Witness crisis in the Hablemitoğlu assassination trial: The 'Hasan Doğan' claim

Müyesser YILDIZ- 12punto.com.tr /EXCLUSIVE

In the case regarding the assassination of Assoc. Prof. Dr. Necip Hablemitoğlu, which took place 22 years ago, a witness crisis occurred. Kemalettin Özdemir, the former 'police imam' who was scheduled to be heard as a witness today, did not appear in court, while two other witnesses could not be heard because their addresses could not be located. As the testimony of former Health Minister Halil Şıvgın could not be taken due to his poor health, his previous statements to the prosecutor's office were read aloud, prompting the Hablemitoğlu family's lawyer, Ersan Barkın,to state: “Halil Şıvgın had no health issues when he was first summoned to court. I wish his testimony had been taken at that time. Kemalettin Özdemir's testimony could not be taken either. Later, they reach a state where they cannot be heard. Please show some sensitivity.” he said.

One of the defendants, Enver Altaylı, meanwhile, claimed that HalilŞıvgın wanted to become the MİT Undersecretary and that he had sent a reference letter he received from two generals to the then-Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, Hasan Doğan, for this purpose.alleged that he sent it to.

At the beginning of today's session of the trial held at the Ankara 28th High Criminal Court, the Presiding Judge stated that they wanted to conclude the hearing today rather than adjourning it until tomorrow, while “There are no witnesses or anything. We have not been able to examine the expert report regarding the HTS records; we need to look at it comprehensively. It would be better if we evaluated it at the next session.” he said.

'DID EVERYONE FIND TODAY TO GET SICK'

Of the witnesses scheduled to be heard today, only S.A., who was a security guard at the U.S. Embassy during the time of the assassination and was on patrol in the area, appeared, while it was reported that the addresses of the other two security guards could not be located.

Witness S.A. stated that he did not hear any gunshots or see any suspicious vehicles during the assassination, and that upon hearing numerous ambulance sirens, he thought, “Did everyone find today to get sick?” he explained, describing what he thought.

When S.A. stated that while they were in the area, his friend was eating pizza in the car and he was reading a newspaper, the Presiding Judge remarked, "You are conducting surveillance there. One person is eating pizza, and you are reading a newspaper. What kind of surveillance is this?" he said.

After the witness's testimony was completed, the Judge stated that they had observed that Halil Şıvgın, whose home they had visited, was in no condition to testify, and proceeded to read the statements he had given to the prosecutor's office in 2016 and 2022. Once the reading of the statements concluded, the Hablemitoğlu family's lawyer Ersan Barkın reacted as follows:

'HE WAS A DIRTY MAN'

"Halil Şıvgın had no health problems when he was first summoned to court. I wish his testimony had been taken at that time. Kemalettin Özdemir's testimony could not be taken either. Then they reach a state where they cannot be questioned. I ask for more sensitivity to be shown."

Enver Altaylı, who denied the statements made against him by Halil Şıvgın, stated the following:

"It is a lie and slander from beginning to end. I wish he would come and look me in the eye. Enver Altaylı, who wanted to meet with Necip Hablemitoğlu, would not need Halil Şıvgın's mediation. He is lying from A to Z. I never knew or met Ramazan Toprak or Necip Hablemitoğlu. Halil Şıvgın said these things so that the filth would not rub off on him. He was a dirty man. I cut off contact with him after learning this."

DEFENDANT GÖKTAŞ CLAIMS POLICE OFFICERS MONITORING HABLEMİTOĞLU WERE FETÖ MEMBERS

Altaylı also alleged that Halil Şıvgın wanted to become the MİT Undersecretary and, for this purpose, had two generals serving at the Air Force Foundation write a reference letter, which he then sent to Hasan Doğan, the Chief of Staff to the then-Prime Minister Erdoğan.

In the afternoon session of the hearing, the statements of the parties and the prosecutor's opinion were heard. Prosecutor Zafer Ergün requested that Kemalettin Özdemir be heard in person in court with the participation of the parties, that Nuri Gökhan Bozkır's detention continue, and that the travel ban for the other defendants remain in effect.

Defendant Levent Göktaş claimed that the individuals identified as suspects by the expert witness at the late Hablemitoğlu's conference in Eskişehir were FETÖ-affiliated police officers.

Defendant Enver Altaylı recalled the claim that Hablemitoğlu was killed because he wanted to become the MİT Undersecretary and requested that Hasan Doğan, the Chief of Staff to Erdoğan, be heard as a witness regarding Halil Şıvgın's request for the MİT Undersecretariat.

"THE ELEPHANTS ARE FIGHTING, AND I AM BEING CRUSHED"

Defendant Nuri Gökhan Bozkır stated the following in summary:

“This is a murder trial. It cannot be handled with nonsense or hearsay. What concrete evidence does the honorable prosecutor have? There are people like Abdurrahman Şimşek, who writes fake news and never left Zekeriya Öz’s office, and others who manipulate everything. I want justice. I know why I am here. The elephants are fighting, and I am the one being crushed here. They showed me fake Migros photos at the police station as well. I told them to look at the police officers of that period. I told the prosecutor, ‘Let me bring my photo from 2002.’ He said, ‘I already have it.’”

Enes Taner, one of the lawyers for defendant Tarkan Mumcuoğlu, made the following ironic remark while requesting the removal of his client's judicial control measures:

“We have proven with concrete evidence that the client was in Kazakhstan on the date of the assassination. The reason he is still a defendant here, given the current state of evidence, is these absurd accusations. He is flying without a passport, he is fleeing. He is in two places at the same time. Judicial control is of no use for someone like this.”

Upon these words, the presiding judge warned, “It would be better if you did not use irony.”

Tarkan Mumcuoğlu’s other lawyer, Eren Turan, emphasized that the irony used by Enes Taner was a clear reflection of the indictment, and pointed out that what journalist Ferhat Ünlü wrote while there was a confidentiality order on the investigation was reflected verbatim in the indictment.

THEY REJECTED THE PROSECUTOR

Lawyer Eren Turan also made the following reminders in response to the remarks made by Ersan Barkın, the lawyer for the Hablemitoğlu family, regarding the decisions taken by the previous panel:

"They recused the panel and filed a criminal complaint because of these interim decisions. Moreover, when those decisions were made, we did not have the expert reports we have today. The court had requested that a criminal complaint be filed with the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office with the finding that there might be other perpetrators. However, the prosecutor issued a decision of non-prosecution for this matter at jet speed within 15 days. We want this non-prosecution decision to be overturned. The court is currently only focusing on the Special Forces Command. Let it focus there, but why are we not investigating the police as well? We have currently exceeded the boundaries of the indictment; we are conducting an investigation within a prosecution. We believe a great injustice was done to the panel before you. We saw that while the Prosecutor's Office had the Eskişehir footage in its possession, they sent letters frantically here and there. How do we know that this footage has not been tampered with? There is no benefit in the Prosecutor continuing in this case as the trial prosecutor. He is making his requests not on behalf of the public, but to stand behind the indictment he wrote."

Defendant Levent Göktaş's lawyer, Ali Soykan, explained that Prosecutor Zafer Ergün, while requesting the court to bring the Eskişehir footage, had simultaneously requested and examined this footage from the Judicial Deposit through another file, and stated the following:

"We have witnessed for the first time that a Prosecutor bypassed the Court to obtain evidence, broke its seal, and examined it. Is there any guarantee that Prosecutor Zafer Ergün did not tamper with these in our absence? In our view, this is tampered evidence. For this reason, I have filed a criminal complaint against the Prosecutor with the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK). It should be asked to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office whether Prosecutor Zafer Ergün, who prepared the indictment, was assigned as a trial prosecutor in another file. Yes, there is no institution of recusal of a prosecutor in our law; but at this point, we are talking about a prosecutor who is hiding evidence. Perhaps, as Ferhat Ünlü wrote, there was clear footage, and the expert would have made a match, and the defendants would have been acquitted. The biggest obstacle to the conclusion of this case is the Prosecutor. Either he should withdraw, or whether your panel writes to the HSK or the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office; something must be done."

Emrah Yücel, one of Nuri Gökhan Bozkır's lawyers, emphasized that his client was not brought from Ukraine through legal channels and said, "The Prosecutor did not write this indictment himself; it was given to him by a certain segment, and he was asked to be their spokesperson. As of today's session, it has been seen that this indictment was prepared to prevent the real perpetrators from being revealed." Bozkır's other lawyer, Hacer Ural, also noted that it could be seen with the naked eye that the people in the footage had nothing to do with the defendants.

Enver Altaylı's lawyer, Dilara Yılmaz, said, "I wish Halil Şıvgın's testimony had been taken in time," and then stated that the statements in question contradicted not only Altaylı's statements but also those of the intervening party and other witnesses. Lawyer Yılmaz requested that Sami Uslu, Muharrem Durmaz, and Basri Aktepe, who are understood to have links to FETÖ, as mentioned in Ferhat Ünlü's article, as well as Yurt Atayün, be heard.

After the statements were completed, the panel adjourned the hearing for a decision.

REJECTION OF ALL REQUESTS

After the 2-hour break, the Presiding Judge announced that Nuri Gökhan Bozkır's detention would continue, the travel ban for other defendants would remain in effect, and the hearing was adjourned to October 30-31 and November 1.

The court, which rejected almost all requests from the plaintiff and defense attorneys on the grounds that they were "limited to the indictment," decided to request the defendants' photographs from 2002-2004 from their personnel files at the Special Forces Command and the Counter-Terrorism Department (TEM) for comparison with the suspects in the footage.

The court also accepted Kemalettin Özdemir's excuse for this session and decided to have him brought by force to the next hearing.

News Source: Müyesser Yıldız