How to trust expert views

The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) prepared a report for the “spying” investigation conducted by the prosecutor of the Constitutional Crimes Bureau. The report states the famous leaked conversation between Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his son Bilal, where prime minister allegedly asks his son Bilal to turn millions of euros stashed at several houses into “zero,” is totally a montage.

The telephone conversation was compiled afterward by joining words and syllables, according to TÜBİTAK.

According to the claim, the “parallel structure,” created a “voice pool” of conversations between the prime minister and his son and made use of this pool while setting up conversations syllable by syllable.

A similar expert opinion was previously voiced by a coordinator of TRT who had said the conversation between him and two technical personnel was a “cheap montage.”

If you want the truth, we cannot trust the views of the TRT or TÜBİTAK technicians in this issue. These experts could not have written a report to the contrary. Had they done so, they would have been called “men of the parallel structure” or “those who support coups.” And right at this stage, they would have chosen the place of their exile.

We know how things work in this country; they also know it. To avoid suspicion, this investigation had to be done by an independent, international expert organization that could be trusted by everybody.
There is another way to believe this report.

If these experts have such expertise, then let’s provide them with everything they need: the material, the “voice pool,”  and ask them, for example, to montage a telephone conversation between Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, the head of opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) and his son. IF they succeed, then let’s trust the report. If not, let’s declare them charlatans, civil servants who are afraid of the furor of the prime minister.

I don’t think there is any prosecutor that would listen to me!

A prosecutor for torture

The prosecutor gave his indictment in the case where police officers are being tried over the crime of torture for beating a woman at the Karabağlar police station in İzmir.

Sentences varying from 1.5 months, to 1 year and a month of prison term are being asked for two of the three police officers, while one police officer is being asked to be acquitted.

The same prosecutor is asking for a prison sentence between two years and a month to eight years for the woman who was beaten with the argument that she resisted and insulted police officers.

For the police officer who, instead of stopping his colleagues to beat the women, closed the window to prevent them from being seen, a prison term from three months to nine months is being asked for on the grounds of “helping assault.”

I was disgusted when I had first watched the video of this incident: a helpless woman beaten by people wearing police uniforms and another police officer going around as if nothing was happening.
And a prosecutor in a country that has accepted torture as a heavy crime is asking for eight years imprisonment because the woman resisted the police while being taken under detention.

It seems Mr. Prosecutor is not in good terms with the verdicts of the European Court of Human Rights. He is unaware that the right to resist the unjust attempt of detention is under the guarantee of international law.

The reason we cannot prevent torture and mistreatment in this country is the presence of such prosecutors and judges that think like this prosecutor.