The reader knows; Since the day when the media claimed that Sila was subjected to Ahmet Kurala's violence, I wrote articles stating that I would stand in the face without looking at his identity. I repeat, I would like to point out that the violence against women of our blood is wounding and everyone has to fulfill the responsibility to fight against it.
The first hearing of the Sıla-Ahmet Kural case, which the public expected, was seen on March 7th.
Although in the first days of the trial, Ahmet Kurala's defense continues to occupy his place at the hearing.
Why? The rule of the courtroom in the defense of Silas was the expression "for disrespect of my convictions". Obviously, in case of an outbreak of allegations of violence, I could not understand why the rule had caused an incident on the question of "faith".
This is a topic of debate in the media for days, and it is also reflected in the press in 2009, I have sought a lawsuit for possession of drugs. I publish the same answer. Appreciating Public Opinion …
"YOUTH IS NON-REASONABLE"
The rule of the word "faith" in the initial sentence of the statement in court, stating that the effort to bring this event to the other direction entered the rule:
– Please allow me to read you again. You'll better understand what I mean. The court record is also recorded as follows: the incident before the event we had. During this reunion, we had disagreements with the complainant because of differences between culture and understanding.
Also, the complainant had inappropriate attitudes towards my friends. I did not respect my beliefs, so when we drink alcohol from time to time we talked, then we split … Now I want to ask; If I think of religion in my statement, I would use my conviction, not my conviction, because I have a religion. Also, if I want to emphasize religious belief, how can we say that we have alcohol? below the same sentence.
It is faith in women, family values, and, most importantly, honesty in the relationship I want to spend the rest of my life together. Those who can not prove their claims in the lynch campaign against me are trying to sneak out of their hands. The question of religion was not confused and they ended up wrapping it in the word 'faith'.
"In the past, I had some mistakes as well as any human being. I would say that it was wannabe or curiosity, 10 years ago in 2009, unfortunately, I had such a contingency event I did not need treatment because I did not.
In 2009, a case against me was decided in 2014, and the verdict was dropped. As you know now, in my new process.
I see an irrelevant old record as a strategic opponent's game.
I know this leads to the fact that I could be seen as a potential criminal.