Cem Garipoğlu's DNA results are in: First statement from Karabulut family lawyer Rezan Epözdemir

The examination of bone samples taken from the exhumed grave of Cem Garipoğlu, who surrendered 197 days after brutally murdering Münevver Karabulut in Istanbul 15 years ago and died by suicide in prison in 2014, has been completed.

A statement from the Silivri Chief Public Prosecutor's Office stated, "It has been determined that the DNA profile of the individual, who was identified as having committed suicide following an autopsy in 2014, is an exact match to the DNA profile of Cem Garipoğlu."

Rezan Epözdemir, the lawyer for the Karabulut family, made his first statement following the announcement of the DNA results.

Stating that they have not yet received the report, Epözdemir said, "If my clients form the opinion that the report lacks scientific basis and request that we challenge it, we will demand that a new report be obtained from the Council of Forensic Medicine or that an examination be conducted at the forensic science institutes of universities."

Speaking to NTV, Epözdemir stated the following:

"We have not yet been able to access the report; it is not yet in the system. We learned of the report's content through the public statement issued by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office."

According to this statement, the DNA samples matched Garipoğlu; naturally, once the report is uploaded, we will conduct our scientific, academic, and legal evaluations regarding the report, and we will share the content of the report with the family; the family's perspective on this matter is important.

If they say let us exercise our right to appeal, we will file our objection to the content of the report. If the content of the report is devoid of scientific and legal merit and is unsubstantiated, we can exercise our right to appeal to the General Assembly of the Council of Forensic Medicine.

We will even request a bone age determination, but as of now, we have not been able to access the content of the report and have not been able to conduct a scientific study.

I called my clients but could not reach them; I will speak with them as well. If they form the intention that this report lacks a scientific basis and request that we file an objection, we will demand that a new report be obtained from the Council of Forensic Medicine or that an examination be conducted at the forensic science institutes of universities.

As you know, there was a bag inside the grave, and we had requested an examination regarding it: it was inside the grave, there was no bodily integrity, and the mouth of that bag was tied; indeed, the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office had also included that bag in its report.

We had requested a DNA and fingerprint analysis on it. There is no deformation on the bag; the bag is sitting inside the grave independently with nothing in it, which has created a reasonable suspicion among our clients that the skull fragments used as the basis for this examination might have been brought in later.