In this section I will return to clarify some aspects of the Číhošt' case. I will focus on the reconstruction of the mechanism of the work of the State Security, on the participation of specific StB officers and on the analysis of the results of individual investigations from the 1950s to the 1990s. I will also look at the fate of the main "protagonists" behind the death of parish priest Josef Toufar. At the beginning of 1950, as I have already mentioned, the investigation of the so-called "miracle" of Číhošt' was entrusted to the Mácha's Briefing Group of the State Security Headquarters. However, this team of "investigators" had a broader task than just the Číhošt' case. The aim was to prepare the trial of the Church representatives. In addition to Toufar, members of Mácha's group interrogated, for example, Abbots Vít Bohumil Tajovský and Augustin Machalka,1 Vice-Rector Josef Burýšek, a student at the theological school in Hradec Králové, Jan Zmrhal, a churchman and teacher from Číhoště, and other church representatives and believers.
Ladislav Mácha, the main culprit in Toufar's death, was dismissed from the StB in 1950 but remained in the service of the Ministry of National Security. In 1951, the 3rd Department of the 2nd Sector (later the Inspectorate of the Minister of the Interior) investigated Lieutenant Mácha in the case of the parish priest Toufar. During his testimony on 20 June 19515, Mácha stated that he had received the order to interrogate Toufar directly from Osvald Závodský. Mácha regularly informed his superiors (Čech, Závodský) about the progress of the investigation. When after three weeks the correctly conducted interrogations of Toufar did not produce the expected results, the dissatisfied superiors demanded an increase in tempo. In this sense, Mácha referred mainly to the head of the BA department, Závodský, and the Minister of the Interior, Nosek.
At the beginning of the fourth week of the investigation, Toufar recanted all of the statements he had made so far and appeared "very hardened and very hostile". According to Mácha's own words, he called his team together and together they conferred on how to proceed in the case: 'I pointed out to my comrades that the StB headquarters is constantly putting pressure on us and is trying to have the investigation terminated as soon as possible, because it is politically very topical... At the end of this meeting, the comrades agreed that they are forced to carry out this form of interrogation as a result of the situation created, even though they are opposed to it.'
According to Mácha, everyone involved agreed to a "harsher form of interrogation". The first intermediate step was the decision to put Toufar in correctional custody. Subsequently, according to Mácha, the Číhošt' parish priest twice attempted suicide by hanging himself with his shoelaces. In the words of the main actor of the brutal interrogations, StB investigator Mácha, "...Mr. Toufar was first given a few slaps and then a rubber baton across the buttocks and on the hookers. After Toufar's death, Mácha tried to reach Závodský through Čech and explain everything to him. But Závodský wasn't interested in his explanations.
In 1963, Mácha added that he found himself in a time crunch because he was about to film a "miracle" and missed Toufar's confession. So there was only one way to get this confession: to beat it out of the parish priest! After Toufar's death, Macha got into trouble. He was threatened with an investigation and his superior, Czech, advised him to "clean up his act".
Václav Němec, who participated in the harsh interrogations of parish priest Toufar together with Mácha, denied in the early 1960s11 that he had participated in his beating. On the contrary, together with others, he allegedly discouraged his "colleague" Mácha from conducting such interrogations. Nemec confirmed that they wanted to break Toufar's resistance by accusing him of his alleged sexual deviance (relations with underage boys), which was traditionally present in the accusations of Roman Catholic priests in the 1950s. However, the investigation in Chihost was unable to prove any such thing. "All I can say about the whole affair is that I learned after my arrival from Jihlava that Mácha had brutally cut Toufar with a stick in his cell, that he had beaten him head to head, and that Toufar had confessed on the basis of this beating," Nemec said in January 1963.
Another member of the instruction group, Václav Hrabák, confirmed in a statement on 25 June 1951 the StB's idea to make the parish priest Toufar a sex offender who was to molest underage boys. However, on their return from Číhoště, where they were conducting further investigations, to Valdice Prison, Hrabina and Hrabák learned "...that Mácha had brutally cut Toufar with a truncheon in his cell, that he had beaten him severely, and that on the basis of this beating Toufar had confessed."
Chief Constable Miloš Hrabina, in his Official Record of 21 June 1951, additionally confirmed the extraordinary importance of the early clarification of the miracle in Číhošt': "Before we left (meaning for the interrogations in Valdice) we were told by S. We were told by Mácha that this was an extremely serious political case in which both the MNB and the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia were interested, and he even told us indirectly that we were going there on the orders of Sr. Gottwald." Hrabina, however, refused to use beatings during interrogations - this put him at odds with Mácha, who pleaded the party's higher
interest in clarifying the whole case by any means necessary ("...for about 10 to 15 minutes I observed Mácha beating Toufar with sadistic delight..."). Hrabina further witnessed how, after a three-hour interrogation, Mácha had Toufar locked up in the darkroom and forbade him to serve food. The next day he "served" him Carlsbad soup, which was a hot soup with an abnormal amount of salt, while not allowing Toufar to drink. After three days of such interrogations, the effects of Macha's procedure were clearly evident on Toufar. On February 23, 1950, the Chihost miracle was filmed with the obviously "insecure" Toufar. Chief Constable Hrabina further pointed out in 1951 that Mácha had consistently lied to the other interrogators by telling them that his procedure in the whole operation had been approved by Závodský: "...I insist on the substance that it was Mácha who initiated the fact that Toufar was literally beaten..." Miloš Hrabina confirmed these assertions during further investigations in December 196217 and January 1963.
Toufar's poor health was confirmed in 1951 by StB officers Robert Skerl and Jaroslav Rotsch, who transported him to the Borůvkov sanatorium in Prague.According to Skerl, "...his whole body was blue..." This "observation" was confirmed by Rotsch: "When Toufar was transported from Valdice, it was obvious that he was seriously ill, probably with internal injuries and his body was covered with large bruises, which the doctors from the Borůvkov sanatorium also wondered about and said who had made Toufar this way." Skerl and Rotsch were present during the last moments of the parish priest's life. For example,
Rotsch watched over Toufar at his bedside after surgery and later at the forensic clinic. Skerl attended Toufar's funeral and later testified about the grave site in Ďáblice.
Already in March 1950, Skerl had to sign a declaration that he would keep the miracle in Číhošt' secret (the same declaration was signed by another StB investigator, Bohumil Košař).On 1 July 1968, Robert Skerl gave the following information about the health of parish priest Toufar: "...he looked terribly ill. He did not even look like a man. He was all dilapidated, thin, his cheeks were sunken, his facial features were torn, his lips were swollen and cracked, and he had a strange colour in his face and on his body as well, to be precise, he was all yellow. There were some bruises on his face, I could see bruises on his body... He was in a kind of agony. He was shaking and uttering some kind of moans. He was obviously in terrible pain. I noticed that his hands kept touching his abdomen."
In his testimony in December 1962, former "Macha's Team" member Václav Hrabák confirmed the existence of contradictions in the investigating StB briefing group, with one part wanting to toughen up the interrogation and the other holding the opinion that it should continue in a decent manner. Hrabák held the second idea and got into a sharp dispute with Mácha over it: '...My opinion was that Sr. Mácha, as the head of this group, wanted to achieve some extraordinary success in order to prove to his superiors that the group under his leadership could do something. In my opinion, it was his careerist aims that were the main motive for his crude action."
In the Official Record of July 11, 1951, Lieutenant Stanislav Cvíček (another member of the instruction group) admitted his differences with Macha during the interrogation of persons in the Číhošt' case; he, too, was not in favour of massive beatings. On the contrary, Mácha and Nemec were supporters of the hard line interrogation, with Mácha operating with the consent of Závodský.
On 20 February 1952, another member of Mácha's instruction group, Stanislav Řezníček, testified about the Toufar case. According to Řezníček, after about three weeks of interrogation, the parish priest Josef Toufar confessed that he had performed the miracle himself, but withdrew his confession when his testimony was being written. Mácha therefore had him repeatedly imprisoned. Then, finally, Mácha got permission from Závodský to give Toufar a good spanking: "...As I recall, Mácha probably expressed it in such a way that we must cut his ass until he shits." So Mácha repeatedly beat Toufar all over his body with a stick: "... I also remember that Zikmund suddenly came upstairs to our dormitory and told us that Mácha was beating Toufar downstairs in a terrible way, that they could no longer hold him downstairs, i.e. Mácha... After arriving at the cell, I saw that Toufar was lying on the bunk bed and that Mácha was next to him, who had a stick in his hand and was very angry. The interrogation proceeded in such a way that Mácha asked him - Toufar - whether he had done it and whether he would confess, and when Toufar still denied it, he was hit by Mácha... Toufar looked very impoverished and the effects of the violence used were evident." Josef Zikmund, another member of the instruction group, also confirmed Reznicek's testimony in February 1952: "...Because Toufar did not confess and was wailing very much, which had an effect on Mácha, he completely lost control and beat Toufar all over his body with a stick in a sadistic manner."
On 7 March 1952, Second Lieutenant Kalinský of the Investigation Department of the Cadre Department of the Ministry of National Security prepared a Report of Investigation. It shows that the top Communist Party leaders (e.g., Interior Minister Nosek, Justice Minister Čepička, and BA Department Commander Závodský) were intensely interested in the results of the investigation of the Číhošt' "miracle" in February 1950. According to Lt. According to the testimony of the authorities involved in the case, he tortured Toufar for several hours in a brutal and sadistic manner."
Mácha defended himself by claiming that the use of physical violence was approved in "higher places". For example, in 1952, while in custody, Závodský admitted his involvement in the case in this sense: "Osvald Závodský testified that he gave the order to Mácha to use physical violence during the interrogation of the parish priest Toufar." At the request of Lt. Kalinský's request, this report was sent to him by Maj. Bohumil Doubek from Sector VI.A. However, Major Josef Čech, for example, spoke against Macha's version of the order from higher up, and was certain that the use of violence in the Toufar case was expressly forbidden by him. Also, Mácha's colleague at the time, Bohumil Košař (who was present at Toufar's interrogations conducted by Čech in Valdice, Toufar's operation and the autopsy), stated, among other things, that Mácha used violence during interrogations routinely, so he did not need his superior's permission. Kalinský continued in his Report: "From the protocol statements and written statements of the authorities who took part in the use of physical violence against Toufar, it is clear that Mácha beat Toufar for several hours with a baton, giving the direct impression of an abnormal, sadistic man, and when he was told by the other authorities that, having already used physical violence against Toufar, he should only beat him so as not to harm him, Mácha responded to the advice of his comrades by scolding them and calling them opportunists and alibis..." According to that Report, Toufar's interrogation was conducted by Mácha together with Václav Němec in two stages - after the interrogators had rested, another interrogation followed in the evening. In conclusion, Kalinský stated, "... if we evaluate the whole case of Mácha, his behaviour is absolutely politically unbearable, given that in the case of the trial against Toufar, the treacherous role of the Vatican would be exposed directly in a school-like manner before the masses of the working people. Finally, it should also be pointed out that if the enemies of our people were to learn of Macha's action. dem. establishment, they would have used it to launch a smear campaign against the security organs of the People's Republic. dem. States, including the USSR."
Investigations in the 1950s and early 1960s came to the unequivocal conclusion that Ladislav Mácha was fully responsible for the death of Pastor Toufar. His additional punishment was recommended. For example, in 1951, on the basis of the results of the investigation, the then StB commander Josef Hora proposed to the Minister of National Security Ladislav Kopřiv that he be immediately dismissed from the service of the SNB. Mácha was at that time assigned to the cadre and education department of the MNB. Not only was Mácha not dismissed, but on 1 February 1953 he joined the KS VB Prague and in August 1954 he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant. After the situation around him calmed down, he was transferred to the Second Administration of the Ministry of the Interior in January 1959, promoted to captain in November 1960, and in December 1962 completed his university education (while on duty) as a lawyer.
In 1963, the Číhošt' case was investigated by an extraordinary commission of the Interior Ministry and subsequently by the Central Control and Revision Commission of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. Mácha was punished for the use of violence in the Toufar case with a party reprimand and, at his own request, in January 1964, with his resignation from the Ministry of the Interior, despite the fact that he had written to both MV Strougal and the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. For three months he was unable to find work. Mácha perceived all these actions as wrong and unfair to him. Shortly thereafter, he worked at the Ministry of Transport, at the foreign trade company Pragoexport, and until October 1968 at the Ministry of Forestry and Water Management (MLVH).
In 1964, the Central Control and Revision Commission (CCRC) of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia requested a forensic expert report on the death of P. Josef Toufar, which stated, among other things, that "The physical violence used against Pastor Toufar did not have any effect on his death. However, it certainly aggravated his state of health and may have hastened the perforation of his stomach ulcer. His death was caused by his delayed transfer to hospital. However, this was not the fault of L. Macha, but of the inadequate medical care in the prisons at the time." Indeed, even the Central Control and Revision Commission of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Czechoslovak Communist Party assessed Toufar as a cunning enemy of the socialist social order.
Ladislav Mácha perceived his problems after leaving the Ministry of the Interior as a targeted attack on his person and felt very damaged. He wrote letters in which he defended himself and presented the case of parish priest Toufar "from his point of view". Failing elsewhere, he wrote twice to President Antonín Novotný in February and March 1964: "Parish priest Toufar of the "Cihošt' case was not an innocent person, but an ordinary criminal and anti-state criminal who actually committed the crime... as a conscious Party member, in the interests of the Party and the state, 14 years ago (in February 1950) I complied with the order of the then Minister of the Interior, Sr. Nosek, by which I was forced to take severe action against such a criminal and anti-State criminal as the parish priest Toufar, who, starting with the homosexual abuse of school children and ending with the provocation against the State with the cross in Čihošt', convincingly showed what a monster of society he was."
Mácha also addressed a similar letter to XIII. Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia in 1966: "...the case of the Miracle of Čihošt' did not exist... it was once again confirmed that parish priest Toufar was a criminal and anti-state criminal... While Parish Priest Toufar, a criminal and anti-state criminal, found a number of protectors who were concerned that this renegade of human society should suffer no harm, no one showed any concern for me, as a Communist, an honest man who had always duly and disciplined fulfilled his duties as a Party member, and did not care whether I suffered harm or not." In his letters, Mácha asked for a personal audience with the President so that he could explain the whole affair in some context. However, Antonín Novotný did not reply to his correspondence.
In 1968, the editor Jiří Brabenec published the circumstances of the Toufar case in a series of articles in the daily Lidová demokracie under the title "How and Why Parish Priest Josef Toufar Died". On the basis of renewed public interest in the case, Mácha was accused of being responsible for Toufar's death. On 7 June 1968, the military prosecutor launched a criminal prosecution against former MV captain JUDr. Ladislav Mácha. A day later he was taken into custody and investigated on suspicion of committing the crime of murder. He immediately filed a complaint for violation of the law and supported it with a four-day hunger strike. Nevertheless, the criminal proceedings got underway - living witnesses to the Číhošt' case came in for questioning.
One of the first people to be interrogated was, of course, Ladislav Mácha. On 1 June 1968 he spoke about his "life cause". Again he operated on the interests of the higher-ups, specifically naming Závodský, who was very nervous about the course of the investigation of parish priest Toufar. He also mentioned a fact he had forgotten in previous investigations - a courier of Závodský had come to Valdice to see him with a written order from his "boss" referring to Čepička: to obtain Toufar's confession at any cost. Mácha then had to burn this paper in front of the courier."We had agreed beforehand that we would beat him on his ass and feet so as not to cause him injury. When we got to the cell, I told him, i.e. Toufar, that we were unhappy, that we had to execute him because we were pressed for time. Toufar did not rise, he lay down on the bench in the middle of the cell, belly down, and took off his shoes first himself. The three of us, i.e. Nemec, Řezníček and I, took turns beating him on his buttocks and feet, so that the execution was completed within seven minutes, because Toufar then said he would explain it to us," Mácha described the fateful interrogation. According to Mácha, the effects of the procedure were not noticeable on Toufar, nor did he complain of nausea.
Mácha's next interrogation followed on 24 June 1968. According to Mácha, Toufar looked "confidant and like a religious fanatic" during his interrogation. Mácha reiterated that he had regularly consulted his procedure with Závodský, who advised him to spank the parish priest because Gottwald needed a confession for his report. According to this statement, Mácha therefore beat Toufar so as not to hurt him. He was therefore astonished at his poor health, as he had not seen any problems with him while filming.
On 5 June 1968, Josef Čech testified as a witness. He confirmed that Gottwald saw the clarification of the Číhošt' "miracle" as a priority until the meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. prosecution and the consent of the prosecutor was sought, corresponds to the time when it was done illegally," Čech stated dryly. Arriving in Valdice before the filming, Toufar complained of pain. Čech also knew very well that his "confession" had been extracted from him by Mácha. When Toufar's health deteriorated, Čech was involved in finding a plane, but in the end the transport to the hospital was done in the classic way, i.e. by car. Czech admitted his activity in modifying the autopsy report. However, he did not see anything improper in this.
On 6 June and 25 July 1968, the prosecutor, JUDr. Karel Čížek, was questioned about the case. He did not deny his presence in Číhošt' in January 1950, but did not attach much importance to this trip. His next visit, however, can already be considered significant. He took part in the reconstruction, during which the film was also shot. Čížek stated for the record that Toufar felt well and did not indicate the slightest problems. At the beginning of March 1950, i.e. after Toufar's death, the finishing of the propaganda film took place. Čížek admitted that he had put on a chasuble and went to the pulpit, but denied that he had played the parish priest: "That is why Vladimir Průša, an official of the SÚC, whom he learned a few years later was also an MV employee, was dressed in a chasuble, and the shots were taken with him in such a way that his face could not be seen." When questioned by the investigator about the legality of the detention, Čížek responded by claiming that it was undoubtedly in violation of the law in force at the time, "but that was the general practice."
The 1968 investigation sought to reconstruct the last hours of Pastor Toufar's life. The medical staff who provided medical care in 1950 were also interviewed. On 21 June 1968, Prof. Bohumil Špaček, M.D., testified. He remembered the case well because of its unusual nature. The patient was in very poor health. MUDr. Špaček could not help noticing extensive blood bruising on his back, buttocks, thighs and the soles of his feet: "On the whole, it was clear to me that this was advanced peritonitis, which, after preparing the patient, had to be operated on urgently... On the whole matter, I would consider it necessary to point out that the patient was brought to the hospital in a very poor condition, and this condition was indicative of medical malpractice if the doctor had him under his care at a critical time; if the doctor did not see him at that time, the authorities who were supposed to be supervising him committed a gross violation. It is clear that a layman cannot have this idea as a physician ... but peritonitis caused by the rupture of an ulcer is usually accompanied by such marked symptoms that even a layman must realize the necessity of immediate medical attention. The perforation of an ulcer results in severe pain, vomiting, and manifests itself on the person in such a way that simulation can be safely ruled out." Professor Špaček believed from the documentation provided that the ulcer ruptured on his return from filming in Číhošt', but no later than 24 hours before the operation.
Another doctor, MUDr. František Maurer, complemented his colleague during the interrogation on 31 July 1968. "I saw that he was covered all over his body with bruises about the size of half a palm. These bruises were on his chest and abdomen as well as on his legs and arms," MUDr. Maurer recalled. On the cause of death, he added: "The cause of death was a ruptured stomach ulcer, I am correcting, peritonitis, but still I do not hesitate to say that the man was literally beaten. He could not be cured because his organism was so exhausted that even with timely medical assistance he would probably not have been saved... I do not even today hesitate to use the word murder in connection with the death of Toufar. For if I beat someone until his ulcer bursts and it does not burst of its own accord, and then bring him to the hospital late with a belly like that of a pregnant woman in her ninth month, it can hardly be called anything else."
On 24 June 1968, Mácha was released from custody and the prosecution
continued at large. In the justification for this step, the prosecutor of the Main Military Prosecutor's Office, Colonel Jaromír Skopal, wrote, among other things, the following: "Regarding former Capt. MV JUDr. Ladislav Macha, he is one of the main participants in the whole case. According to the evidence gathered so far, he was the most involved in the brutal treatment of Toufar. However, the evidence so far does not indicate that he committed the conduct in question with the intention of causing the death of Parish Priest Toufar, nor that the death was causally connected with that conduct."
On 10 December 1968, the military court in Příbram stopped the prosecution of Ladislav Mácha because it had failed to prove the death of the parish priest Josef Toufar as murder. The offences of abuse of authority of a public official and bodily harm could not be prosecuted because they were already time-barred under the law in force at the time.
However, the former StB investigator Ladislav Mácha had to leave his job at the Ministry of Forestry and Water Management on the basis of facts published in the press in 1968, which he perceived as scandalising and harassing his person. He was also expelled from the party. He received anonymous letters and became a victim of his own past. He suffered from depressive states as a result of not being able to find work.
His party rehabilitation was rejected in January 1969. It was not until April 1969 that he joined the OPBH Prague 6. However, for the next twenty years he did not have to worry so much about the Číhošt' case.
In 1994, the Office for Documentation and Investigation of Crimes against Communism took up the case. The Office can only prosecute living perpetrators who have been proven guilty either by interviewing living witnesses to the events or by sufficiently preserved archival material. In April 1995, the ÚDV investigator proposed filing a lawsuit against two still-living members of the StB instruction group - Ladislav Macha, who refused to testify throughout the investigation, and Václav Němec, who, between 20 and 22 February 1950, were supposed to have forced the parish priest Josef Toufar to confess that he had staged the movement of the cross on the altar in the church in Číhošt' on 11 December 1949 by means of psychological pressure, abuse and physical violence. In doing so, the defendants were alleged to have committed the offence of abuse of official or official authority and the offence of grievous bodily harm under Law No 19 of 15 January 1855.
During the investigation, in August 1994, the ÚDV asked the Institute of Criminalistics for an expert opinion to answer:
1) whether the stylization and wording of all the testimony protocols are the work of one author,
2) if differences can be traced, to determine from which date of the protocol the changes occurred.
In September 1994, the Institute of Criminalistics analysed Toufar's statements and found that there were differences in the wording of the individual protocols (e.g. the protocol of 22 February 1950 differed from the others in terms of style and language).
In May and August 1996, the IAC requested two independent expert reports in the field of forensic medicine. According to them, the cause of Josef Toufar's death was a ruptured stomach ulcer. However, it could not be determined exactly when the ulcer burst, but it most probably happened on the night of 23 to 24 February 1950. The age of the stomach ulcers could not be determined precisely, but it is possible that they could have formed within a few days: '...The mental and physical stress during the period of imprisonment may have contributed to the development of the ulcer and led eventually to the rupture of the ulcer. This is supported by the data that the victim did not have the difficulties characteristic of ulcer disease before being taken into custody." According to the expert reports, the bruising on his body was the result of torture, which P. Josef Toufar must have perceived as being very painful. The mental and physical strain could have led to the ulcer bursting. According to the experts, Josef Toufar's life could have been saved if the operation had taken place on the morning of 24 February 1950 (instead of the early evening of 25 February).
The ÚDV has also obtained the testimony of a nurse who was present during Toufar's operation at the Borůvka Sanatorium in Prague. She noticed large bruises and contusions all over his body. According to her, the patient had been severely neglected - she had to use 27 70 x 70 cm drapes to suction fluid from his abdominal cavity.
The ÚDV also refuted the StB's claims about Toufar's sexual deviation. On the contrary, it was proven that the children (if any) testified without the presence of their parents or legal guardians, but under pressure from the StB. Certainly, it can be assumed that if such an accusation had been confirmed, it would not only have been properly used propagandistically (among other things, at least some trace of it would have remained in the file). However, it was not until the 1968 statements were captured on the record (the file does, however, contain statements by schoolchildren about the actual movement of the cross on 11 December 1949, taken at the StB in February 1950) that the prosecutor sought witnesses.
In June 1994, Abbot Vít Bohumil Tajovský, who was also accused of staging the "miracle", testified at the ÚDV about the case. Abbot Tajovský steadfastly refused to confess to the StB, and was therefore locked up in solitary confinement, not receiving food or drink. In the process, he heard Toufar's singing, which he used to strengthen himself, and his cries as he was subjected to an unusually brutal interrogation.
In November 1996, the prosecution of Václav Němec was discontinued because it could not be proven that he had committed the act in question.
In December 1996, the District State Prosecutor's Office in Jičín filed charges against Ladislav Mácha in the case of pastor Josef Toufar for the crimes of abuse of official or official authority and grievous bodily harm.
After a series of adjournments, the main trial took place on 23 November 1998 before the panel of the Prague 6 District Court. The court found the defendant Ladislav Macha guilty of the above-mentioned offences and sentenced him to five years' unconditional imprisonment. In the grounds for the judgment it was stated, inter alia, that "... the court considers it proven that the defendant tragically interfered in the above-mentioned manner with the victim's fate, causing his very serious health condition, a serious health disorder accompanied by very intense pain, without the possibility of exercising his right to defend himself." Macha appealed against this verdict. On 1 November 1999, the Municipal Court in Prague upheld the conclusion of the Prague 6 District Court, but reduced the sentence to two years' imprisonment without parole.
For the purposes of the trial, Ladislav Mácha wrote a statement in November 1998 in which he apologized both to Pastor Toufar and to the Catholic Church for the wrong he had committed. He wrote: "I hereby apologise to the Catholic Church and to Pastor Toufar for having taken part in the activities of the state apparatus of the time in early 1950, the aim of which was to discredit the Catholic Church. I apologize for my attitudes and activities at that time, whatever their motives. Today, almost 50 years later, I can see things from a completely different perspective, in a different context, but above all from the perspective of an old man whose life experience is much greater today than it was in 1950. I was convinced then that I was doing the right thing, and many of the circumstances of the case pointed in that direction. However, I was not able to weigh correctly between right and wrong. And I was certainly not able, given the circumstances and the possibilities I had, to distinguish between moral and immoral means to achieve what I believed to be the right end... The case was interpreted in various ways, to the detriment of all the persons involved, including Mr. Toufar and the Catholic Church. I would like to stress, however, that my actions at the time, whatever they may have been, did not directly - or indirectly - lead to the death of Mr. Toufar, nor, in my judgment, were they the cause of his illness, nor were they the cause of the deterioration of his health, nor were they the cause of the neglect of the care of the then prisoner. I would also like to stress that the apparatus of power at the time, incl. It was not because Parish Priest Toufar died suddenly and could not be brought to trial for reasons that seemed only possible and appropriate to the apparatus of power at the time... As far as I have commented on the matter in a number of different inquiries by the authorities of the Ministry of the Interior, the court and the military prosecutor's office, these have always been statements, at least in part, which were processed in their final form for the purpose for which they were taken. That is to say, either for the defence of my person, or for the defence or protection of other interested persons or parts of the apparatus of power."
The methods used by the State Security in the 1950s are clearly revealed in the case of the Číhošt' parish priest Josef Toufar. His tormentor - Ladislav Mácha - never felt guilty. He argued that he was faithfully following the orders of his superiors and the Communist Party. However, it was Mácha who became the only one to be convicted for the death of parish priest Toufar.
Was he the only one in the whole case who could be identified as the culprit in Toufar's death? Or would there be other responsible parties? I think there is no doubt about Macha's guilt. However, other representatives of the StB and the communist state are also responsible: the president Klement Gottwald, the chairman of the SÚC Alexey Čepička, the minister of the interior Václav Nosek, the commander of the StB Jindřich Veselý, the commander of the BA department Osvald Závodský, the acting commander of the 2nd StB and the commander of the 2nd Communist Party. Josef Čech, the prosecutor Karel Čížek, and in fact all the others who knew about the suffering of parish priest Toufar and yet did nothing for him, i.e., for example, the officers assigned to the instruction group of the StB Headquarters. Understandably, considerable responsibility was borne by the apparatus of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia's Central Committee, which was behind the mass illegalities of the 1950s, and which tasked, directed and controlled the StB.
But would the aforementioned officials feel responsible for Toufar's death? For some, his opinion on the question posed in this way will not be known: Gottwald died in 1953, Nosek in 1955, Veselý committed suicide in the early 1960s. Závodský was executed in 1954 after a trial. However, I believe that they would not admit any wrongdoing. The others did not admit to their share of guilt in the death of Josef Toufar: During the investigation, both Czech and Cizek denied their immediate responsibility.
Gottwald's son-in-law Alexej Čepička downplayed his involvement in the Číhošt' case during the 1968 investigation. On August 2, 1968, during his interrogation at the Higher Military Prosecutor's Office in Tábor, Čepička stated, among other things, in the protocol:"...I was informed about the case of the parish priest Toufar or the Čihošt' miracle, it is possible that I expressed the need to clarify the matter urgently, but so did other political officials. However, I certainly did not give the order to arrest Toufar; in this respect, the relevant order could only have come from the StB, but the recommendation could have come from some other body that dealt with the matter... I was not aware of any illegality in the investigation. I myself did not give any instructions for any illegalities. Nor did I arrange anything regarding Toufar after his arrest, including his transfer to a sanatorium. I don't even know when exactly he was arrested. I was informed of his death, I believe I was told that he died as a result of a ruptured stomach ulcer. Nor did I give any orders in connection with his death and burial. That was not within my jurisdictionat all ." When asked about the role of the "Church Six", Čepička responded, "Toufar's case could have been heard in this commission as well, but I doubt that an arrest warrant could have been issued from there. Strictly speaking, it was certainly discussed there, because Sr. Kopecký was in charge of the publicity side of the case and was also in charge of filming the case. It is not true that I approved the script of the film... I am of the opinion that the Toufar case was a security matter from beginning to end. It goes without saying that we as the SUC and I mean the Communist Party were interested in the political use of the case. However, the implementation was in the hands of the security.
The tragedy of P. Josef Toufar thus clearly reveals the hypocrisy and total absence of moral values not only among the StB investigators of the time. The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia acted with the same ruthlessness against anyone who dared to oppose the newly established regime in Czechoslovakia or threatened the communist power in any way.
Although Ladislav Mácha was convicted, he did not properly serve his sentence, although the District Court for Prague 6 did not grant his request for a stay of execution on health grounds. It was not until mid-January 2002 that Ladislav Mácha was arrested at the post office while collecting his pension (he was not at his permanent address) and transferred to Pankrác Prison. His defence lawyer Kolja Kubíček described this procedure as an act of hyenism...
Excerpt from the book KALOUS, Jan: The case of Číhošt'. KALOCO, Case of the Kaloš, Czech Republic, Independent Centre for Policy Studies, Kolín 2008 is published with the permission of the publisher.