Vítkov trial: Defense tries to discredit victims, firefighter too afraid to testify

Members of the Romani family who were the target of last year’s arson attack in Vítkov testified today before the court in Ostrava. The court heard testimony from victim Vlasta Malá, who rejected the defendants’ claims that her home had been a storehouse for stolen goods. Defendant David Vaculík, who made a request yesterday to be excused from the trial for health reasons, was present in court today.

Victim Anna Siváková arrived at the courthouse in an agitated state just before 9 AM. Shaking, Siváková told the press she felt terrible. She had asked the defendants not be present during her testimony. The foursome was not in the courtroom, but a video and audio feed of her testimony was broadcast to them in another room. Siváková said she did not want to see the arsonists and hoped their fate would be the same as her Natálka’s.

Even though defendant David Vaculík claimed to be experiencing great pain in one of his toes, a medical report on his condition said he was fit to participate in the trial. Vaculík had previously asked to be excused.

Vlasta Malá, the mother of Anna Siváková and grandmother of Natálka, testified first. Malá said she had lived in the single-family home since 1983 and had been granted title to it by the town hall. She said no one had ever pressured her to move out and no one had ever claimed her residency there was illegal. Pavel Kudrik moved in to live with the family several years ago.

Malá then described the evening of the attack: “On that day I was watching television. My husband had gone to bed. My daughter and the children were sleeping in the next room. Pavel was watching television too. The television had to have been visible from the garden and the road. I made myself a coffee and went to have a cigarette at 11:20. I heard the window pane break and then the curtain caught fire. Our bed was on fire and my husband’s pajamas were on fire. There was fire everywhere.”

Malá and her husband put out the fire on the bedclothes and tried to turn on the water, but almost nothing came out of the faucet. She ran outside, saw a car driving off, and heard someone yell “Burn, Gypsies!” “I guess someone yelled it from the car window, but I wasn’t paying much attention,” Malá said. Her grandchildren then ran out after her. Her husband was still inside doing his best to put out the fire.

The judge asked Malá about the defendants’ claim that her home had been a storehouse for stolen goods. Malá resolutely denied any such claim and said there was nothing stored in the barn. She said the cry of “Burn, Gypsies!” had come from more than one person and that before the fire the water had been running normally in the house.

One of the defendants’ attorneys asked Malá to draw the floor plan of the house. He then asked what the family’s legal relationship to the property was. Malá explained that title to the house had been granted to her by the National Committee and that all the necessary paperwork was in order: “We have everything. They told us to request the house through the court. We hired an attorney. He figured out who the owner was and we received documents for it from the cadastre.”

The defense attorney next asked Malá who and what she had heard outside in front of the house. She said the arsonists had to have seen her. “They yelled ‘Burn, Gypsies’ or ‘Burn up’ at me,” Malá reiterated, adding that she had also yelled something at them and cursed them. Tension rose in the courtroom.

Vaculík’s attorney Petr Kausta then did his best to find discrepancies between Malá’s preliminary testimony and her trial testimony. In court Malá claimed someone from the group in the car shouted “Burn, Gypsies!” and that all of them were in the car, but Kausta pointed out that her initial testimony to police differed. “Maybe he wasn’t inside the car or his head was sticking out of the window. The car was moving and they were shouting,” Malá. “It matters – they set us on fire, they shouldn’t have done it,” she added with distress in her voice.

Malá then described again for the defense what happened during the fire. She said that once she was outside she tried going back into the house, but the smoke was already horrible by then. She then saw her daughter and Pavel Kudrik carrying Natálka. They did their best to put the flames on her out with water. The defense attorney asked where the water had come from if there wasn’t any. Malá said there was water in the boiler. The defense attorney then asked whether Malá had a criminal record. Malá said she had been sentenced for attacking a public official.

Another defendant’s attorney then questioned Malá, asking her about other details over and over. The defense focused on the darkened windows, wanting to know exactly how the windows were covered and whether it was possible to see lights in the house from outside. Malá explained that she had lived there for many years and that light inside the house was visible from outside.

Markus Pape, attorney-in-fact for the family, then asked questions. He wanted to know whether Malá had been upset after the attack, whether she had been upset during her testimony to police, and whether she and her husband were receiving medical treatment. Malá said her husband was back at work but that he was doing poorly psychologically. “His interest is in electronics, he used to repair washing machines, refrigerators and televisions,” Malá said.

Today Malá also had to look the four defendants in the eye. State prosecutor Brigita Bilíková wanted to know whether she had ever seen them before. Malá said she had not.

Defendants Lukeš and Vaculík did not comment on Malá’s testimony. Müller apologized and expressed regret for what had happened. Cojocaru said none of them had shouted anything and that had he seen movement in the house he would never have thrown anything at it.

Václav Malý, Natálka’s grandfather, testified next. At the start of his testimony he said he had lived in the house since 1983 and regularly kept it up. His description of the situation during the fire tallied with that of his wife. He first saw their daughter and Pavel Kudrik outside when they were running with Natálka to the hospital.

The defense attorneys did their best to discredit Malý. They asked him how many televisions he had at home, whether combustibles were kept in the house, and whether he had a criminal record. Malý explained that he repaired televisions and various other electronic items that people brought him. Police had never investigated him for theft. The defense said Malý had been sentenced 12 times. Malý explained that some of those sentences had been for protesting in 1968. In 2002 he committed a misdemeanor for which he performed community service. Malý also described the changes to his life after the attack. All of the items he had been repairing were burned in the fire and he no longer performs that service.

Lukeš and Vaculík had no response to make to the grandfather’s testimony. Cojocaru and Müller apologized. Malý responded that he understood them and that they are young. “I’m always thinking about it, I guess I always will,” Malý told the press, adding that he was doing his best to understand the defendants, that everyone should try to do so, and that what they did was horrible. “I don’t know where they got these ideas … I can’t believe they could do something like that,” Malý said.

The volunteer firefighter who made a significant contribution to the capture of the neo-Nazi arsonists was scheduled to testify after the recess, but because the media had published his name prior to his testimony, he refused to testify out of fear for his family. He said his initial statement to the police had been complete.

The neo-Nazi defendants then left the courtroom and Anna Siváková, Natálka’s mother, described the horrible moments of the fire. “Half the room was on fire. I jumped up. I knew Natálka had been lying next to me, but when I woke up she wasn’t there. The other children were in the other half of the room. I looked for her, I had to find her. I heard her screaming and I saw my partner using a blanket to put out the flames on her. I ran outside with him. The other children were already outside,” news server iDNES.cz quoted her as saying.

Siváková then said she had received medical treatment for her burn injuries and was now visiting a psychiatrist. The defense did its best to find discrepancies between her testimony and that of her mother, trying to determine in what order they ran out of the house.

Once again, neo-Nazis Lukeš and Vaculík had no response to make to the testimony. Cojocaru and Müller apologized. Siváková left the courtroom exhausted and the defendants then returned.

Pavel Kudrik, Natálka’s father, also described the fateful evening. He had gone to bed just after 9:30 PM. The television was still on and a small lamp was lit. He was awakened by a blow and the sensation of heat. He saw the bed was on fire and that little Natálka was on fire and immediately started putting out the flames on her. “I shouted to my partner to bring water,” Kudrik testified. He said Siváková took Natálka and ran outside with her. They helped the children over the fence and ran to the hospital together.

Kudrik said nothing was stored at the house or near it except for sawdust and wood. He emphatically rejected the idea that stolen goods were stored in the house. The defense asked Kudrik to describe the situation after the Molotov cocktails had been thrown once more. Kudrik repeated that he had first saved little Natálka and the other children.

The defense again attacked the credibility of the victim and did his best to discredit Kudrik, asking whether it was true he had been sentenced 14 separate times. Kudrik answered that it was. “It was for petty theft,” he said. The attorney-in-fact for the family objected that the information was irrelevant.

Again, Lukeš and Vaculík kept their silence after Kudrik’s testimony. Cojocaru and Müller apologized. Kudrik asked them to apologize to Natálka once she has grown up. The hearing ended after the father’s testimony.