The play is a re-enactment of a murder case. The roles have reversed, the public prosecutor is responsible

It is still not clear about the renewal of the case of the murder of an elderly man in Slopné in the Zlín region. The court has been considering the proposal to open the case since the beginning of February, after an investigation by Seznam Zpráv questioned the circumstances of the granting of exceptional sentences to two young men. Both deny guilt. Why does justice take an unusually long time to make a decision? And what new questions did the process bring?

What you will also hear in today’s episode at 5:59

For more than three months, the court has been dealing with a proposal for a retrial in the case of the brutal murder of an elderly man from 2011 in the village of Slopné in the Zlín region. Two men who have been behind bars for 11 years have received exceptional prison sentences for her, claiming that they did not commit the crime. Maroš Straňák and David Šimon requested to open the case several times in the past. Now they mainly point to the revelations published in the Seznam Práv Slopné podcast series: Who is the murderer?.

“With each stop, more and more things appear, which create more question marks,” SZ investigative reporter Adéla Jelínková describes for the 5:59 podcast the events at the Regional Court in Zlín. It was she, together with her colleague Christine Havranová, who collected testimonies and evidence during a more than one-year search that questioned the course of the police investigation, the activities of the supervising prosecutor and the events during the trial, at the end of which Straňák and Šimon were sentenced to 24.5 and 20.5 years in prison .

According to Jelínková, the convicts’ new attempt to renew the proceedings is mainly based on questioning the testimony of recidivists Milan Rakaš and his cousin Ludvík Rakaš (now Mencla). Both men testified in court in 2014 that Straňák confessed to the murder of the then 77-year-old pensioner Miroslav Sedlář during their joint stay behind bars.

But when Seznam Zpráv journalists confronted Mencl last year, he told them something else – that Maroš Straňák never confessed to him about the murder. And that he and his cousin claimed the opposite, so that they could get out of prison sooner based on an agreement with the supervising prosecutor at the time, Lee Foltýn. But it wasn’t Mencl’s last turn – he now declared in court that he stood by his original testimony. And his cousin Milan expressed himself in the same way.

However, Ludvík Mencl’s mention of the agreement with the state prosecutor attracted the attention of not only female reporters or convicts and their defense attorneys. The National Office against Organized Crime (NCOZ) also began to examine Foltýn’s actions in the case. And it wasn’t just a matter of whether the plaintiff really promised something to the Rakas. The Seznam Zpráv search also showed that Foltýn hid information about DNA identification from a key piece of evidence – from a discarded hood, on which the victim’s blood had adhered.

Listen to the podcast series Slopné: Who is the killer?

Initially, the NCOZ came to the conclusion that the ex-plaintiff had not committed anything illegal. After all, Foltýn himself emphasizes the same position in his statements. But the latest trial at the end of April showed that detectives are interested in him again. And that’s also thanks to new circumstances that came to light during the trial.

“It turned out that between 2014 and 2016, Foltýn intervened several times on behalf of Milan Rakaš on various sides – towards his prosecutors, who handled his case, and so on. The police initially did not deal with this at all, although it was absolutely essential. They are conducting further interrogations in this matter only now that the court has revealed it,” says Jelínková. According to her, in addition, at the next hearing of the court at the end of June, another prosecutor, with whom Foltýn communicated regarding the sentence for Milan Rakaš, should testify.

Not only that, from the point of view of the Seznam Zpráv reporter, it brings the already mentioned new question marks. According to Jelínková, we can only speculate whether someone from the police, public prosecutor’s office or the judicial system, in addition to information about DNA traces and “attributions” for Milan Rakaš, did not hide, distort or even manipulate something else.

In the meantime, the court’s decision on the possible renewal of the Slopenské case stretched to a remarkable length. “It is not at all customary for it to take so long,” emphasizes Jelínková, referring to the comments of the lawyers who have experience with proposals for retrial. Reporters described it as usually “about 45 minutes and it was rejected”. In the case of Maroš Straňák and David Šimon, the fifth court hearing is already scheduled.

However, the deviating course perhaps also demonstrates the degree of attention the court pays to the findings of Seznam Zpráv reporters. “It appears that the authorities consider this to be a valid line of inquiry to pursue. And that they consider the evidence to be relevant,” adds Jelínková.

In the 5:59 podcast, you will also learn more details from the court’s decision on the renewal of the Slopen case or what variants of the further development of the case are now in play. Listen in the player at the beginning of the article.

Podcast 5:59