2015 killing of a Turkish university student who resisted attempted rape
Özgecan Aslan (22 October 1995 – 11 February 2015) was a Turkish university student who was murdered while resisting attempted rape on 11 February 2015 on a minibus in Mersin, Turkey. Her burnt body was discovered on 13 February. The murder was committed by minibus driver Ahmet Suphi Altındöken, and his father Necmettin Altındöken and friend Fatih Gökçe were accomplices in covering up the murder. All perpetrators were handed aggravated life sentences without the possibility of parole.
The murder caused nationwide outrage and sparked protests across the country on the following days. Thousands of protesters took to the streets in several provinces, with some criticizing the government for its "insufficient response" and alleged normalization of the rape of non-conservative women. The protests were described as the first mass movement for Turkish women. It also provoked calls for reforms to combat violence against women more effectively. The case received great attention on social media and prompted women to share their experiences of harassment, with 16 February being dubbed as "Black Monday" due to protests. The murder was described as a catalyst for women to speak out about their long-withheld suffering, but "The Guardian" expected also a rift between women who defend silence and patriarchal status quo and those refusing to keep quiet.
Background.
Özgecan was born into a poor Alevi Turkish family, who traced their origins to Tunceli. She was a first-year psychology student in the Çağ University in Tarsus. She was born and raised in Mersin, and wanted to study psychology, for which she had developed a strong passion while she was studying at the tourism high school. Her parents were supportive of her, with her mother returning to the workforce in order to fund her education, to augment the 50% scholarship she had earned. Her father is a graphic designer, but he lacked a permanent job at the time of the murder, while her mother had previously retired from a cargo company. She was also planning to work at a hotel in Northern Cyprus during the summer to help with her fees. She had an elder sister who was studying opera and singing in Adana; Özgecan was also described as an avid opera listener and reader.
The perpetrator's father, who assisted him, hailed from a wealthy family in Tarsus and was at one time a jeweller. However, he had since gone bankrupt and started to work with his son as a minibus driver. He had previous records of smuggling. The perpetrator's wife (married to him five years prior to the murder) claimed that he had continuously inflicted violence on her, and that he had forced her to withdraw her suit for divorce a few months before the incident as he allegedly had threatened to kill her and their son.
A friend of Özgecan claimed that they had been afraid to use the minibuses in the area, and that the drivers and some passengers had stared at them through mirrors and windows whenever they left the bus several times before the incident.
Murder and search.
On the day of the murder, Özgecan went to a shopping center with her friend. After eating, the women took the minibus to return home. Özgecan was last seen by her friend when she alighted at her stop, leaving Özgecan alone in the minibus. As Özgecan did not return home after nightfall, she was reported missing. Meanwhile, the minibus driver stopped at a Gendarmerie checkpoint to ask for directions, but instead of following the directions, diverted into a forest. The gendarme became suspicious and stopped the vehicle to find smears of blood, which the driver claimed had been caused by a fight between passengers. After a brief investigation, the suspects were released. After Özgecan was reported missing, the gendarme looked for the minibus again. It was captured with two of the suspects; Özgecan's hat (confirmed as hers by her father) was found inside. The two suspects subsequently admitted the murder, and the search for the third suspect began.
According to news reports, the driver of the minibus attempted to rape Özgecan, but she resisted by using pepper spray. Following this, he stabbed her multiple times, and beat her to death with an iron rod. He returned to Tarsus following the murder and asked for help from his father and a friend. The three men burnt Özgecan's body together in a forest and cut off her hands, as Özgecan had scratched the perpetrator's face during the struggle, and they feared that his DNA would be identified on the fingernails. Later, the post-mortem examination revealed that she had not been raped and DNA of the prime suspect was indeed found on her fingernails.
The trio is then alleged to have disposed of the burnt body into a creek near the village of Çamalan. The body was discovered by the police on 13 February and was transported to the Tarsus State Hospital. The body and Özgecan's face were burnt to the point that it rendered identification impossible; clothes found with the body were used in identification.
Investigation and trial.
Investigation.
During the initial investigation, Ahmet Suphi Altındöken, the minibus driver confessed that he committed the murder and that his father, Necmettin Altındöken, and friend, Fatih Gökçe, helped him. According to the newspaper "Hürriyet", he displayed a notably calm demeanor while he was questioned and answered questions in a cold-blooded manner.
According to Turkish law, the defendant in such cases must have a lawyer for the criminal prosecution to begin. However, the 1,600 lawyers of the bar association of Mersin made a joint statement that none of them wanted to support such "brutal savages" in the court and refused to assign a lawyer. Two lawyers were present at the moment of questioning, but one of them was a relative of the suspects and the other was previously uninformed of the incident, and they both declined support later. This stalled the transfer of the suspects to the criminal prosecution.
On 16 February, the minibus driver reportedly changed his testimony, saying that, while he did commit the murder, he was under the influence of alcohol when he did so and did not intend to assault Özgecan sexually or kill her. He also claimed that it was Özgecan who started the fight by attacking him while he tried to take her to the destination through a shorter way, and that he had gone to the back of the minibus in order to have a talk with her. He reportedly claimed (with the hopes of getting a reduced sentence) that Özgecan had given him 100 Turkish liras to make him take a shortcut. But this claim was denied by her parents, who stated that they had only given 20 Turkish Liras to their daughter.
The father of the perpetrator reportedly stated that he was unaware of the murder when his son came, said that he had been involved in a fight and wanted a bag, claiming that he was going to bring a chicken. He then reportedly said that his son and his son's friend had slit the throat of Özgecan, before severing her hands. He claimed that his son wanted to keep her body at his father's house, but as he refused, they burned the body at a remote area, after which he also burned Özgecan's blouse, scarf, books and the strap of her bag.
On 20 February, it was reported that the district attorney had finished collecting evidence and was awaiting the post-mortem examination report from the Institute of Forensic Science in Ankara to take action. He would allegedly demand the harshest possible sentence available, under clause 3 of the Turkish Penal Code, claiming that the murder was a case of "monstrous and torturous homicide", which would disqualify him from seeking a parole.
The post-mortem examination report was released on 23 February. The report stated that the body had been mostly burned, but that a number of wounds from stabbing and fatal cuts, especially at her neck, signs of trauma resulting from impact with blunt objects at her head and edema and bruises at various places of her body had been found. Her severed hands, which were found later, were also examined and traces of Suphi Altındöken's DNA were found in the nails. However, no signs of rape were detected.
Trial.
The first hearing of the trial for her murder took place on 12 June. The attorney demanded aggravated life imprisonment for the suspects. The minibus driver made statements that conflicted with his prior testimony, saying that his father had learned about the murder "at the last minute" and that his friend had tried to rape Özgecan. The trial was postponed to 9 September. Meanwhile, the Bar of Mersin brought the cases of seven people suspected of being involved in the murder of being accomplices, including the aunt of Altındöken, to the Supreme Court, demanding the trial of these suspects who were previously dismissed of charges.
On 9 September, the attorney specifically called for the court to refrain from reducing the sentence of the defendants due to the "outrage the case [had] caused in the society". The defendants were not brought to the court for the hearing, but joined through a voice and video communication system. The minibus driver claimed that he had seen his friend, Gökçe, "tightening his belt and pulling up the zip of his pants" after descending from the vehicle and that he knew that his friend attempted sexual assault, though he did not know whether he succeeded. Gökçe denied the accusation. During the same hearing, a lawyer for Özgecan's family said that they did not agree with the attorney's conclusion that no rape took place, as Suphi Altındöken had traces of nail scratching on him and claimed that Özgecan's genital area was burned intentionally to prevent the detection of rape. All three defendants denied raping or being involved in the rape of Özgecan.
The trial concluded on 3 December as the three defendants were given aggravated life sentences without possibility of parole. The rationale for the minibus driver, Ahmet Suphi Altındöken, was "murder with monstrous instinct and torture, murder with the motive of hiding a crime or evading capture, murder due to the frustration caused by the inability to commit another crime, attempt at sexual assault and deprivation of personal liberty with sexual motives". He was given a prison sentence of an additional 27 years due to other charges. His friend, Fatih Gökçe, was sentenced to an additional 24 years due to various other charges.
The perpetrator is believed to be an ultra-nationalist Turk, he had published a lot of pictures where he makes the Grey Wolves salutation.
Response.
The case became a "cause célèbre" in Turkey as a marker of the violence against women. The brutality of the murder especially caused a public outcry, with thousands of protesters taking to the streets across Turkey.
In Tarsus, a mob tried to lynch the suspects as they were arrested by the police. The funeral of Özgecan was attended by around 5000 people and women defied the imam in the funeral by attending the prayer together with the men and carrying the coffin of Özgecan, against the religious tradition.
Protests.
In Istanbul, protesters, most of whom were women, gathered in the İstiklal Avenue and marched to the Taksim Square on 14 February, also condemning the alleged inaction of the government and lack of official condemnation, with thousands further protesting in the Kadıköy district. In Ankara, protests took place despite police intervention, as demonstrators occupied a central park. Around a thousand protesters marched in İzmir, where almost all of them were women, who refused to let men join the protest. Protests also took place in Tarsus, Mersin, Adana, Bodrum, Eskişehir, Balıkesir, Batman, Samsun, Antalya and Tunceli, among other cities. Further protests took place in Istanbul on 15 February. 1,500 students marched in Gaziantep. The number of protesters in Mersin were reported to be around 3000; a man reportedly harassed and attacked the women in the protests, causing a fight. In Trabzon, while a group of 700 women were protesting the murder, a drunk man shouted that "the murder [was] well-deserved for Özgecan", causing a commotion. Members of a group of 50 women who hung banners in the Taksim Square, Istanbul, were arrested by the police. Claims of the courts having sympathies for perpetrators of violence against women and thus issuing reduced sentences were highlighted during