03.09.2026 14:00
The statements given to the prosecutor by former Tunceli Provincial Gendarmerie Deputy Commander Ali Kahraman and his wife, who were detained in the Gülistan Doku investigation, have emerged. The telephone traffic that the Kahraman couple, who were determined to have passed over the Sarısaltuk Bridge at the minutes when Doku disappeared, had with the wife of the then governor at that exact moment, and the critical details hidden from the file, left their mark on the investigation. The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office requested the arrest of the suspects, whom it accused of 'You took Gülistan by vehicle and handed her over to the perpetrators.'
{"text":"
Statements given to prosecutors by Ali Kahraman, the former Deputy Commander of the Tunceli Provincial Gendarmerie, and his wife Burçin Hızlı Kahraman, who were detained in the Gülistan Doku investigation, have emerged. In the investigation file, it was assessed that the vehicle used by the Kahraman couple also passed around 12:27 over the Sarısaltuk Bridge, where Gülistan Doku was last seen, and it was determined that Burçin Hızlı Kahraman called Handan Sonel, the wife of the then Tunceli Governor Tuncay Sonel, at the very same minute. The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office asked the suspects whether the critical time overlap was “far beyond coincidence.” The Kahraman couple, however, claimed they did not see Gülistan Doku and did not take her into their vehicle. The two suspects in custody were referred to court with a request for their arrest.
STATEMENTS OF THE FORMER COMMANDER AND HIS WIFE REVEALED A striking development has occurred in the investigation into the disappearance of Gülistan Doku. While former Tunceli Provincial Gendarmerie Deputy Commander Ali Kahraman and his wife Burçin Hızlı Kahraman were detained, the detailed statements they gave to the prosecutors also revealed critical findings in the investigation.
In the investigation numbered 2026/7025 by the Erzurum Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, the Kahraman couple was questioned about the activity at the Sarısaltuk Bridge, where Gülistan Doku was last seen on January 5, 2020, PTS records, telephone traffic, their relations with the then Tunceli Governor Tuncay Sonel and his family, and why their statements were not taken during the initial phase of the investigation.
Colonel Ali Kahraman THEIR VEHICLE WAS SEEN 2 MINUTES AFTER GÜLİSTAN WAS SEEN One of the most critical findings of the investigation was that around 12:25 on January 5, 2020, Gülistan Doku was captured on the dashcam of another vehicle on the Sarısaltuk Bridge.
According to the findings presented by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office to the suspects, the vehicle driven by Ali Kahraman and registered to his wife Burçin Hızlı Kahraman with plate 06 AAU 730 passed through the FEDAŞ PTS at 12:25:12 and the University PTS at 12:28:58, heading towards Elazığ.
Based on the time between the two PTS points and the average speed of the vehicle, it was understood that the vehicle carrying the Kahraman family passed over the Sarısaltuk Bridge at approximately 12:27.
A PHONE CALL FROM THE COMMANDER'S WIFE TO THE GOVERNOR'S WIFE AT THAT VERY MINUTE The telephone records in the file constituted one of the most striking aspects of the investigation. It was determined that a call was made from the phone line used by Burçin Hızlı Kahraman to the line used by Handan Sonel, the wife of the then Tunceli Governor Tuncay Sonel, at 12:27:51.
The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office asked the suspects about the overlap, at the level of seconds, between the time the vehicle was assessed to be on the Sarısaltuk Bridge and the time of the phone call.
In the statement transcript, it was noted that the timing in question and the subsequent phone conversations were evaluated as “far beyond coincidence, parts of a process proceeding according to a specific plan and scenario,” and the Kahraman couple was asked whether they had taken Gülistan Doku into their vehicle.
“WE DID NOT TAKE GÜLİSTAN DOKU INTO OUR CAR” Ali Kahraman categorically denied the accusation. Kahraman claimed that his wife called Handan Sonel to thank her for hosting them in Tunceli and to inform her that they were leaving the city.
In his statement, the former gendarmerie deputy commander stated that they went to the Pertek Ferry Pier without stopping anywhere with his wife and daughters, and defended himself by saying, “We did not take Gülistan Doku into our car; we would never participate in such an act.”
Burçin Hızlı Kahraman similarly claimed they did not see Gülistan Doku. Hızlı Kahraman alleged that the call at 12:27 was made to thank Handan Sonel, stating that they did not see anyone on the bridge, did not stop, and continued on their way.
Burçin Hızlı Kahraman “WOMAN-TO-WOMAN CHAT” DEFENSE FOR CONSECUTIVE CALLS It was also determined in the investigation file that there was consecutive telephone traffic between Burçin Hızlı Kahraman and Handan Sonel following the critical minutes. The Kahraman couple was asked about the content of the conversations.
Ali Kahraman alleged that his wife first called Handan Sonel to thank her, and that the subsequent conversations were of a “women's gossip” nature. Burçin Hızlı Kahraman, on the other hand, said that some of the calls were failed attempts at points with no signal, and that she later called Handan Sonel again to convey her mother's regards.
Hızlı Kahraman stated that during the approximately 12-minute conversation, they talked about women she had met at a party she attended, describing the conversation as “a simple and normal woman-to-woman chat.”
CHIEF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE: A PROBABILITY TOO LOW TO BE EXPLAINED BY COINCIDENCE In the questions directed at the suspects, the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office assessed that the probability of the critical time when Gülistan Doku was on the bridge coinciding with the Kahramans' vehicle passage and the immediately following phone call within the same minutes was extremely low.
Additionally, the Kahraman couple's contacts with other suspects in the file, such as Tuncay Sonel, Handan Sonel, and Şükrü Eroğlu, during their visit to Tunceli were also questioned. Burçin Hızlı Kahraman, however, argued that this overlap was “truly nothing more than a bad coincidence.”
OVER 200 PEOPLE INTERVIEWED, KAHRAMAN COUPLE'S VEHICLE TRAFFIC CONCEALED FROM THE FILE Another important issue highlighted in the investigation was how the initial inquiry was conducted. According to the assessment conveyed to the suspects by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office during the statement, following Gülistan Doku's disappearance, statements were taken from over 200 people in a short time under the status of “person with knowledge.”
However, it was determined that statements were not taken from some critical vehicle drivers and passengers found in the PTS records on the Dinar Bridge and university route between 12:00 and 13:00 on the day of the incident. It was noted that the vehicle carrying the Kahraman couple was among these.
The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office informed the suspects that it evaluated the exclusion of critical vehicles and individuals from the file within the scope of suspicion of “a deliberate, planned, and organized act of evidence tampering.” Ali Kahraman said on this matter, “I wish they had called us and taken our statement, just like those individuals whose statements were taken.”
Burçin Hızlı Kahraman also stated that they would have come to give statements if summoned, claiming she did not know why they were not included in the investigation.
HE SAID “THERE WERE 176 CAMERAS, NO BLIND SPOTS,” THEN CHANGED HIS STATEMENT Former Tunceli Provincial Gendarmerie Deputy Commander Ali Kahraman was also asked in detail about the camera system on the route where Gülistan Doku disappeared. In his initial statement, Kahraman said there were approximately 176 cameras on the Tunceli-Elazığ road, up to the Elmalık Station, “with no blind spots.”"}
He stated that the cameras were monitored 24 hours a day, that the systems were operational during his tenure, and that briefings given to senior commanders indicated there were no blind spots on the route. However, the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office reminded him that there were no camera images approximately 800 meters on the Tunceli side and 500 meters on the Elazig side of the Sarisaltuk Viaduct, where Gulistan Doku was last seen.
Upon this, Kahraman said, "I said that all cameras were positioned so there would be no dead zones, but I might have been mistaken about that area." Kahraman then corrected his previous statement, noting that the Sarisaltuk Viaduct fell within the police's area of responsibility.
DAY BEFORE DISAPPEARANCE, HE SENT 'TOWER INFORMATION' TO SONEL Another striking detail that emerged in Ali Kahraman's testimony was the message traffic the day before the incident. The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office asked Kahraman about sending an Excel file titled "tower information with living quarters" to Tuncay Sonel on January 4, 2020.
Kahraman claimed that Sonel sent him a message saying, "We are in a meeting at the governor's office right now, we urgently need the tower information." Although it was reminded that he was on duty in Gaziantep at that time but was in Tunceli, Kahraman said he requested the information from the relevant personnel and forwarded it to Tuncay Sonel once he received it.
HE SAID, 'I DON'T FIND SONEL'S SIGNAL DEFENSE CONVINCING' Ali Kahraman was also asked about Tuncay Sonel's defense regarding sending Gulistan Doku's new SIM card to Gokhan Ertok, in which Sonel claimed, "I wanted to have a signal detection carried out."
Kahraman stated that it was impossible for someone at the governor's office not to know that signal information could be obtained quickly through local law enforcement units, adding, "Frankly, I also do not find Tuncay Sonel's defense convincing."
SUSPECT KAHRAMAN: 'TUNCAY SONEL COULD MANIPULATE THE VILLAGE GUARDS' The fact that Kahraman was previously one of the top officials responsible for mixed teams and security guards in Tunceli also came up during the investigation. Ali Kahraman denied that Tuncay Sonel gave him or the guards any instructions regarding Gulistan Doku.
However, he made a striking assessment about the former governor: "I think Tuncay Sonel could have established dominance over the guards and manipulated them. Because he had that kind of character; he was skilled at convincing everyone, manipulating, and managing perception."
Kahraman claimed that he did not comply with any illegal instructions and did not give such orders to the guards either.
FORMER GUARD FATIH OZMEN AND THE KOCPINAR DETECTION WERE ALSO QUESTIONED The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office also asked Ali Kahraman about the base station records related to Fatih Ozmen, considered one of the most critical new pieces of evidence in the investigation. In the testimony transcript, the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office stated that the underground imaging study and expert report contained findings indicating that a person had been buried and later removed in Kocpinar village.
According to the assessment in the file, it was noted that former guard Fatih Ozmen's phone connected to a fixed base station in the mentioned region between January 5, 2020, at 23:11 and January 6, at 06:43. The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office informed Ali Kahraman that, evaluating the secret witness statements and other technical data together, a legal opinion had been formed that after Gulistan Doku was killed, her body was taken by Sukru Eroglu and Fatih Ozmen to a location near the cemetery in Kocpinar and buried there.
Kahraman, on the other hand, claimed that he knew Fatih Ozmen due to his duty, but there was no special closeness between them, and he had not seen him for the last 3-4 years.
"IT IS ASSESSED THAT YOU PICKED UP GULISTAN FROM THE BRIDGE AND HANDED HER OVER TO THE OTHER PERPETRATORS" In the final part of Ali Kahraman's testimony, the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office's assessment regarding the investigation was read directly to the suspect. Within the framework of the evidence in the file and the connections between the suspects, the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office stated that a "legal and conscientious opinion" had been reached that Ali Kahraman picked up Gulistan Doku from the Sarisaltuk Viaduct around 12:27 on January 5, 2020, in a vehicle allocated in his wife's name, and then handed her over to other individuals connected to the incident.
Kahraman was also reminded of the provisions on effective remorse and asked to tell what he knew. Ali Kahraman, however, denied all the accusations. Kahraman said, "I came to Tunceli on vacation with my family and my daughters, and on January 5th at noon, I returned to Gaziantep via the Pertek ferry. I did not see anyone in the mentioned area, I did not pick up anyone, and I was not part of any organization."
STRIKING STATEMENT FROM BURCIN KAHRAMAN REGARDING THE PHONE CALL WITH HANDAN SONEL IN 2026 In the testimony of Burcin Hizli Kahraman, a phone conversation she had with Handan Sonel in the later stages of the investigation drew attention. Hizli Kahraman recounted that after the legal process against Tuncay Sonel began, Hanzade Sonel contacted her via Instagram and asked her to call her mother from another number.
Stating that her husband told her "don't call," Hizli Kahraman said she called the number provided after mutual acquaintances said there was no harm in the conversation. Noting that Handan Sonel answered the phone, Hizli Kahraman said that during the conversation, she was asked whether Mustafa Turkay Sonel had set up mobile banking at a bank branch in Tunceli.
Hizli Kahraman stated that when she said she had not done such a transaction, Handan Sonel reacted joyfully, saying, "Right, right, he hadn't done it."
Burcin Hizli Kahraman said she thought about why Handan Sonel specifically asked about mobile banking after that conversation. In her testimony, she said, "I thought there might be some money flow through her son's bank accounts via internet banking, because she was curious about this, and she was happy when I said I hadn't set up mobile banking."
THE HOURS WHEN THE KAHRAMAN COUPLE'S PHONES GAVE NO SIGNAL WERE ALSO QUESTIONED The Kahraman couple was also asked about the hours when the phone lines they used on the day of the incident gave no signal. It was noted that the line used by Ali Kahraman gave no signal from 13:15 to 20:46 on January 5th, and one of the lines used by Burcin Hizli Kahraman was not seen in the records from the evening hours until the next morning.
Ali Kahraman claimed that his phone battery might have run out, while Burcin Hizli Kahraman claimed that she might not have charged her phones at the teachers' lodge. Both suspects said they did not intentionally turn off their phones.
The lawyers for the suspects also rejected the accusations and requested that their clients be released to stand trial without detention. Ali Kahraman and Burcin Hizli Kahraman, who were taken into custody, were referred with a request for their arrest following the procedures. The investigation continues.