The Kocner case! Markíza drew new facts: a proof that his freedom had to secure

The expert report from Marián Kočner & # 39; s defense does not show that the invoices are correct. The report only confirms the earlier statements of MARKÍZA that the methods for objectively confirming the signature on the bills of exchange of 2000 no longer exist.

The foreign expert's report, submitted by Kočner, merely 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.

In this context, Valery Aginsky, whose MARKÍZA proposed at the time of testing, noted after the expert's report that: "Because the aging tests used did not distinguish between the document signed in 2000 and the recent forgery, the results of LaPorte are not convincing, potentially misleading and without evidential value. "Moreover, none of the disputed draft laws adopted in the context of civil proceedings in respect of which Kocner's refusal justified that purpose was not the subject of an expert investigation.

Kočner also claimed that the accounts could not be given to the investigator or the public prosecutor for the same reason, which therefore seems unfounded. The Forensic Expert Investigation would therefore be the only agreement on the right to pay a bianco account that is not the subject of an active civil procedure, since the two cases relating to that note have been terminated due to non-payment of the invoice. court fees.

The expertise scope and the analysis methods were deliberately chosen to prevent a meaningful assessment of the document, just like the other tactics that Kočner used in the past. Kočner & # 39; s defense deliberately misleads the conclusion of the report and introduces the public.

The LaPorte expert has not confirmed that the invoice was signed in June 2000. Mr. LaPorte clearly stated that the exact date of signature of the document could not be determined by chemical analysis. This is in line with the explanation clearly given by MARKIZA on many occasions and therefore there is no scientific method that can objectively confirm that the accounts were signed in 2000.

In the expert opinion put forward by the expert's defense, the expert clearly stated that: "On the basis of an extensive forensic examination of the document, including chemical analysis and analysis of the ink time, the results of all tests can not conclude that the document was produced and signed on 11 June 2000." Mr. LaPorte said that due to evaporation, only a chemical analysis can be used to estimate the age of the ink within 2 years after the ink is placed on the document. Precisely because of this limitation of the aging test, MARKÍZA aims to carry out such an analysis from the spring of 2017.

However, the fact that this method can not stabilize the time of signature of the accounts does not mean that they can not use other means of evidence: expert written evidence, accounting documents, testimonies, actions of the defendant and their public statements in 2000.

The submission of this expert opinion (and the previously unconvincing opinion of the Slovak expert) clearly shows that Marián Kočner never asked for an objective and scientific assessment of the age of the accounts. His intention was to prevent justice by blocking the analysis in the 24-month period from the suspicion of the creation of these documents. During the trial in the court Marián Kočner made every effort to prevent any analysis, including the admission of a foreign expert, allowing only questions and methods that were not relevant to determine the date on which these documents were created. .

Kočner and his legal team informed the public and the Slovak law enforcement authorities that the invoices will be returned to the court file after the expert report has been drawn up. Since the police and the public received an unconvincing opinion from experts whose subject was not publicly presented in a misleading way, it appears that Kočner's steps are intended solely to prevent bailiffs from seizing the accounts and further investigation by the police or by experts from MARKÍZA.

MARKÍZA is convinced that the tactics used by Marián Kočner's legal team, including misinterpretations of the conclusions of the expert's report, are deliberately aimed at misinforming the public and further preventing the investigation of the criminal case.

Peter Papanek, media agent of TV Markiza

Source link

Leave a Reply