Lawyer for mussel seller arrested in investigation into family's death speaks out: '200 people ate them the same day, no complaints'
Hebun Hakan Akkaya, the lawyer for Yusuf Dalkılıç, a mussel seller arrested in the investigation into a family's death, responded to all allegations ranging from the supply chain to the autopsy report, arguing that the probability of food poisoning is low and suggesting that the family members may have been exposed to a 'separate poison' for a second time at the hotel.
12punto
12punto.com.tr/ Rojda Altıntaş
Hebun Hakan Akkaya, the lawyer for mussel seller Yusuf Dalkılıç, who was detained and arrested as part of the investigation into a family's death, responded to all allegations, from his client's supply chain to analysis results, and from the charges brought by the prosecutor's office to the preliminary autopsy report.
Akkaya explains the supply process as follows:
“My client is not the producer of the mussels. The mussels are obtained from F.A. She washes the mussels, which are harvested from the sea daily, and then produces them in her own home, in her own kitchen, under hygienic conditions. These mussels are then purchased daily from the producer named Fatma and sold at the stall. There is no allegation of negligence regarding the production process.”
'HE HAS BEEN SELLING FOR 5 YEARS, NO COMPLAINTS. THE BUSINESSES HE WORKS WITH HAVE BEEN SELLING FOR 20 YEARS'
Regarding the past records of his client, the lawyer said the following:
“My client has been selling for 5 years. During this 5-year period, there have been no complaints. Furthermore, the businesses my client works with have been selling for 20 years, and there have been no complaints of food poisoning during this time.”
SAMPLE RESULTS: 'THERE IS NO NEGATIVITY THAT WOULD AFFECT LIFE'
Akkaya stated that no problems were found in the examinations conducted by the police and the Provincial Directorate of Agriculture:
“No negativity was encountered in the examination conducted by the police and the Directorate of Agriculture, and it was observed that there was no negative situation in the analysis results of the samples taken that could affect a person's life.”
“1,050 mussels were sold to approximately 200 people on the same day. No one other than the family became ill.”
“My client sold 1,050 mussels on the day of the incident, selling to an average of 200 people. There have been no complaints regarding any illness case other than the family. In addition, sales are made to many tradespeople daily, and there have been no complaints as a result of these sales. All mussels are produced and sold daily.”
PRELIMINARY AUTOPSY REPORT: 'LOW PROBABILITY OF FOOD ORIGIN'
Akkaya argued that there was no finding in the preliminary autopsy report pointing to food.
“In the preliminary autopsy report that you also shared, it is written that the probability of the cause of death being food-related is low, and the possibility of a chemical substance is low.”
“Hundreds of people ate from the same production. It is significant that they got worse again after the hospital.”
The lawyer draws attention to the break in the poisoning chain.
“Furthermore, my client sold to 200 different people during the day. This lowers the probability that it came from mussels obtained daily under the same conditions at the same production site.”
'MUSSELS ARE NOT A PRODUCT THAT WOULD CAUSE STOMACH ULCERS AND BLEEDING'
“First of all, the food my client sold is not a product that would cause stomach ulcers or stomach bleeding. The preliminary autopsy report mentions stomach ulcers and bleeding, and even if we assume that it was caused by food poisoning, the causal link is legally severed.”
“They were treated at the hospital, their complaints passed. They got worse again after moving to the hotel.”
Akkaya suggested that the poisoning might have been caused by another factor they were exposed to at the hotel.
“When they were taken under treatment at the hospital after food poisoning, the causal link shifts to the hospital. The hospital is under the obligation to diagnose and treat every patient. Furthermore, the fact that their complaints did not continue when they were treated at the hospital, but that they became ill again and more severely when they moved to the hotel where they were staying, likely due to being exposed to a separate poison, shows that they were exposed to a chemical poisoning situation again.”