The trial of Molly Martens

Raging_Ninja

jmayo wrote: »

And surely, as others have posted about highly trained FBI agents are, mr mertens would be capable of subduing an attacker without having to bash a guys skull to bits ?

I think you're over-egging the "highly-trained" aspect. A lot of FBI work (and police work in general) is paper-based, not badass combat stuff. Plus you're talking about a man in his mid/late sixties vs a guy in the prime of his life. Trained or not, that's not really a fair matchup in any situation.

I'm skeptical of the self-defence aspect. We were discussing it at work, some seem to think that she bashed him with the paving stone, then the father covered it up with the baseball bat, spent some time getting the story straight (explaining the congealed blood) and then called 911.

jimmycrackcorm

ohnonotgmail wrote:

He was planning to return to Ireland with the kids but without his wife and had already started to liquidate assets.

Deleted User wrote:

Or maybe he realised that he'd made a mistake and wanted to remove the children she'd been caring for for most of their lives, from her care.

I wonder did she just find out that night.he'll hath no fury and all that.

jmayo wrote:

I bet you reckoned OJ was innocent as well.

As it turned out, he was innocent.

Raging_Ninja

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

As it turned out, he was innocent.

Not guilty is not the same as innocent. He was found responsible for the murders in a civil suit.

ChippingSodbury

monkeybutter wrote: »

...There are women out there who have married cereal rapists and murderers in Prison...

Cereal rapists should have their Rice Krispies cut off...

AudreyHepburn

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

Well yes to be honest......to my knowledge there is not one shred of credible evidence to show he was ever abusive to either of his wives. Yet people on this thread seem quite happy to jump to that conclusion. And I don't understand the need to paint as some cruel man who deserved what he got.

There is however a lot evidence pointing to him having been murdered and to suggest it was Molly and Thomas Martens who were responsible. So I believe him to be an innocent victim.

danganabu

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Well yes to be honest......to my knowledge there is not one shred of credible evidence to show he was ever abusive to either of his wives. Yet people on this thread seem quite happy to jump to that conclusion. And I don't understand the need to paint as some cruel man who deserved what he got.

There is however a lot evidence pointing to him having been murdered and to suggest it was Molly and Thomas Martens who were responsible. So I believe him to be an innocent victim.

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??

jimmycrackcorm

danganabu wrote:

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??

Absolutely. He'll hath no fury and so on.

AudreyHepburn

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??

No I dont to be honest because there's simply no evidence to support it as far as I can see.

People are apparently simply assuming that because the husband has been killed by the wife he must have done something to deserve it.

If it was the other way around we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Again I just don't understand why it's so hard for people to imagine that men can be innocent victims and women cold blooded killers.

Water John

Look at some of the facts, not speculation.He was a big man. She is a slight woman. Neither of the two who lived have defensive wounds. He was hit 10 times with the bat and a paving stone.
So, he must have been quite stunned or knocked unconcious by the first or second blow.

Water John

Moving on to logic. If one of the two administers one/ two stunning blows, doesn't the other able person shout, stop? The number of blows, is telling.
The fact that their were two weapons, would lead one to conclude, joint enterprise. Very unlikely, that one person used two weapons.

retro:electro

Water John wrote: »

Moving on to logic. If one of the two administers one/ two stunning blows, doesn't the other able person shout, stop? The number of blows, is telling.
The fact that their were two weapons, would lead one to conclude, joint enterprise. Very unlikely, that one person used two weapons.

Very weird that the wife just sat there and let her father just bludgeon him to death and didn't shout stop or say okay enough..

Water John

We don't know which way, the result was the same.
Two weapons, esp the paving stone, certainly leaves little doubt.

We don't need to know the exact sequence, or who did what. Whatever mitigating factors are pleaded, very excessive force was used. If an assailant has a gun and fires all six bullets, it's very different than firing one or two.

kylith

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I wonder did she just find out that night.he'll hath no fury and all that.



.

That's what I was wondering. If he was planning to leave her and move home, and her subsequent behaviour re: the children on social media being a bit odd, is it possible that she found out he was taking them away and lost it?

AudreyHepburn

kylith wrote: »

That's what I was wondering. If he was planning to leave her and move home, and her subsequent behaviour re: the children on social media being a bit odd, is it possible that she found out he was taking them away and lost it?

I think that's the likeliest scenario.....it explains a lot of things like the drugs in his body, the lack of wounds on her or her father and the savagery of the attack.

Water John

Your hypotheses may be right or wrong. Looking at the evidence, as I outlined above, couple this with certain observations at the scene. Molly rubbing her neck, but the photos or others present did not see any mark. The blood stain patterns. The severity of the wounds. Coolness of the body and dried blood. As you say, the lack of wounds. This was not a struggle
Do those combined push it, beyond reasonable doubt?

AudreyHepburn

Water John wrote: »

Your hypotheses may be right or wrong. Looking at the evidence, as I outlined above, couple this with certain observations at the scene. Molly rubbing her neck, but the photos or others present did not see any mark. The blood stain patterns. The severity of the wounds. Coolness of the body and dried blood. As you say, the lack of wounds. This was not a struggle
Do those combined push it, beyond reasonable doubt?

Yes I think they do. Coupled with Molly's attempt at emotion, how cool and collected Thomas was, the fact that they do not appear to have attempted CPR amongst other strange behaviour I cannot see any other explanation that would fit.

Self defence would really work if Jason maybe one or two wounds but 11 is overkill. It's rage and hatred.

end of the road

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Not guilty is not the same as innocent. He was found responsible for the murders in a civil suit.

the findings of the civil suit don't matter. the verdict of the jury in the trial is what matters and he was found not guilty.

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

the findings of the civil suit don't matter. the verdict of the jury in the trial is what matters and he was found not guilty.

It matters insofar as we can say that OJ is legally responsible for the deaths of Ron and Nicole, and state is as fact.

Gatling

anna080 wrote: »

It matters insofar as we can say that OJ is legally responsible for the deaths of Ron and Nicole, and state is as fact.

According to a civil court and only lasts so long unlike been found not guilty in a criminal trial its permanent

anna080

anna080 wrote: »

It matters insofar as we can say that OJ is legally responsible for the deaths of Ron and Nicole, and state is as fact.

Well, if the glove fits.....

jmayo

end of the road wrote: »

the findings of the civil suit don't matter. the verdict of the jury in the trial is what matters and he was found not guilty.

Legally OJ was found not guilty, but that doesn't mean he didn't kill them.
Justice systems don't always give the correct verdict.
Just ask the Birmingham Six which is another incident making the news of late.

WHIP IT!

Ah lads.... f*ck off with the OJ stuff...

Crea

fergiesfolly wrote: »

I saw in a report that a neighbour had spent the afternoon gardening, as had Corbett. The two then drank 7-8 beers while watching their kids playing in the yard
The neighbour said Corbett hadn't seemed impaired and that Corbett, his wife and father-in-law were all in good spirits.
He last saw Corbett around 8pm.

Now, two things....
1: would you need any sleeping pills after that much beer?
2: 7-8 beers can quickly and drastically change a mood or state of mind( especially mixed with medication) He could've been quite jovial at 8pm, had words with his wife, it escalated, he attacked her and the father intervened.

I'm not for a second, saying the above happened.
But until all the facts are in, we could run any amount of scenarios with limited selections of evidence and come to infinite conclusions.

Corbett and his neighbour SHARED 7-8 beers so we're looking at them having 3-4 each.

MarcusP12

Syphonax wrote: »

MarcusP12 wrote: »

latest reports says that the 2 kids were asleep in bed when the police officers arrived at the scene. They had to be woken which suggests to me that there was no commotion at the time of the incident. If he was "trying to kill her" as the defense suggests then I find it hard to believe the children would not be woken by all the screams and shouts and activity around the event. And even if they were woken, surely they would not have gone back to sleep completely oblivious of what had happened.

Guess you have never heard of Dreamy Sleepy

???

Crea

Crea wrote: »

Corbett and his neighbour SHARED 7-8 beers so we're looking at them having 3-4 each.

According to the Indo, they had 7 or 8 beers each between 3.30 and 8pm. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/lawns-deckchairs-and-cold-beers-jason-corbetts-final-hours-before-the-violence-35975675.html

Seth Brundle

[Deleted User] wrote: »

According to the Indo, they had 7 or 8 beers each between 3.30 and 8pm. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/lawns-deckchairs-and-cold-beers-jason-corbetts-final-hours-before-the-violence-35975675.html

Most news sites are saying they shared the 7-8 beers. The indo as usual appears to be wrong.

Incidentally, the neighbour said:

Mr. Fritchey said that he woke up around 3:30 a.m. to use the bathroom and noticed first responders on scene of the Corbett’s home next door. He said he went to the bathroom and then got back in bed. He didn’t feel he could be useful outside and thought officials on scene would tell him they couldn’t say anything about what had happened.

I'm surprised at this. If you saw an ambulance outside your mate's house you wouldn't go back to bed surely?

http://amp.wxii12.com/article/neighbor-recalls-normal-day-with-jason-corbett/10373333

Seth Brundle

...also I had it in my head that Mr. Corbett was found face down in the bedroom.
I'm probably mistaken but can anyone confirm or deny this for sure (as you obviously don't give CPR to someone's back!)?

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

According to the Indo, they had 7 or 8 beers each between 3.30 and 8pm.

Unless you have proof to the contrary J Corbett is still the victim.

mzungu

kbannon wrote: »

...also I had it in my head that Mr. Corbett was found face down in the bedroom.
I'm probably mistaken but can anyone confirm or deny this for sure (as you obviously don't give CPR to someone's back!)?

Most likely on his back because the paramedic only noticed his wound near the back of his skull when he placed his hand behind his head before trying to give CPR.

Water John

Yes Hitman, their only defence. which they are using is, self defence. Then they have to show evidence of that.