Petőcz Kálmán (szerk.): National Populism and Slovak - Hungarian Relations in Slovakia 2006-2009 (Somorja, 2009)
Annex
Annex - Marie Vrabcova The part of the case file that deals with Malinová’s stolen credit card is particularly contradictory. Based on information provided by Malinová’s bank, the interior minister during the infamous press conference of September 12, 2006, claimed that the student’s credit card had not been stopped, which according to him proved that its holder knew very well that it had not been stolen. In fact, Malinová’s mother put a stop on the card on August 25, 2006, and re-activated it again on August 31, 2006. On that day, the investigators requested Slovenská sporiteľňa for written information regarding the matter; somebody wrote on the request that the card had not been stopped. Apparently, no one ever examined whether the card had been stopped in the week before August 31, 2006, since the police never received the bank’s official response. OuESTioNiiNq at tIhe OfficE of Attorney CeneraI On October 8, 2007, the Office of Attorney General began to conduct interrogations regarding the case of Hedviga Malinová. The first witnesses to be questioned were Denisa Pustajová and Marián Modrovič, employees of the Nitra-based private detective agency Nádej who testified that they had seen the victim in the birch grove en route to work in the morning of August 25, 2006. Both witnesses spoke to the media and subsequently reported to the case investigator after the police had abandoned investigation of the attack. Both witnesses said they noticed a barefoot girl walking along the road after half past seven but their testimonies differed in details. One of them saw Malinová on the right-hand side and the other on the left-hand side of the road. Pustajová who was also on foot said she saw her colleague driving by and even waved to him; Modrovič, though, was certain that he did not see anybody in the grove except the victim. Both witnesses testified that they found it suspicious that the girl walked slowly and calmly whereas a victim of a brutal attack would certainly run. According to the entry and departure log kept by the detective agency, both witnesses arrived to work at 7.30 a.m.; Pustajová explained that because of her boss the doorman was used to record earlier arrival times since she was always late. Pustajová and Modrovič also testified that two weeks before their interrogation - i.e. after the Office of Attorney General had taken over the case - they were visited in their office by Ladislav Gužík, the false evidence case investigator. He asked them to write down the facts and inform him immediately if any strangers came around asking about Hedviga Malinová. According to both witnesses, the case investigator also mentioned that he was under great pressure.24 312
