{"id":279631,"date":"2025-09-06T06:23:52","date_gmt":"2025-09-06T06:23:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/?p=279631"},"modified":"2025-11-19T14:01:17","modified_gmt":"2025-11-19T14:01:17","slug":"a-candle-for-narin-gouran-ii-a-candle-ii-a-blind-faith-iii-three-stories-with-one-invisible-suspect","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/a-candle-for-narin-gouran-ii-a-candle-ii-a-blind-faith-iii-three-stories-with-one-invisible-suspect\/","title":{"rendered":"A candle for Narin Guran II: One Blind Faith, One Invisible Suspect, Three Stories"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Nevzat Bahtiyar, the last suspect in the Narin G\u00fcran investigation, was the least-discussed name in the case. Although he made a partial confession, he was the most silent among the defendants. His inconsistent statements were interpreted by the court as the words of someone unable to express themselves, effectively rendering them insignificant.<\/p>\n<p>In this section, I have chosen not to postpone discussing Nevzat Bahtiyar and his statements, which for me means taking on the most challenging phase of these dry and complex case files.<\/p>\n<p>As you may recall, when Nevzat Bahtiyar was apprehended, he claimed that Salim G\u00fcran\u2014who had been arrested eight days earlier on suspicion of murder\u2014had given him Narin\u2019s lifeless body; however, he had changed his story three times.<\/p>\n<p>Most likely, when someone\u2019s accomplice is arrested, their first concern is that the accomplice might give them away by talking. If their role in the crime is incomparably minor, they are expected to be more likely to turn informant. Especially if they were coerced into participating in the crime\u2026<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"3hlTpm058C\"><p><a href=\"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/a-candle-for-narin-guran-the-first-button-buttoned-incorrectly\/\">A candle I for Narin Guran: The First Button Buttoned Wrong<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\" sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" style=\"position: absolute; visibility: hidden;\" title=\"\u201cA candle for Narin Guran I: The First Button Buttoned Wrong\u201d - Halkweb\" src=\"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/narin-guran-icin-bir-mum-yanlis-iliklenen-ilk-dugme\/embed\/#?secret=GksC9nXZHZ#?secret=3hlTpm058C\" data-secret=\"3hlTpm058C\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>In Bahtiyar\u2019s case, however, neither such concern nor any inclination to confess was evident following Salim G\u00fcran\u2019s arrest. He chose to remain silent until he was apprehended. In fact, four days before his arrest, he had been summoned to the Gendarmerie Command because he had called Salim G\u00fcran at 3:08 p.m.; at first, he did not recall the call, but admitted it when the records were shown to him. He had made a false statement, claiming that he had been outside the village all day on the day of the incident.<\/p>\n<p>It seems highly unlikely that a criminal in this situation would offer a completely different account of how the incident unfolded when his accomplice is already in custody. He knows that his accomplice\u2019s statement will be sought after his own. He might even think that he was arrested based on the confession of the person already in custody. Bahtiyar\u2019s statements changed constantly from the time of his arrest until the conclusion of his trial. We can examine three distinct scenarios in broad terms.<\/p>\n<p><strong>First Script<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>He said that at 3:08 p.m., he had a brief phone conversation with Salim G\u00fcran regarding a water issue at his home, and then left his house in his car. He stated that when he turned onto the road leading to the cemetery, he noticed Salim G\u00fcran\u2019s car following behind him. He explained that G\u00fcran signaled him to stop, pointed to a lifeless body wrapped in a blanket on the front passenger seat of his car, and said, \u2019You\u2019re going to get rid of this.\u201c.<\/p>\n<p>According to Bahtiyar, G\u00fcran first threatened him by saying, \u201cThink of your family,\u201d and then offered to pay him 200,000 lira after the harvest. After that, he asked, \u2018Do you have a sack?\u2019 and Bahtiyar took a sack out of his trunk. He claimed they placed the lifeless body in the sack and loaded it into his own vehicle. He said G\u00fcran gave a simple order like, \u201cThrow it into the lake, get rid of it,\u201d and then left the scene.<\/p>\n<p>Following Bahtiyar\u2019s arrest, his wife, who was questioned, provided a similar account. According to her, Nevzat had called Salim G\u00fcran at 3:08 p.m. During the call, Salim G\u00fcran had said he was eating at home and would call the authorities after finishing his meal. Nevzat Bahtiyar, however, had left the house immediately after this conversation.<\/p>\n<p>Nevzat Bahtiyar\u2019s initial statement was nearly identical to the accounts provided by users who commented on Salim G\u00fcran\u2019s final Facebook post\u2014and identified themselves as gas station employees\u2014following his detention on August 31. Because of this similarity, the statement was quickly accepted by the public. Yet precisely for this reason, it was a statement that security agencies should have viewed with skepticism.<\/p>\n<p>Investigations revealed that the accounts in question were fake; neither the gas station nor the alleged employees existed. Furthermore, the timeline of the incident did not allow for Salim G\u00fcran to have left the village, stopped at such a gas station, and then returned.<\/p>\n<p>At the first hearing, Nevzat Bahtiyar was asked whether he had seen these posts; he replied, \u201cI haven\u2019t seen them, but I\u2019ve heard about them.\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>However, one common thread between these posts and Bahtiyar\u2019s statement pointed to a piece of physical evidence: it matched the DNA found in Salim G\u00fcran\u2019s vehicle. What was interesting was that these posts had been published on the very day the DNA was identified. Furthermore, the posts gave the impression that the author was aware of the investigation\u2019s scenarios. They referred to Anne Y\u00fcksel G\u00fcran and her brother Enes G\u00fcran, and touched upon the communication traffic we frequently heard about in the media\u2014which has since been proven to be baseless. As for Uncle Salim G\u00fcran, a scenario had been constructed based on the footage of him leaving the village at 6:55 PM.<\/p>\n<p>Carrying a body in the front seat wasn\u2019t exactly a common occurrence either, but anyone familiar with Salim G\u00fcran\u2019s car could only have made such a claim in this way\u2014since the car\u2019s rear windows were tinted!<\/p>\n<p>The problem was not limited to these issues alone. For Salim G\u00fcran to have been able to follow him as Nevzat Bahtiyar described, he would first have had to pass in front of the school and thus be captured on the school\u2019s security camera. However, no such recording was found on the school\u2019s security camera. There is no record in Bahtiyar\u2019s interrogation transcripts of any questions being asked regarding this contradiction; however, during the prosecution\u2019s interrogation, Bahtiyar presented a new scenario that resolved this contradiction.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"JNsZmw5aqw\"><p><a href=\"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/a-candle-for-narin-guran-iii-prejudices-media-and-collective-evil\/\">A Candle for Narin G\u00fcran III: Prejudices, Media and Collective Evil<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\" sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" style=\"position: absolute; visibility: hidden;\" title=\"\u201cA Candle for Narin Guran III: Prejudices, Media and Collective Evil\u201d - Halkweb\" src=\"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/narin-guran-icin-bir-mum-iii-onyargilar-medya-ve-kollektif-kotuluk\/embed\/#?secret=li9XPOyXP2#?secret=JNsZmw5aqw\" data-secret=\"JNsZmw5aqw\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Scenario Two<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>According to the second account, Nevzat Bahtiyar went outside after a conversation regarding a water problem at 3:08 p.m. and began watering the garden with a hose he had taken from his mother\u2019s plumbing. About 15 minutes later, Salim G\u00fcran called out to Bahtiyar from the hill where his father Arif G\u00fcran\u2019s (Narin\u2019s) house was located, saying, \u2019Nevzat, wait for me, we have business to discuss.\u201c Bahtiyar began waiting for him in front of his house.<\/p>\n<p>Salim G\u00fcran, in his own car <strong>\u2018not from the school\u2019s side, but from the mosque\u2019s side\u2019<\/strong> (The minutes record these exact words) He had come to the front of Bahtiyar\u2019s house and, after saying, \u201cGet in your car and follow me,\u201d had handed Bahtiyar the lifeless body on the gravel road. Bahtiyar backed up and returned to his residence, took a sack, and instead of taking the lifeless body to the burial site, placed it in the sack right in front of his house.<\/p>\n<p><em>An examination of the Daran 2 surveillance footage reviewed during the trial revealed that no vehicle was seen traveling from the mosque road toward Bahtiyar\u2019s residence.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Bahtiyar also stated, in response to a question from the prosecutors, that two women who were family members might have had a relationship with Salim G\u00fcran, and that there were rumors to that effect in the village.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The second hypothesis guiding the investigation: He saw something he wasn\u2019t supposed to see \/ Motive for the crime<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Although there is no evidence to suggest such relationships exist, let\u2019s take a closer look at the basis for this claim and similar rumors.<\/p>\n<p>In my first article, I mentioned that the investigation was shaped by a hypothesis regarding the time of the incident. The assumption that Narin \u201csaw something she shouldn\u2019t have seen\u201d\u2014which was developed to explain the motive for the murder\u2014was equally decisive in the investigation.<\/p>\n<p>Narin, who had left home to go to class, had stopped by her uncle\u2019s house to check on her cousins, with whom she had planned to go to class. Upon learning that her cousins weren\u2019t home, she headed straight to class. Footage from the school\u2019s security camera shows her moving quickly and glancing back over her shoulder from time to time.<\/p>\n<p>Law enforcement found Narin\u2019s behavior \u201csuspicious\u201d and, based on this, had formed the assumption that she had witnessed an act that would not be viewed favorably. We can also see this approach in Arif G\u00fcran\u2019s court testimony, in which he recounted the conversations he had with law enforcement personnel during the first few days after Narin went missing:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cShe was running over from Uncle Narin H\u00fcseyin\u2019s house. He pointed to the camera and said, \u2018My daughter is running\u2014I mean, she\u2019s running\u2026\u2019 She looks back three times while running. Why is this girl looking back? I don\u2019t know, sir. He said there\u2019s something here, there\u2019s something in this house, so this girl must have run here from there.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In addition, Ali R\u0131za G\u00fcran, an elder of the G\u00fcran family, stated in remarks to the media that they believed a law enforcement officer had witnessed an inappropriate act involving Narin at her own home on the third day of the incident.<\/p>\n<p>Apparently, as can be inferred from her mother\u2019s statements, the hypothesis that Narin\u2014who was naturally acting flustered because she was late for class\u2014had \u201cseen something she shouldn\u2019t have,\u201d based on the footage of her captured by the school\u2019s security camera, had cast suspicion on both homes from the law enforcement\u2019s perspective.<\/p>\n<p>Although it is not a common cause of child murders, this assumption has never been abandoned. Once this assumption leaked into the media and sparked tabloid-style interest, people began to speculate about every possible relationship combination; possibilities ranging from incest and homosexual relationships to even animal abuse were raised. Speculation flared up even more after the relevant images were shared on social media.<\/p>\n<p>Even the traces of PSA found during the forensic examination\u2014in critical areas such as the vagina and underwear, as well as on the course attire in her bag\u2014were interpreted as having been \u2018contaminated by an inappropriate act she witnessed.\u2019 Instead of examining the connection between this finding and the motive for the murder, we see that the initial, interpretation-based assumption is still being insisted upon, and the question \u2018What did Narin see that she shouldn\u2019t have seen?\u2019 is still being asked.<\/p>\n<p>Although an expert opinion indicating a strong likelihood of abuse was submitted to the case file, this serious, concrete evidence was overshadowed by an assumption that had become a matter of blind faith. Statements such as Nevzat Bahtiyar\u2019s claim that he gave money to Narin were not even taken into consideration.<\/p>\n<p>The assumption that Narin had witnessed an act that was supposed to remain secret gained traction in an investigation where nothing remained a secret\u2014an environment where the scenarios concocted by law enforcement fueled the media, social media, and village gossip. Some family members heard this assumption directly from the police as early as the first few days. Even sharing this information with someone everyone trusted was enough for it to turn into village gossip\u2026<\/p>\n<p>Bahtiyar had also provided the names of the women living in the two houses that the police were focusing on. Based on the interrogations, it appears that Bahtiyar\u2019s statement was shaped by the questioning, though we cannot say for certain whether he was influenced by a particular question. However, given the course of the investigation, it would not be surprising if he had heard such rumors even before the news reports appeared in the media.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Scenario Three<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The local court based its decision on Bahtiyar\u2019s final statement, which he gave two days before the indictment was filed.<\/p>\n<p>According to this account, Salim G\u00fcran\u2014who for some reason knew he would find him watering the garden\u2014called out from above, summoned Bahtiyar up, and they entered Arif G\u00fcran\u2019s house together. Here, Salim G\u00fcran had stated that he killed Narin because she had witnessed his relationship with her mother. However, the fact that someone who killed his own niece over such a witness would reveal this secret to an adult stranger was, in itself, contradictory. The court would interpret this contradiction as follows: Salim G\u00fcran was lying to conceal a far more serious motive!<\/p>\n<p>In this statement, Bahtiyar had also expanded on the allegations of threats. Setting those details aside, they had wrapped the lifeless body in a blanket and carried it out of Arif G\u00fcran\u2019s house. In Nevzat Bahtiyar\u2019s second statement, the slippers on the child\u2019s feet\u2014which he had previously presented as \u201cproof that the child was killed outside\u201d\u2014had this time been taken from in front of the house\u2019s door. Furthermore, if we consider the scenario outlined in the reasoned decision\u2014that the murder began in the barn and continued inside the house\u2014the slippers, which we would have expected to have long since scattered, were right there at the door.<\/p>\n<p>According to his account, Bahtiyar carried the lifeless body, wrapped in a blanket, down a 100-meter hill to his own barn, where he placed the body in a sack. During the court hearing, he stated that the idea to use the sack was his own. He added that Salim G\u00fcran had said nothing about following him. Nevertheless, somehow sensing that Salim G\u00fcran was coming, Bahtiyar went to his car with the sack in one hand and the blanket in the other; while placing the sack on the back seat of his car, he left the blanket outside. He claimed that at that moment, he saw Y\u00fcksel G\u00fcran crying on the hilltop. However, according to Y\u00fcksel G\u00fcran\u2019s lawyer, it was physically impossible for him to have seen himself from the spot Bahtiyar described. Nevertheless, Bahtiyar\u2019s statement was accepted as valid without conducting the on-site inspection (site survey) procedure requested by the defense.<\/p>\n<p>No sooner had Nevzat gotten ready than Salim G\u00fcran arrived in his car (coming, of course, from the direction of the mosque); pointing to the stream with his hand, he said, \u201cTake it there, and if necessary, tear it apart,\u201d then took the blanket and drove away.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to his constantly shifting, implausible statements that contradicted the evidence, there were other issues regarding Nevzat Bahtiyar that raised questions.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Nevzat Bahtiyar\u2019s relationships with Salim G\u00fcran and Arif G\u00fcran<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Although Bahtiyar and Salim G\u00fcran had been in frequent contact prior to this, it appeared that this communication had ceased over the past three months (with the exception of three calls from Bahtiyar, one each month). During the hearings, Salim G\u00fcran explained that this was due to a rift caused by a debt-related issue that had been resolved by the village elders intervening. This matter was between Arif G\u00fcran and Nevzat Bahtiyar. Salim G\u00fcran had offered Bahtiyar, who worked as a plasterer for convenience, a job in exchange for the debt, but they could not reach an agreement because Bahtiyar demanded a high price. Although the matter seemed to have been settled, upon closer examination, this unresolved dispute had caused a rift between both Salim G\u00fcran and Arif G\u00fcran and Nevzat Bahtiyar.<\/p>\n<p>It is clear from this incident alone that the relationship between the G\u00fcran family and Nevzat Bahtiyar was not, as assumed, one based on domination and obedience. So why Salim G\u00fcran chose this neighbor\u2014with whom he was no longer on good terms\u2014at the cost of making him a witness is a mystery to everyone. In fact, judging by Bahtiyar\u2019s statements, creating a witness doesn\u2019t seem to be much of a problem for Salim G\u00fcran!<\/p>\n<p>According to the prevailing public opinion, everyone already knows everything. Yet when we look at the entire process today, we see that this very belief is itself an assumption of the investigation. The large number of witnesses not taken into account in favor of the family members who are defendants necessitates the assumption of an organization with numerous accomplices. In such a scenario, was it possible for Bahtiyar, living right next to Arif G\u00fcran\u2019s house, not to know what everyone knew\u2014and that everyone knew it? He had failed to provide a convincing explanation of what happened to Narin, had participated in the search efforts merely for show, and had consoled the family members.<\/p>\n<p><strong>How did Nevzat Bahtiyar evade the police?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>If the surveillance footage and Y\u00fcksel G\u00fcran\u2019s statement had been taken into account, Bahtiyar\u2014who could have emerged as a suspect from the very first day\u2014might have been identified; instead, the authorities had sought information from 256 people who had lived in the village before him.<\/p>\n<p>According to Arif G\u00fcran\u2019s statements, when gendarmerie personnel asked him if he had any financial disputes with anyone, Arif G\u00fcran mentioned Bahtiyar and the name of another person. However, this information was not taken into account.<\/p>\n<p>Nevzat Bahtiyar must have realized, based on the statement he gave on September 4, that he needed to provide a statement that did not contradict the call records. In his statements, he said that Salim G\u00fcran honked his horn and flashed his headlights; he also said that he called out from a hilltop. However, he never made the \u2018mistake\u2019 of mentioning a call. He could have said that he had retrieved Salim G\u00fcran\u2019s lifeless body from inside a sack; this might have been more credible, but due to the well-known social media posts\u2014even though the blanket was never found\u2014he did not give himself away regarding the sack in his \u201cblanket\u201d scenarios either. Despite all his inconsistencies, he was able to provide statements that did not initially contradict the initial evidence.<\/p>\n<p>Whether Bahtiyar gave his third statement of his own volition or at the prosecutors\u201c request is a matter of debate. Although it was portrayed differently to the public, Bahtiyar stated in court that he gave this statement at the prosecutors\u201d request. This third account made it possible for Mother Y\u00fcksel G\u00fcran and Brother Enes G\u00fcran to be tried. However, with this statement, Bahtiyar seemed to have lost the trust of those he might have been able to convince outside of the courtroom. Y\u00fcksel G\u00fcran expressed this point in court as follows: \u201cIf Nevzat had said he picked up Narin from Salim in the car, I would have said they did it together; a mother\u2019s heart\u2026 but Nevzat is lying.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>Nevzat Bahtiyar After the Incident<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Nevzat Bahtiyar said he spent about 38 minutes at the riverbed where he buried Narin, and when he couldn\u2019t find a suitable rope to tie the sack, he remembered the child\u2019s backpack strap and used it to tie the sack. He then went to his sister-in-law\u2019s house in another village, had some tea, bought some cheese, and returned to his home in Tav\u015fantepe.<\/p>\n<p>By the time Bahtiyar returned, Salim G\u00fcran was already in the field. Apparently, Bahtiyar\u2014who had planned and carried out the ambush on his own, with Salim G\u00fcran contributing nothing beyond a hand signal or a single sentence\u2014was in no hurry to inform Salim G\u00fcran that he had completed the task assigned to him. It was also Bahtiyar who stated that he had not communicated with Salim G\u00fcran either by phone or in person after the incident.<\/p>\n<p>His sister-in-law and three daughters, however, said that Bahtiyar was acting as usual and that they had not noticed any signs of anxiety or unusual behavior. Bahtiyar appeared to have continued his daily life calmly and normally after the murder; he hadn\u2019t even put off a routine task like buying cheese.<\/p>\n<p>Nevzat Bahtiyar\u2019s wife had stated during the early stages of the investigation that she was the one who had asked Nevzat to buy cheese that day. However, she made a different statement in court:<br \/>\n\u201cI\u2019d told my sister to make some cheese two or three days ago. When I called, Nevzat was with me. Was it five o\u2019clock or something\u2026 Nevzat brought us some cheese. When he brought it, he left the cheese there, sat on the balcony for a few minutes. Then he left again. \u2018F.. will be coming home from work; I\u2019ll pick her up from \u00c7ar\u0131kl\u0131 and bring her home,\u2019 he said.\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>If this statement is true, Bahtiyar had bought the cheese because of a conversation he had witnessed a few days earlier. In that case, there was no rush to buy the cheese. However, if he had encountered someone upon returning to the village who had noticed the child\u2019s disappearance and his suspicious departure from the village, he would have been in a position to explain: He had gone to buy cheese!<\/p>\n<p>Six days after Nevzat Bahtiyar was arrested, his son\u2014who had been out of town and returned to the village two days after the incident\u2014was questioned. A particularly striking excerpt from his statement regarding the day he returned to the village was as follows: \u201cI asked my mother, \u2018How did Narin go missing?\u2019 She said, \u2018I don\u2019t know; we looked for her too, but we couldn\u2019t find her.\u2019 I asked if my father was home, and she said, \u201dHe\u2019d gone to buy cheese\u2026\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Of course, this could have been a statement influenced by information that came later. But one point had not been examined: Since the police hadn\u2019t even been able to determine the time of the incident until Bahtiyar was apprehended, how did Bahtiyar\u2019s wife know this just two days later?<\/p>\n<p>Nevzat Bahtiyar, who was acquitted of the charge of intentional homicide of a child, was the only defendant known to have had direct contact with the body, and although his residence was at the center of the case, no biological samples were collected from his home. Family members were not effectively questioned. Furthermore, even the HTS records revealing phone traffic were only entered into the case file prior to the sentencing hearing at the request of the G\u00fcran family\u2019s defense attorneys.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Nevzat Bahtiyar, the last suspect in the Narin G\u00fcran investigation, was the least-discussed figure in the case. Although he made a partial confession, he was the most reticent of the defendants.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":279632,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[297,293,296,294],"class_list":["post-279631","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-gundem","tag-arif-guran","tag-narin-guran","tag-nevzat-bahtiyar","tag-salim-guran"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/279631","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=279631"}],"version-history":[{"count":61,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/279631\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":279913,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/279631\/revisions\/279913"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/279632"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=279631"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=279631"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=279631"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}