The trial of Molly Martens

Gatling

notjustsweet wrote: »

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

*Jason Corbett.

Just noticed that ,

The handle with a foam wrap maybe but not the rest ,
Still doesn't make sense imo

Or the unidentified weapon that wasn't identified

kylith

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.

All it proves is that he was being hit with a bat as he walked up and down the hall, it does not prove that he had hold of Molly at the time.

Wombatman

At last. A statement on how the brick comes into the equation.

Earlier, he made reference to Ms Martens Corbett's police statement. "I tried to hit him with a brick I had on my nightstand. I do not remember clearly after that," she told Davidson County Sheriff's officers.

Standard stuff for a nightstand: Phone, alarm clock, book, glass of water, lamp, brick.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/molly-martens-murder-trial-i-tried-to-hit-him-with-a-brick-i-had-on-my-nightstand-36009822.html

Gadgetman496

https://twitter.com/AlexRoseNews/status/894919586696630272

Water John

The expert witnesses, on blood spatter patterns and autopsy were enough for me.

njs030

Water John wrote: »

The expert witnesses, on blood spatter patterns and autopsy were enough for me.

You think the prosecution answered every question?

You have no bias whatsoever?

Missix

The defence seem to be doing a far better job of their closing arguments than the prosecution team did.

They are making a big point of why the prosecution didn't include the Martens statements taken that night...but why didn't the defence either?

iguana

Water John wrote: »

The expert witnesses, on blood spatter patterns and autopsy were enough for me.

But nothing that expert witness stated was at odds with Thomas Martens' version of events. The autopsy and blood patters show that Corbett died of a beating in the same place that Martens admits to beating him. It's not enough to bring reasonable doubt into why Martens said he beat him.

Gatling

Missix wrote: »

The defence seem to be doing a far better job of their closing arguments than the prosecution team did.

They are making a big point of why the prosecution didn't include the Martens statements taken that night...but why didn't the defence either?

Looking for reasonable doubt ,

seamus

The coverage from Alex Rose would seem to paint the Defense team as really grasping at anything they can find. They've entered his will as evidence that she stood to gain nothing if he died (i.e. the children wouldn't go to her), obviously hoping the jury will ignore the $600,000 insurance policy or her attempts to take custody of the children after the death.

I've been trying to look at U.S. reporting to get something less biased than the Irish, but tbh it's not making much of a difference. Mr. Marten's testimony appears to have been incredibly disjointed and full of holes. Lots of questions he couldn't answer and things he didn't remember.

The question I guess is whether that makes the jury feel he's not credible, or whether they think it's the testimony of a man in a blind rage.

Water John

Jason was lying on the mattress, it was blood soaked. Does not tally with defendant evidence. Why is he lying?

RockDesk

I can't see how Molly Martens will be found guilty of anything based on what seems to have been said in court. I hope I'm wrong, as I feel that she was involved and that her father is covering for her.

Missix

The defence are saying Jason was armed with a deadly weapon,that his hands and arms count.

His poor family having to sit in court listening to this,while the killers sit just feet away from them.

Water John

She admits in her statement, to being present, to using the brick as a weapon. The brick was covered all over with blood and matter, so used multiple times.
Neither said the other called on the attack to stop. Victim was hit when he was already dead.

Not sure how much people want to provide the doubt, element.

If the evidence did not stand up, I would say clearly say that.

If his hands are called weapons, then where are the attack points on the two accused. Bit of a very one sided struggle.

njs030

Water John wrote: »

She admits in her statement, to being present, to using the brick as a weapon. The brick was covered all over with blood and matter, so used multiple times.
Neither said the other called on the attack to stop. Victim was hit when he was already dead.

Not sure how much people want to provide the doubt, element.

If the evidence did not stand up, I would say clearly say that.

If his hands are called weapons, then where are the attack points on the two accused. Bit of a very one sided struggle.

You don't mind all the things they didn't explain then.

January

https://twitter.com/AlexRoseNews

Prosecution has now brought out the bat and brick to show the jury, they are banging a bat on the table (not the actual bat but a similar one) to show jury how much force must have been used to rip flesh from bone.

smurgen

notjustsweet wrote: »

You don't mind all the things they didn't explain then.

what's to explain? the reasonable doubt threshold has not been passed in my eyes.

njs030

smurgen wrote: »

what's to explain? the reasonable doubt threshold has not been passed in my eyes.

They didnt explain why Jason Corbett had blonde hair in his grasp when the police arrived. It was obviously Molly's so he did have hold of her at some point.
Why didn't the police properly bag his hands so vital evidence (such as the hair and what was under his nails) didn't go missing.


Why the police didn't check under her finger nails.

There was an unidentifiable fingerprint on the end of the bat so it's possible Jason did grab it as the father said he did...or are the prosecution trying to say martens held the bat in two hands? Not explained.

ohnonotgmail

notjustsweet wrote: »

They didnt explain why Jason Corbett had blonde hair in his grasp when the police arrived. It was obviously Molly's so he did have hold of her at some point.
Why didn't the police properly bag his hands so vital evidence (such as the hair and what was under his nails) didn't go missing.


Why the police didn't check under her finger nails.

There was an unidentifiable fingerprint on the end of the bat so it's possible Jason did grab it as the father said he did...or are the prosecution trying to say martens held the bat in two hands? Not explained.

Did the police and/or paramedics who arrived on-scene first say that this was not the case? that his hands were empty.

Fr_Dougal

Wombatman wrote: »

At last. A statement on how the brick comes into the equation.



Standard stuff for a nightstand: Phone, alarm clock, book, glass of water, lamp, brick.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/molly-martens-murder-trial-i-tried-to-hit-him-with-a-brick-i-had-on-my-nightstand-36009822.html

Water John wrote: »

She admits in her statement, to being present, to using the brick as a weapon. The brick was covered all over with blood and matter, so used multiple times.
Neither said the other called on the attack to stop. Victim was hit when he was already dead.

Not sure how much people want to provide the doubt, element.

If the evidence did not stand up, I would say clearly say that.

If his hands are called weapons, then where are the attack points on the two accused. Bit of a very one sided struggle.

Don't underestimate the relationship between someone and their brick.

Gatling

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Did the police and/or paramedics who arrived on-scene first say that this was not the case? that his hands were empty.

I believe a single blonde hair was found ,but that doesn't prove he grabbed hold of her , could have fell off her standing over his body ,or placed there

kylith

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Did the police and/or paramedics who arrived on-scene first say that this was not the case? that his hands were empty.

Even if he had a hair in his hand it doesn't mean much; hairs get everywhere. If he had a clump of hair it might indicate something but as she was completely uninjured...

RacoonQueen

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Did the police and/or paramedics who arrived on-scene first say that this was not the case? that his hands were empty.

There are different statements on that, one person said they saw blonde hair in his hands, all other witness statements said there was no hair in his hand.

There are other reasons he could have had hair in his hand though...as another poster has said it could have been placed there...or it could have ended up there during the struggle as he tried to defend himself.

And jeez sure my carpet and bed are full of my loose long hairs...it would want to be a clump of hair pulled out from the root for me...

January

I have 2 blonde daughters, I regularly have blonde hairs all over me from them (I'm brunette and so is my other daughter). Having a single blonde hair on him tells us nothing.

MarcusP12

based on what i've ready and the limited coverage I've followed, i'd be surprised if Molly was convicted of anything...maybe there wasnt enough hard evidence they could pin to her so the prosecution focused their case against the father to secure at least one conviction and then anything they get out of the case against molly is a bonus.

i was thinking about this from the fathers perspective and one theory that i came up with is that the father is just a pawn in an elaborate plan to get rid of her husband. it has been stated that the father hated jason and encouraged molly to take out the insurance policy. maybe molly was feeding the father with so much poison about him that this lead to such resentment of his. she possibly confided in the father about how controlling he was, anger issues and wasn't willing to put her as a beneficiary in his will or allow her to adopt the children (the only reason she probably stuck with him). concerned that if anything was to happen to jason, molly would be left with nothing, he encouraged her to take out an insurance policy. key thing here is that because the father encouraged her to do it, the prosecution cant use this as the reason she bumped him off, in theory.

now fast forward to the tragic night, she realises hes leaving and flips attacking him viciously with the brick. Hearing the commotion the father, armed with the bat in anticipation of an altercation, mistakenly assumes (fueled by his hatred for him and whatever lies molly was feeding him about anger and aggression) that jason is attacking her, but in reality he is trying to defend himself or fend her off. armed with the bat, he weighs in and attacks jason, thinking hes preventing a sustained attack on his precious daughter. his hatred means he goes way too far and when realising what theyve done, they either make up the story of the attempted strangulation or he believes her version of how the attack was occuring. They agree their stories and on the advice of their lawyer, he is to be thrown under the bus.

so, unlikely as the above sounds, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the father thought he was defending his daughter and feared for her life at least....but initially at least...blind rage clearly took over and he went way too far......who's to say that molly didnt plan the whole thing long ago and the father was unwittingly just part of the perfect murder? We'll never know.....its a bit far fetched and would make a decent thriller but who knows!

what i will say though, while we are all thinking about what might have happened and discussing point of law and likely outcomes of the case, we should remember that there was a father of 2 young kids brutally killed and now they're orphans. Poor kids....doesn't matter if he was the biggest $hitehawk in the world to molly (not that there was any evidence whatsoever to suggest this or anything close to it), no one deserves what happened to him....

Neyite

Gatling wrote: »

I believe a single blonde hair was found ,but that doesn't prove he grabbed hold of her , could have fell off her standing over his body ,or placed there

Exactly. Any woman with long hair knows that hairs get everywhere.

seamus

Gatling wrote: »

I believe a single blonde hair was found ,but that doesn't prove he grabbed hold of her , could have fell off her standing over his body ,or placed there

Tbh, when a person has long hair, you're liable to find them everywhere. Simply touching something in the bedroom would be more than enough for there to be a hair of hers in his hand.

MarcusP12

Gatling wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Did the police and/or paramedics who arrived on-scene first say that this was not the case? that his hands were empty.

I believe a single blonde hair was found ,but that doesn't prove he grabbed hold of her , could have fell off her standing over his body ,or placed there

agree, if it was as a result of grabbing her hair surely there would have been more hair....possibly planted to create doubt....

$500,000 doesn't seem very much of an insurance policy in the States. It'd barely cover the mortgage let alone rearing two children.

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

$500,000 doesn't seem very much of an insurance policy in the States. It'd barely cover the mortgage let alone rearing two children.

Except she has no mortgage the father gifted her a house worth 300,000+,
500,000 reward for less than 2 years of marriage. If they get away with it