The trial of Molly Martens

Bobtheman

Based on the evidence it is surprising that there is a retrial but if you read the actual reports it seems mistakes were made. Social worker reports were not admitted etc.
I love the way people who didn't sit through weeks or was it months of testimony suddenly rush in with an opinion
We saw the same with the Belfast rape trial
I'm not saying anybody is innocent or not in either trial but let justice take it's course
They are white and well connected so there is no chance of poor legal back up thus I have faith in this case that the system will judge fairly.
The final verdict should be fair. I emphasize final.
Remember it's beyond reasonable doubt in both trials not your gut instinct based on occasional news reports.

Muahahaha

Muahahaha wrote: »

Bit of a risk for them as 1st degree murder carries the death penalty in North Carolina. Dont think it will go there but it is on the cards if a judge decides so.

But its clear that they think a fresh jury, many who will already have read about the case, is their best chance of getting off. Sad thing is it might work too.

I could be wrong but i don't think 1st degree was pursued by the prosecution in the first trial? Like many juristictions including Ireland, 1st degree is quite hard to prove - (and in America, being white, middle class and former FBI guy, extremely difficult to get a conviction) I think it would be unwise to pursue a 1st degree, given Molly's pre-trial interview in that despicable documentary and also the sh1te they've thrown in their own defence.

Best we can hope for if there is a re-trial, is a determined 10-15 years imprisonment for unlawful use of force.

Bobtheman

Bobtheman wrote: »

Based on the evidence it is surprising that there is a retrial but if you read the actual reports it seems mistakes were made. Social worker reports were not admitted etc.
I love the way people who didn't sit through weeks or was it months of testimony suddenly rush in with an opinion
We saw the same with the Belfast rape trial
I'm not saying anybody is innocent or not in either trial but let justice take it's course
They are white and well connected so there is no chance of poor legal back up thus I have faith in this case that the system will judge fairly.
The final verdict should be fair. I emphasize final.
Remember it's beyond reasonable doubt in both trials not your gut instinct based on occasional news reports.

I've followed the story since the beginning- and I've no problem in saying that they're as guilty as sin - - rot in hell Molly and Tom Martens.

Asitis2019

I think this discussion needs a little more balance TBH

In fact, since this is now back in the courts, should not this thread be shut down

Asitis2019

Asitis2019 wrote: »

I think this discussion needs a little more balance TBH

In fact, since this is now back in the courts, should not this thread be shut down

Tonight they're still in jail and classed as murdering scum.

Beasty

Deleted User wrote: »

@ Mods- there's an ongoing thread in AH from the olde days before this forum that's reactivated and being contributed to so probably best to delete this one now and maybe transfer out that thread into this forum if more appropriate?
Anyway, I'll report my own post to get the thread taken down. Thanks.

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Moving to CA.

Now merged

Thanks

Muahahaha

Deleted User wrote: »

I could be wrong but i don't think 1st degree was pursued by the prosecution in the first trial? Like many juristictions including Ireland, 1st degree is quite hard to prove - (and in America, being white, middle class and former FBI guy, extremely difficult to get a conviction) I think it would be unwise to pursue a 1st degree, given Molly's pre-trial interview in that despicable documentary and also the sh1te they've thrown in their own defence.

Best we can hope for if there is a re-trial, is a determined 10-15 years imprisonment for unlawful use of force.

Yeah AFAIK the prosecution did not pursue 1st degree murder and I could be wrong about this but from what I heard on radio the Martens legal argument is that without a 1st degree charge this prevented them from submitting a defence that the killing was in self defense. Also the radio report said a re-trial is not a done deal just yet- it has to go before the North Carolina Supreme Court for that to be decided. However legal experts expect the Supreme Court to rule a retrial.

Theres also the matter of social worker interviews with the kids that were not allowed into evidence. Todays ruling also took umbrage with that. So the re-trial will likely have new evidence

10000maniacs

Smells of Let the dust settle for a couple of years and you'll be out. Wink wink.
I am genuinely surprised it took them 3 years to get to this stage.
An FBI guy and his good looking daughter vs an Irishman.
The level of ongoing rankle in the state of North Carolina with them being still in the big house must have been mockingbird-esque.
Was there any evidence of any violence on Jason's side that justified him getting hit over the head with a brick and a baseball bat 12 times
in……...self defence?
I would have been out cold after the first few blows.
It's not a Halloween movie after all.

ArmaniJeanss

Asitis2019 wrote: »

I think this discussion needs a little more balance TBH

In fact, since this is now back in the courts, should not this thread be shut down

Not really an issue for a trial in a different jurisdiction, especially the USA.
America has much different sub judice rules (close to none in fact), and no contributor here is going to be on the jury.

AudreyHepburn

Bobtheman wrote: »

Based on the evidence it is surprising that there is a retrial but if you read the actual reports it seems mistakes were made. Social worker reports were not admitted etc.
I love the way people who didn't sit through weeks or was it months of testimony suddenly rush in with an opinion
We saw the same with the Belfast rape trial
I'm not saying anybody is innocent or not in either trial but let justice take it's course
They are white and well connected so there is no chance of poor legal back up thus I have faith in this case that the system will judge fairly.
The final verdict should be fair. I emphasize final.
Remember it's beyond reasonable doubt in both trials not your gut instinct based on occasional news reports.

The issue isn’t the evidence. That’s clear and points only one way.

The problem is apparent jury misconduct but I can’t see this would actually change the outcome in the re trial. The evidence hasn’t changed.

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The issue isn’t the evidence. That’s clear and points only one way.

The problem is apparent jury misconduct but I can’t see this would actually change the outcome in the re trial. The evidence hasn’t changed.

Your'e wrong and you're wrong. (not being snarky, just stating fact)

It's ALL about the evidence:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/why-did-jason-corbett-s-killers-have-their-convictions-overturned-1.4161822

Muahahaha

From the linked article above

In addition, the judges said the jury may not have convicted Thomas and Molly Martens of second-degree murder in August 2017 had there not been an “erroneous” exclusion of hearsay statements made by Jason’s children Jack and Sarah to social workers about their father’s alleged violent conduct prior to the night of his death.

Their statements detail instances of alleged past domestic violence between Mr Corbett and Molly Martens - relayed to them by her - and evidence around what they understood had happened on the night of their father’s killing.

It seems like Molly alleged to the two kids that Jason had been violent to her in the past. The kids revealed her telling them this information to social workers but that evidence (which is only hearsay) was not allowed to be heard before the jury.

However the re-trial will allow it which is not good news, it likely means that the two children are going to have to go to the court and take the witness stand and be questioned about what Molly said about their father and be questioned about what the heard/saw going on in the house on the night of their fathers murder. That would be a very traumatic experience for them.

Muahahaha

Muahahaha wrote: »

From the linked article above



It seems like Molly alleged to the two kids that Jason had been violent to her in the past. The kids revealed her telling them this information to social workers but that evidence (which is only hearsay) was not allowed to be heard before the jury.

However the re-trial will allow it which is not good news, it likely means that the two children are going to have to go to the court and take the witness stand and be questioned about what Molly said about their father and be questioned about what the heard/saw going on in the house on the night of their fathers murder. That would be a very traumatic experience for them.

If you watched the pre-trial interview with Molly, it was evident how she was painting her husband in a bad light and contriving to influence potential jurors.

While I hear your concerns, I would also hope that the very clear evidence against Molly, in terms of her psychotic mental state way before she met her husband, is equally taken into account and placed on the scales of justice- it would be a travesty indeed, if only selective evidence was allowed favouring the defendant - it works both ways.

but yes, it would be traumatic on his children, and I'd doubt that they would travel to give evidence but respect whatever decision their guardians decide as they know best now- hopefully though, they would be allowed a sworn statement to be placed as evidence instead.

Water John

Any parent who has been abused, the last thing they would do is, tell it to the children. They would make every effort to shield them.

Lillyfae

Water John wrote: »

Any parent who has been abused, the last thing they would do is, tell it to the children. They would make every effort to shield them.

But Molly's not a parent, is she? She's a raving lunatic.

PressRun

Is it true that the judge withheld some evidence in the first trial?

Muahahaha

Muahahaha wrote: »

From the linked article above



It seems like Molly alleged to the two kids that Jason had been violent to her in the past. The kids revealed her telling them this information to social workers but that evidence (which is only hearsay) was not allowed to be heard before the jury.

However the re-trial will allow it which is not good news, it likely means that the two children are going to have to go to the court and take the witness stand and be questioned about what Molly said about their father and be questioned about what the heard/saw going on in the house on the night of their fathers murder. That would be a very traumatic experience for them.

No judge will allow hearsay. It’s possible that what evidence they give will be first hand. ie They will tell what was going on behind closed doors. That could go either way.

Muahahaha

Deleted User wrote: »

No judge will allow hearsay. It’s possible that what evidence they give will be first hand. ie They will tell what was going on behind closed doors. That could go either way.

Wrong Maryanne, in the US judges can and do permit hearsay.

Under American law there are 24 exceptions to the rules on hearsay

Cushie Butterfield

Update: https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/attorney-general-in-us-to-challenge-court-ruling-allowing-jason-corbett-case-retrial-983295.html

An attorney general in the US is to challenge a court ruling allowing a father and daughter convicted of the murder of an Irishman a retrial.

The North Carolina Attorney General Joshua H Stein, has filed a motion to the Supreme Court of North Carolina to stay the Court of Appeal's decision.

A Corbett family spokesperson said: “In essence (this) is a motion to temporarily halt the effect of the opinion of the appeals court decision on the 4th February 2020.
“In the absence of a temporary stay being granted, Molly Martens and her Father would be entitled to proceed to trial court.
“The Attorney General intends to file a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court based on Judge Collins’ dissent within fifteen days of the Court of Appeals’ mandate.
“We are grateful for his decision. Thank you for your continued support.”

Speaking from the US tonight Mr Earnest, an uncle of Ms Martens and family spokesperson explained that legally it can take two to three weeks before the ruling is “mandated” made fully legal (this has not now been allowed to happen due to the Attorney General’s intervention).
“After that period of time the ruling can be appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina by the other side.
“The Supreme Court can decide to uphold the original second degree murder charge or allow the retrial if an appeal is made. It is unusual for a retrial not to be allowed.
“We don’t know if Tom and Molly will be released at some stage on bail if the Court of Appeal ruling is referred to the Supreme Court.

---

Hopefully there won't be a retrial & these killers can fade into the obscurity of US Prison accommodation where they belong.

Cushie Butterfield

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

Update: https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/attorney-general-in-us-to-challenge-court-ruling-allowing-jason-corbett-case-retrial-983295.html

An attorney general in the US is to challenge a court ruling allowing a father and daughter convicted of the murder of an Irishman a retrial.

The North Carolina Attorney General Joshua H Stein, has filed a motion to the Supreme Court of North Carolina to stay the Court of Appeal's decision.

A Corbett family spokesperson said: “In essence (this) is a motion to temporarily halt the effect of the opinion of the appeals court decision on the 4th February 2020.
“In the absence of a temporary stay being granted, Molly Martens and her Father would be entitled to proceed to trial court.
“The Attorney General intends to file a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court based on Judge Collins’ dissent within fifteen days of the Court of Appeals’ mandate.
“We are grateful for his decision. Thank you for your continued support.”

Speaking from the US tonight Mr Earnest, an uncle of Ms Martens and family spokesperson explained that legally it can take two to three weeks before the ruling is “mandated” made fully legal (this has not now been allowed to happen due to the Attorney General’s intervention).
“After that period of time the ruling can be appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina by the other side.
“The Supreme Court can decide to uphold the original second degree murder charge or allow the retrial if an appeal is made. It is unusual for a retrial not to be allowed.
“We don’t know if Tom and Molly will be released at some stage on bail if the Court of Appeal ruling is referred to the Supreme Court.

---

Hopefully there won't be a retrial & these killers can fade into the obscurity of US Prison accommodation where they belong.

I wonder if the Supreme court of North Carolina are Republicans or Democrats- I've a feeling they're Republican, which probably means, a re-trial - then a Trump "pardon" - the world is gone mad- these two scum-bags brutally murdered Jason Corbett - I don't care what future Judges or juries say.

Credit Checker Moose

As murder is a state matter, Trump would not be able to pardon them.

Kivaro

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder if the Supreme court of North Carolina are Republicans or Democrats- I've a feeling they're Republican, which probably means, a re-trial - then a Trump "pardon" - the world is gone mad- these two scum-bags brutally murdered Jason Corbett - I don't care what future Judges or juries say.

Jesus, the ignorance.

And it was all Trump's fault.

salmocab

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I wonder if the Supreme court of North Carolina are Republicans or Democrats- I've a feeling they're Republican, which probably means, a re-trial - then a Trump "pardon" - the world is gone mad- these two scum-bags brutally murdered Jason Corbett - I don't care what future Judges or juries say.

The world is gone mad because you have invented a future scenario that includes the president of America. Your last sentence is right though.

threeball

I don't they'd be giving these two the time of day if he wasn't from a law enforcement background. You get treated alot differently and leniently in the states if you have that in your back pocket.

Muahahaha

Thinking back to the first trial the evidence against Molly and Tom was pretty damning. Their claims of self defence were shaky at best, Jason had been drugged and attacked in his sleep. On the evidence a re-trial *should* go the same way and end up in their conviction. But my bet is they and their lawyers are playing a game of PR in the media to get the notion that they were wrongfully convicted into the minds of people who live in the state. Their aim will be just to flip a few jurors into thinking this has been a miscarriage of justice.

chicorytip

Maybe Corbett was physically abusive toward Molly. Perhaps there had been an earlier incident which provoked the father(Martens) to perpetrate what was an attack of extreme violence. It seems very like heat of the moment, crime of passion stuff rather than a coldly cynical long planned incident the motive for which has never been clearly established.

Water John

So, 'heat of the moment' her father changed what he was to do that day and drove a distance to daughter and son in law's house???

Motive; her husband was going to divorce her and move to Ireland, above all, taking the children with him.

salmocab

chicorytip wrote: »

Maybe Corbett was physically abusive toward Molly. Perhaps there had been an earlier incident which provoked the father(Martens) to perpetrate what was an attack of extreme violence. It seems very like heat of the moment, crime of passion stuff rather than a coldly cynical long planned incident the motive for which has never been clearly established.

Heat of the moment? Hardly, their victim was in bed asleep.

faceman

chicorytip wrote: »

Maybe Corbett was physically abusive toward Molly. Perhaps there had been an earlier incident which provoked the father(Martens) to perpetrate what was an attack of extreme violence. It seems very like heat of the moment, crime of passion stuff rather than a coldly cynical long planned incident the motive for which has never been clearly established.

You should familiarise yourself with the trial and the evidence.

RacoonQueen

Water John wrote: »

So, 'heat of the moment' her father changed what he was to do that day and drove a distance to daughter and son in law's house???

Motive; her husband was going to divorce her and move to Ireland, above all, taking the children with him.

*Taking HIS children with him