Item 2V of the conclusions section, on page 24 of the expert reportCriminalistic Expert Report: blood samples and DNA belonging to Mehmet Çetin (İzmir Criminal Police Laboratory): Blood Samples Belonging to Mehmet Çetin (Criminalistic Expert Report). issued by the İzmir Criminal Police Laboratory (case number IZM-16-16196 KPL, expert-report number IZM-BYL-16-00298), reads as follows:
"2V) Blood samples No. 541 and No. 550; the blood samples found on the areas marked "A" of items No. 1 and No. 608; and the blood samples found on the areas marked "B" of items No. 610 and No. 612, differ from the individuals coded MECA, SEL, ALA, ALİS, DAU, HMÖ, HAG, AYÖ, MUG, ZEK, TB, GÖG, İLYA, ERÇ, ÖFG, ABG, MİB, İSY, ERŞA, ŞÜS, MSÖ, MUAG, MED, ENY, MUK, BASA and MEHÖZ, and are of male genotypic character."
In the same report, among the items examined, it is stated that:
item No. 541 is the "541) suspected stain, crime-scene item No. 1Expert Report, page 16, item 541.,"
item No. 550 is the "550) suspected stain, crime-scene item No. 41-AExpert Report, page 16, item 550.,"
item No. 1 is the "1) protective vest, crime-scene item No. 1-A-(1Expert Report, page 1, item 1.),"
item No. 608 is the "608) grey trousers bearing the marking 5.11 TACTICAL SERIES, stated to belong to the police officer killed in the line of duty, Mehmet ÇETİN (one 10 TL note, three 1 TL notes, three 50 kuruş coins and three paper napkins were recovered from inside the trousersExpert Report, page 17, item 608.),"
item No. 610 is the "610) undershirt bearing the marking UHUD, stated to belong to the police officer killed in the line of duty, Mehmet ÇETİNExpert Report, page 17, item 610.,"
and item No. 612 is the "612) boxer shorts bearing the Güneş marking, stated to belong to the police officer killed in the line of duty, Mehmet ÇETİNExpert Report, page 17, item 612.."
Photographs showing Mehmet Çetin's boxer shorts and trousers:
In the crime-scene investigation report (OYİ) No. 2016-157Crime-Scene Investigation Report: the locations of the blood traces at the Turban Hotel: Locations in the Turban Hotel Where Blood Samples Belonging to Mehmet Çetin Were Found (Crime-Scene Investigation Report). of the Crime-Scene Investigation Group of the Marmaris Police Directorate — in the annex to Region 7 (the villas belonging to the Grand Yazıcı Club Turban Hotel, at Barbaros Caddesi, 101 Sokak No. 3), on page 1-4 and in the Region 7 site-sketch data — it is stated that the suspected stain, crime-scene item No. 1, is a sample taken from a stain with the appearance of blood, on a concrete surface 15 metres from villa 1782. The "541) suspected stain, crime-scene item No. 1," referred to above is the sample taken from this blood-like stain.
In the same annex to the same crime-scene report — on page 4-4 and in the Region 7 site-sketch data — it is stated that the suspected stain, crime-scene item No. 41-A, is a sample taken from a stain resembling blood, on the ground in front of the outer side of the entrance door of villa 1751. The "550) suspected stain, crime-scene item No. 41-A," referred to above is the sample taken from this blood-like stain.
It is assessed that the blood samples found in the trousers (item No. 608), the undershirt (item No. 610) and especially the boxer shorts (item No. 612) of Mehmet Çetin — killed in the line of duty by gunfire that night — belong, to a near-certain probability, to Mehmet Çetin.
In the brief firefight that night at the Turban Hotel between the soldiers and the bodyguards, the head of the protection detail, emniyet amiri Murat Bayrak, suffered a nosebleed, and police officer Hamza Eroğlu was lightly wounded when shrapnel struck various parts of his body. Mehmet Çetin, however, is assessed to have been seriously wounded by firearms in various parts of his body and to have bled heavily. Apart from these officers, no bodyguard was woundedGeneral Forensic Examination Reports of the bodyguards: The General Forensic Examination Reports of Hamza Eroğlu and Serhat Karakuş and İrfan Paksoy's General Forensic Examination Report (16.07.2016, Report No. 18355). For the complete forensic examination reports of the bodyguards, see The bodyguards' General Forensic Examination Reports (combined compilation).. As Murat Bayrak and Hamza Eroğlu state in their evidence, they were wounded in the vicinity of villa 1782, then handcuffed with plastic cuffs by the soldiers, taken to the side of the Relax pool and laid on the ground; they did not go to the rear of villa 1751. For this reason, it does not appear possible that the bloodstains found at the rear of villa 1751, and in Mehmet Çetin's trousers and especially in his undershirt and boxer shorts, belong to Murat Bayrak, whose nose bled that night, or to Hamza Eroğlu, who was lightly wounded by shrapnel, rather than to Mehmet Çetin.
For this reason, blood samples No. 541 and No. 550 — which, in item 2V of the criminalistic expert report, are stated to share a common genotypic character with the blood samples found in items No. 608, No. 610 and No. 612 — are likewise assessed to belong to Mehmet Çetin. Put more plainly: the bloodstains of the same genotypic character as the bloodstain in Mehmet Çetin's boxer shorts — those found at the rear of villa 1751, in front of the outer side of its entrance door, and on the concrete surface 15 metres from villa 1782 — also belong to Mehmet Çetin.
By his own account, the sole eyewitness to the killing of Mehmet Çetin on the night in question is İrfan Paksoy. The other bodyguards and the soldiers stated that they did not see how Mehmet Çetin was shot. İrfan Paksoy stated that Mehmet Çetin was shot by the soldiers after coming out of the rear door of villa 1782 (the forest side — the opposite of the sea side). However, in the crime-scene investigation report (Crime-Scene Investigation Report: the locations of the blood traces at the Turban Hotel), there is no bloodstain in front of the rear door of villa 1782, where İrfan Paksoy states Mehmet Çetin was shot.
In his statement, İrfan Paksoy said that when he went to the place where he had last seen Mehmet Çetin, Mehmet Çetin was not there; that he and his colleagues then searched for Mehmet Çetin and found him wounded in the scrub in front of the balcony of villa 1782; and that they then took him into villa 1782 to give first aidMurat Bayrak's complainant statement dated 16.07.2016: Murat Bayrak's statement of 16 July 2016; The statements of seven presidential bodyguards dated 16.07.2016: statements given on 16 July 2016 by seven presidential bodyguards.. The other bodyguards, too, stated that they found Mehmet Çetin in the same place (in front of the balcony facing the shore). However, in the crime-scene investigation report (Crime-Scene Investigation Report: the locations of the blood traces at the Turban Hotel), there is no bloodstain in front of the balcony of villa 1782, where the bodyguards state they found Mehmet Çetin.
That no blood trace belonging to Mehmet Çetin could be found behind villa 1782 — where the soldiers had engaged the bodyguards in the firefight — nor in front of its balcony, around it, near it, or inside it, whereas blood traces were found at the rear of villa 1751 and between villa 1751 and the spot where the ambulance waited, points to the possibility that Mehmet Çetin was killed behind villa 1751 and that, as he was taken from there and carried to the ambulance, blood dripped to the ground at a point lying between villa 1751 and the ambulance.
It is clear from the crime-scene reports and the court's reasoned judgment that, that night, the soldiers intervened in villas 1782, 1783, 1784, 1785 and 1922, both from inside and from outside. The soldiers brought the bodyguards in these villas outside and searched the villas. This is admitted both by the bodyguards and by the soldiers themselves. Yet neither the bodyguards' nor the soldiers' statements, nor the court's reasoned judgment, contain any mention of the soldiers intervening at villa 1751 — still less at the rear of villa 1751. Nor does the crime-scene report contain any finding — such as a bullet hole or a shrapnel fragment — indicating that this villa was fired upon, on the front side of villa 1751 that faces the direction in which the soldiers and bodyguards fought. To whom the blood trace found at the rear of villa 1751 — which is understood not to be the result of any firefight with the soldiers — belongs, the court did not state in its reasoned judgment.
The Court's Finding
On page 2361 of reasoned judgment No. 2017/253Marmaris 15 July Trial, Reasoned Judgment (Muğla 2nd Assize Court, Case No. 2016/277, Decision No. 2017/253): The Court's Judgment on How Mehmet Çetin's Death Occurred (Reasoned Judgment). of the Muğla 2nd Assize Court, under the heading "CHAPTER XII: THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED", in the part "8 — The Events in Marmaris", the moment of Mehmet Çetin's killing is recounted as follows:
"The team on the ground, having also gathered information from the persons they encountered in the hotel area, began to cross into and advance through the villa section of the hotel named Grand Yazıcı Club Turban, where the President had been staying in Marmaris; and as they turned towards the villa where the presidential bodyguards were, upon the bodyguards who noticed them warning them, 'Surrender, put down your weapons, we are police,' the accused replied, 'You put down your weapons and surrender'; thereupon, as the presidential protection personnel did not put down their weapons and did not surrender, an armed clash took place; during this clash the accused killed the police officer Mehmet ÇETİN, who was providing the villa's external protection; it was determined that one of the bullets that struck Mehmet Çetin had been fired from the rifle with serial number W349539, on which epithelial cells belonging to the accused Şükrü SEYMEN were detected; therefore one of the persons who fired at the deceased Mehmet ÇETİN and achieved at least one hit was the accused Şükrü SEYMEN, and the other accused directly contributed to the commission of the offence by jointly entering the clash or providing its security — this is understood from the accused's evasive defences, the complainants' statements, the record dated 18/07/2016 kept by the complainant police officers found in the case file (See Evidence 4-1), the external post-mortem examination and autopsy reports (See Evidence 18-1, 18-3), the criminalistic ballistic report (See Evidence: 15-14) and the entire content of the case file."
On page 2398 of the same judgment, under the heading "CHAPTER XIII: ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE COURT'S ACCEPTANCE", in the part "5 — As Regards the Offence of Intentional Killing Because of the Public Service He Performs;", it is likewise stated that Mehmet Çetin died in the clash that occurred when the soldiers and the bodyguards first encountered one another.
"…upon the team's approaching the villa where the presidential bodyguards were, upon the bodyguards' warning 'Halt, surrender, we are police,' they replied 'You surrender instead'; at this point an armed clash took place; during the clash they wounded Mehmet ÇETİN, a presidential protection officer, with a firearm at more than one place on his body; they then threw a bomb in front of the window of the villa; they also said they would fire a rocket inside,…"
Had Mehmet Çetin been killed, as the court states in its reasoned judgment, in the clash that occurred when the soldiers and the bodyguards first encountered one another, then — as the bodyguards state in their evidence — there ought to have been a blood trace in the vicinity of villa 1782; there would be no blood trace belonging to Mehmet Çetin behind villa 1751. For in the clash in question there is no possibility that someone located at the rear of villa 1751 was shot. No bullet marks were found on the walls or windows of villa 1751, of the adjoining villas 1752, 1753 and 1754, or of villa 1778 behind it. This too shows that the soldiers' shots during the clash did not strike this area.
Moreover, the crime-scene report records the following regarding villa 1751:
"The entrance door of villa 1751 is made of wooden doors opened by a card system; the door was opened by breaking the lock assembly out of the jamb; the wooden pieces of the door jamb and the metal lock housing were on the floor; on the ground outside, in front of the door, there were red stains resembling blood; on the left side a bathroom ………… when the room opposite was entered, this door too was found open, and it was observed that there was no forcing on the door lock; in the room, on the left side, a wardrobe, beside it a bedside table with its drawers open, a double bed, and the top of the bed in disarray; it was determined that there was no place struck by gunfire in the room. When one passed from the corridor into the other room, it was determined that in this room too there was no confusion or disarray and no bullet strike; in the examination carried out in the room and its surroundings,
crime-scene item No. 41-A, the stain resembling blood on the ground in front of the entrance door of villa 1751 (a sample was taken with physiological saline);
crime-scene item No. 42, in the garden area in front of the balcony of villa 1756 S, 1 cartridge case (5.56) of a long-barrelled weapon;
crime-scene item No. 43, in the garden area in front of villa 1751 S, 3 cartridge cases (5.56) of a long-barrelled weapon, were observed."
Although the crime-scene investigation and criminalistic expert reports record that the lock of villa 1751's door was broken out of the jamb and the door thereby opened, and that there was a blood trace belonging to Mehmet Çetin on the ground outside the door, the court's judgment does not address any matter relating to villa 1751.
Two of the accused, İsmail Yiğit and Şükrü Seymen, raised this matter before the courtReasoned Judgment (Marmaris 15 July Trial, Reasoned Judgment (Muğla 2nd Assize Court, Case No. 2016/277, Decision No. 2017/253)), pp. 611, 613, 631 and 1031.; İsmail Yiğit stated that there was no blood trace in front of the balcony of villa 1782, where the bodyguards said they had found Mehmet Çetin; that there was a blood trace at the rear of villa 1751 (in front of its entrance door); and that this ought to be investigated. And although the presiding judge replied to İsmail Yiğit, "All the things youTranslator's note: in the Turkish original the presiding judge addresses the defendant with the familiar sen ("you"). In court this form of address is procedurally improper and belittling; the correct form is the formal siz, and defence counsel routinely object to a judge's sen as inadmissible. In the trials arising from the coup attempt of 15 July 2016, the court's condescending address of the defendants was widespread. This note records that register — which English cannot mark in the pronoun; the original wording is preserved in the facsimile. say, we will discuss and assess in our judgment; you will make your assessment then; as we see it there is now an answer to many things, and we will discuss it in our judgment," the judgment makes no mention whatsoever of villa 1751.
Conclusion
In conclusion: although İrfan Paksoy says that Mehmet Çetin was killed at the rear of villa 1782, and almost all the bodyguards say that they found Mehmet Çetin wounded in front of the balcony of villa 1782, no blood trace was found at these locations. The statements the bodyguards gave do not match the criminalistic data and what happened that night. When the following are assessed together — that the blood traces, assessed to belong to Mehmet Çetin to a near-certain probability because they match genotypically the blood samples taken from his undershirt and boxer shorts, were found at the rear of villa 1751 (which the soldiers did not go to that night) and in the area between this villa and the place where the ambulance waited; that the lock assembly of villa 1751's outer door was broken out of the jamb and the door thereby opened; and that the bodyguards give as the place where Mehmet Çetin was shot and found villa 1782, near which they had a firefight with the soldiers, yet no blood trace belonging to Mehmet Çetin was found around this villa — it comes to mind that, that night, Mehmet Çetin may have been killed not in the vicinity of villa 1782, as the bodyguards state, but at the rear of villa 1751; and that, since the soldiers did not go to the rear of villa 1751, others may have committed the killing. The court did not assess this possibility; despite the blood trace found at the rear of villa 1751 and the broken door lock, it made no assessment in this connection of how Mehmet Çetin may have been killed. Although the court, in its reasoned judgment, assessed villas 1782, 1783, 1784, 1785 and 1922 — which the soldiers themselves admitted going to, and where findings similar to those at 1751 were present — its making no mention whatsoever of villa 1751 is not reasonable. As it stands, the murder investigation has remained incomplete; the context of the statements and of what happened has not been fully constructed; and no interpretation has been arrived at from it. The trial has therefore remained incomplete. In order to investigate the matters set out above, the proceedings should be reopened for a retrial, and the judgment given should be reviewed.