t24.com.tr
Conflicting Expert Reports Clear MADO Owners in Kahramanmaraş Earthquake Building Collapse Case
Following the Kahramanmaraş earthquake, two expert reports blamed MADO owners Mehmet Sait and Atilla Kanbur for the deaths of 35 residents in the Manolya Sitesi collapse; however, a third report cleared them of fault, leading to the dropping of travel restrictions and the case's postponement.
- What are the long-term implications of this case for building safety regulations and accountability in Turkey?
- The conflicting expert reports raise questions about the reliability of forensic engineering in complex disaster investigations. The reversal of the initial finding and subsequent release of the Kanbur brothers underscore the complexities and potential for inconsistencies in such cases, highlighting the need for thorough and transparent investigations.
- How did the unauthorized alterations to the Tarhanacı Cafe impact the structural integrity of the Manolya Sitesi building?
- The initial two expert reports highlighted the Tarhanacı Cafe, owned by the Kanbur brothers, as significantly contributing to the building's collapse due to unauthorized alterations. This led to charges of "conscious negligence causing death and injury." A subsequent report, however, contradicted the initial findings.
- What were the immediate consequences of the conflicting expert reports in the Kahramanmaraş earthquake building collapse case?
- In the Kahramanmaraş earthquake, 35 people died in the Manolya Sitesi building collapse. Two expert reports found the owners of MADO, Mehmet Sait Kanbur and Atilla Kanbur, primarily responsible. However, a third report cleared them of fault, leading to the lifting of their travel restrictions.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing is heavily influenced by the acquittal of the MADO owners. The headline and initial paragraphs highlight their release and the dismissal of charges, placing this aspect at the forefront of the narrative. The inclusion of the photograph of Mehmet Sait Kanbur with President Erdoğan further reinforces this focus and potentially suggests a narrative of political influence. The sequencing of information, placing the acquittal before the details of the case, influences the reader's interpretation by highlighting the outcome rather than the process.
Language Bias
The article uses fairly neutral language in describing the legal proceedings. However, phrases like "suspects' bail was lifted" and the repeated emphasis on the acquittal of the MADO owners, without delving into the specifics of the evidence or counterarguments, might subtly influence the reader's perception. The description of Kanbur's appearance on a pro-government TV show, and the inclusion of a picture of him with the president, implies a relationship without explicitly stating it is so. The inclusion of this seemingly irrelevant information could be considered subtly loaded.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the acquittal of the MADO owners and their connection to President Erdoğan, potentially omitting other crucial aspects of the case, such as the roles of the contractor, structural engineer, and municipal project control unit. The details of the initial expert reports finding the MADO owners culpable are mentioned, but the specifics of those reports and the reasoning behind them are not fully explored. This omission could leave the reader with an incomplete understanding of the complexities of the case and the justifications for the differing expert opinions. Further, the article mentions Atilla Kanbur's appearance on a TRT program, which might be irrelevant to the judicial process but is included, suggesting a potential bias in what information is deemed newsworthy.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by emphasizing the conflicting expert opinions as the central conflict, thereby simplifying a multifaceted case involving multiple actors and responsibilities. It frames the narrative as a conflict between the initial findings of guilt and the final acquittal, neglecting the complexities of building codes, construction practices, and potential systemic failures that might have contributed to the building collapse.
Sustainable Development Goals
The collapse of Manolya Sitesi in Kahramanmaraş due to construction issues resulted in 35 deaths and numerous injuries, highlighting failures in urban planning, building codes, and construction oversight which directly impact the safety and resilience of communities. The initial reports found the owners of MADO (and the cafe) responsible, but a third expert report absolved them of blame, raising concerns about the integrity of the investigation and the accountability of those responsible for the building collapse. This incident undermines the goal of building safe and resilient communities.