Defense by Nevzat Bahtiyar’s Counsel for the Defendant
Law. Ali Eryılmaz
The Unreliability of the Witness Statements
She says that because there are boys at home, whenever she went somewhere, she would entrust Narin to Maşallah, she would leave her in her care. One could draw many things from beneath this; I always look at the matter from this angle, and I have said this in some places — even a clock that has stopped shows the right time at least twice a day. That is, this community — I call them Tavşantepe village, I am not giving names or numbers — there are 200–300 of them. Of these, some 30-odd were heard as witnesses in this hearing. Within them there is not one person, neither man nor woman, who gave a correct statement and of whom we could say, “Yes, we can base our judgment on this statement.” All of them are filled with lies. As I said, even a clock shows the right time twice a day; amid such lies, when you bring the statements together, you can catch at least 1–2 correct elements, or they slip them out of their mouths by mistake. Because it is not possible to hide everything. The truth, in a real way, reveals itself. Well, one sentence: “Because there are boys at home, I would always leave Narin with Maşallah.” Here you are — I make no comment on this. I leave the comment to you. However you wish to interpret it.
Comparison of the Rojin Case and the Narin Case
Another matter: there is before us another case as famous as this one. It has not yet reached the trial stage; the prosecutor’s investigation is continuing. Rojin, a university student killed in Van. Unfortunately I get so emotional — there is a father there. I am also a father. Before being a lawyer, I am a father. Rojin’s father, from the day she disappeared until today, did not leave a door unknocked. From the first day she went missing, he slept and woke up there every day alongside the soldiers. I can never forget that sight. In the morning the soldiers come; the man has nowhere to go. He has lain down somewhere by the shore. “My child may perhaps come out, may come back.” Look at the reasoning, look at the thought, look at the mentality. This man did not leave a door unknocked. This family, the Kabaiş family, are still running around. They are looking for a branch to hold on to — from members of the press, from citizens, and from the state. If this family too had done the same thing — if, instead of holding secret meetings among themselves from the first day she disappeared to cover up the event, instead of silencing witnesses, instead of beating or darkening the evidence, they had gone out and really searched for Narin — their place in the eyes of society would be different from what it is now. Society saw that these people do not stand behind Narin, that there is something behind the matter, and therefore Narin’s whole family became 85 million.
The Role of the Lawyers in the Case and the Approach of a Public Case
The family here is present as Narin’s lawyers; they are not spectators. As we are called “defendant’s counsel,” we too are defending Narin from our own standpoint. Why? So that the real killer may come to light. So that it may be proved that my client is not the killer. We are fighting in that sense as well. In a way, we too are working for Narin. I cannot speak for the other counsel. And from the day we entered this case until today, my colleague and I undertook this as a public case. We did not enter this case for five pennies of gain. For the past 4 days we have been getting up and sleeping here, we eat and drink at our own expense, we pay for our own hotel, we pay for our own flight. We have no interest whatsoever. All we want is for the truth to come out, because we know that not everything is about money. And as I said, I too have a child, and in this country there are many cases like this one. I hope that what I have done, what we have done, will serve as an example for the other lawyer colleagues in other cases like Narin’s, like Rojin’s. Not only community institutions, not only bar associations, but our independent lawyer colleagues too should give their hearts to this case, they should be able to look from a different angle. Therefore, if Rojin had been an example for this family — if they had acted as Rojin’s family did — rest assured, the crowd sitting here would not be here for Narin but here for justice, not for one side or the other, but for the truth; they would not be acting as Narin’s lawyers. Therefore let them not say, “Narin is our daughter”; Narin is not their daughter. Narin is the daughter of the people sitting here, who represent 85 million. She is already dead for them. They did not even dare to stand behind that 8-year-old, tender girl. They still do not dare. Deep down they know who the killer is. They play the victim role. That is, if you were to pick three actors to play this victim-role film, they could not play it as well as these do. You would need to bring a theater master to give them acting lessons — but there is plenty of money; perhaps they have already taken acting lessons. Inside, outside, in the village; they can do that too.
The Family’s Financial Means and the “Saving Private Ryan” Analogy
These people have a lot of money. They still have 400 more dönüm of fields to sell. Selling them one by one, the fields will run out. By the time this file returns from the Court of Cassation, those fields will be gone. I am giving a defense; do not interrupt. It is a very fine film by Spielberg. A beautiful film recounting the struggle of a squad of soldiers to rescue a soldier named Ryan from encirclement, at the cost of their lives, at the risk of death, and the scene is very realistic. I compare the scenario the defendant side has played in this court to the film Saving Private Ryan. I use this in a metaphorical sense. The “Saving Enes” film — that is, they have put together, in their minds, a film to save Enes.
Efforts to Save Enes and the Destruction of Evidence
A whole village — I do not know how many people it has, 200–300 — have come together. “How can we get this Enes out of this affair, rescue him?” They did everything they could. By beating, by cursing, by deceiving people with money, by influencing them, by misleading people, by misleading witnesses, by darkening the evidence. Think of it — 3,600 people searched for Narin for 19 days. 50 drones, 2 UAVs, more than 20 dogs, dozens of machines. The largest rescue operation of the Republic of Turkey was carried out, but despite this, on a small piece of land, in that small place, the girl could not be found. It is impossible that she could not be found. Why was she not found? While Narin was being searched for, if I remember correctly 95 false tip-offs, 2 fires, major fires. A fire in front of the house of the defendant’s relatives. Finding a slipper somewhere of the same color and model as Narin’s slipper; red and white cars going back and forth, etc. Misleading witnesses, misleading the gendarmerie. Had these behaviors not occurred, Narin would have been found within the first 3 days with the state’s superior efforts. But these people did not want Narin to be found either. That is, they committed a damn wrong, they committed a crime, and they did everything they could so that the girl’s body would not be found. What did they hope? “Perhaps without finding her they will pull back and leave. We will get out of this affair,” or “Even if she is found by chance, by that time the evidence will be lost, will flow away in the water. Nothing belonging to us will come out, we will get away with this too,” they thought, but the end of the story they constructed did not end as they had hoped. Right now they are sitting here, and it will not end.
The Constantly Changing Time of Disappearance and the Form of the Murder
Mr. Salim Güran, the muhtar, in his first conversation with the commander after the girl’s disappearance, gives the hours of her disappearance as 15:00–15:30. In his next conversation, this becomes 15:00, 15:30, 16:00, 16:30. In the conversation after that, it becomes 17:00–17:30. If you had given him an opportunity to speak once more, I no longer know whether this 17:30 would have become 18 or 19. They continuously tried to change the time of disappearance to different hours. They are trying to cover something up. This is plain as day. Well, why does this village do so much? That is, a village of 200–300 people, and why do these three defendants enter into such an effort? To save Nevzat? Who is Nevzat after all? By their own statements, Nevzat cannot even be a dog at their door. He cannot even say “shoo” to their chickens. He cannot pass in front of their houses. These are their own statements — and they are going to cover up and darken evidence to this extent for Nevzat? Everything is out in the open. The ones who committed this offense are them. Well, what value does Nevzat have within this family? What worth does he have? And look at it from this angle too: when you look at the form the murder took, this is a murder that happened suddenly. The prosecutor also, as far as I understand, did not prepare an opinion based on premeditation, but on that. A crime committed suddenly. That is, a crime that happened in an instant, and therefore it is very clear that it is a murder committed within the family. This murder is committed within the family.
Nevzat’s Involvement in the Crime and His Role
What would Nevzat contribute to this murder? An unloved man — what was it someone said — was it Arif? — that Nevzat was such a vile person that they had cut off family ties with him. What does Enes say in the prosecutor’s investigation? “Nevzat can do this. If Salim threatened him or gave him money, he will do this much,” saying bad, bad words. “He is such a man,” he says. That is, they themselves already know very well how to draw Nevzat into this offense. They can drag him in in two ways. Either you threaten the man and make him a partner in crime, or by offering money. Because his financial situation is not good. He is a run-of-the-mill plasterer. A man who barely fills his stomach. Even 50,000 liras or 100,000 liras from them might be something he needs, he might do it. Ah, so he also participated in the offense — I do not mean participation in the murder. They drew him into this offense in the end. Well, why do they say “Nevzat”? In the village there are many people; among so many people, why did Salim call Nevzat on that day and give him the body? Let me give an example from their own defense: on that day everyone had left the village for the wedding. No one was left in the village. Supposedly, if no one was left in the village and Nevzat is Salim’s closest, best friend, his intimate companion, “water would not flow between them.” All statements, including the witness declarations, say the same thing. “What they ate, what they drank was as one,” and they speak on the phone 10 or 9 minutes before. They speak on the phone. What does Salim know? That Nevzat is at home. “I know Nevzat,” he says. “I can control him; whatever I say, he will do. The first person I will call is, of course, Nevzat. His elder brothers are not there, his younger brothers are not there, his sons are not there. They have all gone to distribute invitations. After all, who will he call?” Could they have found a better puppet than Nevzat? They found one, and they had him do it. Therefore, when you look at the family’s relations, there is no reason for Nevzat to be present as a participant in this murder. Quite the opposite. They are only powerful enough to make Nevzat do the crude tasks — taking the body somewhere and hiding it. Therefore they used Nevzat very well on this matter. I said, “Saving Private Ryan,” Presiding Judge. When you look at the statements, there is a very interesting thing in the statements. The situation is this: from the very first day Narin disappeared, these people, these defendants, entered into an effort, into an endeavor. What kind of effort? They created for themselves plenty of witnesses in every time slot. “There were certain people, they met with them; this one came, that one went.” They tried to manufacture witnesses for themselves. Look, it is very interesting: between 15:00 and 16:00, within 1 hour, Salim had encounters with exactly 7 people during that time. Yüksel Güran had encounters with 9 people, and within this 1 hour, Enes Güran had encounters with 16 people. Within an hour, and Nevzat had encounters with three. And do you know who those three are? His wife Gazal, Salim, and Yüksel. At the moment of taking the body — now look, within 1 hour, Enes has encounters with 16 people; perhaps he met as many people in 1 hour as he could see in the village in 1 week. He sat there, he saw this one, spoke with that one, conversed there. And also there is this fact. Wasn’t everyone in this village supposed to have gone out to distribute wedding invitations? Where did you find this many people to talk to? This many people to make into witnesses? How did you find this many people? Have I been able to describe the contradiction, Presiding Judge? Both they went out to distribute wedding invitations, and they could produce this many fake witnesses, lying witnesses, as witnesses for themselves. But Nevzat has yet another significance in this case.
Nevzat’s Statements and Their Reliability
From the first day the case began until today, the only thing the defendants, the other defendants, have done is to accuse Nevzat, to say “he is the killer”; they have done nothing else. What did Nevzat do? They say he changed his statement. Yes, together with the final statement he gave before the court, he changed his statement a total of 3 times; but within these changing statements there were a few constant elements. He always said that it was Salim who gave him the body, and he always said, “Salim told me that he killed her because of such-and-such a reason.” That is, he said who the killer was and stated the reason, and he said from whom he received the body; therefore the fact that Nevzat’s statements differ among themselves does not change much regarding the substance of the case. The statement that paves our path is actually Nevzat’s statement. Our esteemed Prosecutor, when constructing the opinion, also based it partly on Nevzat’s statements. Look, the colleagues who prepared the base-station reports prepared those base-station reports taking Nevzat’s statement into consideration. On certain points, even Nevzat’s statements — those they call changed, different — are statements worthy of consideration in this court. When you look at the others, they too changed their statements many times; but which statement of them are you going to take as the basis of your decision? It is impossible to distinguish. Therefore, Nevzat’s statement is the only statement, the only defense, in this court that, from our standpoint, can command respect before your presence. I will not go into a discussion about the other evidence. I will not discuss each piece of evidence one by one here. I had prepared something, but yesterday my esteemed colleague, our former bar president Nahit Eren, presented the evidence so beautifully — in all its bareness, he presented it — that I personally, as counsel of the defendant Nevzat Bahtiyar, would be ashamed to speak against that evidence, and for that reason I say, it is for that reason from my standpoint.
The Unreliability of the Expert Reports
The Signatures and the Lack of Seriousness
We now have a murder case before us. 4 people are being tried for this murder, and you are appointed as experts in the file of these 4 people being tried for murder. As an expert, I expect certain things from these experts. This is not a minor case — in a 50–100 thousand, 500 thousand, 1 million case, if you lose, the money is gone and can be earned again — but ultimately you are presenting a report in a case that will affect the lives of 4 people who will be imprisoned for life. Therefore, as an expert, I expect certain things of you. What are these? First sincerity, then seriousness, then verifiability, and finally scientific quality. I look at the reports; I am looking in terms of sincerity and seriousness. You may have noticed; I pointed it out in my petition, but I want to say it so that my colleagues here hear it too. We have two separate reports. One is the main report; the other is the supplementary report. In both reports there are initials on separate pages. Normally, in our official system, there is no such thing as initials (paraf). In our system we sign each page. If we have written a 4-page petition, we sign each page. You too, as a judge, sign each page; you do not initial. You look — there are initials on each page. An initial does not substitute for a signature. Even so, let us say it does; let us accept that too. Each initial is different from the other, sir. Not one initial matches another. We said, let us also pass over the initials — what is an initial, after all. You look at the very end, at the signatures under the conclusion section; in both reports there are 6 signatures. Each one is different from the others. Not one signature matches another. That is, you are preparing a report — look at the seriousness of the report you have prepared. Even the signatures you have placed are not the same signatures. What is more, I am sure — that is, the people we had examine it also said the same — these signatures are not the same signatures. One person signed these. One person signed different signatures. The past signatures may even be forged; I do not know. They may not even belong to these people. We have made a complaint about this to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office. At the moment the investigation is continuing, but I have no information on what stage it is at.
Data and Measurement Errors
Another example — I again proceed from the report — you asked for a supplementary report, from the expert. He sent us a supplementary report and said: “How did you make these measurements? Tell us. Persuade us so that our minds are at ease. Let us accept this. If such a report is prepared, let us accept it.” You look, sir: within the report, the photographs placed by the expert — do you see the photograph? The photograph of the base-station maps is of Kırşehir, sir. The expert is placing a photograph of the base stations of Kırşehir province into the expert file concerning Tavşantepe village. Next to it he has placed a Google map; on it there is nothing, no information is given. Technically, he says, “Look, I use such-and-such a program. This program does these things,” and he has provided screenshots. You examine the screenshots — they belong to another place. They do not belong to Tavşantepe village. So what should I expect? You came as an expert, you made separate examinations here for two days, you said “I went there, I measured. I measured here, I did this, I did that, I prepared the report.” Well, at least the data you put here, the photographs you put here should belong to Tavşantepe, but they do not. They are that unserious, that insincere. I pass over even that. They say: “We used 3 programs that anyone can find while making these measurements.” They wrote the names of those programs. I downloaded one of them onto my phone. I downloaded it to my own phone. I downloaded the other onto my wife’s phone. To cross-check. By the way, I paid 1,800 TL for that program. It is also not some fabulous, first-rate program. I am holding the program, I open it. My wife’s phone is an iPhone like yours. She uses an iPhone 14. Mine is a phony old phone. The glass is also cracked; I have not been able to change it. I open the program; the signal strength my phone receives is different from the signal strength my wife’s phone receives. They are using the same base station, but because of the quality and model of the phone, the signals the two receive are different. We are using the same program, and this is the program given by the experts. Presiding Judge, I did this with this program. I also pass over this point. “So, you went to Tavşantepe village. You made measurements in front of Nevzat’s house. You also made measurements on the other side. You went up to Salim’s side, you did it. You went up to Arif’s side, you did it. You measured the values, you measured the distances, you measured the distance to the base station.” Then come to this point and say, “We found the signal strength in front of Nevzat’s house to be such-and-such, the frequency range was this, the distance to the base station was that, and our calculation is this.” Then we would say, “We too will go and measure, and we will compare them with the data there. Are they the same or not?” But you look — there is no such information in the file. There is not one line of information about the measurements they made.
The Only Evidence Against Nevzat: The Unreliable Base-Station Report and the Reliable HTS Report
Afterwards what do these colleagues — the colleagues who prepared the expert report — do? The only piece of evidence that causes my client Nevzat Bahtiyar to be tried in this case for participation in the murder — look, the only one; there is no other evidence at all, there is not a single witness statement of the other defendants against him, there is no DNA, or whatever else you may look for, against him — there is no piece of evidence other than this base-station report about Nevzat, and you come out with a report and present a person as if he had participated in a murder. In one sentence, between 15:10 and 15:18 he is wandering around Arif’s and Salim’s houses. But I ask my client, “Is there such a thing?” He says, “May Allah and the Qur’an strike me with a curse,” he says, “I was by my house.” Now, should I trust such a fabricated report, or the statement of my client? That is all I will say about the base-station reports. Therefore we do not accept the base-station report; we have explained the reasons. But we have this HTS report in our hands. I have no objection to this report. I have been a lawyer for 22 years, and in the hundreds of cases I have entered, I have seen this HTS report accepted as evidence, taken as the basis of a judgment, and used to punish people many times, and it is a practice also accepted — not denied — by the Court of Cassation. But when it comes to this — unfortunately, I cannot say the same. Well, is this trial, this murder trial, a test bench? This is said to be the third case, being tested here. Go and test it in minor offenses. Test it in theft cases, in car-theft cases. Test it, does it work, does it hold, is it right or not? Check it. Then bring it, use it in the murder trial of 4 people being tried. That is, this is not such a simple case that these reports, these calculations should be the basis of a case or be used as if on a test bench. Therefore, from the signatures down to the other matters inside, when we consider it, we do not accept this report as a document of legal quality that can be taken as the basis of a judgment. It is a document very far from being a legal document.
Hediye Güran and the Increase in the Number of the Accused
Previously in my defense I had Hediye. I was going to say very interesting things about Hediye Güran. I was even going to include her in the participation in the offense. I was even going to say: they are not 4, they are 5. Mr. Nahit, my esteemed teacher, added the imam; they became 6. I do not know — if we dig a little further, it could become 7-8-9. If new base-station reports come out — if we combine the base-station reports of the others in the village with these — the entire village is possible in my opinion. I will not make my defense regarding Hediye. After my last meeting with you, I was satisfied, and I am removing Hediye from my defense, and I come to the moment of the arrest of my client, Mr. Nevzat.
Nevzat’s Surrender and the Heavy Telephone Traffic with Salim
After examining the camera footage, when the gendarmerie identified the red car that appeared in the footage, they looked at the owner of the red car. The owner turns out to be Nevzat Bahtiyar’s son, and when they went home to take his son, after identifying the car, to take his son, Nevzat Bahtiyar said, “The person you are looking for is not my son, it is me,” and surrendered himself. He was not found under the bed, on top of the quilt, in a chest, or anywhere like that. He went out to the door himself and said, “The one you are looking for is me,” and surrendered. Another matter: the total number of his calls with Salim Güran over 3 months is 45. They spoke 45 times. This corresponds to a call every two days. Every two days. I do not speak with my own elder brother this much every two days. Once every two days — I have been here five days already, and I have not yet called my brother; but they are so intimate, calling every two days. Well, 45 calls in 3 months — that is not few.
The Defendants’ Strategy of Demanding Evidence and the Discussion of the Water Outage
Another matter: it seemed to me that Mr. Onur wanted to make a kind of imputation — right or wrong, I do not know. It is his right; he is giving a defense. They ask for a lot of evidence; “we want this too, we want that too, bring this piece of evidence, bring that piece of evidence” — they asked for DARA. Nothing came out of DARA. They asked for that; nothing came out. They keep asking for new things. Why do they ask for these? Our personal opinion is that they know nothing will come out of it, and they will say to the panel, “Look, we had all the evidence collected, we got this and that; no evidence is coming out against us,” they will say. They are busy with evidence that will not come out against themselves; otherwise there is no evidence that serves the merits of the case. Most of the requests you have already rejected anyway, and from our defense standpoint you made the right decision. The matter of whether the water was cut — I do not even consider this worth discussing. My client claims the water was cut. The defendant Salim says “yes.” “The water was cut, so he called for water,” he says. He does not deny it. There is no longer anything to discuss on this point. That is, as for the report from the DSİ, whether it was flowing or not — both are confessing, both are accepting; the matter is over.
The Unreliability of the Pedometer Data and Evidence of a Cold-Blooded Murder
The pedometer is very important. We have come to a very important point. The pedometer. Now we install apps on our phones. “Step counter” — many of us probably have this program installed on our mobile phones. But it is such a program that if you carry the pedometer in your hand, it makes a different measurement; if you put it in your pocket, it makes a different measurement. If you carry it in a bag, it makes a different measurement. How much can I trust such a device when it is counting my steps? How do I know where Salim Güran carried that phone? Or how do I know that at some moments, while he was doing something with both hands, he placed the phone somewhere for 15–20 minutes? Because — may Allah have mercy on her — while carrying Narin’s lifeless body from place to place, bringing her, taking her away, while trying to erase the evidence with his hands, it is certain that in all likelihood the phone was not in one of his two hands. He must have put it somewhere. Therefore we do not believe those pedometers either. I even have a beautiful turn of phrase about this. With regard to these pedometers — “45 steps remained,” the story goes; 45 steps supposedly made at the time of the incident. It would make a very fine novel title. A perfect novel title. I said, “Murder in 45 Steps.” Exactly so. “Murder in 45 Steps.” This could even be the summary claim of the case. Another matter: bank payment. At the hours the murder was taking place, there were one or two bank payments. How do I explain, how do I account for this bank payment? There is nothing beyond, nothing behind it. From my standpoint, as Nevzat Bahtiyar’s lawyer, this bank payment has only one meaning. Salim Güran is either a cold-blooded killer — they keep painting a profile of a “cold-blooded killer” for my client; but the real cold-blooded one is himself. At the hours the murder was committed, he is cold-blooded enough to pay two bills. I will say my final words about the day of the incident and finish, Presiding Judge; I will not tire you any further.
Narin’s Last Location and the Scene of the Crime
There was an allegation imputed to my client. Just as Narin was on the verge of reaching the top of the hill, “Nevzat took her, carried her off, and strangled her in the barn” — that was the allegation. These allegations, through the statements during the hearing and before the hearing, and through the statements of Narin’s girlfriends, have shown that Narin had reached the top of the hill at those hours. Indeed, this was established in the site-inspection footage. Therefore it has been confirmed that Narin reached the upper part of the path where Nevzat was located, the area where her home was. At the same time we have the National Criminal report. The National Criminal report also says “it is thought to be”; but when we look at the evidence and the statements, from our standpoint it is now established that Narin reached the top of that hill. And if you look at the spot she reached, Presiding Judge, at the point indicated by the Criminal report — that point in fact shows us very well where the scene of the crime is. She climbed up onto the hill, Narin came to the middle of the empty area there. The entrance to their house is on the right; she passed to the right of the entrance and is heading toward the barn. Therefore, whatever caused her death, whatever the last thing she saw, that thing was in the barn or somewhere around the barn. Therefore the scene of the crime, from our standpoint, is the barn.
The Time of the Murder and the Request for Nevzat’s Release
As for the time of the murder — I am finishing — from our standpoint, as for the time of the murder: at 15:11 she entered the path. In 2 minutes she went up, 15:13. 2 minutes until she reaches the area of the barn, 15:14. At 15:14 she saw whatever she saw. At 15:14 she saw the thing that caused her death. To kill, to strangle an 8-year-old child, the longest it would take is 2 minutes, and in my personal view the hour of death of that poor girl is 15:16, Presiding Judge. At 15:16 Narin closed her eyes to this world. I will not speak further; looking at the opinion, my colleague will give the defense regarding the criminal and legal dimension. Whether this falls under participation or not, he will evaluate that. Let me present my final requests. In the case file to date, no concrete and definite evidence has been found that my client Nevzat Bahtiyar participated in the murder, and there is a strong possibility that the classification of the offense charged against my client in the file will change. For this reason, together with the decision of your court, I respectfully request and demand his release.