In his statement, Ahmed did not deny being the man in the camera footage, but he insisted that he had no contact with the victims that night. He told the court he had arrived at the home of the victims but did not find them there, so he left and slept rough in a nearby park, after which he said he changed his clothes before returning to the victims’ address, and then left once again when he did not get an answer at the door. He said the BOSS bag contained the clothes he had been wearing previously, and he threw it away because the clothes were dirty. Although the precise area Ahmed dumped the bag is known, the bag was never found.

After tapping his phone and following him for three days, Turkish police finally detained Ahmed on September 30 at his home in Bursa.

Ahmed Barakat was detained in connection to the murders of Halla and Orouba Barakat on September 30, 2017 at his home in Bursa, Turkey.

More suspects at large

The case was immediately shrouded in secrecy, and attempts of journalists and even family members to get any information from the police chief in charge of the case, Remzi Birinci, were unfruitful. Yeni Safak newspaper, however, got hold of a few leaks.

Early reports were saying that police were looking for as many as three suspects, meaning Ahmed was not alone. Shaza also said that police initially told the family that investigators had found at least three sets of footprints in the apartment. Noting that Orouba would never allow any of her guests into her home with their shoes on, Shaza is of the opinion that Ahmed was simply used to help the real killers gain access to the apartment. She believes that the victims opened the door for Ahmed before being rushed by intruders who entered thereafter. Maen, as well as many others who knew Halla and Orouba, also does not believe a physically weak young man like Ahmed could have possibly overpowered the two women at the same time without help.

When questioned by police, Ahmed initially denied any involvement in the murders, providing the aforementioned explanation. Days later, however, forensics tests revealed that Ahmed’s DNA had been found under the fingernail of Orouba, upon which a prosecutor ordered his arrest. I must remind here that the autopsy that had taken place a week earlier revealed no foreign DNA under the fingernails of either victim, and point out that neither the people who saw Ahmed in the days following the murders nor doctors who conducted his medical check up when he was first detained noted any fresh scars on his body.

Besides the camera footage of Ahmed walking to and away from the scene at the time the crime was most likely committed, the DNA under Orouba’s fingernail is the only hard evidence that came up throughout the case to incriminate him. From this point onward, talk of there being more than one killer was dismissed and the entire case was built around the hypothesis that Ahmed was the only suspect.

Confession

Ahmed went on to confess to the murders, saying he stayed the night at the victims’ home before getting into an argument with Orouba in the morning about unpaid wages. He said he killed Orouba with a knife during a tussle while Halla was in the bathroom. Halla then came out to see her mother covered in blood on the floor and started screaming. Ahmed said he told Halla to stop screaming, but she didn’t, so he killed her too.

This confession provided the basis for the final indictment against Ahmed, which also said he stayed the night at the apartment but does not identify a motive for the murders. The indictment also fails to address the lack of any other incriminating evidence at the crime scene besides the DNA under Orouba’s fingernail. It does not acknowledge the unlikelihood of somebody staying the night somewhere and not leaving behind any fingerprints, saliva or hair — none of which were found in the apartment except for those belonging to the victims.

Needless to say, in his final court appearance before the verdict, Ahmed changed his plea and reverted back to his previous story. He said his translator, who for legal reasons I will not name, encouraged him to plead guilty for a lighter sentence. He added that the Iraqi-born translator had actually made up part of his confession.

However, there were also many contradictions in Ahmed’s alibi. He failed to provide a believable explanation as to why he had traveled from Bursa to Istanbul on September 19, and why he was unable to inform anybody of his plans.

Data taken from Ahmed’s Istanbul travel card usage history shows that he arrived in Istanbul’s Fatih district at noon on that day and headed toward the home of the victims at a time he knew they would most likely both be at work. While no camera footage of this particular journey was provided anywhere in the prosecutor’s report, his travel card data suggests he loitered around the home of the victims for a short time before leaving from the nearest bus stop at 13:43 back toward Fatih. After 14:40, Ahmed went off the grid until 22:56 when he used his travel card to board a subway train in Fatih, on his way back to the home of the victims.

He claims he spent his time off grid waiting in Fatih, and was unable to call anybody because his phone battery had died. This contradicts evidence I came across while analyzing camera footage of Ahmed’s movements in Istanbul on September 19. In the photo still below, one can clearly see the glow of a screen from what appears to be a handheld communications device reflecting off Ahmed’s black t-shirt while he was looking at it. The image does not show a time but I believe it was taken either shortly after his arrival in Istanbul at noon of that day, or while he was on the way to the victims’ home later that evening. This still was strangely omitted from the prosecutor’s report.

Ahmed Barakat appears to be holding a functioning phone while at an Istanbul subway station on September 19, 2017.

Ahmed also couldn’t explain how, in an area which has become known as “Little Syria” due to the number of Syrian refugees living there, he was unable to find a place to charge his phone due to his supposed inability to communicate in any language other than Arabic. Furthermore, assuming he couldn’t charge his phone, he knew exactly where Orouba worked, yet he did not go there, nor did he look for Maen at his workplace.

Another hole in Ahmed’s story was his decision to sleep rough in a park when he didn’t find Orouba and Halla at home instead of staying over at Maen’s apartment. He also could have stayed at the place of a friend of his who lives in Istanbul whom he mentioned in an earlier statement. Among many unanswered questions regarding Ahmed’s movements in Istanbul on September 19–20 was why did he use a taxi to leave the area of the crime scene instead of public transport? That was the only time throughout those two days he was seen using a taxi. If he had the money, why did he not use one the night before? Why did he walk 10 minutes down to the main road in the midday heat to hail a taxi instead of calling one to pick him up from Orouba’s apartment?

There are just way too many coincidences to deny Ahmed’s involvement in the murders, but to what degree he was involved, and to what degree he was a willing participant in the murders is still open to debate.

The verdict

Ahmed was handed two life sentences in March 2018 and will now spend the rest of his life in prison. Although the statements of Shaza and Maen were taken by the police and they are listed as complainants in the case, they were kept out of the loop regarding court hearings. On the day that Ahmed was being sentenced, Shaza had turned up at the Anadolu Court of Justice where the hearing was taking place to ask about the case. Unbeknownst to Shaza, the hearing had been scheduled for that day, yet nobody at the court informed her about it.

By the time the family was able to get legal advice, the 15-day time limit to launch an appeal for a retrial had already expired and the case was permanently closed. Ahmed had launched an appeal in that time, not against being found guilty, but against the length of his sentence. His appeal was duly turned down.

Shaza and Maen have both tried to speak to Ahmed in prison. His only encounter with Maen shortly after the verdict was brief, and Ahmed continued to insist on his innocence. Maen asked him if there were other accomplices, but Ahmed did not answer the question. Rather, the question enraged him, and the meeting was cut short. Ahmed has not spoken to the family since then, but guards at the prison say he receives many visitors, although they are not at liberty to say who those visitors are. Unfortunately, it appears that Ahmed will take the secrets of what happened to Halla and Orouba to his grave.

Manipulation

From what I have learned through my research, Ahmed had absolutely no personal motive to kill or in any way, shape or form be involved in a plot to kill Halla and Orouba. They were on good terms and Orouba had only ever helped Ahmed even when she herself was struggling to make ends meet. Even if they had a dispute over unpaid wages, as suggested earlier, the amount of money supposedly owed to Ahmed would not have justified the level of anger required to lash out and kill two innocent women.

Based on the accounts of those who knew and interacted with Ahmed, he was by no means rich, but at the same time was never cash-strapped to the point that one would introduce desperation as a motive. He not only had the money to cover his own needs, including luxuries such as cigarettes, he was also earning enough money to send a portion of it to his family in Syria.

Jewelry and other valuable items belonging to the victims were left untouched at the scene, so the incident was certainly not a robbery. The only item missing from the scene, which up until today has still not been found, is Orouba’s mobile phone, which last sent signals from the vicinity of the crime scene some 20 minutes before Ahmed was seen leaving the area. Contrary to some baseless rumors, Ahmed, who was still in a relationship with his girlfriend in Damascus at the time of the murders, had no romantic interest in Halla, who was two years his elder.

While it is beyond reason to deny Ahmed’s involvement in the crime, one is left with little choice but to conclude that if Ahmed was a willing participant in these murders, his motivation was political, not personal, and he was most likely just a small pawn in a grand plot, later used a scapegoat. But there are also a number of reasons Ahmed may be the victim of manipulation.

His immediate family and his girlfriend are in regime-controlled territories in Syria, while he is an escaped opposition fighter. The regime may be threatening to seek retribution from him through his loved ones, as has been common practice in this war. Another way manipulators may be taking advantage of Ahmed is through his family’s compliance in covering up the murder of his brother in Syria. Also, if Ahmed is a drug abuser as Maen claims, he is open to be manipulated through suppliers and/or sponsors. Ahmed’s lack of money woes despite the absence of consistent work and his financial dependents in Syria suggests he has never been short of other sources of income in Turkey.

What really happened

There is little evidence to indicate that Ahmed was alone. There’s also no refuting that he was seen approaching the home of the victims just before midnight on September 19, but at the same time there is no evidence to suggest he stepped foot inside the apartment, because he would not have been able to do so without leaving fingerprints, body fluid or hair. It is more probable that Ahmed camped the night outside the apartment, within eyesight of it, possibly in someone’s car, and waited there until the morning.

At some point in the morning, Halla woke up at her regular time to go to work and turned on her bedroom light, which is visible from the street. Naturally, the first thing Halla did after waking up was go to the bathroom, hence the reason why these were the only lights found switched on when the first responders arrived at the scene. Halla was either ironing, or preparing to iron her work clothes when Ahmed somehow got her attention. Ahmed did not have a key, and even if he did, the front door had four locks on the inside, so Halla would have needed to unlock the door from within.

On noticing Ahmed’s arrival, Halla, a relatively conservative young woman, put on a bathrobe to hide her pajamas underneath. She opened the door, upon which other individuals entered the apartment. A small struggle ensued in the kitchen, but it did not last long enough or cause enough of a sound to alarm neighbors, but it was enough to alarm Orouba, who was at the time sleeping in her bed.

Orouba got out of bed, still in her nightgown, and entered the lobby, where she too was killed before she could get to Halla. Halla’s body was then dragged to the lobby and placed next to her mother’s, perhaps to make it appear as if they were both killed in one single attack instead of two separate attacks, or to clean up some evidence in the kitchen.

If Ahmed stepped foot into the apartment, it may have been at this stage. As he was helping the culprits buy enough time to conduct a minimal clean-up and change their clothes, Ahmed was left behind while the other accomplices fled the scene. The murderers most probably fled from the eastern side of Yangac Sokak in a vehicle towards the Hekimbasi neighborhood, which is completely residential and lacks security cameras.

The Hekimbasi neighborhood has many narrow, winding roads and dead ends, almost like a maze. So, the accomplices who made the getaway would have been familiar with the area and would have done a few practice runs before carrying out the murders. On the other hand, they may have fled toward one of eight streets a short distance west of Yangac Sokak — Yesim Sokak, Korkut Sokak, Barbaros Pasa Sokak, Guzel Sefakent Sitesi, Mavi Atlas Sokak, Metin Sokak and Akgungor Sokak — where accomplices may have had a lodge to which they could escape without being detected by cameras.

Ahmed was instructed to dump the evidence at a particular location, which happened to be the same area where he loitered for around six minutes on his way to the crime scene the night before. It is possible that someone on the inside was at this location to provide logistics and was in charge of eliminating certain evidences such as clothes, weapons or temporary communications devices used in the crime.