The trial of Molly Martens

kylith

Auldloon wrote: »

The handle of the bat is a rubber material that prints couldn't be taken from.

But if they wrestled over it as claimed it is likely that there would be fingerprints on other parts of the bat, not just the grip.

retro:electro

The father's mug shot says it all.

Paddy Cow

Where was Mr Marten's wife when all this was going on? It's quite odd that she didn't ring 911 or go up to investigate. There's no way she slept through the ordeal like the children.

Paddy Cow

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Where was Mr Marten's wife when all this was going on? It's quite odd that she didn't ring 911 or go up to investigate. There's no way she slept through the ordeal like the children.

Maybe she took a sleeping pill.

Gadgetman496

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Where was Mr Marten's wife when all this was going on? It's quite odd that she didn't ring 911 or go up to investigate. There's no way she slept through the ordeal like the children.

Maybe he's a control freak too and she thought better of interfering?

mikeybrennan

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Where was Mr Marten's wife when all this was going on? It's quite odd that she didn't ring 911 or go up to investigate. There's no way she slept through the ordeal like the children.

She either heard nothing or was told to say she heard nothing

Police would be able to pick holes in the stories if she was another witness

kylith

mikeybrennan wrote: »

She either heard nothing or was told to say she heard nothing

Police would be able to pick holes in the stories if she was another witness

Probably, but that in itself is suspicious "So, you're telling me that you're woken by a commotion and your husband goes to investigate, then you hear a man being hit with a baseball bat, a bat being swung hard enough to damage the walls, and your husband being thrown across a room, and you do nothing?"

riffmongous

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

He worked in a Lab.

The X-Files has a lab

njs030

kylith wrote: »

Probably, but that in itself is suspicious "So, you're telling me that you're woken by a commotion and your husband goes to investigate, then you hear a man being hit with a baseball bat, a bat being swung hard enough to damage the walls, and your husband being thrown across a room, and you do nothing?"

She has marital privilege not to testify.

Fakediamond

I bet they all exercised their right to reman silent during police interviews, which makes the investigators job much harder. Daddy would have known that and coached them before the police arrived.

They fully expect to get away with this and they very well might do so.

Summer wind

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.

I didn't say he should have to "prove it". I didn't say he should not be allowed defend himself. What I did say is that he shouldn't be allowed to state something nobody knows is true or not as a clear fact.

njs030

Summer wind wrote: »

I didn't say he should have to "prove it". I didn't say he should not be allowed defend himself. What I did say is that he shouldn't be allowed to state something nobody knows is true or not as a clear fact.

Given the trial isn't over how do you know there isn't facts to back it up?

strandroad

Summer wind wrote: »

I didn't say he should have to "prove it". I didn't say he should not be allowed defend himself. What I did say is that he shouldn't be allowed to state something nobody knows is true or not as a clear fact.

But that's his version - there is nothing stopping the accused from lying, many do. It's the prosecution's job to disprove it, or the jury's to disregard it if they don't believe it.

Summer wind

notjustsweet wrote: »

Given the trial isn't over how do you know there isn't facts to back it up?

If any facts existed I think Thomas Martens team would be very eager to disclose them. I think they would have by now.

njs030

Summer wind wrote: »

If any facts existed I think Thomas Martens team would be very eager to disclose them. I think they would have by now.

That's not how it works.
In a criminal trial the prosecution goes first and they lay out their case, they try to convince people of the accused's guilt. They rested their case last week meaning they have now finished, all they can do now is cross examine defence witnesses and try to poke holes in their stories.

Now it's the turn of the defence to put forward their case and say this is what we say happened and why it was self defence.

Each party gets a turn, it isn't a free for all where everyone shouts their evidence at the judge.

There was blood and hair in the hallway which would back up his claim that they walked up and down the hall BTW.

Summer wind

Summer wind wrote: »

I didn't say he should have to "prove it"...

You actually did...

Summer wind wrote: »

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.

Every single person who alleges self defence is entitled to say what he said. Every. Single. Person. Martens can of course raise it. He doesn't have to establish it as "proof" or "fact" or anything at all first. There is no pre-trial process to determine if defences are proven or factual. The hearing is the test.

If you think it's not right, you are just throwing out a defence that has existed since Victorian times and is recognised all over the world.

Summer wind wrote: »

If any facts existed I think Thomas Martens team would be very eager to disclose them. I think they would have by now.

Ah come on. When?

Some of the analysis of the trial is as useful as me looking at neurosurgery and saying "tis all wrong".

Missix

The arrogance of it all astounds me the most...a family with 2 generations of killers thinking they had the right to insist on custody of those children,when they had just battered their father to death.

I think they believe they will be cleared,and I hope to God they aren't.But stranger things have happened.

Paddy Cow

mikeybrennan wrote: »

She either heard nothing or was told to say she heard nothing

Police would be able to pick holes in the stories if she was another witness

notjustsweet wrote: »

She has marital privilege not to testify.

I wonder if this is why Martens has chosen to take the stand, so that they couldn't call his wife?

jimmycrackcorm

Missix wrote:

I think they believe they will be cleared,and I hope to God they aren't.But stranger things have happened.

Whatever doubt might arise about self defence, the fact that he was well bludgeoned beyond reasonable force to stop just says that some form of guilty verdict is warranted.

njs030

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I wonder if this is why Martens has chosen to take the stand, so that they couldn't call his wife?

From what I can work out marital privilege just means that she can refuse to testify against him it doesn't matter if he takes the stand or not.


http://www.appealslawgroup.com/blog/2014/december/can-my-spouse-testify-against-me-at-my-criminal-.aspx

Missix

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Whatever doubt might arise about self defence, the fact that he was well bludgeoned beyond reasonable force to stop just says that some form of guilty verdict is warranted.

I really hope that's true for both of them,and not just the Father.He seems to be taking the blame for it all.Why has the paving stone not been explained yet?If she says she just hit him once with that,does she get off on the 'reasonable force' line....it seems like that's what they might be aiming for.

Does anyone know if Molly Martens is going to take the stand on Monday?

Jesus Wept

Fakediamond wrote: »

I bet they all exercised their right to reman silent during police interviews, which makes the investigators job much harder. Daddy would have known that and coached them before the police arrived.

They fully expect to get away with this and they very well might do so.

I'd exercise that right, even if innocent. Lawyer up.

NORWOOD1

Water John wrote: »

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.

I'm almost certain it has to be unanimous, there is no majority verdict in North Carolina

Gadgetman496

A verdict in the Jason Corbett murder trial in North Carolina could be considered by the jury by tomorrow evening or on Tuesday.

LINK:

RacoonQueen

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

A verdict in the Jason Corbett murder trial in North Carolina could be considered by the jury by tomorrow evening or on Tuesday.

LINK:

Defence aren't presenting much of a defence?
It's basically - he attacked her, because, we said so...so we hit him in the head multiple times to stop him.

Neyite

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Defence aren't presenting much of a defence?
It's basically - he attacked her, because, we said so...so we hit him in the head multiple times to stop him.

Possibly if they had any other defence the prosecution would be able to easily discredit it and sometimes it's wiser to say as little as possible. All they need is reasonable doubt.

This way, with the bare minumum of narrative, plus a crime scene that was altered or staged, and its unclear exactly who did what to the victim it gives enough doubt for a jury to waver on a unanimous verdict.

Water John

The paving stone was covered all over with blood and matter. Expert witness was clear on making this point. Both weapons were used multiple times.

The father's evidence is very weak, in that, it doesn't fit with the expert testimony, in many ways. Blood soakage on the mattress, the paving brick. No valid reason given for suddenly changing plans.

harr

To be honest I can't see the majority of the jurors agreeing on a verdict, there is bound to be one or two of the muppets who will believe wholeheartedly what an ex FBI agent has to say especially when it involves a foreign national..

njs030

harr wrote: »

To be honest I can't see the majority of the jurors agreeing on a verdict, there is bound to be one or two of the muppets who will believe wholeheartedly what an ex FBI agent has to say especially when it involves a foreign national..

It has to be unanimous not a majority, all the defence has to do is put doubt into one of the jurors minds.

RacoonQueen

notjustsweet wrote: »

It has to be unanimous not a majority, all the defence has to do is put doubt into one of the jurors minds.

Do they not keep going until they reach a unanimous decision?

Surely they don't get off just because the jurors don't agree?