Rear Admiral Ömer Faruk Harmancık and His Defense That Shatters the Indictment
After July 15, in order to legalize the de facto situation, Turkey's recent history was rewritten with heroic stories that fit the chaos. In a Turkey reminiscent of the novel *1984*, institutional memorywas erased, and the "state reflex" gave rise to theideal citizens of the new order.
Perhaps, if he had shown more interestin golden trinketsthan in artificial intelligence, he too would have found a place among these ideal citizens. Perhaps he should have prioritized handing out compliments over the seriousness of duty. If he had shaped his course based on the prevailing winds rather than on principles, perhapshe would still be free today.
Instead of being applauded respectfully during his speech at Moscow’s Lubyanka Headquarters, if he had been a military diplomatcaught in the FSB's net, he mighthave been deemed at most "resigned," rather than a traitor.
This series of articles will focus on his defense. The defense of the admiral, who was caught in the middle of all these lynching attempts, not to the court, but to future generations with wisdom. In a trial that will go down in Turkish legal history, his statements that mark the pages of history. The person sentenced to the most life imprisonments in the world after Terry Nichols. Here is Rear Admiral Ömer Faruk Harmancık and his defense that shatters the indictment.
Rear Admiral Harmancık and the Famous Villa Story
In Anadolu Agency's (AA) report dated June 20, 2019, among the charges against Harmancık, who was sentenced to 141 aggravated life sentences, was the claim that, as part of preparations for the coup attempt, he attended a meeting on July 6-9 in Ankara's Konutkent, allegedly chaired by the fugitive leader of the organization, Adil Öksüz.
Harmancık, then serving as Chief of Staff at the Northern Sea Area Command of the Turkish Naval Forces, was said to have participated in this gathering. Although it may appear overshadowed by other accusations, this villa and the meetings/preparations allegedly conducted there actually form, as Harmancık describes, "the backbone, the spine of this case."
As long as the villa remains part of the case, claims of coup preparations, the existence of a council (the Peace at Home Council) or a junta, and connections involving Adil Öksüz and the organization can be asserted. Conversely, if the villa-related allegations collapse, the council collapses, the preparations fall apart, the organizational ties vanish, and, ultimately, the case unravels, revealing the plot. The defenses made in the main trial are, in a way, efforts by wise individuals to retrieve stones recklessly thrown into a well, despite psychological and physical challenges. One of these individuals is Rear Admiral Ömer Faruk Harmancık, who standsat the center of the villa-related allegations.
Unlike the two "confessors" who testified against him, Harmancık consistently and firmly stated in various testimonies that he was not present at the villa and did not participate in any coup-related meetings or preparations. In contrast, the confessors—Amphibious Marine Brigade Commander Rear Admiral Halil İbrahim Yıldız and Foça Gendarmerie Commando Training Command Vice Chief of Staff Colonel Hakan Bıyık, known publicly under the code names “Kuzgun” and “Şapka”—included the villa and Harmancık in their testimonies, which contained numerous contradictions, inaccuracies, and inconsistencies both internally and with each other. The prosecution relied on these unreliable testimonies with the support of a fingerprint, allegedlybelonging to Harmancık, said to have been obtainedby the crime scene investigation team at the villa. Just as the villa is critical to the main trial, this fingerprint is equally significant in lending credibility to the confessor testimonies. In this section of the series, beforeexamining the confessions, we will focus on the infamous fingerprint.
The Fingerprint That Came to the Prosecution's Aid
The fingerprint of Rear AdmiralHarmancık was firstrecorded by law enforcement on July 17 during the custody process. Subsequently, searches were conducted at Harmancık's residence and workplace. At that time, he was merely considered a "suspect." On the same day, another person testified in custody, not yet the secret witness Kuzgun, Rear Admiral Halil İbrahim Yıldız declared to the police that he wanted to be a confessor and gave detailed information about the coup. Among this information was the villa where he claimed the coup meetings were held and some of the names he saw there, making preparations.
Although he first appeared in police records on July 17, no action was taken regarding either the address in question (a three-story 7+1 style triplex villa located at No. 3, 2880 Avenue, Ahmet Taner Kışlalı Neighborhood, registered under Ümitköy Empati Consulting Trade and Industry Ltd.) or the individuals mentioned in his confessions. The address was not legally verified, no search or seizure was conducted, and the individuals named were not identified by Yıldız. In contrast to the procedures applied to "suspect" Harmancık and others, the disregard shown toward Yıldız's statements, in which he openly confessed to being a "coup plotter," is rather striking.
When Yıldız, as the secret witness "Kuzgun," mentioned the villa again in his subsequent statement on August 7-8, police, acting as if hearing about it for the first time, hastily brought him to Ankara for a site identification process. After Kuzgun confirmed the address from outside the villa, a team entered, conducted a brief scan, found a fingerprint, and then left the premises. Allegedly, of the two full fingerprints and one partial fingerprint found, one was identified as belonging to Harmancık's right ring finger, while another was linked to a civilian individual. The partial fingerprint, however, was deemed insufficient for identifying its owner. Thus, evidence was found on which the prosecution could base its accusations.
Search Dated August8
Twenty-one days after his initial statement, Kuzgun was hastily brought to Ankara, though for reasonsunknown, he was not taken inside the villa afterconducting the site identification outside. In fact, no one except the crime scene investigation team was allowed inside. After the team conducted fingerprint identification, they closed the door and left the villa. Under normal circumstances, an investigation report and an inventory of evidence findings should have been prepared; however, these were not drafted. Regarding the search, the only item available is an information note,the author of which remainsunknown.
The crime scene investigation report consists of the crime scene examination form and the findings/evidence inventory list. If the evidence identified at the crime scene is not included in the report and form, it should atleast be specified in theprepared information note.
All three documents, by their content, are documents that confer legal significance to the crime scene investigation. In the absenceof the crime scene investigation findings report, it is impossible to understand under whose instructions the investigation was conducted, underwhose supervision it took place, under what conditions it was carried out, or under whose custody the evidence was secured. Although a crime scene investigation report was prepared on August 19, albeit late, it not only failedto resolve this ambiguity but also revealed another procedural error.
Accordingly, there is no information regarding under whose instructions and to whom the villa was handed over after the investigation. In other words, it appears that a highly critical "crime scene" was abandoned after the investigation without being handed over to anyone. On page 106 of the file,it appears that the crime scene investigation report was preparedby the Ankara Provincial Police Department’s Crime Scene Investigation Branch under the name “Report 015589.1” on August 19, 2016, as previously mentioned. However, the address listed in this report is different, and the individual to whom the address was handed over is unrelated.
Another detail about this search is that it was concluded at a record speed, between 15:20 and 17:45. A three-story, 7+1 room building—one of the most critical crime scenes in a trial that has marked Turkish legal history—was scanned in 145 minutes, covering an area of approximately 240 square meters. On average, this allowed 18 minutes per room and 1.5 minutes per square meter. Part of this time was spent photographing the rooms, corridors, staircases, and lavatories.
Search Dated August21
It appears that there was concern about potential future issues arising from the obvious procedural errors in the identification, transportation, and storage of evidence. For this reason,on August 21, police teams conducted anothersite identification, search, and seizure at the same address with another secret witness, “Şapka,” who emerged in the following days. This time, an investigation report was prepared, an evidence/findings inventory was drawn up, and these were included in the relevant sections of the file. If we are to address what was uncovered and what was not uncovered as a result of this search in two paragraphs:
The report prepared following the second search revealed the presence of a functioning security camera with a view of the building entrance. In this context, “his defense lawyers” would be more precise, as it clearly refers to the legal team representing Harmancık specifically. Although Harmancık and his defense lawyers repeatedly requested these camera recordings throughout the trial, for reasons unknown, the recordings could not be obtained. It was also discovered that there was an alarm-security system at the entrance. Under prison conditions and through his own efforts, Harmancık identified 14 security cameras with views of the villa’s surroundings and the road leading to its entrance.
However, throughout both the investigation and the trial, neither these security camera recordings nor the MOBESE recordings (Mobile Electronic System Integration, Turkey's integrated surveillance camera system) from nearby roads were added to the case file or brought before the court.
At the forefront of what was not uncovered in the second search are the fingerprints. No information regarding the two full and one partialfingerprints found in the first search was included in the evidence/findings inventory. Instead, it was found that fingerprintrecords from an unrelated incident were placed in Harmancık’s file. It was also found that the council of elders/neighbors was absent during the search. For a search and seizure operation to be conducted in a residence, workplace, or other enclosed areas without the presence of the Public Prosecutor, the law requires the presence of two people from the local council or two neighbors. With the decree law (KHK), this requirement was reduced to one person.
However, the report does not mention anyone in this regard, nor is there any signature. It appears that, as with the previous one, this search was conducted and completed at the discretion of the crime scene investigation team.
The Villa Had Previously Been Rented and Vacated
Even if, as alleged, the villa was used for coup preparations between July 6-9, 2016, any evidence that might be found at this address could be considered to have "lost its evidentiary value." As alleged, coup preparations ended on July 9, and the building was vacated. If, as alleged, coup preparations ended on July 9 and the building was vacated, the company managing the villa would need to clean the building, move out appropriate items, and make it ready for rental again. Although there is no clear record regarding this initial cleaning and preparation, there are records indicating that the building was rented and used after July 9. It is also known that, followingthe departure of the tenants,the building was cleaned again and the items were removed. There is also a strong likelihood that, during the tenants' stay, cleaning was performed throughout the building or in certain areas. As a result, considering that tenants lived there for a period, followed by the entire building being vacated and prepared for rental once again, the specified address has lost its status as a crime scene and its potentialfor evidence collection. Additionally, the inabilityto clearly determinewhether anyone enteredthe building betweenAugust 8 and the secondsearch on August 21 furthercasts doubt on the findingsobtained during the August 21 search.
Experts with professional experience in crime scene investigation emphasize that environmental factorsshould also be taken into account regardingthe search conducted at the villa. For example, the 30-day period from the alleged meeting dates to the first search, and the 43-day period to the second search, along with Ankara’s average temperatures in July and August, should be considered due to their negativeimpact on evidence quality.
Yes, fingerprints can remain for a long time under suitable conditions, but can the existing crime scene truly be considered “suitable”?
Conclusion
Rear Admiral Ömer Faruk Harmancık consistently emphasized in all his statements, starting from the first time he was questioned on October 21, 2016, that he had never been at the villa. While considering the possibility that the fingerprint he provided to law enforcement on July 17 could somehow have been transferred to the alleged crime scene, Rear Admiral Ömer Faruk Harmancık repeatedly emphasized that, due to errors in the crime scene investigation, evidence collection, evidence transfer, evidence preservation, and placement in the relevant sections of the case file, as well as deficiencies in technical and legal procedures, the existing fingerprints could not hold evidentiary status. Harmancık's oral and written objections regarding his fingerprint were not accepted by the court. Although Harmancık requested a thorough re-examination of the fingerprints by an international expert, an investigation into questionable aspects,an on-site inspection of the specified address with the secret witnesses who claimed "I went to the villa," and, if any externalobservers were involved in the crime scene investigation, their testimony as witnesses, these requests were also denied by the court panel.
Appendix
Despite all their efforts and the roles they played as secret witnesses, Kuzgun and Şapka could not avoid receiving sentences. As will be addressed in later sections, they were used and discarded once their purpose was served. Harmancık, on the other hand, did not ask for acquittal, did not plead for mercy, and did not beg in his defense. Looking into the eyes of Presiding Judge Oğuz Dik, he said, “Are you aware that you bear the moral responsibility for the suffering of hundreds of innocent patriots? Let’s say you’ve sentenced me—how will you convict those so young that they don’t even understand what a coup is, those who, under normal circumstances, would never even be in the same room as me, and those innocent ones who were simply following orders? And what about the innocents who cried out, ‘They tortured us, President, hear us’? Will you still call them coup plotters?” He did not refrain from asking for justice for the innocent.
The judge of this order, the imposingPresiding Judge Oğuz Dik (42520),was promoted to a member of the Court of Cassation as a shining star of the law in its golden age. However, in just a few years,when dozens of crimes he was involved in—chief among them the “F...
Exchange”—come to light, the public will witness his disgraceful downfall as a cautionary example.
...I’veforgotten most of their faces entirely;
only a very thin, very long nose remains in my memory,
yet how many times they sat and lined up in front of me.
They had onlyone concern as the verdict was read:
to appear imposing.
They were not.
They resembled objects more than people:
foolish like wall clocks,
arrogant,
and tragic and disgraceful, like handcuffs, chains,and such...
Faruk Yılmaz
