24.10.2026 20:12
In the case concerning the death of singer Güllü, the reasoned decision for the aggravated life sentence imposed on her daughter Tuğyan Ülkem Gülter was announced. In the decision, it was recorded that the statement of the only eyewitness to the incident—that Gülter held her mother from behind and threw her out of the window—was evaluated together with camera recordings and expert reports, and it was ruled that it was established that the murder was committed. The decision also stated that it could not be proven that the murder was premeditated.
The singer Gül Tut, known by the name 'Güllü', died after falling from the window of her home in the 6-storey building located at Vali Akı Avenue, Harmanlar Neighbourhood, Çınarcık district of Yalova, on 26 September 2025. Within the scope of the investigation initiated after the incident that occurred at around 01:26, Gül Tut's daughter Tuğyan Ülkem Gülter and her friend Sultan Nur Ulu, who was at home on the night of the incident, were taken into custody. Gülter was arrested on 13 December 2025 on the charge of 'intentional killing'. A house arrest decision was issued for Sultan Nur Ulu.
After the investigation was completed, a case was filed against Gülter, seeking an aggravated life sentence on the charge of 'premeditated intentional killing of an ascendant'. The first hearing of the case, held at the Yalova 1st High Criminal Court, took place on 1 October 2026. At the court's second hearing on 9 October, Gülter was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment for the crime of 'intentional killing of a woman and an ascendant'. The court also decided that the defendant's detention should continue.
REASONED JUDGMENT ANNOUNCED: SHE GRABBED HER FROM BEHIND AND THREW HER OUT THE WINDOW The Yalova 1st High Criminal Court announced its reasoned judgment consisting of 25 pages. The judgment stated that only Gül Tut, her daughter Tuğyan Ülkem Gülter and Sultan Nur Ulu were at home during the incident. As a result of the examination of the home and apartment building camera recordings, it was recorded that it was determined that no one other than these 3 people entered or exited the home throughout the day before the incident and until the hour when the death occurred. The court gave credence to the statement made at the hearing by Sultan Nur Ulu, the only eyewitness to the incident. Ulu recounted that at the time of the incident, Gül Tut came into the room, and while she herself turned toward the mirror, she saw Tuğyan Ülkem Gülter grab her mother from behind by the upper thigh and throw her from the window. Ulu, who said in her initial statements that she did not see the moment of the fall, when later asked why she had made a different statement, said that she was afraid the defendant would harm her and pin the crime on her. The court assessed that the witness's statements explaining this contradiction were consistent with one another.
The judgment stated that there was no concrete reason for enmity that would require Ulu to slander the defendant, that there was no other eyewitness in the room where the incident took place, and that her account of being afraid that the defendant would accuse her was supported by the other statements in the file.
NO TRACE OF A SUBSTANCE PROVIDING SLIPPERINESS WAS FOUND IN THE FORENSIC EXAMINATION In the reasoned judgment, according to the camera recordings, it was conveyed that Gül Tut entered the toilet at around 01:22 on 26 September 2025, came out of it at around 01:23:58, said 'Is everyone okay?', and then headed toward her daughter's room. At around 01:26:37, after Gül Tut fell, Tuğyan Ülkem Gülter and Sultan Nur Ulu panicked, headed toward the exterior door of the home and ran to the stairs. In expert reports, it was recorded that the two people in the room during the incident were at a close distance to Gül Tut, that no sudden reflex scream was heard after the sounds of the fall, and that physical findings regarding the manner in which the incident occurred were examined. In the forensic examination conducted following the claim that there was a substance providing slipperiness on the floor of the room where the incident took place, it was stated that no substance residue was found. In the reports of the Forensic Medicine Institution, it was stated that there was no medical evidence that Gül Tut died by poisoning, and that the death occurred as a result of internal bleeding caused by severe bodily trauma due to falling from a height, fractures, brain haemorrhage and internal organ injuries.
THE PREMEDITATION CHARGE WAS NOT ACCEPTED The court assessed that it could not be fully determined from the evidence in the file when the defendant had decided in advance and with certainty to carry out her act of killing her mother. It was stated that it could not be demonstrated that the conditions required by the crime of premeditation existed between the taking of the decision to commit the crime and the carrying out of the act, and in line with the principle that the defendant benefits from doubt, it was ruled that the crime of premeditated killing was not constituted. On the other hand, the court, considering together Sultan Nur Ulu's sworn witness statements, camera recordings, expert reports and other evidence in the file, decided that it was established that Tuğyan Ülkem Gülter intentionally killed her mother Gül Tut.
The court decided that there was no place for the application of discretionary mitigation for the defendant and that her detention should continue. It was stated that the judgment could be appealed to the Bursa Regional Court of Justice within 2 weeks from the notification of the reasoned judgment.
'THIS JUDGMENT IS UNLAWFUL' Tuğyan Ülkem Gülter's lawyer Merve Uçanok, in her statement regarding the reasoned judgment, argued that the conviction was largely based on the statement of the witness Sultan Nur Ulu. Uçanok stated that it was not explained with concrete and verifiable grounds why superiority was given to the witness's account, and said, 'This judgment is unlawful. We will exercise all our rights to apply to all higher legal remedies. Justice is not merely believing one account, but demonstrating that that account is confirmed by concrete evidence and reaches a certainty that cannot be explained otherwise.' Uçanok expressed that a single witness statement that is not supported by other evidence and whose contradictions are not resolved cannot be considered sufficient for a conviction.