Markíza defends Kočner: lie about opinion of an expert?

An endless story. Only on Wednesday confirmed the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic that the entrepreneur Marián Kočner (55) remains behind the bars.

His proponents tried to get him out of prison by a new report from the American forensic expert Gerard LaPorte. According to them, their version confirmed that too invoices are signed in 2000 by Paul Rusk. This is what Markíza responds to, led by the director of Matthias Sette, who opposes everything is completely different and Kocner just keeps going.

The puzzled dispute broke out after what Marquis filed a civil claim with a court and Kočner had to pay 8.3 million euros. They appealed against the verdict, but the criminal law field suddenly came into the case. Prosecutor Jan Shant suggested to Kocner to be arrested and the entrepreneur, together with Russia, accused of forging bills.

In total it is 69 million euros, but Kocner has not paid court fees in one case, so he claims "only" 43 million euros. Shortly afterwards there was a war of experts and experts. Kočnerovci used an American expert who only studied the accompanying document with one of the accounts. After the judgment of the specialized criminal court, Kočnerov, lawyer Michal Mandzak stated that he "unequivocally proves that invoices come from this period, in 2000".

Kočner Open the gallery

Nothing shows it

Markíza, who came to Kocner's opinion, rejects this and explains that they make the public public. "The advice from the foreign expert submitted by Kocner does not show that the invoices were signed in 2000, as his lawyers argued, and that the expert's investigation was not based on the invoices themselves, but only on the documents relating to a single law. in connection with civil proceedings that had not started because Kočner did not pay court fees, " praised by the media representative Peter Papánek. LaPorte clearly stated that the exact date of signature of the document could not be determined by chemical analysis.

Papan explains that the report only confirms that the methods for objectively confirming the signature on the 2000 memorandum no longer exist. "The report by foreign experts submitted by Kocner only points to the fact that the ink on the assessed document is more than two years old, which was to be expected, since the claims were submitted more than two years ago" Papain added, adding that "Kocner's defense deliberately misinterprets the conclusion of the report and introduces the public". In the expert report, he stated clearly that the results on the basis of the investigation did not allow the conclusion or the document to be drawn up and signed in 2000. "His intention was simply to prevent justice by preventing Markisze from analyzing the 24-month period and suspecting the creation of these documents," added Papanek.

Kočner rejects it

Judge of the Special Criminal Court, Roman Púchovský, also considered that he had to be evaluated in connection with further evidence. Attorney Mandzak strongly rejects Markis' opinion. "We insist that the testimony of a reputable and world-famous LaPorte expert is a clear proof of the authenticity of invoices, and any partial formulations removed from the context of the assessment are considered gross and purposeful manipulation of public opinion, " Mandzak said, quoting from the conclusion of the report, where the expert would have to say that there is no support for the claim that the signatures were made on a date different from June 2000.

What Markieza claims

  • the report does not show that the invoices were signed in 2000
  • the expert's investigation was not based on the accounts themselves, but on documents relating to one of them
  • the methods for objectively verifying signatures on bills of exchange of 2000 no longer exist
  • a report by Kocner's US experts only points to the fact that the ink on the reviewed document is older than two years
  • the range of expert judgment and analysis methods were quickly selected to prevent a meaningful assessment of the document
  • the LaPorte expert did not confirm that the law was signed in June 2000, he stated that the exact date could not be determined by chemical analysis
  • Kočner wants to prevent the analysis from being prevented in the 24-month period from the presumption of making these documents

How Kocner defends

  • after a special verdict of the court, his lawyers argued that the American expert clearly shows that the invoices from the period in 2000
  • vehemently criticize Markis' opinion and insist that their testimony proves the authenticity of the bills
  • cite the conclusion of the report, in which the expert states that, based on his practice and scientific procedures, there is no support for the claim that the signatures were made in some cases as in 2000
  • the expert has used generally accepted scientific methods
  • partial formulations removed from the context of the assessment are considered manipulation
  • Markíza did not explain how and when she documented her expert judgment to the prosecutor
  • Kočner in the New Time interview claimed that Russia had used two signatures and Markíza had not provided all necessary documents

Source link

Leave a Reply