The defendants in the case regarding the murder of journalist and video activist Hakan Tosun in the middle of the street have appeared before the judge for the first time. The court decided to inquire whether an investigation was underway regarding a third person on a motorcycle who was involved in the incident but not included in the case

CANAN COŞKUN, ISTANBUL

The first hearing in the trial of Abdurrahman Murat and Adnan Şahin on charges of “willful murder” in connection with the beating and killing of journalist and video activist Hakan Tosun in Istanbul’s district of Esenyurt on 10 October 2025 was held at the Bakırköy 17th Criminal Court on 6 May 2026.

The hearing, which P24 monitored, began under the shadow of a police intervention involving shields, as the court held the session in a 30-person capacity courtroom. The hearing, scheduled to begin in the afternoon, first admitted the defendants’ lawyers into the courtroom. After the lawyers representing Hakan Tosun’s family were admitted, the family was also called in. Meanwhile, it was reported to the journalists waiting at the door that only four reporters would be allowed into the courtroom. This number was later increased to seven. The journalists objected to this restriction and continued to wait outside the courtroom. Meanwhile, Tosun’s family’s lawyers inside the courtroom were making statements to the court regarding the admission of press members. At that moment, riot police were called to the courtroom door. The police, positioned in front of the journalists, intervened by forming a circle around them with their shields, following orders from their superiors. During the intervention, some journalists were beaten. At the same time, other journalists present at the courthouse to cover the hearing, representatives of press organizations, representatives of civil society organizations, and Tosun’s relatives were also being pushed back toward the building’s entrance by riot police using their shields.

Seven of the journalists who continued to wait at the courtroom door were allowed inside. In a written statement issued the day before the hearing, Tosun’s family’s lawyers stated that, anticipating a high turnout, they had requested on 31 March that the court allocate a hearing room with sufficient physical capacity, but had received no response to their request. Since hearings are occasionally held in the courthouse’s conference room, the lawyers had requested that the hearing be held there. The presiding judge had rejected the request on the grounds that a “creditors’ meeting” was taking place in the conference room. When the lawyers brought this up, the presiding judge resolved the issue by having the judicial videoconferencing system (SEGBİS) screen in another courtroom activated. Those not admitted to the courtroom watched the hearing from another room. The presiding judge sought to remove journalists on the grounds that he did not want anyone standing in the courtroom. When the journalists refused to comply, some of the lawyers who had come to represent the Tosun family left the courtroom.

Among those who came to the courthouse to follow the trial were CHP MP Evrim Rızvanoğlu, EMEP MP İskender Bayhan, TİP General Chairman Erkan Baş, Istanbul Bar Association President İbrahim Kaboğlu, Istanbul Bar Association Vice President Leyla Süren, and representatives from the Antalya Bar Association and the Union of Turkish Bar Associations.

Statements by the 18-year-old defendant

Defendants Abdurrahman Murat and Adnan Şahin participated in the hearing via SEGBİS from the Sakarya Prison, where they are being held in pre-trial detention. Following the identification process, the defense of 18-year-old Abdurrahman Murat was heard.

Murat, who stated that he had lived and worked in the same place since birth, explained that on the day of the incident, a relative called him to say they were coming to drop off an invitation and asked if he was home. The defendant said that when his relative arrived, he went downstairs and claimed that Tosun, whose shirt he alleged was torn, was there at the time and was staring at them. He claimed that when he approached Tosun, he saw that Tosun had beers with him and what he believed to be drugs in his hand.

Murat claimed that when he told Tosun to leave, Tosun cursed at him, and that during this time, Tosun kicked him in the shoulder. He further claimed that he then went into the store and, upon exiting, saw Tosun urinating outside; he alleged that he punched Tosun once, but that the punch was not hard and did not hit his head. Murat stated that the other defendant, Adnan Şahin, was also present. Murat then stated that he left with his friend on a motorcycle, but claimed he returned to the scene to check if an ambulance had arrived. Murat concluded his defense by saying, “I wish my hand had been broken so I would not have thrown that punch, but he provoked me by cursing at me.”

Cross-examination

The proceedings then moved on to Murat’s cross-examination. The first question was posed by the trial prosecutor. He asked the defendant how he had left the scene on a motorcycle. Since his statement contained inconsistencies, the defendant was asked several times to recount the entire sequence of events from start to finish. Hakan Bozyurt, one of the lawyers for Tosun’s family, took the floor and directed questions at the defendant. During this time, the defendant’s lawyers intervened in Bozyurt’s questions.

Cemal Yücel, one of the lawyers representing Tosun’s family, asked the other detained defendant, Adnan Şahin, how he had arrived at the scene. Murat replied, “We just happened to be there.” Lawyer Yücel reminded the defendant that, according to the footage, he had gone over to Tosun and kicked him four times, and asked why he had returned to the scene a third time. Murat claimed that he had seen Tosun earlier and had told him to go drink somewhere else. The defendant claimed that Tosun had cursed at him in response, and argued that he had kicked him again because he felt provoked.

Mustafa Berkay Yılmaz, the lawyer for the other defendant, Adnan Şahin, pointed out a contradiction between the statement Murat gave at the criminal judgeship of peace and the one he is giving now, and asked whether his client had struck Tosun. Murat stated that Şahin had struck him once.

The statement of the defendant in the BMW at the scene

The defense of defendant Adnan Şahin was then heard. Şahin was the defendant who arrived at the scene in his BMW. Şahin explained that on the day of the incident, he met with Abdurrahman Murat’s older brother, and after getting out of the car, he encountered Abdurrahman Murat. He claimed that Hakan Tosun, who was present at the time, had cursed at them. Şahin, who said he took Murat and left the scene, claimed that when they met again later, he nudged Tosun with his foot to check on him, but denied hitting Tosun.

Cemal Yücel, one of the lawyers for the Tosun family, reminded the defendant that while he was waiting in his car, the other defendant, Murat, had approached Hakan Tosun and kicked him.

Lawyer Yücel asked Şahin if he had turned the car around to block the street. Şahin claimed that, as the company owner, he was checking his emails at the time. When Lawyer Yücel stated that footage showed Şahin had also kicked Tosun, Şahin denied this. Recalling that defendant Abdurrahman Murat first got into Şahin’s car and then, upon the arrival of Yusuf Özakdağ on a motorcycle, got out of the car, mounted the motorcycle, and left, Yücel asked why Murat had gotten into the car after the initial attack and whether he had taken him home. The defendant said he did not know.

Hakan Bozyurt, one of the lawyers for Hakan Tosun’s family, also noted that the footage showed Hakan Tosun being struck. The defendant denied striking him.

Hakan Tosun’s family: “If he had even TL 100, he would have donated it to animals”

After the defendants’ statements and cross-examinations, Tosun’s family was given the floor. His sister, Öznur Tosun, stated, “My brother is neither a rapist nor a drug user.” His older brother, Orhan Veli Tosun, also stated that he was a plaintiff and wished to participate in the case as co-plaintiff.

His mother, Fatma Tosun, said, “My child would never curse, would not hurt a fly—if he had even TL 100, he would donate it to animals.” The heartbroken mother’s words, “May their mothers suffer just as I have,” were frequently interrupted by the presiding judge asking, “Are you a plaintiff?” Meanwhile, his mother was saying that the attackers had specifically struck her son on the head. Tosun’s sister, Öznur Tosun, could not bear it and left the courtroom at that moment.

Requests to join the case

After the family’s statement was taken, lawyer Diren Cevahir Şen spoke on behalf of the Istanbul Bar Association. She stated that this case was not limited to the charge of “willful murdrer” but constituted a threat to the public’s right to information. She filed a request to join the case, noting that it was directly linked to press freedom. Lawyer Salim Berkay Aksu, representing the Antalya Bar Association, also requested to join the case, noting that this incident, which resulted in Hakan Tosun’s death, had deprived him of his right to life.

Later, the family’s lawyer, Cemal Yücel, took the floor and requested to join the case on behalf of the family. He stated that camera footage confirmed Tosun was sitting under an electric pole for an unknown reason. He explained that after the defendants kicked Tosun, they left the scene, but returned to Tosun’s side after Yusuf Özakdağ, who was on a motorcycle, approached them and said something. Yücel noted that the defendants had beaten Tosun again at that point, recalling that forensic and autopsy reports had identified fractures in Tosun’s face, neck, and skull bones. Lawyer Yücel stated that, contrary to the defendants’ statements, they had attacked Tosun with the intent to kill. Stating that the defendants’ statements made to avoid punishment should not be believed, lawyer Yücel said that the moments of the attack on Tosun were captured on camera footage and that none of the defendants’ statements regarding Tosun were true. Lawyer Yücel also addressed the prosecution’s efforts to implicate Tosun by taking statements from people on the metrobus, noting that the two incidents were unrelated. Citing reports describing the incident as a “savage attack,” Yücel demanded that the defendants be punished without leniency. Lawyer Hakan Bozyurt also requested that the hearing of witnesses regarding the incident on the metrobus be discontinued.

Witnesses on the metrobus

After the collection of participation requests, the hearing of witnesses began. First, one of the individuals who was on the same metrobus as Hakan Tosun on the day of the incident was heard as a witness. The witness stated that a scuffle broke out as he boarded the metrobus, that Hakan Tosun was intoxicated, and that he was removed from the vehicle due to an alleged harassment incident. The witness stated that he did not witness the harassment.

Another witness on the metrobus began by stating that he had heard Tosun was bothering his friend but had not seen anything himself. The witness claimed that after being warned, Hakan Tosun cursed and asked his friend, “Am I harassing you?” The witness, who stated that Tosun was intoxicated, said in response to a question from lawyer Cemal Yücel that Tosun’s pants were sagging and his underwear was visible. Lawyer Yücel, noting that according to the metrobus footage Tosun had not touched anyone, asked the witness why he was lying. The witness then reacted by shouting at Hakan Tosun’s lawyers.

Another witness on the metrobus also stated that Tosun had harassed him on the metrobus, that a fight broke out because other passengers reacted to this, and that Tosun got off the metrobus for this reason. The witness, who stated that Tosun was drunk, said that Tosun was not assaulted on the metrobus.

Neighborhood witnesses

The most compelling moments of the trial occurred during the testimony of the neighborhood witnesses. When Gönül Doğan, one of the neighborhood witnesses, expressed her “fear” and requested “state protection for her child,” the panel looked at the witness. Doğan said she was at the entrance of the building where the incident occurred. Doğan stated that she saw someone lying on the ground and called an ambulance, which arrived half an hour later, and added that she did not hear any cursing or insults. Doğan said she saw Abdurrahman Murat at the scene, that she did not want her child to be harmed, and asked the panel to place her child under protection. Doğan stated that Adnan Şahin, who got out of the black car, struck Tosun, and that Abdurrahman Murat also struck him. When asked by the presiding judge, she claimed she did not recall Adnan Şahin striking him.

Another notable moment occurred while neighborhood resident İsmail Şahin was recounting his testimony. Şahin said that he had heard an argument while returning from a boiler maintenance job that evening. Şahin claimed he did not stop at the scene and therefore did not see who struck the victim. When the prosecutor reminded him of his statement during the investigation phase, he admitted that the defendant Abdurrahman Murat had struck the victim.

Later, Öznur Tosun took the stand and stated that the witness had called her on the day of the incident, claiming to have witnessed the event and seen two people being beaten. Öznur Tosun noted that she had also heard about the motorcycle and the car from this witness. The witness denied Öznur Tosun’s claims.

Another neighbor, Gözde Obay, also stated that the incident took place across from her home. She reported that Abdurrahman Murat had told Hakan Tosun, who lived there, to go over. She claimed to have seen him take the bag and phone from Tosun’s side and leave, and then, after walking a short distance, lower his pants. The witness stated that she did not hear any profanity.

Neighbor Yasin Çiftçi also stated that he had gone out onto the balcony to smoke a cigarette at midnight and saw people arriving on a motorcycle strike Tosun. Çiftçi noted that he then went downstairs and called an ambulance.

Neighbor Funda Dolma also stated that she was sitting across from the scene of the incident. She said she had gone out onto the balcony at midnight to hang laundry and saw someone sitting in front of the curtain shop near her house, with alcohol bottles beside them. She stated that while she was hanging laundry, Abdurrahman Murat arrived at the scene and told Tosun to leave. The witness claimed that Tosun cursed at him, and that the man on the motorcycle came and removed Abdurrahman Murat from the scene. The witness said that Abdurrahman Murat returned shortly after leaving. In response to a question from lawyer Cemal Yücel, the witness explained that she saw the defendant, Abdurrahman Murat, strike Tosun several times when he returned for the second time.

Later, neighborhood resident Aylin Keklik was heard as a witness. Keklik was one of the owners of the gym that the defendant, Abdurrahman Murat, attended. Keklik said that they had delivered an invitation to Murat’s family that day. She stated that Abdurrahman Murat did not argue with Hakan Tosun, and that the incident occurred after they had left. In response to a question from lawyer Hakan Bozyurt, Keklik recounted that Hakan Tosun, who was sitting under the pole, looked at them, and that her fiancée then closed the window. In response to a question from the defense lawyers, she claimed that Tosun’s hair was disheveled and his clothes were torn.

Aylin Keklik’s fiancé at the time—now her husband and the owner of the gym, Kadir Can—also stated that while he was sitting in the car with his fiancée, Tosun had been looking at them, and at that moment, he had a piece of paper with tobacco in his hand.

Another witness, a neighborhood resident, stated that he had known the defendant Abdurrahman Murat since childhood. He said that Murat was alone at the scene of the incident, and that after Tosun had walked past the scene, Murat slapped Tosun there. A witness who claimed that Tosun had been swearing alleged that Tosun had relieved himself in front of a building further down the street, and that Adnan Şahin arrived at the scene shortly thereafter. The witness stated that Şahin struck Hakan Tosun.

Another neighborhood witness also stated that defendant Abdurrahman Murat punched Tosun, and that defendant Adnan Şahin, who drives a black BMW, arrived afterward. Upon the prosecutor’s reminder, the witness stated that he did not see the defendants swearing at Tosun or Tosun relieving himself. The witness said that Adnan Şahin kicked Tosun in the chest.

Neighborhood resident Yusuf Karabalık, however, claimed that Tosun was swearing loudly on his own. The witness stated that Abdurrahman Murat struck Tosun, adding that another person who arrived in a black car also struck him, after which Tosun fell silent.

“The witness on the motorcycle who seized the weapon”

Finally, Yusuf Özakdağ, the motorcyclist who transported the assailant Abdurrahman Murat, was heard as a witness at the trial. Özakdağ said they had agreed to meet with Abdurrahman Murat the previous day. Özakdağ claimed that on the day of the incident, Tosun had been drinking beer and using drugs, and alleged that Abdurrahman Murat had warned Tosun to leave the area. Özakdağ claimed that after Tosun had walked away, he relieved himself, and that Abdurrahman Murat struck Tosun, after which an unknown individual who arrived in a BMW kicked Tosun in the face. When the prosecutor asked why they had gone to Tosun’s side a second time, Özakdağ said they had gone to check whether Tosun had left or not. In response to a question from lawyer Yücel, witness Özakdağ claimed—contrary to the defendants’ statements—that Abdurrahman Murat did not get into Adnan Şahin’s car after the first attack. Lawyer Yücel noted that, according to the footage, Özakdağ, who was on a motorcycle, had approached Murat and Şahin’s car and taken Murat to Hakan Tosun’s side.

Lawyer Yücel noted that Özakdağ’s social media posts included references to the Daltonlar crime ring and featured photos of him holding firearms. Özakdağ claimed that while he had previously been caught with a firearm, it was one of those “that shoot beads.”

The prosecutor’s requests

The trial prosecutor requested a ruling allowing the Tosun family to join the case. He asked for a decision that there was no need to hear the three individuals listed in the indictment as having knowledge of the incident inside the metrobus. The prosecutor requested a ruling to compel the witness Ayhan Adıgüzel, regarding the assault incident, to appear in court. The prosecutor, who requested that the analysis of the footage in the case file be conducted by an expert, also requested an analysis of HTS records from three days before and after the incident to determine whether there was any connection between the witnesses whose statements were taken regarding the assault and the defendants. The prosecutor requested that a letter be sent to the Büyükçekmece Chief Prosecutor’s Office to determine whether an investigation had been conducted regarding Yusuf Özakdağ, the motorcyclist who testified as a witness. Finally, the prosecutor requested that the defendants’ detention be continued.

The footage was shown

Later, Tosun’s lawyers showed the footage to the panel and explained the sequence of events. Lawyer Bozyurt, who described how the motorcyclist Özakdağ became involved in the incident, stated that the level of violence was not as mild as the defendants claimed. Lawyer Yücel, however, stated that contrary to the defendants’ statements, the footage showed Tosun’s clothing was intact. Lawyer Yücel stated that they had submitted the footage to the case file and requested an expert analysis of it.

Defense lawyers accused Hakan Tosun

The final word was given to the defense. Adnan Şahin’s lawyer argued that his client had been detained for seven months merely for “nudging” Tosun and requested his release. Şahin’s other lawyer also claimed that Tosun’s breath may have been cut off while he was cursing. Abdurrahman Murat’s lawyer, meanwhile, accused Tosun, arguing that his client had committed the crime under provocation and that Tosun may have concealed his alcohol use from his mother.

Before adjourning to deliberate on the decision, the presiding judge asked Hakan Bozyurt, Tosun’s lawyer, whether they had filed a criminal complaint regarding the witness Özakdağ. Lawyer Bozyurt stated that a decision of non-prosecution had been issued regarding Özakdağ very recently.

The court announced that the witness Ayhan Adıgüzel, for whom a warrant for compulsory appearance had been requested, had died. The court ruled to include the HTS records between the defendants in the case file and ordered that the defendants remain in custody. The trial was postponed until 8 July 2026.

Background of the case

Hakan Tosun set out to visit his family living in Esenyurt, Istanbul on 10 October 2025. When he did not return home, his family reported the situation to the police. Around midnight, two reports were made to the police regarding a person lying on the ground in Esenyurt. An ambulance had taken the person lying on the ground to Başakşehir Çam and Sakura Hospital, but since there was neither identification nor anything else on them, their identity could not be determined. For this reason, hospital police recorded the person’s arrival at the hospital around 2:50 a.m. as a “criminal incident”—a person who would later be identified as Hakan Tosun. Tosun, who had bruises on his eyes and neck, was being kept in intensive care in an unconscious state.

While all this was happening, his family and relatives had begun asking on social media where Tosun was. His family learned around 4:00 a.m. via a police call that Tosun was in the hospital, but when they arrived, they could not find him because he had not been registered. His sister, Öznur Tosun, filed a missing person report, after which the police took his fingerprints and located Hakan that way.

On 11 October 2025, the police summoned the suspects involved in the attack on Hakan Tosun to the station via phone. Abdurrahman Murat and Adnan Şahin were sent to pre-trial detention on charges of “intentional assault.” One day later, Hakan Tosun lost his life after a battle for survival in the intensive care unit.

Shortly before Tosun’s death, footage from security cameras showing the attackers were released. According to the footage, there were three people in the group that attacked Tosun. The third person was the motorcyclist who had transported the individuals jailed for attacking Tosun. The motorcyclist, Yusuf Özakdağ was released after giving a statement as a witness.

After the footage was published in the media, it emerged that relatives of the suspects had taken the security camera from the shop that had viewed the location where Tosun was left, and had told the police that they could come and retrieve it if asked.

Hakan Tosun’s funeral took place on 17 October 2025. On the same day, the Istanbul Police Department issued an official statement regarding the events that occurred during the investigation. The statement claimed that the security camera at a nearby business was not recording. An examination was conducted on 300 hours of footage, and footage from 12 different cameras was added to the investigation file. The statement also noted that an investigation had been launched regarding the suspect’s relatives’ seizure of the business’s footage, and that the business owner and two of the suspect’s relatives had been detained and released under judicial supervision.

Hakan Tosun’s lawyers emphasized in their first press statement on 23 October 2025 that the evidence had been collected carelessly, noting that Tosun’s earring was found at the scene a week later. At that time, Tosun’s ID and wallet were missing. His bag had first appeared at the hospital and was later officially recorded in a report at the Mevlana Police Station on 15 October.

Tosun’s family filed a criminal complaint against Özakdağ on 6 March 2026. The petition stated that instead of trying to calm the situation, Özakdağ had watched what was being done to Tosun; therefore, it requested that a public prosecution be initiated against him for the crime of “willful murder.” To fully uncover the incident and determine whether the assailants were in contact with one another or with others, the family requested that HTS records from the time of the incident, as well as before and after, be obtained for all suspects, and that their phones be seized and examined.

The Bakırköy Chief Prosecutor’s Office completed the investigation four days after the Tosun family filed their complaint and prepared the indictment on 10 March. The indictment was based on the preliminary report prepared by the Büyükçekmece Chief Prosecutor’s Office. The indictment sought life imprisonment for Abdurrahman Murat and Adnan Şahin on charges of “willful murder.”

The preliminary report cited as the basis for the indictment suggested that the locations, nature, and extent of the injuries on Tosun’s body could have resulted from a blow to his face and his subsequent fall to the ground. In the preliminary report, which argued that the suspects’ actions were not intended to kill, Tosun was also charged. To support the suspects’ claim that Tosun was intoxicated, the prosecution had sought statements from seven people who were on the same metrobus as Tosun.

The indictment stated that because the suspects were standing very close to each other at the scene, it was not entirely clear who struck whom. Abdurrahman Murat, who claimed he did not strike Tosun, stated that he threw one punch to push him away because Tosun was advancing toward him, while Adnan Şahin claimed he kicked Tosun with his foot to check on him while he was lying on the ground.