Expert Matlach has died, he played a crucial role in the Petr Kramné case. He was given probation for the opinion

Medical examiner and expert Radek Matlach died at the age of 52. He played a key role in the Petr Kramné case. The Šlamoun Association, which deals with cases of unjustly convicted people in the Czech Republic, reported on the tragic event.

“During his career, he became one of the most respected experts in his field and became famous for his uncompromising pursuit of justice. His professional knowledge and careful approach were decisive in the case of Petr Kramný, where he drew attention to the possibility that the cause of death of Monika and Klára Kramný may not have been electric current, which was subsequently confirmed by other leading Czech experts.” presented by the Solomon Society.

Matlach died in his sleep in the family circle. The last farewell to him will take place on June 14, 2024 in Liberec. His passing is a loss not only for his family and friends, but also for the professional public.

It must be added that Matlach was a rather controversial figure among experts. In November 2021, the District Court in Ostrava came to the conclusion that experts Igor Fargaš and Matlach committed perjury and a false opinion when they knowingly distorted the expertise in favor of Kramné. Matlach was given one year suspended for two years by the Ostrava court. In addition, the justice imposed an activity ban on both experts.

The indictment in the Kramný case was based on the expert opinion of the Ostrava Institute of Forensic Medicine, according to which Kramný killed his wife and daughter with electric current. Experts Matlach and Fargaš stated in the defense report that food poisoning was the most likely cause of death.

The third, revised opinion again clearly identified electrocution as the cause of death, and expert František Vorel also said that some of the conclusions of Matlach and Fargaš seem to be either basic ignorance or intentional distortion.

According to the Supreme Court, the conclusions of both experts contradict reality and the revised expert opinion. According to the court’s decision, both of them distorted the input data, used inadequate research methods and/or distorted the conclusions of the professional literature.

But the Šalamoun association stands by the fact that Matlach was a lifelong fighter for justice. “His tireless pursuit of the truth led to his suspended sentence in connection with the Petr Kramný case, which had a major impact on his health,” states. At the same time, he claims that the conviction of Petr Kramný is the biggest judicial crime.

According to Expres, Matlach’s death may have been caused by his conviction and defamation, which caused him to develop cancer, which he succumbed to recently. “His defamation was very massive. You have to see it in the overall context, they wrote the opinion on Kramné in October 2015 and also testified in court. But they were accused only in March 2017, when they started to process new assessments,” stated Václav Peričevič, one of the main representatives of the Šalamoun Association.

According to Peričevič, the accusation came at a time when other renowned experts in their expert reports clearly and categorically rule out that the cause of death of Monika and Klára Kramný could be murder by electric current. “Unfortunately, it broke Radek, he developed cancer, which had this fatal outcome. He is another victim of Czech justice,” explains.

According to Peričevič, the merit of the whole process was the allegedly incorrect evaluation of the histological preparation of Monika Kramná’s intestine, where, according to Matlach, inflammatory polynuclear cells should have been found. The opposition’s expert opinion stated that no inflammatory polynuclear cells were found in the histological preparation, which it considers a failure and ignorance of Matlach.

“It was not until the main hearing at the District Court in Ostrava that it became clear that the histological specimen assessed by Matlach was completely different from the histological specimen assessed by another expert institute. In other words, someone simply changed the glass.” explained Peričević.