Turkish Cypriot tells court how he was beaten in cafe?

[Kifeas]

[Bananiot]

"Alitheia"

[Crash Test Dummy]

[brother]

Defence seeks to discredit Turkish Cypriot assault claims
By John Leonidou


THE NICOSIA ASSIZES yesterday heard the closing arguments of the defence and prosecution in the Christodoulos Nicolaides trial.

Nicolaides has pleaded not guilty on eight charges in connection with two attacks on Turkish Cypriots. One of the charges, relating to the attack against Greek Cypriot Maranos Cleanthous who was with one of the Turkish Cypriot victims in a Nicosia caf? on July 29, was yesterday dropped for lack of evidence after Cleanthous told the court he had not been attacked.

The judge then stated that the other charges still stood and that the defendant had the choice to take the stand and either apologise or make a statement.

The first to present closing arguments was defence lawyer Sotiris Charalambous.
“The prosecution has not proved anything against the defendant in any of the charges. In the alleged attack against the Turk Sadik Aktan, we heard testimonies from key witnesses present with the Turkish witness that said the defendant was not involved in the attack at the Nicosia caf?.�

Charalambous went on to state previous court cases in which charges were dropped because of vague witness accounts. He added that his client denied being involved or connected to any radical group or criminal organisation. Police officials had been linking the 28-year-old with the ultra-nationalist party Chrysi Avgi (Golden Dawn).

“In the first charge, we see the defendant accused of attack the Turk Sadik Aktan and causing his injuries to his body. In his statement, the Turk says ‘the man who was talking slapped me in the head and then somebody came and punched me in the back of my head but I didn’t see who it was.’

“Which blow out of the two caused the injury to the Turk’s head, the first or the second? And why was the defendant accused of this hostile attack and not the person who attacked him?� Charalambous asked.

Speaking about the second charge relating to the assault of Aktan’s friend Maranos Cleanthous, which was later dismissed by the judge, Charalambous said even Cleanthous had told the court that he did not see the defendant ask the caf? manager about the people sitting at Aktan’s table.

“Cleanthous said the defendant was just present at the time of the incident and, in his words, didn’t hit him or push him, neither did he see the defendant spur on his friends to attack the other people.�

Charalambous then moved on to the third charge, of causing or inciting assault and battery.
“We know from Cleanthous’ statement of Cleanthous that the defendant did not attack him, while the prosecution failed to prove that the Turk Sadik Aktan was attacked by the defendant.

“It should also be noted that the other witnesses told the court that the defendant was not involved in the incident but was just present. And in any case, is a small scuffle, which lasted just a few seconds and did not result in any injuries, enough to raise the charge of assault and battery?�

Moving to the other charges, Charalambous said a charge of ‘disturbing the peace in a public place’ could not stand when the attack occurred in a caf?. That contention was later quashed by the judge, who informed the defence that a previous case had described a bar as ‘a public place’ and therefore the charge would stand.

He wrapped up his conclusion by stating that Veysel Toksoy and his son Kemal had provoked Nicolaides in the sixth, seventh and eighth charges, in which the defendant stands accused of abusing and assaulting Veysel and assaulting Kemal. Charalambous added that the two Turkish Cypriot men had stated that Veysel was bleeding in his ear and nose, while the Police Constable in Astromeritis to whom they reported the attack had not seen any marks on Veysel.

“Also, questions must be raised as to why it took so long for Veysel and Kemal Toksoy to come back to the free areas to press the charges.�

Prosecution attorney Marios Koutsoftas then took the stand and before giving his closing arguments, criticised the way in which the defence was describing Aktan, Veysel and Kemal Toksoy.

“Your honour, during this entire trial I did not see one Turk. What Turks is the defence talking about?�

His comments immediately brought a response from Charalambous, who stood up and said, “The reason I use the word ‘Turk’ is so the court and my dear colleague can identify the race when we are talking about the witnesses.�

The judge then called on both lawyers to calm down, adding there was no need for the prosecution to raise the matter.

“My question is why did the witness Maranos Cleanthous give four different statements in four days to the police,� said Koutsoftas. “Also, the police constable in Astromeritis never said that he didn’t see any marks, so that argument by the defence was not correct. Also incorrect was the fact that the defence had raised the question as to why it had taken so long for the two Turkish Cypriots to come and give their statements.

“Mr Charalambous was the Assistant to the Chief of Police at the time and he knows very well the hardships that the two men endured during the time after the attack.�
The trial continues tomorrow morning.

[gabs]

[Crash Test Dummy]

what a waste of resources

[brother]

[Bullika]

Unfortuentely we have still a small group of racist bigots whose role in dividing cyprus is kind of murky.

[erolz]

Verdict due next week

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=22535&cat_id=1

[cannedmoose]

[brother]

[Bananiot]

It is derogatory, no doubt. This is how the term is used by the bigots in our community. Two examples:

(a) The Turk cannot be trusted.
(b) Even if the Turk becomes a bridge do not cross it.

The "patriots" in the Greek Cypriot community believe that it is very patriotic to refer to a Turkish Cypriot as "the Turk". By doing so the policeman turned lawyer is hoping to stir up popular feelings of sympathy for the accused who did his level best to confront the enemy, yet he stands accused before a court of law. On the other hand, the lawyer may know that the term sounds well in the ears of the lady judge in which case he is appealing to her patriotism.

[bg_turk]

I was reading the news today as well, and I found it very awkward that the lawyer referred to the person as the TURK, after all isnt he a citizen of the Cypriot Republic? Why does the lawyer feel the urge to refer to him by his ethnic background?

This happens in Bulgaria sometimes as well, but only extreme nationalists do it. In general it would be inconceivable for such a thing to happen in a courtroom, and I personally would be offended if somebody referred to me as the turk This and this, instead of Mr This and this.

[erolz]

I find it inconciveable that a lawyer in the UK could, or would be allowed, to refer to a defendant (or anyone else for that matter) as 'the Greek john doe'. Even more so if the 'Greek' in question was a British Citizen of Greek descent or Greek Cypriot descent?

[bg_turk]