Defense by Nevzat Bahtiyar’s Counsel for the Defendant
Law. Adnan Ataş
Examination of the Camera Footage and Responsibility
Actually, Presiding Judge, when you look at the entire file, let me begin like this — one is tempted to say I am the counsel of Nevzat Bahtiyar, the owner of Tavşantepe village. When we look at the entire file — I will explain the reasons in detail shortly — first, regarding my client, since there were accusations about my client in the defense preceding ours, we need only to respond. It is not in the indictment, but we must respond to these claims about my client. There were not only accusations about my client; they also said that the DARAN-2 footage was examined 19 days later. Presiding Judge, the DARAN footage was not examined 19 days later. There are records in the file showing that the DARAN footage was examined on August 28–29. Not only the DARAN-2 camera; the farm camera that saw the red car was also examined on August 28–29. However, Presiding Judge, the hours of examination: the farm camera was examined after 17:00, and the DARAN-2 footage after 18:00. Despite these cameras being examined on August 28–29, the reason why my client and the other defendants could not be identified is not my client, it is the Güran family. The reason these cameras were reviewed for these hours is not my client — as I said, it is the Güran family. Presiding Judge, a moment ago, regarding my client… The sound is not coming through like this, Presiding Judge.
Baseless Allegations Against Nevzat Bahtiyar
Alright. Now, Presiding Judge, the second matter — abuse was mentioned. Again, in the defense preceding ours, we observed the following. Throughout the investigation, about the Güran family — I say “the Güran family,” please, I am not pointing at any individual or target, I do not want to list names one by one — approximately 39 witnesses were heard in this file. Nearly 25 are from the Güran family, Presiding Judge. No one, including the father, named my client as a suspect. That is the first point. The second point: after September 8, first a claim of a 50,000-lira or 40,000-lira debt was raised. That claim did not hold up, Presiding Judge. No one believed it, we did not believe it either. Afterwards, it was alleged that Nevzat Bahtiyar was having a relationship with his sister-in-law. By showing that the phone used did not belong to Nevzat Bahtiyar’s sister-in-law, we refuted that claim too, and ultimately an unpleasant, baseless — I will call it a disgusting slander — allegation of pedophilia or perversion was raised about my client. There is no basis to it, Presiding Judge. An allegation without any foundation. A moment ago, our colleague Mr. Ali raised something. For example — if we are talking about Enes Güran in this file, if we are talking about an allegation regarding Enes Güran, we have a gendarmerie record about him. The mother says, “When my sons are at home, I entrust my daughter to Maşallah.” As our colleague also said, everyone can attach a meaning to this record, or a meaning can be attached to this sentence by the mother. When we make an allegation, Presiding Judge, let me state this first: we proceed from the records in the file. Therefore, we do not accept this allegation which has no foundation and is supported by no evidence. Indeed, we denounce it as a disgusting allegation. Likewise, as is known, the number of people interviewed in the village during the investigation stage — no need to say — there is not a single finding, not a single suspicion about my client in this regard. We do not accept this allegation in any way. In the defense preceding ours, a sentence about Narin was put as if the crime scene were inside the house. Presiding Judge, my client has no knowledge of the crime scene. Concerning the crime scene, our client has made no single concrete statement to date.
The Consistency of the Client’s Statements and the Contradictions of the Güran Family
In his final and consistent statement, once my client felt his family was safe, he said the same thing throughout all his statements. When he arrived, our sister Narin was on the floor in the room and foam was coming from her mouth. He never described the crime scene. Again, today’s defense and the defense before ours show us something else, Presiding Judge. We heard the following in the defense: “If Enes Güran harms his sister Narin Güran, why would Salim Güran not call his father? Why would he not call his father and say ‘Your son did such a thing to your daughter, where are you, come’?” — such an expression was used. Presiding Judge, on the day Narin disappeared, we know from the file that Arif Güran did not learn of his daughter’s disappearance from his family. According to his own statement, he learned it first from his neighbor, and then, Presiding Judge, from someone in the neighboring village. On the day Narin disappeared, Salim Güran speaks with all family members — I will not say all, rather many family members — but he does not call the father. Salim, who supposedly must call the father if Enes did something to Narin, does not call the father when Narin disappears. This situation clearly shows us that Salim Güran in fact wanted to stay away from the father in some way. What I have said so far, Presiding Judge, concerns the claims preceding us, and I must respond to them at least partially because this is our final word. Changes in Nevzat Bahtiyar’s statements were mentioned. Presiding Judge, Nevzat Bahtiyar spoke today. Today and yesterday were the days he spoke most freely. It is a matter within the discretion of your court. One week after this hearing, on November 7, protection was assigned to his family. In the clearest sense, on that day his family requested assurance for him, and from that date onward at least my client’s mind was, at least regarding his family, partly at ease. Since that date his statement has not changed at all. If a change of statement shows anything, Presiding Judge, we have seen very well the changes in the statements of all the members of the Güran family during this process. As I said earlier, I want to say that I am the counsel of Nevzat Bahtiyar, the owner of the village — when we cover the surnames in the file, Presiding Judge, you would think Nevzat’s surname is Güran. Everything that has happened is as if done to protect Nevzat, but it is not.
Nevzat Bahtiyar’s Situation and the Allegation of Coldbloodedness
We know very well that my client Nevzat Bahtiyar is Salim’s close friend, Salim’s companion, and on a day when family members were not in the village because of wedding invitation distribution, Salim Güran called him and made him an accomplice to the crime — truly the poor man of the village. There is a matter, Presiding Judge. Regarding my client, the words “cold-blooded, cold-blooded, cold-blooded” are always used. As you know, even in a statement you made use of, Presiding Judge — today my client’s family is not here. There are two reasons for their not being here. First, yes, because of security; second, the effort of us lawyers, myself and Mr. Ali. They too wanted to come to the hearing. We did not see a need. We told them that we are personally beside Mr. Nevzat. My client’s family also wanted to be at his side today, but as we said, we did not consider it appropriate for the family to come — not only for our client, but for the safety of many people here, and to avoid any problem with the order of the hearing. I believe you share this view with us. Presiding Judge, at the first hearing my client experienced the same thing. At the first hearing he was alone too. Apart from being alone, he was subjected to insults and threats. At the hearing we saw the pressure the Güran family members exerted on our client. We saw, several times, the mother’s phrase, “Allah belanı versin” (“May God curse you”). Here, Presiding Judge, if a person does not feel safe, if a person feels helpless — at the hearing, as you know, he did not even have a private counsel he had retained. I do not criticize the other CMK-assigned counsel; we all know the truth about that. By “truth” I do not mean anything bad, but we know how that process went. Our client, therefore, felt alone and in helplessness. With the mental state this created in him, yes, unfortunately, he displayed a demeanor at the hearing. He withdrew into himself, fell silent, and appeared cold-blooded. This appearance of cold-bloodedness should not give any impression to you or the public; as I said, he was left alone. That is, at the hearing, as you will appreciate, words were sometimes said to him. At times harsh sentences were used.
The Absence of a Motive for the Murder and the Contradictions Among Witnesses
His family was not with him, his counsel was not with him, and with this state of mind, because of the situation he was in, this cold-blooded stance is not really a cold-blooded stance, as we said; let us call it a defense developed by a person’s psychology. Presiding Judge, there must be a chronology: first of all, there must be a motive for the murder. To this day, regarding the murder, as concerns my client, we have not seen a serious motive put forward in the file by the prosecution, by the complainants, or by the defendants. As I stated earlier, neither the money matter, nor the matter of the relationship with the sister-in-law, nor today’s disgusting allegation is a motive for murder. Presiding Judge, at the investigation stage Yasemin Gül used a sentence. She says: “No one outside the Gürans can intervene with the children of us Gürans. If there is an incident, it is within the village, within the family,” she says, and this is a very clear sentence. In that village, no one other than the children of the Gürans can touch the Gürans. This is the family’s own acknowledgement, the family’s own statement. With this statement, Yüksel Güran in fact very easily removes my client from being a murder suspect. Presiding Judge, I will not address all contradictions one by one; I must mention some. They explained Birsen Güran’s statement. Yesterday Mr. Nahit also explained it, and explained it in detail. Birsen Güran says 17:40 and supports her statement with a phone call. But the phone call also turns out to be false.
Contradictions in the Statements and the Role of Family Members
Presiding Judge, yesterday Mr. Nahit — the HTS records in the file are clear — Birsen Güran says, “I spoke with my aunt at 17:40, I looked at the clock, that is why I said 17:40.” But it is said that it is not 17:40 but 14:00. And at 14:00 she has no call with her aunt. Therefore Birsen Güran’s statement is a very concrete piece of evidence for this file. It is not merely a statement, it is more than a statement. The statement that Salim Güran said to her “tell the time as 17:40” is a statement taken in the presence of a defense counsel. Credit must be given to this statement, Presiding Judge. Hediye Güran says she went to the crime scene twice, at 13:00 and 13:40. Since the crime scene is Arif Güran’s house and its surroundings, I should note that her son Abdurrahman Güran says that when he woke up he did not see his mother at home between 13:00 and 17:00. Presiding Judge, yesterday the complainant party — yes, we call them the complainant party — this file is such that normally we defend against the opinion, but today we have to develop a defense against the defense, against the opinion, and against the other defendants as well. Yesterday the complainant party explained this situation very clearly. Hediye Güran is in fact a witness too. That is, Hediye Güran is a witness prepared in order to remove these persons from the scope of the incident. We agree with the complainant party on this matter. Presiding Judge, Enes Güran’s statements are very contradictory. There are important days in a person’s life; we cannot forget these important days. We cannot erase the details of those important days from our minds. I do not need to state the dates of each statement one by one; all statements are in the file. In the interview conducted by the gendarmerie, when he talks about his activities between 14:45 and 17:30, he does not mention sleeping at all. Let us say he may have been mistaken about the hours — he does not mention sleeping at all, Presiding Judge. But on later days he produced a new defense, a new argument, a new contradiction by saying, “I was sleeping during those hours.” We all already know about Salim Güran’s statements contradicting those of Mehmet Selim Atasoy and Ramazan Atasoy. Yesterday Ramazan Atasoy was also heard. Those contradictions were again not resolved. Ramazan Atasoy still insists on the hours he had stated. Our opinion is that, just as Birsen Güran was directed, he too was directed. There is also the headscarf detail, Presiding Judge. Because it has been raised many times, we need not repeat it — the mother’s statement that “the headscarf was on the railings” or “on the balcony railings” is not mentioned only once. It is mentioned many times by the family. Ömer Güran, Salim Güran’s brother, in a broadcast — indeed in an interview with Ferit Demir — shows where Narin came from and where she went. He explains where she went. Presiding Judge, he explains it in great detail; when asked why she did not appear on the camera after going home, he says that she came by the path but, as she used this side on her way, she did not appear on the camera. He shows us the crime scene, the interior of the family. Presiding Judge, there is the matter of a red car. Our colleague just played a voice recording. Something struck me in the voice recording. In the background he is speaking with someone.
Salim Güran’s Attempts at Directing and the Red Car Claim
Salim Güran, in the conversation — now his defenses are that he relayed to the gendarmerie information he obtained from his surroundings. The voice recording they played, Presiding Judge, is a recording from after 22:40 or 22:30. It is not the first recording in which the gendarmerie was called. The gendarmerie was first called at 20:18, when Salim Güran called the gendarmerie and directly mentions two Roma individuals and a red vehicle. There is Fadile Bahtiyar’s statement. Presiding Judge, this voice recording — the one in which Salim Güran mentions two Roma individuals and a vehicle — you may be following it, it recently surfaced in the media. It is a new piece of evidence, that is, one that the public has only recently come to know, but Fadile Bahtiyar… Mr. Nahit is following this well, Presiding Judge.
Destruction of Evidence, Directing Witnesses, and Crime-Scene Findings
I know, Presiding Judge. I am following it. This voice recording was leaked on social media in the past month. Now, the voice recording in which Salim Güran mentions two Roma individuals and a red car surfaced on social media about a month to a month and a half ago. My client’s daughter Fadile Bahtiyar, in her statement dated September 16, says, “I saw Salim Güran and Mehmet Selim Atasoy side by side.” Salim Güran is talking about the moment after they came from the first field and gathered at the square. He is talking about the hour at which the gendarmerie was called, 20:18, and says to Mehmet Selim Atasoy beside him, in a whisper, “I will talk about a red car and two Roma individuals.” He calls the gendarmerie and does this. As the prosecution also said, this may be for two reasons. First, to point at Nevzat; second, to direct. In the recording played by our colleague, Presiding Judge, as I said, that is a recording from after 22:30, not the first recording. Therefore it does not confirm the defense of “I heard it from someone else” or “I was relaying what I heard from someone else.” But there is one more thing I noticed in the recording. Salim Güran speaks with someone. When the person on the other end asks a question about the disappearance, Salim Güran mentions a red car, two Roma individuals, and asks “isn’t that so, Mehmet Selim?” Mehmet Selim Atasoy is with him again. The person he has confirm it, or the person from whom he claims he heard it, is also Mehmet Selim Atasoy. This, together with the evidence in the file and when we look at the statements of Mehmet Selim Atasoy and Ramazan Atasoy, shows us quite clearly what in fact happened. It appears that Salim Güran intervened with Mehmet Selim Atasoy and Ramazan Atasoy as well, after Birsen, Hediye and other family members. I say this in terms of directing. Directing the gendarmerie. Mr. Ali explained it; I do not need to explain it at length again, but he did not mention one thing. He did not mention Arif Güran’s allegations. In the interview record in the file, the record of the interview with Arif Güran — in that record Arif Güran speaks of his own family directing the gendarmerie, Presiding Judge. Look — this is not merely something that struck the gendarmerie’s attention; it is a detail that even struck the attention of the complainant Arif Güran. Now, were all these destructions of evidence, all these contradictions, all these directings — Nevzat Güran, I will say, Presiding Judge — done for Nevzat Bahtiyar? That is not possible. Yesterday Mr. Nahit actually dwelled on this at length. Because he gave a very long defense, not only mine but many of our colleagues’ defenses would be repetitive. The marks on Enes’s body, the bruise on his eye, the bite on his arm have all been discussed. But, Presiding Judge, there are marks on his back, and there are marks on his chest. As Mr. Nahit also said, there are ecchymoses in 8–9 places. Yes, not all of them could be clearly identified, but we are talking about 8–9 marks, Presiding Judge. This is something that can result from a struggle, or an intervention, or a fight. It is not something that can result from just a corncob. To what can we attribute the bruises on Enes’s eye, Presiding Judge? Of the 91 swabs taken from Narin, many are positive for blood. Blood is positive in the earthen area of the barn, there is blood on the rocks beside the barn. There is blood at the entrance of the balcony at the house. Presiding Judge, it is certain that something happened at and around Arif Güran’s house. The prosecution in its opinion accepts that Narin went up the slope. We join the opinion only on this point. Whatever happened, Presiding Judge, happened above that slope. The report of the National Crime Bureau also supports this. Presiding Judge, regarding the DNA found in Salim Güran’s vehicle — yesterday I asked Salim Güran the same question — in his statements there is a sentence: “Did she get into our vehicle?” — I am using the word he used at the investigation stage — “I did not see her get into the vehicle.” Presiding Judge, even the children’s statements were taken in the investigation file, as you know. The video recordings were examined. The school camera, Ruhi Kaya’s camera; there are statements of many children. We did not see any child playing in a car. Presiding Judge, all the children of the village are at and around the school, playing in the school yard with flowers. We saw this, but, Presiding Judge, we did not see children playing in a car. We are all fathers, we all know. When we first get a car, our own child may be curious for 1–2 days and play with it, but after the third day a car is no longer a play area for children. The DNA found on the driver’s seat of Arif Güran’s vehicle is therefore a very important piece of evidence. Salim Güran’s. I apologize, I said Arif Güran. Again, the matter of the three stones found on the body and, as Nahit Eren also alleged, the explanation regarding the PSAs. I wonder whether, after my client, only three stones — while there was one, more than two — that is, was a skirt left there? Were other items placed in that bag? My client explained many things sincerely, but there is no hook, Presiding Judge. Even that hook may have been taken later, Presiding Judge. We think it was taken later. We think that after my client left, the killer — or killers, I should say — went to the scene, I mean to the place where the body was, and made a further effort to conceal the body. There is a voice recording of Salim Güran. I skipped it a moment ago, Presiding Judge. While speaking of contradictions or directing, in the recording, when people ask, “Shall we look at the cornfield, shall we search the cornfield as well?”, he says, “If anything, she is in the canal; what would the girl be doing in the cornfield? Do not search in the swamp over there,” such a sentence. I do not remember the exact wording, but I know the word “swamp” was used. I know the cornfield was mentioned. The area of the Eğertutmaz stream around the cornfield is also a swamp, Presiding Judge. When people want to go that way, “What business do you have over there? Narin cannot have gone there; come, let us look at the canal.” He tells them, “If you want to go, well, you know,” but he directs people to the canal, Presiding Judge. This is also one of the most important pieces of evidence in the file. When we look at the gendarmerie’s intelligence records, in many records, Presiding Judge — there is even a record, very short, 2–3 lines — saying that the body may be found in Arif Güran’s barn. There is even intelligence suggesting that Arif Güran may be involved. It is in the JASAT record and in the investigation file. Presiding Judge, all of these cannot be a coincidence: the blood found, the intelligence received, the DNA found in Salim Güran’s vehicle, the bruise on Enes Güran’s eye, the 8–9 ecchymoses on his body in separate regions — all of these show us that, whatever happened, Presiding Judge, happened in and around the barn and Arif Güran’s house. The mitochondrial DNA matter. There is a detail there, Presiding Judge. This DNA may belong to Narin, to the mother, or to Enes, but, Presiding Judge, the lengths of the hairs there are different. There are short hairs and long hairs. Therefore, there is a possibility that all the hair and fibers obtained there belong to Narin. Yes, it is possible DNA-wise; but when we look at the lengths, one is 16 cm and the other is 29 cm, Presiding Judge. There is no possibility that both hair and fiber samples simultaneously belong to Narin. Their lengths are different; therefore, as many have said, Narin held her killer in her palm and wanted to show us. I repeat, Presiding Judge. I am not saying, based on the DNA, that those there belong to the mother or Enes. They may also belong to Narin, I accept that — but the lengths of the hairs and fibers found on Narin are different. They cannot all belong to Narin, Presiding Judge. Therefore, I believe that the DNA will in fact lead us to the killer. The final decision, of course, will be yours. Regarding the 37 carpets taken from the house — as Nahit Eren and our esteemed colleague also stated yesterday — only two DNA profiles were found. Of course, this is an abnormal situation. That is, in a house where people live, where journalists come and go, reporters, gendarmes, police. Only two DNA profiles could be identified. This in itself is an abnormal situation, but proceeding from this, when I look at Yüksel Güran’s statement, Presiding Judge, she says in many of her statements that she washed the balcony after Hediye Güran left. Perhaps she did not only wash the balcony, but the carpets as well. Perhaps she cleaned the crime scene. I believe that sentence in her statement, without her being aware of it, will lead us to the truth. Presiding Judge, excuse me — you know the file. Sometimes we do not remember our notes; otherwise I would have said, “Taking all these matters into account.” — there is not much left, Presiding Judge.
Identifying the Scene of the Crime and the Family’s Power in the Village
Presiding Judge, everything I have said shows us one thing. The scene of the crime is clear. Narin went up that slope; whatever happened, it happened there. Whatever happened, happened within the family. Arif Güran — this is my first defense — my condolences, let me express it from here, I do not know whether he is here or not. It is very hard for a father. Yesterday in his defense he said, “Could a mother do this to her child?” I say with regret that, unfortunately, yes, we have also seen mothers who killed their children. We have also seen elder brothers who killed their siblings. I also say to him, “May Allah grant him patience.” Beyond that, I only understand him, let me put it that way. Regarding my client, Presiding Judge, we have so far spoken of the evidence at the crime scene and where it leads us. I have tried to explain this to you regarding my client. Presiding Judge, here we are. One defendant is over there, the other three are over there. What joint participation can we speak of, Presiding Judge? It is not possible for these four people to act together, to decide together. If Salim and Nevzat act, Ms. Yüksel is left out; if Salim and Enes act, Nevzat is left out. It is not possible in any way for my client to be present at the same time and in the same environment with these four people, and to decide on something together. Why did he admit it? Why did he give an incomplete account? Why did he accept the body? I will come to the matter of why he gave an incomplete account, Presiding Judge. We watched the video of shepherd Ahmet here yesterday. We all saw shepherd Ahmet. We may not understand the Kurdish, but there are certain things we heard. Although we all heard the word “Enes,” the shepherd did not confirm it. Erhan Güran also did not confirm it. Although we all heard the phrase “complaint to the prosecutor’s office,” saying “You will not go to the prosecutor’s office, you will not tell anything” — whatever the exact wording, the shepherd did not confirm this. Erhan Güran also did not confirm it. Now we watch the video, Presiding Judge, and it is evident that all 10–15 people there are quite at ease. They are carrying out an action against the shepherd there, but they have no fear that he might file a complaint against them. No family member has any fear that the shepherd could file a complaint against himself. They are in the comfort of “We are the owners of this village; we can interrogate whom we want, we can make whom we want do what we want.” Also on social media, Presiding Judge, threat messages were posted. What struck me most was a post: “As much love as you want for those who want, and as many bullets as you want for those who do not.” Presiding Judge, as far as I understand, there is no limit to this family — I should say that is beyond me to say — but yes, they are a powerful family in their own village. Despite this post they still move around very comfortably. They express certain things. Yesterday Arif Güran, as you know, after an intervention within the courtroom, when you said “Remove the members of the Güran family,” Arif Güran got up from his seat and came to this side and said “Let no one leave their seat.” That is the kind of self-confidence we are talking about. Whether you heard it or not, I do not know, Presiding Judge, probably it was after you had left. He came there and said, “Let no one leave.” Presiding Judge, you have given a decision, but the family does not even wish to comply with your decision. I am trying to describe the pressure on Nevzat Bahtiyar, Presiding Judge. Nevzat Bahtiyar… please do not interrupt; allow me to finish.
The Pressure on Nevzat Bahtiyar and the Rejection of the Allegation of Participation in the Murder
Colleague, please allow me, let me finish. Please, colleague, be calm. You will also speak, we will listen. I heard it myself; if you did not hear, I cannot say anything to that. Now, against a family thinking with this ease, with this power — in this comfort and with this strength — there is no possibility, Presiding Judge, for my client Nevzat Bahtiyar to stand up to them. I saw something on social media, Presiding Judge. Someone says, “If Salim says ‘cucumber,’ Nevzat Bahtiyar will rush with salt in hand.” That is, the friendship and relationship between Salim and Nevzat unfortunately drew my client Nevzat into the matter on the day of the incident. The narrowed base-station report, Presiding Judge — our colleague explained it; we do not know whether your court will credit it. But since the prosecution took the base-station report into account regarding participation, I say that the prosecution contradicts itself, Presiding Judge. The crime scene is the barn, the surroundings of Arif’s house, or that area. We do not know exactly. According to the narrowed base-station report, my client Nevzat Bahtiyar is the last person to go to the crime scene: 15:27. If the murder was committed in the barn, my client never went to the barn at all. If the murder was committed in the house, Presiding Judge, my client comes to the house at 15:27. In both scenarios it appears that my client went to the crime scene after the death had occurred. Regarding joint intent — as I explained a moment ago, Presiding Judge — it is not possible for my client, or for these four persons, to decide on something at the same time. My client remains outside every scenario, yet somehow an opinion on participation was given. Presiding Judge, even according to the narrowed base-station report my client — I repeat, when making your decision, Presiding Judge, I want you to visualize in your mind; you will sit and deliberate — if the scene of the crime is the barn, my client is on the path. If the scene of the crime is inside the house, my client is still on the path. Salim Güran goes first, Presiding Judge. I say this although I do not accept the adverse points in the narrowed base-station report. Presiding Judge, I want you to think of the following. Salim and Nevzat are waiting on the path in front of their own houses. Our sister Narin went up, Enes Güran carried out an intervention, and a sound came. The first person to intervene on hearing the sound is Salim Güran; 7 minutes later my client goes, Presiding Judge. Where is the unity of action? There is no unity of action after the death has occurred. My client’s failure to disclose the location of the body for 19 days is not a unity of action, Presiding Judge. It is not after the death has occurred. Not present at the moment of death. According to the narrowed base-station report, my client — the prosecution here contradicts itself — for 19 days it is true, he did not inform law enforcement; but in his candid statement he said that for 4 days he wanted to take the body from where it was and leave it by a roadside. So it would be found. Unfortunately we all know — because of the number of gendarmes in the village he could not express this; he could not carry out that act. For 4 days, Presiding Judge, he said he did not go to work in order to remove that body, and for 4 days he in fact did not go to work. He had the thought that it should be taken away from there so Narin could be found, but because of the number of soldiers and personnel in the village he could not carry out this act. 39 witnesses were heard. I am wrapping up, Presiding Judge. 39 witnesses were heard. None of the witnesses heard told any lie to protect my client. Let me also respond to that. Incidentally, regarding Gazal Bahtiyar, regarding Mehmet Bahtiyar — it was said they too lied. Presiding Judge, Mehmet Bahtiyar initially, at the first stage, misremembers the day of the incident while giving his statement. But before his statement is even finished, on the second page he corrects it. He realizes his mistake and says, “The day I was talking about was one day earlier; it was the day we all went to work together. On the day Nevzat took the body to the stream, he was not with us.” He realizes his mistake and corrects it before his statement is even finished. It is very painful, Presiding Judge. On August 28–29 the farm camera was looked at, the DARAN footage was looked at, these were examined. The other, clearer, camera we mentioned was also examined — but always after 18:00. The reason for this is the Güran family, not my client, and it is done deliberately, Presiding Judge. A moment ago my colleague already made a statement regarding the narrowed base-station report; however, even if your court credits it, considering that my client Nevzat Bahtiyar is the last person to arrive at the crime scene, unity of action and intent is not possible. Therefore, as regards my client, the elements of the offenses of murder and participation in murder are not made out. Very briefly, very briefly, Presiding Judge. He committed this act because of fear and threat, and there was one thing I wanted from you here, Presiding Judge: to think about the crime scene. I have explained the reason to you. According to the narrowed base-station report, he is the last person to arrive at the crime scene. I want you to think of this. The second matter, Presiding Judge, is that today the entire Güran family names my client as the killer. The fear — that is, the fear they give to people in the village — yesterday I asked the shepherd whether he had filed a criminal complaint, and he said no. He says, “May Allah not leave my right unanswered,” Presiding Judge. Out of fear, he cannot go to the prosecutor’s office. We are talking about such a family in the village. I want you to think of three things: first, that my client was the last person at the moment of the incident; second, the fear and pressure in the village; and third, Presiding Judge, that the entire Güran family and all those persons whose statements were taken cannot have done this for my client. They have no dispute with my client. We have already explained this to them, Presiding Judge. In light of all these matters, as regards my client, we do not accept the opinion on participation in murder and on murder. Of course we will say that my client be acquitted; but regarding hiding evidence of a crime and harboring a criminal, there is his own acknowledgement. We request that he be acquitted of murder and released together with the verdict.