In an interview with the Newsweek Türkiye magazine, İnce made a statement that refuted claims by Çiçek's attorneys that the signature had been produced by a signature-forging machine. Newsweek Turkey journalist Murat Yanlız recalled that during the trial Çiçek's lawyers brought a signature machine to court and showed how the machine could reproduce a signature. "The ATK released a report saying the signature was not fake and belonged to Çiçek,” Yanlız said and asked İnce whether the signature on the plot was produced by Çiçek or the machine.
İnce noted that in addition to the ATK's report, gendarmerie and police reports also indicated that the signature was authentic and added: "I am not sure about the police, but the gendarmerie criminal lab is an institution that is up to par with the standards of the European forensic sciences community. If there is a mistake, then that means all three institutions have made a mistake."
Nothing that the signature was just an approval signature, İnce said: "I have not seen the document. But, my colleagues in those units examine hundreds of cases like this one. We have seen many signatures produced by signature machines. We have enough experience to differentiate between a machine signature and an authentic signature. It is very obvious when a signature is made by a machine, and my colleagues determined that the signature on the document belongs to Çiçek."
