The trial of Molly Martens

RacoonQueen

Yeah I heard that recording and she was clearly winding him up in it and he was responding the way anyone would if they were annoyed or a couple simply arguing.

GalwayGirl2020

Heard recording too. Was that actually the best she could come up with? Jesus if that is all he done wrong..The recording proved nothing. It was harmless. I would have reacted a hell of a lot worse to her if she kept interrupting me about pancakes and pancake mix whilst I was trying to talk to my children after a hard days work. You could hear how she was trying to rise him.

GalwayGirl2020

What ye reckon are the chances of a retrial though?

RacoonQueen

GalwayGirl2020 wrote: »

What ye reckon are the chances of a retrial though?

I'd like to say slim but they're wealthy and white, so...

GalwayGirl2020

Very sad but true Money talks Poor Corbett Lynch family:(

pjohnson

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I'd like to say slim but they're wealthy and white, so...

And hes ex-FBI

GalwayGirl2020

If they are granted a retrial,does that mean that they will be released pending trial?

seamus

GalwayGirl2020 wrote: »

If they are granted a retrial,does that mean that they will be released pending trial?

They could be released on bail.

Credit Checker Moose

If there is a retrial they are back to being innocent until proven guilty. So bail is a strong possibility.

the hedgeman

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

If there is a retrial they are back to being innocent until proven guilty. So bail is a strong possibility.

They were the cause of his death ultimately...they can never claim to be innocent.

Suckler

cannotlogin wrote: »

Zero evidence. No calls to domestic abuse helpline, no calls to the police, no one able to confirm bruising, no medical reports etc.

The night of the murder she alleged he was strangling her/grabbing her by the neck. Police noticed no signs of it on her neck but had to tell her to stop aggressively rubbing her neck (as in she was creating the marks herself)

TheValeyard

the hedgeman wrote: »

They were the cause of his death ultimately...they can never claim to be innocent.

Definitely. And they are trying desperately to make him out to be the bad guy. Dead men cant defend themselves.

Ash.J.Williams

There was also the cultural differences, her psycho dad hated the fact he enjoyed a few pints and hated his Irish mates and family.

the hedgeman

TheValeyard wrote: »

Definitely. And they are trying desperately to make him out to be the bad guy. Dead men cant defend themselves.

They're not denying his death was the results of their actions but their alleged circumstances that caused it might have got them lighter sentences and not the lenghty sentence but they were never going to get off scot-free

gozunda

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

There was also the cultural differences, her psycho dad hated the fact he enjoyed a few pints and hated his Irish mates and family.

The difference in her families attitude towards him and the very positive tributes from his co workers and others who knew him really couldn't be more stark.

radia

cannotlogin wrote: »

Zero evidence. No calls to domestic abuse helpline, no calls to the police, no one able to confirm bruising, no medical reports etc. I can't find it now but there was a recording she produced at one stage where she taped him and tried to use as evidence that he was aggressive towards her. I can't remember the detail but from listening to it it sounded like she was trying to bait him, provoke a reaction.

He was direct and dismissive but really sounded like she was trying to set him up.

I feel so sorry for his family. Despite all the evidence that they killed him and allowed his body to go cold before they rang emergency services, Molly and her family & supporters have done such a good job of tarnishing his name. If you read the book published by her ex, it provides significant insight into what she was like. If anything, she was the abuser.

There's an excerpt from the recording in the friendly ABC TV interview she and her father did while awaiting trial. You can hear it at around 07:20 in the YouTube clip here.

She also appears to have coached Jason's son Jack to describe domestic abuse and he did so in an interview with a social worker (which can be seen around 6:40 in the YouTube video). What young child, when asked by a social worker, "And when he would get mad, what would he do?" would naturally say, "He would physically and verbally hurt my - physically and verbally hurt my mom."? It sounds so parroted and unnatural - clearly a learned phrase.

In fairness there is also some more natural language used elsewhere in the children's interviews - see arounnd 22:00 in the CBS "48 Hours" video on this page.

But after returning to Ireland and living with Jason's family, Jack withdrew those remarks, as described in the 48 Hours video (see 27:55) and the article at the same link:

From 48 Hours article (and video):
Nine months after returning to Limerick, Jack recanted what he'd told social workers after his father was killed:

SOCIAL WORKER [via Skype from N.C.] Is it true that your father was abusive? Or false?

JACK: Um, false.

SOCIAL WORKER: What did Molly say?

JACK: We were going to get interviewed. … She was saying a lot of stories, making up stories about my dad saying that he was abusive. And she started saying, "if you don't lie, I'll never ever see you again."

AudreyHepburn

I think it’s clear and obvious to anyone who has followed this case that Jason was the farthest thing from abusive. If anyone was abusive in that marriage it was Molly and she seems to have directed it not just towards Jason but towards his children.

In her book Jason’s sister Tracy describes how Molly would excessively punish Jack for the slightest thing and told Sarah when she was only six that “your Daddy killed your Mom”. That’s emotional abuse if I ever heard of it.

And all Molly’s so called recordings of Jason temper show is a frustrated man being deliberately wound up to get a reaction.

I sincerely hope a retrial isn’t granted but I have bad feeling it will be. It’s unforgivable that Molly is persisting in putting Jason’s family, particularly his children, through such upset.

GalwayGirl2020

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I sincerely hope a retrial isn’t granted but I have bad feeling it will be. It’s unforgivable that Molly is persisting in putting Jason’s family, particularly his children, through such upset.

I have an awful feeling that you could be right Audrey:( No doubt the Martens have employed the best defence lawyers. A defence lawyer who is probably picking holes at everything. Really hope there will no retrial but I think you are right in saying there may well be. There were too many mistakes. For instance the poor Jury foreman mentioning that the jury had private conversations and the judge not allowing statements from children /Jasons previous father in law. Can I ask you, the U.S.A have different laws, the jury vote has to be unanimous right in order to sentence the defendant? If one juror did not agree with Molly been guilty of the crime but the remaining jurors confirmed her guilty then she would be ultimately let free?? Think this is a danger if they play the childrens videos.

AudreyHepburn

GalwayGirl2020 wrote: »

I have an awful feeling that you could be right Audrey:( No doubt the Martens have employed the best defence lawyers. A defence lawyer who is probably picking holes at everything. Really hope there will no retrial but I think you are right in saying there may well be. There were too many mistakes. For instance the poor Jury foreman mentioning that the jury had private conversations and the judge not allowing statements from children /Jasons previous father in law. Can I ask you, the U.S.A have different laws, the jury vote has to be unanimous right in order to sentence the defendant? If one juror did not agree with Molly been guilty of the crime but the remaining jurors confirmed her guilty then she would be ultimately let free?? Think this is a danger if they play the childrens videos.

Yes that’s correct unfortunately. If even one of the jury takes the view that Tom and/or Molly are innocent while the others think they’re guilty then they will walk.

Even if a retrial does happen, and juror misconduct notwithstanding, I really don’t think the children’s statements will actually benefit the defence though. It’s clear and obvious they had been coached and Jack later recanted what he said.

In the case of the Father in Law he wasn’t even at the event at which Tom Martens claims he (FIL) told him Jason killed Mags. So I can’t see that statement making a difference either.

knucklehead6

Retrial granted

ted1

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Retrial granted

Boooo, I always feel the fathers connections will get him off

Gatling

For fecks sake

Gadgetman496

So I take it they will be released soon pending the new trial & that could take a long time.

pjohnson

It was a suprise they even convicted in the first place. OJ was more believable than the bull they were spouting.

The cover up was already in full swing.

GalwayGirl2020

Will they be released pending trial? Surely not

pjohnson

GalwayGirl2020 wrote: »

Will they be released pending trial? Surely not

They'll be released eventually.

walshb

I’ll be absolutely gutted if these two monsters walk!

Gatling

walshb wrote: »

I’ll be absolutely gutted if these two monsters walk!

Absolutely it was a savage assault on a sleeping man who couldn't defend him possibly under the influence of sleeping meds

walshb

Gatling wrote: »

Absolutely it was a savage assault on a sleeping man who couldn't defend him possibly under the influence of sleeping meds

Despicable.

Bizarre crime. Father and daughter.

Father in his 60s. Former cop

Wtf possessed them to commit such a heinous act..

pjohnson

walshb wrote: »

Despicable.

Bizarre crime. Father and daughter.

Father in his 60s. Former cop

Wtf possessed them to commit such a heinous act..

She seemed to want to have full control of the poor kids and then Daddy naturally assumed himself and his precious daughter were untouchable due to his connections and her looks.