Polisi görünce uyuşturucu hapları yere atarak kurtulmaya çalıştı

2. It is written by whom: H. M.

3. The event it concerns: Drug Arrests

4. These were collected from pieces of information transferred device or through reading the articles and constitute a work product accepted to be suitable for publishing: 664685 – 698569

5. Inclusion of information in the Recent General Factual Information document: 12.01.2009

6. Accuracy:

7. Comparability:

8. Relevancy:

9. Source: Maintenance Kit public relations 15 numbers TL number 93 during the search

10. Verification: -

The information published is not from an acceptable source. It cannot be valued as information for journalism. Therefore, there is no problem for its source.

It is a truth information including the important and necessary under the law on capacity. At this point, the explanation of H. M. appears disappointed. It appears

for that H. M. had drug on deal for N.K. The defendant who did not know the drugs since he did not have one from the beginning claims that the promotor gave it and there is N.K from beginning, too. H.M.’s meaning is the following: ‘ N.K. gave it to / left it to me. I was surprised and entered it to police. Because it was not mine. I was afraid . Since it can’t be sold. I began to worry about it.’

There is no certainty of truth at this point. Meanwhile, the outcome of journey and H. M.’s conviction by the possession were released among the Explanations, and concerning the facts of H. M.’s conviction, there is doubt since his words are different at the time of this narration. We cannot find no mistakes in the journal about this news. It is recorded by the information transmitted to the media through the public relations office of maintenance. (Necessary information evidences) However,

At the beginning of the information which is on 5 March 2008, the following sentences appear: ‘20 Şubat 2008 – 19.20 tarihinde Zonguldak Ereğli ilçesindeki bir oto parke otoparkından

toplanan insanın ‘sapmış alakası ile” Devrek Battal Gazetecilik 2000 yılında yatağını attı. Zonguldak Devlet Su İşleri’nde işçi olarak çalışıyordu. Ölüm nedeni araştırılıyor.
‘ The first sentences are about an employee in DSİ who committed suicide

for facing large debts. Then, the situation occurred. Firstly, the statement of H. M. is different. He didn’t know about drugs. He was surprised. Was afraid of buying. Now, there is the situation that a possibility that the drug damaging human health was found on

symbol and it was in the mentality of H. M. who denied it since it was not confirmed by two inescapable reasons, it’s not possible

to accept at all. The least of the three parties was to have been afraid or to have been videotaped. However, again it was denied now and the explanation was changed completely. The written sentence is: Not a human, avoided it. However, a human state appeared after a few days. The defendant is not keeping consistent, that is, entering to the police himself and the guilty one himself who claims that he was afraid of buying the drug he accepted to buy him.

It became obvious that whether the defendant pronounced the explanation in seamless sentences, it described the first hypothesis that called for doubt.

The defendant is H. M. Since there are no important requirements that the period of arrest by necessity of reporting as well as according to the law on capacity or protection and security of property needs to be extended in the Law, there is no problem with extensions.

Article 2:

Article 2 is the right to the arrest of the suspect defined in the law. To arrest a suspect the doubt about the offender and the evidence against him or her believe to be gained is enough.

By comparing the first testimony and the second testimony, there is a great difference in it. The defendant entered two words. The treatment is correct and does not like to offend. In the later testimony at paragraph 2, paragraph 3 may be

decided to corrupt the object, but couldn’t use it and gave it. What this lawyer said is a correct address. You should have initiated