Defense by Yüksel Güran’s Counsel for the Defendant
Law. Yılmaz DEMİROĞLU
The Purpose of the Defense and the Principle of Adjudication
Presiding Judge, esteemed members, as we stated at the previous session, even though as lawyers we are on the defense side here, we are here as counsel for our Narin’s mother. Therefore our primary aim is to serve justice and to contribute to the emergence of the material truth and the concrete evidence. This is our sole aim; neither our conscience as defense counsel can allow for the real killer or killers of Narin to go unpunished. Until today, many scenarios have been produced around this case file. Entirely baseless, foundationless, evidence-free scenarios have been produced. We are aware of this, and I am sure that when those who produced these scenarios see the concrete evidence, unfortunately, although their real faces will be clearly exposed, there is a sizable group that cannot digest the emergence of this fact, this truth, or the fact that they have been wrong. When we obtained certain evidence in the case file — we saw it — and then with regret we saw in certain media outlets and social-media platforms that these pieces of evidence were being belittled and discredited. Our sole aim here is — and rest assured that I too, as a lawyer, at the end of the day, yes, I too am afraid of being remembered as the lawyer of a child killer. Yes, defense is sacred, it is right, but given where this file stands, when we took on this file as a defense team, we did not specifically choose people who could be open to suspicion; we tried to serve justice, and we are trying to move forward on this path. Esteemed Presiding Judge, there was a decision of the Court of Cassation given in the 1970s. In it there was a remark — when I truly want to help the law, I never forget that remark; it is also a principle of mine. There it says: the judge, in conformity with nature, with the ordinary course, with the truth, without being trapped in rigid hearts and rigid molds, must reach a human-scented solution to the dispute. That is, while making an evaluation here, while producing a scenario, we cannot set aside reason, logic, science, conscience. When we reach the material truth, when we try to reach it, we will of course take into account the ordinary course of life and the contradictions we have described. We too are people of reason, but today in this case file we saw this: there is a state of social frenzy; unfortunately there is.
The Presumption of Innocence and Violations of Media Ethics
In this state of frenzy, unfortunately, the right not to be stigmatized of innocent persons — what we call the presumption of innocence — was violated even before the case file was opened and the indictment was drafted. We saw these things. Some broadcasting outlets failed to fulfill their responsibility, that is, their own responsibility. Judgments were rendered as if final verdicts had been given on persons — by displaying full-size photographs of the defendants, by fabricating certain scenarios. An attempt was made to instruct your court. Now, why is this important for us? Because we are also the mother’s counsel, and this process creates concern on the part of the defendants — all defendants, I do not exclude Nevzat here, all defendants — who have an expectation of a fair trial. One of the press and broadcast principles concerning an ongoing case is the prohibition against violating the presumption of innocence of persons and against making statements that would influence the court or amount to a judgment on a person — this is presented to us as a legal duty, and also as a citizen’s duty. But in this file, in the broadcasts made about this file, we could not see this. Now, as defense counsel — yes, our Narin was brutally killed — as defense counsel we still could not find out the mother’s legal position. Our esteemed Minister of Justice said: “No point shall remain in darkness regarding the killing of our Narin.” He gave this word. He gave it to the whole of Turkey; yes, and we, as a constitutive element of the judiciary, are doing and will continue to do our part in serving him and in serving justice in keeping with that word. Now, taking an excerpt from the submitted indictment, I put before the appreciation of the jurists a situation regarding the accusation directed at the mother. However, the prosecution criticized this situation. I say again from here: today I will announce to the whole world the accusation directed at the mother, and I will protect the mother’s rights. The accusation directed at her is a record keeping track of a gendarme’s mind-reading. When an indictment is drafted or an opinion is prepared, Article 170/(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is emphasized in particular. Therefore, one of the matters that must be found in the opinion is that the events constituting the offense charged are explained by being connected with the existing evidence.
The Lack of Evidence for the Accusations Against the Mother and Deficiencies in the Investigation
Now, with the existing evidence in this case file, at what point will we place the mother? How do you connect this? Is the mother, in the old phrasing, the one committing the act in person, that is, the principal material perpetrator of the offense? Did she strangle her daughter? Are you putting forward a claim contrary to her nature, or are you saying that it was her son who carried out this act and she is protecting her son? We have not understood this either. Or are you saying that it was Salim who carried out this act and she is protecting Salim, or Nevzat? Silence, a place. A place has been chosen, silence has been put forward virtually as complicity in the crime. We — despite meeting with the mother many times — at no time: for the mother, our Narin was a separate one. Her daughter Tülin was unfortunately born disabled. She looked after a disabled daughter up to age 7, up to age 8, carrying her on her back with all her motherly self; but she could not dress this daughter in beautiful clothes. She was not permitted; she could not dress her. Later this daughter died because of illness. She prayed to God that she might have a daughter whose hair she could comb, whom she could dress in beautiful clothes, and with whom she could play, as something remaining in her heart — and God’s gift, the one and only Narin, was unfortunately killed by a vile hand. Esteemed Presiding Judge, while we make this criticism, the press will of course continue to freely state its opinion on similar matters; no one can be restricted, but minimum principles must be followed. Our expectation will continue so that in the future worse consequences, worse injustices do not arise. It will also continue for others. Suspicion is also cast upon your panel by these means. Why, as defense counsel, do we hear in chambers and elsewhere, “The decision has already been made”? There have been those who tried to lower our motivation, who lowered our pursuit of justice. We never fit this into the law; we passed these things by. Today, esteemed Presiding Judge, the sole reason that four defendants stand in your presence in this case file is that, unfortunately, during the investigation stage, the prosecutor’s office lacked a specialized judicial police. If the judicial police had been an independent police force, we would never have experienced this difficulty. I believe that today the four defendants, in a filtered state, would have come before you. What was done here? The first report is always important; we know this.
The First Report and Errors in the Gendarmerie Investigation
The first notice did not come from a family member, from Baran; in fact, the first notice regarding the disappearance came from Salim Güran, who spoke with the gendarmerie personnel, and the time of the girl was stated as 15:00 and 15:30. This is present in the conversation records, and we see this; we understand it when we listen. Again, within the content of this notice, within the continuing content of the notice, it is evident that Roma individuals were mentioned as suspects and that a voice coming from the back — a voice from the villagers — also mentioned a red vehicle. Now, when we conducted this interview with the gendarmerie personnel — if such information was conveyed, would not at least a record be kept? If Salim Güran’s voice recording had not later come back to light, it would not have been in this record. The gendarmerie knows how to keep other records; why does it not know how to keep a record at such a critical point? Why was no record kept regarding the red vehicle? Why was no camera inquiry carried out regarding this red vehicle? These questions exist. In my view, the bill for this fault, this deficiency, is being handed to the family today. Responsibility and fault for not reaching our Narin in time does not lie with the family. The record of the gendarmerie describing the place where our Narin disappeared is truly striking. In this record it is noted that the last place Narin was seen is the house of Hüseyin Güran, her own residence, the residence of Salim Güran, the residence of Fuat Güran — that is, she disappeared within her own surroundings. Yet we see from the school camera footage that the last location of disappearance and the time are 15:11, right at the path beside Nevzat Bahtiyar’s house. What a professional law-enforcement force should have done immediately was cordon off this area and conduct a search for evidence, but this was omitted. Again, in the same interview, although the existence of a camera showing the scene was mentioned, we unfortunately see that the recording of the rotating camera in that regard was not obtained. Now, the fault for not reaching our Narin in time will not cast a shadow on the dignity of the state. Some moved with the mindset: “Has the dignity of the state been shaken? We must find an excuse for this.” We will not make the state or the family pay the bill for this fault. The dignity of the state is preserved by acting justly, by respecting and complying with the law — the dignity of the state comes only through justice.
A Call to Justice and an Emphasis on the Independence of the Judiciary
Therefore, if here a decision is given that will wound other consciences, that will wound the law, if persons face conviction without any material evidence whatsoever, it is then that the sense of justice is offended, is shaken. We believe in this. As jurists, we never, never move with other perceptions; and we believe that you will not render a judgment being influenced by the belief formed in society, by the opinions in society, by the opinions put forward, or by the state of the evidence treated in broadcasts. As jurists, without being under any pressure, we will learn at the end of the day how important judicial independence will be in the decision you give today. For three days you have been listening to us, patiently observing the right of defense, not overshadowing the right of defense. We thank you for this patience, and I will try to summarize without repeating the subjects already addressed by my colleagues and by condensing the matters I consider important. I will try to summarize my defense so as to serve your announcement of a decision, which society and the country await, Presiding Judge.
The Unreliability of the Narrowed Base-Station Report
Presiding Judge, it does not escape notice that in the indictment and the opinion the basis of the accusation — what is called the sole piece of evidence — is the narrowed base-station report. When we saw this report about the narrowed base-station, we tried to obtain opinions from the necessary experts, we researched. However, we came across a strange situation here too. Let no one mock our minds; let no one deceive the country. In the report placed before us as a “narrowed base-station,” it is never, ever possible to determine the room-by-room location of persons. It is never, ever possible, esteemed Presiding Judge. Esteemed Presiding Judge, we as defense counsel struggled to see how we could refute the narrowed base-station, how we could escape this monstrosity. Mr. Mustafa, in his defense before noon, explained the situation regarding the pedometer. We indeed applied to your court, believing that the pedometer is a very important piece of evidence in terms of checking whether it corresponds to the movements mentioned in this narrowed base-station. Your panel brought the pedometer held in custody; my colleague and I even made a joke: “We are so afraid that now when they open it, if a huge graph comes out, what will we do?” It did not turn out that way. Because, in the end, we were sure. We were sure because, according to the information we had received, we really know, including from statements by Salim’s family, that on the day of the incident, at those critical hours, Salim was in his home. Now, we saw that the pedometer, in this respect, is very important, and that it completely refuted the narrowed base-station report; because, even setting aside Salim’s going to Arif’s house in the narrowed base-station report and disregarding those points, if we take into account only the evaluations made in the form of passing from Arif’s house to the barn and from the barn back to the house, we saw and observed that this is more than 100–150 steps. Therefore we saw that the narrowed base-station is definitely not realistic. Later, as far as we learned from the experts, it turns out that even the retrospective determination of base-station signal strength is not possible.
The Reliability of Base-Station Signal Information and the Defendants’ Statements
That is, regarding an incident that occurred on the 21st, you can never capture the measurement of the 21st with a measurement you made on the 28th or 29th, or a measurement you made on the 29th and 30th, or a measurement you made on the 8th or 9th. Because base-station signal information — and this should not be confused: what we are talking about is not the base stations we see in HTS records, not the main base stations, but something related to signal strength — it is never possible to capture the previous signal strength. The weather conditions at the time, the number of calls that were being carried out by persons from that base at the time — everything can affect the signal. Even the quality or brand of the phone has the power to affect this signal. Therefore, we know that the narrowed base-station can never provide accurate data in a point-by-point sense. I believe that in no criminal file should such evidence be placed before us as decisive. Now, while examining the narrowed base-station, we also try to overlay the statements of the defendant Nevzat. That is, what strikes us — the things he mentions, such as specifically calling from the hilltop, his going to the barn and such movements — we see that these do not take place. That is, we see that the points that coincide with his own statements, the main points that coincide, do not exist. For this reason, esteemed Presiding Judge, we also researched whether there are Court of Cassation decisions on this. Some of our colleagues said there are not many. The narrowed base-station is not a new situation; yes, gendarmerie graphs or measurements similar to this sometimes occur, as in our file as well. The more reasonable thing is such a study — that is, to make an evaluation as to whether persons are at a close or the same angle, whether they are taking the same base as reference — perhaps that is more realistic, but doing it point by point is never realistic. In the instantaneous tracking of persons, that is, through the determination of communications, we see that even in the case of a judge’s decision for live tracking, even live signal information cannot determine the exact location of a phone; only within a certain area is this possible. We also know from the media that there are mobile stations concerning some such incidents. We know that for quality broadcasts, for communication to be provided after the incident, mobile base stations were set up there.
HTS Records and Nevzat’s Contradictory Initial Statements
Therefore, regarding this base-station, we think it cannot be taken as the basis of the judgment. We also have an expectation from your esteemed panel. We know that, as for base stations — that is, the base stations seen in HTS records — they are used in judicial practice as ancillary evidence. Now, even there, there is a decision of the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation. It says that regarding HTS base stations — that is, calls from the same base station — these base stations cannot be evidence that persons whose homes, workplaces or locations are close to one another came together; there is a decision of the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation to the effect that these base stations cannot be evidence. In our initial objection petition we shared its reference with your esteemed court, so your panel is probably already aware of similar decisions. That is precisely why we are of the view that the resolution of this case file will be developed by focusing on material evidence rather than on base stations. Now, in judicial practice, when we evaluate statements, we have Nevzat’s statements. In evaluating testimonial evidence, we must evaluate whether these statements are contradictory, whether they are compatible with reason and logic. Therefore, statements contrary to the ordinary course of life, contrary to reason and logic, or statements of the nature of imputations to innocent persons aimed at covering an offense committed by the declarant himself, appear in our criminal file. As jurists we pass these statements through the filter of law, through the filter of the ordinary course of life, and evaluate whether they are realistic and whether any supremacy should be granted to the statement. However, no supremacy can ever be granted to Nevzat’s statements. Why, esteemed Presiding Judge? My other colleagues have also stated this; after his vehicle was detected at the Eğertutmaz stream on September 8, 2024, Nevzat was apprehended and his statement was taken. In his first statements, the statements first taken, he said that on the paved road below the school, on the road to the cemetery, Salim stopped him there, carried out a transfer in the vehicle there; more precisely, the lifeless body was handed over to him wrapped in a blanket, and by pointing his finger at him it was said, “You will take it and bury it over there, in the Eğertutmaz stream.” This is his first statement. He says “together.” “We placed it in the sack in the trunk of the vehicle.”
Contradictions in Nevzat’s Statements and the Detailed Contradictions
“I put the sack on the rear, on our back floor mat of my vehicle, and took it that way.” The place of delivery in his first statements is stated as the village exit. Then there is a change in the statement. He says, “Actually I went backwards.” That is, probably he has the sack in mind, because upon reaching the lifeless body, the defendant, thinking that the sack could belong to him, that the sack also came from his barn, came from his house, this time, showing a defense reflex, says, “I made a mistake here; I said I took it from somewhere outside the village, but I must go backwards, I must do this, so I went back, I emptied the sack of construction materials at my own residence, placed it in the sack, took that sack and placed it in the vehicle and took it.” He has eight different statements; I am referring to the main ones. Here, too, there is a situation contrary to reason and logic. That is, you have taken the body; you will go back again; at your residence, inside the village, there is a possibility that someone there might see you. This does not seem logical to me at all. Then — whatever happened, Presiding Judge — this time, changing his statement, he says, “Salim called me from the hill, said ‘Come.’ Excuse me, ‘I have business with you, wait for me, I will come.’” He came with his vehicle in front of my barn, delivered the body to me and left. I went, I also gave Salim the blanket — a third statement regarding the handover. Then step by step: “Salim called me from the hill, I went to Arif’s house, no one was there. All the doors there were closed; I took Narin who was lying on the floor with foam coming from her mouth, I took the slippers at the door, wrapped her in a blanket, took her — in the square, on that hill, I carried her in my arms and took her to my own barn — that is, I threw her down through the window, through the chimney of the barn.” Although he stated this in the hearing, in my defense at that time I said, “This may not be a chimney, because if it were a chimney there would be fractures in the body — if it is 3 meters below, there would be serious fractures in the body.” It was not reasonable. Then he came and said, “No, that is not a chimney; I carried her from the side.” He is telling the truth — he did actually carry her from the side. But in what manner did he carry her? Here too there are senseless things. Esteemed panel, esteemed Presiding Judge, you particularly asked and said, “Describe the rooms. Did you go right? Did you go left? Did you go straight in? Where did you go?”
The Continuing Contradictions in Nevzat’s Accounts and the Discussion of Motive
“No, I do not know; I do not know where I took it from.” Considering that this would be important, we requested a site inspection from your court. However, your court probably examined other evidence, because it did not accept our request for a site inspection. Now, we saw a reenactment on a television program. In the reenactment we saw that there are two main doors going to the house, and that one of the doors could only be opened from the inside. That is, opening it from the outside is not possible. We saw that it could only be opened from the inside. Therefore, when this statement is passed through the filter of reason and logic, we see that there is no consistent aspect to it in any way. Well, how was our Narin killed? Why does Nevzat act this way? Esteemed Presiding Judge, we — the Turkish-Kurdish society, the Turkish nation — never have a mentality that targets women, children, or their chastity. How many enmities have been seen, and women and children have not been targeted; but here a very disgusting scenario was constructed. An attempt was made to play with the chastity of the client. Regarding the chastity of the client — allegedly on the basis of seeing a relationship between the client and Salim — it was said that this was the reason this act occurred, that this was told to him, and a scenario was attempted to be fabricated in this way. But as you too can imagine, when one sees Nevzat’s base-station movements in his HTS records, the moments of calls, and his other movements, his vehicle movements, we all see that such an incident does not fit the ordinary course of events, is not realistic. Probably the public also knows this. That is, this possibility has been ruled out. Esteemed Presiding Judge, we observe and see that Nevzat’s statements in no way match the material truth. Then what could have happened? Presiding Judge, in particular, we know that at 15:08, while Nevzat was at home on the pretext of water, he called Salim Güran. There Salim Güran was asked. For what? He says he really called because of the water cut. Now, in statements previously given regarding the water cut, his wife says there had been a water cut for 20 days, he himself for 4–5 days, that there was a blockage of the water on the cemetery road, and that he called the muhtar, saying “solve this water problem.” Indeed, his wife Gazal Bahtiyar says that when he called the muhtar, the muhtar said, “I am at home, I am eating.” This is very important. That is, the muhtar actually said “I am at home, I am eating”; the pedometer also shows him at home, but the story is different.
Nevzat’s Animosity Towards Salim and the Murder Scenario
The story is this: there was enmity in the past between Nevzat and Arif Güran regarding our Narin’s father Arif Güran, concerning a vehicle, a stolen-vehicle matter; because of this enmity, the parties said that the community was gathered and the problem was resolved. Regarding the 50,000 liras imposed on Nevzat — it was said, “Do not mock anyone’s mind with this.” That is true; I also think so. A murder does not occur over this, but the enmity that this sum creates in each person can be different. In fact, how do we understand that enmity arose in Nevzat? We understand this not from Nevzat’s statement, but from the statements of Nevzat’s brother and his son. He gave signals there. Nevzat says to his brother Mehmet and to Ferhat, “Stay away from Salim Güran and his circle.” He nourished this enmity, he nourished it within himself, and he even warned his brother and his son in this way, and it is reflected in these statements. Again, after this critical date, it is clear that communications with Salim were cut off by Salim — Salim never called him after May. Therefore, to call someone whom you have not called and with whom you have even a small grudge or estrangement and say, “Come, take this body, take it away” is contrary to reason and logic. Likewise, saying, “I was with my sister-in-law, come take it away” is contrary to reason and logic. If it is an incident within the family, there is no aspect explainable by reason and logic in creating a new witness from outside the family. In our view, esteemed Presiding Judge, our Narin, after leaving the mosque, continues directly toward Nevzat’s side, with the village road running on Nevzat Bahtiyar’s side. That is, when she walks with her cousins, she must first pass in front of Nevzat Bahtiyar’s house. According to our scenario — the scenario based on material evidence — I say this also as defense counsel of another, and, by the fact that implicitly and partly we also act as counsel of the mother and as complainant, I say, using this power, that the sole reason for the 15:08 call of the act is to determine Salim’s location and to make sure of the neighborhood Salim is in. Moreover, one of the reasons for this call on the water pretext is, Presiding Judge, that the water-tower pillar is outside the village. Perhaps he tried to push Salim outside the village for this fault.
The Nature of the Offense and the Request for Nevzat Bahtiyar’s Punishment
We do not know his motive, but we understand from the GPRS signals that immediately after this call, Nevzat’s base-station signal information changed, and we can understand that Nevzat’s base-station signal was emitted in the critical location — that is, in the vicinity of the place where our Narin was captured on the school camera at 15:11, on the path going to her home. Therefore, when we make an evaluation in line with the law, we cannot interpret this according to our own beliefs, suspicions and scenarios; we cannot say, “No, Nevzat can never do such a thing; Nevzat is poor, Nevzat is a worker; he cannot do such a thing.” We know that many people who are very withdrawn and silent have also committed murders. We cannot rule out this possibility either. According to our possibility, Nevzat at that time took our Narin, called her. He is, after all, a fellow villager, a figure our Narin might have trusted. He called her, took her under the pretext of a conversation, and unfortunately carried out an act against her in the barn. We also consider the possibility that he carried out an act after 15:11 and that his vehicle was seen at 15:41 — that is, via the dirt road to the Eğertutmaz stream — meaning that within a half-hour period he may have done bad things to our Narin and, within this time interval, hurriedly tried to dispose of the body. Esteemed Presiding Judge, if this had been an incident within the family, rest assured that reason, logic and law give us this signal: no family commits a murder in such a short time and then rushes to dispose of the body, to do this or that. First, an inquiry within the family begins; first a state of shock is lived through within the family. No family takes the body of its own child and tries to hide it by taking it to the side of a stream and placing stones on it. It is evident that a family would not act within such a short time. Therefore our conviction is full that the act took place outside the family, and according to the state of the evidence — especially with the defendant who moved with the vehicle that buried the body and who has indirect confessions — we see sufficient and suitable evidence for conviction for the purposes of this trial. In this respect, Nevzat Bahtiyar must be punished for the offense of intentionally killing the child.
The Rejection of the Groundless Accusations Against the Mother, Yüksel Güran
Now, the prosecution, in this case file, describing an act regarding our client — as I also stated a moment ago — we unfortunately cannot see any explanation as to what concrete contribution the client made to this incident. Only a few incidents are explained: for example, the quarrel among the women in the village on September 8, which we know, a simple quarrel between my client’s sister and Maşallah and Birsen, is being interpreted as though this murder was known within the family, and his punishment is demanded by portraying my client as if she were a party to the incident. There is no material basis for this in any evidence. If you look at another record from the same gendarmerie records, you will see that when the news of our Narin’s death came, the mother collapsed and was put into the ambulance — that is, even she was not a witness to this incident — and we already see this in another record. We truly have difficulty understanding why such a record has been included in the indictment against my client. Again, from a gendarmerie record dated September 2 — I think September 2 — there the gendarmerie personnel engage in an attempt at mind-reading and ask the client, “What do you say about the news that has appeared in the press regarding Enes?” Our client naturally, as a reflex, says, “What will happen to my son?” — with this reflex, upon this question, “what will happen to my son” — is it not the most natural thing for her to be worried for her son? When it is said that bad things may happen to her son regarding reports in the press, every mother will show a reflex. However, this reflex has been linked in the record as “behaviors protecting Enes” and, though it does not appear in the record, to a dialogue, that is, as if “she was speaking being certain that Narin was dead.” Yet when we read the record, we truly have difficulty understanding how such mind-reading was undertaken and how such a record was kept. Therefore, from the mother’s standpoint, this has no evidentiary value. Its inclusion in the indictment, its inclusion in the opinion — our Prosecutor, in our view, legally… No, no, I do not want to cause a quarrel; this is our right of defense. Forgive me — in my opinion, legally, and before all jurists, it has no value. We want your court to take this into consideration.
The Presumption of Innocence and the Personal Nature of the Offense
We want your court to take into consideration that the record has no value, no evidentiary value — the contrary can never be thought. But what did we see in this case, esteemed Presiding Judge? Yes, yes. Our Constitution, esteemed Presiding Judge, is truly interesting. It is interesting like this: in this case Article 38 of our Constitution gains such a function — how does it gain it? Well, regarding the violation of the presumption of innocence, that is, broadcasts contrary to Article 38 were made — “Everyone is innocent until proven guilty by final judgment.” It appears that broadcasts contrary to the presumption of innocence were made, yet in the gendarmerie record it is said that “she exhibited behaviors protecting Enes”… It virtually implies, “Enes committed the murder and the mother is protecting him.” That is, this is what it implies. There is never, ever such a thing. Let us again pay attention to Article 38 of the Constitution. In Article 38, what does it say? It says that no one can be compelled to make any statement concerning himself or his relatives. You cannot consider silence as an element of a crime either. That is not possible, not legal. You cannot fit it anywhere. Esteemed Presiding Judge, another matter: the personal nature of offenses and punishments is also being violated. It is being violated like this — indirectly. They have taken the statements of persons who are not family members as a ground and are stating as a reason for suspicion that the family acted somehow, that is, gave misleading information about the time of disappearance. What does this have to do with the mother? It has nothing to do with the mother. You cannot create suspicion by using expressions contrary to the Constitution. Now, in those statements, never, ever, did the client fall within them — that is, Melike and Birsen Güran, whom they call family members, are not nuclear family members of my client; they are children of her husband’s uncle. According to their own perceptions, they give a statement about the time they saw Narin. They gave a statement to the effect that Narin knocked on the door at 17:40; later they have stated that they were mistaken in this.
Unrealistic Statements and Lack of Evidence
Now they have stated that they were mistaken. Furthermore, this statement has no bearing on — or rather, is not in favor of — my client. Now, although my client stated on a television program that this statement is not realistic, and this evidence is in the file — esteemed Presiding Judge, when that video is watched in the file, appearing as social-media footage, it will be seen. Particularly in that video, the interview with Didem Arslan Yılmaz, in that interview she says, “My children evaluate the statements of Birsen and of Maşallah, they evaluate the statements of İsa.” She says, “My children would not use another path. Why would they go through the village’s other roads, pass over the hill by other roads? If my daughter had gone toward the mosque, there is a straight road, she would go via the school road.” That is, although she proclaimed in the footage — to the world, to everyone — that this statement is not realistic, it still being brought as evidence against the client and included in the opinion has saddened us. I think the prosecution did not give any value to any of our defenses at the previous session. Yet we truly believe that we made this evaluation objectively and convincingly. Esteemed Presiding Judge, another matter: another indication that Nevzat’s story should not be believed is the relationship and the pattern of calls and the like between Yüksel and Salim regarding the day of the incident. When we examined the records going back as far as a year in the HTS records, there are no calls between Yüksel and Salim, except for one on July 29 or 30 — and that was a mistaken call. Perhaps they have other family issues with each other. There is no communication. That is, as far as we understand from the statements, a normal family but no calls. Now, although there are no calls, you come and say — let us even say the claim is “she was killed in the house, I took the body from the house” — Salim is there. At least a phone call to Salim would exist for the day of the incident — that is not there either. That is, whichever evidence we look at, we cannot fit this anywhere. Esteemed Presiding Judge, when we really evaluate all the evidence, we see that there is no evidence about the mother Yüksel, and that a decision contrary to conscience and law is expected on the basis of an abstract scenario. This frightens us. We believe that your court will never render a decision without evidence and not based on material evidence. Of course everyone will respect the decision you will give; some will object, some will criticize — that is another matter. But let no one say, openly and knowingly, that despite there being no evidence against the mother, we, as her counsel, will oppose this injustice, this unlawfulness, openly and knowingly, everywhere.
The Güran Family’s Respect for the Law and the Claim of Joint Perpetration
Presiding Judge, demonizing the Güran family — if Nevzat had done this, they would surely have taken some action against Nevzat. If this family had been informed that Nevzat had carried out this act, they would of course have shown a reflex; however, when Nevzat was taken into custody, most of the family members were already in detention. Again, when Nevzat was being moved, there were some minor disputes — yes, there were — but let us not forget this: the Güran family has respect for the law. How do we learn that they respect the law? One of their family members had previously been the victim of a murder. We submit the decision of that matter to your esteemed court. This family never adopted an attitude to target that family or persons other than the one who carried out the innocent — the actual — act. They are awaiting the result of justice, of the law, and their belief is complete that you will punish the person who killed our Narin. For this reason, this is a family that trusts in the law, that respects the law. It is never a family as described outside. Presiding Judge, now, in the indictment, punishment is requested on the basis of joint perpetration; for us to be able to speak of joint perpetration — as our colleagues explained at length — there must first be a joint decision among the perpetrators. There must be a contribution of all perpetrators to the offense, a functional effect, and a joint dominion over the act. In the indictment and the opinion we cannot see a description of the act showing a joint decision to commit the crime, rather than joint dominion. Since we cannot see this, we do not know what is meant. That is, how are we to believe the monstrosity that our Narin was killed by four people who jointly took a decision and participated in this act together? We never accept this. It does not correspond to the material facts. The act against our Narin is clear. That is, it is clear that the act took place by strangulation, by the closing of the mouth and nose, and that, by its nature, the act was committed by one person. The strangulation also took place through front pressure on the throat; there are unfortunately fractures in the thyroid cartilage. We also understand how the act took place from the concrete facts. For this reason we do not contemplate a path of punishment in this concrete incident based on joint perpetration. This will produce an unjust result.
The Principle “In Dubio Pro Reo” and the Request for Acquittal
We must also never forget the principle that the defendant shall benefit from doubt. As regards a mother, esteemed Presiding Judge, as regards a mother, what we actually expected in this case was this: because of the unjust case opened, the mother was stigmatized. Her chastity was stigmatized. There was a stigma in the form of participating in the act of killing her own child. We were trying to remove this stigma, but unfortunately our means were limited. That is, we do not have laboratories, we do not have other technical means. If only we had, we would have proved to you her full innocence in this act, in a way leaving no doubt. We reached such a point that we were trying to prove our own innocence. That is, participation in the offense is never, never in question. Our efforts were entirely aimed at proving innocence; criminal convictions cannot rest on possibilities and probabilities. That is, as you know, we do not believe that your court will form a conscientious conviction on possibilities whose manner of occurrence is doubtful. We believe that, so long as there is no definite and convincing evidence, a conviction can never, ever be in question, regardless of what incident it is. With your favored phrase, for all these reasons, taking into account that our client, the mother Yüksel Güran, did not commit the offense charged, we respectfully request her acquittal and release.