In the information record he filled out on 1 August 2016Selçuk Koca's Information Record dated 1 August 2016 (chief of Turban Hotel private security): The Information Record of Selçuk Koca, chief private security guard of the Turban Hotel, dated 1 August 2016., Selçuk Koca, the chief private security guard of the Turban Hotel, stated: that at around 02:00 on 16 July 2016 Mehmet Çetin asked for water and a cold drink for his villa, and that he sent these to Mehmet Çetin with a colleague; that at around 03:00 the company official Olcay Bey telephoned him to say that he had seen three helicopters from his home balcony and that they should therefore be careful; that, following this call, he immediately telephoned Mehmet Çetin and said, "Three helicopters are apparently coming — be careful," whereupon Mehmet Çetin asked him for a golf cart — used for transport, since the hotel grounds are large — and he told Çetin that the arriving persons might shoot him, to which Çetin replied, "Nothing will happen to you; you just bring the golf cart"; that he then went to the lobby entrance to fetch the golf cart, and that at that moment the hotel's general manager telephoned him to ask what was happening at the hotel, and during this call he noticed that fire was being opened towards the hotel's main entrance; and that, when bullets came towards them, he announced over the radio to his colleagues at the hotel, "The firefight has started — flee," and fled with his colleagues to the hotel cellar, where he checked whether or not he was wounded. For this reason he could not take the golf cart to Mehmet Çetin. On the basis of this statement, we understand that Mehmet Çetin was alive at around 03:00 when the helicopters arrived, and that he was not killed by the persons İrfan Paksoy alleges came at 00:00–00:30. We had, in any case, set out the inconsistencies in İrfan Paksoy's statement in the previous chapters.
Murat Bayrak, the commander of the bodyguards at the hotel, says in the statement he gave to the prosecutor on 28 July 2016 (Murat Bayrak's statement to the public prosecutor's office dated 28.07.2016), "When we heard helicopter sounds over the hotel at 03:15, we took our long-barrelled weapons." Sefa Toskar, who worked at the Turban Hotel as a trainee private security guard, stated in the statement he gave to the prosecutor on 6 September 2016 that, while chatting at the Turban Hotel with the police bodyguard named Burak Güzel, he heard helicopter sounds and saw helicopters flying over the hotel with their lights off; that the police bodyguards asked him to take them to the place called the Palas Exit, where the cars were parked; that he took them there; and that the police bodyguards, taking long-barrelled weapons and equipment such as flak vests from the vehicles, returned to the place where the villas they were staying in were.
That is, when the bodyguards saw the helicopter arrive, they took their long-barrelled weapons and equipment from their vehicles.
During Mehmet Çetin's external post-mortem examination, a ballistic vest and night-vision goggles were found on him (The record listing the materials found on Mehmet Çetin (16.07.2016, 12:10)). The bodyguards have also stated that Mehmet Çetin had a radio too, but that it could not be found after the incident (The bodyguards' joint record dated 18.07.2016). Looking at the materials found on him, it is understood that Mehmet Çetin — who was speaking with Selçuk Koca at around 03:00 as the helicopters were arriving — took his weapon and equipment, like the other bodyguards, after speaking with Selçuk Koca. In his statement to the prosecutor Murat Bayrak says, "When we heard the helicopter sounds at 03:15, we took our long-barrelled weapons." That is, as of 03:15 Mehmet Çetin is still alive. Mehmet Çetin was therefore killed in the line of duty after the soldiers arrived by helicopter. That is, contrary to the widespread allegation, a team did not come earlier and kill Mehmet Çetin. If he was killed in the line of duty after the soldiers arrived, he must have been shot by someone armed who was at or near the hotel at that moment.
Who Shot Mehmet Çetin?
We stated in the previous chapter that, in his 16 and 28 July statements, Murat Bayrak said that, after the soldiers left, they freed themselves from the handcuffs on their wrists at the place to which the soldiers had taken them and took a roll call; that in his first statement he could not account for Mehmet Çetin alone, and in his second statement for Mehmet Çetin and Uğur Göküz; and that Uğur Göküz came later. Murat Bayrak does not say that İrfan Paksoy came later. In his statement, İrfan Paksoy said that he went to his colleagues after the soldiers left them. So where was İrfan Paksoy until the soldiers left there?
In his statement (İrfan Paksoy's complainant statement dated 16.07.2016), İrfan Paksoy says that he looked at the helicopters through his thermal camera and that during the firefight he saw the soldiers were about 15 in number. Şükrü Seymen, with 10 special-forces personnel and one SAT commando under his command, formed the foremost group, 12 in all. Behind them was a group of 5, Zekeriya Kuzu and 4 MAK personnel under his command. At the very back, the 6-man MAK group under Taner Berber's command stayed at the hotel's entrance gate to provide rear security. That is, 17 soldiers had entered the hotel. İrfan Paksoy counted approximately correctly. He saw the soldiers' weapons and helmets in detail. For him to be able to count how many soldiers there were during the firefight, he must have been in a place with a view of the direction from which the soldiers came. Murat Bayrak had said in his statement that the CAT (Counter-Attack Team) operatives — that is, the special-operations men — were on the villa balconies. If Mehmet Çetin and İrfan Paksoy had been on the balcony of 1782, as the bodyguards say in some of their statements, they would not have been able to see the number of soldiers during the firefight. The balcony of 1782 is an out-of-the-way spot, not a commanding point. The place from which they could most easily have seen the number of soldiers and other details is the balcony of one of the villas in the 1751–1754 block.
We have said that there is a blood trace belonging to Mehmet Çetin in front of the entrance door at the rear of villa 1751. A blood trace belonging to Mehmet Çetin had also been found on the concrete surface at the place shown in the site sketch. Moreover, the crime-scene investigation teams found and reported a magazine and 3 cartridge cases of 5.56 mm in the garden on the sea side of villa 1751 — that is, on the side facing the soldiers, where the balcony also is (Crime-Scene Investigation Report: the locations of the blood traces at the Turban Hotel). The cases of bullets fired from the balcony probably fell into the garden. If Mehmet Çetin and İrfan Paksoy were on the balcony of villa 1751 during the firefight, they may have fired from there. We have said that five cartridges are missing from the magazines — which were added to the file on 4 August, which were not among the materials found on Mehmet Çetin in the record kept immediately after the incident, and which the prosecutor's office says belong to Mehmet Çetin. Someone may have made a radio call to Mehmet Çetin and told him to come to the rearOnly Burak Güzel's and Mehmet Çetin's radios had gone missing.. They may then have gone together to the rear of 1751, as İrfan Paksoy recounts in his statement, ascribing it to 1782. When he came out of the door, the person behind Mehmet Çetin may have shot him in the back. The same person, and/or, if there was one, the person or persons he was in league with who were waiting outside the villa for Mehmet Çetin to come out (for example, someone who was not in 1782 and 85 at that moment, who went to his colleagues later, and who does not know how his shirt was taken off him) may have continued to fire at Mehmet Çetin.
From the explanation concerning İrfan Paksoy's petition on page 276 of the reasoned judgment in the Marmaris Robbery trial (Marmaris Robbery Trial, Reasoned Judgment), it is understood that İrfan Paksoy was not taken into custody by the soldiers and was not subjected to beating and force. Despite this, on page 2 of the general forensic examination report drawn up after the incident, it is recorded that İrfan Paksoy had a 4 × 3 cm graze on the left iliac fossa and a 2 cm scratch on the right femur (İrfan Paksoy's General Forensic Examination Report (16.07.2016, Report No. 18355)). Because the phrase "beating and force" appears in the "history of the incident" section on the first page of the report, it has been assessed that İrfan Paksoy said at the hospital that he received these wounds as a result of beating and force by the soldiers. It is assessed that these wounds of İrfan Paksoy — who says he was subjected to beating and force although he was not taken into custody by the soldiers — may be the result of a scuffle he had with someone.
We have said that, in the autopsy report, by making it appear as though there were a wound that in fact did not exist on Mehmet Çetin's body, a supposed bullet was extracted from it, and, this being determined to have been fired from a weapon belonging to the soldier Şükrü Seymen "on which epithelial cells were detected," an attempt was made to make it appear as though Şükrü Seymen had shot Mehmet Çetin. We have also said that the bullet that entered Mehmet Çetin's arm did not exit through his back, that he was shot with one bullet in the arm and two in the back, and that these remained in his body; and we have stated that, if possible, by taking his remains from the grave and having them examined "by independent institutions," the real killers could be identified. We have also said that the firefight between the soldiers and the bodyguards was in the vicinity of villa 1782, but that there is no blood trace belonging to Mehmet Çetin in the vicinity of this villa, and that Mehmet Çetin's blood trace is at the rear of villa 1751, which has no connection with the firefight and which the soldiers did not even go to. We have recounted that, although the door of villa 1751 was broken and its interior in disarray, and although this was raised in court, and although there are mentions in the reasoned judgment of the villas the soldiers went to that were in the same condition, the Muğla 2nd Assize Court, before which the case was heard, made no mention whatsoever of this villa. We have stated that the bodyguards gave differing accounts concerning Çetin's killing that contradict one another and their own statements, but that these do not match the concrete data. According to what İrfan Paksoy recounts, he may have been on the balcony of villa 1751 before the firefight and perhaps during the firefight that began at 03:43; he went to his colleagues after the soldiers left at 04:15; what he did and where he was during the intervening period of more than half an hour is unknown; and although, by his own account, he witnessed his teammate being shot "by the soldiers (?)", although he is a trained special-operations police officer, and although he had an M16 rifle with a thermal camera, he made no intervention whatsoever; why he did not at least call 112 for his colleague to ensure that an ambulance came, and why, although he was the first person to give a statement to the police in Marmaris after the incident, he was subsequently not confronted with the accused, are questions that are perhaps impossible to answer.
Now you tell me: if Mehmet Çetin was shot after the soldiers' helicopter came to Marmaris, as he was going to take up position — having taken his weapon and equipment but not yet put on his night-vision goggles; if he was shot at the rear of villa 1751, which the soldiers did not go to; if İrfan Paksoy too was at villa 1751; if he says, "we were together as a team, I saw him being shot"; if Can Gülsever says, "when the helicopter came I was in villa 1758, I went to my colleagues later"; if he says, "the soldiers tore my two shirts and my trousers, I do not know how my shirt was taken off me"; if he says, "when the helicopter came we messaged on WhatsApp, and afterwards they found my phone in the sea and brought it to me"; and if Mehmet Çetin is being made to appear as though he was "shot by the soldiers in villa 1782" — by the bodyguards, the court, and forensic medicine extracting a bullet from a non-existent wound, concealing the pistol bullets that remained in the body, drawing up 3 different scenarios for Mehmet Çetin in 12 days, and making Mehmet Çetin's radio disappear so that the record of the last conversations would not be obtained — then who shot Mehmet Çetin?