The Court's Decision Concerning Mehmet Çetin's Death:
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."
According to the reasoned judgment, Mehmet Çetin was killed in the line of duty during the clash that broke out when the soldiers and the bodyguards first encountered one another. In this connection, as was explained in the previous chapter, the crime-scene examination found no blood trace belonging to Mehmet Çetin in the area where the clash took place (in the vicinity of villa 1782); on the contrary, a blood trace belonging to Mehmet Çetin was found behind villa 1751 — an area unconnected with where the clash occurred. The reasoned judgment further states that one of the bullets that struck Mehmet Çetin was fired from the rifle with serial number W349539.
In the autopsy reportMehmet Çetin's Autopsy Report (Muğla Forensic Medicine Branch Directorate, 03.08.2016, AT: 2016-1238): The Autopsy Report Drawn Up for Mehmet Çetin. of the Muğla Forensic Medicine Branch Directorate, dated 3 August 2016 and numbered AT: 2016-1238, it is stated that, from the firearm bullet-core wound on Mehmet Çetin's left kneecap (patella), one fragment of a firearm bullet core and one fragment of a bullet jacket were removed. According to the report, the bullet core, which entered through the left kneecap, caused a comminuted (multi-fragment) fracture in the left femur, tibia and fibula and a laceration in the left popliteal artery (behind the knee) and, breaking apart, lodged among the soft tissues at the rear of the left thigh; it was removed from where it lay and handed over to the prosecutor's office. The report also records the determination that this wound was, on its own, of a fatal nature.
According to the report, in the other three wounds on Mehmet Çetin's body the bullets entered and exited the body and were not recovered; only in the wound on the left kneecap did the bullet remain in the body, and it was removed and sent to the prosecutor's office, and from there for criminalistic examination.
However, the wound in question — stated in the autopsy report to be on the left kneecap — does not appear in the documents drawn up earlier.
No Left-Knee Wound in the Earlier Documents
The first document: the General Forensic Examination ReportMehmet Çetin's General Forensic Examination Report (private Ahu Hospital, 16.07.2016): The General Forensic Examination Report Drawn Up for Mehmet Çetin.. In the General Forensic Examination Report — drawn up at the private Ahu Hospital, to which Mehmet Çetin was brought by ambulance, bearing a report date of 16 July 2016 at 05:45 and protocol number 2708 — although the examination-findings section records, as regards the left leg, "fracture of the left femur, comminuted fracture of the left tibia and fibula", no firearm injury on the left knee is mentioned. Only wounds on his right leg, on the left side of his lower back, and on his left shoulder/armpit are mentioned.
"When the patient arrived at the hospital he was ex duhul [dead on arrival]; fracture of the left femur, comminuted fracture of the left tibia and fibula, comminuted fracture of the right tibia and open firearm injury; on the left lumbar ala of the iliumTranslator's note: the ala of the ilium (Latin ala ossis ilii) is the broad, wing-shaped upper part of the hip bone — the iliac wing. a firearm bullet entry–exit hole, on the left shoulder a bullet hole, two bullet holes under the left armpit"
Likewise, in the body diagram in the annex to the same general forensic examination report, there is no firearm injury on the left knee.
The second document in which the firearm injury on the left kneecap — the injury that appears in the Muğla autopsy report and on which the accusation against the defendant Şükrü Seymen ultimately rested — does not appear: the External Post-mortem Examination RecordExternal Post-mortem Examination and Autopsy Record (Mehmet Çetin & Nedip Cengiz Eker, 16.07.2016, Marmaris): The External Post-mortem Examination and Autopsy Record Drawn Up for Mehmet Çetin and Nedip Cengiz Eker.. In the external post-mortem examination carried out on 16 July 2016 between 09:20 and 10:12 in the morgue of the Marmaris Ahu Hospital, before Mehmet Çetin's body was sent to Muğla for autopsy, under the heading "Examination of the Arms and Legs" a wound on the right leg is mentioned, while on the left leg it is stated that there are ecchymotic areas (bruising) above and below the knee that may belong to fractures, and that no other pathological finding was encountered. All the other firearm wounds noted in the Muğla autopsy report were also present in the external post-mortem examination record made earlier in Marmaris; but the firearm wound stated to be on the left kneecap is not.
During the same external post-mortem examination, photographs and videoMehmet Çetin's Autopsy Video. Link: Mehmet Çetin — Autopsy Video were taken by the District Gendarmerie Command. When the photographsMehmet Çetin's Autopsy Photographs. Link: Mehmet Çetin — Autopsy Photographs and video in question are examined, no firearm wound is visible on the left kneecap either. (In order to shed light on the matters that remain obscure concerning Mehmet Çetin's death, the autopsy documents in the case file have had to be published, with the pardon of his family and loved ones humbly sought.)
The third document: the expert report of the İzmir Criminal Police Laboratory, dated 22 August 2016 and numbered IZM-KIM-16-08515-EkClothing Chemical Examination Expert Report (Mehmet Çetin & Nedip Cengiz Eker; İzmir Criminal Police Laboratory, 22.08.2016, IZM-KIM-16-08515-Ek): The Expert Report Containing the Chemical Examinations Carried Out on the Clothing of Mehmet Çetin and Nedip Cengiz Eker., in which the results of the chemical examinations carried out on the clothing of Mehmet Çetin and Nedip Cengiz Eker were published. On page 4 of the report, a perforation is seen on the right leg of Mehmet Çetin's trousers, while no finding is mentioned on the left leg. Had there been a bullet entry on the left knee, as stated in the autopsy report, then the knee area of the left leg of the trousers ought likewise to have had a hole.
The fourth document: the statements of the bodyguards who gave evidence immediately after the incident. İrfan Paksoy, who gave his statement on 16 July 2016, stated that when they found Mehmet Çetin he had been wounded by one bullet each to his back, beneath the rib cage, and to his leg; while Murat Bayrak, Uğur Göküz, Kerem Talip Sayın, Metin Yılmaz, Neşet Altuntaş and Mustafa Akça stated that he had been wounded by two bullets to the chest and one to the leg (İrfan Paksoy's complainant statement dated 16.07.2016, Murat Bayrak's complainant statement dated 16.07.2016 and The statements of seven presidential bodyguards dated 16.07.2016). The autopsy report, however, records that he had bullet wounds to both legs.
Conclusion
In conclusion: the Muğla 2nd Assize Court decided that Şükrü Seymen should be punished, on the ground that a bullet had struck the left knee of the presidential bodyguard Mehmet Çetin and that this bullet had been fired from Şükrü Seymen's rifle.
The court based this decision on the reports given by the İzmir Criminal Police Laboratory — to the effect that the bullet-core fragment which the Muğla Forensic Medicine Branch Directorate extracted from Mehmet Çetin's left knee during the autopsy it performed had been fired from rifle no. W349539, and that epithelial cells belonging to Şükrü Seymen were also found on this rifle.
However, although the autopsy report states that there was a bullet wound on Mehmet Çetin's knee and that the bullet remaining inside it was extracted, there is no bullet wound of any kind on Mehmet Çetin's left knee in the General Forensic Examination Report kept by the doctor on duty when Mehmet Çetin was brought to the Ahu Hospital on 16 July 2016, nor in the External Post-mortem Examination Record signed — also on 16 July 2016, as part of the judicial process and likewise at the Ahu Hospital — in the presence of a total of nine witnesses, among them two prosecutors, two doctor experts and two photographer experts, nor in the photographs and video taken during this procedure. Moreover, whereas, had he been shot in the knee, there ought to have been a hole in his trousers, there is no bullet hole on the left leg of Mehmet Çetin's trousers in the expert report drawn up by the İzmir Criminal Police Laboratory on 22 August 2016. The bodyguards who gave statements on 16 July also stated that, when they found Mehmet Çetin, he had been shot in only one leg.
In the light of this information, it is understood that Mehmet Çetin was not shot in the left knee. What it means that, despite this, the autopsy report states that Mehmet Çetin was shot in the left knee, and that a bullet fragment fired from the rifle of one of the soldiers was extracted from this wound, is left to the reader to judge.