ACQUITTAL RULINGS AND VERDICTS OF NON-PROSECUTION ISSUED REGARDING
THE SRF CASE
Ruling No. 2007/7 in BAV case file No. 2006/6, heard by the Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court, dated 22 January, 2007, issued an acquittal ruling regarding 5 defendants accused of blackmail and felony. This ruling also includes Adnan Oktar and the other defendants charged in the same indictment, on the same charges and with the same evidence. No change in evidence took place throughout the course of the case.
In the 1 April, 2008, hearing of SRF case file No. 2007/339 by the 2nd High Criminal Court, the prosecutor issued a legal opinion in favor of ACQUITTAL for all defendants.
In the same way, the prosecutor renewed his LEGAL OPINION in favor of acquittal at the Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court on 4 April, 2008.
The prosecutor issued a MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL on 29 July, 2008, saying that the convictions issued by the Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court regarding the people on trial in the BAV case contravened custom and the law.
Acquittal Rulings and Verdicts of Non-Prosecution Regarding Ebru Simsek
The Chief Prosecutor’s Office’s considered acquittal opinion showing that Ebru Simsek’s allegations in Case No. 2006/26, an extension of the SRF case, were slanders and the VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL No. 2007/7 dated 22.01.2007 by the Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court..
The Istanbul Chief Prosecutor’s Office’s VERDICT OF NON-PROSECUTION of Ebru Simsek's fantastical claims (in 1999) under ruling No. 96/9848 Hz – 99/8409 K. dated 12.08.1999.
3. The Istanbul Chief Prosecutor’s Office’s VERDICT OF NON-PROSECUTION No. 05/27549 Hz. - 05/12003 K. dated 18.10.2005
The Istanbul Public Prosecutor’s Office’s verdict of non-prosecution No. 02/60013 Hz. - 02/18838 K. dated 31.12.2002 and the Beyoglu 3rd High Criminal Court’s VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 03/458 Mut. dated 28.04.2003 regarding the refusal of objection against the former.
The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office’s verdict of non-prosecution No. 02/39606 Hz. - 03/8860 K. dated 30.06.2003 and the Beyoglu 2nd High Criminal Court’s VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 03/333 Mut. dated 03.10.2003 regarding the refusal of objection against the former
The Bagcilar Public Prosecutor’s Office’s verdict of non-prosecution No. 02/21669 Hz. - 03/6120 K. dated 15.10.2003 and the Eyup 2nd High Criminal Court’s VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 03/894 D.Is. dated 02.01.2004 regarding the refusal of objection against the former
The Uskudar Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office’s verdict of non-prosecution No. 04/7693 Hz. - 04/4749 K. dated 01.07.2004 and the Kadikoy 2nd High Criminal Court’s VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 04/437 Mut. dated 09.09.2004 regarding the refusal of objection against the former.
The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office’s VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 05/51724 Hz. – 06/2432 K. dated 27.03.2006.,
The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office’s VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 05/51725 Hz.,
Following the known images of Ebru Simsek in the press, an Istanbul University Medical School Department of Forensic Medicine expert carried out an inquiry in which IT WAS ESTABLISHED UNDER REPORT No. 2005/127765 dated 21.10.2005 that Ebru Simsek’s claims were merely slanders..
Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court had the home in the allegations of Ebru Simsek and the home in the images examined by an official expert, accompanied by the court judges. This expert report revealed that THE HOME IN THE IMAGES DEFINITELY DID NOT BELONG TO THE SRF MEMBER.
Filiz Karatas, who shared a house with Ebru Simsek at the time she began issuing slanders against the SRF members, gave a witness statement to the court in Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court file No. 04/337 E. on 09.12.2004 and said that the SRF members were uninvolved in the matter and THAT THEY HAD ISSUED THIS IMAGINARY ALLEGATION TOGETHER TO SLANDER THE SRF.
Ten separate criminal complaints brought by those slandered by Ebru Simsek were examined by 10 different Public Prosecutors from different offices; these prosecutors concluded, as a result of their investigations, that Ebru Simsek’s claims were slanderous..
Acquittal rulings and decisions not to proceed regarding Fatih Altayli
The Kartal 2nd Court of First Instance that heard the case in the light of Fatih Altayli’s complaint concerning the SRF administrators established that the writings in question had nothing to do with the SRF and issued an ACQUITTAL RULING, No. 1996/381 E. 1998/508 K dated 12.06.1998, regarding the foundation managers. The ruling has also been confirmed by the 4th Chamber of Supreme Court of Appeals.
The ruling has also been confirmed by the 4th Chamber of Supreme Court of Appeals.
Fatih Altayli also sued the SRF managers and members for libel at the Istanbul 6th Court of First Instance. That court received reports from a 3-member team of experts regarding the bulletins in question. The team of experts whose opinions were canvassed by the court determined, as a result of their inquiries, that these writings were completely unconnected to the SRF community. In the expert witness report, dated 28.01.2002 and given to the Istanbul 6th Court of First Instance by Prof. Dr. Kemal Yavuz, Prof. Dr. Mustafa Ozkan and Asst. Prof. Dr. Fatih Andi, Fatih Altayli’s claims were explicitly described as groundless.
In addition to all this, contrary to what is maintained on the State Security Court (DGM) Considered Legal Opinion, Fatih Altayli told the Istanbul No. 1 DGM that members of the SRF community made no threats against him and there was no question of any material gain. In answer to questions on the subject from the president of the Istanbul No. 1 DGM, Fatih Altayli replied THERE WAS NO THREAT OR FINANCIAL INTEREST, AND I WAS SUBJECTED TO NO THREATS.”
