The trial of Molly Martens

Jesus Wept

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

He's a former FBI man. I'm sure he'd have a better way of killing someone that bludgeoning them to death in this fashion. My feeling is that her ladyship did the vast bulk of the killing and he tried to save her from being prosecuted. She seems to be an unhinged individual and could easily have lost it.

What would you expect him to be capable of? Dripping poison down a thread into the guys mouth as he sleeps?

myshirt

Noveight wrote: »

I've been loosely following the case since it arose and am relieved with the outcome, justice well and truly served.

How much pull does being an ex-FBI man get you? Was Tom Martens in a senior role or just a paper-pusher of sorts?

No FBI agent is a paper pusher. It takes a lot to get into the FBI, they are typically classed as the crem de la crem of the talent pool available. No clowns allowed. Tom Martens is well educated and a smart guy. Unflappable. Listen to the language and phrasing he used right from the 911 call all the way up to the witness box, he knew exactly what he was at, what he was facing, and how he needed to phrase it and sell it. Unnatural and unusual language right from the get go, language intended to meet one purpose.

Thankfully this was a competent DA and police force with just as smart staff as you can get.

AudreyHepburn

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

He's a former FBI man. I'm sure he'd have a better way of killing someone that bludgeoning them to death in this fashion. My feeling is that her ladyship did the vast bulk of the killing and he tried to save her from being prosecuted. She seems to be an unhinged individual and could easily have lost it.

That's been my opinion from the start - I believe she snapped when she learned Jason was intending to leave and come home to Ireland with the children, she murdered him in a fit of rage then panicked and called Daddy who tried to take the fall for her.

I suppose you could make the argument that Daddy Martens did genuinely believe Jason was abusive and that Molly was in danger. If, as most of us think, he walked in after the fact he would only have her word to go on and we know he disliked Jason as it was. Molly could have fed him all sorts of lies - she's unhinged enough to it.

Someone mentioned Gone Girl earlier in the thread and that's all I could think about following this case - Molly is just like the character Amy; cold, manipulating,selfish and seriously unhinged.

Saying all that I do think Daddy Martens deserves some form of punishment. After all he thought little of lying about and covering up murder.

AudreyHepburn

Noveight wrote: »

I've been loosely following the case since it arose and am relieved with the outcome, justice well and truly served.

How much pull does being an ex-FBI man get you? Was Tom Martens in a senior role or just a paper-pusher of sorts?

I could be wrong but I'm sure I read somewhere he was Counter Intelligence- certainly no paper pusher.

knucklehead6

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

He's a former FBI man. I'm sure he'd have a better way of killing someone that bludgeoning them to death in this fashion. My feeling is that her ladyship did the vast bulk of the killing and he tried to save her from being prosecuted. She seems to be an unhinged individual and could easily have lost it.

If he was trying to help her he should have told her to plead guilty and throw herself at the mercy of the courts.

Fcuk him. And his cancer ridden wife.

RacoonQueen

I don't think this is the last we'll hear of this story now they're locked up. I'd love to know what really happened that night - I mean he could very well have been abusive but it's hard to believe based on what we've seen from her but that is just an assumption - I would guess she was the abusive one in the relationship...he may have retaliated verbally to defend himself here and there. Bullies never like people who stand up to them and will always scream bully at the person who stands up to them. That would seem to fit here - him not allowing her adopt the kids and heading home is a bullies worst nightmare. Who knows.
Her Facebook page used to a be a LOT more public, even allowed comments from non-friends. It was astonishing how brazen she was. The way she went after the kids on Facebook screamed guilty to me.

I don't think the dad, as an ex-FBI man is going to have an easy time in prison. Possible there will be many men in there who were put away by the FBI who will go after him. Did I read right that he has gone to maximum security?

Paddy Cow

Noveight wrote: »

I've been loosely following the case since it arose and am relieved with the outcome, justice well and truly served.

How much pull does being an ex-FBI man get you? Was Tom Martens in a senior role or just a paper-pusher of sorts?

It's not going to do him any favours in maximum security.

DarTipp

delighted with verdict, the extent of injuries, blows to head that Jason got was unbelievable and sick tbh, hope they both get to serve 25 years each, I couldn't see any remote chance of it being self defence

seamus

jbt123 wrote: »

I think she did the killing and Daddy tried to take the rap in the hope that she would walk and he would get a minimal sentence if any.

A god-fearing white american in the bible belt with a lot of pride as a man of the FBI, I have no doubt he has been covering up for her for years.

The dirty family secret, Molly isn't well but we're not going to get her locked up in a psych ward because what kind of people will the neighbours think we are? Molly's been arrested for crashing her car while high? Don't worry, Daddy will talk to the local sheriff. Your boyfriend has been hitting you, you say Molly? OK, your Uncles will go down with their badges and have a quick chat to his employer, maybe teach him a lesson.*

This was likely just the final cover up in a long history of Thomas Martens trying to pretend his daughter wasn't a psycho bitch, and preferring to just paper over the cracks rather than bring the shame on himself that his daughter needed to be locked up.

So, fnck him. Even if he only arrived after Jason was already dead, it's 3 decades of his parenting which led to these events.

*All made up of course, but typical of the "minor" transgressions that some mentally ill peoples' families may "fix" on their behalf rather than get help

Neyite

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I don't think this is the last we'll hear of this story now they're locked up. I'd love to know what really happened that night - I mean he could very well have been abusive but it's hard to believe based on what we've seen from her but that is just an assumption - I would guess she was the abusive one in the relationship...he may have retaliated verbally to defend himself here and there. Bullies never like people who stand up to them and will always scream bully at the person who stands up to them. That would seem to fit here - him not allowing her adopt the kids and heading home is a bullies worst nightmare. Who knows.
Her Facebook page used to a be a LOT more public, even allowed comments from non-friends. It was astonishing how brazen she was. The way she went after the kids on Facebook screamed guilty to me.

I don't think the dad, as an ex-FBI man is going to have an easy time in prison. Possible there will be many men in there who were put away by the FBI who will go after him. Did I read right that he has gone to maximum security?

I'm usually the first to give someone who alleges Domestic Abuse the full benefit of the doubt, but in this case, it just doesn't ring true for me. I think if there was any DV, it was coming from her, not him. There is enough statements and testimony about her abusive behaviour from various witnesses, but none about him. Absolutely nothing - except from Molly. The defence would have found someone if there was. Blokes who are abusive treat all their partners badly. So if he was that monster she's portrayed him to be, there would have been someone - some ex he dated before he married his first wife, or someone in his first wife's family, or a former friend from school who saw something to support Molly's allegation.

Often the most straightforward explanation of events is the right one and that's what I think happened here. The marriage had broken down, and he wanted to bring his kids home to Ireland, she found out, called her folks over. There likely were words had. Jason went to bed, or was on his way to bed and then was attacked by her - either she killed him or almost killed him. Dad had to finish him off so he could never testify as to intent, or Dad battered him enough so the coroner could not determine which blow was fatal - to cast enough doubt as to who actually administered the fatal blow(s) It was overkill for that reason.

Dad, with his professional background knew how to stage and change a crime scene just enough to throw some doubt on events for a defence. But the science didn't add up. The amount of blood in a body is surprising, and head wounds bleed profusely. Jason getting battered to that extent, the two of them should have been fairly drenched. Yet not a spot on them, or on their hands, in their hair, or anywhere.

Their sentences were fair. And I hope that it brings the Corbett family some sort of closure, and gives those children some sort of security knowing that she will be locked up until they are her age.

Dial Hard

Dial Hard wrote: »

There was a very vocal pro-Martens contingent on this thread early on who've gone very quiet...

...and rightly so. I know this is AH but I was genuinely fcuking disgusted by some of the excuses people were making for them.

I don't recall one poster saying she was or they were right. I recall a few of the "I still would" stuff early on in the trial, or the "don't stick in the crazy".

Might have been mentioned already but the whole thing smacks of that early 90s film, "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle" about an obsessive nanny who tries to steal a family. I wonder was there an element of that. Obviously, it could not be said during the trial, insofar as the defence could not portray their client as having psychiatric issues as that would have harmed the self defence line, and it would only have been speculation by the prosecution.

knucklehead6

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't recall one poster saying she was or they were right. I recall a few of the "I still would" stuff early on in the trial, or the "don't stick in the crazy".

Might have been mentioned already but the whole thing smacks of that early 90s film, "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle" about an obsessive nanny who tries to steal a family. I wonder was there an element of that. Obviously, it could not be said during the trial, insofar as the defence could not portray their client as having psychiatric issues as that would have harmed the self defence line, and it would only have been speculation by the prosecution.

There was one poster in particular (who is conspicuous by her absence) who was doing a little bit too much of playing devils advocate.

Neyite

Deleted User wrote: »

Obviously, it could not be said during the trial, insofar as the defence could not portray their client as having psychiatric issues as that would have harmed the self defence line, and it would only have been speculation by the prosecution.

I wondered about that but you've answered my question, thank you. I suspected during the trial that some sort of psychiatric issues may be alleged or come out so I wasn't surprised when the judge said it. I was surprised that it didn't form part of the defence.

So if they'd gone with a diminished capacity defence instead, that would have left dad essentially with no plausible defence, especially given that the physical evidence would point to him being actively involved. He wouldn't have been able to say he was defending his daughter who was insanely beating her husband to death.

Neyite

Neyite wrote: »

I wondered about that but you've answered my question, thank you. I suspected during the trial that some sort of psychiatric issues may be alleged or come out so I wasn't surprised when the judge said it. I was surprised that it didn't form part of the defence.

Diminished capacity is a very high risk defence, because you are admitting you carried out the act and broke the law, removing so much work for the prosecution. And it might be difficult for a woman who was outwardly so calm and cool and presumably fought a case over the children claiming she was perfectly capable of being responsible for them, to turn around in another court and say she was not responsible for what she might do. There would have been an inherent contradiction.

RacoonQueen

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/they-are-not-human-beings-grandmother-of-jason-corbetts-children-hits-out-at-his-killers-801502.html

The views of his first wife's mother probably underline the lies the Martens tried to put across about his character.

mikeybrennan

The father wasn't all that smart

The physical evidence was overwhelmingly pointing to a one sided assault

Probably blinded by his relationship with his daughter

martingriff

Paddy Cow wrote: »

A few poster's mentioned that Niall Boylan gave Molly air time on his show. I listened to about five minutes of the podcast before I had to turn it off. He was basically spoon feeding her victim hood about how she lost her children, how upset it must make her feel etc etc. She was of course crying blah blah. It made my skin crawl.

I actually had no problem with Niall Boylan before this. His show is like the comments section of the Daily Mail come to life. Something you subscribe to for the lolz and his show can be entertaining. He went too far though. I didn't realise he had Molly on his show until I read this thread and I wondered if tonight he would address the issue.

I tuned in at 9.20 - they were talking about immigrants (same as they were at lunchtime today)

I tuned in again at 10.20 - they're still talking about immigrants/asylum seekers

He's obviously not going to man up and take the flak and it waiting for it to blow over. This is Ireland Niall and people have long memories.

Talked to the reporter that has been quoted here at the start he also said that that interview was before her arrest and only about the kids. Ya right🙄 he saw a sob story involving ireland and ran with it. I think he said he will talk about in today's show hoping the ire has gone a bit. Let's see will heJ

retro:electro

I know it's hard to tell from a picture but all I see from photos of Jason is a lovely man with kind eyes. If there was DV there, Molly had every chance to take the stand and assert herself, but she didn't.

kylith

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That's been my opinion from the start - I believe she snapped when she learned Jason was intending to leave and come home to Ireland with the children, she murdered him in a fit of rage then panicked and called Daddy who tried to take the fall for her.

I suppose you could make the argument that Daddy Martens did genuinely believe Jason was abusive and that Molly was in danger. If, as most of us think, he walked in after the fact he would only have her word to go on and we know he disliked Jason as it was. Molly could have fed him all sorts of lies - she's unhinged enough to it.

I'd actually go as far as to give the father the benefit of the doubt. I think that Molly may have attacked Jason in the bedroom, possibly stunning him. He grabs her to defend himself, then Martens walks in an sees pretty much what he says he sees; a pissed-off Jason Corbett with a hold of Molly, and he goes in swinging without waiting to find out what's going on.

Missix

Why did the father go up to the bedroom armed with the bat in the first place?According to him,he had never heard any mention of domestic abuse before.So,when he hears some sort of commotion going on,he arms himself,tells the wife to stay put and goes up there?That's bull....any normal person hearing what he heard at 3 am would have assumed some sort of intruder was in and called 911 (or got the wife to).What did the wife do....stay put in her bed and do nothing until the police eventually arrived.Not run to her daughter,or the children,or call the police...and that bit is absolutely totally unbelievable.


Both Martens and his wife knew he was going up to that room to batter Jason Corbetts head in.Whether that happened when Molly had already bricked him half to death,no-one will ever know.

Cookie_fan

What I would like to know how somebody who is so unhinged and with a history of Mental Health issues be allowed to take the role of Au Pair in Ireland. I read somewhere early on when this case arose that only a couple of weeks before moving to Ireland she was released from a psychiatric facility, how was she allowed to Au Pair? What company would stand over someone who has recent mental health issues and allow them to mind somebody else's children in a professional capacity. What checks were done? I am sure there is some vetting that needs to take place before you decide somebody is suitable for a career as an Au Pair.
Note I am not saying that people with Mental Health issues should not be allowed work in the field everybody has a right to get better and move on with their lives I am just questioning someone with the history in their recent past.

Paddy Cow

martingriff wrote: »

Talked to the reporter that has been quoted here at the start he also said that that interview was before her arrest and only about the kids. Ya right�� he saw a sob story involving ireland and ran with it. I think he said he will talk about in today's show hoping the ire has gone a bit. Let's see will heJ

He's lying. The interview was two and a half weeks after she lost custody and Niall said they couldn't talk about the case for legal reasons.

Paddy Cow

Cookie_fan wrote: »

What I would like to know how somebody who is so unhinged and with a history of Mental Health issues be allowed to take the role of Au Pair in Ireland. I read somewhere early on when this case arose that only a couple of weeks before moving to Ireland she was released from a psychiatric facility, how was she allowed to Au Pair? What company would stand over someone who has recent mental health issues and allow them to mind somebody else's children in a professional capacity. What checks were done? I am sure there is some vetting that needs to take place before you decide somebody is suitable for a career as an Au Pair.
Note I am not saying that people with Mental Health issues should not be allowed work in the field everybody has a right to get better and move on with their lives I am just questioning someone with the history in their recent past.

All she'd have to do is lie and say she has no history of mental health issues. Vetting will flag criminal records but not medical ones.

AudreyHepburn

kylith wrote: »

I'd actually go as far as to give the father the benefit of the doubt. I think that Molly may have attacked Jason in the bedroom, possibly stunning him. He grabs her to defend himself, then Martens walks in an sees pretty much what he says he sees; a pissed-off Jason Corbett with a hold of Molly, and he goes in swinging without waiting to find out what's going on.

I was actually going to add this to my post but wasn't sure how it would be received.

I would even suggest that he probably shouldn't have been convicted of murder itself but as an accessory after the fact or whatever way they term it over there.

I do feel Molly is the one who dealt the blows.

iguana

knucklehead6 wrote: »

There was one poster in particular (who is conspicuous by her absence) who was doing a little bit too much of playing devils advocate.

If you're talking about me, my feeling has always been that it looked like Molly killed him and her dad covered it up. But that it couldn't have been premeditated because a man like Tom Martens would have plotted a better way of doing it. Though maybe his position and the privilege that came with it made him cocky. I reckon he thought they could get her off and he'd get a few years for manslaughter but I just can't imagine sacrificing my father like that. Not if I'd lost the kids. But I guess she was determined to go back after them as soon as she was exonerated.

I prefer to keep an open mind about some thing I don't know the facts about. And some of the 'facts' some posters were condemning her with were far from facts. There is a lot of conjecture and second and third hand he said/she said information floating about social media and around Limerick that was being used to determine her guilt from day one. And I don't like to condemn people on rumours. Ultimately the people who were presented with the facts made a decision that they were likely to have been socially predisposed against making, so I assume they were very, very much convinced by their guilt.

January

Cookie_fan wrote: »

What I would like to know how somebody who is so unhinged and with a history of Mental Health issues be allowed to take the role of Au Pair in Ireland. I read somewhere early on when this case arose that only a couple of weeks before moving to Ireland she was released from a psychiatric facility, how was she allowed to Au Pair? What company would stand over someone who has recent mental health issues and allow them to mind somebody else's children in a professional capacity. What checks were done? I am sure there is some vetting that needs to take place before you decide somebody is suitable for a career as an Au Pair.
Note I am not saying that people with Mental Health issues should not be allowed work in the field everybody has a right to get better and move on with their lives I am just questioning someone with the history in their recent past.

You don't have to go through an agency to hire an au pair here. The industry is completely unregulated.

seamus

Au pairs in Ireland are unregulated. A US citizen can obtain a working holiday visa and advertise themselves as an au pair without having to go through any agencies or vetting.

The vetting available on overseas citizens is very limited anyway, and spells in psych are unlikely to be shown to anyone but local cops and federal agents.

Cookie_fan

seamus wrote: »

Au pairs in Ireland are unregulated. A US citizen can obtain a working holiday visa and advertise themselves as an au pair without having to go through any agencies or vetting.

The vetting available on overseas citizens is very limited anyway, and spells in psych are unlikely to be shown to anyone but local cops and federal agents.

Thanks, scary to think how easy it is.

kylith

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I was actually going to add this to my post but wasn't sure how it would be received.

I would even suggest that he probably shouldn't have been convicted of murder itself but as an accessory after the fact or whatever way they term it over there.

I do feel Molly is the one who dealt the blows.

With no way to prove who struck the fatal blow both of them had to be charged with murder.

Paddy Cow

iguana wrote: »

If you're talking about me.....

Nah. You're posts were thought out. This is the usual high and mighty arguing for the sake of it stuff:

danganabu wrote: »

And that's fine, indeed a perfectly reasonable conclusion, but surely you accept that it is also perfectly reasonable for someone to believe her story,no?

If she was Irish and he was American I wonder would the media here, and many on here, be so quick as to assume her guilt??

danganabu wrote: »

So you have decided he was murdered but you can't understand why anyone would take the opinion that he was a wife beater because they dont have all the facts

danganabu wrote: »

It's very re-assuring to see that the premise of innocent until proven guilty is very much alive and well :rolleyes:

danganabu wrote: »

Can we remove juror number one please!

Just as it was obvious before the verdict came through on the Peru 2, it was clear that Molly was not innocent. What most people were afraid of was that her Dad would take the rap and she'd go free.