The trial of Molly Martens

hatrickpatrick

I know this is a bit pedantic, but does anyone else find it a little infuriating that she gets to keep his name and have the media refer to her as "Molly Martens Corbett"? It seems like a slap in the fact somehow, even though obviously I know there's no way to address it because it *is* legally her name now. It still just sounds wrong every time I hear it.

RacoonQueen

Yeah, why would you want to keep his name? Especially if he abused you. If he gave her as awful a time as they want you to believe surely you'd want to rid yourself of the memory of him.

Lisha

kylith wrote: »

Plenty of people marry partners with kids from previous marriages and don't adopt them. TBH I'd find her insistence on adopting them more curious.

One of the only times she got upset in court was when a witness was asked 'who the children's mother was?'
She keened and cried when the answer was the first Mrs Corbett .

She was obsessed with being the children's mother. She killed him thinking she would keep the children.

Moly believes her own lies. She is deluded.

bear1

fepper wrote: »

She said his daughter came downstairs to their door and molly got out of bed to comfort her and take her back to her own bed,came back to bed,woke Jason,he got mad at her for assisting his daughter and felt at 8years should not be treated like that,if that's true or not,it looks like a parent/nanny situation continued and the parent way is the only way,whatever his reasons for not allowing her joint guardianship and her having equal input in their lives had to have caused resentment towards him as they were adults and married,he shouldn't have married her if he didn't want her fully in her children life or else keep her on as a full time nanny only,you can't have it everyway

I suspect you are just trying to troll.

lawred2

What's with The Indo's bizarre obsession with this case?

Pretty much lurid at this stage

fepper

kylith wrote: »

Plenty of people marry partners with kids from previous marriages and don't adopt them. TBH I'd find her insistence on adopting them more curious.

Thats true ,but in her case was she marrying him for him or marrying him to be constantly with his kids that she seemed to be obsessed with

retro:electro

I'd consider myself well read when it comes to real crime. I'm a podcast fanatic, read true crime murder books and have a morbid interest in murder and the minds that both commit and solve those crimes. Out of everything I've ever read or heard about, this is one of those cases I think I'll never forget. It is one of the most cold and brutal murders I've ever come to learn about. It's important that Jason's voice isn't lost in all of this, as it's clear it's becoming the Molly Martens show.

I was reading the autopsy report and for some reason I got teary when it stated that he had undigested greens in his system. Apparently he was on a diet. I don't know why but the fact he was on a diet made me sad. It humanised him, and when I read that he became more than the man they brutally murdered, and just a regular man just trying to better himself. I don't know why that minor detail got to me, but it did. Poor Jason. It's so sad to think that when he married his first wife he has no idea what would ultimately become of them both of them.

AlekSmart

lawred2 wrote: »

What's with The Indo's bizarre obsession with this case?

Pretty much lurid at this stage

Was thinking much the same meself.

The Irish Independent's coverage in no way mirrors the general Irish domestic interest level in this crime.

Reporting the case and trial is one thing,but the current coverage is waaay OTT :eek:

banie01

fepper wrote: »

She said his daughter came downstairs to their door and molly got out of bed to comfort her and take her back to her own bed,came back to bed,woke Jason,he got mad at her for assisting his daughter and felt at 8years should not be treated like that,if that's true or not,it looks like a parent/nanny situation continued and the parent way is the only way,whatever his reasons for not allowing her joint guardianship and her having equal input in their lives had to have caused resentment towards him as they were adults and married,he shouldn't have married her if he didn't want her fully in her children life or else keep her on as a full time nanny only,you can't have it everyway

Adoption involves extingushing the legal and familial relationship between a parent and a child.
Its not as simple as just "signing the papers" it is a conscious decision to legally eliminate the relationship between parent and child, and by extension between extended surviving family and child.

Making a choice like that when you have existing and plainly important links and relationships with surviving family is plainly going to be problematic and likely cause divisive and hurtful breaks with existing family.


Molly's "need" to adopt and identify as those kids "mother" should really be framed in the context of her desire for control, for ownership.

Missix

I read an interview where the family of Mags Fitzpatrick was sticking up for Jason.He had paid for plane tickets for her parents to visit the kids in America,and that he had told her mother that he wouldn't allow an adoption because the children were,and always would be,Mags' children.


He sounds like a decent bloke...certainly more empathy in his little finger than any of the Martens family seem to have in their entire bodies.

banie01

Missix wrote: »

He had paid for plane tickets for her parents to visit the kids in America,and that he had told her mother that he wouldn't allow an adoption because the children were,and always would be,Mags' children.

In the context of what the adoption would legally mean this is incredibly apt.
By allowing the adoption, the kids would legally no longer be Mag's and their mother would be "replaced".
In the context of a bereaved man struggling to ensure that his kids know not only their mother, be it through sharing the stories and memories those who knew her would recall but thrir family on her side aswell.
Keeping the lines of communication open is vital, and in that case an adoption would be burning bridges hurting people needlessly and of no benefit to the most important people in the situation...
the kids.

fepper

banie01 wrote: »

Adoption involves extingushing the legal and familial relationship between a parent and a child.
Its not as simple as just "signing the papers" it is a conscious decision to legally eliminate the relationship between parent and child, and by extension between extended surviving family and child.

Making a choice like that when you have existing and plainly important links and relationships with surviving family is plainly going to be problematic and likely cause divisive and hurtful breaks with existing family.


Molly's "need" to adopt and identify as those kids "mother" should really be framed in the context of her desire for control, for ownership.

Id agree with you on her desire to have some degree of control/ownership,maybe she thought marriage to him would automatically give her some rights

lazybones32

January wrote: »

Just watching the 20/20 interview and seen the picture of the hair in Jasons hand. It's not even intertwined in his fingers ffs.

Interesting to note the blood all over his fingers too. If he had his hands around her throat at any point, there would be blood on her neck too. Yet there was only a splatter on her forehead...

Minnie Snuggles

lazybones32 wrote: »

Interesting to note the blood all over his fingers too. If he had his hands around her throat at any point, there would be blood on her neck too. Yet there was only a splatter on her forehead...

Also Martens says at one point in the 20/20 interview that he had both hands on the bat, yet his hands were also clean.

irishmoss

I'm appalled at these interviews. It's a shame she gets the chance to air all these lies an make awful accusations about a dead man who has no way of defending himself.

Imagine if we allowed Graham O'Dwyer to give a TV interview prior to his trial to be aired afterwards? There is something really sick about all of this. She got a fair trial, she had her day in court and she can appeal. Yet she chose not to testify! Jason Corbett can't defend himself. I really hope that gofund me page is a flop.

MarcusP12

MarcusP12 wrote: »

Obviously you are correct as you are a legal professional but how do you stop someone from printing or making serious allegations (either blatantly untrue or unsubstantiated) against someone who is no longer alive to defend their honor or otherwise good name?

Not a lot really, unless it, say, damages a business eg. saying that the deceased head of a corporation operated a racket.

The exemption is generally seeing as allowing for historical analysis, so one can say that Churchill committed war crimes without fear of being sued. The dead can't sue anyway, but of course their next of kin can maintain actions for eg. negligence causing the death. But not defamation.

Seth Brundle

lawred2 wrote: »

What's with The Indo's bizarre obsession with this case?

Pretty much lurid at this stage

The indo is no more than a gutter tabloid rag and I suspect that their obsession is simply down to them wanting to put up pics of a good looking woman.

Gadgetman496

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

@Connor74, Have you any thoughts on what possible grounds these two might lodge an appeal and can you see any scenario whereby thy could be successful?

I'd love to think it's just them going through the motions to exhaust all possible avenues before finally accepting their fate, but the law can work in what seems strange ways to the layperson at times.

It's hard to imagine how an appeal could be successful really, Jury decisions are seen as the gold standard of decisions. The classic appeal case here is where a Judge misdirects the Jury, it's rare. The other is where new evidence comes to light. Not sure that Molly Martens now claiming that she was abused constitutes new evidence because she will keep getting the whole "but why didn't you say that in the first trial, when did you think this stuff up". I can't think of a case where "new" evidence consisted of something the defence were aware of (and I mean in the sense that the allegation was available to her legal team, I'm not saying "was aware of" as if it's a fact), but withheld in the original trial.

martingriff

kbannon wrote: »

The indo is no more than a gutter tabloid rag and I suspect that their obsession is simply down to them wanting to put up pics of a good looking woman.

There was a poster on this thread who said after the trial the Irish media would not say or do much out of respect to the family and the kids while the american media would be all over it. I was thinking they had a lot more faith in our media than I do.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

It's hard to imagine how an appeal could be successful really, Jury decisions are seen as the gold standard of decisions. The classic appeal case here is where a Judge misdirects the Jury, it's rare. The other is where new evidence comes to light. Not sure that Molly Martens now claiming that she was abused constitutes new evidence because she will keep getting the whole "but why didn't you say that in the first trial, when did you think this stuff up". I can't think of a case where "new" evidence consisted of something the defence were aware of (and I mean in the sense that the allegation was available to her legal team, I'm not saying "was aware of" as if it's a fact), but withheld in the original trial.

Open to correction on this but i have read that no new evidence can be raised at the appeal. It is only concerned with procedural issues and evidence that the judge would/would not allow.

Gadgetman496

Deleted User wrote: »

It's hard to imagine how an appeal could be successful really, Jury decisions are seen as the gold standard of decisions. The classic appeal case here is where a Judge misdirects the Jury, it's rare. The other is where new evidence comes to light. Not sure that Molly Martens now claiming that she was abused constitutes new evidence because she will keep getting the whole "but why didn't you say that in the first trial, when did you think this stuff up". I can't think of a case where "new" evidence consisted of something the defence were aware of (and I mean in the sense that the allegation was available to her legal team, I'm not saying "was aware of" as if it's a fact), but withheld in the original trial.

So new evidence can be used in the appeal?

sligojoek

kbannon wrote: »

The indo is no more than a gutter tabloid rag and I suspect that their obsession is simply down to them wanting to put up pics of a good looking woman.

And sell a few more papers around Limerick.

I've seen better looking women than her walking down the street on any given day

Aineoil

Yeah good looking people get away with murder but not in this case.

Gadgetman496

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

So new evidence can be used in the appeal?

It can...but generally new evidence means something that came to light after the case. The idea that someone can get another roll of the dice where the evidence was not new, but withheld for tactical reasons...really not sure that can ground an appeal. Because it would seem inherently unfair, that you essentially get two cracks at a case, one by running a defence one way in front of a Jury and another by giving evidence about claims that you chose to withhold from a Jury.

Hammer Archer

anna080 wrote: »

I was reading the autopsy report and for some reason I got teary when it stated that he had undigested greens in his system. Apparently he was on a diet. I don't know why but the fact he was on a diet made me sad. It humanised him, and when I read that he became more than the man they brutally murdered, and just a regular man just trying to better himself. I don't know why that minor detail got to me, but it did. Poor Jason. It's so sad to think that when he married his first wife he has no idea what would ultimately become of them both of them.

Wasn't she known to publicly humiliate him about his weight? Didn't she insult him in front of friends shortly before the murder which caused him to leave a party early?

Personally, I believe that there was one abusive party in that marriage. Her name was Molly Martens. She obviously cut him down constantly and when she realized that she was losing her control of him and (more importantly to her) his children she took steps to wrestle back control by brutally planning and executing his murder. Both she and her father really should be guaranteed to die in prison.

Gadgetman496

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Yeah, why would you want to keep his name? Especially if he abused you. If he gave her as awful a time as they want you to believe surely you'd want to rid yourself of the memory of him.

Because it's the surname of the two kids.

fepper

"not everyone in Ireland believes the jury made the right decision" from 'anne walters' donation $20, comment on GOFUNDME,I'd be surprised she's from Ireland with that comment

Dinarius

Is there any real indication as to what the motivation for the murder was?

Father/daughter committing murder together has to be extremely rare.

While murder is murder, no question about it, you have to wonder what was going on in the background.

D.

Ps. I'm assuming that the abuse talk is not the reason given the defence's refusal to raise it in court.

ohnonotgmail

Dinarius wrote: »

Is there any real indication as to what the motivation for the murder was?

Father/daughter committing murder together has to be extremely rare.

While murder is murder, no question about it, you have to wonder what was going on in the background.

D.

Corbett had planned to move back to ireland with the kids and leave her behind

fepper

fepper wrote: »

"not everyone in Ireland believes the jury made the right decision" from 'anne walters' donation $20, comment on GOFUNDME,I'd be surprised she's from Ireland with that comment

Arra, the internet, it's a charter for eejits. I wasn't in the least bit critical of the Martens and how they ran their defence, but a Jury has found them guilty and frankly I put a huge amount of store in a Jury decision. They observe the witnesses, they hear everything that is legally admissible, not idle speculation and gossip. They can judge the impact and relevance of a point far more acutely than the media reporting a line here and there out of context. Very difficult to move away from a Jury decision.