Necip Hablemitoğlu assassination trial: “It is essential to hear these two names”

Müyesser YILDIZ - 12punto.com.tr

The trial for the assassination of author and academic Assoc. Prof. Dr. Necip Hablemitoğlu continued. The lawyer for the Hablemitoğlu family stated that it is essential to hear the testimony of İrfan Fidan, the then-Chief Public Prosecutor of Istanbul and current Constitutional Court member, who allegedly took the statement of Nuri Gökhan Bozkır in 2015, and Mustafa Çalışkan, the then-Deputy Chief of Istanbul Police and current Deputy Director General of Security. Zafer Ergün, who prepared the indictment and is also serving as the prosecutor for the hearings, stated that he does not accept the testimonies of witnesses who “have no knowledge or observation regarding the incident or who testified under the direction of the parties,” and requested that dozens of new witnesses be heard.

Statements from the plaintiffs, defendants, and their lawyers were taken during the 19th session of the trial, which is being held at the Ankara 28th High Criminal Court.

The first to speak, Simanur Saldere, the lawyer for the Hablemitoğlu family, noted that Attorney Ersan Barkın had made the necessary assessments during Friday's session and that she would only present her own requests. Attorney Saldere stated, “As of the current situation, the trial has become nothing more than hearing witnesses. Since it is not our duty to collect concrete and material facts, our requests are limited to these,” and voiced her priority requests as follows:

“It was previously rejected; however, it is essential to hear İrfan Fidan and Mustafa Çalışkan. Because they are the witnesses that Nuri Gökhan Bozkır did not testify under duress.”

Attorney Simanur Saldere requested that former Deputy Director General of Security Emin Arslan and former Minister of Health Halil Şıvgın be heard as witnesses, and that Ergün Poyraz and Refik Ali Uçarcı, whose testimonies contain contradictions, be brought to the courtroom together to be heard.

While Attorney Saldere also requested that it be inquired whether there was a security camera at the US Embassy lodgings on Portakal Çiçeği Street, where the assassination took place, and that the footage be obtained if it exists, she reacted to the failure to produce the footage of the late Hablemitoğlu’s conference at the Eskişehir Atatürkist Thought Association on December 14, 2002, as follows:

“As understood from the response from the Police Department, the footage is in the investigation file. Let this footage be brought into the file by writing to the Police Department again, and also to the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office.”

Prosecutor Zafer Ergün began his opinion by stating, “We do not accept testimonies that are based on interpretation or given by those who have no knowledge or observation regarding the incident or who testified under the direction of the parties,” and requested that dozens of names be heard, primarily Ergün Poyraz, Attorney Hüseyin Buzoğlu, Emin Arslan, journalist Yasemin Güneri, and retired Ambassador Ömer Önhon.

Prosecutor Ergün also requested that the late Hablemitoğlu’s conference footage in Eskişehir be requested from the Counter-Terrorism Department (TEM) and that ownership information for beige and honey-colored Volvo vehicles in Ankara between 2002-2003 be retrieved.

THE SPECIAL FORCES COMMAND IS NOT A PLACE FOR MURDERERS

Levent Göktaş, one of the defendants whose statements were taken after the prosecutor, denied the accusations against him and drew attention to errors in the HTS records. Göktaş, who requested that the ban on leaving Ankara be lifted at least for the provinces where his files are located so that he can practice law, said:

“Is it thought that the Special Forces Command (ÖKK) is a place where murderers are? Since the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) was founded, it has never been left under such sin and suspicion. It is obvious that I and my fellow soldiers, who graduated from the War Academy where Atatürk graduated, would not be against the Atatürkist and patriotic Necip Hablemitoğlu, regardless of the circumstances.”

While defendant Enver Altaylı stated that he had no requests, Fikret Emek explained the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the HTS records and asked, “Would a person who is going to commit a crime insert a different SIM card into their own phone?”

Aydın Köstem, who denied the accusations against him, requested the lifting of his judicial control and an acquittal, while Mehmet Narin stated that he was one of the best soldiers of the Special Forces Command and said, “I cannot be a part of any organization or gang other than the Special Forces Command. We are being tried based on the insane claims of Nuri Gökhan Bozkır. Everyone knows very well who journalist Zihni Çakır is.”

Tarkan Mumcuoğlu, who is accused of being the “trigger man,” emphasized that he had proven with documents and Turkish and Kazakh witnesses that he was in Kazakhstan at the time of the incident, and said that he and his family had spent their lives fighting terrorism.

THE PRESIDENT, THE PROSECUTOR, EVEN MÜYESSER YILDIZ COULD BE SUSPECTS, BUT…

Enes Taner, one of Tarkan Mumcuoğlu’s lawyers, explained that they had requested that Balabek, who served as Mumcuoğlu’s driver and interpreter in Kazakhstan during the investigation phase, be heard as a witness, but that the Prosecutor did not accept it, and that Balabek passed away while they were trying to bring him to the hearing with their own means. He presented the recording of the video call they made with Balabek via FaceTime during that process and requested that it be heard. In the recorded testimony, Balabek could be heard saying that Tarkan Mumcuoğlu never left Kazakhstan for 6 months.

In the continuation of his statement, Attorney Enes Taner requested that a forced appearance order be issued for the then-Military Attaché of Kazakhstan, Gürsel Tokmakoğlu, who was decided to be heard as a witness but did not appear, and noted the following:

“The only person in this world right now who is certain not to have committed this murder is Tarkan Mumcuoğlu. Mr. President; you, the Prosecutor, even Müyesser Yıldız could be suspects, but Mumcuoğlu cannot be. Because every determination has been made about him, but no determination has been made about the President, the Prosecutor, or Ms. Müyesser.”

When Attorney Taner requested the lifting of Tarkan Mumcuoğlu’s judicial control, the Presiding Judge said, “Maybe the Public Prosecutor will also do something about this, anyway…”, to which the lawyers asked, “Are you going to give the floor to the Prosecutor again on these matters?”

WHO ARE THE TWO PEOPLE IN THE PHOTO?

Mumcuoğlu’s other lawyer, Eren Turan, criticized the investigation process and the indictment. Noting that the investigation began with the statements of Zihni Çakır before Nuri Gökhan Bozkır, Attorney Turan pointed out the following:

“Hızır Şimşek, one of the witnesses heard last week, explained that the police gave him photos of two people and asked him to investigate them. They showed these to you as well. The place where these two people are located looks like a conference hall—it is understood from the lights that it is at least not this courtroom. These people might be the individuals for whom a criminal complaint was filed with the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office to be investigated, as they were thought to have followed the late Hablemitoğlu at his conference in Eskişehir. It is a separate issue that Hızır Şimşek has those photos; but the police and the prosecutor know that these photos are being given. The Eskişehir Police say, ‘Ask from there.’ This means it exists in the Ankara Police. Let it be asked whether it exists or not and why these people are being investigated.”

Emphasizing that the photo Tarkan Mumcuoğlu gave upon entering the MIT (National Intelligence Organization) during the investigation phase was leaked to the press and that Şengül Hablemitoğlu made an identification based on this photo, Attorney Turan said that the publication of this endangered the safety of the personnel Mumcuoğlu served with in Syria, first and foremost. Attorney Turan also requested that the list of 85 FETÖ-affiliated police officers mentioned by Ergün Poyraz and Refik Ali Uçarcı be obtained and that it be investigated whether their phones gave a signal (BAZ) at the scene of the incident.

THERE ARE THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT THIS MURDER SOLVED

Ali Soykan, one of the lawyers for defendant Levent Göktaş, also criticized the indictment and stated that Prosecutor Zafer Ergün did not investigate what he should have primarily investigated, emphasizing that Prosecutor Necip Cem İşçimen, who previously conducted this investigation, focused on the police, not the soldiers. Attorney Soykan said:

“The plaintiffs, the defendants, and their lawyers all want this murder to be solved, but there are those who do not want it to be solved. Like the book Chronicle of a Death Foretold. Yes, no one here knows that the murder will be committed, but someone knows the killer. Look, there is the testimony of journalist Nurettin Şimşek in the file. He, like Ergün Poyraz, mentions a police officer named Hüseyin Aktaş. 100 thousand dollars were offered to Necip Hablemitoğlu not to publish 'The Mole' (Köstebek). Nurettin Şimşek asked the police officer Hüseyin Aktaş about this, and Aktaş said, ‘I cannot say this is true, nor can I say it is false.’ It seems that something else was being investigated at the beginning, but no one investigated this Hüseyin Aktaş.”

Referring to Nuri Gökhan Bozkır, Attorney Soykan said, “An army-breaker ruined these brilliant people, they practically turned the Special Forces Command into an organization of private contract killers,” and requested that it be asked to the Ministry of National Defense and the General Staff whether the US Embassy security personnel served in the TSK, and also that a criminal complaint be filed by taking into account that the perpetrators might be within the Police, based on the statements of some witnesses.

Göktaş’s lawyer, Hüseyin Ersöz, stated that he strongly opposed the idea of holding the hearings behind closed doors or in Sincan, as it would be a violation of a fair trial. Attorney Ersöz spoke as follows, in summary, regarding the course of the trial:

“Have you ever conducted or witnessed a trial where there is no murder weapon, no fingerprints, and no eyewitnesses? We have all reached the point of writing crazy detective novels. I am in a trial process where we are lost in baseless claims. I am worried that the Prosecutor will open investigations into the names given as examples by Attorney Enes Taner when he said, ‘Everyone except Tarkan Mumcuoğlu could be the perpetrator.’”

Lawyer Özlem Barıner, the lawyer for fugitive defendant Serhat Ilıcak, stated that her client’s only crime was being a close friend of Enver Altaylı, and noted that Ilıcak would provide a written statement but is currently in intensive care.

While the lawyers for the other defendants, Lütfü Top, Emre Tekin, and Büşra Uğurlu, also criticized the indictment and requested the lifting of their clients’ judicial control, Mehmet Narin’s lawyer, Hülya Elmadağ, said, “There is no organization here. Let my client’s file be separated and an acquittal decision be made for him.”

BOZKIR WILL COME IF A NON-ARREST GUARANTEE IS GIVEN

Emrah Yücel, the lawyer for fugitive defendant Nuri Gökhan Bozkır, explained that the statement Bozkır gave to the Istanbul Counter-Terrorism Department, which is said to have been given without duress, was a statement given with the delirium of having been expelled from the TSK, that he did not mention any names, that this indictment was prepared in the Prosecutor-Zihni Çakır-Nuri Bozkır triangle, and that it was based on Çakır’s statements, and requested that a criminal complaint be filed against Çakır for violating the confidentiality of the investigation.

Attorney Yücel also said that Bozkır would attend the hearings if a non-arrest guarantee was given.

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

REMARKABLE INTERIM DECISIONS

The Presiding Judge, who announced the decisions after a break of approximately 3.5 hours, announced that it was decided to continue the judicial controls of the non-detained defendants in the form of provincial and international travel bans, to lift the house arrest for Mehmet Narin, and to grant permission to Tarkan Mumcuoğlu and Fikret Emek, who live outside Ankara, until 13.00 tomorrow to return to their provinces. However, when he stated that there was no house arrest for Mehmet Narin, the Judge said, “It appears that way in the system.” The Judge also responded to defendant Aydın Köstem’s request to remove the electronic shackle by saying, “Everyone has one,” even though it was not the case for other defendants.

The Presiding Judge continued;

Decided to wait for the arrest warrant for fugitive Nuri Gökhan Bozkır and to issue arrest warrants for other fugitive defendants Fetullah Gülen, Mustafa Özcan, and Serhat Ilıcak,

Rejected the requests for the hearing of Constitutional Court member İrfan Fidan and Deputy Director General of Security Mustafa Çalışkan, the re-hearing of Refik Ali Uçarcı and Ergün Poyraz, whose testimonies contain contradictions, and the granting of a non-arrest guarantee to Nuri Gökhan Bozkır,

Decided to hear Gürsel Tokmakoğlu, Attorney Hüseyin Buzoğlu, and journalists Abdurrahman Şimşek and Yasemin Güneri as witnesses,

Decided to ask the US Embassy whether there was a security camera at the lodgings on Portakal Çiçeği Street and to request the footage from before, on the day of, and after the assassination if it exists,

Decided that former Minister of Health Halil Şıvgın be brought by force, and if his health condition is not suitable, that he be made ready in court by ambulance.

The most important remarkable decision taken was regarding the footage of the late Necip Hablemitoğlu’s conference in Eskişehir on December 14, 2002, and his visit to Migros on the day he was killed.

The previous panel had decided to request a report on whether the two people thought to have followed Hablemitoğlu at Migros were among those who attended the conference by comparing the conference and Migros footage, and if it was understood that individuals similar to those at Migros were also seen at the conference, to write to the Ministry of National Defense to send the photos, leave, medical reports, and cards showing the units they worked in as of December 18, 2002, for majors and lower-ranking officers and non-commissioned officers serving in the Special Forces Command MAK Regiment.

The new panel decided to investigate whether the two people in question were among the defendants of the trial by comparing the Eskişehir conference footage with the Migros footage after requesting them from the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office and Ankara TEM.

Meanwhile, the previous panel had filed a criminal complaint with the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office regarding the determination of who the primary perpetrator who pulled the trigger was, stating that “it is understood that the perpetrator who pulled the trigger may not be the defendant Tarkan Mumcuoğlu,” but a decision of non-prosecution was issued with the signature of Zafer Ergün, who is both the indictment and trial prosecutor, stating that this request was intended to “prolong the trial.” The new panel also rejected the lawyers’ request to appeal this decision.

After these decisions were taken, the hearing was adjourned to March 4-8.

News Source: 12punto