High Tension in the Hablemitoğlu Assassination Trial… “If I Were the Chief of General Staff”

The trial regarding the assassination of academic and author Assoc. Prof. Dr. Necip Hablemitoğlu continues. 12punto reporter Müyesser Yıldız reports from the courtroom.

Don't leave your news choices to an algorithm - decide for yourself what you read. Add 12punto to your preferred sources!

High Tension in the Hablemitoğlu Assassination Trial… “If I Were the Chief of General Staff”

On the fifth day of the trial for the assassination of Assoc. Prof. Dr. Necip Hablemitoğlu, retired Chief Civil Inspector and lawyer Refik Ali Uçarcı alleged that author Ergün Poyraz was a registered informant for the police and gendarmerie.

Uçarcı stated that the claim that they pressured the late Hablemitoğlu not to publish the book Köstebek (The Mole) was entirely fabricated. Uçarcı and Ersan Barkın, the lawyer for the Hablemitoğlu family, also noted that the assassination was reported to the press almost before Hablemitoğlu was even killed.

Testifying during the 18th session of the trial held at the Ankara 28th High Criminal Court, Refik Ali Uçarcı explained how he met the late Necip Hablemitoğlu, stating that he had spoken to him once by phone and met him once in person. In summary, Uçarcı said:

“On the evening of the incident, while I was calling Hablemitoğlu to meet up over the weekend, my wife asked who I was calling. When I said I was calling Mr. Necip, she showed me the news ticker on the television. My house had a bird's-eye view of Mr. Necip's house. I immediately went out to the balcony and looked. There was no one there. I went downstairs, intending to go to his house. Remembering that I had called Mr. Necip, I turned back and called Ankara Police Chief Ercüment Yılmaz. Because the phone was not registered in my name. I explained to the Police Chief that I was the one who called, to help with the investigation, and asked him to inform the prosecutor. Meanwhile, for some reason, we became suspects; we were mentioned in books and magazines as instigators. Someone named Ergün Poyraz, who calls himself an author and knows nothing, accused me and Emin Arslan. We did not try to stoop to the same level. Emin Arslan sent him a formal notice stating that he was a police and gendarmerie informant. Wherever and with whomever Ergün Poyraz speaks, he talks about different killers and spreads fabrications.”

Following these statements by Uçarcı, the Presiding Judge reminded him, “There is no case filed against you.” Uçarcı replied, “I am not defending myself anyway.”

While answering the Presiding Judge's questions, Uçarcı spoke about Ergün Poyraz again, saying:

“The fabrications regarding Köstebek are also made by the same person. That we pressured him not to publish it. I know three people from Necip Hablemitoğlu's circle; Hüseyin Buzoğlu, Ergün Poyraz, and Osman Ak. One day, Hüseyin Buzoğlu sent a copy of the book and asked me to examine it from a legal perspective. On pages 15-20, there was a strange assessment regarding Sadettin Tantan. After that, I stopped reading the book. I saw that there was a different logic in the book. This had nothing to do with Necip Hablemitoğlu. Later, whatever they discussed among themselves, Ergün Poyraz spread the fabrication that we were trying to block this book.”

Ersan Barkın, the lawyer for the Hablemitoğlu family, drew attention to the contradictions between Uçarcı's statement given in 2003, while the event was still fresh, and his subsequent statements. Regarding Uçarcı seeing no one when he looked from the balcony, he said, “Mrs. Şengül has a similar observation. It was reported to the press almost before Necip Hablemitoğlu was killed.”

Uçarcı, while answering Lawyer Barkın's questions regarding Ergün Poyraz's allegations, used the following expressions:

“Who or what is Ergün Poyraz hiding? The answer to this question needs to be found, and an investigation must be opened against him. Ergün Poyraz is a registered informant.”

Şengül Hablemitoğlu's Outcry

After stating that she had a question but had forgotten it, the late Hablemitoğlu's wife, Şengül Hablemitoğlu, reacted by saying, “We have been listening to witnesses since Monday. You can take this as a complaint, but I am leaving here having lost my sense of curiosity. I am leaving without understanding anything.” The Presiding Judge replied to Şengül Hablemitoğlu, “Witnesses have been summoned, and we are listening to them.”

An Unrecorded Investigation?

Prosecutor Zafer Ergün, while asking questions about the contradictions in Uçarcı's statements, made these remarkable remarks:

“We are not accusing you, but if such statements are given on certain issues, everyone will tell different things. Of course, we have investigated you, we know, it didn't go on record, but... Give a clear statement without contradictions.”

In response to these words, Uçarcı asked whether they had conducted an investigation into Ergün Poyraz. After Prosecutor Ergün replied, “Everything is looked into according to the available data,” he asked questions regarding Uçarcı's 2003 HTS records of his conversations with Hablemitoğlu and Poyraz.

Lawyer Barkın: If I Were the Chief of General Staff, I Would Jump

Hablemitoğlu family lawyer Ersan Barkın, after asking Uçarcı numerous questions once again to resolve the contradictions, said the following as if in rebellion:

“We are in serious concern. I don't know for what reasons, but everyone is retracting their previous statements. I must state that the case is in a very serious deadlock. There is no need to prolong it. Every political trial ends up like this.

Now, if the hitman came out and said, ‘I did it,’ you would grant a dismissal due to the statute of limitations. The trial has become a proceeding where witness statements are taken. At this rate, we will face new Necip Hablemitoğlu murders. Whoever hears or knows anything should come and do their duty. As a citizen of the Republic of Turkey, this must be seen as a state duty.

The President sees it that way too, as he called it a ‘debt of honor.’ In this state, there is a serious problem in not fulfilling the requirements of interim decisions numbered 31, 32, and 33. In these decisions, a killer is being sought from the Special Forces Command (ÖKK). If I were the Chief of General Staff and read this, I would jump. They are looking for a killer from the ÖKK. If it's true, it's grave; if it's false, it's also grave. It needs to be resolved whether it is the court or the prosecutor's office.”

The Presiding Judge, in response to Barkın's reactions, said, “There were interim decisions by the panel before us. We are summoning witnesses in this context. 21 years have passed; we are doing our best.”

As the hearing continued, tensions rose frequently due to questions from the defendants and their lawyers to Uçarcı and criticisms directed at the prosecutor.

Prosecutor: The Witness May Have Been Coached

In the afternoon session of the hearing, Ali Aksoy, the lawyer for defendant Levent Göktaş, requested to have a witness heard. Reminding that it was alleged that Levent Göktaş and Enver Altaylı knew each other in 2002, Lawyer Aksoy stated that witness Mehmet Kaya Batı would make a statement regarding this.

However, Prosecutor Zafer Ergün submitted an opinion for the rejection of the request on the grounds that it is established that the two met in 2002, both through the statements of defendants Aydın Köstem and Enver Altaylı and witness Nizamettin Avşar, as well as through HTS records and MIT's HTS analysis reports, and therefore the witness could not know that period, and furthermore, he might have been coached.

The defendants and their lawyers requested that the witness be heard. After the court's unanimous decision, Lawyer Mehmet Kaya Batı, who was heard, said that Göktaş and Altaylı were introduced at a dinner in Ankara in August 2015.

Finally, after Göktaş's former brother-in-law Ersan Aksoy was heard as a witness regarding when Levent Göktaş and Enver Altaylı met, the hearing was adjourned to continue on Monday.

News Source: 12punto