Highly recommended

Suggesting Martha’s “secret” phone

Martha had two phones with active cards. One with number ending in …32, the second with number ending with …05. She had one of the phones for 7 years (…32), the second one fo 2 years (…05). She used both of them.

Why she had two?
Martha says herself, that she sometimes lost the phone or leave it somewhere and she couldn’t find it. So she bought second one, as an additional phone.
She also switched the cards between them, so she was using the newer phone on the main number (…32) , and older phone on the second, additional number (…05).
The older phone,  with less used number (…05), Martha took with her in the situation, where she anticipated that she can loose it somewhere (on tours, strolls) or leave it somewhere.
Both of Martha’s phone numbers were known to her friends and both were actively used.

Meanwhile…
How billings from Martha’s phones were prepared:
Only the period from March 23rd 2013 (3 days before the event) to March 26th 2013 (the day of the event), was taken.
Only contacting selected people was presented.
What came out of it:
Using the number “…32”:
– Martha called Csaba – 4 times
– text messages from Csaba to Martha – 2 times
Using the number “…05”:
– Martha called Csaba – 8 times
– Csaba called Martha – 13 times
– text messages from Csaba to Martha – 7 times
This was juxtaposed with Martha’s phone calls  to Victor (only using the number “…32”)
– Martha called Victor – 16 times
– text messages from Martha to Victor – 11 times
Based on this, Irish Garda, and the prosecutor’s office came to conclusion, that Martha had a “secret” phone (“…05”), she used only for calling Csaba.

Despite the matter had been explained earlier, that both phone numbers were known, and in use all the time, this didn’t prevent the prosecutor to present this in the court as an argument against Martha.

Why?

How can Martha’s sister reclaim her property?

Martha, without any agreement with her family and friends, got the paintings back in the prison. She had proven thus to Mrs Governor, that they were not sold. She had proven it, she gave the paintings back, but they are not handed back to the owner.

Why Mrs Governor doesn’t want to return the paintings to the owner?

Wy are trying to understand. Maybe we’re too dumb to understand. Please help us.

Why fingerprints was taken from the postcards and not the “murder weapon”?

In august 2013 Martha was allowed to go to Poland.
She fulfills the request of one of the Garda officers, and sends postcards with greetings to the Garda post. She attaches a commemorative 1 grosz “for luck”.

This sending was treated as taunting of Garda. The proceedings were initiated, fingerprints were taken from the postcard and 1 grosz.

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).
3 votes · 0 answers
vote

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

Not taking of fingerprints from Martha’s car

No fingerprints were taken from Martha’s car – Volkswagen Passat.

No fingerprints were taken from:

  • driver’s door handle
  • passenger’s door handle
  • driving wheel
  • dashboard
  • hand-brake
  • driver’s window opening button
  • driver’s seat belt release button
  • additionally, passenger’s window opening button
  • additionally, passenger’s seat belt release button
Why no fingerprints were taken and no specialist test were carried out? Select and vote (You can select multiple answers or add your own)
2 votes · 0 answers
vote

Is Martha really one of the most dangerous people in Ireland?

Image of Martha in Irish media – Martha is counted among the most dangerous women in Ireland.

Irish Examiner Daily Mirror Bors Online

Do you think that Martha is one of the most dangerous people in Ireland? Select and vote (you can select more than one answer or add your own)
1 vote · 0 answers
vote

Another example of “truthfullness” of media reports

Special dinner held on 8th of december 2017 showed how much truth was in earlier media reports about “alleged” friendship of Martha in jail.

In previous reports media have “chosen” a friend for Martha.
It must have been a person with maximum sentence, who committed a terrifying crime.
Additionaly, something in common was searched for, e.g. east european origin.

How truthful those reports were, showed the behaviour of those present on special dinner on 8th of december 2017.
On one side of the table, 6 women sentenced to lifetime imprisonment with their relatives, then few chairs of break.
On the other end of the table – Martha and 3 people close to her.

The journalists who wrote about friendships made by Martha in jail should see this view.
Martha was associated with people, who commited extremely shocking crimes.

Examples of information about Martha’s friendships:

Campus.ie

Independent

Polskie Echo

Why did the media give information about alleged "friendships" of Marta? Select and vote (you can select more than one answer or give your own)
3 votes · 0 answers
vote

In prison, in which Martha is now, she has no enemies and she doesn’t seek friends.

Was Martha shouting ‘help’ or ‘rape’

26th of march 2013, at 6am, Martha is running, cold, soaked, teeth chattering, and shouting ‘help‘.
Martha has no doubts about what she was shouting.
Some witnesses are not capable to distinct if she was shouting ‘help’ or ‘rape’.

What could she possibly be shouting?

Although reactions of people can be various, but would a raped person be running, shouting all over the town, that she was raped?
Victims of the tragedy of rape, often hide it from the whole world, they do not shout it all over the town.
Rape causes closing into yourself, often for the whole life, It does not cause running with remnants of strength, shouting about one’s tragedy, to the people.

If Martha was really raped, would she want to inform all Arklow about her harm?

So why did Garda suggested, that Martha was shouting 'rape'?
2 votes · 0 answers
vote

But the motive, as Martha supposedly wanted to kill Csaba, is non existent.

Highly recommended

Destroyed recordings from two cameras

There are cameras placed on the building of the Lifeboat House in Arklow, standing near the crossroad.

Two of these cameras on 6:00am recorded running Martha.
Martha stops at the wicket, leans against it, she staggers on her legs, squats down.
Then, with her hands raised she runs on.

The same two cameras recorded, 10 minutes earlier, the ride of Martha’s car with her and Csaba.

Recordings from two cameras from 6:00am – preserved.
Recordings from the same two cameras from 5:50am – 10 minutes earlier – are gone.

What happened?
A Lifeboat House employee reviews all recordings only one week after the accident, makes notes and downloads recordings from two cameras from 6:00 am.
After few more days, he gets back to download the recordings of car driving – at 5:50am – but the recordings are deleted from the monitoring system.

What could be seen on those recordings?
(Both cameras were recording from the car passenger side)

  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.

Those recording were especially important because of:

  • proximity of the accident site
  • catching the moment, when Martha decided not to go to the beach, and turns into the road, on which end she intended to turn the car around
  • the intensity of emotions and agression of the passenger, who realized that Martha surely won’t go to the beach, and really makes a turn to get back and drive him home.

Was the destruction of those recordings, from two cameras from a specific hour, a coincidence?

What does this say? Select and vote
6 votes · 0 answers
vote

Or maybe the recordings have been preserved, but have not been made available?

Why did not “the defence” call as a witness a person, who reviewed the recordings before their destruction, and knows what was on the recordings?