The trial of Molly Martens

Gatling

Court adjourned for today ,
Closing statements to finish in the morning

Fakediamond

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.

I'm no legal expert but I know the right to silence has some limitations and inferences can be drawn at trial, in some instances. I think it mainly applies to gangland type serious crimes. Don't know if there is an equivalent system in the U.S.

tayto lover

I think it will be a manslaughter verdict now that it's back on the table.

Fakediamond

Paddy Cow wrote: »

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.


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.

What about "acting in concert" is she not somewhat liable for not intervening in such a savage beating? Even if one was to accept that Jason was assaulting Molly (and I don't), surely she should have shouted stop when he was on the ground and beyond causing any harm to anyone. Prosecution described it as overkill, indicating out of control rage, surely they're both equally culpable in law for that?

Water John

The Prosecutors summing up is good and strong.
No attempt at CPR and 911 call delayed. This supported by dried and flaky blood, head not tilted and no blood from CPR on his hands.
Hit while on the ground. Hit when dead. The last point shows the malice and intent.
They both should be found guilty on this.

AudreyHepburn

tayto lover wrote: »

I think it will be a manslaughter verdict now that it's back on the table.

He was over the head hit 11 times with two different implements....that's not manslaughter in any right thinking person's book.

If you attack some-one like that you know you are going to kill them. In fact I'd argue that's exactly you intend to do.

AudreyHepburn

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.

Martens is perfectly entitled to speak in his own defense and give his own account of what happened and why, how unsavory or untrue what he's saying might be.

If his defense is that he believed Jason was going to kill Molly then not only has he the right to say so, it would be expected and required of him to do so. It's called fair trial.

That said, I don't believe a word out of Martens or Molly's mouth.

AudreyHepburn

I do find it strange that Molly didn't take the stand - surely if the defense are trying show Jason to be a violent abusive husband then Molly testimony is crucial?

At this point I believe that if there is going to be a guilty verdict then it will be Daddy Martens who takes the fall.

But you never really know what way a jury is going to swing - they some-how managed to find OJ not guilty despite a mountain of evidence.

ChikiChiki

Seems they've given up the fight and rightly so. The evidence is damning. Pair of whackjobs.

Paddy Cow

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I do find it strange that Molly didn't take the stand - surely if the defense are trying show Jason to be a violent abusive husband then Molly testimony is crucial?

At this point I believe that if there is going to be a guilty verdict then it will be Daddy Martens who takes the fall.

But you never really know what way a jury is going to swing - they some-how managed to find OJ not guilty despite a mountain of evidence.

I don't. If she's as cray cray as she's made out to be she would crack under cross examination.

stooge

jbt123 wrote: »

The paving stone has me a little perplexed.

Was the bedroom on the ground floor with some patio door access?

Surely if the bedroom was upstairs then how on earth would a paving stone be upstairs?

Seems to me there is not enough emphasis on it....

was the paving stone blow before or after the baseball bat? Seems more likely she hit him with a bat in a rage, the father comes up, sees he is too far gone and uses a paving stone to finalize it?

Such a horrible story.

seamus

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I do find it strange that Molly didn't take the stand - surely if the defense are trying show Jason to be a violent abusive husband then Molly testimony is crucial?

To be honest it's pretty rare to take the stand, whether guilty or innocent.

When a prosecutor believes they have enough evidence to go to trial without the testimony of the accused, then taking the stand can massively tilt things against you.

At that stage, the prosecution will not be aiming to get you to admit to doing anything, but to confirming the circumstances which place you at the scene. An adept prosecutor simply has to ask the right questions and follow a very strategic line of questioning to paint the accused into a corner that they can't back out of without looking incredibly shifty.

It's fallacious to think that telling the truth is all that's needed; often it will make you look even more guilty.

As such, it's rare for an accused to take the stand unless the defence believes their own questioning will paint a much better picture than the prosecution's.

To a certain extent, whether Jason was abusive or not is somewhat irrelevant in this case. The circumstances do not illustrate a death after a struggle. So whether he was abusive in months previous has no bearing on whether it was murder or self-defence in this instance.

Missix

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Seems they've given up the fight and rightly so. The evidence is damning. Pair of whackjobs.

I don't think they've given up the fight at all.I think they've agreed that Daddy takes the fall,and leaves Molly free to say she was an innocent little flower,both to the kids (eventually) and to the courts who decide on inheritance.

She absolutely wants those children to believe she didn't do it.

iguana

seamus wrote: »

To be honest it's pretty rare to take the stand, whether guilty or innocent.

That's really interesting. I've been trying to keep an open mind about the case but her not taking the stand made me feel like she was very guilty. I guess that's the problem when 95% of your legal knowledge comes from courtroom dramas, as the accused will almost always take the stand on tv for plot purposes.:o

I just can't imagine killing my husband and letting my dad take the fall for it. Especially when it's not as if she has to be free to take care of the children. In her shoes, I'd just feel like I was never going to get the children back, so I wouldn't let my dad sacrifice himself to protect me.

Gadgetman496

iguana wrote: »

That's really interesting. I've been trying to keep an open mind about the case but her not taking the stand made me feel like she was very guilty. I guess that's the problem when 95% of your legal knowledge comes from courtroom dramas, as the accused will almost always take the stand on tv for plot purposes.:o

I just can't imagine killing my husband and letting my dad take the fall for it. Especially when it's not as if she has to be free to take care of the children. In her shoes, I'd just feel like I was never going to get the children back, so I wouldn't let my dad sacrifice himself to protect me.

She's ruthless and I'd imagine she doesn't give two fcuks for anyone other than herself.

njs030

Missix wrote: »

I don't think they've given up the fight at all.I think they've agreed that Daddy takes the fall,and leaves Molly free to say she was an innocent little flower,both to the kids (eventually) and to the courts who decide on inheritance.

She absolutely wants those children to believe she didn't do it.

The defence have submitted as evidence Jason's will which shows Molly won't inherit anything.

The autopsy showed Jason's left arm was more bruised than his right even though he was right handed which shows he was obviously holding something in his right arm and defending himself with his left. What was he holding? Was it Molly as the dad has testified?
He walked up and down the hallway as the dad has testified - the evidence also backed that up.
So on two occasions the dad seems to be telling the truth - that could be reasonable doubt.

So it's not as simple as people on here seem to want it to be.

ohnonotgmail

notjustsweet wrote: »

The defence have submitted as evidence Jason's will which shows Molly won't inherit anything.

The autopsy showed Jason's left arm was more bruised than his right even though he was right handed which shows he was obviously holding something in his right arm and defending himself with his left. What was he holding? Was it Molly as the dad has testified?
He walked up and down the hallway as the dad has testified - the evidence also backed that up.
So on two occasions the dad seems to be telling the truth - that could be reasonable doubt.

So it's not as simple as people on here seem to want it to be.

what is the significance of this? I would be surprised if there wasnt physical evidence of him walking up and down the hallway. It was his house.

Minnie Snuggles

notjustsweet wrote: »

The defence have submitted as evidence Jason's will which shows Molly won't inherit anything.

The autopsy showed Jason's left arm was more bruised than his right even though he was right handed which shows he was obviously holding something in his right arm and defending himself with his left. What was he holding? Was it Molly as the dad has testified?
He walked up and down the hallway as the dad has testified - the evidence also backed that up.
So on two occasions the dad seems to be telling the truth - that could be reasonable doubt.

So it's not as simple as people on here seem to want it to be.

Given that he was being hit about the head with a weapon at the time is it not reasonable to assume he was trying to balance himself with his right hand whist trying to defend himself from the blows with his left hand?

njs030

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what is the significance of this? I would be surprised if there wasnt physical evidence of him walking up and down the hallway. It was his house.

???
There was pools of blood and marks in the wall from the bat on the walls.

ohnonotgmail

notjustsweet wrote: »

???
There was pools of blood and marks in the wall from the bat on the walls.

i thought he was beaten in the bedroom?

Deise Vu

Minnie Snuggles wrote: »

Given that he was being hit about the head with a weapon at the time is it not reasonable to assume he was trying to balance himself with his right hand whist trying to defend himself from the blows with his left hand?

I would have thought it was even more prosaic than that. If Martens is right handed he will 99% be swinging the bat from right to left which means Jason would be trying to fend it off with his left.

Sorry I missed this thread earlier while on holidays and Im trying to catch up. How did the defence explain the paving stone being (a) in the bedroom and (b) used in "self defence" by dropping it on someone's head?

njs030

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i thought he was beaten in the bedroom?

No it seems he was mobile enough to move around the house before ending up in the bedroom, maybe it started and ended there but he definitely moved into the hall.

Minnie Snuggles

There was very little about the paving brick in the bedroom. AFAIK Thomas Martens answered that he did not know or did not recall to alot of questions.

Water John

Nobody profferred any reason as to the presence of the paving stone or the fact that some one of the two used it as a weapon.

Defence trying hard to cling to something that would impinge of the phrase 'all reasonable' doubt. Not very successfully IMO.

If it was in any way a struggle, both defendants would not be injury free. Not a scratch on either of them. Against a strong able man, not credible.

smurgen

how could the lack of fingerprints also be explained? if they admitted to using the bat yet prevented finger prints being transfered to the bat does this not show a premeditated attack thus ruling out self defence?

professore

notjustsweet wrote: »

He walked up and down the hallway as the dad has testified - the evidence also backed that up.

What evidence is there that he walked up and down the hall as the dad described - CCTV footage? Because other than the dad and Molly's testament, I can't possibly see how there could be any reliable evidence of this. He lived in the house and probably walked up and down the hall several times a day so his DNA would be everywhere.

strandroad

smurgen wrote: »

how could the lack of fingerprints also be explained? if they admitted to using the bat yet prevented finger prints being transfered to the bat does this not show a premeditated attack thus ruling out self defence?

I think it's down to the surface of the handle - there were some prints on it alongside with blood etc but they were not good enough for ID.

strandroad

professore wrote: »

What evidence is there that he walked up and down the hall as the dad described - CCTV footage? Because other than the dad and Molly's testament, I can't possibly see how there could be any reliable evidence of this. He lived in the house and probably walked up and down the hall several times a day so his DNA would be everywhere.

Blood spatters and damage to the walls where they hit him if I remember well.

Gatling

smurgen wrote: »

how could the lack of fingerprints also be explained? if they admitted to using the bat yet prevented finger prints being transfered to the bat does this not show a premeditated attack thus ruling out self defence?

They also claimed Jason took the bat off the father before it been grabbed back id expect that some prints would have been found

njs030

Gatling wrote: »

They also claimed joe took the bat off the father before it been grabbed back id expect that some prints would have been found

The surface was hard to get prints from though some were found but were unidentifiable.

Jason Corbett.