Official Claim vs. the Truth
How did Mehmet Çetin die? The official claim vs. the documents
The official claims about how, where and by whose hand the death occurred — set line by line against the documents in the same case file.
In each row, the official claim is on the left; the documents from the same case file are on the right.
Who killed Mehmet Çetin?
The bullet recovered from Mehmet Çetin's body was fired from a rifle carrying the defendant Şükrü Seymen's DNA — so Seymen killed him.
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.
Document: Mehmet Çetin — No Bullet Entry on the Left Knee, External Post-mortem Examination and Autopsy Record, Clothing Chemical Examination Expert Report, Mehmet Çetin General Forensic Examination Report
How and where did Mehmet Çetin die?
He was killed in the first burst of fire when the soldiers reached the villa, while he was outside.
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.
Document: Crime-Scene Investigation Report — locations of the blood traces, Criminalistic Expert Report — blood samples and DNA, Marmaris 15 July Trial — Reasoned Judgment
If the cameras show no second team, could anyone but the soldiers have killed him?
The cameras show only the defendants all night; there is no footage of any other team, so no one else could have done it.
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.
Document: Mehmet Çetin — Bullet Holes on the Back, Aselsan 4715 Radio Device Brochure
If the forensic reports are genuine and barcoded, doesn't that prove the wound?
The forensic reports are real, not faked — they are barcoded; and if a report were going to be faked, why not fake one for the other fallen officer too?
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.
Document: Mehmet Çetin — No Bullet Entry on the Left Knee, Mehmet Çetin General Forensic Examination Report