Bakırköy Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office has expanded its investigation into the September 7, 2016, death of Arif Ahmet Denizolgun, following a forensic expert report that classified the death as suspicious. According to the prosecutor’s office, the inquiry is being led by the Organized Crimes Bureau based on newly evaluated video footage from the 2016 autopsy.
Forensic Expert Findings and Suspicious Death Assessment
According to the prosecutor's office, Alkan's August 25 report reviewed 145 photographs and video recordings from the 2016 autopsy, period reports, criminal investigations, crime scene records, witness statements, the August 19, 2026, exhumation record, and other medical documents.
The report notes that Denizolgun’s autopsy records revealed four separate bruising (ecchymotic) areas measuring approximately 4×6, 3×5, 2×4, and 1×2 centimeters, located from below the right breast toward the center of the chest. Bleeding in the underlying tissues confirmed these lesions occurred prior to death. The evaluation concluded that a mechanism of death involving someone pressing on the chest with a knee while closing the mouth and nose with a pillow to induce asphyxiation is possible. Consequently, the report states that the possibility of intentional homicide by blocking the victim’s mouth and nose cannot be scientifically or objectively ruled out, especially given advanced putrefaction at the time of the initial autopsy.
Alleged Medical Omissions and Counterfeit Documentation Inquiries
The 2016 autopsy report previously attributed Denizolgun’s death to a “natural death due to brain hemorrhage.” However, the new expert report notes an absence of sufficient objective findings to support a non-traumatic brain hemorrhage, labeling this an adli tıbbi eksiklik. Furthermore, examinations of Denizolgun’s tissues and decay fluids revealed heavy metals such as barium, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and nickel, though their precise levels were unspecified, preventing objective evaluation of their impact on the cause of death.
In response to these findings, the Bakırköy Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office announced active investigations into multiple parties. Alihan Kuriş and other suspects are under investigation for suspected “intentional homicide” (adam öldürme). Additionally, an administrator at the Council of Forensic Medicine is being investigated for alleged “official document forgery” (resmi belgede sahtecilik) after initially responding to prosecutor requests in the negative before finally submitting the footage on August 18.
Did You Know? On August 19, 2026, a team including a deputy chief public prosecutor, a public prosecutor, forensic medicine experts from Istanbul, and crime scene investigation units carried out an exhumation of Arif Ahmet Denizolgun’s grave to collect bone and tissue samples for fresh laboratory analysis.
Scope of the Ongoing Judicial Inquiry
Investigators are widening the probe by reviewing exhumation results, correspondence with the Council of Forensic Medicine, logs from the Riva Police Station that first responded to the incident, HTS (historical telephone traffic) records, communications with the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, and replies to writs sent to the Civil Court of Peace regarding the estate (tereke) file.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is the primary subject of the renewed investigation?
The investigation focuses on the September 7, 2016, death of Arif Ahmet Denizolgun.
What triggered the upgrade to a homicide investigation?
An August 25 expert report prepared by Prof. Dr. Nevzat Alkan concluded that a suspicious death classification was warranted based on autopsy video footage showing pre-mortem chest lesions and indications that suffocation could not be ruled out.
Which officials are facing separate inquiries?
Doctors who signed the original October 17, 2016, natural death report and a Council of Forensic Medicine administrator who initially denied holding autopsy video records before sending them on August 18 are under investigation for official document forgery.
What steps should forensic authorities take next when older autopsy findings conflict with modern re-examinations of exhumed remains?
Related reading