Defense by Yüksel Güran’s Counsel for the Defendant
Law. Furkan ÇAKIR
Belief in Yüksel Güran’s Innocence
Before our defense, I want to begin with a short sentence. No one can easily say “God is my proxy.” May your brow be clear; you are our representatives. This person, Yüksel Güran — throughout the case we had conversations with her continuously, including repeatedly in prison. On this point she has always formed the same words, the same sentences to us with steadfastness, and she continues to do so. Her brow is clear, and so is ours. Up to this point, as everyone knows, we have been subjected to many attacks — through social media, through letters and messages and faxes sent to the bar association to which we are registered. As lawyers, when we came under attack, we could have withdrawn; we did not. Because — why is it not working, esteemed Presiding Judge.
The Claim of Innocence and Procedural Irregularities in the Investigation
We could have withdrawn after the attacks, we did not. Why? In fact, we had a purpose, we had a motto. We were a group of people who asserted, who knew, that Yüksel Güran is innocent. Yüksel Güran herself made us feel this insistently, and continues to do so. When we took the file and reviewed it, we did not see even a simple suspicion — let alone a strong suspicion of an offense requiring Yüksel Güran’s inclusion in this file — on the basis of which an inquiry is normally initiated. In our view, initially there was not even such a suspicion. Unfortunately, she was added, she was detained, and her pre-trial detention continues up to now. We have raised these points repeatedly. We were even cursed at on social media; we did not care. There were colleagues who are giving their defense here now. We have had verbal exchanges even among ourselves that came close to confrontation. We did not want these; in fact, our only wish was to express ourselves as clearly and truthfully as possible. We say this. Many people sigh and huff at our defenses, we are aware of this too. But these are facts; they are said, you filter them through your own sieve, and in the classification of the court you too can reach a decision on them. On the level of conscience — but let us never forget that the ones who will give the real decision are the judges. From the very beginning, we repeatedly said the following: the investigation phase was carried out. How was it carried out? How did it proceed? How was it dragged along reluctantly — we said it. Let me say it again. I tell you that from the investigation phase, the Güran family was mounted onto the head of this file, and all the work was carried out under this distortion. We said these things. Now, regarding our assertions, there is a saying of Mr. Nahit: “If I say something, I support it.” We too supported. We said: there are records kept at the beginning of the investigation phase. By whom were the records kept? They were kept by JASAT, by the relevant team, by law enforcement. We cannot see these records as legal evidence that is in any way authoritative, convincing or beyond dispute. There were colleagues who accepted this. We say: a record was kept. This is a conjecture.
Contradictions in the Records and Violations of Procedural Rules
Yes, an investigation is done; if it is supported in line with that investigation, it proceeds further. But unfortunately, we saw that the records were interpreted. The records were reflected differently in the indictment file. I will clearly state the examples. Now, there is a record kept by the gendarmerie on 31/08/2024. It bears the signatures of the officers who kept the record. Do you know what it says there? It says: “In the field investigations we conducted, the point where our Narin was last seen is in the vicinity of her home, and around the last point where she is thought to have disappeared, most of the families present are members of the Güran family.” Now, what do we say? From the beginning we said that there is a camera recording. A camera recording taken by the school itself, in which our Narin was last seen at 15:11:14 — that recording was enough to explain everything, or, if an investigation were to be initiated, it was a piece of evidence showing where that investigation should be directed. What was the last point where she was seen? In fact, rather than the vicinity of her house, it was right by the house of Nevzat Bahtiyar, the defendant in our file. We said these things. So why, when we said this or when the gendarmerie records did not reflect it, is our expression considered wrong? Procedure is necessary for everyone. Now, the evaluations we have made are always from the standpoint of procedure. What do we say? Procedure precedes substance. What do most quashing decisions of the Court of Cassation say? They say: “Procedure precedes substance.” That is, they say: first you will comply with procedure; if your procedure is correct, I will examine the substance. When, in terms of form, we say how the records were conveyed and how wrongly they were transferred, this is a deficiency. You cannot move to the substance. But some things were pushed through, some things were forced. We overlooked this. We said, it is human, it happens. Everyone can make mistakes. We proceeded. Do you know what we say? On 02/09/2024 there is another record kept by the gendarmerie. It is an interview record — or meeting record, whatever it is — stating that the gendarmerie personnel met with our client Yüksel Güran in person. I read it to you as it is. It says: “Even though it is not clear what happened to Narin Güran, she thinks her daughter is dead.” What does the indictment say? Let us look at page four immediately.
The Allegation That She Was Certain Her Daughter Was Dead, and the Effort to Manufacture Evidence
It is written that she was as if certain her daughter was dead. I keep a record and submit it here. The relevant authority, the relevant court, changes and adds to that place. It is invalid here, it cannot be done, it is incapable of being done. Everyone knows this. You know, the complainant counsels also know. We raise this. We say: you are using the poisoned apple; you are eating it. Do not eat it; we will move to the substance. Because — we have passed it anyway, I pass that too. One day before our Narin’s body was found — as we said, the Güran family was mounted onto that file. Arms were sewn onto that file, legs were sewn on as needed. A garment is being forcibly removed somehow. Our Narin has not yet been found. It is not yet known that her body — I say this as a legal qualification — was in a sack. One day before, that is on 07/09/2024, do you know what the gendarmerie does? The gendarmerie goes to Arif Güran’s house. They take photographs of 6 sacks in Arif Güran’s house. Does this action of the gendarmerie seem normal to you? Let someone with a sound, steadfast mind come before me and say it is normal. It is not. There is another record, dated 08/09/2024, kept on the day our Narin’s body was found. According to this record, a fight took place near Yüksel Güran’s — near Arif Güran’s — house; this fight was written, alleged, stated, conveyed to the authority with forcing. Do you know what the record says? Turning to Yüksel Güran’s house, I apologize very much, Yüksel Güran was addressed as “whore.” Turning to her house — what did we do at the first session of the trial? We passed through the interrogation phase, our witnesses were heard, the defendants were heard. What did all the witnesses who came say? They told us: when Yüksel Güran received the news of our Narin’s death, she collapsed biologically; she was put into an ambulance. She was taken under treatment. Therefore it is not possible for her to be present at the scene of this fight. This is in fact established by what we call testimony evidence, eyewitness testimony. But again, Yüksel Güran was mounted into this record. It was said: “You were there; you were not there. But we have to show you there.” But how does this sentence appear in the indictment?
The Mistakes of the Investigating Prosecutor and Insufficient Evidence
A sentence said “to her house,” against Yüksel Güran; a record is kept, and this record is transferred into the indictment wrongly. Should I not say this? I will say it, because procedure precedes substance. You will do the procedure; “I will look at the substance later,” that is what it means. I pass these things — as if the investigation phase went very well in terms of form and procedure and we moved on to the substance. In fact, it did not go at all. All the lawyers here in fact know very well: in this file, any decision given whether on procedure or substance will be overturned; in fact no one will trust in legal terms the decision given here. Because why? There are mistakes, there are deficiencies. These should not have been done. But the prosecutors of the investigation did them. I would not want to say this as a lawyer, but the prosecutor of our file proceeds with the same power, with the same tongue. I will come to him too. I will say it. I am not opening a quarrel here, but I will say it. It needs to be said. Because, as most of you have seen — those who have examined the file know — up until 21/09/2024, Nevzat Bahtiyar’s final statement, that is his final statement placing Yüksel Güran in that lewd behavior, is dated 21/09/2024. Up to that date, our client was accused solely by certain reckless, heedless social-media charlatans on the basis of one allegation. Apart from that, there is no competent evidence in the file to show it. Why, on 31/08/2024, did the investigating prosecutor, instead of searching for Narin’s body, do what? Do you know? He obtained a DNA report as to whether our Narin was the biological child of Yüksel and Arif Güran. For a file that can be evaluated as a homicide file but that would normally be classified as a disappearance at the first minute, this is impossible to do as soon as it is taken; but you did it. The investigating prosecutors did it. Why did he do this — we say these things. Has anyone given us an answer? No. And there will be none. Do I know this? There will be none. Now on this matter there is a situation, a fact. As we said, on 21/09/2024 such a lewd imputation was made; after that imputation it was also said that Ms. Yüksel had a relationship with her uncle — I apologize deeply, I apologize — and the HTS records of all family members were obtained in this direction. Astonishing. Truly astonishing!
Nevzat Bahtiyar’s Status as an Informant and the Threat of Finger-Pointing
I do not remember who said it; we had one complainant counsel, the authorized representative of the Diyarbakır Bar. He did well, bless him. He said: Nevzat Bahtiyar does not even appear in the opinion. Indeed, lest it be misunderstood, Nevzat Bahtiyar cannot be an informant. The conditions for Nevzat Bahtiyar to be an informant do not exist. Anyone who sees Nevzat Bahtiyar on social media as an informant is told: all the Gürans in this file are guilty, and because you say this you are guilty. For Nevzat Bahtiyar to be procedurally an informant, he must have participated in a criminal file, in a judicial incident, as a principal or secondary perpetrator. He must know the legal matter. He must say: “I know this incident happened this way, or I carried it out, it happened this way.” Do you know what the fine line on this matter is? Steadfastness. That is, once you have become an informant, you cannot change your statements. If you change them, you cannot be an informant. This is not my word but the word of the law. The law commands here. It says: you cannot evaluate this one as an informant. What did they do? They said: Nevzat Bahtiyar must be an informant. He cannot be, it is not possible. The legal qualification of Nevzat Bahtiyar is clear. We do not say about anyone, as some of our counsels have said, that he is a killer. His legal qualification is clear. There is a very important matter, a bit unrelated, but there is the issue of finger-pointing. It is very popular these days. Everyone is pointing the finger at everyone. At yesterday’s hearing one of our counsels pointed a finger at the side where most of the defendants were. I do not know what his stance is, what his professional attitude is. I leave the imputation entirely to him, but the finger — one day it comes back and points at you. You do not have the standing to point that finger; you cannot point. What did Yüksel Güran say today? She told us: “They pointed fingers at me at the gendarmerie. They said, ‘You know, you are not speaking.’” I do not know if that gendarmerie officer is here; one day that finger will point at you. You too will then understand that you are in need of defense. I hope my voice reaches you. Now, actually I will try not to take too much of your time. As I said, these are important. These are matters within the contents, the scope, the subject matter of the file. You too need to evaluate them. Evaluate.
Explaining the Errors in Eyewitness Statements Through Cognitive Theory
The ones who will give the decision here are the courts, the judges. But the evaluation of this is made on behalf of the Turkish conscience, on behalf of all consciences, on behalf of the nation. Let us evaluate it too. Now they are talking about something, Presiding Judge. Some witnesses — let me not say some, let me speak more boldly, shall I? They say that many of the Güran family — in fact, all of them — misled the law-enforcement personnel, even the prosecutors. They say they also misled the gendarmerie commander. How did they do this? On the basis of incorrect information given by two or three people about time — look, I underline: about time — or their minds projecting something at that moment; I actually researched this. In our criminal procedure — perhaps our esteemed Presiding Judge knows this — cognitive theory is not applied. What is cognitive theory? Cognitive theory says this: you are an authority seeking truth, and the power to reach this truth is in your hands; while evaluating this truth you must absolutely make use of three factors. What does it say? It says: time. It says: place. It says: sequence, i.e., movement. If the mind reveals one of these as misleading, this results from the logs the mind has built, that is, its schema. You said this. This is not a matter where there is a problem with reality; it says the mind already spews this out. Why does it spew it out, do you know? According to the research done, it says the mind can spew out this information for the following reasons. That is, something experienced — but how, in terms of sequence or in terms of time, a wrong thing emerged — the mind actually shows us. This is in fact a product of human biology. Now, at one point in the research there was a very precious remark. Do you know what it said? It said: while the statement of an eyewitness is being taken, or while information is being received, even the attitude of the law-enforcement personnel, the lawyer, the judge or the prosecutor — whoever — is capable of misleading the mind. That is, do you know what this is? In fact, there are such things in the mind. True — the mind accepts this, but at that moment you are pressuring it, as we said: the Gürans were mounted, added to this file, we say. Actually this is a spewing of the mind. I am not the one saying this. Indeed, do you know what else they say? They say that when a crime is publicized, an eyewitness may make an erroneous attribution as to the origin of the incident.
Factors Leading to Erroneous Trials and the Reliability of Eyewitness Statements
Now, in 1932, a researcher and writer named Bartlett, having nothing else to do, researched this. He even gathered his own group; of course the evaluation is up to you. He says: when you want an event to be frequently repeated, it is possible for that event — for the false information — to be transformed in a false manner. How does he give an example of this, do you know? He says: an event is told to a group of 100 people. He wants this event to be repeated continuously, and after a certain number of repetitions each of them can make false statements — temporal and spatial movement, false statements. Is there a problem with reality? No. But what is it? The mind spews this out. In fact, why am I saying this? Actually, those who read Yüksel Güran’s statements will know there is no problem with them. In fact, up to this point there is neither an imputation, nor an allegation, nor an attributed offense. But considering the file as a whole, I must say this. Let me add next to it: now, in criminal adjudication actually, it is a rather crude expression — excuse me, I apologize — words like “the judicial authority made a mistake” or “the state made a mistake” are not used. Do you know why? Because in criminal adjudication the procedure is clear. The procedure is this: I conduct a trial; it has oversight, there is oversight of oversight, there are ordinary appeals. Extraordinary legal remedies say: you will certainly obtain what is rightfully yours, or you will not suffer harm if you have a right. This is what the law says. But it says that erroneous trials, overturned trials, have 5 main factors. If I asked everyone here, each would name one factor. I will list 5 factors for you. Claim to me — and prove — that one of these 5 factors is absent from this file, and I will leave my defense here right now. Do you know what it says? It says: haste in adjudication. We know how the investigation phase went, everyone knows; we know how the prosecution phase went too. Everyone knows, because there is haste, there is pressure, as though the law-enforcement units have an urge to clarify the event. What did we say? We said: in certain situations, whether on orders or in other circumstances, the law-enforcement units carry out an action, keep a record. It says: these exist, but perhaps they do not exist. What does it say? You carry out the oversight, the legal channel should carry it out.
The Content of the Opinion and the Invalidity of the Base-Station Report
If you are there, or if there is a report showing you were there, “In my view it exists” — it says. But the action — the opinion says Yüksel Güran is in fact a joint perpetrator, says it is a will of participation, says it is joint dominion, says it shows she was in that will. There are four elements mentioned in the opinion. What does it say? It says the family was misdirected at the various stages, that the law-enforcement units were misdirected by the family. It says that even children of a tender age gave the law-enforcement authorities false information. The base-station report — we have called it a monstrosity from the beginning, from November 7 — is entirely a report whose technical information shows how erroneous it is and that it does not have the quality of an expert report; indeed, it is a paper product. These matters are qualified as joint dominion. Now, I found three precedent decisions of the Criminal General Assembly and decisions on unification of case law. The classification of joint dominion mentioned here is not the same as the classification mentioned in the opinion. As I said, I will also say something to the prosecutor. In her opinion the prosecutor referred to one precedent. She did it very well, but one of our colleagues yesterday pointed out that she evidently did a copy-paste, or she wrote what stayed in her mind. But she did not touch on the sharpest, most striking point. Why did she not touch on it? Because as we said, the investigation phase has been conducted from the beginning with the Güran family integrated into that file. Let me remind you: what does Article 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure say, esteemed Presiding Judge? It says the time when the opinion is to be given is fixed. The opinion, after all evidence has been collected and all statements have been taken, is given by the prosecution as a whole, as a result of an evaluation made in its entirety. When was the opinion given? When was it served on us? It was given before the documents we requested, that you yourself requested ex officio, had even been brought into the file. Now you say this is a procedure. This cannot be a procedure, because the law describes this to me and says “You will do it like this.” Perhaps the documents would make that opinion defective, or in the light of those documents — since the file has been taken up — why is it not touched upon in the opinion? It was touched upon, but only in a criminal complaint. These are erroneous things. These are things that should not be done. We say this: if you are doing something, do it in accordance with procedure.
Refutation of the Joint-Dominion Claim and the Presumption of Innocence
Our esteemed Presiding Judge has said this from the beginning. The presiding judge says: “I do the procedures very well” — and indeed he did. Yes. Now we too said, in terms of form and reluctantly, the investigation phase, the opinion phase, the prosecution phase have been pushed along — and when we said this, as I said, we faced certain pressures. We heard insults. Did we withdraw? No. Why? We will explain. We will continue to explain. These are things that need to be said. Now, the matter of joint dominion. They say Yüksel Güran acted with a common will together with the other three defendants, and killed her child. But in terms of action, no description of conduct is given. But it says you did it. It says: “There is such an impression.” Now, as I said, I will submit three precedent decisions to you beforehand. You evaluate them. The approval there is clear. No one, for example in a procedural sense — yes, everyone wants to create a doctrine, everyone wants to form an opinion, but its limits are clear. We, as people of the law, as lawyers — perhaps among us there are also those who think of becoming something else — but above all, even in normal life, we are obliged to follow procedure. Everything has a procedure, and the Code of Criminal Procedure has a procedure. It was not followed. We say it was not followed. Now, the document you see in my hand — do you know what it is? It is a screenshot taken from my client’s phone, showing the call records. Let me continue. From the beginning, what does my client say in her statements? A contradiction. Have you seen one? You have not. In terms of time and place have you seen a problem? You have not. There is a record supporting my client. What does it say? It says: “I called my brother around 9 or 10 o’clock.” Look, the record is in the file. Then she says: “I called Hediye, I spoke with Hediye.” What does Hediye say? Does she support my client? Yes. So, how is joint dominion established here, mentally and actively? Let someone explain this to me. Let them say, “Joint dominion is established this way, not established that way.” In this file, it is not possible for joint dominion to be established with respect to our client. Now, there is a principle that social-media commentators know very well. Social-media commentators know this very well. The presumption of innocence, also appearing in the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Lack of Sufficient Evidence for Yüksel Güran’s Detention and the Weakness of the Key Evidence
It is a provision which many countries have made themselves, which is also the case in the Republic of Turkey. Presumption of innocence. I do not even want to think about it, but let me imagine. Let me imagine. If I had been tried in this file in this way and the file were in this state, I would be upset. Truly there is no valuable piece of evidence that could keep me — keep Yüksel Güran — in custody. Truly there is not. Now, external information cannot be brought into the file, but the people we have talked with ask us this: “Why is Yüksel Güran in custody?” Yüksel Güran may have been detained before 21/09/2024; on 21/09/2024 there is Nevzat Bahtiyar’s last statement, the so-called informant’s final statement. There, there is an unchaste, incoherent, unimagined, unexplained allegation. What does it say there? It says: “I took our precious Narin, put her in the vehicle. As I was getting into the vehicle, I looked back. Yüksel Güran had put her two hands like this and was crying.” Now, at every stage of the file, it has been stated, step by step, that Yüksel Güran was in truth not there or did not have the intention of being there. There is one — one — statement saying this. One statement says she was there. They were not satisfied with this: long before — look, taken long before but later submitted to the file with different hours and different records — there is a base-station analysis report. In the base-station analysis report, it was said that the scene of the crime was the house; the house was shown, room-by-room descriptions were made. It said: “The crime was committed here, four people established actual dominion here, they have joint dominion, they are acting together.” Should I again, to tire you, go into those technical flaws? I will not, because we have said at every stage — and we say again — that the base-station report is truly not an expert report. Let me not say it again at this stage. Therefore these two pieces of evidence — which, so to speak, form the backbone of the indictment and the opinion, which elevated the indictment on its hind legs, which enabled the indictment to be drawn up — I apologize deeply; this is a scrap of paper, it contributed nothing to the file. An additional report was obtained; we requested it, was it obtained? Yes. What does it say? It says: “If I said so, it is correct.” Did it present the oversight to me? It did not.
The Reliability of Expert Reports and the Request for Technical Verification of the Evidence
So, those who signed as experts on this — the signatures being different too, never mind — I do not even know that those who submitted it to the file as experts are experts. I do not know their fields of expertise either. It is impossible for me to know, because why — this was not explained to me. The provision of criminal procedure is clear. In fact you should not have put this into the file at all. At the investigation stage the prosecutors should not have put this into the file. Now, the complainant counsels here, especially the ministry counsels, have said the following: “The base-station reports are correct; we have come to believe in them.” They submitted precedent decisions in this direction. Now I say the following. I do not say that if the base-station report is prepared, if its oversight is made possible for me, if it shows me the oversight, if it shows me the margin of wear and the margin of flexibility, I will accept it. No such thing. Bring me the base-station report in the precedent decisions you submitted: were they done by the same experts or by different experts, is it open to oversight or not? Also, my esteemed colleague says: he says those concerned HTS. At least let me establish the context here too. No such thing. It is not possible to establish such a thing. Now I will gather my final sentence a bit. Let me not take too much of your time. I also do not think I am being tiring; hopefully I have not tired you. Now there is a piece of evidence submitted to the file that has been turned into a subject of mockery on social media. Actually it is such a precious piece of evidence that we prepared its description and its classification ourselves. We submitted it to our esteemed panel. They say, in line with the base-station report, that there is movement. There is a region, there is movement in this region. Now, for this movement to come into existence truly, an effort must have been expended. On whom did we test this? We tested it on Salim Güran. A defendant of your file. Now, a document in the form of a record — I cannot find it at the moment, I apologize greatly — there is a document kept in the form of a record. It says: Salim Güran, at the crime scene or at the time of the crime, took exactly 45 steps. Now they say — how am I to know whether this is correct? Is there a possibility of it being correct? Is there none? We asked the court for its oversight or for the oversight to be carried out. Did we not? We said: if you have doubts, let us inspect it. Now there is a technique. The gyroscope technique.
Insufficient Suspicion and Request for Acquittal
A gyroscope — a technique used in very technical areas, describing functions entirely. That is, when you take a step, it describes the step, and this technique is applied in these applications. I have nothing to do — did I have to research this? No, but why? There is an allegation. Am I obliged to refute the allegation? Yes. Now, when we look at the file as a whole, the imputation is clear. The reason why our client is being kept in this file is clear. The reason why she is in detention is clear. When you look at the file as a whole, our client, who should in fact have been included in this file as a complainant on the other side, has been placed in the position of a defendant with pain and suffering. We do not accept this. We have said so. Therefore, when an evaluation is made as a whole, it is clear that our client did not commit the offense, the crime, imputed to her. On this there is not only no strong suspicion of an offense, no firm conviction. As a conviction verdict is given with firm conviction — it says nothing blurry shall remain, you shall be fully open — it says, when you are fully open, give a verdict, give a punishment, or give an acquittal. If you are not fully open, it says: “I have provided you with conditions for judgment.” What does Article 223 tell us? It says: the decisions you may give are clear. Is it a doubt? Issue under (e). Do you think he did not commit it? Issue under (b). Is there no intent? Issue under (c). But it says: a conviction here is a very supervised situation. When you have not reached a firm conviction, you cannot give one. Therefore, there is not even a simple suspicion — let me not say simple — sufficient suspicion that would require our client to be tried as a defendant in the file. The period of pre-trial detention up to this stage is clear; the stage at which she was detained is clear. She was taken into custody on the day our Narin’s body was found, and then detained. That is, up to this time — as they say, “she is not your daughter, she is our daughter” — leave aside the impudence, this is impudence, it is crossing the line. She is not your daughter. You may feel pain, like everyone you may seek your rights here, but within the framework of law, within the framework of law — I italicize and underline — there is no document, no act, no statement issued that would require our client to be present in the file as a defendant. We respectfully request and demand that our client be acquitted first under Article 223/2-(b), or, if you have doubt and say “I am in doubt” — but there can never be a firm conviction here — under (e).