The trial of Molly Martens

JP Liz V1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121304454#Comment_121304454

Being ex FBI has to be a factor, awful if they are out soon for murder

Big Ears

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121305387#Comment_121305387

I find it interesting that you criticise the original trial judge, because he didn't allow statements made by Corbett's children.

Statements made while the children were living with the Martens, and would have to go back to the Martens following their discussion with the police. You don't mention at all that the children retracted these statements as soon as they returned to Limerick and were no longer under the Martens care.

You also criticise the judge not allowing Tom Martens' accusation that Michael Fitzpatrick (Margaret's father), said that Jason Corbett killed his daughter.

Tom initially said this occurred at an event that Michael Fitzpatrick did not attend, and later said it must have been some other event. Michael Fitzpatrick who was seriously ill at the time, went to a solicitor and made sure a signed affidavit was signed to mention that this event never occurred.

On the other hand you're happy to include the info that prevented Tracey Lynch talking about a conversation she had with Jason Corbett that he wanted to return home to Ireland permanently, just because he had nothing booked at the time. His recent internet search history had indicated he had looked up flights.

So you've non-issue with the above not being admitted, but think the other parts were valid parts of the Martens defence.

It almost seems as if you're trying hard to argue a case for the Martens for some reason.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121306911#Comment_121306911

I find it interesting that you criticise the original trial judge, because he didn't allow statements made by Corbett's children.

but think the other parts were valid parts of the Martens defence.

Again not my opinion.

Supreme Court:

It ruled: ‘Tom’s and Molly’s sole defence to the charges levelled against them was that their use of deadly force was legally justified. By erroneously excluding admissible testimony which was relevant to the central question presented to the jury, the trial court impermissibly constrained the defendants’ ability to mount their defence. On these facts, we conclude that, as a matter of fundamental fairness, the exclusion of Jack’s and Sarah’s statements deprived the jury of evidence that was relevant and material to its role as finder of fact.’

‘Therefore, we agree... that this is the rare case in which certain evidentiary errors, alone and in the aggregate, were so prejudicial as to inhibit the defendants’ ability to present a full and meaningful defence

You also criticise the judge not allowing Tom Martens' accusation that Michael Fitzpatrick (Margaret's father), said that Jason Corbett killed his daughter.

No I didn't, you are confused.

It almost seems as if you're trying hard to argue a case for the Martens for some reason.

Nope.

In case you missed it, it has been whittled down to a class D felony.

That is the prosecutions decision not mine.

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121306911#Comment_121306911

Some people just gotta try to edgelord no matter what.

Big Ears

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121307244#Comment_121307244

Well actually you stated that the trial judge is incompetent, and that certainly is opinion. One of the judges on the court of appeal agreed with him, was he incompetent aswell ?

It is certainly arguable whether by law the defence should have been allowed put those arguments across, that's why the supreme court overruled the decision. But you make no discussion of why the original judge made his call or why one of the appeal judges agreed with his verdict.

If you indeed believe the trial judge is incompetent, based off of one disputed decision. Then why then later respond to mention of Jason Corbett moving home to Ireland, with a decision of the trial judge not to allow that to be used in evidence ?

If the judge is so incompetent, then why is anything he ruled on relevant?

You then state "The trial judge would not allow the evidence that appeared to back up her claim of domestic abuse."

That is certainly opinion. The appeal court, nor the supreme court rule on fact of what is presented, merely the lawfulness of ability to do so.

Basically they've said it wasn't lawful that her defence couldn't present that case, but they make no judgement on whether that claim has even the tiniest element of truth, so they certainly don't say that anything backed up her claim. Just that she wasn't allowed to try.

What exactly is the relevance of your comment at the end ? Is that an agreement with the prosecutor that you share ?

By the way this time I am specifically asking for your opinion on that, so no need to restate that that's the decision they've decided to take.

knucklehead6

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121307514#Comment_121307514

But be REALLY bad at it. So bad as to be transparent.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121307600#Comment_121307600

Well actually you stated that the trial judge is incompetent

Nope.

The Supreme Court ruled that the original trial judge was incompetent to the point that trial was unfair.

2 courts came to the conclusion which resulted in the convictions being quashed as they were unsafe, we are at a point where the prosecution has accepted a class D felony with the very real possibility that the 2 defendants may not receive any more prison time.

What part of that is not incompetence?

By the way this time I am specifically asking for your opinion on that, so no need to restate that that's the decision they've decided to take.

My opinion on what?

I already stated he was executed in that bedroom or as the prosecution attorney stated "over killed" and the ordered retrial should have gone ahead.

What exactly is confusing you?

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121307514#Comment_121307514

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121304454#Comment_121304454

Indeed.

irishgeo

I am not sure how they are going to prove Jason attacked Mags because Mags sister was present when she had the fatal asthma attack.

She wanted the kids.

Who has a lump of concrete from the patio on their bedside locker. They hadn't mark on them. She was rubbing her neck and was told to stop.

The father might have been involved at the first part but probably finished him off so Jason couldn't testify and probably helped coach her story.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121307819#Comment_121307819

Who has a lump of concrete from the patio on their bedside locker.

It was the first question asked when the Jury began deliberation apparently.

The trial judge did not allow the explanation.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/munster/arid-40966475.html

But in 2020, the North Carolina Court of Appeals overturned the convictions, saying that Judge Lee had made errors that were so prejudicial it denied Molly and Thomas Martens a fair trial.

One error had to do with excluding statements that the children, who are now teenagers, made to social workers at the Union County Department of Social Services and Dragonfly House Child Advocacy Centre in Mocksville, about 40km from Davidson County.

The court also said prosecutors never explained why the paving brick was in the bedroom and even referenced that there was no explanation for it during closing arguments.

Jack told social workers he and Sarah were planning to paint the brick and Ms Martens placed it in the bedroom because it had been raining and didn’t want the brick to get wet.

Prosecutors have argued that Jack and Sarah had recanted those statements.

During the trial in 2017, the children were in Ireland and could not be forced to testify.

At the new trial, the children are expected to testify and made their first appearance in any court proceeding having to do with the criminal case back in March.

Oscar_Madison

Sick b1tch was following Jason Corbetts sisters Facebook page pre trial

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/molly-martens-facebook-account-starts-31200356.amp

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121304716#Comment_121304716

You're missing the point, if she/ they can prove the case that she genuinely believed her life was at risk and can substantiate that in the US court, then that's mitigating from murder to manslaughter. Doesn't matter what you or I think.

irishgeo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121308003#Comment_121308003

She is guilty of manslaughter. All that is to be decided is the length of the sentence.

JohnFalstaff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121307868#Comment_121307868

The paving brick in question would not be one that children generally decorate. It seems more likely that this is a story concocted by Molly Martens to explain the presence of the brick in the bedroom. A story that she attempted to plant with the children so that they could corroborate her version of events.

Even if the brick was going to be decorated, why keep it in the bedroom? Having done all this sort of thing with my own kids and grandkids, this type of outdoors item is more usually confined to the kitchen or the utility room.

The children may have parroted this spoon-fed story at one point but it's not necessarily a truthful account of what transpired.

You appear to take everything the Martens have done at face value, when much of what they say does not seem to add up. Do you not suspect their version of events at all? Occam's Razor and all that?

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121307734#Comment_121307734

Its not the edgy view to have enough common sense not be swallowing Martens utter nonsense.

But maybe there are other issues with those who are buying their rubbish.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121308003#Comment_121308003

It will be laughable if a judge falls for that-it’s clear that Molly has a history of lies deceit, exaggeration and a mental disorder - she claimed Jason’s kids were hers to a neighbour at one stage FFS - she’s a twisted human being - what amazes me is that her parents were totally clued in to psychotic ways but still her father did what he did and her mother claimed to have heard nothing on the night her daughter was allegedly attacked by Jason and her husband went to assist and instead turned over and went back to sleep - you couldn’t make it up

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121308109#Comment_121308109

Respected FBI family thought they were untouchable, hardly a surprise.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121308003#Comment_121308003

Not only can she not prove that she thought her life was at risk, but from everything that is in the public domain it is obvious that she could have walked away from the marriage. I`d say he would have helped her pack.

Be right back

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121307868#Comment_121307868

Ah come off it. Who would carry a brick all the way upstairs so it wouldn't get wet? Leave it in the kitchen or garage.

Be right back

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121308109#Comment_121308109

But they did..

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121308053#Comment_121308053

The paving brick in question would not be one that children generally decorate.

What does a paving brick that children generally decorate look like?

You appear to take everything the Martens have done at face value

What have I taken at face value?

Someone asked a question about the brick, the same question that came up in Jury deliberations. There was information available that offered an explanation.

2 Courts concluded that evidence should have been tested in court.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121308561#Comment_121308561

Again it's not my opinion.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121308085#Comment_121308085

It's the prosecution who have accepted the Class D felony plea.

By your logic, I guess they are edgy too.

Or were they given "big brown envelopes" too?

FishOnABike

Involuntary manslaughter? Who forced them to drug someone and beat him to death with a paving slab and baseball bat?

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121304633#Comment_121304633

It would take some believing (I have a bridge I want to sell you - best price, just for you) but if that's to be believed both should be in a secure mental institution, probably for life.

This murder wasn't a spur of the moment reaction to circumstances, there was clear premeditation.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121305296#Comment_121305296

The law is an absolute ass. Jason's family could testify that he had discussed moving back to Ireland but it is dismissed as hearsay yet Molly Marten's claim that Jason's late wife's family thought he killed her, which is refuted by his late wife's family, is admissable.

The more I see of the law the more I'm inclined it is an expensive charade to present a largely predetermined outcome.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121309053#Comment_121309053

Jason's family could testify that he had discussed moving back to Ireland but it is dismissed as hearsay yet Molly Marten's claim that Jason's late wife's family thought he killed her, which is refuted by his late wife's family, is admissable.

That was Tom Marten's claim, the trial judge ruled it was inadmissible too.

We are now in a sentencing trial, there is no jury to be protected. Pretty much everything will be admissible.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121309027#Comment_121309027

Very hard to prove especially second time around- hence this hearing instead and a much lesser crime - no amount of time served will bring Jason back but at least the majority of people in Ireland know what an absolute shower of liars the Martens are.

I see Molly put in a no contest to the charges which gives her some protection if a civil trial by the family ever took place eventually in that you essentially have to prove key facts again- you can’t take any facts as stated from this hearing. I assume it makes it harder more expensive and longer to get any legal outcome hence less likely chance of a civil trial against her.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121308003#Comment_121308003

So if I irrationally but genuinely thought you were a threat to me and possibly my lift would that make premeditated violent killing of you (with the presence of mind to drug you first and lay the foundations for an alibi for the murder weapon) manslaughter?

The pre-planning shows a rationality of thought that would seem to exclude guilty but insane. In my view it was either cold blooded murder or the actions of a seriously disturbed person who, should be in a secure mental facility for the foreseeable future if not indefinitely.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121309199#Comment_121309199

with the presence of mind to drug you first

There was minute traces of trazodone in his blood which was established at trial would have had absolutely no effect on him, a fact accepted by the prosecution.

A pharmacist also testified that the family shared medicines.

He wasn't under the influence of prescription drugs at the time of his killing.

A headline grabber without any substance.