SANTO DOMINGO.- The presentation of the counter-expert report in the Jet Set case has revived the technical analysis of the causes of the collapse of the nightclub's roof, which occurred on April 8, 2025, amidst the legal proceedings involving siblings Maribel and Antonio Espaillat.
The document, submitted to the court by the defense of the owners of the establishment, proposes a different interpretation to the official theory of the Public Prosecutor's Office on the origin of the collapse.
Experts consulted by El Inmobiliario express that, beyond the differences between the two reports, the case brings back to the table the debate about how the original construction conditions, the modifications accumulated over the years and the structural maintenance influence the behavior of long-standing buildings.
According to engineer and former president of the Dominican College of Engineers, Architects and Surveyors (CODIA), Teodoro Tejada, the thesis put forward by the counter-expert report does not absolve the owners of responsibility, but rather introduces new elements related to the progressive deterioration of the structure and the lack of timely corrective interventions.
Rafael Melo, a structural engineer and businessman from Garmelco Ingeniería, explained that the defense report differs from the official hypothesis by attributing the failure mainly to construction aspects from the origin of the project, although he warned that some conclusions presented do not fully correspond to the actual behavior of the structural elements under conditions of load and accumulated deterioration.
The technical discussion focuses on the actual origin of the failure
The counter-expert report argues that the structure did not collapse due to a recent, specific overload, as the official theory suggests, but rather due to a progressive process of internal deterioration in the post-tensioning wires of the main roof beams.
According to the document, the weakening was caused by corrosion and internal fractures that accumulated over years, gradually reducing the structure's resistance capacity until it reached a critical point.
The report also suggests that some elements may have had deficiencies since the original construction of the building, including poorly placed post-tensioning conduits and structural conditions that, according to the defense, remained hidden for decades.
Rafael Melo explained that this approach changes the main focus of the technical discussion, although it does not necessarily completely dismantle the findings of the Public Prosecutor's Office.
“I don’t think it dismantles it; it simply changes the cause,” the specialist said, indicating that even under the progressive deterioration theory, the debate persists regarding the early identification of deformations and the absence of corrective structural actions.
The engineer pointed out that the report itself acknowledges the existence of significant deformations years before the collapse, which, in his opinion, introduces a component of technical negligence regardless of what the final trigger of the failure was.
Differences between expert reports are not unusual
Melo explained that in structural engineering, different specialists may arrive at different interpretations of the same event, because there are different engineering criteria when analyzing the behavior of a structure.
However, he specified that the conclusions must be based on verifiable principles related to regulations, load analysis, material behavior, and physical validation of the models used.
In that regard, he considered that one of the aspects that could be objectively verified is the discussion about the structural separations used in the calculation model attributed to the official report.
The counter-expert report specifically questions the spacing used between beams in the Public Prosecutor's computational model, arguing that this would have caused an overestimation of loads on critical elements of the roof.
According to Melo, these types of technical observations must be directly compared with the actual conditions of the structure and with the available physical evidence.
Maintenance, leaks, and overloads remain part of the debate
Tejada stated that the new report reinforces aspects related to the progressive deterioration of the structure and the accumulated conditions that affected the roof of the establishment.
The engineer argued that the document acknowledges that the post-tensioning cables weakened internally over time, a situation he linked to constant leaks and a lack of adequate preventive maintenance.
In his opinion, the fact that the structure supported loads for years does not eliminate the overload component indicated in the official report, but rather demonstrates a gradual deterioration process that would have progressively reduced the strength of the beams.
Tejada also pointed out that the multiple layers of materials placed on the roof, along with other elements added over the years, modified the original structural behavior of the building.
The specialist indicated that structural failures of this type usually manifest themselves gradually before producing a definitive collapse, through deformations and visible signs that require in-depth technical evaluations.
Both reports share common ground
Despite the differences regarding the immediate cause of the collapse, both the official report and the counter-expertise of the accused acknowledge that the structure presented unfavorable conditions prior to the accident.
Both assessments refer to modifications made to the roof, alterations accumulated over time, and changes in the structural behavior of the building with respect to its original design.
Likewise, both reports incorporate into their analyses the existence of deformations and structural problems that preceded the collapse that occurred during an artistic presentation in the early morning of April 8, 2025.
The case remains under judicial review while technical discussions continue to focus on determining whether the failure was primarily due to accumulated overload, progressive internal deterioration, or a combination of structural factors developed over decades.
Recommended readings:
- Two versions of the same disaster. The two expert reports on the Jet Set: what they say and where they contradict each other
- What are the main points of contrast between the expert opinion of the Prosecutor's Office and that of the Espaillat brothers?
- The Public Prosecutor's Office says a key column in the Jet Set building was removed; there was excessive load on the roof
