In short
The difference between a police statement and a statement to the public prosecutor is that the same event is taken down in minutes at two separate authorities. The law-enforcement paper and the public prosecutor's paper are not copies of each other. Both can stand in the file. The day of police custody is not in this article. Which one prevails is not stated from memory.
The face of the law-enforcement session
A statement at the police is close to an early record of the event and to the questions in the report. The pace may be fast. Speed does not of itself make the sentence in the minutes invalid. Invalidity is read from the paper's own gap. If identity, capacity, question, and answer do not stand on the same page, what is missing is the line, not the conclusion. If the line is blank, a law-enforcement sentence in memory does not stand in for the document.
The course of a statement to the police sits in the statement at the police article. Preparation before the signature sits in the before giving a statement article. Preparation does not turn the law-enforcement minutes into the public prosecutor's minutes. The two sets of minutes are two documents. The petition marks which sentence stands on which paper. If there is no mark, the claim stays general.
The face of the public prosecutor's session
A statement to the public prosecutor is close to the direction of the investigation and to the charge becoming clear. The same event may be asked again here. Being asked again does not erase what was said at the police. If the public prosecutor's minutes do not carry the law-enforcement sentence as it was, a copy is not assumed. If they do carry it, the two headings still stand. If there is no heading, it cannot be picked out at which authority it was taken.
The course of the public prosecutor's session sits in the statement to the public prosecutor article. Reading the minutes sits in the public prosecutor's minutes article. This article reads the difference between the two authorities. The difference is not that one paper is longer than the other. The difference is the authority, the capacity, and the charge that was asked. If the charge narrows on the public prosecutor's paper, the narrowed charge does not of itself correct the police paper.
How the two sets of minutes are separated
Police minutes and the public prosecutor's minutes are separated according to whether they belong to the same event. The two papers conflicting does not of itself fix the day of police custody. The address of the office in Çankaya does not change the police station where the statement was taken, the public prosecutor's office, or the competent authority. The authority is read from the summons paper and from the heading of the minutes.
A conflicting sentence
If the two sets of minutes give two answers to the same question, the conflict is concrete. A concrete conflict does not throw one of them away. Which sentence was corrected later is read from the date and the signature. If there is no date, the words "I corrected it later" do not erase the earlier paper. The earlier paper stands in the file. If the correction was entered on new minutes, the sentence that was entered stands as well. The two are read side by side.
Service is the face of the summons. Which authority it came from appears in the heading of the service. If it does not appear, the authority is not chosen afterwards. The decision can be built from both lines discussed at the hearing. One set of minutes is not treated as absent before the decision is reached. To treat it as absent, it is shown separately that the paper does not belong to that session. If that is not shown, both documents remain in the file.
Evidential value is a separate question
How a statement to the police is read at the hearing sits in the evidential value article. A debate about evidence does not mean that the two sets of minutes are the same paper. A statement to the public prosecutor may also be asked again at the hearing. Being asked again does not of itself deprive the earlier line of effect. Invalidity is not the subject of this article.
If defence counsel was present at one session and not at the other, that difference is looked for in the heading. Having been present does not make the two accounts the same. Not having been present does not, on its own, erase the law-enforcement sentence either. If the capacity was suspect and was later written as if the person were a witness, the change of capacity appears in the minutes. If it does not appear, the capacity is not changed afterwards. How many days police custody lasted does not come out of this comparison. What comes out is which sentence was written at which authority.
Even if the dates of the two sets of minutes fall on the same day, the authorities stay separate. The same day does not make the papers a single text. Where they are thought to be a single text, no merger is made if there is no question number or heading. A merger that is not made does not have the conflict ignored. If there is a conflict, both sentences stand. One of the sentences that stand is not chosen from memory in place of the other. The sentence that is not chosen remains in the file, and it can be asked about separately at the hearing.
Conclusion
A police statement and a statement to the public prosecutor are not the same minutes. The authority and the paper are read apart. A lawyer in Ankara does not treat a conflict between the two accounts as a single sentence. The frame is on the criminal law page. There is no promise of an outcome.
The basis is the Code of Criminal Procedure, Law No. 5271.