The trial of Molly Martens

fepper

bennyl10 wrote: »

The recordings she has and the kid with the therapist don't paint a good picture at all..

Why in gods name would they not bring them up at a trial?!


It's no excuse but it would have really helped the SD argument..

That documentary does paint her as a completely obsessive mother to the children,he seemed irrelevant to her,a hindrance if anything,id say they lived complete different lives but outwardly the happy couple,no doubt though,it was planned in some way,all was not happy in that marriage,keeping up that house,lifestyle status can cause it own personal problems which can combust at any stage

retro:electro

I don't think I can watch the interview. My blood pressure can't take it.

Gadgetman496

If you really are interested in this case? you need to

(1) Read every available article

(2) Look at every available picture

(3) Watch every available video

Unfortunately, this is a real life event and not a forum review of an episode of NCIS.

You can't cherry pick which information might upset you and which you might feel comfortable with, you've got to take it all or you should not be following this thread.

Look at what the jurors had to endure, sit through and look at?

If some users here found some of the posted pictures shocking? I'd hate to think what the pictures of what remained of Jasons skull that the jurors had to study would do to them.

Lest we forget, this really happened folks.

Gatling

What did people think of the interview with the social worker and supposed voicemail ,

Seemed odd single slow answers and the voice mail seemed really odd like it wasn't actually recorded in one go

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

She couldn't keep any eye contact.

WHIP IT!

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

If you really are interested in this case? you need to

(1) Read every available article

(2) Look at every available picture

(3) Watch every available video

Unfortunately, this is a real life event and not a forum review of an episode of NCIS.

You can't cherry pick which information might upset you and which you might feel comfortable with, you've got to take it all or you should not be following this thread.

Look at what the jurors had to endure, sit through and look at?

If some users here found some of the posted pictures shocking? I'd hate to think what the pictures of what remained of Jasons skull that the jurors had to study would do to them.

Lest we forget, this really happened folks.

I'm sorry, are you saying people can't have an opinion if they don't watch the interview above?? Get real. I have no interest in watching that video. I know it will be upsetting/infuriating and it ultimately doesn't matter because, thank God, the horrible, evil c**t was found guilty.

myshirt

LexieOnRale wrote: »

She couldn't keep any eye contact.

Whereas her father is the kind of man who would gamble on luck and look you straight in the eyes, maintain that stare, see the intensity of your suffering, and say F#CK YOU. Both are as bad for me.

Gadgetman496

WHIP IT! wrote: »

I'm sorry, are you saying people can't have an opinion if they don't watch the interview above?? Get real. I have no interest in watching that video. I know it will be upsetting/infuriating and it ultimately doesn't matter because, thank God, the horrible, evil c**t was found guilty.

I'm saying you can't have an informed opinion when you are not in possession of all the available facts.

Neyite

LexieOnRale wrote: »

She couldn't keep any eye contact.

That's the first thing I noticed too. It was constant eyes up or to the side, no direct eye contact with the interviewer. It would be interesting to see what body language experts would make of it.

I'll watch it fully later but think I'd get too annoyed for the day if I watched it now.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

myshirt

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

I'm saying you can't have an informed opinion when you are not in possession of all the available facts.

What a strange and verbose post.... what facts?
Have you a dictionary to hand? Look up facts and hearsay. Even do a Wikipedia view of evidence law.

You frighten me.

It is exactly because we have idiots consumed with a celebrity and snowflake culture, that this type of fiction can persist if framed and played right. The next thing is people will hire a fantasy novelist and PR agency to get them off, and it may work unless people use their f#cking brains.

Hitman3000

It seems no comments describing Molly and her father in less than glowing terms on the gofundme page are being allowed. However people are getting around this by using interesting user names. Molly's aunt can't delete followers user names, bet she is fuming. Seems the interview hasn't opened the floodgates of donations either.

retro:electro

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

If you really are interested in this case? you need to

(1) Read every available article

(2) Look at every available picture

(3) Watch every available video

Unfortunately, this is a real life event and not a forum review of an episode of NCIS.

You can't cherry pick which information might upset you and which you might feel comfortable with, you've got to take it all or you should not be following this thread.

Look at what the jurors had to endure, sit through and look at?

If some users here found some of the posted pictures shocking? I'd hate to think what the pictures of what remained of Jasons skull that the jurors had to study would do to them.

Lest we forget, this really happened folks.

Lest we forget, we are not jurors in a trial. We are posters on a thread, and if some people found those hard to look at, that is completely understandable, especially when they came out of the blue. Have a little compassion for people who may not have wanted or expected to see those.

PandaPoo

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

I'm saying you can't have an informed opinion when you are not in possession of all the available facts.

Will you relax, we're not going to be called in for the appeal! It's a forum, everyone is entitled to an opinion even if they don't know everything available. That's the beauty of the internet.

lazybones32

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

I'm saying you can't have an informed opinion when you are not in possession of all the available facts.

And what facts were delivered through the ABC interview?

Gadgetman496

lazybones32 wrote: »

And what facts were delivered through the ABC interview?

Her inability or unwillingness to look the interviewer in the eye, fact.

Strazdas

Reading through the various reports, I get the impression the murder was all down to Molly. Her father probably didn't like Mr Corbett but certainly had no reason to kill him. It looks like she attacked her husband alone and did most of the damage and then the father tried to take the rap for her and concocted a story that he in fact was the one who inflicted the fatal blows, supposedly in self defence.

Missix

I think the male juror interviewed (think he was the jury foreman too) is probably the nearest with his theory.That Molly hit him with the brick when he was sleeping,and Daddy came in then to finish the job and concoct a cover story.Mommy Dearest was probably put in charge of making sure the kids didn't come in.

In that interview,they also said Mommy Dearest was in the basement with the dogs.....eh,hello?If you had dogs and thought there was some sort if attack happening upstairs,wouldn't you bring them with you?Why would you bring a baseball bat if you thought it was your daughter and son in law having a row unless you were prepared to use it? (Tom Martens said on oath he had no prior knowledge of any allegations of abuse).The only logical reason to bring a weapon would be if you thought it was an intruder....in which case,you call the cops,bring the dogs and then maybe approach the intruder.

She battered him with the brick,and Daddy the hero hopped in.And he feels 'righteous' in doing that.

Hope they like heat,because they're going to end in burning in Hell.

Auldloon

According to Molly she heard Jason's daughter waking from a nightmare yet shortly after the children didn't hear the commotion of murder being committed downstairs!

Minnie Snuggles

I have seen pictures of Molly after the attack, that delicate bracelet is a strange thing to wear going to bed, I doubt very much that she had been asleep at all that night.

retro:electro

Auldloon wrote: »

According to Molly she heard Jason's daughter waking from a nightmare yet shortly after the children didn't hear the commotion of murder being committed downstairs!

Ya and according to her Jason started strangling her because she put Sarah back to bed. Her story isn't even a little bit believable. Starting to realise know why she didn't take the stand. That story could be picked apart in seconds.

J Mysterio

Auldloon wrote: »

According to Molly she heard Jason's daughter waking from a nightmare yet shortly after the children didn't hear the commotion of murder being committed downstairs!

Children can typically sleep through extreme noise. It's as an adult that unusual noises wake you. It's a defense mechanism which children don't have and develops as you age.

Raleigh prison North Carolina



Here's Tom's new home:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByO0fPhZaZw


And here's Mollys:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkH5wtgMT2k

January

J Mysterio wrote: »

Children can typically sleep through extreme noise. It's as an adult that unusual noises wake you. It's a defense mechanism which children don't have and develops as you age.

It's unlikely that the child would have been in a deep sleep so soon after a nightmare though.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

Here's Tom's new home:

Deleted User wrote:

And here's Mollys:

Exactly where they belong.

irishmoss

Minnie Snuggles wrote: »

I have seen pictures of Molly after the attack, that delicate bracelet is a strange thing to wear going to bed, I doubt very much that she had been asleep at all that night.

Given that she wanted a divorce from Jason and had recently started up a relationship with a former boyfriend I'm surprised she even slept in the same bed.

banie01

January wrote: »

It's unlikely that the child would have been in a deep sleep so soon after a nightmare though.

Agree 100%
According to Molly's story, Sarah was taken back to bed and then the "altercation" started as soon as she was back in bed.
Then the sedated Jason apparently woke up and started strangling her, for her being a bit too much of a good mother!?!?
It really does beggar belief that she tried portray a woken child as the trigger for the "attack" but then that child slep thru the attack!


The fathers story as presented by 20/20 makes no coherent sense.
He says Jason turned and put Molly facing the father(and between him amd jason) in a chokehold with his forearm but that he then proceeded to strike him with the bat in the back of the head?
How did he get around Jason to do as he claimed?
Then he makes the claim that Jason in one instance threw him physically across the room, and follows that up with a claim that both struggled for the bat but he managed to overpower him.
One does not "overpower" a man who can catch baseball bats singlehanded whilst strangling a grown woman with his other hand.
Whilst both were struggling for the bat, how did he hit him repeatedly in the head with it?
The flip side of this of course is that according to their story, both Martens were attacked by a man capable of throwing people across rooms and have not a single defensive mark? No indication of any struggle ither than their victim's blood.

The physical evidence here does tell a story, the more I learn the more I think that the Martens are very lucky not to have faced a Murder one charge.
The effort by the Martens to blacken and obfuscate the victim is chilling.
Claiming to be a victim of DV with absolutely no corroborating evidence and no evidence to that effect presented in her defence in the actual trial.
I feel they hoped the interview would have been aired before the trial and generated some support for their position.
The 20/20 interview itself is biased, but the interviews with the DA team and the jurors go a long way towards giving Jason a voice.

spud82

spud82 wrote: »

I am FUMING 5 minutes into watching that. Actually fuming, the amount of BS in it is driving me insane. I bumped into his cousin last night and let me tell you they will never ever get over what happened. It is sickening to think the picture some of the American media are painting of him. Jason was always a gent to me, and was the best father to the kids. Please do not believe any of the **** that bitch molly spread in this it is not true.

Im only 15 minutes into the interview but had to run it back to re-hear what the son said during his "interview". The question was "What did your dad do when he got mad?" and the kid answered "He would physically and verbally abuse my Mom".

I am 100% convinced he has been coached in his answers. That phrase would never cross the lips of an 8 12 year old kid. A person twice his age wouldn't express themselves that way.

Edit: Sorry Just noticed the child is 12 not 8. Even so, I stand over my belief. Who, other than a lawyer or forensics specialist(or FBI veteran?) uses the phrase "verbally abused". When I was 12 I had a reading age of a 15 year old, according to my teacher. I would never have used a phrase like that. At 15 I wouldn't have used a phrase like that, and now as a 35 year old, I wouldn't use that phrase. I might say, bully, heckle, pick at, shout at, scream at, yell at etc but not verbally abuse.

Missix

The lead defence lawyer came across as a bit of a Muppet,I thought.

Anyway,their appeal stands little chance.They cannot introduce new evidence,and can only re-address something in this trial that they feel was not legally proven.

It will be very interesting to see if Miss Molly takes the stand in the civil suit,they will make mincemeat of her.She is as shifty as fcuk when she speaks.

retro:electro

She is toxic. The whole story is just her way of trying to portray herself and this nurturing mother figure while the kids were tip toeing outside the room door afraid to wake the big bad wolf that was Jason. She's relentless. A cold, relentless bitch. She's sick.