Defense by Enes Güran’s Counsel for the Defendant
Law. Recep KIZILOK
Opening Statement and General Objection
I will not speak at length. My colleagues have already explained everything. We do not concur with the prosecution’s opinion on the merits. Our colleagues have already explained it in detail. The purpose of the legal system is to establish the material facts in a manner that leaves no room for doubt. There is no concrete evidence in the prosecution’s opinion. Whatever is present is, I believe, based on interpretations. I will review the opinion in general terms.
The Slipper Matter of Muhammed Kaya
Now, regarding Muhammed Kaya and the slipper. Muhammed Kaya finds a slipper and places it in his vehicle. Later, Osman Güran, thinking it might belong to Narin, notifies the family and then the law-enforcement units. When it is established that it does not belong to Narin, they construct a rationale about the law-enforcement units being misdirected. How, in your view, can law-enforcement units be misdirected? I also think about this — there is no question of misdirection here. Nor is there anything related to a material fact. For that reason it is not something particularly to be taken into account. It is also not a matter imputed to my client.
The Power Lines and the Fire Allegation
The second matter is the power lines. A fire breaks out as a result of the power lines contacting each other. It is rationalized that this was done by the family in an organized manner to shield the culprit. I particularly wish to state this: did the family decide to set the village on fire so that the gendarmerie, who were about to find Narin’s body in the stream, would not find it? When you think logically, my mind cannot grasp it. How are these situations linked to this offense? I consider this to be entirely assumption, interpretation, and imagination.
The Village Where Narin Disappeared and Kinship Ties
Thus, the third matter. We see in the opinion that because most people in the village where Narin disappeared are relatives, because vehicles of outsiders do not enter, and because she disappeared in a place very close to the home, it is concluded that the family did this and that the family hid it in an organized manner. Yet when we truly think about it, as jurists we must establish the material truth through concrete data. Not through assumption and interpretation. Here there is entirely assumption and interpretation. There is no material fact. The concept of “family” also means mother, father, and sibling. Who is meant by “family” here? We must also consider this.
The Bruise on Enes’s Eye and the Bite Mark
The bruise on my client Enes’s eye, and also a bite mark. This matter has been much discussed. Perhaps one of the circumstances causing him to be tried here today is the forensic medicine report. There is nothing adverse. At the previous hearing several witnesses were heard, and these witnesses declared that on the day of the incident they did not see anything about a tooth mark on Enes or a bruise on his eye. That is, there is no imputation, no offense, and despite this a scenario is developed. And my client is accused regarding this.
The Client’s Statements and Request for Release
The statements my client gave both at the law-enforcement level and before the judicial authorities are entirely sincere and realistic. It is quite normal for him to be mistaken about the time. My colleague showed a photograph. You saw how he collapsed at that moment; a person in that psychological state can also make mistakes about the time and can forget things. I consider that to be a normal situation. For these reasons, there is no concrete evidence of the offenses imputed to my client. All of it is assumption. He has been in custody for a long time. My client has not even seen his sister’s body or her grave. I particularly request that he be tried without detention, that if your court is of a different view at this stage, he be released subject to one or more judicial control conditions, that he be acquitted of the prosecution’s opinion, and that if your court is of a different view, the provisions most favorable to him be applied.