Rabia Çetin
The second hearing in the trial of detained defendants Abdurrahman Murat, 19, and Adnan Şahin, 25, who are charged with intentional killing in connection with the death of journalist and video activist Hakan Tosun, who was killed on the night of Oct. 10 in Istanbul's Esenyurt district, will be held on July 8 at the Bakırköy 17th High Criminal Court. It was learned that the HTS (telephone traffic and communication) records between the defendants, which the court requested during the first hearing, have been added to the case file.
First hearing begins under police blockade
The first hearing in the trial over the killing of Hakan Tosun was held on May 6 at the Bakırköy 17th High Criminal Court in Istanbul.
Before the hearing, Tosun's family, friends, journalists, politicians, lawyers and human rights advocates wanted to hold a press statement at the Bakırköy Metrobus Station. Police surrounded the group. The group later marched to the courthouse, where they delivered the statement.
At the courthouse, the panel of judges said that only a limited number of lawyers, lawmakers, bar association representatives and journalists would be allowed into the courtroom because of its small size. The decision sparked a scuffle between journalists and police, and several journalists were assaulted.
Following objections, seven journalists were allowed into the courtroom. Those who were unable to attend the hearing in person watched the proceedings via SEGBİS, Turkey's judicial video conferencing system.
Defendants appear via SEGBİS
At the first hearing, detained defendants Abdurrahman Murat and Adnan Şahin attended the proceedings via SEGBİS from Sakarya Prison.
In his defense statement, Abdurrahman Murat said he saw Hakan Tosun in front of their home on the day of the incident and claimed Tosun had bottles of alcohol and what he believed to be drugs with him. Murat said he asked Tosun to leave the area, alleging that Tosun responded by swearing at him. He admitted kicking Tosun but maintained that he did not strike him in the face or head.
Murat further claimed that when he returned from a nearby grocery store, Tosun again swore at him, prompting him to punch Tosun. He argued, however, that the punch was not forceful. The defendant said he later returned to the scene after leaving to check whether an ambulance had arrived.
He concluded his defense statement by saying, "I wish my hand had been broken so I hadn't thrown that punch, but he provoked me by swearing at me."
Cross-examination highlights inconsistencies
During the cross-examination that followed the defense statements, the defendant's account was scrutinized in detail. The prosecutor raised inconsistencies regarding how Murat left the scene on a motorcycle, while lawyers representing Hakan Tosun's family referred to surveillance footage and asked why he had returned to the scene.
Cemal Yücel, one of the family's lawyers, said the footage showed Murat kicking Tosun four times and pointed to discrepancies between the defendant's defense statement and the video evidence. Murat, however, said he returned to the scene because Tosun had sworn at him again.
At times, arguments broke out in the courtroom as the defendants' lawyers frequently interrupted questions posed by the family's legal team during the cross-examination. After Murat's lawyer repeatedly asked whether Hakan Tosun had hit his head as he fell to the ground, the presiding judge intervened, saying, "You are trying to get him to say what you already have in mind."
'I only nudged him,' defendant says
The other defendant, Adnan Şahin, then gave his defense statement, saying he arrived at the scene in his BMW. Şahin claimed he removed Abdurrahman Murat from the scene and later approached Tosun only to check whether he was moving. He said he merely "nudged" Tosun with his foot and insisted he did not kick or otherwise strike him.
Şahin's defense statement was also challenged by the family's lawyers. Cemal Yücel pointed to security camera footage that he said showed Şahin kicking Hakan Tosun and asked why he had returned to the scene a second time. Şahin rejected the claim, arguing that the footage did not show what was alleged and insisting that he had not kicked Tosun. After lawyer Hakan Bozyurt said the footage clearly showed the assault, Şahin continued to deny the allegations.
After the defendants completed their defense statements, the court heard from Hakan Tosun's family. Tosun's sisters, brother and mother requested to join the proceedings as complainants.
Hakan Tosun's mother, Fatma Tosun, told the court: "My son wouldn't hurt an ant. If he had 100 lira, he would share it with animals. They portrayed my son as a drunk and a drug user. Did my son hit his own head against the wall? I will pursue this case to the end. I want them to suffer what I have suffered."
The family's lawyer, Cemal Yücel, said the defendants' actions were established by security camera footage and forensic reports, and asked the court to convict them of intentional killing.
Istanbul and Antalya bar associations seek to join trial
Following the family's statements, the Istanbul Bar Association and the Antalya Bar Association also requested to join the case as intervening parties.
Speaking on behalf of the Istanbul Bar Association, lawyer Diren Cevahir Şen said Hakan Tosun's killing was not merely an individual homicide but a case that also concerned the public's right to access information and press freedom.
A representative of the Antalya Bar Association said the incident constituted a violation of the right to life and announced that the bar association also wanted to join the proceedings as an intervening party.
Lawyers: 'Surveillance footage shows intent to kill'
Cemal Yücel, a lawyer representing Hakan Tosun's family, said surveillance footage and forensic reports did not support the defendants' defense statements.
Yücel told the court that the footage showed Hakan Tosun sitting next to an electricity pole when he was first assaulted by Abdurrahman Murat. He said that after the defendants initially left the scene, motorcyclist Yusuf Özakdağ joined them, after which they returned and carried out a second assault.
Referring to forensic reports, Yücel said Hakan Tosun had fractures to his face, neck and skull, adding that such injuries could not be explained by what the defendants described as "a slight nudge" or "a light punch."
Yücel also said that during the prosecutor's investigation, an unrelated incident that took place on a Metrobus was introduced into the case file in an attempt to portray Hakan Tosun as being at fault. He argued that the Metrobus incident and the fatal assault were entirely unrelated.
Maintaining that the defendants acted with intent to kill, Yücel asked the court to convict them of intentional killing without applying any sentence reduction for alleged unjust provocation.
Metrobus and neighborhood witnesses testify
The court first heard testimony from witnesses who had been on the same Metrobus as Hakan Tosun. The witnesses said Tosun was removed from the Metrobus following an argument and claimed that he had been under the influence of alcohol. However, they said they did not personally witness the alleged harassment and did not see Tosun being assaulted on the Metrobus.
The court then heard from neighborhood residents. One witness, Gönül Doğan, said she saw Hakan Tosun lying motionless on the ground and called an ambulance. She testified that Abdurrahman Murat and Adnan Şahin, who had gotten out of a black car, were at the scene. Doğan also asked the court for protection, saying, "I am raising my child on my own. I ask the state to protect my child."
While some neighborhood witnesses testified that they saw the defendants strike Hakan Tosun, discrepancies emerged between the statements given by some witnesses during the prosecutor's investigation and their testimony in court. Some witnesses also said the defendants returned to the scene twice and that a second assault took place.
Motorcyclist at scene testifies as witness
The court also heard testimony from motorcyclist Yusuf Özakdağ, who was at the scene on the night Hakan Tosun was killed and whom the family's lawyers have reported to prosecutors for alleged criminal conduct. Özakdağ testified as a witness about the events of that night.
The family's lawyers argued that his testimony was inconsistent with the surveillance footage. Referring to the 12-minute security camera recording shown during the hearing, lawyer Hakan Bozyurt said Özakdağ had also been involved in the incident and argued that the assault was not as minor as the defendants claimed.
Defense lawyers blame Hakan Tosun
At the first hearing, the lawyer for defendant Adnan Şahin said, "My client did not deliver the fatal blow. He touched him only to nudge him and check on him."
The lawyer for Abdurrahman Murat argued, "This incident is not related to Hakan Tosun's journalism. It happened because of Hakan Tosun's own conduct and behavior."
At the conclusion of the May 6 hearing, the presiding judge ordered that the HTS (telephone traffic and communication) records between the defendants be obtained and decided to dispense with hearing testimony from the Metrobus witnesses.
Who was Hakan Tosun?
Hakan Tosun, who was born in Istanbul in 1975, began working in the media sector in the 1990s. In recent years, he worked as an independent video activist and documentary filmmaker, documenting environmental protests as well as ecological and urban rights movements in Turkey.
