Question 1

Who killed Mehmet Çetin?

Accepted Answer

The DNA is not in dispute; the wound is. The bullet is recorded as having been recovered from a wound to the left knee — a wound four independent documents place on record as never having existed: the first forensic examination, the external post-mortem record signed before nine witnesses, the autopsy photographs and video, and the clothing report, which found no perforation in the left leg of the trousers. A bullet cannot be taken from a wound that was never there. Remove the wound, and the chain running from the rifle to the body — and with it the case against Seymen — has nothing left to rest on.

Question 2

How and where did Mehmet Çetin die?

Accepted Answer

The physical evidence places the death elsewhere, and later. His blood was found at the rear of villa 1751 — a building the soldiers never entered and which bore no bullet marks — and nowhere near villa 1782, where the exchange of fire with the soldiers actually took place. Witnesses last account for him alive at around 03:00–03:15, after the soldiers had already arrived. He cannot, therefore, have fallen in the opening burst of fire on which the official account depends.

Question 3

If the cameras show no second team, could anyone but the soldiers have killed him?

Accepted Answer

The premise is correct, and it points inward rather than outward. There was no external team because the killer was not external: the evidence identifies an insider — a member of the protection detail — who called Mehmet Çetin by radio to the rear of villa 1751 and shot him in the back. The interior cameras that would have recorded it were missing, degraded or never handed over, and the surrounding lamps had been broken before the soldiers arrived. Where the record itself has been removed, its silence cannot be read as proof that nothing happened.

Question 4

If the forensic reports are genuine and barcoded, doesn't that prove the wound?

Accepted Answer

Authenticity is not the question; accuracy is. We allege no forgery. We show that a properly issued, barcoded report records a wound that every other document in the same file contradicts. A barcode certifies that a form was processed and logged — never that the injury it describes existed on the body. And the objection's own logic fails: it presumes a fabrication that someone declined to repeat for the other officer, whereas we allege no fabrication at all — only a single report at odds with its own file.

Question 5

Do you claim an “earlier team” arrived and killed the police officer?

Accepted Answer

Our case has never rested on an 'earlier team,' and we reject that narrative as firmly as the objection does. What the documents establish is narrower and harder to dismiss: they concern Mehmet Çetin, and they point to someone already inside the protection detail — not to the soldiers, and certainly not to a phantom said to have arrived before them. Discrediting a story we never told leaves the evidence exactly where it stood.

Question 6

Was Mehmet Çetin just a protection officer left behind — why was he there?

Accepted Answer

None of this is contested, and none of it bears on the question. That Mehmet Çetin was a presidential protection officer who remained after the President was flown out, and stayed through the night, is common ground. Why he stayed — limited helicopter seats, unsafe roads — explains his presence, not his death. The book does not ask why he was at the villa; it asks how, where, and at whose hand he died there — and on those points the official account and its own documents part company.

who shot him, and why?