The motive of the perpetrator of last year’s tragic shooting at the Faculty of Arts of Charles University was not due to a mental disorder. State representative Jana Murínová stated this at Thursday’s meeting of the parliamentary security committee, referring to the examination of an expert in psychology.
Regarding the earlier information that the shooter had received psychiatric treatment in the past, the prosecutor noted that not every person who seeks help from a psychiatrist is sick.
“The perpetrator was not affected by a mental disorder,” said Murínová. According to her, once the assessment is completed, the expert is ready to publish and defend the conclusions. Murínová asked for patience in this context. Family members who were affected by the incident at the Faculty of Philosophy also arrived at the committee meeting.
According to the prosecutor, the expert is processing the psychological profile of the offender. In addition to criminological procedures, it is intended to help determine the perpetrator’s motive. “We are going deep into the history of his life,” said Murínová.
During the shooting at the faculty in the center of Prague last year before Christmas, 14 people, including students and teachers, lost their lives. After the attack, the perpetrator, who according to the police was a student of the faculty, committed suicide. Murders in Klánovické les and Hostoun in central Bohemia were also connected to the perpetrator.
The investigation continues. Therefore, according to Murínová, no specific information can be provided, but only general information. The basic period for the investigation is six months. Vojtěch Motyka from the Prague police said that the police had not yet asked for an extension.
Survivors have different views on the commission
The committee meeting was convened by members of the ANO opposition movement in connection with the effort to establish a commission of inquiry into the conduct of the police. Speakers from among the survivors expressed different opinions on the creation of the commission. One of them thought that the commission would be political. “We met as survivors and the majority said they did not want the commission of inquiry,” he said. Either the MPs do not trust the investigation in advance, or they will wait and then decide whether they want the commission, he added.
Another of the survivors supported the creation of the commission. For example, he asked why the police did not also secure the main faculty building on náměstí Jan Palach, where the shooting took place, as they did in the case of another faculty building in nearby Celetná street. “If they had cleared the main building, the brother would have lived,” he said. He believed that someone had underestimated the situation, there had been a mistake in tactical management and that the tragedy could have been prevented.
Lubomír Zaorálek, a former minister for the ČSSD (now SOCDEM), who was lecturing at the faculty at the time of the shooting, also arrived at the committee meeting. “The police officers who were there did what they could. It’s not about that at all,” he said. According to him, there are question marks around the leadership and management of the operation.
“Questions will be answered. We also want it to be clarified,” emphasized committee chairman Pavel Žáček (ODS). The police intervention is still being investigated by the General Inspectorate of the Security Forces. During the committee meeting, it was said that the inspection can also give methodological recommendations.
One of the survivors is convinced that many of the shooting victims could have been saved. She reproached the Minister of the Interior Vít Rakušan (STAN) for a lack of empathy, the Austrian objected to this.
At the end of the meeting, ANO MP Jana Mračková Vildumetzová did not put forward a proposal according to which the security committee would have recommended the establishment of an investigative commission to the plenary. Coalition MPs, who were the majority, abstained or opposed the vote. On the other hand, the committee adopted a resolution presented by Petr Letocha (STAN), in which he supported a “proper and complete” investigation of the event and supported the widest possible reporting of its conclusions in the shortest possible time.
