Critical questions in the Arif Ahmet Denizolgun file... The Prosecutor's Office objected to the Forensic Medicine report

Within the scope of the investigation carried out by the Organized Crimes Investigation Bureau of the Bakırköy Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, an additional report was requested regarding the report dated November 2 prepared by the 1st Forensic Medicine Specialization Board of the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute.

In the letter requesting an additional report sent to the board by the prosecutor's office, it was reminded that the report evaluated that the ecchymosis in the chest area occurred in the 3 to 14 days before death, and that fresh bleeding was detected in the subcutaneous fatty tissue during microscopic examination.

In the article, it was requested to explain "How long the period of bleeding described as fresh bleeding covers, whether there is a contradiction in evaluating it as 3-14 days in the report, and how fresh bleeding was detected despite the institution's response letter stating that the samples taken from the victim were destroyed."

A detailed explanation of how the evaluations in the report were made despite the severe autolysis situation was also requested in the letter.

Regarding the evaluation that there is no medical evidence that death occurred by closing the mouth and nose, compression on the neck and pressing on the chest, the prosecutor's office asked for an explanation as to whether it is necessary to have a lesion in the mouth during the act of closing the mouth and nose and whether the bleeding in the chest constitutes traumatic evidence.

In the article, it was also asked to examine whether emergency medical intervention would have enabled the victim to survive if he was found at the first moment he fell ill, within the scope of the evaluation that the death may have occurred on September 6, 2016, although it is not certain.

In the article, it was requested, "To evaluate whether it will be prevented to obtain evidence as a result of the decomposition of the victim's body due to the late notification" and to "explain how the victim was evaluated as having high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease in the conclusion, although there is no medical document in the file that identified the victim."

The prosecutor's office also asked him to explain in which diseases and conditions the active ingredient metoprolol, detected in the victim's blood, was used.

It was requested that all documents and information in the file be re-examined, the questions answered and an additional report prepared regarding the exact cause of death.