SİTE İÇERİĞİ

“Though the blackmail crime is under the scope of the law No. 4616, all the evidence regarding this offence in the file has been collected and according to the defendants’ defenses, statements by Ebru Simsek’s representatives, the CDS examined regarding Ebru Simsek, the statement by expert witness Nevzat Tarhan regarding his views on the CD images concerning Ebru Simsek, the statement by Civil Engineer expert witness Caglar Goksu regarding the house in which the images of Ebru Simsek were taken, statements regarding their relations with Ebru Simsek by witnesses Ozgur Aydemir, Ahmet Ali Yildirim, Alkas Cakmak, Alper Cakmak, Tacettin Ince Yavuz Coskun, Ibrahim Ozcan and Ecevit Sahin; it has been determined that in the case of the charges against defendant Bulent Tatlican concerning procuring advantages with menaces there is no substance to the charges, and it has been concluded that in line with law No. 4616, instead of a definitive court verdict being postponed, THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ACQUITTED.” Bulent Tatlican has been tried in the 2nd Criminal Court of Second Instance on charges of leadership of the alleged organization, and considering all the accusations made against other defendants in the position of being senior figures therein and as required under Turkish Penal Code 313 articles 1-4 and the first article of Turkish Penal Code 192, acquittal has been decided upon in the light of the absence of any evidence.

This element is exceedingly important.

The acquittal bestowed on this person proves that no criminal organization, nor any activities or leaders thereof, exist and is CLEAR LEGAL DOCUMENTATION REVEALING the2nd Criminal Court of Second Instance’s ABSOLUTE OPINIONJ ON THIS MATTER. Because the evidence used in this individual’s defense is the same as that of Adnan Oktar and the other people on trial. The court has decided in the light of the evidence shared in common by all the defendants. No different evidence has been submitted. Therefore, THE COURT HAS DECIDED THAT, in the light of all the defendants’ common evidence, NO CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE EXISTS.”