Police know the IS people but forget them

Gaziantep Police Counterterrorism Branch Deputy Director Bestami Duman, being heard as a witness in the trial into the 10 October massacre, replied, “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember” to questions about IS. Duman was even unable to remember his own signature.

Yayınlanma: 23.11.2017 - 17:50
Abone Ol google-news

It emerged from the testimony of the police officer witnesses that police officer Hüseyin Gümüş had been killed, not in the street as imparted in press reports, but at home by police informant IS member Hanifi Çelik
 
Alican Uludağ
 
Gaziantep Police Counterterrorism Branch Deputy Director Beyazıt Bestami Duman, being heard as a witness in the trial into the Ankara Railway Station massacre that cost 101 lives on 10 October 2015, replied, “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember” to intervening parties’ attorneys’ critical questions about the IS structure in Antep and instances of negligence over the massacre. Duman, persistently concealing which unit the mere 36 suspects had been selected by despite the existence of large numbers of suspects in the Station investigation conducted by Ankara Prosecution, “could not remember” even his signature beneath the Station investigation case report. The hearing of the trial continued at Ankara Serious Crime Court No 4. Beyazıt Bestami Duman, who was Gaziantep Police Counterterrorism Branch Deputy Director on the date of the incident, and Tahir Sarışık, who was the chief police officer serving in the Intelligence Branch on that date, were heard as witnesses. Detainee pending trial, Suphi Alpfidan, who is an estate agent in Gaziantep, had recounted in his defence that he went to the police and reported the IS people associated with Halil İbahim Durgun to the Counterterrorism Branch and Intelligence Branch prior to 10 October, and that IS had tried to rent homes and warehouses. In reaction to this testimony, the court then summoned the said two policemen. Tahir Sarışık said in his testimony that he did not know Suphi Alpfidan and was seeing him for the first time. Alpfidan then said that the intelligence officer to whom he made the report was not Sarışık. With one of the lawyers asking, “It is written in the press that IS is influential in certain quarters in Antep. Do you know these quarters?” Sarışık responded, “I know that it has consolidated in certain quarters in Antep. Generally slum quarters. These are the quarters of Karşıyaka and Çıksorut.”
 
He did not know the estate agent
 
Duman, subsequently summoned to take the stand, also said that he did not know Alpfidan. He indicated that it was forbidden for the counterterrorism branch to conduct intelligence work and they were an operational unit. Alpfidan, in turn, saying that he spoke to Duman and knew him to be the counterterrorism branch director, said, “Why does he not know me? Why are they not exposing the truth? Why are they protecting that IS guy? What kind of theatrical performance am I in? I spoke to him.” Duman, on being requestioned, repeated that he had not spoken with Alpfidan.
 
Did not remember the defendants, either
 
Intervening party attorney Ahmet Özer asked Bestami Duman about many IS people by name, in particular the trial’s defendants, and certain incidents. It was noticeable that Duman, for his part, evaded answering the bulk of the questions by saying “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember.” Duman could not remember the events and people in certain documents that bore his signature, either.
 
We recognise them from what they’re like
 
Attorney Murat Kemal Gündüz, showing photographs relating to the treating of certain IS people at private hospitals in Antep, asked, “They passed back across the border into Syria following their treatment. Why were they permitted to do so?” Duman, asking, “Were they with the Free Syrian Army or the organisation?” replied, “The Free Syrian Army is one thing and the organisation another. If they are with the Free Syrian Army, they get treatment. Then we deport them. If it’s another organisation, we deal with them accordingly.” In response to Gündüz’s question, “How do you know which organisation it is? Does a statement suffice?” Duman said, “We recognise them from what they’re like and their attitude.” Duman stated that, once IS was recognised as a terrorist organisation, it was combatted in the necessary way.
 
Why was information withheld?
 
Attorney Senem Doğanoğlu, in turn, asked questions about Gaziantep police withholding information from Ankara Prosecution in relation to the Station investigation. Doğanoğlu, noting that there were 36 defendants in the Station case, but 102 of the suspects in relation to the 1 May 2016 Gaziantep police station attack had connections with the 10 October massacre, asked, “Who and on what basis selected the 36 defendants in the Station case, and why are the other people absent?” Duman, for his part, persistently evaded replying as to which unit in Gaziantep the 36 defendants had been selected by and said, “There was an effort by every unit.”
 
Let there be an investigation
 
Attorney Ahmet Özer, addressing the court following the witnesses’ testimony, noting that there was plenty of information that Gaziantep police did not send to Ankara in the Station investigation, said, “It is clear that information was withheld. There is a list of jihadists in the Gaziantep police’s system. But they did not supply this.” Özer wished for the court to file a criminal complaint about the police officials who withheld information, did not keep tabs on IS members and did not perform their duty, not least Duman.
 
It appears from images that have entered the case file that the two suicide bombers were identified from cameras at various locations in the streets of Ankara on 10 October 2015, and they staged the attack by entering the area where the rally was held.


Cumhuriyet Tatil Otel Rezervasyon

En Çok Okunan Haberler