The trial of Molly Martens

Dinarius

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

And that's enough to convince your father to commit a shambolic murder with you?

I'm not persuaded.

D.

ohnonotgmail

Dinarius wrote: »

And that's enough to convince your father to commit a shambolic murder with you?

I'm not persuaded.

D.

perhaps do some reading on the background to the trial. this has been well discussed.

AudreyHepburn

Dinarius wrote: »

And that's enough to convince your father to commit a shambolic murder with you?

I'm not persuaded.

D.

That in itself isn't enough no,

But we know Molly was unstable and what might seem like a minor issue to us would be huge for her and cause a total overreaction.

And if you then factor in the idea that as many of us believe, Molly had been spreading lies about Jason's treatment of her it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Daddy Martens misinterpreted what he saw when he ran into the bedroom that night and let his rage and hatred for Jason take over.

Not to say what he did was right, but it is to a point understandable.

Shemale

ofcork wrote: »

That was a serious allegation to make saying that he killed his first wife.

I hope the Corbetts go after them for Libel, I would definitely fund that. Put the entire scumbag family in the poorhouse.

Edit: Just catching up and saw Conor74's comments so ignore above.

fepper

Dinarius wrote: »

And that's enough to convince your father to commit a shambolic murder with you?

I'm not persuaded.

D.

I'd agree with you ,could be more issues on the table here

RacoonQueen

Shemale wrote: »

I hope the Corbetts go after them for Libel, I would definitely fund that. Put the entire scumbag family in the poorhouse.

Really was an awful thing to say, to drag her and her parents/siblings etc into it was a f*cking horrible thing to do. Even if they actually thought that - really horrible of them to drag an innocent dead woman into their crime. (god knows why they would think it but it could be just one of Molly's crazy stories if stuff about her is to be believed)

Shemale

Shemale wrote: »

I hope the Corbetts go after them for Libel, I would definitely fund that. Put the entire scumbag family in the poorhouse.

Again, you can't defame the dead, they can say what they like subject to very few limitations.

lawred2

Shemale wrote: »

I hope the Corbetts go after them for Libel, I would definitely fund that. Put the entire scumbag family in the poorhouse.

The only people that would end up in the poor house would be those taking the case.

RacoonQueen

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Really was an awful thing to say, to drag her and her parents/siblings etc into it was a f*cking horrible thing to do. Even if they actually thought that - really horrible of them to drag a dead woman into their crime. (god knows why they would think it but it could be just one of Molly's crazy stories if stuff about her is to be believed)

Unless...of course...it was true, that that was a genuinely held belief.

The accused doesn't have to be nice about the dead person in setting out their defence.

But either way, of no relevance to this case.

AudreyHepburn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Unless...of course...it was true, that that was a genuinely held belief.

The accused doesn't have to be nice about the dead person in setting out their defence.

But either way, of no relevance to this case.

But it is relevant if the defence is trying to claim that Jason was abusive and dangerous.

I know it's horrible to hear a genuinely good man being spoken about like that, and I don't believe any of it for a second, but the Martens are quite entitled to use any defence they see fit.

If they, particularly Daddy Martens, honestly believed Jason to be capable of murder they are within their rights to say so, regardless of how unpalatable we all find it.

myshirt

So Molly, you had the paving block in the bedroom, part of an art project you were working on with the kids, they were painting it with you.

Molly, this was a 4,000 sq foot house, and you made a big point about how the kids were never allowed in the bedroom.

How does that work Molly?

*pauses for 5 mins*

Sh!t.

Hitman3000

Dinarius wrote:

I'm not persuaded.

You don't need to be, a jury was already convinced of his culpability.

Shemale

Neyite wrote: »

Aye. It was Thomas Martens saying that it was Mags Fitzpatricks father that said it. Cute hoor knew well enough to attribute that allegation to a dead man too.

Isn't it such a pity that those who could have submitted such critical testimony to their defence is...dead?

Aw. Their luck really sucks, huh?

This family are utter utter scum, remembered reading about Mr Fitzpatricks statement but hadn't read all of this:

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/newsireland/ralph-riegel-analysis-legal-argument-crucial-in-what-jury-learned-about-molly-martens-marriage/ar-AApM5lQ


"The defence team of Thomas Martens wanted to introduce a statement whereby he recalled a conversation with Michael Fitzpatrick, the father of the late Margaret 'Mags' Fitzpatrick, Jason Corbett's first wife.

The young Limerick woman died of an asthma attack in November 2006 despite her husband's desperate attempts to rush her to hospital and then his performing CPR on her by the roadside after she stopped breathing.

Mr Martens said in a statement: "(I) was approached by Michael Fitzpatrick (now deceased), the father of Jason Corbett's first wife...he believed that Jason had caused the death of his daughter, Margaret."

Mr Martens also described Mr Fitzpatrick as "uneducated" and said he found him hard to understand.


His legal team said it was not being argued that this was what had actually happened in 2006 but that it had contributed to Mr Martens state of mind in August 2015.

Assistant District Attorney Ina Stanton opposed the submission and said the statement was highly prejudicial and inflammatory. Furthermore, she pointed out that Mr Fitzpatrick, before he died, had done to a solicitor in Ireland and sworn a statement that he had never made such remarks to Mr Martens.

Mags Fitzpatrick's mother, Marian, and her sister, Catherine, also issued statements that there was "a loving and caring relationship" between Margaret and Jason.

Judge Lee ruled the statement should not be allowed into evidence before the jury."

Hitman3000

Shemale wrote:

This family are utter utter scum, remembered reading about Mr Fitzpatricks statement but hadn't read all of this:

The more I learn about what happened to Jason and the abuse his extended family has been subjected to the by the Martens I'm disappointed that the prosecution didn't seek murder 1 and the death penalty. However I realise that murder 1 is very difficult to prove.

Gadgetman496

Dinarius wrote: »

And that's enough to convince your father to commit a shambolic murder with you?

I'm not persuaded.

D.

I don't believe that's how it was.

I do believe manipulative Molly decided she wanted rid of Jason but knew she might not be able to pull it off on her own or wasn't prepared to suffer the conciseness even if she did manage it, so she set about planting the seeds of abuse in her fathers head, knowing full well he did not over like Jason she proceeded to up the anti on the day by making many calls to Daddy suggesting she was under threat. That was enough to warrant Daddy calling over and staying the night.

Molly already had the brick in place and bare in mind by her own testament felt more confident standing up to Jason knowing that Daddy was nearby.

She medicated Jason and smacked him with the brick while sleeping. Jason survived the smack and in an effort to stop her striking again a skirmish ensued, Molly screamed and Daddy came to her rescue. In the heat of that frenzied moment once daddy started whacking Jason he just kept going until the job was done.

Both Daddy and Molly then took time out to construct a story whereby daddy decided he would at best be believed as an upstanding FBI member and at worst be done for manslaughter. Either-way he was going to cover for his daughter because I truly believe covering the fact she was a crazy was more important to him than anything else, he'd covered up that fact all of her life so far and wasn't prepared to suffer the humiliation (in his mind) that outing her would bring.

I have no doubt, Molly duped him.

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I know it's horrible to hear a genuinely good man being spoken about like that, and I don't believe any of it for a second, but the Martens are quite entitled to use any defence they see fit.

If they, particularly Daddy Martens, honestly believed Jason to be capable of murder they are within their rights to say so, regardless of how unpalatable we all find it.

We don't know that the victim was a genuinely good man, and it doesn't matter. Murder victims don't have to be good or bad, the function of a trial is not to judge their lives but the guilt of those who ended it. And as you say, the Martens are perfectly entitled to say whatever they like about him, even if it is unpalatable.

AudreyHepburn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We don't know that the victim was a genuinely good man, and it doesn't matter. Murder victims don't have to be good or bad, the function of a trial is not to judge their lives but the guilt of those who ended it. And as you say, the Martens are perfectly entitled to say whatever they like about him, even if it is unpalatable.

Of course it matters - again Tom and Molly's defence is that Jason was abusive and they acted in self defence.

Jason's character is central to that defence.

Once again I don't believe for a moment he was anything but a good husband, father and man.

But there is no point pretending it doesn't matter.

JP Liz V1

Ronny Cox should play Thomas Martens in tv movie

Gadgetman496

Deleted User wrote: »

the function of a trial is not to judge their lives but the guilt of those who ended it.

Should that not read

"The function of a trial is not to judge their lives but the guilt of those who ended it and why"

Carry

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

I don't believe that's how it was.

I do believe manipulative Molly decided she wanted rid of Jason but knew she might not be able to pull it off on her own or wasn't prepared to suffer the conciseness even if she did manage it, so she set about planting the seeds of abuse in her fathers head, knowing full well he did not over like Jason she proceeded to up the anti on the day by making many calls to Daddy suggesting she was under threat. That was enough to warrant Daddy calling over and staying the night.

Molly already had the brick in place and bare in mind by her own testament felt more confident standing up to Jason knowing that Daddy was nearby.

She medicated Jason and smacked him with the brick while sleeping. Jason survived the smack and in an effort to stop her striking again a skirmish ensued, Molly screamed and Daddy came to her rescue. In the heat of that frenzied moment once daddy started whacking Jason he just kept going until the job was done.

Both Daddy and Molly then took time out to construct a story whereby daddy decided he would at best be believed as an upstanding FBI member and at worst be done for manslaughter. Either-way he was going to cover for his daughter because I truly believe covering the fact she was a crazy was more important to him than anything else, he'd covered up that fact all of her life so far and wasn't prepared to suffer the humiliation (in his mind) that outing her would bring.

I have no doubt, Molly duped him.

I think your scenario might come very close.

In this regard it might even make sense when she said at the end of the trial "sorry mom, I wish he'd killed me" or something in that vein.
It might have meant "sorry mom, that I dragged you all in and now dad has to go to prison because I deceived him and made him believe that I'm in danger and that he had to cover up for me. I wish he'd killed me instead of Jason".

All interpretation, of course. Maybe I give her too much credit to say or mean anything with sense or actually care about someone.

On the other hand there is still that niggling feeling that mommy dearest was into all that. I don't believe for a second that during a noisy disturbance in the house that woke up her husband and allegedly urged him to grab a baseball bat and rush upstairs that she just said "oh well, maybe a flower pot fell over", turned over and went back to sleep - especially not when both parents apparantly were groomed by their precious daughter that she was a victim of marital abuse.

I think we can all speculate until the end of all days. We'll never know the truth. But still I think that this Molly Martens is the true killer.

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Of course it matters - again Tom and Molly's defence is that Jason was abusive and they acted in self defence.

Jason's character is central to that defence.

Once again I don't believe for a moment he was anything but a good husband, father and man.

But there is no point pretending it doesn't matter.

Nope. The Jury are not asked to bring in a verdict on the victim's life. They are simply asked whether the weight of evidence points to the accused ending it by murder. A guilty verdict is no indication whatsoever that the victim was a good or bad person.

AudreyHepburn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nope. The Jury are not asked to bring in a verdict on the victim's life. They are simply asked whether the weight of evidence points to the accused ending it by murder. A guilty verdict is no indication whatsoever that the victim was a good or bad person.

I know that. But in the case part of Tom and Molly's evidence was that Jason was a violent abusive man.

Again I know it's a horrible thing for them to accuse him of but there is no point burying your head in the sand and pretending it's not relevant.

His character in general and actions that night were part of what made the difference between self defence and murder

AudreyHepburn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nope. The Jury are not asked to bring in a verdict on the victim's life. They are simply asked whether the weight of evidence points to the accused ending it by murder. A guilty verdict is no indication whatsoever that the victim was a good or bad person.

I know that. But in the case part of Tom and Molly's evidence was that Jason was a violent abusive man.

Again I know it's a horrible thing for them to accuse him of but there is no point burying your head in the sand and pretending it's not relevant.

His character in general and actions that night were part of what made the difference between self defence and murder

Carry

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope. The Jury are not asked to bring in a verdict on the victim's life. They are simply asked whether the weight of evidence points to the accused ending it by murder. A guilty verdict is no indication whatsoever that the victim was a good or bad person.

How about those character witnesses I hear about in trials, at least in Ireland? Are these only for the accused?
Does a victom not have the right for dignity?

I'm no legal expert, genuine question.

Silentcorner

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

I don't believe that's how it was.

I do believe manipulative Molly decided she wanted rid of Jason but knew she might not be able to pull it off on her own or wasn't prepared to suffer the conciseness even if she did manage it, so she set about planting the seeds of abuse in her fathers head, knowing full well he did not over like Jason she proceeded to up the anti on the day by making many calls to Daddy suggesting she was under threat. That was enough to warrant Daddy calling over and staying the night.

Molly already had the brick in place and bare in mind by her own testament felt more confident standing up to Jason knowing that Daddy was nearby.

She medicated Jason and smacked him with the brick while sleeping. Jason survived the smack and in an effort to stop her striking again a skirmish ensued, Molly screamed and Daddy came to her rescue. In the heat of that frenzied moment once daddy started whacking Jason he just kept going until the job was done.

Both Daddy and Molly then took time out to construct a story whereby daddy decided he would at best be believed as an upstanding FBI member and at worst be done for manslaughter. Either-way he was going to cover for his daughter because I truly believe covering the fact she was a crazy was more important to him than anything else, he'd covered up that fact all of her life so far and wasn't prepared to suffer the humiliation (in his mind) that outing her would bring.

I have no doubt, Molly duped him.

I think it went a little differently....

Mr Martens didn't like Jason at all (despite him giving his daughter a palace/SUV and a standard of living much higher than she would ever have earned for herself, it is also reported he gave the parents €80k a few months ago)...this was a very deep hatred....

Mollys marriage was over it was just a matter of time before one of them pulled the trigger on a divorce...she would lose her "children" which she seemed to be very disturbed about, which is why she kept pressing for formal adoption....remember she was always a very disturbed young lady....

They hatched a plan between them, I believe this for the following reasons

They knew Jason was heading home with the kids in a few weeks, the window of opportunity was now limited...

Molly recorded "abuse" on some devise that occurred sometime before the incident...this "abuse" was nothing more than a heated conversation that revealed a troubled marriage...her reasoning for this recording, which was never presented in evidence in her defense, was that she was advised to record abuse...the person who advised this was never mentioned or presented in court to the jury...recording this "abuse" reveals a woman planning a defense...this recording was aired by ABC News....

The parents took a last minute 4 hour journey to visit their daughter and son in law, who they despised...very odd thing to do that...taking a 4 hour unannounced visit...they knew the marriage was crumbling...they know at this stage that Jason was heading home with the kids in a number of weeks...

Mr Martens decided, that not only was this a last minute visit...but he would also bring a baseball bat as a gift for his "grandson"....which he never gave to the "grandson"...he picked up a baseball bat with one intention on his mind...

There was a volley of phone calls between them during that 4 hour journey...which Mr Martens says he cannot recall....if she was being abused (by Jason) at this stage that would have been the reasoning for the last minute unannounced 4 hour drive...his daughter was upset and he darted across the country to protect her...they all had pizza together when they got there...

Jason had a drug prescribed to his wife two days previously in his bloodstream the night he died...

So at this stage we have

An unannounced visit from Daddy and Mammy
A load of calls between Daddy and Daughter during the 4 hour trip
Daddy puts a baseball bat (soon to be used in a vicious murder)
Jason has tranquiliser in his bloodstream...
A brick is on the nightstand beside the bed

The kids never woke up during what they say was two incredibly violent incidents (the first being Jason attacking Molly which supposedly woke up Mr Martens)...despite Sarah only just been put back to bed by Molly...

The wife (Mrs Martens) never left her bedroom because she knew exactly what was happening upstairs when her husband walked out of their room with a baseball bat in his hand...

This baseball bat was used to smash a skull in....

He wiped the fingerprints off this bat...

He calmly rang emergency services...

Daddy didn't come to the rescue of his daughter...it was planned that he would be there...

bajer101

I lived with a very similar woman, coincidentally also from North Carolina. I also had a court case in NC, although it was a Federal Judge who decided, not a jury. The craziness comes out in the court cases under cross-examination. They testify and are so convincing that you question your own memory of events, and then they are presented with facts and evidence and they lose it.

Gadgetman496

Carry wrote: »

I think we can all speculate until the end of all days. We'll never know the truth. But still I think that this Molly Martens is the true killer.

Of course, the trial is over, the verdict handed down, all we can do now is speculate.

So with that in mind, Is it possible that with daddy's military and FBI background he was himself a regimental control freak? a bully who demanded that his wife and family stood to attention when he said so?

Maybe our Tom was a street angel and a house devil and his wife was afraid of him so thought better to simply shut up and do what she was told?

fepper

Silentcorner wrote: »

I think it went a little differently....

Mr Martens didn't like Jason at all (despite him giving his daughter a palace/SUV and a standard of living much higher than she would ever have earned for herself, it is also reported he gave the parents €80k a few months ago)...this was a very deep hatred....

Mollys marriage was over it was just a matter of time before one of them pulled the trigger on a divorce...she would lose her "children" which she seemed to be very disturbed about, which is why she kept pressing for formal adoption....remember she was always a very disturbed young lady....

They hatched a plan between them, I believe this for the following reasons

They knew Jason was heading home with the kids in a few weeks, the window of opportunity was now limited...

Molly recorded "abuse" on some devise that occurred sometime before the incident...this "abuse" was nothing more than a heated conversation that revealed a troubled marriage...her reasoning for this recording, which was never presented in evidence in her defense, was that she was advised to record abuse...the person who advised this was never mentioned or presented in court to the jury...recording this "abuse" reveals a woman planning a defense...this recording was aired by ABC News....

The parents took a last minute 4 hour journey to visit their daughter and son in law, who they despised...very odd thing to do that...taking a 4 hour unannounced visit...they knew the marriage was crumbling...they know at this stage that Jason was heading home with the kids in a number of weeks...

Mr Martens decided, that not only was this a last minute visit...but he would also bring a baseball bat as a gift for his "grandson"....which he never gave to the "grandson"...he picked up a baseball bat with one intention on his mind...

There was a volley of phone calls between them during that 4 hour journey...which Mr Martens says he cannot recall....if she was being abused (by Jason) at this stage that would have been the reasoning for the last minute unannounced 4 hour drive...his daughter was upset and he darted across the country to protect her...they all had pizza together when they got there...

Jason had a drug prescribed to his wife two days previously in his bloodstream the night he died...

So at this stage we have

An unannounced visit from Daddy and Mammy
A load of calls between Daddy and Daughter during the 4 hour trip
Daddy puts a baseball bat (soon to be used in a vicious murder)
Jason has tranquiliser in his bloodstream...
A brick is on the nightstand beside the bed

The kids never woke up during what they say was two incredibly violent incidents (the first being Jason attacking Molly which supposedly woke up Mr Martens)...despite Sarah only just been put back to bed by Molly...

The wife (Mrs Martens) never left her bedroom because she knew exactly what was happening upstairs when her husband walked out of their room with a baseball bat in his hand...

This baseball bat was used to smash a skull in....

He wiped the fingerprints off this bat...

He calmly rang emergency services...

Daddy didn't come to the rescue of his daughter...it was planned that he would be there...

80000 to her parents for what?

Silentcorner

fepper wrote: »

80000 to her parents for what?

We will never know...the person who gave it is dead...

It does however beg the question...how deep was Mr Martens hatred for his son in law...

Gadgetman496

I wonder was Tom a licensed firearm holder at the time?