Tweet
NEW HRANT DINK CASE POSSIBLE
BIAnet.org
Jan 12 2012
Turkey
Five years after the murder of Turkish Armenian journalist Dink, Judge
Eryılmaz announced his intention to bring the trial to an end soon.
Yet, considering new findings revealed by the plaintiff lawyers from
the TÄ°B records, a new case might be opened.
IÅ~_ıl CÄ°NMEN [email protected] Istanbul - BÄ°A News Center12
January 2012, Thursday At the end of the fifth year of the Hrant Dink
trial, President Judge RuÅ~_tem Eryılmaz announced "We want to give
a decision now". The upcoming hearing on 17 January might be the last
one; the trial about the murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant
Dink on 19 January 2007 might be decided.
However, information on telephone records and other data requested
from the Telecommunication Communication Presidency (TÄ°B) since 2008
were sent court recently. In a report prepared upon the request of
the prosecutor, the police stated that "after an investigation of
the TÄ°B records, no contact between the defendants was detected".
On the other hand, the joint lawyers of the Dink family submitted
a four-page petition to court at the Tuesday hearing (10 January)
containing information extracted as the result of their own
investigation of the data. The petition included attachments with
record information.
The petition contains information about five people identified in the
records at the scene of incident who had contact with the defendants.
Additionally, it points to 14 people who were not at the scene of
crime but were called from there by the defendants and suspects.
A new trial might be opened This information submitted by the plaintiff
lawyers might be the biggest proof for the assumption that the Dink
murder was committed in an organized manner.
Joint attorney Fethiye Cetin told bianet, "New information requires
new research and a new investigation. The court decided to proceed
accordingly with the file of the prosecutor's office. There was a
meeting with prosecutor Muammer AktaÅ~_ who is running the Hrant Dink
investigation. He took measures to launch an investigation".
This means that even if the current trial was concluded on 17 January,
there is the high probability that a new case would be opened.
Lawyer Cetin explained, "All findings will be investigated if a number
of new findings emerge. At this stage, the mission of the police is
very important. If findings emerge, a new trial can be opened. Even
if the Dink trial was pending at the Court of Appeals, the trials
could be merged".
The petition read, "It was determined that some conversations were
made via certain phone numbers on the day and time of the offence
and at the scene of incident. These phone numbers were used very
frequently and have a direct connection to defendants Mustafa Ozturk
and Salih Hacisalihoglu".
The plaintiff lawyers claimed at court that this information had
to be secured since it was potential evidence required for the
investigation. "We request measures to obtain records for the duration
of five months before and after the incident regarding all numbers
on the list and phone records from the scene of incident used on 18
and 19 January", they said at the last hearing.
14 people with connections to the defendants The petition submitted
to court related to the request to take according measures included
the following information:
* The records sent by TÄ°B include 6,235 telephone conversations
and 9,300 phone numbers. It is not correct that none of the related
persons had any connections to the defendants tried before this court.
It was determined that some phone numbers included in these records
had a direct connection to the defendants.
* Some numbers are directly connected to our defendants Mustafa Ozturk
and Salih Hacısalihoglu and were used for many phone talks. It was
also determined that certain phone talks were made with these numbers
on the day of incident around the time of the offence at the scene
of crime.
* It was revealed that five people (or their phone numbers) who
were in the area on the day of crime have a direct connection to
the defendants and that they talked to them several times on various
dates prior to the day of crime.
* Five people who had connections with the defendants and were at
the scene of crime could easily be identified during the study of the
received records. Besides, 14 people were determined who were not in
the area but were called from there and again had connections to the
defendants and suspects.
* Moreover, the list in Attachment 1a includes individuals who were
in direct touch with the defendants. Attachment 1b gives a list
of names of people who were in contact with these individuals and
present at the scene of incident. Therefore, the data on the names
and phone numbers of Attachment 1b should be preserved since it is
deemed necessary for the investigation of the HTS records.
'We found what the police was not able to see" The most important
request of the petition is the preservation of data because the numbers
and records might be evidence. Yet, there is the risk that TÄ°B will
erase the data due to a limitation of time. In an interim decision
given by court on 26.12.2011 this request was met with a decision
to maintain the data. Hence, there was no need for a new decision,
it was said.
But this is not correct. The new request for the preservation of
data was made for a broader court injunction that would provide the
inclusion of new information into the case. The Dink lawyers now
question: "If we were able to discover the connection to these 14
people in such a short time, why could the police not see it with
their much advanced technical means?"
Was this a mistake? The lawyers do not think so: "As a matter of
fact, it was very difficult and took very long for us to receive the
records. The Istanbul Police announced that they could not extract
any data from the records. Taking both facts into account, it has to
be noticed that the Istanbul Police Directorate insisted on their
position regarding the obstruction to reveal a misguidance of the
judiciary, the concealment of evidence and the substantial truth",
the plaintiff lawyers criticized.
The developments in the Dink trial in the upcoming days might be a
new beginning instead of the end. (IC)
From: Baghdasarian
BIAnet.org
Jan 12 2012
Turkey
Five years after the murder of Turkish Armenian journalist Dink, Judge
Eryılmaz announced his intention to bring the trial to an end soon.
Yet, considering new findings revealed by the plaintiff lawyers from
the TÄ°B records, a new case might be opened.
IÅ~_ıl CÄ°NMEN [email protected] Istanbul - BÄ°A News Center12
January 2012, Thursday At the end of the fifth year of the Hrant Dink
trial, President Judge RuÅ~_tem Eryılmaz announced "We want to give
a decision now". The upcoming hearing on 17 January might be the last
one; the trial about the murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant
Dink on 19 January 2007 might be decided.
However, information on telephone records and other data requested
from the Telecommunication Communication Presidency (TÄ°B) since 2008
were sent court recently. In a report prepared upon the request of
the prosecutor, the police stated that "after an investigation of
the TÄ°B records, no contact between the defendants was detected".
On the other hand, the joint lawyers of the Dink family submitted
a four-page petition to court at the Tuesday hearing (10 January)
containing information extracted as the result of their own
investigation of the data. The petition included attachments with
record information.
The petition contains information about five people identified in the
records at the scene of incident who had contact with the defendants.
Additionally, it points to 14 people who were not at the scene of
crime but were called from there by the defendants and suspects.
A new trial might be opened This information submitted by the plaintiff
lawyers might be the biggest proof for the assumption that the Dink
murder was committed in an organized manner.
Joint attorney Fethiye Cetin told bianet, "New information requires
new research and a new investigation. The court decided to proceed
accordingly with the file of the prosecutor's office. There was a
meeting with prosecutor Muammer AktaÅ~_ who is running the Hrant Dink
investigation. He took measures to launch an investigation".
This means that even if the current trial was concluded on 17 January,
there is the high probability that a new case would be opened.
Lawyer Cetin explained, "All findings will be investigated if a number
of new findings emerge. At this stage, the mission of the police is
very important. If findings emerge, a new trial can be opened. Even
if the Dink trial was pending at the Court of Appeals, the trials
could be merged".
The petition read, "It was determined that some conversations were
made via certain phone numbers on the day and time of the offence
and at the scene of incident. These phone numbers were used very
frequently and have a direct connection to defendants Mustafa Ozturk
and Salih Hacisalihoglu".
The plaintiff lawyers claimed at court that this information had
to be secured since it was potential evidence required for the
investigation. "We request measures to obtain records for the duration
of five months before and after the incident regarding all numbers
on the list and phone records from the scene of incident used on 18
and 19 January", they said at the last hearing.
14 people with connections to the defendants The petition submitted
to court related to the request to take according measures included
the following information:
* The records sent by TÄ°B include 6,235 telephone conversations
and 9,300 phone numbers. It is not correct that none of the related
persons had any connections to the defendants tried before this court.
It was determined that some phone numbers included in these records
had a direct connection to the defendants.
* Some numbers are directly connected to our defendants Mustafa Ozturk
and Salih Hacısalihoglu and were used for many phone talks. It was
also determined that certain phone talks were made with these numbers
on the day of incident around the time of the offence at the scene
of crime.
* It was revealed that five people (or their phone numbers) who
were in the area on the day of crime have a direct connection to
the defendants and that they talked to them several times on various
dates prior to the day of crime.
* Five people who had connections with the defendants and were at
the scene of crime could easily be identified during the study of the
received records. Besides, 14 people were determined who were not in
the area but were called from there and again had connections to the
defendants and suspects.
* Moreover, the list in Attachment 1a includes individuals who were
in direct touch with the defendants. Attachment 1b gives a list
of names of people who were in contact with these individuals and
present at the scene of incident. Therefore, the data on the names
and phone numbers of Attachment 1b should be preserved since it is
deemed necessary for the investigation of the HTS records.
'We found what the police was not able to see" The most important
request of the petition is the preservation of data because the numbers
and records might be evidence. Yet, there is the risk that TÄ°B will
erase the data due to a limitation of time. In an interim decision
given by court on 26.12.2011 this request was met with a decision
to maintain the data. Hence, there was no need for a new decision,
it was said.
But this is not correct. The new request for the preservation of
data was made for a broader court injunction that would provide the
inclusion of new information into the case. The Dink lawyers now
question: "If we were able to discover the connection to these 14
people in such a short time, why could the police not see it with
their much advanced technical means?"
Was this a mistake? The lawyers do not think so: "As a matter of
fact, it was very difficult and took very long for us to receive the
records. The Istanbul Police announced that they could not extract
any data from the records. Taking both facts into account, it has to
be noticed that the Istanbul Police Directorate insisted on their
position regarding the obstruction to reveal a misguidance of the
judiciary, the concealment of evidence and the substantial truth",
the plaintiff lawyers criticized.
The developments in the Dink trial in the upcoming days might be a
new beginning instead of the end. (IC)
From: Baghdasarian