Lawyers Protest at "Negligence" in Malatya Case

The recordings of murder suspect Günaydin in hospital were handed over to court too late, so that they will not be considered as evidence. Joint plaintiffs doubt that this was plain "negligence".

A. Nilüfer Zengin Kürkçü

The joint plaintiffs in the Malatya murder case spoke to bianet about the fact that vital evidence in the case was not being considered.

After three men working for the Zirve Publishing House in Malatya were killed on 18 April 2007 in Malatya, main suspect Emre Günaydin was arrested after jumping out of a window of the building where the murders took place.

When he was in hospital, there were cameras taking recordings in his hospital room. There were 42 cassettes of visual recordings.

Delayed processing

However, the police did not present this evidence to the court within the required 24 hours, which, the joint plaintiffs argue, is not due to negligence.

Because there was no approval of a judge within 24 hours, as is specified by Article 127/3 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the Malatya 3rd Heavy Penal Court has refused to seize the tapes.

The police seized the tapes on 7 May, but only presented them to a judge on 10 May.

After the first hearing on 23 November 2007, the case will continue at the Malatya 2nd Heavy Penal Court on 14 January. (NZ/TK/AG)

police negligence Malatya murders case evidence

A. Nilüfer Zengin Kürkçü

[email protected]

all articles of the author

Galatasaray Üniversitesi'nde felsefe yüksek lisansı yaptı. 2012'de Sorbonne Paris 1 Üniversitesi'nde felsefe doktorasını tamamladı. 2003-2004 arasında Cumhuriyet Pazar'da, 2004'te kısa bir süre BirGün gazetesinde çalıştı. 2007-2008 arasında bianet'te çocuk ve kadın haberleri editörlüğü yaptı. Koç Üniversitesi, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi'nde ders verdi. Felsefe ve yazı çalışmalarına devam ediyor.