Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The trial of Molly Martens

Options
1…89111314…117

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    NORWOOD1
    Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭NORWOOD1


    kbannon wrote: »
    Prove it!
    All they need is doubt!

    Fair point

    There are a few holes in his story it all sounds made up to me but all they need is one juror


  • Options
    #303
    Kristopherus
    Registered Users Posts: 11,907 ✭✭✭✭Kristopherus


    NORWOOD1 wrote: »
    Fair point

    There are a few holes in his story it all sounds made up to me but all they need is one juror

    IMHO he's cooking up a story. But with his FBI training & career, some of it may stick. That said, I hope they are found guilty.


  • Options
    #304
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,336 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    kbannon wrote:
    Prove it! All they need is doubt!


    Doubt is one thing but it's a leap to making sure he was finished off, by a man who hated him.

    I'm also curious about why they say Jason was angry. What was he angry about?


  • Options
    #305
    bilbot79
    Registered Users Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭bilbot79


    harr wrote: »
    A FBI agent who knows the judicial system and what to say not say in a court room...

    This is inconsequential. He will say what his lawyer tells him to say


  • Options
    #306
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    Anyone know what his role was in the FBI? Could have been shuffling paper for all I know.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    Summer wind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,285 ✭✭✭Summer wind


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Under what rule of evidence should an accused be prevented from giving evidence of self defence, or defence of family?

    Seriously, every defence of self defence amounts to "I killed him to prevent him attacking/wounding/killing me/someone close to me".

    I don't see one thing wrong with him articulating this. It's the whole point of a very well recognised defence. He is perfectly entitled to say it. The converse would be bizarre, someone with a perfectly good defence but not allowed to say it.

    Im not saying Thomas Martens doesn't have the right to give evidence. It's the wording of the evidence I'm talking about. There's no proof that Jason was attempting to kill anyone and I don't think it's right that Thomas Martens should be able to state this as a fact.


  • Options
    #308
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,730 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Jesus Wept wrote: »
    Anyone know what his role was in the FBI? Could have been shuffling paper for all I know.

    X-files


  • Options
    #309
    brooke 2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,472 ✭✭✭brooke 2


    Paddy Cow wrote: »
    He didn't need to do anything to get rid of Jason. Jason was making plans to move back to Ireland with the children. Perhaps Molly found out and wasn't happy about it......

    Molly knew this. IIRC, she found out the previous night that he had already purchased the tickets and his and the children's departure
    for Ireland was imminent. I believe she really loved the children. After all, she was the only mother figure the little girl had known for
    most of her life - she came to Ireland originally in 2008. She had made some inquiries about divorce, apparently, and was especially
    concerned to get custody of the children. With the realisation that her world was imploding around her, she most probably freaked out
    and attacked him. There is no doubt that Corbett was killed in a frenzy.

    I had read somewhere that it was very unusual for her father to visit - we now know why this might have been the case as it was stated
    in court that Martens hated Jason Corbett. It is quite possible she contacted her parents in a distressed state after she found her husband
    had purchased the tickets for Ireland. I also seem to remember that the parents' decision to visit was rather sudden.


  • Options
    #310
    brooke 2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,472 ✭✭✭brooke 2


    Auldloon wrote: »
    I vaguely remember reading that she had spoken to a family law type. If they had planned on killing him I'd say it would have been much cleaner. I think Jason was in bed asleep having taken a pill earlier. Molly found something, evidence he was planning moving back to Ireland without her or something that enraged her. She went outside/got the paving stone and attacked him with it as he lay in bed. He got out of bed, lots of screaming and shouting and that he could well have been squeezing her neck and threatening to kill her when the dad arrived with the Louisville slugger. Then they both beat him in a frenzy.

    She may have found out that night that he had bought the tickets for Ireland,
    not the night before, as I had thought. Whatever it was, it looks like she freaked out and bashed him in blind rage.


  • Options
    #311
    brooke 2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,472 ✭✭✭brooke 2


    MarcusP12 wrote: »
    Yes, good point....when I read that before I immediately thought the same thing about her flipping at the thought of leaving with the kids....its sounds like she has an obsession with the kids to be honest and when this turned out to be on the cards, maybe she went mental....of course these are all only theories....I doubt the truth will come out only a version of it that the jury will or wont believe.....

    I would say the thought of losing the kids drove her crazy. She had been their
    carer and mother figure since 2008 and seemed to genuinely love them. She
    regarded them as her own and most definitely was emotionally invested in them.
    The thought of losing them must have been torture for her. That feeling of
    desperation would have driven her into a frenzy, I imagine.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    brooke 2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,472 ✭✭✭brooke 2


    RacoonQueen wrote: »
    Hasn't the kids testimony already been struck out? They believed the children had been coached in what to say?

    Was that not the defence objecting to the boy's second statement after he came back to Ireland? It seems it contradicted the first statement he gave
    after the killing.

    Edit: You are correct. All statements by the kids were struck out by the judge.


  • Options
    #313
    brooke 2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,472 ✭✭✭brooke 2


    marklazarcovic wrote: »
    shes beginning to sound like the control freak who could not take it when he decided to go home without her and sell the assets

    Control freak? Her life is imploding around her, she is bound to have a reaction.
    Killing her husband was a tad extreme though!


  • Options
    #314
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Summer wind wrote: »
    Im not saying Thomas Martens doesn't have the right to give evidence. It's the wording of the evidence I'm talking about. There's no proof that Jason was attempting to kill anyone and I don't think it's right that Thomas Martens should be able to state this as a fact.

    Why should he "prove it"? He only has to raise it. There is no obligation on the defence to prove their defence before submitting it. It is perfectly right and proper that he can defend himself and in so doing assert self defence. The right to defend oneself in a trial is fundamental to democracy, it should not be denied to him.

    As for the constant "oh, with his FBI expertise he knows the system" in other posts, he is not saying or doing anything anyone with a modicum of intelligence wouldn't do in claiming self defence. There is nothing particularly mysterious, he might be calmer under questioning, but there's no secret handshakes with the Judge.


  • Options
    #315
    darkdubh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,628 ✭✭✭darkdubh


    Jesus Wept wrote: »
    Anyone know what his role was in the FBI? Could have been shuffling paper for all I know.

    There was something in his testimony about being involved in raids against drug dealers in Miami.


  • Options
    #316
    tea and coffee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭tea and coffee


    I wonder is there a grain of truth to his story. But the bat/brick was the other way around.
    Molly whacked him with the bat. He tried to defend himself and/or altercation- so Daddy not totally lying- he grabs the brick as he was downstairs (?) and finishes off an already partially incapacitated Jason.


  • Options
    #317
    harr
    Registered Users Posts: 4,485 ✭✭✭harr


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Why should he "prove it"? He only has to raise it. There is no obligation on the defence to prove their defence before submitting it. It is perfectly right and proper that he can defend himself and in so doing assert self defence. The right to defend oneself in a trial is fundamental to democracy, it should not be denied to him.

    As for the constant "oh, with his FBI expertise he knows the system" in other posts, he is not saying or doing anything anyone with a modicum of intelligence wouldn't do in claiming self defence. There is nothing particularly mysterious, he might be calmer under questioning, but there's no secret handshakes with the Judge.
    No but it's a big difference than any regular Joe taking the stand...to be able to keep calm and answer questions in court is part of his previous work experience so it definitely gives him an advantage in a court room...


  • Options
    #318
    Auldloon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,241 ✭✭✭Auldloon


    Jesus Wept wrote: »
    Anyone know what his role was in the FBI? Could have been shuffling paper for all I know.

    Counterintelligence I believe.


  • Options
    #319
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    brooke 2 wrote: »
    Was that not the defence objecting to the boy's second statement after he came back to Ireland? It seems it contradicted the first statement he gave
    after the killing.

    Edit: You are correct. All statements by the kids were struck out by the judge.

    The kids are the only ones who know the true nature of the marriage.


  • Options
    #320
    marklazarcovic
    Registered Users Posts: 6,212 ✭✭✭marklazarcovic


    500k life insurance payable to the wife ,no surprise there,she wouldn't get it if she killed him but would if her dad did??

    Dad takes the fall and a few months later it comes out he has a terminal disease .. would not shock me


  • Options
    #321
    fergiesfolly
    Registered Users Posts: 3,356 ✭✭✭fergiesfolly


    marklazarcovic wrote: »
    500k life insurance payable to the wife ,no surprise there,she wouldn't get it if she killed him but would if her dad did??

    Dad takes the fall and a few months later it comes out he has a terminal disease .. would not shock me

    Are you writing a screenplay?
    Throw in a drug cartel and a terrorist plot while you're at it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    LynnGrace
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,347 ✭✭✭LynnGrace


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    I'm guessing the departed's character is going to be assassinated and torn apart over the next few days. The kids lost their mam and now their dad. I just hope justice will prevail and the man is remembered for who he was and not how he's going to be painted by people desperate to do or say anything to avoid gaol.

    Very well said and I totally agree.


  • Options
    #323
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    fergiesfolly wrote: »
    Are you writing a screenplay?
    Throw in a drug cartel and a terrorist plot while you're at it.

    According to Martens account on the stand, Jason waited until he (Martens) opened the door to say "I'm going to kill her" while in the process of strangling Molly. Jason either said this to Molly, who he was strangling and had been for however long beforehand or to dad who had just opened the door, behind him(?)
    That sounds like a poorly written screenplay to me.


  • Options
    #324
    MarcusP12
    Registered Users Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭MarcusP12


    Summer wind wrote: »
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Under what rule of evidence should an accused be prevented from giving evidence of self defence, or defence of family?

    Seriously, every defence of self defence amounts to "I killed him to prevent him attacking/wounding/killing me/someone close to me".

    I don't see one thing wrong with him articulating this. It's the whole point of a very well recognised defence. He is perfectly entitled to say it. The converse would be bizarre, someone with a perfectly good defence but not allowed to say it.

    Im not saying Thomas Martens doesn't have the right to give evidence. It's the wording of the evidence I'm talking about. There's no proof that Jason was attempting to kill anyone and I don't think it's right that Thomas Martens should be able to state this as a fact.

    Without know anything about the process in the court room apart from what we all see on to, I would assume that is the job of the prosecutor to challenge his claims under cross examination?


  • Options
    #325
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    brooke 2 wrote: »
    Control freak? Her life is imploding around her, she is bound to have a reaction.
    Killing her husband was a tad extreme though!
    A couple of years previous, she had already investigated the possibility of filing for divorce and getting custody of the kids. Someone else's kids.

    And then when the children were made orphans through her involvement, she again attempted to take custody of them.

    No sane person would fight for custody of orphans after you just killed their father.

    So it's pretty clear that she's a complete whackjob.

    Apparently Jason did well for himself, so seems like she wanted to get her hands on his money, but knew that the lion's share would go with/to the kids. Hence her fight for custody.

    The father could even a "victim" in this, in the loosest sense of the word. She may have been filling her family up for months with talk of how horrible Jason was, about him beating her or whatever else. Hence why he hated Jason so much and seemed more than eager to get on board with a plot to kill him.


  • Options
    #326
    Gadgetman496
    Registered Users Posts: 8,392 ✭✭✭Gadgetman496


    riffmongous wrote: »
    X-files

    He worked in a Lab.

    "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."



  • Options
    #327
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,319 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    He key wording is 'beyond reasonable doubt'
    Were they in it together? Yes, 2 weapons
    Was excessive force used, even if in defence? Yes, Back of skull badly broken.
    Did it continue after the victim could no longer be a threat? Yes, 12 blows at least.

    I presume the judge might accept a 10/2 verdict, should the jury not be unanomous.


  • Options
    #328
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    brooke 2 wrote: »
    Molly knew this. IIRC, she found out the previous night that he had already purchased the tickets and his and the children's departure
    for Ireland was imminent. I believe she really loved the children. After all, she was the only mother figure the little girl had known for
    most of her life - she came to Ireland originally in 2008. She had made some inquiries about divorce, apparently, and was especially
    concerned to get custody of the children. With the realisation that her world was imploding around her, she most probably freaked out
    and attacked him. There is no doubt that Corbett was killed in a frenzy.

    I had read somewhere that it was very unusual for her father to visit - we now know why this might have been the case as it was stated
    in court that Martens hated Jason Corbett. It is quite possible she contacted her parents in a distressed state after she found her husband
    had purchased the tickets for Ireland. I also seem to remember that the parents' decision to visit was rather sudden.
    I think this is plausible; she may have lost the plot when she realised that she would never get custody of or see the children again. Who knows, Jason may even have taunted her with that, leading to her attacking him.

    I think that its very likely that she called her parents because it is quite unusual that they would cancel dinner plans with friends to call in on someone they hate, for no reason.


  • Options
    #329
    MarcusP12
    Registered Users Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭MarcusP12


    Gadgetman496 wrote: »
    riffmongous wrote: »
    X-files

    He worked in a Lab.
    Think he was a lawyer by profession also....


  • Options
    #330
    marklazarcovic
    Registered Users Posts: 6,212 ✭✭✭marklazarcovic


    fergiesfolly wrote: »
    Are you writing a screenplay?
    Throw in a drug cartel and a terrorist plot while you're at it.

    Do you think what I wrote is far fetched??


    He was cold dead when the ambulance arrived,they had plenty of time to come up with a story.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    MarcusP12
    Registered Users Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭MarcusP12


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Summer wind wrote: »
    Im not saying Thomas Martens doesn't have the right to give evidence. It's the wording of the evidence I'm talking about. There's no proof that Jason was attempting to kill anyone and I don't think it's right that Thomas Martens should be able to state this as a fact.

    Why should he "prove it"? He only has to raise it. There is no obligation on the defence to prove their defence before submitting it. It is perfectly right and proper that he can defend himself and in so doing assert self defence. The right to defend oneself in a trial is fundamental to democracy, it should not be denied to him.

    As for the constant "oh, with his FBI expertise he knows the system" in other posts, he is not saying or doing anything anyone with a modicum of intelligence wouldn't do in claiming self defence. There is nothing particularly mysterious, he might be calmer under questioning, but there's no secret handshakes with the Judge.

    However, if and it is only if, mr martens was trying to cover for his daughter then I believe that his fbi background would certainly have been no harm at all in creating a scene for the police to arrive on and perhaps even to influence the crime scene (destroy or contaminate key evidence) before the police arrived. All he has to do is create sufficient doubt with the evidence collected (no finger prints on bat?) He knows the system and know how they think and what they would be looking for so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that he might have called upon his fbi background to do a better job at a cover up than your average joe soap...just my take on it....


Advertisement