Filo Jet Suspects Remanded for Another 7 Days

The hearing heard that the vessel’s black box had been examined in Turkey and delivered to the Police General Directorate (PGM), while an engineering report found that repairs carried out on the ship had been inadequate. Investigators also reported that the vessel’s watertight doors had been left open before the voyage.

The ship’s captain, first officer, six crew members and the director of Filo Denizcilik, who were arrested as part of the investigation into the disaster, appeared in court again. The court ordered that all nine suspects remain in custody for another seven days.

During the hearing, police provided new details about the investigation, stating that the vessel’s Voyage Data Recorder (VDR), commonly known as the black box, had been located on September 25 and handed over to Turkish authorities on September 30. With the assistance of experts in Turkey, the data stored on the device was transferred to a USB drive and delivered to the Police General Directorate.

Police also said they had received an engineering report prepared by the Chamber of Mechanical Engineers. The report described the repairs previously carried out on the vessel as “superficial, inadequate and unacceptable.”

Investigators said they had determined that the ship’s watertight doors had been open before the voyage, despite the requirement that they remain closed. Police stated that keeping the doors closed could have reduced the amount of water entering the vessel and potentially provided more time to rescue passengers.

Police said the captain, chief engineer and second engineer were primarily responsible for ensuring that the watertight doors remained closed. They added that warnings made by the second captain to the first captain regarding previous damage to the vessel and the repairs carried out were also being examined as part of the investigation.

ENGINEERING REPORT HIGHLIGHTS INADEQUATE REPAIRS

According to the engineering report presented by police in court, the superficial nature of the repairs could have been directly related to the accident.

Police said the report included assessments suggesting that cracks in the vessel and damage potentially serious enough to cause the incident may have been connected to the inadequate repairs previously carried out.

Investigators also said that leaving the watertight doors open, which were intended to prevent the spread of water between compartments, may have contributed to the vessel taking on water and worsened the consequences of the disaster.

DEFENCE: DAMAGED SECTION WAS A STRAKE, NOT THE BOW

The defence lawyer argued that the information presented by police regarding the damage to the vessel had not yet been conclusively established.

Referring to the earlier statement by Minister of Public Works and Transport Faiz Sucuoğlu that the “accident had been concealed,” the lawyer said this had not been verified at the current stage of the investigation. The lawyer said police had confirmed that there was no definitive information establishing that the damage to the vessel had resulted from an accident.

The lawyer said police had referred to damage to the vessel’s port-side forward bow section based on witness statements. However, the defence argued that the damage was actually to a strake in front of that section, which required repairs, while the bow itself was not damaged.

The lawyer claimed that the damaged strake could not have allowed even five per cent of the water that would have been required to sink the vessel to enter the ship. The defence maintained that the damaged part was not the bow, as described by police, but a strake that could not have caused the vessel to sink.

The lawyer also argued that the open watertight doors could not have allowed enough water to pass between compartments to sink the vessel, adding that the damaged strake was of a kind that could have been repaired by the crew themselves.

The defence further claimed that the section of the ship that broke away could not have caused sufficient water ingress to sink the vessel, and said the investigation could proceed more effectively once reports from Turkey had been obtained.

DEFENCE CLAIMS ALARMS WOULD HAVE SOUNDED IF WATER ENTERED

The defence lawyer argued that if water had entered the vessel, or if the open doors had allowed water to reach a level that could sink the ship, the alarms would have been activated and their sound would be audible in the black box recordings.

Police, however, told the court that after water entered the vessel, “the machinery and systems were completely disabled.”

DEBATE OVER COASTAL SAFETY AND RESCUE OPERATIONS

Rescue efforts were also discussed during the hearing.

The defence lawyer claimed that the Coastal Safety authorities had not carried out any rescue operations, arguing that they shared responsibility alongside the Coast Guard.

The lawyer alleged that the Coastal Safety vessel lacked the necessary equipment to detect people in the water using thermal imaging systems. The defence also claimed that it did not have life jackets, ropes or life rafts, and said no Coast Guard personnel had entered the sinking vessel.

The lawyer said only one person had been rescued using a rope lowered from a helicopter, while police described these statements as allegations.

The defence argued that, in addition to the suspects charged with causing death through negligence and failure to take precautions, the failure of rescue teams to reach the scene in time had also been a significant factor in the loss of life.

BLACK BOX RECORDINGS UNDER EXAMINATION

The defence lawyer said the investigation had been ongoing for 33 days and argued that the necessary information and documents could have been obtained earlier through contact with Turkish authorities.

The second captain’s lawyer also addressed the court, saying that the second captain’s warnings would be audible in the recordings if the black box were played. Police responded that the VDR recordings had not yet been fully examined.

Police told the court that the VDR could store up to two months of data and that analysing the recordings could take considerable time.

The recordings could also reveal communications between crew members and other people with whom they had been in contact, police said. Examination of the audio recordings began yesterday.

Police added that it was not yet known when the accident report being prepared by expert investigators would be completed. The defence also noted that preparing the expert report could take a long time.

Taking into account that the investigation was still ongoing, the court ordered the ship’s captain, first officer, six crew members and Filo Denizcilik director to remain in custody for a further seven days.