The trial of Molly Martens

njs030

kylith wrote: »

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...

He had multiple strands intertwined which "went missing" pretty crappie job by the police.


Anyway the point was what didn't the prosecution explain, they didn't explain it.
It's their job to prove these people guilty and bad police work didn't help them.

seamus

Water John wrote: »

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

When it boils down to it, the defence want to present, "Was there a chance that they were afraid of Jason?" as their reasonable doubt.

If the jury believes there was, then they may go free. They don't even necessarily have to say there was a struggle, but it makes it difficult to claim that you're in fear if the person you're afraid of has no weapons, is not touching you, and apparently isn't making much noise.

Whatever way it goes, it'll be interesting to hear the evidence that court reporters didn't report on, and the stuff that wasn't brought up in court.

On the face of it, you have a guy lying stone cold dead in his bedroom, completely naked and with no weapons, and two people, with weapons, claiming that they were attacked first. While 3 other people in house heard nothing.

So if they're acquitted, it'll be interesting to hear what the jury heard that we didn't.

Minnie Snuggles

Gatling wrote: »

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

I thought I read somewhere that Jason paid for the house as well as giving her father 47,000 towards the wedding.

Electric Sheep

MarcusP12 wrote: »

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.

Except that, according to the prosecution evidence at the trial, the insurance policy wasn't taken out by Molly, it was an insurance policy from the company for whom Jason worked. This is a common perk with US companies.

https://www.thesun.ie/news/1363759/jason-corbett-murder-trial-hears-limerick-mans-600k-life-insurance-policy-was-reason-for-wife-to-kill-him/

MarcusP12

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.

Apparently the father bought the house for them for $350000.....must not have thought Jason was that bad at that stage if he was willing to buy a house for them!

MarcusP12

Electric Sheep wrote: »

MarcusP12 wrote: »

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.

Except that, according to the prosecution evidence at the trial, the insurance policy wasn't taken out by Molly, it was an insurance policy from the company for whom Jason worked. This is a common perk with US companies.

https://www.thesun.ie/news/1363759/jason-corbett-murder-trial-hears-limerick-mans-600k-life-insurance-policy-was-reason-for-wife-to-kill-him/

Right ok.....i was sure I read somewhere that he encouraged her to take it out....fair enough...doesnt really affect the theory that the father believed he was defending his daughter at the time....

MarcusP12

Electric Sheep wrote: »

MarcusP12 wrote: »

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.

Except that, according to the prosecution evidence at the trial, the insurance policy wasn't taken out by Molly, it was an insurance policy from the company for whom Jason worked. This is a common perk with US companies.

https://www.thesun.ie/news/1363759/jason-corbett-murder-trial-hears-limerick-mans-600k-life-insurance-policy-was-reason-for-wife-to-kill-him/

Right ok.....i was sure I read somewhere that he encouraged her to take it out....fair enough...doesnt really affect the theory that the father believed he was defending his daughter at the time....

Water John

Marcus your overall theory is good and we all know people who have manipulated others in this manner. Feeding them untruths and over time building up a sympathy case and often believed.

PressRun

I think the defendants have done a good job of making it that bit harder to convict both of them. The mere suggestion that the father might have acted alone or conversely be taking the fall for the daughter is enough to sufficiently muddy the waters around who did what and who should be convicted.

Water John

The father cannot have acted alone. Two weapons, with Molly saying she used the paving stone to strike Jason.

Minnie Snuggles

MarcusP12 wrote: »

Apparently the father bought the house for them for $350000.....must not have thought Jason was that bad at that stage if he was willing to buy a house for them!

According to this article Jason paid for the house
http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/mollys-brothers-to-give-evidence-in-murder-trial-36005841.html

Gatling

Minnie Snuggles wrote: »

According to this article Jason paid for the house
http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/mollys-brothers-to-give-evidence-in-murder-trial-36005841.html

I believe the article is wrong

Auldloon

Gatling wrote: »

I believe the article is wrong

There's so much conflicting information on this case I don't know what to believe anymore. I do recall reading that molly had been described as having no assets and now living with her parents but who knows what the truth is.

In relation to the case, the brick and her admission that she tried to hit Jason and can't remember after that is a glaring statement for me. This convenient much repeated defence of can't remember is just bull and I think the jury will agree.

njs030

Gatling wrote: »

I believe the article is wrong

Thomas martens said in his evidence that Jason paid for the house and gave them money for the wedding, it was while he was under cross examination by the prosecution.

MarcusP12

notjustsweet wrote: »

Gatling wrote: »

I believe the article is wrong

Thomas martens said in his evidence that Jason paid for the house and gave them money for the wedding, it was while he was under cross examination by the prosecution.

I see....jaysus it's hard to keep up with all the different stories out there....why would Jason have shelled out $47k towards the wedding when the old man is clearly well off...must have been some wedding....and yet he hated him??!! Bizzare....

MarcusP12

MarcusP12 wrote: »

I see....jaysus it's hard to keep up with all the different stories out there....why would Jason have shelled out $47k towards the wedding when the old man is clearly well off...must have been some wedding....and yet he hated him??!! Bizzare....

Why would a groom pay for his own wedding? Why wouldn't he?

Missix

MarcusP12 wrote: »

I see....jaysus it's hard to keep up with all the different stories out there....why would Jason have shelled out $47k towards the wedding when the old man is clearly well off...must have been some wedding....and yet he hated him??!! Bizzare....

Not every Father of the Bride pays for the wedding,you know:)

Spanish Eyes

Awaiting the verdict now presumably.

Proceedings seem to have concluded very quickly overall, but maybe that's just me.

Up to the jury now.

JP Liz V1

notjustsweet wrote: »

He had multiple strands intertwined which "went missing" pretty crappie job by the police.


Anyway the point was what didn't the prosecution explain, they didn't explain it.
It's their job to prove these people guilty and bad police work didn't help them.

Isn't the killer father an ex police man too?

Gatling

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Isn't the killer father an ex police man too?

Ex FBI agent

Missix

The Jury has just begun deliberations now.Wonder how long they will be?

Hope that justice is served and both get lengthy sentences..I have a horrible feeling that she won't,though.

MarcusP12

Deleted User wrote: »

MarcusP12 wrote: »

I see....jaysus it's hard to keep up with all the different stories out there....why would Jason have shelled out $47k towards the wedding when the old man is clearly well off...must have been some wedding....and yet he hated him??!! Bizzare....

Why would a groom pay for his own wedding? Why wouldn't he?

No reason except I read in an earlier post he paid it towards the wedding so in my head it was a contribution rather than him paying it outright, with Mr smarten obviously paying the rest...but maybe he did pay for if all himself, who knows......its not really relevant anyway to the case so no need to dwell on it!

SimpleDimples

I can't remember last time I felt so strongly about a court case.

I'm really hoping both of them go down for life. What they did to Jason Corbett was nothing short of savage. Not only did they kill him, they made sure he was dead, no efforts to save him, make so many attempts to destroy his character, coerced his children into making false statements, spreading lies about the cause of his first wife's death, etc.

Horrible things happen in life and even if they killed him in self defense (which I don't believe for a minute), their behaviour subsequently & lack of remorse, behaviour towards Jack & Sarah, show the true character of these monsters.

The Corbett & Fitzpatrick families have been through hell & Tracey Corbett, David Lynch, their boys and wider family & friends are absolute heros for all that they have done for Jack, Sarah and for Jason's memory.

Hopefully, justice will be served later tonight.

MarcusP12

Missix wrote: »

MarcusP12 wrote: »

I see....jaysus it's hard to keep up with all the different stories out there....why would Jason have shelled out $47k towards the wedding when the old man is clearly well off...must have been some wedding....and yet he hated him??!! Bizzare....

Not every Father of the Bride pays for the wedding,you know:)

Oh I know of course....but the well off ones usually do or at least offer if they're going by what is still tradition for plenty of people.....with 2 girls it would suit me if it wasn't! Plus if Mr marten didn't like Jason then maybe the offer wasn't forthcoming so he'd no choice but to pay......not really relevant anyway...just a passing comment.....

Seth Brundle

Missix wrote: »

The Jury has just begun deliberations now.Wonder how long they will be?

Deliberating tonight until 10pm Irish time.

Missix wrote: »

Hope that justice is served and both get lengthy sentences..I have a horrible feeling that she won't,though.

Is the option there to find one guilty but not the other?

The best thing I can say at this point and the best way I can say it, on this whole terrible episode, is that my thoughts and prayers are with Jason Corbetts family.

*enough said*

SimpleDimples

SimpleDimples wrote: »

Horrible things happen in life and even if they killed him in self defense (which I don't believe for a minute), their behaviour subsequently & lack of remorse, behaviour towards Jack & Sarah, show the true character of these monsters.

One thing the law is very clear on, character doesn't come into it, and rightly so. The question is whether neither, one or both murdered him on the night in question. The fact that they may seem odious, or virtuous, has no bearing..and shouldn't have. The focus is all about what happened at that time, not what they may have done before or after, save insofar as it might give context to their actions at that time.

SimpleDimples

[Deleted User] wrote: »

One thing the law is very clear on, character doesn't come into it, and rightly so. The question is whether neither, one or both murdered him on the night in question. The fact that they may seem odious, or virtuous, has no bearing..and shouldn't have. The focus is all about what happened at that time, not what they may have done before or after, save insofar as it might give context to their actions at that time.

I don't disagree with you but I don't want them to serve life cause they are horrible people, I want them to be found guilty because I believe the evidence proves their guilt.

In your professional opinion, do you think they will be found guilty?

Seth Brundle

Ben Coley wrote:

Jury given erasers and dry erase markers. Apparently there's a whiteboard in that room

https://twitter.com/LexDispatchBC/status/895007982903320581?s=09

MarcusP12

Deleted User wrote: »

SimpleDimples wrote: »

Horrible things happen in life and even if they killed him in self defense (which I don't believe for a minute), their behaviour subsequently & lack of remorse, behaviour towards Jack & Sarah, show the true character of these monsters.

One thing the law is very clear on, character doesn't come into it, and rightly so. The question is whether neither, one or both murdered him on the night in question. The fact that they may seem odious, or virtuous, has no bearing..and shouldn't have. The focus is all about what happened at that time, not what they may have done before or after, save insofar as it might give context to their actions at that time.

Reading the indos latest report it seems the defence were putting big emphasis on his fbi background in terms of him protecting and serving his country (the jury will no doubt lap that $hit up like true patriots) and all he wanted to do was protect his daughter....seems they were playing the "how could a man who served his country for 40 years possibly do what he's accused of?"......character may not come into it in the eyes of the law but surely it plants a seed in a jurors head that can bias his view of the evidence and steer his argument for his own particular verdict...the only difference is he can't admit to using character in his argument....lay mans take on it.....