Lügen von Nag & Co.
Some lies about the case provided to media by the complaintants
(mostly by Mr. Utpal Nag, one of the prosecution witnesses)
Compiled by E. Kucera and P. Svacha
1. Although we were not captured from the Singalila National Park, at the press conference on 23 June 2008 media received an information that we were (e.g., The Telegraph, 24 June). This is not true.
2. The Telegraph 24 June reports about us possibly smuggling insects (for example tiger beetles) to China or elsewhere for purposes of traditional medicine etc. That information also originates from the forest office press conference and is ridiculous and insulting - there is no evidence whatsoever and, moreover, virtually all material is preserved so that it excludes such possibility.
3. The Hindustan Times 2 and 11 July 2008 again reports about us possibly smuggling insects (for example tiger beetles) to China or elsewhere for purposes of traditional medicine etc. Again a lie.
Both articles also state that Kucera offers beetles for sale by post. This is not true – there is not a single word about sale or prices on his web pages.
4. The web pages of the Wildlife Trust of India, article of 8 July 2008: Utpal Nag states that "Kucera has website offering to sell insects". Again, not true, see above.
5. The Times of India 10 July 2008: "According to the forest department, one of the arrested, Peter Svacha, even has a web site on which he has posted offers to sell some rare butterflies." A dirty lie.
"The catch ... is estimated to be worth Rs. 10 crore in the international market." Who and how estimated that ridiculous sum? A complete nonsense.
..."butterflies are listed in Schedule I, the beetles are included in Schedule II of the WPA". On 10 July there was no report available from the Zoological Survey of India and this statement was untrue, based on two species additionally inserted without our knowledge in the seizure lists; those two species never existed.
'"We suspect the butterflies and insects would either have been smuggled to China or to some European country from the Czech Republic", said Utpal Nag... No proof of that, the material was collected for scientific purposes.
"Both are well aware of the forest rules and regulations in India and had done an extensive study on Indian biodiversity. This could be the tip of an iceberg" (U. Nag). We have done no study of Indian biodiversity, P. Svacha is even for the first time in India!
6. The Times of India 21 July 2008: "One of them had even claimed on a website that THEY [our emphasis] have got rare species for sale." Again accusations without the slightest support.
In the same article, Mr. Utpal Nag states that we said that collecting of insects in the Czech Republic is permitted. This is true (of course outside protected areas and excluding specially protected species), as also confirmed Mr. Benes of the Czech branch of CITES in his mail which is an official enclosure of our charge sheet. Mr. Nag goes on to say that the Czech Embassy confirmed in written that "it is not allowed in Czech Republic either". This is another lie and the Embassy has already complained about that.
Mr. Nag also states that P. Svacha had a map of the Singalila National Park. The map is now an official enclosure of the charge sheet and as everyone can see, it is an outcut of the Rimbick region from the physical map available freely online from Wikipedia and the boundaries of the park are NOT depicted in it. Thus, untrue information.
7. The Economic Times 22 July 2008: "Two Czech scientists arrested in India for stealing rare butterfly and insect species were planning to sell them on Internet, an official said" (obviously Utpal Nag). There is no evidence for that, see above.
U. Nag also says that "Svacha had posted a note online offering to sell butterflies for a specified price". It has been already stated that this is a lie without support.
Nag again says that Svacha had a map of Singalila National Park (see comments above).
8. webnewswire.com 28 July 2008: U. Nag says that "post-arrest investigation had revealed that Kucera, a forester, was involved in the trade of insects". No evidence for that, as pointed out above.
9. Web pages of Wildlife Trust of India 8 July 2008: Mr. Saurabh Sharma, a WTI advocate cooperating with the prosecution, accuses us of employing "pressure tactics and threatening to go on a hunger strike, if not granted bail". This is another lie - as the court can see in our petition sent from the Darjeeling Correctional Home on 11 July 2008, we joined (NOT initiated) the symbolic one-day hunger strike of our inmates on 17 July protesting against the strike of the Darjeeling court and the ceasework of the Darjeeling lawyers. This was a violation of the prisoners' right to justice and, as a lawyer, Mr. Sharma should be the first to understand that.
We could continue using examples from other/newer articles, but the same unsupported and untrue statements are mostly repeated. Spreading lies about a person is a criminal offence in the Czech Republic and, hopefully, also in India.
print on A4
auf A4 ausdrucken
back to start
zur Startseite