04.06.2025 09:44
The case regarding the death of Dorukan Büyükışık, the son of retired Major General Ethem Büyükışık, which was recorded as a "suicide" in 2018, has been reopened in İzmir. The indictment prepared for the case, in which five suspects are being prosecuted, includes findings suggesting that Dorukan's death may have occurred after being struck in the back with a hard object, and that the body may have been moved to the specified location afterward.
```html
The son of retired Major General Ethem Büyükışık, Dorukhan Büyükışık (26), was found dead on May 13, 2018, at a construction site near his home. While the incident was recorded as a "suicide," the İzmir Chief Public Prosecutor's Office reopened the case, and charges were filed against guards H. K (68), H. A. (76), T. Ç (40), and worker B. Ç. (46), as well as guard A. G. (76) from a nearby area, for "intentional murder" with a request for life imprisonment.
CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS The indictment accepted by the İzmir 21st High Criminal Court included important details. According to the camera footage obtained and preserved during the investigation, it was stated that after parking Dorukhan's vehicle, he entered the construction site by walking from the road in the observation area of the guard booth where H. K. was located. It was noted that H. K., H. A., T. Ç. were guards at the construction site, while B. Ç. was a worker and A. G. was a guard at a nearby site. The indictment stated that there were contradictions between the personal statements of the suspects taken on different dates and in different capacities and their statements to each other.
"INCONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LIFE" Although some of the defendants stated in their testimonies that they heard a human voice and noise resembling shouting at the time of the incident, and that they did not detect any negative situation despite their searches and observations, the indictment noted that the construction site being under their control and isolated from the outside world, along with the dogs present with some of them participating in the search, made it inconsistent with the ordinary course of life that they could not identify the source of such a sound and noise. It was expressed that no footage could be obtained regarding the moment of Dorukhan's death, and therefore it could not be determined how the actions were carried out by which suspect.
Father retired Major General Ethem Büyükışık "DEATH NOT CONSISTENT WITH FALLING FROM HEIGHT" According to the reports obtained from the Forensic Medicine Institution, although the findings on Büyükışık's body were consistent with falling from a height, it was emphasized that whether there was any influence from another person in this act was a matter that could be clarified through a judicial investigation. The indictment also included that the forensic scientists' report submitted by Ethem Büyükışık stated that, contrary to the forensic medicine report, the death was not consistent with falling from a height. The report of the 3rd Specialization Board of the Forensic Medicine Institution reinforced the opinion that the death could not have occurred as a result of falling from a height. It was stated that the position of Dorukhan at the time of his initial discovery, lying on his back, upright, with his head facing outward and his feet facing the construction site, with his head resting on the retaining wall and having entered under the construction rebar passing parallel over his head, could not be a natural result of a fall.
"SHOT IN THE BACK, BODY MOVED" The indictment stated that the absence of open wounds, skull, arm, and leg fractures on Dorukhan's body, and the presence of rib fractures only in the right side of the back due to impact, strengthened the suspicions that this death did not occur as a result of falling from a height. It was noted in the indictment that the death could have occurred after being struck with a hard and effective tool on the back area of the victim, and that the body may have been moved to the specified position afterward. Although the exact cause could not be determined in this way, it was expressed that the act of killing was understood to have been carried out by the suspects present at the crime scene. Therefore, it was stated that there was sufficient evidence to file charges against the suspects for committing the crime of intentional murder by establishing joint control over the act of killing, with the evaluation and determination of the evidence being the responsibility of the judicial authority, which is the court.
DEFENDANTS' STATEMENTS INCLUDED The indictment also included the statements of the defendants. It was noted that A. G., who served as a guard at the construction site, stated in his testimony to the prosecutor's office that he was at the lower construction site during the incident and learned about the event after returning home from his son-in-law. It was stated that guard H. K. testified to the prosecutor's office that he heard a sound from outside saying "pop" between 01:30-02:00, and upon this, he took the dog next to the booth and went out to check the surroundings, stating that the construction area was well-lit and that he did not encounter any person in the area he patrolled before returning to the booth.
Guard T. Ç. also stated that since the construction area covers a large area, there were three different guard booths, and that they took turns working with A. G. and H. K., and that H. K. was in the lowest booth at the time of the incident, and he learned about the event later by phone. Defendant guard H. A. stated that he heard a painful human voice, and upon this, he went outside his booth and looked around but did not see anything, and then...
```
K. asked if something had happened and after receiving a response that there was nothing, he said he entered his cabin.
In the statement of B. Ç., who works as a machine operator at the construction site, it was emphasized that while he was resting in the container, he went outside after hearing a loud noise around 03:30 and encountered H. K.; he stated that H. K., who said he heard the same noise, conducted a search in the area with his dog but shortly after came back to him and indicated that he did not see anything.