The trial of Molly Martens

dbas

Very brave young people, cared for by a very kind and loving family.

Well done to the Corbett's. They changed the trajectory of those kids lives with their strength, dignity and determination in gaining custody of the kids in court.

That Molly b*tch sounds like the worst of borderlines gone girl types. Parasite who would have continued to live off those kids until present day.

Kids got to tell her what they thought of her in court. That'll help their lives no end.

plodder

Shocking case. I still can't understand how all that stuff about the coroner's report was allowed to stand uncontested and the fact that the first wife's sister was present when she got the asthma attack not being conveyed to the judge. You wonder is it just down to money and the local DA not having the resources to get an opposing point of view heard. In spite of it all, the family seem to bear no ill will toward the sheriff's dept or local prosecutors from their statements to the media etc.

Henry Ford III

Doesn't seem right that Molly and Tom will be getting out so soon. No at all sure has justice been served.

The victim impact statements are harrowing. Your heart would go out to the kids.

The trouble with a case like this is that the evidence is so totally polarising so it's hard to know who was actually telling the truth.

Tork

I hope making those victim impact statements will help Jack and Sarah. But on the other hand, having to listen to the Martens' defence will open new wounds for them.

crossman47

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121345355#Comment_121345355

I think he was protecting her all along and his eyes have been opened. Its even possible she was the sole assailant and he was covering up.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121345547#Comment_121345547

Yeah I do think money comes into play here - and this was highlighted as a factor after the successful appeal by the Martens.

While the prosecution made a damming statement yesterday around what they believe happened on the night of the killing, I didn’t feel they supported the rest of this hearing too well so wouldn’t have had the confidence they would have successfully prosecuted the case - as for the judge allowing pretty much hear-say on the death of his first wife, that was just sick. There wasn’t a scintilla of evidence there to justify that discussion in a court room.

Taxburden carrier

Hopefully the children will sue them for everything they have

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121345584#Comment_121345584

they aren't that well off, they clearly have some connections

and the issue was at the point of offering the plea deal

its a pretty string second degree murder case, so they should have gotten sentences to match even when demoted to manslaughter it should have been on the high end

Tork

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121345581#Comment_121345581

I'd say he has been enabling her all through her life. Perhaps to the extent that she didn't get the psychological help she needed. He's a former FBI agent and all those years in that job would have had an effect on him. Maybe he was a cold hearted individual before he even started with them? I'd be curious to know how he dealt with black or Latino people, for example. I can see his logic being "My daughter married a useless loud alcoholic Paddy" . That, combined with the tall tales she'd have told him, turned Jason into a bug that needed to be squashed.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121345643#Comment_121345643

he was an FBI agent, not a millionaire, they sold a holiday home to pay for this and it will have cost a fortune

not much hope of getting anything

the whole system over there is setup against this

OJ still owes the goldmans and browns 35million

listermint

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121345325#Comment_121345325

What stood out to me from Sarah's statement was the methods Molly deployed when the kids weren't performing in her eyes.. the swimming, using food provision as a discipline for not doing well and as a weapon.

It's strikes me that perhaps Molly herself learnt this behaviour at home. The Hollywood trope of hard ass law enforcement officer and their enabler spouses isn't a trope for no reason. He's probably disciplined his kids like this. Pushing the American dream with subtle abusive behaviours. Food being a particular subject Molly seems to struggle with showing the child how to throw up and solely eat vegetables at age 6!..

Apple falling far from tree springs to mind.

SaoPaulo41

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121345670#Comment_121345670

They should still go after it , drain them for everything they have

SaoPaulo41

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121345581#Comment_121345581

I think you are right, I imagine that he knew exactly how bonkers his daughter was , however in his eyes still his daughter so he must protect forever. I reckon she did it, he created the back story of the night in question to try and build some bullcrap story. He is culpable as much as her and for all I know he did it aswell,but he must of been well sick of her craziness and thought " not again what have you done now to the family,have to bail you out again"

I could of course be totally wrong but interesting that he didn't acknowledge her when she was brought away in court.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121345682#Comment_121345682

it just costs you money

even if you get a judgement, you never get the money

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121345547#Comment_121345547

I still can't understand how all that stuff about the coroner's report was allowed to stand uncontested

I don't see how the prosecution could contest it given it was their expert witness.

uncontested and the fact that the first wife's sister was present when she got the asthma attack not being conveyed to the judge

Just because it wasn't conveyed to the judge in open court doesn't mean he wasn't aware of it. All relevant facts of the case are submitted to the Judge at the start. Not everything is read out or tested.

Once the prosecutions chief expert witness not only rules out the cause of death as an asthma attack once the defence get him to admit it was possibly but not probably a homicide it had blown up spectacularly for the prosecution.

If they then stated the sister was present for the asthma attack if would have been another wide open goal for the defence.

SaoPaulo41

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121345703#Comment_121345703

That's true , but I would still drag them through coals as long as possible

SaoPaulo41

The children are so remarkably strong and brave , their victim impact statements were gut wrenching. Hopefully they can move on.

AudreyHepburn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121345264#Comment_121345264

They have every right to be heard and more than that they deserve it. And more importantly they want to be heard.

Theyve been left orphaned by a senseless brutal killing and suffered untold abuse before that at the hands of a woman who claimed to be a loving mother.

I firmly believe it would cause them even damage if they were forced to stay silent.

captbarnacles

She was also beating Jack...maybe out of fear for her life or something? I'm sure it was all Jason's fault.

prunudo

Wonder was the abuse she was dishing out on the kids, the reason he had rang home in the weeks leading up to his death to say he was leaving her and coming back to Ireland. Was he about to leave her and she lost the plot?

Only 3 people know the true story, one is dead, one is a protective father and the other is a known liar. Yet the martens appear to be getting away both murder or covering up a murder.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121345800#Comment_121345800

He was clearly planning to leave her- what’s disgusting is that a poster here came up with a theory that Jason was using legal access over the kids as way of controlling her- that poster should seriously reflect on how they assimilate information coming into their brain - that’s if they have one.

AudreyHepburn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121345581#Comment_121345581

I’ve often felt, while following this case, that it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that Tom Martens did genuinely believe that Jason was abusive to Molly. I believe his father’s love for her may have blinded him to the truth and that his actions on and following the night Jason was murdered are as a result of that.

We know that Molly is an accomplished liar and it doesn’t seem too to much of a stretch to believe that dear old Dad was among those she managed to fool.

Thats not in any way to say he did right or that he should escape punishment. He certainly shouldn’t.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121345707#Comment_121345707

It's kind of confusing in relation to which side is the prosecution and which side the defence. It seemed like both sides were pushing this grubby manslaughter plea (as opposed to a much more costly full retrial). So, I suppose you can understand the mechanics of how it happened, and really what I'm saying is it doesn't look much like justice.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121345917#Comment_121345917

I think a lot of what happened post murder was Tom covering for Molly - they had a window between the murder and the phone call to the paramedics to get their story “straight” .

Tom “hated” (his words) Jason - so I wouldn’t place all blame on Molly - but because of his hate I’d say he was blind to the facts and reality of Mollys behaviour and most definitely in denial that anything was “wrong” with his precious daughter.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121345918#Comment_121345918

Re the autopsy.

More likely given the testing of lungs was not performed they couldn't get any noted pathologist that would lie and potentially ruin their reputation.

It is possible that is not the last we have heard of that.

Re the Plea deal the prosecution offered.

The state have to have to weigh up the possibility of an acquittal, given 2 courts had stated Molly Martens was prevented from presenting a fair defence, and the fact that 2 jurors in the original trial voted to acquit, the chances of conviction were probably in the minority.

For instance It's a strange quirk in America that jurors are allowed write books and give interviews after trials, the Jury foreman in the original trial had stated one of the main things that they convicted Molly on was the unexplained presence of the brick in the bedroom.

Something the Supreme Court directly referenced and ruled that the evidence that explained this was erroneously with held.

Whatever about Tom, there is grounds to believe Molly would have been acquitted and then of it course it could have potentially opened up all sorts civil suits for her.

But ya your are right, Justice isn't Black and White unfortunately, I don't think it can be in all circumstances.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121346101#Comment_121346101

there was no evidence to explain why the brick was there, just that it was there

why the parents decided to travel 100s of kms to bring a baseball bat into the house

the defense managed to get a pathologist to say in course that it was probable that mags was homicide, I mean do they have a reputation

can you even explain what the pathologists evidence even added to the case? Nothing is the answer

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121345307#Comment_121345307

My interpretation of your previous post was that they should have given evidence in the original trial whereas I now realise you were referring to a retrial.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121346137#Comment_121346137

there was no evidence to explain why the brick was there, just that it was there

No evidence in the first trial because it was excluded erroneously. Opinion of Supreme Court.

why the parents decided to travel 100s of kms to bring a baseball bat into the house

How do they get to the house without travelling?

Baseball bat was a present for their step grand son. Apparently.

Personally if I plan on murdering a 19 stone man in a nutty gun state I'll probably not take the chances and bring a gun.

the defense managed to get a pathologist to say in course that it was probable that mags was homicide, I mean do they have a reputation

The prosecution got their expert witness to rule out an asthma attack as cause of death.

can you even explain what the pathologists evidence even added to the case? Nothing is the answer

Self defence is largely about state of mind, if Molly honestly believed her life was in danger that meets the threshold for self defence.

It's Molly's claim that her husband had violently and repeatedly "forced" her to have sex which included choking and strangulation, covering her mouth with hand and pillow, and she wondered is that how his first wife died and would she end up the same way.

So the fact that the chief pathologist rules out the accepted cause of death it gives credence to her "honest" belief, even more so because it is a fact she could have not known.

freshpopcorn

I know this has been covered but when is she likely to be released from Jail?

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121346194#Comment_121346194

You have some stamina with your defending her. I’ll give you that!!!

Why can’t you answer whether or not the children were truthful yesterday? Is it because it really stamps home the deviousness and lies of Molly?

and why do you think a 19 stones man couldn’t inflict any defensive marks/injuries on Molly and Tom during them killing him? Or as Molly says, he instigated the attack and she defended. Makes her lies even more clear. Yet you can’t comment or give your belief.