Jet Set Owners Oppose Demolition and Call to Preserve Collapse Scene

Santo Domingo.- The owners of the Jet Set nightclub formally opposed the demolition of the structure where the establishment operated, whose collapse left 236 people dead and more than 80 injured. The request was made through a bailiff’s act filed with the Prosecution Directorate of the Public Ministry, in which it is requested to preserve the scene to allow independent expert assessments to be carried out. Antonio and Maribel Espaillat, along with the company Inversiones E y L, S. R. L., argue that the preservation of the collapse site, which occurred on April 8, 2025, is essential to guarantee their right to an effective defense.

You may be interested in: Espaillat brothers appear before the court for Jet Set tragedy

The defense argues that any intervention before their experts can assess the structure would prevent accurately determining the causes of the collapse. In that regard, the owners have requested the participation of national and international experts in structural engineering. Among the proposed specialists are José M. Lockhart, with more than six decades of experience in forensic analysis of structural failures, and Nicolás Saenz, a member of the international firm Thornton Tomasetti, recognized for its participation in investigations of high-impact collapses worldwide. The controversy arises after a Preliminary Technical Expert Report requested by the Public Ministry in July 2025, which recommends the immediate demolition of the remains of the building. Faced with this recommendation, the defense argues that the elimination of the structure without an independent analysis would violate fundamental rights.

In a document addressed to magistrate Ernesto Ortiz Reynoso, of the Third Criminal Chamber of the Court of Appeals of the National District, the owners warned that the removal of debris or any modification of the scene would compromise the clarification of the cause of the tragedy. However, the judge of the First Instruction Court established that, although the expert opinion constitutes a constitutional right, the request must be renewed in the corresponding procedural stage, in accordance with article 304 of the Criminal Procedure Code.