The suspect in the New Year's Eve murder did not receive a reduction in sentence! He will not be able to get out of prison.

```html

On New Year's Eve in Fatih, Istanbul, a verdict was reached in the case regarding the murder of 17-year-old Melek Nur Özgener, who was shot in the head. The court sentenced the suspect, Ercan Şahin, to aggravated life imprisonment for the crime of 'intentional murder of a child.' The court did not apply any reduction in the sentence for Şahin.

In the case heard at the Istanbul 40th Heavy Penal Court regarding the murder of 17-year-old Melek Nur Özgener, who was shot in the head on New Year's Eve, a verdict was reached. The detained defendant Ercan Şahin was brought from prison for the hearing. Melek Nur Özgener's family and lawyers attended the hearing, while the defendant's family was not allowed into the courtroom. In his defense, Ercan Şahin stated, "There is absolutely no intent in this incident, it was an accident. Many people know this, I do not want to talk. Melek Nur was my sister. They know it too, I can no longer say anything. I am a father of two children. I have one daughter and one son. The sentence you will give will affect my life. I did not do anything, I request my release." Melek Nur's family demanded that Şahin receive aggravated life imprisonment for 'intentional murder of a child.'

Melek Nur's lawyer Elif Özdemir stated, "We agree with the prosecutor's opinion. The individual must be punished with aggravated life imprisonment for 'intentionally killing Melek Nur Özgener.' The defendant's statements aimed at reducing the sentence do not reflect the truth. We can understand that the defendant's statements are not true from the fact that two false witnesses testified in his favor. One of these false witnesses is Nisanur, the other is Eyüp. Regarding these two individuals, if we look at Nisanur, her account of the incident is quite clear and detailed during the prosecution and police stages, although it is against the defendant Ercan, during the court stage this statement was completely changed to a form that could allow the defendant to receive a reduction. Nisanur's statement taken immediately after the incident contains detailed descriptions and should be given credibility, while the inconsistent statements made during the court stage should not be taken into account. I request the defendant to be punished for 'intentional murder' and 'intentional murder of a child,'" she said. The court sentenced Ercan Şahin to aggravated life imprisonment for 'intentional murder of a child' and did not apply any reduction in the sentence.

'HIS BLOOD DID NOT GO UNAVENGED'

Melek Nur's aunt Öznur Özgener stated after the hearing, "I am one of the complainants already mentioned in the case file, and I embarked on this path believing that this decision would be made. To speak for myself, I embarked on this path believing that my niece's blood would not go unavenged. We followed this case to the end. We would never give up. We requested aggravated life imprisonment and trusted in justice, we sought refuge in it. My only wish from now on is that the same happens in every crime committed in other femicides. I wish all of them receive aggravated life sentences from here," she said.

Melek Nur's mother Ayşe Küçükosman said, "Thank God justice has been served. First of all, I would like to thank the lawyers present here and the friends who were here. They followed this case. They were always by our side. I thank each of them one by one," she stated. Father Bülent Özgener said, "From the very beginning of the incident, I thank all the lawyer friends one by one. I have been praying from the start, and my prayer has been accepted," he said.

"NO DISCRETIONARY REDUCTION WAS APPLIED"

After the hearing, lawyer Elif Özdemir stated, "Today we were together at the verdict hearing for Melek Nur Özgener at the Istanbul 40th Heavy Penal Court. In the previous session, the prosecutor's opinion was to punish the defendant Ercan Şahin with aggravated life imprisonment. In this session, the esteemed prosecutor's opinion was accepted, and the defendant was punished with aggravated life imprisonment for 'the intentional killing of a child.' No discretionary reduction was applied. We believe that what should have happened has happened and that justice has been served. Although the defendant Ercan Şahin made defenses aimed at escaping the crime from the very beginning of the case, these were not taken into account by the court, and the defendant received the punishment he deserved," she said.

"UNTRUE STATEMENTS WERE MADE"

Özdemir stated, "First of all, I would like to thank the court for determining the correct punishment without applying any discretionary reduction, by not giving credence to the defendant's untrue statements aimed at escaping the crime, and by considering the material reality. Secondly, there were one or two points in the case that made me doubt whether the defendant would receive a reduction. Because, probably with the request and desire of the defendant, two false witnesses were included in the case. One of these false witnesses is Nisanur, who is a friend of both the defendant and Melek Nur. Nisanur completely rejected the detailed statements she made during the prosecution and police stages. Instead, she made completely opposite statements. Although she narrated the incident as it was during the prosecution and police statements, her reason for rejecting those statements was that she was intimidated by the defendant's aunt, father, and mother, but in reality, she is speaking half-truths and half-lies. It is clear that Nisanur is being intimidated, but it is evident that it is not by Melek Nur's family but by the defendant or the defendant's family.

Because the statements to be considered in court are those that need to be given immediately. At the same time, when the statements contradict each other, attention is paid to which one is more consistent and which one is more clearly articulated at the initial stage and during the court phase. Therefore, although Nisa tried to save the defendant, who is her friend, she could not achieve her goal. The second false witness is again a person named Eyüp, who is a friend of the defendant in the case. Eyüp also seems to have not memorized the statements of the defendant and the witness correctly; he made statements that were inconsistent with the truth in a different way from both statements. For this reason, the honorable court did not give credence to Eyüp's false testimony due to the contradictions. We are happy that justice has been served. We demand an end to femicides.