{"id":1680,"date":"2023-12-07T13:31:35","date_gmt":"2023-12-07T12:31:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.spoleksalamoun.com\/?p=1680"},"modified":"2023-12-07T13:35:00","modified_gmt":"2023-12-07T12:35:00","slug":"amicus-curiae-brief-ve-veci-stezovatele-petra-kramneho","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/spoleksalamoun.com\/en\/2023\/12\/07\/amicus-curiae-brief-ve-veci-stezovatele-petra-kramneho\/","title":{"rendered":"Amicus curiae brief ve v\u011bci st\u011b\u017eovatele Petra Kramn\u00e9ho"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dne 6. 12. 2023 zaslal Spolek \u0160alamoun sv\u00e9 stanovisko, a to formou Amicus curiae briefu, k \u00fastavn\u00ed st\u00ed\u017enosti odsouzen\u00e9ho Petra Kramn\u00e9ho, kterou bude rozhodovat II. sen\u00e1t \u00dastavn\u00edho soudu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


Informace, kter\u00e9 jako „p\u0159\u00edtel soudu“ sd\u011blujeme, jsou natolik z\u00e1va\u017en\u00e9, \u017ee si dovolujeme zaslat V\u00e1m toto na\u0161e pod\u00e1n\u00ed na v\u011bdom\u00ed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n


Spolek \u0160alamoun bude v p\u0159\u00ed\u0161t\u00edm roce „slavit“ 30 let od sv\u00e9ho vzniku a p\u0159\u00edpad Petra Kramn\u00e9ho pova\u017eujeme za nejv\u011bt\u0161\u00ed justi\u010dn\u00ed zlo\u010din po listopadu 1989.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


Pova\u017eujeme za d\u016fle\u017eit\u00e9 takt\u00e9\u017e zm\u00ednit, \u017ee obhajoba, po\u0161kozen\u00ed a i Spolek \u0160alamoun dali  \u00dastavn\u00edmu soudu podn\u011bt, aby zv\u00e1\u017eil, zda by tuto v\u011bc, nam\u00edsto sen\u00e1tu, nem\u011blo projednat pl\u00e9num \u00dastavn\u00edho soudu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Spolek \u0160alamoun<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

se s\u00eddlem: Praha 4 \u2013 Z\u00e1b\u011bhlice, U Ml\u00fdna 2232\/23
I\u010c 63837714
registrace pod sp. zn. L 6401 u M\u011bstsk\u00e9ho soudu v Praze
www.spoleksalamoun.com<\/a>
ID datov\u00e9 schr\u00e1nky: g4kvibk<\/strong>
e-mail: spoleksalamoun@spoleksalamoun.com<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00dastavn\u00ed soud \u010cesk\u00e9 republiky<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jo\u0161tova 8<\/p>\n\n\n\n

660 83 Brno
datovou schr\u00e1nkou<\/p>\n\n\n\n

II. \u00daS 2830\/23<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

V Praze dne 6.12.2023<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amicus curiae brief ve v\u011bci st\u011b\u017eovatele Petra Kramn\u00e9ho<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

motto \u010d. 1: <\/strong>\u201eSoudn\u00ed znalci ni\u010d\u00ed lidsk\u00e9 \u017eivoty.<\/em>\u201c (JUDr. Otakar Motejl)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

motto \u010d. 2: <\/strong>\u201e\u00d3, jak mocn\u00e1, je spravedlnost malomocn\u00e1, kdy\u017e pod\u00e1 ti svou dla\u0148.\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(JUDr. Anton\u00edn Friml, dopis z vazby, 1994)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

V\u00e1\u017een\u00ed soudci \u00dastavn\u00edho soudu,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

jsme si v\u011bdomi, \u017ee Spolek \u0160alamoun nen\u00ed stranou \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed ve v\u011bci \u00fastavn\u00ed st\u00ed\u017enosti Petra Kramn\u00e9ho, projedn\u00e1van\u00e9 pod sp. zn. II. \u00daS 2830\/23,<\/strong> a \u017ee je pouze na Va\u0161em uv\u00e1\u017een\u00ed, zda k informac\u00edm z na\u0161eho pod\u00e1n\u00ed p\u0159ihl\u00e9dnete,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ale na z\u00e1klad\u011b n\u00e1m zn\u00e1m\u00fdch skute\u010dnost\u00ed, kter\u00e9 pova\u017eujeme za z\u00e1sadn\u00ed, jsme se rozhodli formou amicus curiae brief V\u00e1s oslovit a o tyto skute\u010dnosti a informace se pod\u011blit, nebo\u0165 mohou m\u00edt v\u00fdznam pro rozhodnut\u00ed \u00dastavn\u00edho soudu.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Spolek \u0160alamoun je spolek (v minulosti do roku 2003 ob\u010dansk\u00e9 sdru\u017een\u00ed), zab\u00fdvaj\u00edc\u00ed se bezplatn\u011b ji\u017e 29 let nespravedliv\u011b st\u00edhan\u00fdmi, ob\u017ealovan\u00fdmi \u010di odsouzen\u00fdmi a v\u011bzn\u011bn\u00fdmi ob\u011btmi org\u00e1n\u016f \u010dinn\u00fdch v trestn\u00edm \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed (O\u010cT\u0158). B\u011bhem 29 let na\u0161\u00ed \u010dinnosti jsme dok\u00e1zali pomoci des\u00edtk\u00e1m ob\u011bt\u00ed zv\u016fle a nedbalosti O\u010cT\u0158. Tak jako V\u00fdbor na obranu nespravedliv\u011b st\u00edhan\u00fdch (VONS) v dob\u011b totality, tak i Spolek \u0160alamoun se dnes zab\u00fdv\u00e1 \u0159adou p\u0159\u00edpad\u016f, kdy je z\u0159ejm\u00e9, \u017ee ze strany st\u00e1tu a jeho org\u00e1n\u016f do\u0161lo k projev\u016fm zv\u016fle a poru\u0161ov\u00e1n\u00ed lidsk\u00fdch a ob\u010dansk\u00fdch pr\u00e1v, a tedy ke zneu\u017eit\u00ed \u00fa\u0159edn\u00ed moci (a pravomoci) a t\u00edm i k po\u0161kozen\u00ed konkr\u00e9tn\u00edch osob.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mezi p\u0159\u00edpady, kter\u00e9 Spolek \u0160alamoun monitoruje, je i p\u0159\u00edpad Petra Kramn\u00e9ho.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> Jsme si v\u011bdomi toho, \u017ee nap\u0159\u00edklad v n\u00e1lezu sp. zn. IV. \u00daS 2773\/20 <\/strong>ze dne 15.2.2022 (\u00a7 11) reagoval \u00dastavn\u00ed soud odm\u00edtav\u011b na amicus curiae brief Spolku \u0160alamoun s t\u00edm, \u017ee \u201ek takov\u00fdm nevy\u017e\u00e1dan\u00fdm vyj\u00e1d\u0159en\u00edm od odli\u0161n\u00fdch subjekt\u016f ne\u017e \u00fa\u010dastn\u00edk\u016f \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed \u010di vedlej\u0161\u00edch \u00fa\u010dastn\u00edk\u016f nep\u0159ihl\u00ed\u017e\u00ed\u201c. Tento n\u00e1hled vyj\u00e1d\u0159il \u00dastavn\u00ed soud i p\u0159esto, \u017ee Spolek \u0160alamoun upozornil \u00dastavn\u00ed soud na znaleck\u00fd posudek znaleck\u00e9ho \u00fastavu \u010cesk\u00e1 zem\u011bd\u011blsk\u00e1 univerzita v Praze (kter\u00fd byl sou\u010d\u00e1st\u00ed p\u0159edm\u011btn\u00e9ho trestn\u00edho spisu st\u011b\u017eovatel\u016f), ze kter\u00e9ho vypl\u00fdv\u00e1, \u017ee pokud byla pachov\u00e1 identifikace prov\u00e1d\u011bna podle Pokynu \u0159editele \u0158editelstv\u00ed slu\u017eby po\u0159\u00e1dkov\u00e9 policie Policejn\u00edho prezidia \u010cR \u010d. 9\/2009, pak nelze v \u017e\u00e1dn\u00e9m p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b takov\u00e9 v\u00fdsledky pova\u017eovat za v\u011brohodn\u00e9, nebo\u0165 odporuj\u00ed aktu\u00e1ln\u00edmu v\u011bdeck\u00e9mu pozn\u00e1n\u00ed, a proto jsou jako d\u016fkaz v trestn\u00edm \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed nepou\u017eiteln\u00e9, a p\u0159esto\u017ee d\u00e1le v dopl\u0148uj\u00edc\u00edm pod\u00e1n\u00ed pouk\u00e1zal na \u201eProhl\u00e1\u0161en\u00ed v\u011bdc\u016f\u201c k nespolehlivosti a nev\u011brohodnosti takov\u00e9 metody, kter\u00e9 \u00dastavn\u00edmu soudu zaslal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dlu\u017eno dodat, \u017ee \u0161lo o vyj\u00e1d\u0159en\u00ed podstatn\u00e9 pro rozhodnut\u00ed ve v\u011bci, co\u017e je z\u0159ejm\u00e9 i z toho, \u017ee t\u00e9to \u00fastavn\u00ed st\u00ed\u017enosti \u00dastavn\u00ed soud vyhov\u011bl.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

V rozporu s t\u00edmto n\u00e1hledem (vt\u011blen\u00fdm do \u00a7 11 od\u016fvodn\u011bn\u00ed dan\u00e9ho n\u00e1lezu) v\u0161ak \u00dastavn\u00ed soud v jin\u00fdch v\u011bcech k \u201enevy\u017e\u00e1dan\u00fdm vyj\u00e1d\u0159en\u00edm od odli\u0161n\u00fdch subjekt\u016f ne\u017e \u00fa\u010dastn\u00edk\u016f \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed \u010di vedlej\u0161\u00edch \u00fa\u010dastn\u00edk\u016f\u201c nejen p\u0159ihl\u00ed\u017eel, ale dokonce z nich \u010derpal v od\u016fvodn\u011bn\u00ed sv\u00fdch rozhodnut\u00ed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

P\u0159\u00edkladem za v\u0161echny m\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt nap\u0159\u00edklad n\u00e1lez sp. zn. IV. \u00daS 1378\/16 <\/strong>ze dne 17.10.2017, ve kter\u00e9m \u00dastavn\u00ed soud (ve slo\u017een\u00ed sen\u00e1tu JUDr. Vladim\u00edr Sl\u00e1de\u010dek, JUDr., Jan Musil, JUDr. Jarom\u00edr Jirsa) omezil pr\u00e1vo na informace podle z\u00e1kona \u010d. 106\/1999 Sb. o platech zam\u011bstnanc\u016f ve\u0159ejn\u00e9 spr\u00e1vy (a to, ani\u017e by celkem 23 st\u011b\u017eovatel\u016f nap\u0159ed vy\u010derpalo jin\u00e9 prost\u0159edky k ochran\u011b jejich pr\u00e1va). Z od\u016fvodn\u011bn\u00ed toho n\u00e1lezu je pak prima facie z\u0159ejm\u00e9, \u017ee \u00dastavn\u00ed soud nejen strp\u011bl, aby do \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed zas\u00e1hl sv\u00fdm (nik\u00fdm nevy\u017e\u00e1dan\u00fdm) vyj\u00e1d\u0159en\u00edm ve form\u011b amicus curiae brief prof. JUDr. Ale\u0161 Gerloch, CSc., ale k jeho amicus curiae \u00dastavn\u00ed soud nejen p\u0159ihl\u00ed\u017eel, a dokonce jeho amicus curiae tvo\u0159\u00ed podstatnou \u010d\u00e1st od\u016fvodn\u011bn\u00ed tohoto n\u00e1lezu \u00dastavn\u00edho soudu (sic!).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> V souladu s principem rovnosti v pr\u00e1vech (podle \u010dl. 1 Listiny z\u00e1kladn\u00edch pr\u00e1v a svobod), jeho\u017e sou\u010d\u00e1st\u00ed je pr\u00e1vo na stejn\u00e9 rozhodov\u00e1n\u00ed ve stejn\u00fdch v\u011bcech je proto nanejv\u00fd\u0161 \u017e\u00e1douc\u00ed, aby \u00dastavn\u00ed soud tuto ot\u00e1zku posuzoval stejn\u011b a pokud se jeho n\u00e1hled na tuto ot\u00e1zku v r\u016fzn\u00fdch p\u0159\u00edpadech li\u0161\u00ed, aby postupoval podle \u00a7 11 odst. 2 p\u00edsm. i), \u00a7 23 z\u00e1kona o \u00dastavn\u00edm soudu, a p\u0159edlo\u017eil tuto ot\u00e1zku (posuzovanou v r\u016fzn\u00fdch n\u00e1lezech odli\u0161n\u011b) k posouzen\u00ed pl\u00e9nu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ostatn\u011b samotn\u00e9 \u0159e\u0161en\u00ed t\u00e9to \u201esporn\u00e9 ot\u00e1zky\u201c je vcelku snadn\u00e9 a vypl\u00fdv\u00e1 z \u00a7 132 o.s.\u0159. (ve spojen\u00ed s \u00a7 63 z\u00e1kona o \u00dastavn\u00edm soudu), kter\u00fd ukl\u00e1d\u00e1 soudu (mimo jin\u00e9) pe\u010dliv\u011b p\u0159ihl\u00ed\u017eet ke v\u0161emu, co vy\u0161lo za \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed najevo, v\u010detn\u011b toho, co uvedli \u00fa\u010dastn\u00edci.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Spolek \u0160alamoun nen\u00ed nad\u00e1n sebest\u0159ednost\u00ed ani neomylnost\u00ed, ale p\u0159ece jenom se domn\u00edv\u00e1, \u017ee je souladn\u00e9 s principem rovnosti v pr\u00e1vech, aby k ot\u00e1zce p\u0159ihl\u00ed\u017een\u00ed (\u010di nep\u0159ihl\u00ed\u017een\u00ed) k p\u0159\u00edpadn\u00fdm (\u201enevy\u017e\u00e1dan\u00fdm\u201c) vyj\u00e1d\u0159en\u00edm ve form\u011b amicus curiae p\u0159istupoval \u00dastavn\u00ed soud jednotn\u011b.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. P\u0159edm\u011bt \u00fastavn\u00ed st\u00ed\u017enosti<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

V t\u00e9to v\u011bci projedn\u00e1van\u00e9 pod sp. zn. II. \u00daS 2830\/23 <\/strong>\u00dastavn\u00ed soud projedn\u00e1v\u00e1 \u00fastavn\u00ed st\u00ed\u017enost Petra Kramn\u00e9ho, odsouzen\u00e9ho pro (\u00fadajnou) \u201evra\u017edu elektrick\u00fdm proudem\u201c, kterou m\u011bl sp\u00e1chat na svoj\u00ed man\u017eelce Monice a nezletil\u00e9 dce\u0159i Kl\u00e1\u0159e v Egypt\u011b. \u00dastavn\u00ed st\u00ed\u017enost tentokr\u00e1t sm\u011b\u0159uje proti pravomocn\u00fdm usnesen\u00edm Krajsk\u00e9ho soudu v Ostrav\u011b a Vrchn\u00edho soudu v Olomouci, kter\u00fdmi byl zam\u00edtnut jeho n\u00e1vrh na povolen\u00ed obnovy \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed, od\u016fvodn\u011bn\u00fd a dolo\u017een\u00fd (stru\u010dn\u011b \u0159e\u010deno) nov\u00fdmi znaleck\u00fdmi posudky (kter\u00e9 vra\u017edu elektrick\u00fdm proudem vylu\u010duj\u00ed) a tak\u00e9 zfal\u0161ov\u00e1n\u00edm \u010d\u00e1sti p\u0159epis\u016f odposlechu a z\u00e1znamu telekomunika\u010dn\u00edho provozu ze strany policejn\u00edho org\u00e1nu (kdy v p\u016fvodn\u00edm \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed byly pouze \u010dteny p\u0159episy, ale samotn\u00e9 z\u00e1znamy sly\u0161eny nebyly).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tento n\u00e1vrh obecn\u00e9 soudy zam\u00edtly, kdy\u017e v od\u016fvodn\u011bn\u00ed rozhodnut\u00ed manipulaci s obsahem zvukov\u00fdch z\u00e1znam\u016f p\u0159ipustily, ale v\u00fdznam nov\u00fdch znaleck\u00fdch posudk\u016f zcela bagatelizovaly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nad r\u00e1mec toho, \u010d\u00edm je argumentov\u00e1no v \u00fastavn\u00ed st\u00ed\u017enosti Petra Kramn\u00e9ho, bychom cht\u011bli \u00dastavn\u00ed soud upozornit na n\u00e1sleduj\u00edc\u00ed skute\u010dnosti.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Obecn\u00e1 argumentace<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Naprosto st\u011b\u017eejn\u00edm d\u016fkazem o vin\u011b Petra Kramn\u00e9ho, kter\u00fdm obecn\u00e9 soudy argumentuj\u00ed, je revizn\u00ed znaleck\u00fd posudek Nemocnice \u010cesk\u00e9 Bud\u011bjovice a.s. ze dne 14. 12. 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ji\u017e b\u00fdval\u00fd soudce \u00dastavn\u00edho soudu prof. JUDr. Jan Musil, CSc., konstatoval, \u017ee \u201eJusti\u010dn\u00ed praxe na \u010detn\u00fdch p\u0159\u00edpadech ukazuje, \u017ee ani znaleck\u00fd d\u016fkaz nen\u00ed bezchybn\u00fd a \u017ee jeho prost\u0159ednictv\u00edm m\u016f\u017ee doj\u00edt k justi\u010dn\u00edm omyl\u016fm s fat\u00e1ln\u00edmi d\u016fsledky. Des\u00edtky takov\u00fdch kauz dokumentuje nap\u0159. n\u011bmeck\u00fd autor Otto ve sv\u00e9 obs\u00e1hl\u00e9 publikaci \u201eIm Namen des Irrtums!\u201c, pol\u0161t\u00ed auto\u0159i W\u00f3jcikiewicz , Widacki a Dudzi\u0144ska nebo Ameri\u010dan\u00e9 Saks a Koehler . Ka\u017edodenn\u00ed zku\u0161enost n\u00e1s p\u0159esv\u011bd\u010duje, \u017ee i v \u010desk\u00e9 justi\u010dn\u00ed praxi se chybn\u00e9 znaleck\u00e9 posudky nez\u0159\u00eddka vyskytuj\u00ed.\u201c<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

V r\u00e1mci na\u0161eho amicus curiae si dovolujeme \u00dastavn\u00ed soud upozornit, \u017ee tento revizn\u00ed znaleck\u00fd posudek<\/p>\n\n\n\n

a) neobsahuje znaleckou dolo\u017eku,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

b) nese nespr\u00e1vn\u00e9 ozna\u010den\u00ed znaleck\u00e9ho subjektu,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

c) m\u00e1 znaleckou pe\u010de\u0165 jin\u00e9ho subjektu,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

d) neobsahuje sd\u011blen\u00ed, kdo bude zpracovatelem znaleck\u00e9ho posudku a kdo bude osobou opr\u00e1vn\u011bnou jej obh\u00e1jit u soudu,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

e) je podeps\u00e1n osobami, kter\u00e9 podle obchodn\u00edho rejst\u0159\u00edku v dob\u011b zpracov\u00e1n\u00ed posudku, nem\u011bly podpisov\u00e9 pr\u00e1vo za znaleck\u00fd \u00fastav,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

f) u soudu obhajovala osoba, kter\u00e1 nem\u011bla \u017e\u00e1dn\u00e9 pov\u011b\u0159en\u00ed vystupovat za znaleck\u00fd \u00fastav.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bohu\u017eel a\u017e po pravomocn\u00e9m skon\u010den\u00ed v\u011bci vy\u0161lo najevo, \u017ee tento \u201eznaleck\u00fd \u00fastav\u201c, kter\u00fd vypracoval revizn\u00ed znaleck\u00fd posudek:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

a) nen\u00ed evidov\u00e1n<\/strong> (zaps\u00e1n) v seznamu znaleck\u00fdch \u00fastav\u016f, kter\u00e9 vede Ministerstvo spravedlnosti,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

b<\/strong>) nikdy nebyl zaps\u00e1n <\/strong>v \u00dast\u0159edn\u00edm v\u011bstn\u00edku \u010cR, kter\u00fd vyd\u00e1v\u00e1 Ministerstvo spravedlnosti,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

c<\/strong>) tento znaleck\u00fd \u00fastav ani Ministerstvo spravedlnosti nen\u00ed schopno dolo\u017eit<\/strong> konstitutivn\u00ed rozhodnut\u00ed o jmenov\u00e1n\u00ed znaleck\u00fdm \u00fastavem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Navzdory tomu, \u017ee byl tento znaleck\u00fd \u00fastav ozna\u010den jako znaleck\u00fd \u00fastav, kter\u00fd se specializuje na zvl\u00e1\u0161\u0165 z\u00e1va\u017en\u00e9 p\u0159\u00edpady, je objektivn\u00ed pravdou, \u017ee p\u0159ed kauzou Petra Kramn\u00e9ho vypracoval jen t\u0159i znaleck\u00e9 posudky v p\u0159\u00edpadech bagateln\u00edch trestn\u00fdch \u010din\u016f. Podle na\u0161eho n\u00e1zoru nelze zhojit tyto vady (nijak nedolo\u017een\u00fdm) sd\u011blen\u00edm \u00fa\u0159edn\u00edka Ministerstva spravedlnosti, \u017ee \u010dinnost znaleck\u00e9ho \u00fastavu byla (\u00fadajn\u011b) \u201elegitimn\u00ed\u201c, pakli\u017ee z\u00e1konn\u00e9 podm\u00ednky pro v\u00fdkon jeho znaleck\u00e9 \u010dinnosti v\u016fbec spln\u011bny nebyly.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ostatn\u011b tento (\u00fadajn\u00fd) \u201eznaleck\u00fd \u00fastav\u201c, vyjma trestn\u00ed v\u011bci Petra Kramn\u00e9ho, ji\u017e pot\u00e9 \u017e\u00e1dn\u00fd znaleck\u00fd posudek nezpracoval a rad\u011bji ukon\u010dil \u010dinnost, proto\u017ee nespl\u0148oval z\u00e1kladn\u00ed, nato\u017e z\u00e1konn\u00e9 podm\u00ednky pro \u010dinnost znaleck\u00e9ho \u00fastavu.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Po odborn\u00e9 str\u00e1nce tento revizn\u00ed znaleck\u00fd posudek uv\u00e1d\u00ed, \u017ee: \u201e<\/strong>V\u00fdbled je<\/em><\/strong> o jedinou prakticky patognomonickou (typickou, nezam\u011bnitelnou, jinde se nevyskytuj\u00edc\u00ed) diagnostickou zn\u00e1mku \u00farazu elektrick\u00fdm proudem zp\u016fsoben\u00fdm za\u017eiva.\u201c <\/em><\/strong>A n\u00e1sledn\u011b se odvol\u00e1v\u00e1 na pr\u00e1ci autor\u016f Bernard Knight a Pekka Saukko nazvanou <\/strong>Knight\u2019s Forensic Pathology<\/a> <\/em><\/strong>(strana 310 posudku). O tento z\u00e1v\u011br se op\u00edraj\u00ed obecn\u00e9 soudy jako o st\u011b\u017eejn\u00ed d\u016fkaz o vin\u011b.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nutno v t\u00e9to souvislosti uv\u00e9st, \u017ee auto\u0159i revizn\u00edho znaleck\u00e9ho posudku naprosto nekorektn\u011b obecn\u00fdm soud\u016fm nesd\u011blili a zaml\u010deli, \u017ee v p\u0159\u00edpadech, kter\u00e9 popisuje odborn\u00e1 publikace <\/strong>Knight\u2019s Forensic Pathology<\/a> <\/em><\/strong>mus\u00ed b\u00fdt p\u0159\u00edtomna metalizace v m\u00edst\u011b z\u00e1sahu elektrick\u00fdm proudem. Av\u0161ak na t\u011blech Moniky a Kl\u00e1rky Kramn\u00fdch metalizace nebyla zji\u0161t\u011bna.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Naprosto nekriticky pak p\u0159evzaly z\u00e1v\u011br o v\u00fdbledu v\u0161echny soudy bez element\u00e1rn\u00ed snahy o ov\u011b\u0159en\u00ed takov\u00e9ho z\u00e1v\u011bru. Proto Spolek \u0160alamoun oslovil autora shora uveden\u00e9 odborn\u00e9 publikace <\/strong>Knight\u2019s Forensic Pathology<\/a> <\/em><\/strong>prof. Pekka Saukka z univerzity v T\u00fcrku, kter\u00e9mu poskytl zcela toto\u017en\u00e9 fotografie (kter\u00e9 m\u011bl k dispozici \u00fadajn\u00fd znaleck\u00fd \u00fastav Nemocnice \u010cesk\u00e9 Bud\u011bjovice a.s), a kter\u00fd konstatoval, \u017ee k takov\u00e9mu z\u00e1v\u011bru (o v\u00fdbledu) nelze jednozna\u010dn\u011b dosp\u011bt.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ve sv\u011btle t\u011bchto skute\u010dnost\u00ed podal Spolek \u0160alamoun dne 30. 7. 2017<\/strong> (nejedn\u00e1 se o p\u0159eklep) trestn\u00ed ozn\u00e1men\u00ed na zpracovatele revizn\u00edho znaleck\u00e9ho posudku, kter\u00e9 je dodnes, a\u010dkoliv uplynulo ji\u017e v\u00edce ne\u017e 6 let doposud org\u00e1ny Policie \u010cR prov\u011b\u0159ov\u00e1no (sic!). Jedn\u00e1 se z\u0159ejm\u011b o nejd\u00e9le prov\u011b\u0159ovan\u00e9 ozn\u00e1men\u00ed pro trestn\u00fd \u010din podle \u00a7 346 trestn\u00edho z\u00e1kon\u00edku v \u010cR (zat\u00edmco bez p\u0159eru\u0161en\u00ed b\u011b\u017e\u00ed proml\u010dec\u00ed doba, po jej\u00edm\u017e uplynut\u00ed trestnost \u010dinu zanikne).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jako novotu je vhodn\u00e9 uv\u00e9st, \u017ee mezi autory znaleck\u00fdch posudk\u016f obhajoby a to konkr\u00e9tn\u011b MUDr. Radkem Matlachem a p\u0159ednostou a jedn\u00edm ze zpracovatel\u016f revizn\u00edho znaleck\u00e9ho posudku (\u00fadajn\u00e9ho znaleck\u00e9ho \u00fastavu) doc. MUDr. Franti\u0161kem Vorlem prob\u00edhal rozs\u00e1hl\u00fd osobn\u00ed spor, kter\u00fd mohl m\u00edt vliv na znaleck\u00e9 z\u00e1v\u011bry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To se tak\u00e9 skute\u010dn\u011b projevilo v n\u00e1sledn\u00e9m trestn\u00edm \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed proti znalc\u016fm obhajoby MUDr. Radku Matlachovi a MUDr. Igoru Farga\u0161ovi, kdy spou\u0161t\u011b\u010dem byl pr\u00e1v\u011b z\u00e1v\u011br revizn\u00edho znaleck\u00e9ho posudku o \u0161patn\u00e9m a chybn\u00e9m vyhodnocen\u00ed histologick\u00e9ho prepar\u00e1tu \u010d. 21 a tzv. z\u00e1n\u011btliv\u00fdch polynukle\u00e1r\u016f ve st\u0159evech Moniky Kramn\u00e9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Teprve a\u017e u Okresn\u00edho soudu v Ostrav\u011b, kde byla trestn\u00ed v\u011bc ob\u017ealovan\u00fdch znalc\u016f projedn\u00e1v\u00e1na vy\u0161lo najevo, \u017ee histologick\u00fd prepar\u00e1t \u010d. 21 (a\u010dkoliv je to fakticky nemo\u017en\u00e9), kter\u00fd vid\u011bli auto\u0159i revizn\u00edho znaleck\u00e9ho posudku, je zcela jin\u00fd histologick\u00fd prepar\u00e1t, ne\u017eli kter\u00fd vid\u011bli ob\u017ealovan\u00ed znalci.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nad r\u00e1mec toho je pot\u0159eba zm\u00ednit, \u017ee i p\u0159es podvr\u017een\u00fd prepar\u00e1t \u010d. 21 byli znalci MUDr. Matlach a MUDr. Farga\u0161, a to bez v\u00fdslechu jedin\u00e9ho sv\u011bdka, bez jedin\u00e9ho odborn\u00e9ho vyj\u00e1d\u0159en\u00ed, \u010di znaleck\u00e9ho posudku uzn\u00e1ni vinn\u00fdmi a odsouzeni, kdy jako z\u00e1sadn\u00ed a jedin\u00fd \u201eusv\u011bd\u010duj\u00edc\u00ed\u201c d\u016fkaz byl pou\u017eit pr\u00e1v\u011b sporn\u00fd revizn\u00ed znaleck\u00fd posudek Nemocnice \u010cesk\u00e9 Bud\u011bjovice a.s., a to pr\u00e1v\u011b z trestn\u00ed v\u011bci Petra Kramn\u00e9ho.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Podle na\u0161eho n\u00e1zoru znaleck\u00fd posudek je t\u0159eba hodnotit podle t\u0159\u00ed krit\u00e9ri\u00ed: 1. form\u00e1ln\u00ed korektnost znaleck\u00e9ho d\u016fkazu, 2. d\u016fkazn\u00ed v\u00fdznam (relevance) znaleck\u00e9ho posudku, 3. v\u011brohodnost znaleck\u00e9ho posudku, av\u0161ak m\u00e1me za to, \u017ee zde ani jedno krit\u00e9rium spln\u011bno nebylo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Druh\u00fdm okruhem na\u0161ich poznatk\u016f jsou tzv. odposlechy a z\u00e1znamy telekomunika\u010dn\u00edho provozu, resp. jejich p\u0159episy, kdy autorem t\u011bchto \u201ep\u0159epis\u016f\u201c je kpt. PhDr. Alois Kubiena.
V p\u016fvodn\u00edm \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed obecn\u00e9 soudy tyto odposlechy (jejich p\u0159epis) pou\u017e\u00edvaj\u00ed jako dal\u0161\u00ed d\u00edl \u0159et\u011bzce nep\u0159\u00edm\u00fdch d\u016fkaz\u016f a to zejm\u00e9na (\u00fadajnou) v\u011btu: \u201ev\u0161echno mi vy\u0161lo i v tom Egypt\u011b\u2026\u201c (kterou m\u011bl Petr Kramn\u00fd \u00fadajn\u011b pron\u00e9st p\u0159i telefonick\u00e9m rozhovoru se svoj\u00ed tetou dne 22. 11 .2013).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tuto (\u00fadajnou, ve skute\u010dnosti v\u0161ak nikdy Petrem Kramn\u00fdm nevyslovenou!) v\u011btu dokonce cituje i Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed soud ve sv\u00e9m usnesen\u00ed \u010d.j. 7 Tdo 1593\/2016\u2013475 <\/strong>ze dne 16. 3. 2016, o odm\u00edtnut\u00ed dovol\u00e1n\u00ed Petra Kramn\u00e9ho.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

P\u0159itom jak ale vypl\u00fdv\u00e1 z pravomocn\u00e9ho usnesen\u00ed Krajsk\u00e9ho soudu v Ostrav\u011b sp. zn. 30 Nt 1862\/2022<\/strong> ze dne 10. 2. 2023, tak v\u011bta \u201e\u017ee mu v\u0161echno vy\u0161lo i v tom Egypt\u011b\u2026\u201c skute\u010dn\u011b v rozhovoru nezazn\u011bla (tuto si kpt. PhDr. Alois Kubiena jednodu\u0161e vymyslel!).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ostatn\u011b drtiv\u00e1 \u010d\u00e1st p\u0159epis\u016f z\u00e1znam\u016f odposlech\u016f neodpov\u00edd\u00e1 jejich skute\u010dn\u00e9mu obsahu, jedn\u00e1 se pouze o jak\u00fdsi \u201esouhrn\u201c a \u010dasto jsou (podle na\u0161eho n\u00e1zoru z\u00e1m\u011brn\u011b) zkresleny. Typick\u00fdm p\u0159\u00edkladem nap\u0159\u00edklad je, \u017ee obecn\u00e9 soudy d\u00e1vaj\u00ed Petru Kramn\u00e9mu za vinu, \u017ee se sna\u017eil ekonomicky t\u011b\u017eit ze smrti man\u017eelky a dcery, kdy\u017e z odposlech\u016f se sv\u011bdkem \u0160kop\u00edkem jednozna\u010dn\u011b vypl\u00fdv\u00e1, \u017ee obdr\u017een\u00e9 finan\u010dn\u00ed prost\u0159edky vyu\u017eil na n\u00e1hrobek sv\u00e9 man\u017eelky a dcery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

V t\u00e9to souvislosti upozor\u0148ujeme na d\u0159\u00edv\u011bj\u0161\u00ed z\u00e1v\u011bry \u00dastavn\u00edho soudu, podle kter\u00fdch nov\u00e1 skute\u010dnost \u010di d\u016fkaz m\u016f\u017ee existovat ji\u017e v dob\u011b vyd\u00e1n\u00ed p\u016fvodn\u00edho rozhodnut\u00ed, podstatn\u00e9 je pouze to, \u017ee a\u017e teprve pozd\u011bji vy\u0161la najevo (srov. nap\u0159. n\u00e1lez sp. zn. I. \u00daS 919\/16 <\/strong>ze dne 20. 6. 2016 nebo usnesen\u00ed sp. zn. IV. \u00daS 178\/03<\/strong> ze dne 15. 4. 2004). D\u016fkazy m\u016f\u017ee soud v \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed o obnov\u011b prov\u00e1d\u011bt jen ve ve\u0159ejn\u00e9m zased\u00e1n\u00ed p\u0159i dodr\u017een\u00ed z\u00e1sady kontradiktornosti a neproveden\u00ed navrhovan\u00e9ho d\u016fkazu mus\u00ed pe\u010dliv\u011b od\u016fvodnit (srov. nap\u0159. n\u00e1lez sp. zn. I. \u00daS 1135\/17<\/strong> ze dne 1. 11. 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Nov\u00e9 znaleck\u00e9 posudky<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Podle na\u0161eho n\u00e1zoru st\u011b\u017eejn\u00edm d\u016fkazem pro povolen\u00ed obnovy \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed jsou nov\u00e9 znaleck\u00e9 posudky z oboru kardiovaskul\u00e1rn\u00ed patologie \u2013 znalec prof. MUDr. Ivo \u0160teiner, CSc., oboru forenzn\u00ed biomechanika \u2013 doc. Ing. Zden\u011bk Hor\u00e1k, Ph.D., oboru soudn\u00ed l\u00e9ka\u0159stv\u00ed \u2013 doc. MUDr. et MUDr. Alexander Pil\u00edn, CSc., oboru elektrotechnika \u2013 doc. Ing. Zden\u011bk Koke\u0161, CSc., oboru soudn\u00ed l\u00e9ka\u0159stv\u00ed \u2013 MUDr. Zden\u011bk \u0160\u0148up\u00e1rek.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> Zejm\u00e9na znaleck\u00e9 posudky prof. MUDr. Ivo \u0160teinera, CSc. a doc. Ing. Zden\u011bk Hor\u00e1ka, Ph.D., a doc. MUDr. et MUDr. Alexander Pilina, CSc., jsou skute\u010dnosti nov\u00e9, proto\u017ee v p\u016fvodn\u00edm \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed takov\u00e9 posudky v\u016fbec nebyly provedeny, co\u017e konvenuje s ust\u00e1lenou judikaturou \u00dastavn\u00edho soudu, podle kter\u00e9 pro rozhodov\u00e1n\u00ed o obnov\u011b \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed jsou v\u00fdznamn\u00e9 takov\u00e9 skute\u010dnosti nebo d\u016fkazn\u00ed prost\u0159edky, kter\u00fdmi jsou zpochyb\u0148ov\u00e1ny usv\u011bd\u010duj\u00edc\u00ed d\u016fkazy proveden\u00e9 v p\u016fvodn\u00edm \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed. Hodnocen\u00ed p\u0159edlo\u017een\u00fdch d\u016fkaz\u016f nesm\u00ed p\u0159esahovat r\u00e1mec zji\u0161t\u011bn\u00ed, zda je pravd\u011bpodobn\u00e9, \u017ee tvrzen\u00e1 skute\u010dnost \u010di nov\u00fd d\u016fkaz s\u00e1m, anebo ve spojen\u00ed s ji\u017e proveden\u00fdm dokazov\u00e1n\u00edm by mohl p\u0159ivodit zm\u011bnu rozhodnut\u00ed. V\u00fdsledkem hodnocen\u00ed nem\u016f\u017ee a nesm\u00ed b\u00fdt nov\u00e9, zm\u011bn\u011bn\u00e9 skutkov\u00e9 zji\u0161t\u011bn\u00ed. Skrze uveden\u00e9 hodnocen\u00ed je t\u0159eba dos\u00e1hnout \u201epouze\u201c ur\u010dit\u00e9ho stupn\u011b pravd\u011bpodobnosti \u010di d\u016fvodn\u00fd p\u0159edpoklad pro o\u010dek\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed, \u017ee zm\u011bna rozhodnut\u00ed je mo\u017en\u00e1. Toto zkoum\u00e1n\u00ed spo\u010d\u00edv\u00e1 v porovn\u00e1n\u00ed d\u016fkaz\u016f dosud proveden\u00fdch a dosavadn\u00edch skutkov\u00fdch zji\u0161t\u011bn\u00ed s d\u016fkazn\u00edm v\u00fdznamem nov\u00fdch skute\u010dnost\u00ed, resp. nov\u00fdch d\u016fkaz\u016f. Pokud by bylo mo\u017eno dosp\u011bt k vysok\u00e9mu stupni pravd\u011bpodobnosti, resp. pln\u011b od\u016fvodn\u011bn\u00e9mu p\u0159edpokladu (nen\u00ed tedy nutn\u00e1 absolutn\u00ed jistota v tomto sm\u011bru) o tom, \u017ee by na z\u00e1klad\u011b nov\u00fdch skute\u010dnost\u00ed a d\u016fkaz\u016f mohlo doj\u00edt ke zm\u011bn\u011b p\u016fvodn\u00edho rozhodnut\u00ed, je nam\u00edst\u011b rozhodnout o povolen\u00ed obnovy (viz nap\u0159. n\u00e1lezy \u00dastavn\u00edho soudu sp. zn. I. \u00daS 2517\/08 <\/strong>ze dne 24. 2. 2009 a sp. zn. II. \u00daS 2445\/08 <\/strong>ze dne 30. 7. 2009).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Podle pr\u00e1vn\u00ed teorie i soudn\u00ed praxe m\u00e1 obnova \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed dv\u011b odli\u0161n\u00e9 a relativn\u011b samostatn\u00e9 f\u00e1ze, toti\u017e: \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed o povolen\u00ed obnovy \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed (obnovovac\u00ed \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed \u2013 iudicium rescindens) a samotn\u00e9 obnoven\u00e9 \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed (po obnov\u011b \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed \u2013 iudicium rescissorium). V povolovac\u00ed f\u00e1zi tak doch\u00e1z\u00ed pouze ke srovn\u00e1n\u00ed skutkov\u00e9ho z\u00e1v\u011bru v\u00fdznamn\u00e9ho pro rozhodnut\u00ed ve v\u011bci v p\u016fvodn\u00edm \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed a skutkov\u00e9ho z\u00e1v\u011bru, kter\u00fd je mo\u017en\u00e9 dovodit za nov\u011b p\u0159edlo\u017een\u00e9ho d\u016fkazu \u010di nov\u00e9 skute\u010dnosti, a pokud tyto jsou odli\u0161n\u00e9 a sou\u010dasn\u011b jde o skutkov\u00fd z\u00e1v\u011br relevantn\u00ed pro v\u00fdrok, u n\u011bho\u017e se navrhuje povolen\u00ed obnovy, podm\u00ednka mo\u017enosti p\u0159ivozen\u00ed jin\u00e9ho rozhodnut\u00ed ve v\u011bci je napln\u011bna (srov. stanovisko pl\u00e9na \u00dastavn\u00edho soudu sp. zn. Pl.\u2013st. \u00daS 50\/20 <\/strong>ze dne 21. 4. 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Podle n\u00e1lezu \u00dastavn\u00edho soudu sp. zn. III. \u00daS 905\/17 <\/strong>ze dne 22. 10. 2019 znaleck\u00fd posudek, kter\u00fd obsahuje nov\u00e9 skute\u010dnosti anebo vyu\u017e\u00edv\u00e1 nov\u00e9 v\u011bdeck\u00e9 metody, kter\u00e9 vedou k jin\u00e9mu skutkov\u00e9mu z\u00e1v\u011bru, je k tomu vhodn\u00fdm d\u016fkazn\u00edm prost\u0159edkem (viz t\u00e9\u017e n\u00e1lez sp. zn. II. \u00daS 2445\/08 <\/strong>ze dne 30. 7. 2009, shora).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Podle na\u0161eho n\u00e1zoru proto obecn\u00e9 soudy poru\u0161ily \u00fastavn\u011b zaru\u010den\u00e9 z\u00e1kladn\u00ed pr\u00e1vo Petra Kramn\u00e9ho na soudn\u00ed ochranu (a tak\u00e9 na osobn\u00ed svobodu), a to s ohledem na extr\u00e9mn\u00ed nesoulad mezi v\u00fdsledky proveden\u00e9ho dokazov\u00e1n\u00ed a z n\u011bho vyvozen\u00fdmi skutkov\u00fdmi a pr\u00e1vn\u00edmi z\u00e1v\u011bry, nikoliv tedy v p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b pouh\u00e9 potenci\u00e1ln\u011b odli\u0161n\u00e9 interpretace skutkov\u00e9ho d\u011bje.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00dastavn\u00ed soud ji\u017e v minulosti dosp\u011bl k n\u00e1zoru, \u017ee novou skute\u010dnost (resp. nov\u00fd d\u016fkaz) ve smyslu \u00a7 278 odst. 1 trestn\u00edho \u0159\u00e1du m\u016f\u017ee p\u0159edstavovat v\u011bdeck\u00fd poznatek d\u016fvodn\u011b zpochyb\u0148uj\u00edc\u00ed v\u011brohodnost d\u016fkazu, na n\u011bm\u017e bylo zalo\u017eeno rozhodnut\u00ed o vin\u011b a trestu (srov. n\u00e1lez sp. zn. II. \u00daS 2587\/18 <\/strong>ze dne 25. 2. 2019). Takov\u00fdm d\u016fkazem m\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt samoz\u0159ejm\u011b i znaleck\u00fd posudek (srov. n\u00e1lez sp. zn. I. \u00daS 4068\/14 <\/strong>ze dne 31. 3. 2016 \u010di n\u00e1lez sp. zn. II. \u00daS 2445\/08<\/strong> ze dne 30. 7. 2009), p\u0159i\u010dem\u017e nahrazen\u00ed znaleck\u00e9ho zkoum\u00e1n\u00ed vlastn\u00edm z\u00e1v\u011brem soudu na odbornou ot\u00e1zku zakl\u00e1d\u00e1 vadu, kter\u00e1 m\u016f\u017ee m\u00edt za n\u00e1sledek nespr\u00e1vn\u00e9 rozhodnut\u00ed ve v\u011bci, a to i kdyby soud pot\u0159ebn\u00fdmi odborn\u00fdmi znalostmi disponoval (srov. nap\u0159. n\u00e1lez sp. zn. III. \u00daS 1330\/11<\/strong> ze dne 15. 3. 2012).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pr\u00e1v\u011b takov\u00fd stav v nyn\u00ed projedn\u00e1van\u00e9 v\u011bci nastal, proto\u017ee jak Krajsk\u00fd soud v Ostrav\u011b, tak Vrchn\u00ed soud v Olomouci nahradily odborn\u00e9 znaleck\u00e9 z\u00e1v\u011bry sv\u00fdmi nikoliv odborn\u00fdmi (laick\u00fdmi) \u00favahami a t\u00edm poru\u0161ily \u00fastavn\u011b zaru\u010den\u00e1 z\u00e1kladn\u00ed pr\u00e1va a svobody Petra Kramn\u00e9ho.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Spolek \u0160alamoun se zab\u00fdv\u00e1 p\u0159\u00edpadem Petra Kramn\u00e9ho ji\u017e 10 let a je v kontaktu s odbornou ve\u0159ejnost\u00ed nejen v \u010cesk\u00e9 republice, ale i v Evrop\u011b, a proto m\u016f\u017ee konstatovat, co\u017e by m\u011blo b\u00fdt z\u0159ejm\u00e9 i Krajsk\u00e9mu soudu v Ostrav\u011b i Vrchn\u00edmu soudu v Olomouci, \u017ee dnes se ji\u017e nenajde \u017e\u00e1dn\u00fd znalec, nato\u017e znaleck\u00fd \u00fastav, kter\u00fd by dosp\u011bl k z\u00e1v\u011bru, \u017ee p\u0159\u00ed\u010dinou smrti Moniky a Kl\u00e1rky Kramn\u00fdch byl z\u00e1sah elektrick\u00fdm proudem (sic!). Proto nemohl Krajsk\u00fd soud v Ostrav\u011b napadnout nov\u00e9 znaleck\u00e9 posudky oponentn\u00edm odborn\u00fdm n\u00e1zorem, av\u0161ak (s poru\u0161en\u00edm pr\u00e1va na spravedliv\u00fd proces) ozna\u010dil posudky znalc\u016f, kter\u00e9 spl\u0148uj\u00ed z\u00e1kladn\u00ed a z\u00e1konn\u00e1 krit\u00e9ria znaleck\u00e9ho posudku (na rozd\u00edl o tzv. revizn\u00edho znaleck\u00e9ho posudku, kter\u00fd je v\u016fbec nespl\u0148uje), za pouh\u00fd \u201en\u00e1zor\u201c znalc\u016f (sic!). Shora jmenovan\u00ed znalci p\u0159itom za svou znaleckou kari\u00e9ru zpracovali v souhrnu p\u0159es 10 tis\u00edc znaleck\u00fdch posudk\u016f (kdy doc. MUDr. Alexandr Pil\u00edn, CSc. je znalcem ji\u017e od roku 1983, tedy ji\u017e 40 let), av\u0161ak ani jednou se jim nestalo, \u017ee by soud ozna\u010dil jejich znaleck\u00fd posudek za \u201en\u00e1zor\u201c.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Z v\u00fdpov\u011bdi prof. MUDr. Ivo \u0160teinera, CSc., u ve\u0159ejn\u00e9ho zased\u00e1n\u00ed u Krajsk\u00e9ho soudu v Ostrav\u011b vyplynulo, kdy\u017e citoval z publikace autora tzv. revizn\u00edho znaleck\u00e9ho posudku doc. Vorla, \u017ee \u201ehistologick\u00fdm prepar\u00e1t\u016fm nerozum\u00ed<\/em>\u201c a i z toho d\u016fvodu z\u00e1v\u011br znaleck\u00e9ho posudku pr\u00e1v\u011b prof. MUDr. Ivo \u0160teinera, CSc., zn\u00ed, \u017ee si znalci ob\u017ealoby \u201epletou z\u00e1kladn\u00ed terminologii.\u201c <\/em>(sic!).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zcela nekorektn\u011b a rozporu s pr\u00e1vem na soudn\u00ed ochranu Petra Kramn\u00e9ho vyhodnotily jak Krajsk\u00fd soud v Ostrav\u011b, tak Vrchn\u00ed soud v Olomouci nov\u00fd v\u011bdeck\u00fd poznatek z klinick\u00e9 histopatologie barven\u00ed Kongo \u010cerven\u00ed doc. MUDr. et MUDr. Alexander Pilina, CSc. Obecn\u00e9 soudy bez sebemen\u0161\u00ed element\u00e1rn\u00ed znalosti dan\u00e9 problematiky toti\u017e provedly hodnot\u00edc\u00ed \u00favahy. Op\u011btovn\u00fdm ov\u011b\u0159en\u00edm u Akademie v\u011bd publikac\u00ed ve v\u011bdeck\u00e9m \u010dasopise s impact faktorem a publikac\u00ed v odborn\u00e9 ve\u0159ejnosti lze hovo\u0159it o v\u011bdeck\u00e9m poznatku.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Uk\u00e1zkou manipulace je pak usnesen\u00ed Vrchn\u00edho soudu v Olomouci ze dne 22. 8. 2023, kde soud sn\u00ed\u017eil po\u010det testovan\u00fdch vzork\u016f z p\u016fvodn\u00edch 40 na 29. Vrchn\u00ed soud se neobt\u011b\u017eoval v r\u00e1mci spravedliv\u00e9ho procesu Petra Kramn\u00e9ho ov\u011b\u0159it posun nov\u00e9ho v\u011bdeck\u00e9ho poznatku doc. MUDr. et MUDr. Alexander Pilina, CSc. od jeho v\u00fdpov\u011bdi u Krajsk\u00e9ho soudu v Ostrav\u011b dne 29. 11. 2022 do vypracov\u00e1n\u00ed usnesen\u00ed Vrchn\u00edho soudu v Olomouci ze dne 22. 8. 2023, co\u017e je v\u00edce jak 9 m\u011bs\u00edc\u016f. Pokud by tak u\u010dinil, tak by zjistil (stejn\u011b jako Spolek \u0160alamoun) \u017ee doc. MUDr. et MUDr. Alexander Pilin, CSc., provedl testov\u00e1n\u00ed na dal\u0161\u00edch v\u00edce jak 100 vzorc\u00edch s toto\u017en\u00fdm v\u00fdsledkem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jako tenk\u00e1 \u010derven\u00e1 ni\u0165 proch\u00e1z\u00ed p\u0159\u00edpadem Petra Kramn\u00e9ho z\u00e1v\u011br, \u017ee na pokoji byli t\u0159i osoby, on p\u0159e\u017eil a pokud nastane n\u00e1hl\u00e9 \u00famrt\u00ed dvou osob v kr\u00e1tk\u00e9m \u010dasov\u00e9m \u00faseku, je to v\u017edy smrt n\u00e1siln\u00e1. Za posledn\u00edch 10 let Spolek \u0160alamoun eviduje velmi z\u00e1hadn\u00e1 \u00famrt\u00ed dal\u0161\u00edch osob v Egyptsk\u00e9 Hurghad\u011b, a to bez objektivn\u00edch zji\u0161t\u011bn\u00fdch p\u0159\u00ed\u010din. Typick\u00fd a zcela toto\u017en\u00fd je nap\u0159\u00edklad p\u0159\u00edpad man\u017eel\u016f Cooperov\u00fdch a jejich n\u00e1hl\u00e9ho a dodnes nevysv\u011btlen\u00e9ho \u00famrt\u00ed, viz zde:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.mirror.co.uk\/news\/uk-news\/brit-couple-die-hours-apart-31386596.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Podle p\u0159esv\u011bd\u010den\u00ed Spolku \u0160alamoun obecn\u00e9 soudy up\u0159ely st\u011b\u017eovateli Petru Kramn\u00e9mu pr\u00e1vo na soudn\u00ed ochranu podle \u010dl. 36 odst. 1 Listiny, nebo\u0165 a\u010dkoliv p\u0159edlo\u017eil nov\u00fd d\u016fkaz sv\u011bd\u010d\u00edc\u00ed o z\u00e1sadn\u00edch vad\u00e1ch kl\u00ed\u010dov\u00e9ho usv\u011bd\u010duj\u00edc\u00edho d\u016fkazu, a tedy i o jin\u00e9m skutkov\u00e9m d\u011bji ne\u017eli pro kter\u00fd byl uzn\u00e1n vinn\u00fdm odsouzen, p\u0159esto jeho n\u00e1vrh na povolen\u00ed obnovy \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed zam\u00edtly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nejednalo se p\u0159itom o (pouh\u00e9) \u201ejin\u00e9 n\u00e1zory\u201c znalc\u016f, ale o relevantn\u00ed znaleck\u00e9 posudky s n\u00e1le\u017eitostmi podle \u00a7 110a trestn\u00edho \u0159\u00e1du, kter\u00e9 mohou p\u0159ivodit jin\u00e9 rozhodnut\u00ed o vin\u011b a trestu ve smyslu \u00a7 278 odst. 1 trestn\u00edho \u0159\u00e1du.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. P\u0159edlo\u017een\u00ed v\u011bci pl\u00e9nu \u00dastavn\u00edho soudu<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Z\u00e1v\u011brem pod\u00e1v\u00e1me \u00dastavn\u00edmu soudu podn\u011bt, aby zv\u00e1\u017eil, zda by tuto v\u011bc nam\u00edsto sen\u00e1tu nem\u011blo projednat pl\u00e9num \u00dastavn\u00edho soudu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prvn\u00ed d\u016fvod je sp\u00ed\u0161e procesn\u00edho charakteru a t\u00fdk\u00e1 se zaujet\u00ed stanoviska k \u00dastavn\u00edm soudem rozd\u00edln\u011b naz\u00edran\u00e9 ot\u00e1zce, zda p\u0159ihl\u00ed\u017eet nebo nep\u0159ihl\u00ed\u017eet k (nevy\u017e\u00e1dan\u00fdm) vyj\u00e1d\u0159en\u00edm od t\u0159et\u00edch osob ve form\u011b amicus curiae (tedy pokud obsahuj\u00edc\u00ed informace relevantn\u00ed ve vztahu k p\u0159edm\u011btu \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed). Tento postup ostatn\u011b vypl\u00fdv\u00e1 z \u00a7 11 odst. 2 p\u00edsm. i), \u00a7 23 z\u00e1kona o \u00dastavn\u00edm soudu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Druh\u00fd d\u016fvod je v\u011bcn\u00e9ho (a mnohem z\u00e1va\u017en\u011bj\u0161\u00edho) charakteru.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

V\u011bc Petra Kramn\u00e9ho toti\u017e \u00dastavn\u00ed soud u\u017e jednou projedn\u00e1val, kdy rozhodoval o jeho \u00fastavn\u00ed st\u00ed\u017enosti proti pravomocn\u00fdm rozhodnut\u00edm obecn\u00fdch soud\u016f o vin\u011b a trestu (v\u010detn\u011b usnesen\u00ed Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00edho soudu o odm\u00edtnut\u00ed dovol\u00e1n\u00ed).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jeho tehdej\u0161\u00ed \u00fastavn\u00ed st\u00ed\u017enost byla usnesen\u00edm \u00dastavn\u00edho soudu sp. zn. IV. \u00daS 1799\/17 <\/strong>ze dne 20. 2. 2018 (ve slo\u017een\u00ed sen\u00e1tu JUDr. Jan Musil, JUDr. Jan Filip, JUDr. Jarom\u00edr Jirsa) odm\u00edtnuta. Stalo se tak \u2013 podle na\u0161eho n\u00e1zoru \u2013 s nep\u0159esv\u011bd\u010div\u00fdm, ba plytk\u00fdm a\u017e fr\u00e1zovit\u00fdm od\u016fvodn\u011bn\u00edm, kdy \u00dastavn\u00ed soud (mimo jin\u00e9) bez n\u00e1mitek aproboval i \u201enep\u0159\u00edm\u00e9 d\u016fkazy\u201c zm\u00edn\u011bn\u00e9 i v usnesen\u00ed Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00edho soudu \u010d.j. 7 Tdo 1593\/2016\u2013475 <\/strong>ze dne 16. 3. 2016, toti\u017e i v\u011btu z odposlechu (\u017ee \u201emu v\u0161echno vy\u0161lo i v tom Egypt\u011b\u2026\u201c), kterou ve skute\u010dnosti Petr Kramn\u00fd nikdy ne\u0159ekl.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

V tak z\u00e1va\u017en\u00e9 v\u011bci, jako je v\u011bc Petra Kramn\u00e9ho odsouzen\u00e9ho k trestu odn\u011bt\u00ed svobody na 28 let (tzn. na zbytek je\u0161t\u011b produktivn\u00edho \u017eivota) v\u0161ak jde o p\u0159\u00edli\u0161 mnoho, ne\u017eli aby jeho (z\u0159ejm\u011b ji\u017e posledn\u00ed) nad\u011bje a \u0161ance na nov\u00fd, spravedliv\u00fd proces, byla zma\u0159ena (p\u0159\u00edpadn\u00fdm) pouh\u00fdm n\u011bkolikastr\u00e1nkov\u00fdm usnesen\u00edm bez hlub\u0161\u00edho a podrobn\u00e9ho rozboru v\u011bci, jako se to ji\u017e jednou stalo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tento postup \u00dastavn\u00edmu soudu umo\u017e\u0148uje \u00a7 11 odst. 2 p\u00edsm. k) z\u00e1kona o \u00dastavn\u00edm soudu a tak\u00e9 \u010dl\u00e1nek 1 p\u00edsm. i) Sd\u011blen\u00ed \u00dastavn\u00edho soudu o p\u0159ijet\u00ed rozhodnut\u00ed ze dne 25. 3. 2014 \u010d. Org. 24\/14 o atrahov\u00e1n\u00ed p\u016fsobnosti (pod \u010d. 52\/2014 Sb.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ze v\u0161ech uveden\u00fdch d\u016fvod\u016f proto p\u0159edkl\u00e1d\u00e1me \u00dastavn\u00edmu soudu toto stanovisko ve form\u011b amicus curia a zdvo\u0159ile \u017e\u00e1d\u00e1me, aby \u00dastavn\u00ed soud vzal na v\u011bdom\u00ed informace zde uveden\u00e9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

S \u00factou<\/p>\n\n\n\n

za Spolek \u0160alamoun:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

John Bok,<\/strong> \u010destn\u00fd p\u0159edseda<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u010dlenov\u00e9 v\u00fdboru:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

V\u00e1clav Peri\u010devi\u010d,<\/strong> p\u0159edseda<\/p>\n\n\n\n

JUDr. PhDr. Miroslav \u0160padrna, Ph.D.,<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

m\u00edstop\u0159edseda<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mgr. \u0160imon Mach,<\/strong> m\u00edstop\u0159edseda<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Dne 6. 12. 2023 zaslal Spolek \u0160alamoun sv\u00e9 stanovisko, a to formou Amicus curiae briefu, k \u00fastavn\u00ed st\u00ed\u017enosti odsouzen\u00e9ho Petra […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1682,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_eb_attr":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,12,3,165,161,14,7,164,162],"tags":[20,33],"class_list":["post-1680","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-aktualni-kauzy","category-kauza-kramny","category-kauzy-spolku-salamoun","category-media-a-justice","category-obnovy-rizeni","category-pachove-stopy","category-stanoviska-spolku-salamoun","category-trestni-rizeni","category-znalecke-posudky","tag-kramny","tag-spravedlivy-proces"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/spoleksalamoun.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1680"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/spoleksalamoun.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/spoleksalamoun.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spoleksalamoun.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spoleksalamoun.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1680"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/spoleksalamoun.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1680\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1683,"href":"https:\/\/spoleksalamoun.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1680\/revisions\/1683"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spoleksalamoun.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1682"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/spoleksalamoun.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1680"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spoleksalamoun.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1680"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spoleksalamoun.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1680"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}