03.11.2025 21:46
In Kadıköy, the reasoned decision regarding the acquittal of two individuals in connection with the stabbing murder of 15-year-old Mattia Ahmet Minguzzi has been announced. The decision stated that witnesses mentioned there was no evidence indicating that these individuals participated in the act.
In Kadıköy, the court announced its reasoned decision in the case regarding the stabbing murder of 15-year-old Mattia Ahmet Minguzzi, where B. B. and U. B. were sentenced to 24 years in prison, while M. A. D. and A. Ö. were acquitted.
REASONED DECISION IN THE MINGUZZI MURDER CASE
In the reasoned decision prepared by the Anadolu 2nd Children's Heavy Penal Court, it was stated that it could not be clearly determined when B. B. and U. B. made the decision to kill and when they began preparatory actions for the execution of this decision, free from doubt.
In the decision, considering that the time between the first encounter of B. B. and U. B. with the victim and the act of killing was approximately 10-15 minutes, it was noted that it would not be possible to accept that B. B. and U. B. had waited a reasonable time before starting the act of the crime and, despite reaching a state of mental calm, did not abandon their decision and chose to carry out the act, and therefore the qualified form of "premeditated murder" was not applied in the sentence.
"NO EVIDENCE FOUND THAT THEY ACTED WITH CRUELTY"
In the decision, it was stated that the number of blows in the stabbing attack carried out by B. B. or U. B.'s participation in the act by kicking the victim who fell to the ground did not alone indicate that they acted with cruelty. It was emphasized that for the state of cruelty to be applied, the psychological phenomenon must be determined, and there was no evidence that the accused B. B. and U. B. acted with cruelty, and for these reasons, no punishment was given in this regard.
In the reasoned decision, it was stated that the application of unjust provocation provisions was requested, but considering that the witness statements and the statements of the accused B. B. and U. B. contradicted each other, it was concluded that it could not be determined that the victim had committed the first unjust act and that the crime was committed under unjust provocation.
The decision reminded that the law sets different penalties for children due to their incomplete development compared to adults, and it was stated that the penalty should be determined in proportion to age and consciousness. It was noted that although the accused B. B. and U. B. had turned 15, their awareness of the crime and act was higher than that of a person in their age group, and it was concluded that they were sentenced to 24 years in prison, considering B. B.'s statements in a letter sent to U. B. from prison: "But don't let anyone push you around, don't push anyone around either. Settle down, dad, there. I have my order here."
NO DISCOUNT APPLIED IN THE SENTENCE
In the reasoned decision, it was recorded that the attitudes and behaviors reflecting the remorse of the accused B. B. and U. B. after the act were not observed by the panel, and considering the images reflected in the metro camera recordings after the act, where B. B. described the act to his friends, and the letter sent from prison, no discounts were made in the sentences.
HERE IS THE REASON FOR THE ACQUITTAL DECISIONS
In the decision, it was stated that the punishment of M. A. D. and A. Ö. for participating in the act by aiding was requested, but the witnesses mentioned that there was no evidence of their participation in the act.
Within the scope of the case, it was stated that M. A. D. and A. Ö. had no prior acquaintance or enmity with the victim, and this was understood based on the statements of the victim's family, M. A. D. and A. Ö., and the documents and records examined.
"NO DEFINITE DETERMINATION OF THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE ACT"
The decision included the following statements: "Considering the examined digital materials and communication detections, the lack of any correspondence regarding the incident between the accused children and between them and the other accused children B. B. and U. B. before the incident, and although the accused children were sometimes seen together in the video recordings, it could not be determined what kind of conversation took place between them, thus no definite determination was found regarding M. A. D. and A. Ö.'s participation in the act."
It was noted in the decision that M. A. D. and A. Ö.'s presence at the market during the incident or being on the same metrobus with B. B. and U. B. after the incident alone would not demonstrate their intent to participate in the crime, and although it was claimed that M. A. D. facilitated the procurement of the knife used in the crime by concealing it, it was stated that no clear determination could be made regarding this in the video recordings.
"NO DEFINITE AND CONVINCING CONVICTION REACHED"
In the reasoned decision, it was stated that considering the reasons mentioned by the expert regarding the camera's angle, distance from the scene, and resolution quality, and the determination that "B. B. moved as if placing the knife between his left wrist and forearm," it was concluded that there was no definite and convincing conviction that M. A. D. knew about the moment B. B. took the knife or the moment he hid it, free from all doubt.
It was stated in the decision that M. A. D. and A. Ö. were accused of encouraging the intent to commit the crime by being present with B. B. and U. B., causing the victim to be frightened and breaking his resistance, and strengthening the commission of the crime, but it was noted that the existence of support affecting the intent to commit the crime is related to the inner world of the perpetrator, and accepting this would require interpreting the inner worlds of the perpetrators, and since it could not be supported by material evidence in the file, it could not be concluded that they had any effect on the commission of the crime.
It was stated in the decision that M. A. D. and A. Ö. were acquitted because there was insufficient evidence to establish what actions they took to procure the tools used in the commission of the crime, to provide material assistance before or during the commission of the crime, to strengthen the decision to commit the crime, or to promise assistance after the crime.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
In the indictment prepared by the Anadolu Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, it was stated that on January 24, Mattia Ahmet Minguzzi went to the historical Tuesday market in Kadıköy Hasanpaşa with his friends to buy skateboarding equipment, and while they were wandering around there, they encountered U. B. (15) and B. B. (15), and after the conversation that took place between them, B. B. pushed Minguzzi. It was mentioned in the indictment that B. B. punched Minguzzi again as he continued to wander, and that the suspect stabbed Minguzzi in different parts of his body with the knife in his hand.
```html
In the indictment, it was stated that U. B kicked Minguzzi, who had fallen to the ground, and after the intervention of nearby citizens, it was recorded that U. B and B. B fled the scene. It was also mentioned that Minguzzi, who was treated in the hospital after the incident, passed away 17 days later on February 9. According to the autopsy report obtained from the Forensic Medicine Institution, it was recorded that Minguzzi had 3 incised wounds on his body and a penetrating wound in his chest, and the cause of death was due to internal organ injuries caused by a sharp object attack.
In the indictment, it was recorded that U. B kicked Minguzzi and B. B stabbed him multiple times with a knife taken from the counter, and it was requested that both juveniles, who were caught and arrested after the incident, be sentenced to 18 to 24 years in prison for the crime of "intentional murder of a child."
As part of the investigation conducted by the Anadolu Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, an indictment was prepared with a request for consolidation against M. A. D. and A. Ö., who were determined to have acted with B. B. and U. B. on the day of the incident, for "aiding in the intentional murder of a child," with a request for imprisonment of 15 to 20 years.
COURT'S DECISION
The Anadolu 2nd Children's Heavy Criminal Court, which heard the case, sentenced the juveniles B. B. and U. B. to 24 years in prison for the crime of "intentional murder of a child." The panel did not apply any reduction in the sentence and ruled for the continuation of the detention of B. B. and U. B.
The panel decided to acquit M. A. D. and A. Ö. of the charge of "aiding in the intentional murder of a child" and ordered their release.
The Istanbul Anadolu Chief Public Prosecutor's Office filed an appeal with the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals to overturn the acquittal and release decision regarding A. Ö. and M. A. D., who are being tried as "juvenile offenders" in the case concerning the stabbing murder of 15-year-old Mattia Ahmet Minguzzi. The Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals is currently reviewing the case file.
```