The trial of Molly Martens

Deise Vu

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

she cant get any share of his estate. she cant benefit from his death.

She can't benefit from Jason's estate but surely her name is on the family home in which case she already owns 50% of it. Also any bank accounts in her own name or 50% of joint accounts. Jason seemed to have plenty of cash.

Hitman3000

Deise Vu wrote:

Again apologies for being pedantic, but the only reference in that report to a psychiatric condition is what I was aware of myself: one of the juror's said something on the lines of "whether she was bipolar or whatever". (Which I think was a follow up to a comment that she thought Molly was weepy when the kids were mentioned but perfectly calm when Jason's injuries were shown / discussed). Is there any evidence that she was being treated or had been treated for anything.People are discussing it as if it is common knowledge and I just haven't seen confirmation anywhere (there was something handed to the Judge after the verdict before sentencing which I thought was bizarre - if it was relevant. But I don't think we ever found out what that was about).

A pysch report was handed to the judge before sentencing upon reading it he recommended that Molly receives treatment upon incarceration.

Hitman3000

Deise Vu wrote:

She can't benefit from Jason's estate but surely her name is on the family home in which case she already owns 50% of it. Also any bank accounts in her own name or 50% of joint accounts. Jason seemed to have plenty of cash.

Don't know if her name is on the house, it was bought mortgage free by Jason. Probably nothing in the joint account as she transferred a considerable amount out of the account after Jason's murder. She also cannot benefit from the 600k insurance policy that Jason was insured for as a convicted killer.

Syphonax

What about the 600K insurance policy? I hope thats going to the kids, I know she cant have it being guilty as sin of cold blooded murder.

Jesus Wept

This is par for the course. They were hardly going to just throw their hands up at this stage and give up.

Paddy Cow

And this is why anyone serving on a jury should NOT be allowed talk about the case after they give their verdict.

Hitman3000

Paddy Cow wrote:

And this is why jury's should NOT be allowed talk about the case after they give their verdict.

If all the talk was after the trial it's irrelevant, just the defense clutching at straws.

AudreyHepburn

In all honesty I would have been shocked if an appeal of some description wasn't launched.

It's par for the course with any trial and the Martens are well within their rights to do so.

lazybones32

Deise Vu wrote: »

Also, that article doesn't seem to address my query about whether there is a civil case in the pipeline.

It was stated earlier that the Corbett family were pressing a "wrongful death" suit/claim, which is a civil claim.

I read it in a paper and i think it's been mwntioned here.

borderlinemeath

Hitman3000 wrote: »

If all the talk was after the trial it's irrelevant, just the defense clutching at straws.

As somebody who has served on a jury, albeit it a low profile criminal case that barely warranted a newspaper article, there are so many things that you don't hear during the trial that leave you wanting to talk about it as in some cases can make perfect sense when you do hear it after. Usually the prior history of the accused or additional inadmissible evidence (such as Molly Martens history of mental illness)

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Hitman3000

borderlinemeath wrote:

As somebody who has served on a jury, albeit it a low profile criminal case that barely warranted a newspaper article, there are so many things that you don't hear during the trial that leave you wanting to talk about it as in some cases can make perfect sense when you do hear it after. Usually the prior history of the accused or additional inadmissible evidence (such as Molly Martens history of mental illness)

Normal that people will discuss things among themselves especially if they are serving on a jury. Hopefully no-one was indescreet before the trial was over.

Water John

I think they are actually contending that the jurors should not have discussed the case with each other until the end of the trial and they had adjourned to the jury room.
That what they mentioned afterwards to the media indicated, that jurors had done this.

Deise Vu

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Don't know if her name is on the house, it was bought mortgage free by Jason. Probably nothing in the joint account as she transferred a considerable amount out of the account after Jason's murder. She also cannot benefit from the 600k insurance policy that Jason was insured for as a convicted killer.

So what is the purpose of the civil case that people are referring to?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Seth Brundle

Syphonax wrote: »

What about the 600K insurance policy? I hope thats going to the kids, I know she cant have it being guilty as sin of cold blooded murder.

The kids will not get it if they aren't named on the policy.
It's quite likely that she would be the named beneficiary and therefore the insurance company will not pay out.

Hitman3000

Deise Vu wrote:

So what is the purpose of the civil case that people are referring to?

Simple really to hit them where it hurts the most, the pocket.

Carry

I don't think that the appeal has any merit with those flimsy arguments, and I don't think that the Martens' lawyers will give it their best - their is no money to be had pretty soon, especially not after the civil case.

Ms Martens has a new fine home now.
Gruesome watching: Life inside NC women's prison.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkH5wtgMT2k&app=desktop

Hitman3000

Carry wrote:

I don't think that the appeal has any merit with those flimsy arguments, and I don't think that the Martens' lawyers will give it their best - their is no money to be had pretty soon, especially not after the civil case.

There's a funding appeal in process maybe the lawyers think there's still money to be wrung out the Martens.

Silentcorner

This is a jurisdiction that requires a 12-0 unanimous jury decision to convict...a pretty severe requirement for the prosecution.... a requirement I believe was the reason they didn't pursue first degree murder for which there is plenty of evidence...

Even considering this, the fact the pretty Molly who claims to have suffered from years of abuse, to a man who's previous wife died in unusual circumstances (according to her and her fathers warped imagination) bizarrely didn't take the stand to make any case for her defense at all, when all she had to do was convince one of the jurors out of 12 and she would have gotten away with it, 9 of whom were women...

Now, after the conviction they are taking to every public platform open to them to scream injustice!

I hope the Corbetts take this crowd to the cleaners...a message needs to be sent to any future physcos who get correctly convicted that exposing the family of the victim to even more public hardship is going to cost you.

The behaviour of some sections of media and the criminals themselves is deeply unsavoury....

Missix

The Martens sold their beach house for three quarters of a million dollars in May,presume their lawyers can smell cash alright.

Hitman3000

Silentcorner wrote:

The behaviour of some sections of media and the criminals themselves is deeply unsavoury....

The abc 20/20 programme was an absolute disgrace of tabloid tv. The comments on the FB page related to the programme are incredible. It's amazing to think people would look to such a programme as a source of 'factual' information.

borderlinemeath

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Normal that people will discuss things among themselves especially if they are serving on a jury. Hopefully no-one was indescreet before the trial was over.

I'd say it's a lot easier to be indiscreet these days, 11 years ago when I was on a jury there wasn't anywhere near the amount of social media or instant news that is available now, no smartphones or tablets. We were sequestered to a hotel when we started deliberating, phones removed and instruction not to read newspapers etc, but I would imagine it's far harder to resist the temptation now with internet access readily available on multiple platforms.

Just realised I can now be called again as we got a 10 year amnesty. Some people love it, I found it tortuous.

Silentcorner

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The abc 20/20 programme was an absolute disgrace of tabloid tv. The comments on the FB page related to the programme are incredible. It's amazing to think people would look to such a programme as a source of 'factual' information.

Is this the norm over there can anyone tell me....that convicts, who are most likely going to appeal any decision, get free national media coverage to spout a cock and bull defense (which may be viewed by any potential future juror) they elected to omit from their own defense in the court?

Hitman3000

borderlinemeath wrote:

I'd say it's a lot easier to be indiscreet these days, 11 years ago when I was on a jury there wasn't anywhere near the amount of social media or instant news that is available now, no smartphones or tablets. We were sequestered to a hotel when we started deliberating, phones removed and instruction not to read newspapers etc, but I would imagine it's far harder to resist the temptation now with internet access readily available on multiple platforms.

There is no proof presented as yet as to
whether the jurors broke the rules other than hearsay. I'd be inclined to wait for the ruling in regards the motion by the defense.

Hitman3000

Silentcorner wrote:

Is this the norm over there can anyone tell me....that convicts, who are most likely going to appeal any decision, get free national media coverage to spout a cock and bull defense (which may be viewed by any potential future juror) they elected to omit from their own defense in the court?

The lies were unbelievable. Both Tom and Molly alluded to Jason being responsible for his first wife's death. This was not challenged by the interviewer despite the true facts being in the public domain. A lot of commentators have said on the 20/20 site that Jason murdered his first wife and Tom and Molly were only stopping him from doing the same again.

Water John

There hinging their case on two jurors having a chat.

Hitman3000

Water John wrote:

There hinging their case on two jurors having a chat.

Straws.

Silentcorner

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The lies were unbelievable. Both Tom and Molly alluded to Jason being responsible for his first wife's death. This was not challenged by the interviewer despite the true facts being in the public domain. A lot of commentators have said on the 20/20 site that Jason murdered his first wife and Tom and Molly were only stopping him from doing the same again.

The twisters f@@kers actually mentioned the time of death of his fist wife...

I know media have no other purpose other than to get viewers/ratings etc, and this case was always going to pique the interest of the masses....but that 20/20 interview was just reckless...

It was a very soft interview considering it was to be aired after the verdict...these were, in my opinion, looking at all the evidence we are now aware of, two cold blooded murders who planned and executed a vicious death on a sleeping man while his two kids slept in another room....

The two were given a platform in the chase for ratings.

It is no wonder one member of the prosecution got emotional...I find the whole thing a bit surreal...

Hitman3000

Silentcorner wrote:

It was a very soft interview considering it was to be aired after the verdict...these were, in my opinion, looking at all the evidence we are now aware of, two cold blooded murders who planned and executed a vicious death on a sleeping man while his two kids slept in another room....

I'm not going to retry the case. I looked at as much of the evidence as I could it's astonishing that they thought they would get away with it. Those 2 were lucky the DA didn't feel confident enough to pursue murder 1 which attracts the death penalty in NC.