Highly recommended

How it was possible to not take fingerprints from Martha’s car?

Prosecutor, during the trial in court, said that Martha used the car as a “murder weapon”.

It’s probably the first case in history of European forensics, that nobody has taken fingerprints from the “murder weapon”.

Sticking to the terminology of the prosecutor:
Due to the lack of fingerprints taken from the car – the prosecutor doesn’t even knows who held this alleged “murder weapon”, who pulled the symbolic “trigger”.

Stating, that Martha’s car was used as a “murder weapon” is far from truth.

Why prosecutor’s statement, that Martha’s car was used as a “murder weapon” can’t be true?

Which argument convinces you? Select and vote (you can select more than one answer or provide your own).

Or maybe Garda’s actions were correct?
Fingerprints were not taken from the car, only water samples were taken: both from the river (site of accident) and from the sea (place where Csaba’s body was found).

The cause of Csaba’s death was not car but… water.

Highly recommended

Lack of recordings from CCTV cameras on Martha and Csaba’s route

There are at least several industrial cameras, on the route which Martha and Csaba drove.

GARDA was concentrating on Martha driving through the center of Arklow, where she was driving alone. Recordings from at least two of the cameras were gathered.
No recording  from the route of Martha driving with Csaba did preserve (or recording wasn’t disclosed).

What would be seen on those recordings?

  1. The velocity of the car.
  2. In what posiotion was the passenger of the car – Csaba.
  3. Is the passenger (Csaba) not obscuring the direction of travel and the field of view, to the driver (Martha).
  4. Was the passenger (Csaba) behaviour deviates from normal behaviour.
  5. Was the driver window open, in the car during the ride.

Is the lack of recordings from CCTV cameras a coincidence?

What does this say? Select and vote.

Or maybe some recordings preserved?