Expert Markovski to defence: "That is your assumption" over extinguishers at Pulse
Expert Goran Markovski told the defence that the state of the building in December 2012 was not itself the cause of the Pulse fire; he also reserved that some questions were "assumptions."
During a second day of hearings in the trial over the Pulse nightclub fire, expert witness Goran Markovski from the Faculty of Civil Engineering answered defence questions about the building’s condition and safety measures.
Markovski told the defence lawyer that when the premises were handed over to Dejan Jovanov in December 2012 their state did not in itself cause the later tragedy, but he stressed that, according to the Building Law, any application to change the use of a building must be filed by the owner. He also said municipal building inspectors are responsible for checking whether a facility is used in accordance with its designated purpose.
Markovski noted that Pulse operated as a hospitality venue inside a building designated for light industry. On the subject of portable fire extinguishers, he confirmed there had been two on the premises while four were required. When asked by the defence whether even ten extinguishers would not have put the fire out, the expert replied: "That is your assumption."
Expert limits and disputed causes
The expert repeatedly emphasised the scope of his expertise. He said the "rapid spread was a consequence of the building materials," and when asked whether the sprinkler system had triggered the blaze he responded that "their expertise does not deal with the causes of the fire." Prosecutors told the court there is a separate forensic report that addresses the origin and cause of the fire.
Defence lawyers used the expert testimony to challenge elements of the indictment for serious offences against public safety. The accused Grozdan Milkovski did not directly question Markovski; instead he contradicted some of the expert’s statements and the witness gave further explanations about the state of the building. The judge had to ask the accused to pose specific questions after longer exchanges prompted reactions in the courtroom from relatives of victims.
Relatives reacted angrily to the tone of cross‑examination. "Instead of substantive cross‑examination, we hear long series of repetitions and returns to what has already been said," they said in the courtroom. The trial continues as lawyers and experts return to contested technical points in an effort to rebut or support the charges stemming from the fire that killed 63 young people.
Photo: press material from the event
