Güllü case appeal: Defence seeks acquittal and release

The lawyer for Tuğyan Ülkem Gülter, sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment over Güllü’s death, has appealed, arguing that the possibility of an accidental fall was not adequately considered.

General News

Mirat Haber

11/11/2026 00:42

A⁺

A^-

Tuğyan Ülkem Gülter, the daughter of singer Güllü, has appealed through her lawyer for acquittal and release after being sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment over her mother’s death. According to NTV’s report from DHA, the defence petition challenging the ruling by Yalova’s 1st High Criminal Court raises objections to witness testimony and the assessment of evidence, and argues that the possibility of an accident was not adequately examined.

Key points in the appeal

Lawyer Merve Uçanok submitted a 21-page petition to the trial court for referral to Bursa Regional Court of Appeal.
The defence alleged inconsistencies in witness Sultan Nur Ulu’s statements at different stages of the proceedings.
The petition stated that Gül Tut’s blood contained 3.53 parts per thousand of alcohol and active ingredients from some medications.
The defence requested a fresh examination of an audio recording, the quashing or setting aside of the conviction, and Gülter’s release.

The appeal challenges Gülter’s conviction and detention

Gül Tut, known as Güllü, died on 26 September 2025 after falling from the window of her home in a six-storey building on Vali Akı Street in the Harmanlar neighbourhood of Çınarcık, Yalova. Yalova’s 1st High Criminal Court sentenced her daughter, Tuğyan Ülkem Gülter, to aggravated life imprisonment for the premeditated murder of her mother.

The concluding section of the appeal petition requested that the judgment be quashed under Article 289 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Alternatively, the defence asked for the judgment to be set aside and an acquittal entered. It also requested Gülter’s release during the appeal proceedings, stating that she had been detained for approximately a year. These are requests by the defence; filing the appeal does not mean that an acquittal or release has been ordered.

Which evidence is the defence challenging?

The defence argues that the conviction rested primarily on statements by Sultan Nur Ulu, who was in the home at the time, and a forensic report finding no substance that would make the floor slippery. The petition challenges the assessment of this evidence, citing the witness’s accounts at different stages, audio recordings submitted to the case file and expert opinions. It also states that some requests for further examination were rejected.

Lawyer Uçanok alleged that Ulu’s statements early in the investigation differed from those she gave after being taken into custody, and that her statements were obtained under pressure. The defence also contended that Ulu had told other people in conversations that Gülter had not harmed her mother.

The petition further stated that the speaker heard saying “See you, then” in camera footage recorded before the incident had not been conclusively identified. It requested a fresh examination of the recording, citing a statement by Tut’s close friend Çiğdem Emir that the voice could be Tut’s. The defence alleged that the rejection of requests to hear certain witnesses and obtain new expert examinations had restricted its right to present a defence.

The forensic report and the possibility of an accidental fall

The petition argued that the alcohol and medication ingredients reportedly found in Gül Tut’s blood could have affected her balance, coordination and perception. This argument formed part of the defence’s objection that the possibility of an accidental fall had not been adequately considered.

A report dated 11 February 2026 by the Council of Forensic Medicine’s 1st Specialised Board, as cited in the news report, concluded that death resulted from a fall from height. However, it stated that it was not medically possible to distinguish whether the fall was a suicide, an accident or the result of another person’s actions. That medical assessment does not, on its own, establish that the incident was an accident.

The defence also alleged that the body examination and autopsy record prepared on the day of the incident noted that the floor was slippery. It challenged the use of a later examination by Bursa Regional Criminal Police Laboratory, which found no substance that would make the floor slippery, as grounds for the conviction.

Questions and answers about the appeal

Which court received the appeal petition?

The petition was submitted to Yalova’s 1st High Criminal Court for referral to Bursa Regional Court of Appeal.

Did the forensic report establish why the fall happened?

No. The report cited in the news coverage concluded that death resulted from a fall from height, but stated that it was not medically possible to distinguish whether the incident was a suicide, an accident or the result of another person’s actions.

Source: NTV’s report from DHA.