“Prosecutor Protection” Over Shooter Policeman

Sarısülük family attorneys has submitted an official objection to Ethem Sarısülük murder case indictment today. 

Advocate Kazım Bayraktar submitted an official objection statement to Ankara 6th High Criminal Court Administration, requesting the rejection of case indictment. “This indictment must be rejected as it has been written in order to protect a murder suspect,” the statement said. 

It also reminded the fact that the case indictment has been written without a judicial investigation. 

Speaking on the indictment, advocate Bayraktar said it was the “mutual product of police chiefs and prosecutors who took up the advocate role for a murder suspect”. 

“Negligence” from start to end 

The statement listed some of the negligences and obscuring on the case as follows: 

Police protected police: Police officers around murder suspect Şahbaz went on a race to protect their colleague. They didn’t collect any evidence on the crime scene. They didn’t submit anything to the prosecutor. They didn’t capture Şahbaz. 

Police surveillance camera didn’t record: Nearby surveillance camera was pointed upwards or towards trees by the remote-operating policeman. The evidence was obscured. 

Prosecutor didn’t collect evidence: Even though the prosecutor knew the incident, he didn’t hold his duties to collect evidence and find out the identity of the suspected policeman. He gave no related orders. An official request on suspected policeman’s identity has been submitted 6 days after the incident. 

Police authorities protected police: Ankara Police Department responded to the identity request 10 days later. Policeman Şahbaz has been sent to the prosecutor’s office 23 days after the incident. 

Evidence was not taken into account: Prosecutors did not take into account surveillance camera footage and witness testimonies. They sent the murder victim before the judge with improper interrogation. 

Judge didn’t interrogate: The interrogation judge didn’t ask any question regarding the evidence in the case. No evidence was registered in the case file. The judge solely ruled on Şahbaz’s pending trial departing from his testimony. 

Policemen lied: According to surveillance camera footage, the incident happened before Şahbaz’s colleagues. However, none of them said they saw the incident. 

“Stones” in the reports: Ankara Police Department submitted a report to prosectors, saying that protestors threw 39 stones at Şahbaz. The report based the claim on the witnessing of two police officers who never showed up in any part of the investigation. 

Witnesses arrested, threatened: Mehmet Can Tayşan, one of eyewitness on Sarısülük’s shooting moment, has been put into detention list and declared as wanted. Şahin İmga, a witness on testimony list, has been arrested. Burhan Çoban, another source during expert investigation, has been threatened over the phone. 

Footage ignored: The indictment came out as a result of the investigation procedure. Some of camera footage has partially been manipulated and ignored. 

Prosecutor interpreted subjectively: Prosecutor Veli Dalgalı didn’t interpret the footage in a proper fashion. The suspect has passed weapon use training. In contrast with prosecutor’s remarks, he can’t lose his control over his pointing direction. The gun was fired on purpose. 

No self-defense: There is balance between assault and defense when the “attacker” is injured or dead and the attacked has survived without any injuries. Policeman Şahbaz was able to flee from the scene. It is nonsense to discuss whether he overstepped his duties, as there is no self-defense here. 

Manipulations on how the incident broke out: Despite witness testimonies and surveillance camera footage, the prosecutor presented the case in the favor of the suspected policeman. (AS/BM)