Petr Švácha and Emil Kučera:
A few special comments
to some particularly curious points
p. 10 last para: Tshering Sherpa, the owner of Goparma Hotel: He confirms that we regularly visited the Singalila National Park although his hotel is well outside it and he had no way of knowing where we were going.
p. 14 para 3: Lepcha (the forester who submitted the charges) writes that Emil offers insects for sale on his web, which is not true.
p. 15 para 2: Lepcha's "identification" of two protected species (butterfly Delias sanaca and beetle Amara brucei) during the seizure was accepted, although they never existed, he would be absolutely unable to identify them, and one of them does not occur in this region at all (the beetle Amara brucei is Tibetan and occurs above 4,500 m asl, moreover species of the huge genus Amara are difficult even for specialists). Those two species were inserted in the seizure list to put us more easily in jail on the second day (23 June). A. brucei also accepted on p. 33 para 1. None of those specimens were of course placed before the court - they never existed.
p. 16 para 3: U. K. Nag denies existence of the blank signed sheets, although we complained about them earlier (see the attached Emil's appeal) and in the court session on 21 July Lepcha admitted their existence in an informal talk with the judge (there are witnesses to that).
p. 20 para 3 (and also before): Emil is accused of having lied when he stated that his English is poor. As a proof they use the petitions we sent to the court from the prison. But of course the English of those petitions, both mine and Emil's, was mine!
p. 26 end of para 3: Emil is accused of and sentenced for "abetting me in comitting my crimes", but the formulation from my (of course faked) "confession" in fact states the opposite (as far as I understand it), i.e., that I helped Emil. On p. 37 bottom it is also stated that I helped Emil. The same on line 11 from above.
p. 30 para 1: They obviously confused the cameras and thus photographs - those showing the cut wood and larvae are mine, not Emil's. On page 39 they order to remove the data cards (they call them "chips") from the cameras before their return, so they may think that the confusion could not be proved after that (both our cameras have the same type of data cards), but fortunately the camera type is written in the original electronic files, and the camera types are correctly stated in our seizure lists.
p. 33 para 3: Nonsensical talk about commercial value of the collected material without any proof (of course excepting the Emil's faked confession; ext. 12, his web pages, do not prove anything).
p. 34 penultimate para: The reasoning has nothing to do with Section 9 of the Wildlife Protection Act which concerns exclusively the scheduled species.
p. 35 para 2: Note the fantastic legal formulation that it is PROVED that the material COULD be collected for dealing purpose.
p. 35 para 3: It is anything but clear to us why Emil abetted me and I did not abet him - generally, the entire Section 52 charge is in my humble opinion a nonsense.
p. 38 end of para 1: By claiming his poor English, Emil offended and wrongly accused U. K. Nag!
Generally, as you will see after going through the document, the judge (U. K. Nandi) accepted virtually all arguments of the prosecution and virtually none of the defense. Moreover, from the entire document a strong bias is obvious to load as much guilt as possible on Emil Kucera. This judgment is in my opinion strikingly one-sided and unobjective.
back to start
zur Startseite