07.07.2025 16:39
Doctor Muhammet Mustafa D., who was arrested in Ankara for the crimes of "obscenity" and "deliberately killing a pet," appeared before the judge. In his defense, the defendant stated that the videos seized from his phone were misinterpreted and that what he did in his home was of no concern to anyone. He said, "The things I do at home for pleasure are nobody's business."
```html
The trial of doctor Muhammet Mustafa D, who is accused of taking in stray dogs under the pretext of adopting them and allegedly abusing, dismembering, and killing them, has begun for the crimes of "obscenity" and "deliberately killing a pet." The hearing, held at the 3rd Criminal Court of First Instance in Ankara West Courthouse, was attended by the lawyers of the parties and the detained defendant Muhammet Mustafa D. After the identification and the reading of the summary of the indictment, the defendant proceeded with his defense.
Defendant D claimed that the loss of his dogs upset him the most, that none of the accusations against him were based on concrete evidence, and that he lost his freedom because of so-called animal lovers. D, who alleged that the bones in his garden belonged to large livestock, argued that the hairballs found wrapped in tissues in his house did not belong to the dogs, but were the first hairs kept as a memento by him and his siblings.
"THE DOGS ESCAPED THROUGH THE WINDOW"
Muhammet Mustafa D explained that he adopted 3 puppy dogs in April and made a place for them on the terrace of his ground floor apartment, continuing as follows:
"I left a slight gap in the window for them to breathe. The dogs escaped from there. I searched for the dogs outside but could not find them. There are no cameras in my house. The camera footage taken from the neighboring house only captures one side of the house. The terrace from which the dogs escaped is on the other side of the house. Since there is a garage door on the other side of the house, the dogs must have escaped from there. When the people who adopted the dogs came the next day, I told them that the dogs had escaped, but despite this, they wanted to enter the house, which led to a dispute."
"WHAT I DO AT HOME IS NOBODY'S BUSINESS"
Muhammet Mustafa D stated that despite working in Güdül, he frequently came home due to the responsibility of taking care of the 5 puppies he adopted on March 30, and that sometimes his family took care of the dogs, but since prayers were held at home, he put the dogs on the terrace, claiming that the dogs escaped through the window when he put them on the terrace on both occasions.
D, stating that the videos seized from his phone were misinterpreted and that what he did at home was nobody's business, said, "I recorded them on video. The things claimed to be blood in the footage are the result of mixing wet dog food with milk when I brought the puppies. The blood stains on the wall found on my phone are red oil paint left over from a painting I did as a hobby. The things I do at home for pleasure are nobody's business."
WITNESS: WE ASKED ABOUT THE DOGS, HE ATTACKED US
After the defendant's statement, witness E.T, who was given the floor, said that he was aware of the situation after the incident, that he could see the defendant's house from his own, and that he did not see any puppies outside.
Witness G.Ü, who was also taken as a witness, explained that he and his wife fed the dogs at Karşıyaka Cemetery, that they posted an advertisement online for the adoption of the puppies, and then the defendant called his wife and said he would come for the dogs.
G.Ü reported that the defendant came by taxi to pick up the dogs, stating, "When the defendant arrived, he said he had a villa, that he was an engineer, and that he was newly married. When we saw that he brought a box and tape, we told him not to put the puppies in the box since it was hot and that we could take them in our car. He did not accept. He said, 'I have a huge garden, my situation is very good, my wife and I will take care of them.' The next day we were curious, my wife called the defendant and said, 'Could you send us a picture of our children, we are curious to see our children?' He hung up the phone saying, 'There is law, there is justice.' My wife called him two more times, and in the end, he blocked us."
G.Ü stated that they saw the taxi the defendant came in from the video they recorded while adopting the dogs and went to the taxi stand, where the taxi driver said that the defendant entered a market on the way, bought a tarpaulin and cleaning supplies, but did not buy anything related to food, and that he left the food they provided in the taxi.
G.Ü explained that when the taxi driver took them to the defendant's house, they could not find him at the address and knocked on the neighbor's door, saying, "We knocked on the door of one of the neighbors. They said they had fallen out with the defendant and that he was not an animal lover. Then the defendant came back from the market, we asked about the dogs, he did not show them and then attacked us. I am filing a complaint."
REQUESTS OF WITNESSES WERE REJECTED
After the witness statements, the requests of the Ankara Bar Association No. 1 and No. 2 and various animal rights organizations' lawyers to join the case were rejected, prompting a reaction from the judge. In response, the judge briefly adjourned the hearing on the grounds that the order of the court was disrupted.
THE DEFENDANT REQUESTED ACQUITTAL
After the break, the defendant, stating that he did not accept the witness statements against him, requested his acquittal.
The defendant's lawyers also stated that they did not accept the statements against him, arguing that there had been an attempt to create a perception from the beginning in the case, and requested the court to release the defendant.
THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO SEPTEMBER 9
The public prosecutor, whose opinion was sought, requested that the missing issues be resolved and that the detention status continue.
The court, deciding to send the file regarding the crime of obscenity to 3 expert witnesses for a report to be prepared, ruled for the continuation of the defendant's detention. The hearing was adjourned to September 9.
```