulb and the other bulbs, so I put it in the storage. This bulb was sitting on the table in the bungalow. I don't know how this bulb was installed from the storage into the fixture above the jacuzzi in the bungalow."
When asked by the court panel about his conversations regarding the camera-equipped bulb with a person named R.Z., defendant Hüseyin K. replied, "I don't know anyone named R.Z. These messages are not mine; I don't even have a person named R.Z. saved in my contacts." 
"I THOUGHT IT WAS LIKE THE OTHER BULBS"
Detained defendant Hüseyin K. stated, "Tansel would occasionally come to help me at the bungalow. We would clean together and deal with customers. When there were problems with the heating, he would deal with the boiler and electricity. The programs detected on my phone are programs I use for the external security of my facility. They are programs I installed so I could watch the external camera footage. I did not watch or transfer footage from the bulb in question. I thought the bulb in question was like the other bulbs; I thought it might belong to Tansel. I am a victim; I want the culprit to be revealed more than anyone. I request my release."
"I DIDN'T THINK IT COULD BE A HIDDEN CAMERA"
Stating that he thought the bulb was sensor-equipped and not a bulb with a hidden camera, detained defendant Tansel S. said, "White and yellow LED bulbs in the bungalows are found in the bottom drawer of the kitchen section. I found the bulb on the dining table and put it next to the spare bulbs in the kitchen drawer. The bulb was like the other bulbs; I just thought it had a sensor underneath and that it turned on when passing under it, so I didn't pay attention. I told Hüseyin that I thought it was a sensor lamp and that I put it in the drawer. I thought this bulb was left by customers. I didn't think it could be a hidden camera. Since I had knee surgery on the date of the incident, I wasn't even in a condition to go to the second floor to install a bulb. Hüseyin asked for my help because his grandfather passed away. I had helped before. It is likely that my fingerprints are in many places, down to the gravel of the business. I stop by the bungalow 1 or 2 days a week. There were cleaning workers working in the bungalow in question, and they had been coming until 2 months before the incident. Hüseyin K. and his family dealt with the bungalows. When a bulb broke, sometimes I would change it, and sometimes Hüseyin would. Regular customers might have installed this bulb. There were no sensor bulbs like this. I put it in the drawer thinking either Hüseyin or the customers put it there. It is strange to me that Hüseyin sent me the picture of the bulb and that his fingerprints didn't appear, but mine did. Hüseyin wasn't there when I settled the complainants into the bungalow. I might have done the cleaning before the complainants arrived; I don't remember, we might have done it together. When Hüseyin's grandfather died, he was going back and forth to Istanbul; I dealt with things during that period. I didn't get involved in reservations. I only dealt with cleaning and welcomes. I don't run this place; I was coming to help. I request my acquittal."
"I SAW A RED LIGHT"
Complainant Mesut Kozan said, "I made a reservation with Hüseyin K. through a friend on March 9. On March 9, I made a payment of 15 thousand liras to Hüseyin K. On March 29, I went to the bungalow with my wife and daughter. We checked into the bungalow around 15:30, and Tansel S. welcomed us. He said he was a partner in the bungalow and that 33 thousand liras needed to be paid. I sent this money to Tansel S.'s account, and he showed us the bungalow. We ate at the bungalow, and later my wife and I went upstairs. We experienced what married people experience. While lying down around 01:30, I saw a red light in the middle of the 3 lamps located above the jacuzzi. I climbed onto the jacuzzi, and the light was coming from around the camera inside the bulb. Then I reported the situation to law enforcement. When the police arrived, my wife said the red light had gone out, and I noticed it too. We packed up and left around 07:00 in the morning. Around 09:00, Tansel called me and said, ‘You reported us; another customer must have installed it, we could have handled it among ourselves, it's our lack of paperwork.’ I am a complainant, and I want to participate in the case," while Mesut Kozan's wife, complainant Pınar Kozan, also stated that she agreed with what her husband said and was a complainant.
The public prosecutor, expressing his opinion, requested that the missing matters be addressed and that the defendants' detention continue. The court panel decided to address the missing matters and adjourned the hearing.

TENSION AFTER THE HEARING
After the adjourned hearing, tension arose between the parties outside the courthouse building. The tension was ended by the intervention of police teams before it could turn into a potential fight. The parties got into their vehicles and left the area.
News Source: İHA
Most Read
Striking picture for Özgür Özel's 'New Party'
The PKK opening and Özgür Özel’s path!..
How did the newspapers view Özgür Özel's farewell to the CHP?
He killed his wife by slitting her throat: Their children witnessed the moments
What did the CHP do?
Özel’s new party move in the world press
Kılıçdaroğlu's first message on Özgür Özel's new party announcement
The New CHP, against CEHAPE
From self-efficacy to despair
Zeydan Karalar's decision on the New Party