“I’ve noticed, that he rides to work earlier than he was supposed to, so he can park his car beside me, and when when I signed out at the end of the work day, he was waiting near my car. He insisted for us to go for coffee but I refused syaing that I’m busy. I’ve also noticed his car more often at my home, and after short time, I’ve figured out that he’s following me. He found all places where my friends live, because it is a small village.”
We thank very much to Martha’s current attorney – Frank Gearty, for very quick response to an attempt of destroying Martha’s car.
The attorney firmly turned to GARDA’s Superintendent.
He unambiguously obliged GARDA to properly secure the car.
Under no circumstances may the vehicle be destroyed, or any of important traces be erased which will be analyzed soon.
The car is a very important evidence both in submitting the case to ECHR, and in re-submitting the case to the Court of Appeal in Ireland.
We thank very much for very quick and very firm response.
Martha’s car was never thoroughly examined.
Examining it was and still is very important for the case.
Even now, after many years, it can be done.
Things that weren’t checked and examined:
– fingerprints on the steering wheel,
– fingerprints on the dashboard,
– fingerprints on the button which opens the window on the driver’s side,
– fingerprints on the handbrake,
– it wasn’t checked if the ABS system worked,
– it wasn’t checked if the ABS system was destroyed in the moment of hitting the electric box (first thing that car hit),
– it wasn’t determined WHO was braking and with WHAT: it wasn’t determined if it was Martha who was braking, ad if it was with a foot brake or a handbrake (despite the facts it was assumed that it was Csaba, who was braking with a handbrake – the handbrake wasn’t pulled in the car when it was pulled out of water)
GARDA Superintendent informed, that if he doesn’t get other suggestions, then Irish GARDA will have to destroy (dispose of) the car as of October 1.
Tt was justified by a large costs of storing of the car.
Is this only a cover?
Doesn’t GARDA, under the pretext of high costs, want to destroy all evidence, which could be used to clear Martha of unjustified accusation?
(Information about the will of destroying the car was sent by the same GARDA Superintendent, who agreed to prolong Martha’s arrest during interrogation)
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.
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
- driver’s window opening button
- driver’s seat belt release button
- additionally, passenger’s window opening button
- additionally, passenger’s seat belt release button