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…1112141617…117

Comments

  • Options
    #392
    Arghus
    Registered Users Posts: 14,447 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    January wrote: »
    Molly Martens has elected not to testify.

    IMO that has guilty written all over it. What innocent person wouldn't want a chance to get up there and clear their name?

    It's far more common for a defendent not to testify than to take the stand. Usually their lawyer strongly advises against it.


  • Options
    #393
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Lirange wrote: »
    True but in this case the defence is claiming that Molly was also a victim of abuse. It is more common for the defendant to testify if they're using the Battered Woman Defence. But not in Molly's case...

    The battered woman defence is usually used where there is no evidence of provocation or self defence, most famously in the case of Sara Thornton who stabbed her husband while he was asleep and so really didn't have either defence available to her.

    I presume the reason she isn't taking the stand is because the defence feel there is simply not enough evidence that she committed the crime. They have a victim and a person who admits to hitting the victim, putting her in would only expose her to a barrage of questions about what exactly she did, whether there was a history of abuse evidenced by visits to a doctor or the police. And it would be for little gain, she can only reinforce what her father said, that he hit the victim. That evidence has gone in.


  • Options
    #394
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,932 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    The prosecution doesn't seem to have made much about the paving stone. But someone will correct me if I am wrong about that.

    I know about the blood spatters and the hairs found on it etc. but the fact that someone had a paving stone in a bedroom is beyond bizarre, yet it seems not to have been deemed that important.

    It seems that other posters think likewise.


  • Options
    #395
    ToddyDoody
    Registered Users Posts: 4,421 ✭✭✭ToddyDoody


    She anything to Doc Martens?


  • Options
    #396
    GLaDOS
    Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,220 Mod ✭✭✭✭GLaDOS


    I'm getting the feeling the paving stone is a bit of a red herring. Surely the prosecution would be all over it if it was as important as it seems.

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #397
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    GLaDOS wrote: »
    I'm getting the feeling the paving stone is a bit of a red herring. Surely the prosecution would be all over it if it was as important as it seems.

    Do you reckon? His blood and hair were all over it... it's strange.


  • Options
    #398
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,932 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    January wrote: »
    Do you reckon? His blood and hair were all over it... it's strange.

    I agree, it is very strange that it appears to have been downplayed. It is probably the one thing connecting Molly Martens to the death. I mean if she was being choked to death how could she bash his head in with a paving stone before Dad arrived with the bat?

    I just don't get it.

    Unless all sides are playing together to help one of their own. But surely the Judge would cop that one.

    Still I suppose the judge can only go on the evidence presented.


  • Options
    #399
    GLaDOS
    Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,220 Mod ✭✭✭✭GLaDOS


    January wrote: »
    Do you reckon? His blood and hair were all over it... it's strange.

    It doesn't make sense to me either, but surely the prosecution have a reason for not focusing on it. Ultimately theyre gonna know about it than we do.

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



  • Options
    #400
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    GLaDOS wrote: »
    It doesn't make sense to me either, but surely the prosecution have a reason for not focusing on it. Ultimately theyre gonna know about it than we do.

    Maybe it was explained in a statement and to cross examine on it would only reinforce something the defence would have fairly well versed and anticipated.


  • Options
    #401
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,932 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Could turn out to be the perfect murder.

    Or Dad and/or Molly Martens will go down.

    Either way a young man is dead under horrific circumstances.

    We probably know more about it than the jury there in North Carolina do.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #402
    mikeybrennan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 869 ✭✭✭mikeybrennan


    I can't see how they walk with the physical evidence


  • Options
    #403
    jluv
    Registered Users Posts: 3,719 ✭✭✭jluv


    mikeybrennan wrote: »
    I can't see how they walk with the physical evidence

    Unfortunately I feel she may walk and daddy will go down..and that is their gameplan..damage limitation on their part..


  • Options
    #404
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,932 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    If Dad goes down, I'm just guessing that the Parole Board will look after him.


  • Options
    #405
    strandroad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,676 ✭✭✭strandroad


    If I was on that jury I honestly would not be able to decide anything without the paving stone explained.
    Can juries ask for more information?


  • Options
    #406
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    Gatling wrote: »
    There currently having a conference about what's going to be put to the jury for deliberation

    jury will have 3 options: second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter or not guilty

    This if a verdict is reached.

    As for sentencing:

    Deemed unlikely to re-offend, Employment history, circumstances, etc, blah.

    North Carolina: Classifications / Penalties

    Class D felony; 51-64 months in prison.


  • Options
    #407
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    strandroad wrote: »
    If I was on that jury I honestly would not be able to decide anything without the paving stone explained.
    Can juries ask for more information?

    They can...but usually only clarification from the Judge, or to have evidence re-read to them.


  • Options
    #408
    A Law
    Registered Users Posts: 880 ✭✭✭A Law


    Been reading the thread on an off for the last week. Probably missed it but why couldn't the prosecution call molly or does it work like that?


  • Options
    #409
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    joefuss1986 wrote: »
    Been reading the thread on an off for the last week. Probably missed it but why couldn't the prosecution call molly or does it work like that?

    There is no obligation to take the stand and can't be forced to either ,
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #410
    CeilingFly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭CeilingFly


    joefuss1986 wrote: »
    Been reading the thread on an off for the last week. Probably missed it but why couldn't the prosecution call molly or does it work like that?

    That's the American system - and the jury cannot infer anything from the refusal to take the stand.


  • Options
    #411
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    joefuss1986 wrote: »
    Been reading the thread on an off for the last week. Probably missed it but why couldn't the prosecution call molly or does it work like that?

    No. And it's often very undesirable. The simplest example is your standard drink driving defence, which is a very technical prosecution. You can fight away on the basis that there was some procedural issue, some failure to meet the requirements, but you know that if you put your client in the first 2 questions are "did you drink alcohol that night" and "did you drive" and it's almost impossible to pull a case back from the inevitable answers.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #412
    Gadgetman496
    Registered Users Posts: 8,392 ✭✭✭Gadgetman496


    CeilingFly wrote: »
    That's the American system - and the jury cannot infer anything from the refusal to take the stand.

    Well they are not supposed to be seen to ;)

    "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
    #413
    Gadgetman496
    Registered Users Posts: 8,392 ✭✭✭Gadgetman496


    Voluntary manslaughter charge reinstated in Corbett trial

    LINK:

    "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
    #414
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,932 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    I don't think anyone on trial here is obliged to testify either.

    Is that correct?


  • Options
    #415
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Gadgetman496 wrote: »
    Voluntary manslaughter charge reinstated in Corbett trial

    LINK:

    That happened a few hours ago

    Defence asked for the trial to be dropped again judge said no ,

    Closing statements are currently ongoing Jury was removed from the court after the Defence made several objections to the prosecution closing statement.
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #416
    Missix
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭Missix


    Good Twitter feed here : https://twitter.com/alexrosenews?lang=en


  • Options
    #417
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    I don't think anyone on trial here is obliged to testify either.

    Is that correct?

    It is.

    And it's a very high risk strategy, putting the accused into the box. It means you are moving away from some very technical defence - such as in a case like this that the Prosecution didn't prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt - to a "I can explain it all" defence, opening up the accused to the Prosecution pointing out any flaws in that explanation.


  • Options
    #418
    Fakediamond
    Registered Users Posts: 1,055 ✭✭✭Fakediamond


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    I don't think anyone on trial here is obliged to testify either.

    Is that correct?

    Correct. But if you maintain your right to silence here, certain inferences can be drawn from that, i.e. You've something to hide!


  • Options
    #419
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,932 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Fakediamond wrote: »
    Correct. But if you maintain your right to silence here, certain inferences can be drawn from that, i.e. You've something to hide!

    I thought that was only when someone was being questioned in custody and elects to stay silent, not at a trial. But I may be wrong.


  • Options
    #420
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    I thought that was only when someone was being questioned in custody and elects to stay silent, not at a trial. But I may be wrong.

    It covers both. We have the right to avoid self incriminatinaton prior to legal proceedings and during.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #421
    Paddy Cow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,576 ✭✭✭Paddy Cow


    January wrote: »
    Molly Martens has elected not to testify.

    IMO that has guilty written all over it. What innocent person wouldn't want a chance to get up there and clear their name?
    It's common in murder trials in the US for the defendant not to take the stand. What is unusual in this case is that only the father chose to do so. I said earlier that it was strange that Marten's wife wasn't called as a witness but in the US a spouse cannot be made testify against their partner, so maybe that was why only the father was a witness.
    Missix wrote: »
    Her brothers chose not to testify either,even though they were supposedly to offer evidence of it being an abusive relationship.


    The Father is going to take the full rap for this,I think.They are all doing their utmost to minimalise Molly Martens part in it all.
    I don't know the full legalities of this case but as they've been charged together, do they both have to be found guilty or not guilty? If the jury can decide that one or both of them is to blame, then I can see Martens taking the rap. If the jury have to make the decision that both of them are guilty, then there might be enough reasonable doubt in the jury's mind's that Molly isn't guilty and therefore her father isn't guilty either.


Advertisement