All language subtitles for T.T.A.M.M.S02E06.1080p.WEB.DL.H264.BTN_track3_[eng]

(Richard Shepherd)
When a murder's committed,

it's always a race against time
to find the truth,

to separate fact from fiction,
to catch the killer,

and to make sure
that justice is served.

But what happens when the truth
vanishes with the victim?

I'm Dr. Richard Shepherd,
and I've spent

my entire career as
a forensic pathologist,

performing nearly 23,000 autopsies.

I've learned that the dead
don't hide the truth,

and they never lie.

Through me, you'll be hearing
directly from the victim.

With the aid of
a state of the art laboratory,

using ground-breaking technology,

I'll be investigating
a series of intriguing crimes

where, from the victims' bodies,
I'll reveal to you

the truth behind these murders.

(camera shutter clicking)

Little Venice in London is
famous for the houseboats

that make their way along
the Grand Union Canal.

But in May 2015,
this picture postcard location

became a crime scene
when a member of the public

made a shocking discovery.

(beeping)

In the little Venice area of West
London near to Paddington Railway

Station, it's an area
where quite a lot of people

live on barges as their
place of residence.

And two people were in a canal boat
and heard a noise against the side

of their boat, which caused
them to look outside,

and they saw a suitcase
in the canal.

(Henry Vaughan)
The two friends on that houseboat

looked down into the water

and saw distinctive red hair
flowing out of it.

(phone beeping)

They became very concerned
and decided to call the police.

(Steve Tonks) A police officer
needs to essentially find out

what's happened, so being able
to recover the suitcase

from the canal,
which is in itself potentially

a quite challenging task
because it's in the water.

So police have got to make
a decision as to whether

they enter the water or not.

If they're able to actually
reach and remove the item

without entering the water,
that is obviously safer,

so they've got to consider that.

Then also the actual weight of
the suitcase because at that point,

they don't know
what's in the suitcase

and it's in a body of water,
so may well be full of water,

which will add to the weight.

(Richard)
Having retrieved the suitcase,

police and forensic teams were
shocked at what it contained.

(camera shutter clicks)

(Steve)
What was found in the suitcase

was a body that had
been placed essentially

in the foetal position.

The body was wrapped in bin bags,
and also a curtain

was placed in the suitcase.

(Jane Monckton-Smith)
When a body's found in a suitcase

in a canal, that's a homicide.

That's a suspicious death.

(Richard) The police immediately

launched a murder investigation.

(Jane) The first thing
that they will need to do

is identify who that person is
in the suitcase

because it'd be very difficult
for the police to find out

who killed them without
knowing who they are.

(Richard) So the police looked
to the body for answers.

The body that was
found in the canal

was folded inside a suitcase.

It was in the foetal position and
wrapped in curtains and bin bags.

There was no ID, no purse,
no other obvious identification,

but it's still
possible for this body

to reveal a lot of information.

Even if the body is reduced to
simply a skeleton, if you know how

to read bones, you can
get a lot of information

from that - the age
at death, the height,

and from the shape of the pelvis,
the sex of the individual.

Some decomposition had set in,
but the organs, tissues, and skin

were still largely intact
thanks to the cooler water

temperature of the canal,
which slowed down

the rate of decomposition.

So a body like this where
there is still soft tissue

has many more secrets it can
reveal to a forensic pathologist.

In the mortuary, the body
can be measured and weighed,

and the teeth can help
determine the age too

since they erupt throughout life.

For instance, the wisdom
teeth appear in your 20s.

In this case, the body
had its wisdom teeth,

and the shape of the pelvic
bone indicated it was female.

From all this, it could be
determined with some certainty

that she was a white woman,
approximately 5 foot 2,

weighing 8 stone,
and it was clear that

she was young, in her early 20s.

But there was no missing persons
report for anyone like that.

So who was she?

With little to go on, even
forensic evidence proved limited.

Ultimately, when
somebody's body's in water,

it's likely to remove
things like DNA,

opportunities to recover evidence.

For me, the most important thing
is to make an appeal via the media,

via all forms of media, asking
for witnesses to come forward,

asking for people to report
in anybody that they're

concerned about, to try
and work through opportunities

to identify who the person is.

Because once that's
established, it opens up

a vast array of other opportunities
to identify if there are

any other scenes that
need to be cordoned

and searched and examined because,
for example, where she was

actually placed into the water,
if it was different to where

the suitcase was found.

(Richard)
Then detectives got a breakthrough.

A man called Tomasz Kocik
contacted police

to report his girlfriend missing.

Kocik later identified the body
as that of Marta Ligman.

Journalist Henry Vaughan
remembers the case well.

(Henry) I first heard
about the case of Marta Ligman

when her body was discovered

in a suitcase in
the Grand Union Canal.

I was working as a court
reporter at the time.

It's a very unusual
set of circumstances,

so that is something
that sticks in the mind.

(Steve) Marta Ligman
came to the UK in 2012,

and she worked in a delicatessen
in Harlesden in northwest London.

Very highly thought of by her boss.

Described as a very pleasant
girl with aspirations

to get married, to have a family,
to settle in the UK.

The very, very pleasant demeanour.

Very helpful and outgoing.

(Jane) She'd come over
from Poland to the United Kingdom

to live and work
and make a life for herself,

a very brave thing for her
to have done actually.

(Henry) Was very popular,
had lots of friends,

and well liked by
everyone who knew her.

(Richard) In London, Marta moved in

with her Polish boyfriend,
Tomasz Kocik,

who she'd first met back in Poland.

(Henry) Marta met Kocik
on an internet chat room.

Both Polish nationals,
so they formed a friendship,

formed a relationship.

(Henry) Tomasz Kocik was
quite a bit older than Marta,

around 38 at the time.

He was also from Poland
and lived in London working

as a forklift truck driver.

He'd also spent some time in
Ireland before moving to the UK.

(Steve)
That relationship then developed

into what seemingly was a very,
very affectionate and loving

relationship to the extent
that Marta took the decision

to move from her home in Poland
to London, a big step for her,

to set up home really
with Tomasz Kocik.

She probably went into that
relationship feeling so happy,

so excited, and she may
even have fallen for him

before they physically met.

She may have fallen for him
whilst they're still,

you know, maybe talking online.

(Henry) At the start, they seem

to have a very good relationship,
and she was very happy.

Their neighbours
said they seemed like

a perfect couple
and also that Kocik

seemed quite protective of Marta.

Kocik was around 15 years
older than Marta.

He was a builder by trade
and came into this country

purely for work purposes.

He was a very caring person
towards Marta.

He was always concerned
about her wellbeing

and he wanted to look after her,
so they had a very happy

and settled relationship.

Marta wanted to get married.

She wanted to have children.

(Jane) And she thought
when she met Kocik,

that that was his dream as well.

This is what I want, too.

I want a wife. I want a family.
I want children.

I'm very traditional.

So that would have played into
everything that she wanted.

To people from the outside,
seemingly very happy.

(Richard)
So how did this young woman's

life end so tragically?

Things can change
literally overnight.

In 2015, police launched a murder
investigation after the body

of 23-year-old
Polish delicatessen worker

Marta Ligman was found
folded into a suitcase

and dumped in a London canal.

(Henry) When her body was found

in a suitcase
in the Grand Union Canal,

it's a very unusual
set of circumstances,

so it was an immediately
a high profile case.

(Steve) It's important
to recognise that the location

where Marta's body was found
in the canal is not necessarily

the same as the deposition site,

ie where the suitcase
entered the canal.

And also, there may be other
locations where events have

taken place that would inform
the investigation about the events

that led to Marta's death.

(Devi Kharran) There were witnesses
who had seen the suitcase

in the canal and dismissed it
without causing any suspicion

in their minds about the suitcase,
but it had travelled a significant

distance to the point
of Little Venice

where Marta's body was discovered.

(Steve) However, what may well
be preserved because of the fact

that Marta is enclosed
within the suitcase

is evidence of injuries
or evidence that would be...

later inform the investigation
as to how she died.

The postmortem showed
she'd been in the canal

for between 7 and 10 days.

We can estimate this because the
water in the canal where Marta's

body was found would have been
colder than the air temperature

and therefore slowed down
the decomposition of her body,

making it easier to determine
the exact time of death.

We know that she was folded up
very tightly in a small space

with her knees up to her chest.

This position would have
limited movement of the ribcage

and stopped air being drawn
into her lungs.

It would have been
almost impossible to get

her folded into that tight
space unless she was immobile.

But what we don't know
is whether she was dead

when she was put into
the suitcase or just unconscious.

And the terrible truth
is that Marta

might still have been alive
when she was thrown into the canal.

(Devi) The most distressing
detail that the pathologist could

not rule out that Marta
was not alive or dead

when she was placed
into the suitcase.

(Richard)
In their hunt for the killer,

police needed to eliminate
the most obvious

suspect from their
inquiries, the man

who'd first reported her missing.

Her boyfriend, Tomasz Kocik.

We know that the most likely
person to kill any woman

is their partner or ex-partner.

So intimate partner
homicide - that's where

a man kills his partner
or ex-partner -

is actually the biggest
category of homicide for women.

So as soon as Marta is identified,
Kocik is at the top

of the list straight away.

(Steve) Kocik was 15 years
older than Marta Ligman.

And I think it's quite important
just to consider that when they

met online, Marta was a teenager.

That is a bit of a red flag
because statistically,

somebody much older than a...

than a woman especially
is going to be targeting them

because they are more malleable.

They are more vulnerable.

They're less experienced in life.

So I think in terms
of power imbalance

and the dynamic within
the relationship,

he was likely to be more sort of
influential in the way that things

were within the relationship,
which, again, could have

affected the way that
they lived their lives

together and subsequent events.

There are extra risks, I think,

to meeting somebody online.

It's very easy to present
yourself as something other

than you actually are
online, and it's very, very

difficult to question any of that.

And if you do those first
few meetings online,

by the time you are
face-to-face with that person,

you think you already
know a lot about them.

And so your instincts in that
first face-to-face meeting

will be very much dampened.

(Steve) Marta had lived in
the UK for about three years,

and friends had noticed
that Marta's behaviour

had started to change, so she'd
become quieter, more reserved.

And some concerns generally
were being noted by people that

knew her, or they felt that
something was not quite

right within the relationship.

(Jane)
The changes in her

started to happen quite quickly.

She started to withdraw.

She started to lose weight.

She started being less happy,
seeing less of her friends,

and that concerned them.

(Henry)
Kocik became very controlling,

and her friends said she wasn't
the sort of happy-go-lucky person

she used to be.

(Richard)
Within three years,

Kocik had also become
obsessively jealous about Marta.

As time developed
during their relationship,

things began to take
a turn for the worse.

His behaviour became
more controlling,

more coercive, and even
obsessive about Marta's movements

and her whereabouts.

And he was very intense about it.

Every single thing
she did, he was there.

He was following her.

He was tracking her.

He was isolating her.

(Steve) And asking a lot
of very searching questions,

and generally exhibiting
an area of suspicion

about the way that Marta was
behaving without any grounds

that are known of.

But just a very controlling
kind of approach

taken by Kocik at that time.

He would turn up at her work.

Every day, he'd pick
her up from her work

because he didn't trust her.

There's even one occasion
where he demanded

that the boss of
the deli she worked in

show him the CCTV to prove
that she'd been working there.

And that was quite
concerning to her boss.

(Jane) The first control
that always comes in

is what we call jealousy code.

So he would have been saying
things like,

don't like it when
you talk to other men.

Makes me feel really,
really jealous. Don't do it.

And she probably thought,
oh, fair enough.

I won't do that.
I'm not going to wind him up.

But there would have come
a point where she did something

to break that rule, not on purpose,

and he would have
punished her for it.

And that punishment will
set the tone for everything

that happens going forward.

(Steve) One of her friends
recalled an occasion

where Marta wore some very
thick rimmed spectacles in what

the friend thought was
to try to hide the fact

that she had some facial bruising.

This made everyone very
concerned about Marta's wellbeing.

The behaviour progressed
to essentially

monitoring Marta's behaviour,
moving more towards what can

generally be described
as a controlling

or coercive type relationship.

People who are controlling
and who use coercive control

are actually trying to trap you
into a relationship with them.

So that means that you can't
get out of this relationship.

You've committed to me.

You can never leave.

(Richard) To build the case
against Kocik being the killer,

police needed to know
if Marta's body revealed

signs of a controlling
and abusive relationship.

So what could Marta's body tell us
about the final tragic hours

of her life?

When Marta's body was
removed from the suitcase,

it was evident she'd
suffered a severe beating.

She had numerous
injuries to her face

and her body that must have
been inflicted in the hours

before she was thrown
into the canal.

But she also had other
injuries that were older.

Bruises can be aged because
they change colour over time,

going from purple and blue
to yellow and green

and finally to brown.

Marta's body was covered
in old and fresh bruises,

but it's the fractures
that are most revealing.

A recent fracture looks like
this, and here you can see

the clear separation in the bones.

But these broken ends
will knit back together

over a period of weeks and months.

And Marta also had
several healed fractures.

So what her body
revealed was that she

had been subjected to
a prolonged and savage attack

immediately before her death.

But it also showed that this
was part of a long history

of physical abuse.

Older injuries would be
consistent with what the friends

had described in terms
of there being

a deterioration in the
relationship and more

violence being used towards Marta.

Kocik used to play
loud music in the flats,

which is believed to have
covered up him beating her.

So I think she did
something trivial

or something that he made up,

and he probably really,
really hurt her.

But that's a warning
for the future.

That's your punishment.

It's what we call the three Cs.

So it's control,
challenge, consequence.

So the control is in place.

Rules of the relationship.

You will not make me jealous.

There's some kind of
challenge to that.

Maybe she's caught
speaking to somebody.

What are the consequences?

The third C, violence.

Now, the consequences
reinstate the control.

She thinks, I'm never
going to do that again.

I am never going to
speak to another man,

or I'm just never going to do
anything ever to upset this man

because I'm now scared of him.

She was literally
trapped like a hostage

in this relationship with him.

(Richard) There was still
no hard evidence linking Kocik

to the assaults or the murder,
but Marta's phone

messages were raising
further suspicions

among friends and colleagues.

(Steve) The boss of the delicatessen
received a message

basically to say that Marta
was not going to attend work

because her mum was sick in
Poland and needed to leave,

which was described as being
out of character for Marta,

that Marta would not have
sent a message that way.

She would have gone into
the shop and explained.

Also, messages were sent
to Marta's friends

to explain that she'd left Kocik.

So there was quite an
amount of communication

from Marta's Facebook account
and from her device.

(Henry)
On Facebook Messenger,

sending one of her friends over
about 50 messages they exchanged

between them, the friend initially
believed she was talking to Marta,

but she became suspicious
when the messages began

to start suggesting a threesome.

(Devi) The level
of conduct and the content

of the communication caused
some alarm to Marta's friend,

as it also included
activity about engaging

in sexual conduct together.

Marta's friend clearly thought
this was uncharacteristic of Marta,

and it raised alarm
bells in her head.

She went straight to her home
address to see if she was OK,

but nobody was at home.

In London, in May 2015,
the body of 23-year-old

Marta Ligman was found
folded up in a suitcase

floating in London's grand canal.

The postmortem revealed
bruises and fractures,

proving that she had been
subjected to a long history

of physical abuse.

The prime suspect was her
boyfriend, Tomasz Kocik.

Messages sent from
Marta's phone and computer

before her body was found suggested
she had left her boyfriend

and returned to Poland,
but these didn't seem in character.

Friends and family
feared she was missing.

It was quite common
for Marta to speak

to her mum on a very
regular basis, if not daily,

so obviously Marta
wasn't doing that.

Her lack of contact
with friends and family,

again against her demeanour,
uncharacteristic of Marta

not to speak to her
mother every day.

And Marta's mum made
contact with Tomasz Kocik

to establish what had happened,
and he explained that Marta had

left him, which also fitted with
messages that were being sent,

purporting to be from Marta.

(Richard)
But once Marta's body was found,

it became clear to
police that she could

not have sent those messages.

She was already dead in the canal.

The only person with access
to Marta's devices

to send messages was Kocik.

Kocik made contact using
Marta's Facebook account.

He messaged one of her friends.

The messaging was
uncharacteristic of Marta.

It alerted her friend
immediately that potentially

there could be a problem.

(Steve) So there was
a clear attempt by Kocik

to mislead a number of
people that knew Marta

and were clearly going to ask
questions about where she was.

He was just trying
to make it all go away,

stop anyone reporting
her missing, and maybe

give himself some time to think.

In creating this
kind of web of lies,

trying to convince everybody
maybe that Marta's still alive

so that he stops people coming
to look for her because he knows

his name's going to
be the top of the list

if she is found and identified.

Kocik didn't report
Marta missing.

And despite her mother phoning him
and asking him to look for her

and ask what he was doing
to try and trace her,

he didn't report her missing
until her body was found,

which was around 10 days later.

(Devi) This case attracted
heavy media attention.

And as a result of that,
Kocik was alerted to the fact

that Marta's body had
been found, and that

was the point that he contacted the
police to report her as missing.

In fact, members of
her family had tried

to ask him to report her as
missing previous to the date

of her body being discovered.

Kocik simply refused to do so.

(Steve) The fact that he
hadn't reported her missing

until Marta's body was found
in the canal clearly caused

suspicion and ultimately led
to the arrest of Kocik

as a suspect for Marta's murder.

(Richard)
But under police questioning,

Kocik denied murdering Marta.

He did not accept that he killed
Marta and denied his involvement

in the murder of Marta.

The explanation that Kocik
gave was that he had come home

from work and found Marta dead.

He thought that Marta had
had a heart attack because

he and Marta have been
taking amphetamines

in the preceding days.

(Devi) Kocik was fearful that he

would be in trouble with
the police for providing

her with those drugs.

His version of events
was that he panicked.

They've been involved in rough
sex activity, as he described it,

and he felt that those things
combined would cause him to be

blamed effectively for her death.

(Richard)
But did Marta's body

support Kocik's version of events?

Kocik claimed that Marta had
died from an amphetamine overdose

following days of
drug-fuelled bondage sessions.

And although internal
swabs were taken,

there was no evidence of
recent sexual activity.

Amphetamines can be detected in
the bloodstream for, on average,

48 hours after being consumed
and on human hair

as long as 90 days afterwards.

Some amphetamine users take
the drug through

what is called skin popping.

These are subcutaneous injections
that go into the tissue rather

than the blood vessels,
and what we would see then

is lots of ulcerated areas
on the legs and forearms.

But there was no evidence
of this on Marta's body.

If she was injecting,
there would be track marks,

and there was no evidence
of that either.

He said that he came home
and found Marta dead on the sofa,

and she had problems,
and she was taking drugs,

and she'd obviously overdosed.

And the most classic way to defend
yourself against killing somebody

you're supposed to love is
to denigrate them in some way

and make them responsible
and make you the innocent

victim of their awful
behaviour, and that's what...

that's what he did.

(Richard)
Kocik did, however, admit

to disposing of Marta's body.

Eventually,
as the evidence unfolded

and was presented to him
and his legal team,

he changed his version of events.

He admitted that he did conceal
her body in the suitcase.

He confessed to the police
that what he then did

was place Marta into the suitcase.

He walked down a distance
of about half a mile

and placed the suitcase
in the Grand Union Canal

near to Scrubs Lane.

The suitcase then
travelled in the direction

of Little Venice down the canal
for a significant period of time.

(Steve) Scrubs Lane is about 2 1/2,

maybe 3 miles from
the Little Venice site

where Marta's body
was ultimately found.

As a result of Kocik's account,
one of the things

that the police will do
is check and try

and corroborate an account
that's given.

That could include CCTV.

The CCTV revealed that Kocik
had walked from the home address

to the Grand Union Canal,
a distance of about half a mile.

He was seen wheeling
the suitcase on his way

to the canal along a number
of streets past commuters

towards the canal, carrying this
heavy suitcase which was so heavy.

On CCTV, you could see that
the wheels were buckling.

(splashing)

(water sloshing)

He'd also taken a stick
with him in an attempt

to submerge the suitcase.

(Steve) And then shortly after that,

he was seen again walking back
towards his home address,

this time without the suitcase.

But from the waist down, it was
noticed on the CCTV he appeared

to be wet, which would be
consistent with the fact

that he had been in the canal
seeking to dispose of the suitcase

in the way that he described.

This man didn't have
many resources.

He didn't appear to have a vehicle.

I think if he had a vehicle,
he might not have chosen the canal.

Throwing a body into a canal
is a high-risk strategy

because bodies tend to be
found when they're in bodies

of water that are quite small.

(Richard)
While CCTV footage

confirmed Kocik's story that
he'd disposed of the body,

there was more to come.

(Steve) You know, with that
extra understanding of what

the events were,
confirmed now by the CCTV,

that enabled the police to search
areas where they knew that Kocik

had travelled, and that led
to the recovery of identity

documents belonging to Marta.

Of great significance was that
en route to and from the canal,

Marta's identification card
was found damaged and burnt.

Again, evidence of Kocik trying
to conceal her identification

from the police.

And that confirmed
and corroborated

and supported
the understanding of what

had taken place in Marta's death.

(Richard) With evidence that Kocik

had tried to conceal
Marta's identity,

police charged him with murder.

I've prosecuted a number of
homicide cases over the years,

but this case
particularly stands out

in my time on the homicide unit.

The court case was
a particularly horrifying one.

The prosecutor warns
the jury that they

were going to hear some horrendous
details and particularly

the detail that
she still may be alive

when she went into the water.

In May 2015, Tomasz Kocik
was charged with the murder

of his girlfriend, Marta Ligman.

Her body had been found
in the Grand Union Canal

earlier in the year
after a boat owner

spotted human hair coming out of
a suitcase floating in the water.

The postmortem revealed
a history of domestic violence.

But whilst her boyfriend
admitted disposing of her body,

he denied murder.

He claimed she had died
of a drug overdose.

Pathology proved that was a lie.

Five months after his arrest,
Kocik was brought

before the Old Bailey in London.

Representing the case for
the Crown Prosecution Service

was Senior Prosecutor Devi Kharran.

(Devi) I had been working
on this case for a long time

to prepare the case
to present it at trial.

A homicide prosecution
requires a lot of preparation.

We have to find as much
evidence as possible

to prove every element
of the offence of murder

beyond reasonable doubt
to prove that Kocik

was the killer of Marta.

It was a very intense
atmosphere in the courtroom.

There was a lot of press and media
attention surrounding this case.

I attended court
when he faced trial.

It was one I covered
from start to finish.

The case of Marta was a very
harrowing case, just the details

of the injuries she suffered.

The prosecutor warned
the jury that they were going

to hear some horrendous details.

(Devi) It was very distressing
for friends and family

to have to come to court and listen
to the distressing details that

were presented about Marta's life.

(Richard) The prosecution
outlined the case against Kocik.

We relied on the strength
of the evidence

to present a clear
and coherent case to the jury.

The evidence consisted of various
strands including CCTV evidence

to prove his movements
at the time of her killing,

evidence of her identity
card that was found

burnt and damaged,
and the pathological evidence

that gave the police
the indication as to how

Marta's injuries were sustained.

He clearly ruled out natural
causes as a result of her death.

(Richard)
The court also heard

how the obsessive and violent
Kocik behaved towards Marta.

(Devi) We used the evidence
of her friends

and family who provided
strong evidence

of a change of demeanour in Marta.

Her behaviour had changed.

She became withdrawn, sad.

She had visible facial injuries,
which caused her friends and her

manager significant concern
about Kocik's controlling

and coercive behaviour.

A man like Kocik is going
to want somebody like Marta

to fall for him, so he's
going to present himself,

you know, as the perfect boyfriend.

You've met the one.

And he would use all his
manipulative skills in doing that.

Trouble with people like Kocik
is they can do that for a while.

They can't keep it up.

So they have to get that commitment
from somebody like Marta very,

very quickly because they know
it's all going to fall apart.

They know that their
true self is going

to come out very, very quickly.

Kocik is such an extreme example

of a fixated, obsessed,
and very insecure man.

He was entitled.

I own you.

You're my property.

Don't you dare try and leave me
because you will pay.

(Richard) Kocik himself decided
not to take the stand,

but his legal team presented
his version of events.

Kocik claims he returns home from
work to find Marta already dead.

He said that he believed Marta
had died of a heart attack

and thought he would get blamed.

(Jane)
Anybody who's in court

is going to try
and defend themselves.

They don't... they don't
want to go to prison.

And this has got a life
sentence on the end of it.

He had to have a story
for Marta being dead,

so he picks another
implausible story

that Marta was a drug addict,
and she had been taking drugs.

Denigrating the victim
and making them

the bad person and you the victim,
that is incredibly common.

(Richard) The pathology had
conclusively proved drugs

played no part in Marta's death.

Kocik's case was falling apart.

(Jane)
So his whole defence at court,

that he just found her dead
and for some reason decided

to put her into a suitcase instead
of phone the paramedics, I mean,

it's all absolutely ridiculous.

And this was not
a sophisticated defence.

He's in a position now
where he's proven to be a liar.

Kocik, while in court,
he didn't show any remorse at all.

He was very cocky.

And the lies he told were very
distressing for Marta's family,

claiming that, you know,
this had happened during rough sex

and, you know, that she'd
been taking drugs with him.

And obviously distressing
for her friends and family

to see Kocik in the dock.

In every homicide case
that we prosecute,

we have the opportunity of
meeting the victim's families.

Marta's mother did provide
a victim impact statement,

which was very, very sad.

(Henry) She's very tearful
as she told how she was

begging this man to help look
for her when all along

he was the one who killed her.

(Richard) The texts
Kocik sent to Marta's friends

were also read out in court.

(Henry) Kocik sent messages
to Marta's friends

to suggest that
she was still alive.

He wanted to make it look
like she'd left him.

And when her mother was
begging him to look for her,

but he pretended that
she'd just run away

and didn't want to get
in touch with him.

Initially, the evidence
from the telephones

went against the prosecution case
because the evidence showed

that Marta's telephone was used
after the prosecution say

her body was placed in the canal.

However, at trial, that
evidence assisted the case

for the prosecution
because it proved that,

in fact, her phone was
being used by Kocik to create

a false trail for the officers.

(Richard)
Kocik had proved to be

a calculated, controlling liar,

but it was Marta's body that would
deliver the irrefutable evidence

of her final moments.

The autopsy revealed that
some time between the evening

of the 29th of April
and the 1st of May,

Kocik beat Marta unconscious
in a sustained attack

that could have lasted minutes
or hours or possibly even days.

When he thought she was dead,
he wrapped her in curtains

and bin bags and stuffed
her into a suitcase

with her head between her knees.

He then dragged the case
half a mile to the canal

before dumping her in the water.

So how did Marta actually die?

The widespread heavy bruising
tells us all about her last hours.

A bruise is just blood leaking
from damaged blood vessels,

but it requires pressure
in the bloodstream

for that leakage to occur.

Marta's body was just
covered in bruises,

and it was quite clear that
this could only have happened

if her heart was still beating.

Although she was alive when
she received these injuries,

it was the repetitive blunt force
trauma to her torso and legs

that killed her.

(Steve) It's not clear exactly
at what point that took place,

but that could have taken place
while she was in the suitcase,

either when Kocik was walking
down towards the canal

or, indeed, after the suitcase
had been placed in the canal,

which clearly raises the possibility
that Marta was still

alive at either of those points.

(Henry) Some of the expert evidence

showed that some of
the bruising on her body

could have been caused by
her being hit by a boat

while she was still alive
in that suitcase.

He warned the jury not to think
of the possibilities around that.

Obviously, it's hard not to.

(Jane)
Something happened for him

to think that she was dead.

I don't think that he thought
by putting her in a suitcase,

that would kill her.

I think he put her in the suitcase
because he thought she was dead.

He probably at that point
wasn't thinking straight.

He just knew he needed
to get rid of Marta's body.

The thing is with
people like Kocik,

they use violence routinely.

They know how far to go.

They absolutely do
know how far to go.

The idea that they take it too
far one day and kill someone,

really, there's not
a lot to support that.

They know when to stop.

I think whatever the challenge
was that came from Marta,

it was enough that he took
it far enough to kill her,

giving himself permission
to kill her, in fact,

and thought that he
had done exactly that.

(Richard) The jury
saw through Kocik's lies.

The pathology was damning.

After deliberating for just over
a day, they rejected his defence.

Tomasz Kocik was found
guilty of Marta's murder.

He was convicted of murder,
and he was sentenced

to 18 1/2 years as a minimum
sentence recommendation

of his life sentence.

(Devi) Kocik was a very
violent and dangerous man.

At trial, Kocik, from my
recollection, showed no remorse.

He maintained a very cold demeanour

as he sat in the dock
at the Old Bailey.

After the jury had
delivered their verdict,

we were very satisfied
that we had secured justice

for Marta, her family,
and her friends,

and that is of paramount
importance in any homicide case.

I think this case was

a classic intimate partner
homicide.

Very quick.

Very intense.

In some ways, it was different

because Kocik was so extreme

in his control of Marta,
and I think everybody

noticed the changes in her.

So you could... you
could almost watch this

playing out from a distance.

(Henry) She'd obviously been
in a very abusive relationship.

He was very controlling of her.

And instead of
breaking up with her,

allowing her to go her own way,

he'd brutally beaten her
and stuffed her into a suitcase

and dumped her into a canal.

Absolutely horrific.

I've prosecuted a number of
homicide cases over the years,

but this case
particularly stands out

in my time on the homicide unit.

Marta Ligman was a young,
happy, very kind

and caring young lady
who wanted to come

to London to start a new life.

The truth of what
happened that night

was that Marta was subjected
to a violent and brutal attack

by the man who she loved
and cared for.

That particular point where
Marta's body was discovered

is a part of the canal
in Little Venice

that I visit frequently.

And every time I visit
that point at the canal,

I always stop
and think about Marta.

Tomasz Kocik had mentally
and physically controlled Marta

throughout their relationship.

It ended with her murder.

He tried to claim that Marta
had died of a drug overdose

and that he was
innocent of her killing,

but the pathologist's
report made sure the jury

saw through his lies.

Although she never spoke
out in life, in death,

her body was able to reveal
the truth about what had happened

and put Kocik behind bars.

Subtitles by accessibility@itv.com