The trial of Molly Martens

Must be great to be so black and white about life, no one knows full story, why you so invested in one side?

But it turns out that it’s not as simple as that at all. That’s why this story has gone on for so long and has now taken a completely different course.

Facebook comments on these emotive long running sagas always shock me in how little comprehension there is out there of basic criminal justice procedures.

The vast majority of the public out there supporting the Corbett family seem to think that the Martens paid for the medical expert yesterday to testify for the defence. 🙄

They also think that this is a retrial. Too much TV in my opinion.

What evidence?

She was a young, attractive woman. She would catch the attention of most red blooded males. Looks (clearly) aren't everything but it would seem that she was manipulative too.

There was no credible evidence other than fabricated defence lies by two killers.

some a the guff people are entertaining here is sickening. Trying to see reasons and empathy with these two scumbags based off talk of whether or not Mr. Corbett was a saint..

the man is dead, and the two killers have nothing to lose with trying to make folks believe that he somehow deserved to die..

Yeah I mean it was just left out there- I find it extraordinary that they didn’t close that down better - if the judge gives this any credence at all in his sentencing then something stinks with this case- we’ll just have to wait and see.

The "clown" was a prosecution witness. Why would the prosecution employ a witness to "throw **** at the wall". Now the emotive reaction here to this testimony is based purely on the headlines on it which say things like "Court told first wife did not die from asthma attack". Which is not what the court was told at all but people feel the need to react wildly to it becasue the headline does not align with the narrative that they have become heavily invested in.

What the testimony actually said was based on the two page post mortem report the US pathologist could not conclude that it was asthma not that it definitely wasn't asthma. He said based on his reading of the report that "We have nothing to indicate the cause of death of this woman."

Now the Irish coroner when completing the report would have had knowledge of the circumstances of death, probably that there were witnesses and access to medical history so based on there being no evidence to suggest it was anything else would have concluded that it was asthma. But as this "supplementary evidence" was never presented in coroners court it would not have been in the report, therefore the us pathologist would not have access. That is why he did not have enough evidence to conclude on cause of death.

Is there any evidence that he beat her? Police reports? Or is it just a statement from his kids? Sorry, has probably been stated, just hearing an update on the radio.

The sentence handed down will confirm this either way- but Im inclined to agree with you and I don’t hold out any hope of more time to be served- something like a 2-4 year probation but no additional time served. Would love to be proved wrong on that though

Here's what the Irish Times report says:

How can a doctor only reading a report allege that the doctor who performed the autopsy was "completely wrong" in her report?

He sounds like a total clown.

It more likely works that the defense argues then prosecution

She certainly was stunning...but all I'm saying by marrying her, he'd already been happy for her to be his children's Stepmom and probably so were the children... seems like her love for his children didn't include him to the same degree, but he was part of the package so to speak for better or worse.

“some clown” 🤣🤣🤣 engaged by the prosecution, with unlimited resources.

Dr George Nicholls, a veteran forensic pathologist and former chief pathologist of the State of Kentucky, told Assistant District Attorney Alan Martin that he had received and reviewed a post-mortem examination report, a coroner's report and medical records from Limerick over the summer, to give evidence for the prosecution.

They don't have to make a case that the original conviction was unsafe. The Appeals Court and Supreme Court did that for them.

It's worth noting the Supreme Court ordered a retrial not a plea deal, that was completely down to the prosecution.

What the defence are doing is what the Supreme Court ruled they should have been allowed to do in the first trial.

Re the books, Jasons sister has written 2 off the back of it.

The Judge eventually had to gag her, ironically the defence have said they will use parts of the book in evidence.

Even if there was arguments in the marriage. There must be some punishment for beating the man to death and leaving him to go cold before calling the emergency services.

The lack of injuries on molly or the father puts holes in the self defence argument.

On of the big issues here will be that for cultural reasons an American court will always give more credibility to American witnesses than "foreign" witnesses. American medical witnesses will be believed over an Irish coroner.

Its a sentence hearing not an tiral on the cause of death of his first wife

I assume the angle the defence team are going for is that Martens feared for her life and had suspicions that Corbett had murdered his first wife. This could certainly have implications for mitigation when it comes to sentencing.

What was the point of the prosecution getting medical evidence on the cause of his first wifes death?.

Why would she be treated for asthma if she never had it?

You’re doing your best to try excuse/explain why her and her father just had to batter him to death. And hiding behind red herring desperation defence.

Lol at Martens cheerleaders using evidence.

Cheerleading would be not looking at the evidence. Just blindly swallowing the narrative.

Or specifically today internet pathologists calling an actual pathologist "clown".

Made even more ridiculous considering the pathologist is actually the prosecutions expert witness.

But but but cheerleaders, something something.

If there was any suggestion he killed his first wife why was he never even investigated for it. Also her family continued to stay on good terms with Jason even attending his wedding, surely if they had any doubts they wouldn't have done that. Also why did Mollys mother not testify at the trial, surely her "evidence" would have helped the defence how ever incredible her story was.

Hyper emotion, yes. That's evidently the state you are in otherwise you wouldn't keep coming back on the hour to spread the same baseless opinion absence of evidence conversation.

But sure look , you can pretend to yourself your playing the ball and not the man but there's an entire thread of evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

I put it to you. You enjoy being contrary... for the sake of it.