We would like to thank the journalist and journalists of Irish Daily Star.
So we thank for…
What do you think we thank for?
We haven’t published everything yet, but try.
Without our help or suggestions from us.
We will fill in our thanks in a few months, although we are already grateful.
We thank to the journalist and journalists of Irish Daily Star for…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
In prison, in which Martha is now, she has no enemies and she doesn’t seek friends.
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?
But the motive, as Martha supposedly wanted to kill Csaba, is non existent.