Statement of guard arrested for sexual assault on mentally disabled child revealed: He offered money to the family

Details have emerged from the trial of defendant guard Mehmet Can D., who was arrested on allegations that he raped a 25-percent mentally disabled girl, C.İ., in the Ceyhan district of Adana two years ago and forced her into sexual relations with others in exchange for money. While defendant Mehmet Can D. claimed in his statement that he did not have sexual relations with C.İ., defendant Fatih Ş. said he was threatened by Mehmet Can, who told him he had a relationship with C.İ. Defendant Fatih Ş. said: "He sent me messages through many people. He was sending messages along the lines of 'If I can't clear my name in this matter, I'll shoot her — she'll lie cold in her grave.'"

Guards heard as witnesses stated that defendant Mehmet Can D. had a relationship with victim C.İ. C.İ.'s mother, H.G., stated that defendant Mehmet Can D. began having sexual relations with her daughter when she was 13–14 years old, adding: "Mehmet Can D. sent word through our landlord asking us to drop the complaint." It was also alleged that the defendant offered the family 500,000 lira if they withdrew the complaint.

At a hearing held recently at the Ceyhan 1st Heavy Criminal Court, the defences of defendants Mehmet Can D., Mehmet Ali T., and Fatih Ş., along with the statements of guards heard as witnesses, laid out in detail how the alleged incidents of "rape, sexual abuse, and coercion into prostitution" of the mentally disabled C.İ. took place over the years.

"I WAS FALSELY ACCUSED"

The defendant guards did not accept the charges in their defences. Arrested guard Mehmet Can D., stating in his defence that he had been falsely accused, said: "The victim had not initially made any statement about me — she had made accusations against another guard colleague of ours.

After her third statement, she turned the accusations toward me. I absolutely did not engage in any sexual act or behaviour toward this person in any way, I did not have sexual relations with her, I did not give her drugs, and I did not act as an intermediary for prostitution. I reject all of the charges levelled against me. My only involvement in the matter was reporting to my superiors the content of messages that the victim showed us regarding our guard colleague — I have no other connection or relation to the incident," he said.

Defendant Mehmet Can D., who stated that he knew C.İ.'s phone number and had it saved in his phone, defended himself as follows:

"On one occasion, while I was on duty at the district governorship, she told me that people were bothering her. She had told me about her problems, and at that time she gave me her number. I had spoken with her in order to listen to her problems. The claim that I spoke with her for 480 hours is absolutely not true. When I added up the content of 71 calls, I spoke with her for a total of seven and a half hours. As far as I can remember, we first began speaking in April 2022 — I only communicated with her by phone. We did not meet outside and engage in sexual relations or kissing or anything of that sort. From time to time I would see her around the Çamlıyol area."

Defendant Mehmet Can D., who named the guard colleagues with whom they had joint calls with C.İ., said: "I don't know why we were registering on the same base station signal as the victim on different dates. I was absolutely not in the same place as her — perhaps when I was on duty I may have been in nearby locations at the same time as her. Because the victim generally wandered around the district governorship. This person is a minor and is constantly roaming the streets. There is no one looking after her. I had these conversations with her in order to help her resolve her problems."

"HE OFFERED 500,000 LIRA"

The presiding judge reminded the court of the statement by guard Mehmet K. — which appeared in the context of allegations that defendant Mehmet Can D. had offered C.İ.'s family 500,000 lira to drop the complaint — in which Mehmet K. said: "Mehmet Can came to the building where I work. He asked whether I could act as an intermediary to get the complaint dropped," and asked whether this was connected to the sum of 500,000 TL in question. Defendant Mehmet Can D. replied: "I absolutely did not ask Mehmet K. to act as an intermediary. After C.İ. filed these complaints, Mehmet K. asked me about the 500,000 TL matter. I told him that person was not me — I even said to him, 'Brother, tell her to stay away from me. She is making false accusations against me.' My conversation with Mehmet K. was in May 2023. C.İ. is a person known to the police. Citizens in the area are constantly reporting C.İ., and even when we take action the situation doesn't get resolved. That is why I did not take action," he said.

Defendant guard Mehmet Ali T. also said the accusation was a false one. Stating that he had been a victim for one year, Mehmet Ali T. said: "I have been a victim for one year because of a crime I did not commit. Complaints have been filed against me with CİMER, and because the investigation was ongoing, the police did not suspend us. After this incident was covered in the media, the police suspended us. I absolutely do not accept the allegations — the allegations consist entirely of slander and lies."

Mehmet Ali T., who stated that he knew C.İ. through his profession, said the following in his defence:

"C.İ. is someone who constantly walks around in front of and around the district governorship. Most people in Ceyhan know her — aid campaigns had even been launched for her in Ceyhan. I absolutely did not have sexual relations with her and I do not accept the charges. I recall having a phone call of a few seconds with C.İ. During that period I was being called many times from different numbers — she was calling almost all of the guards. In fact, warnings were posted in our WhatsApp group about not answering calls from her."

When asked about the extent of defendant Mehmet Can D.'s relationship with C.İ., defendant Mehmet Ali T. said: "I have no knowledge of the extent of any relationship between them. I never saw them riding around together in a car. I never subjected C.İ. to any violence — if I had, she would have filed a complaint against me. She is making false accusations against me."

"I CAN NO LONGER LOOK PEOPLE IN THE FACE"

Defendant guard Fatih Ş. also stated that he had been falsely accused. Fatih Ş. said: "After one to one and a half years have passed since the events, they are making such false accusations against us. It is alleged that we took the victim to a wooded area and engaged in the acts in question. It is alleged that we gave her money. It is claimed that Okan and I beat her and that she showed the bruises to her mother. If she showed them to her mother, why didn't they obtain a medical report for assault? If I engaged in such acts, let them bring any concrete evidence of it. I am also one of the people C.İ. called — she certainly wasn't calling to ask how I was doing. They devised such a plan against us. I absolutely do not accept the charges and allegations — all of it is slander. This girl would come to the front of the Ceyhan District Governorship before we even started our shift, and she would interact with all the idle people there and walk around with them. What is being attributed to me is absolutely slander. I have been a victim for a long time — I have reached a point where I can no longer look my family or other people in the face," he said, requesting acquittal.

When it was recalled that defendant Mehmet Can D. had said in his first statement that he received C.İ.'s phone number from him, defendant Fatih Ş. said: "The number C.İ. called me from was a different number — I don't know why she called. When she said 'I'm C.İ.,' I hung up on her. Mehmet Can had said to me, 'Give me the number too, so I can block her if she calls' — that is why I gave him that number. Mehmet Can and I are together when we work nights, but I have no knowledge of his personal life outside of work. As far as I know, Mehmet Can has no relationship with C.İ. When you look at C.İ. physically, she is not someone who could be described as disabled, but there were inconsistencies in her behaviour — it was unpredictable who she would be with, when, and where. She was constantly trying to reach us in some way," he said.

"THE GIRL TOLD EVERYTHING"

Following the defendants' statements, C.İ. — who participated in the hearing from a Forensic Interview Room in another province via the Audio and Video Information System (SEGBİS) under the supervision of a social worker — described in detail how the guards had deceived her and sexually abused her. The expert social worker stated in her opinion that no clear mental retardation was observed in the victim, saying: "We believe she generally has the capacity to comprehend the questions asked of her. Both in terms of her emotional state and the interview we conducted, we are of the opinion that the victim currently possesses the ability for abstract reasoning. However, given her age at the time of the incident, it is difficult to assess her abstract reasoning capacity at that point — we will set out our detailed opinion in the report."

The statement of C.İ.'s mother, H.G., was then taken. Mother H.G. said: "C.İ. is my daughter. They abused my daughter. I never let my child go unsupervised, but I want to add this: they took advantage of my daughter, and I am filing a complaint." Mother H.G. stated that defendant Mehmet Can D. had sent word through their landlord asking them to drop the complaint, and said the following:

"My daughter told me about this after her phone was taken to the prosecutor's office. I had no knowledge of any of it beforehand. When my daughter told me what had happened, I was shocked. I took her to the shelter myself — otherwise they would have harmed my child. It was raining the day she told me. She was thinking of going to Mehmet Can's house. She was behaving strangely, and when I asked why she was acting oddly, she told me what had happened."

Mother H.G., stating that her daughter had given her the name of defendant Mehmet Can, said: "She told me she began having sexual relations with Mehmet Can when she was 13–14 years old. My daughter came home once with 500 TL in her hand. When I asked where it came from, she told me a friend had given it to her. I hadn't believed her. Also, on one occasion while she was sitting outside, she brought up sexual topics — she even said, 'Mum, do you want me to set you up with a guard?' My daughter did not use drugs — she started with pills at the school she attended."

"WE HEARD HE HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH HER"

Witness guards were then heard. Witness Y.E.K. claimed that while they were on patrol as guards, they heard from various citizens that guard Mehmet Can D. had a relationship with the victim child named C.İ., saying: "I heard this from many different places. Unrelated people would say things to us like, 'Brother, there's a guard who acts as an intermediary — he's been going around with this C.İ.' I told Fatih about this too — Fatih and I even warned him together. He said these things were lies. I filed a complaint against him because of this. As a result, he began to hold a grudge against me. At the time I filed the complaint, as far as I knew, he had been in a relationship with the girl for approximately two to two and a half years. Afterwards, he and O. set a trap for me. I was initially a suspect in this file — they gave my number to C.İ. C.İ. would call me and say things like, 'Brother, let's meet — I'm not the kind of person you think I am.' I never met her face to face. Later, we filed a criminal complaint against O. and Mehmet Can. I did not personally witness any sexual relations. I never heard Fatih's name in connection with this incident — I was even surprised to see him here as a defendant. As for Mehmet Ali, citizens outside were describing him down to the cigarettes he smoked and said he was going around with the girl. I heard that Mehmet Ali started going around with the girl after Mehmet Can. When I spoke with Fatih, Fatih said to me about Mehmet Can, 'If he's done something like that, he's an idiot' — but I can't remember whether he said that as a supposition or whether he had knowledge that Mehmet Can had done such a thing."

Witness Y.E.K. also said the following regarding the WhatsApp messages:

"Ö. had also been exiled because of the C.İ. matter, and the messages saying 'and it wasn't just C.İ....' also relate to this subject. The message record saying 'Mehmet Ali won't get off with just dismissal, brother' stemmed from the information we had heard about Mehmet Ali. The message records saying 'he'll face charges for procuring prostitution' are about Mehmet Can allegedly selling the victim C.İ. to people in his close circle in exchange for money. We were hearing this from various sources — many people told us this. For example, the delivery worker at Damla Kebap, whose name I recall as Recep, told us this. We had heard it from many people like that. The phrase 'Mehmet Ali will go to ataya with C.İ.' means 'araya gidecek' — that is, it was used to mean he will be disgraced."

"HE SAID HE HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VICTIM"

Following the witness's statement, the allegations were put to defendant Fatih Ş. Fatih Ş. said: "Yusuf came to me and said Mehmet Can had a relationship with the victim. I said, 'If he's doing something like that, he's an idiot,' and then I told Mehmet Can, 'Look, people are saying this about you.' He replied, 'Who has seen this — what truth is there to it?' When I communicated with C.İ., C.İ. did not tell me anything about being threatened. I was threatened by Mehmet Can. He sent me messages through many people — he was sending messages along the lines of 'If I can't clear my name in this matter, I'll shoot her — she'll lie cold in her grave.'"

Witness Mehmet K. also said that the victim C.İ. was his tenant. Stating that he did not know defendant guard Mehmet Can, Mehmet K. said: "We had only met once at the workplace. We were on duty at the same location. There he said to me, 'There's a matter like this — a matter I'm not involved in. Can you help me with it?' I asked him about things I had heard from outside regarding this matter. He said no such incident had occurred. As for the 500,000 TL matter, the complainant H. told me, 'There is something going on regarding my daughter — money has been offered to me by others.' When I later asked Mehmet Can about this, Mehmet Can said he had not made that offer," he said.

"THE GUARD HAS A GIRLFRIEND"

Witness guard Y.G. also said he had heard that Mehmet Can had a relationship with C.İ. Y.G. said: "While we were on duty, people we ran GBT checks on would tell us that C.İ. had a guard boyfriend and that his name was Mehmet Can. We later spoke with Mehmet Can about this. We said, 'We're hearing things like this from outside — just so you know,' and he told us, 'There's nothing to it as far as I'm concerned — there's nothing like that, don't believe it.'"

Witness guard A.E. said that C.İ. was someone who had problems with her family. Stating that they would sometimes see C.İ. with adult men, A.E. said: "When we saw her, we would warn them — and when we did, some of those individuals would tell us, 'Brother, you say that, but she has a guard boyfriend with a grey car.' For example, a delivery boy working at Damla Kebap told us this. There was also another person, but I don't know his name — he was a heavily tattooed young man, he had cancer, he may well have passed away by now, people were saying his condition had deteriorated recently, and he said he was her neighbour. That young man had made the same statements. After hearing this from several people, we called Mehmet Can in — Mehmet Ali and Fatih were also there. We said, 'We're hearing such and such things — as you know, she has a mental disability, she's a minor, stay away from situations like this.' He told us, 'I have nothing to do with things like that,' and we closed the matter. That is the extent of my knowledge and personal observation. We were hearing from outside that Mehmet Can had sexual relations with the victim — on one occasion a call came in about two women fighting, and when we arrived we found C.İ. and her older sister had come to blows. The sister was making accusations at C.İ., saying, 'Brother, we have nothing to do with you, but a uniformed guard is taking her to Ayas and having sexual relations with her there. His car is grey — he had indecent footage of her, but he didn't give me the photos and deleted them.' That day we called a team for this incident but then left the scene. We did not draw up a report — we leave those matters to the police," he said.

Witness guard S.A.K. also said, like the other witness guards, that he had heard that their colleague defendant Mehmet Can had a romantic relationship with C.İ. and was seeing her. Stating that they had warned defendant Mehmet Can by saying "If there's something like that going on, stay away — you'll get yourself in serious trouble," S.A.K. noted that he had no information indicating that Mehmet Can had sexual relations with C.İ. or acted as an intermediary for prostitution.

Defendant guard Mehmet Can D., who was given the floor following the prosecutor's request for detention, said: "I do not accept the indictment — I did not commit this crime. Even though the name of a person named Ömer came up more than mine, the blame was placed on me."

"A REPORT WILL BE OBTAINED"

The court panel decided to remand defendant guard Mehmet Can D. in custody, concluding that — taking into account together the nature and character of the offence charged against him, the state of evidence in the file, the existence of suspicion of evidence tampering, the fact that evidence had not been fully gathered, and the overall scope of the file — concrete evidence existed indicating a strong suspicion of guilt; that the offence charged was among those listed under Article 100/3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) for which grounds for detention are deemed to exist; and that, when factors such as the amount of the sentence prescribed for the offence were evaluated together, the conditions for detention were met, and that applying judicial supervision measures to the defendant — who had violated the judicial supervision order imposed on him — would be insufficient. While it was also decided that the judicial supervision of the other defendants would continue, the hearing was adjourned to a later date in order to hear as a witness the person working as a delivery worker at a kebab restaurant, to investigate the HTS records of all defendants and the victim, to determine whether the defendants had a joint situation with respect to base stations, and to obtain a report on the duration of calls between defendant Mehmet Can D. and C.İ. and on whether C.İ. had developed the capacity to comprehend the legal meaning and consequences of the act at the time of the offence.

News Source: İHA