The trial of Molly Martens

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.

If the conclusions do not follow the findings in the report then anyone can cast doubts about the report creator.

If in a report I say "I tested the colour of the sky for being red, yellow and green, and the tests were negative, I therefore conclude the sky is blue" then the conclusion does not follow the report.

Maybe because her story doesn't help the defence at all.

Exactly.

So there was no evidence he was sleeping? Okay, we can draw a line through that one so.

There was blood on the soles of his feet, indicating he was moving around.

There was also doubt cast on the prosecutions blood spatter expert. Apparently he helped write the manual on blood spatter, but failed to follow it.

It's one of the reasons the prosecution have now changed tact and are suggesting that Tom Martins misinterpreted the situation when he came into the room that Jason did have Molly in some sort of headlock but he was actually defending himself.

Which is more plausible to a point when looking at the evidence.

The evidence that he was very much awake was precluded from the first trial.

Namely Sarah telling the social workers that she had a nightmare, had gone into her parents room and this had caused an argument which it had done in the past.

Again the prosecution have to changed the narrative because of new evidence.

If it was deemed she was an unreliable witness, then it would explain why neither prosecution or defence called her as a witness.

Unreliable in what way, she was there in the night, it would want to be remarkable to not call her

It obvious she was lying and couldn't keep her story straight, surely this would look good for the prosecution

Well for starters, I understand it was said she and her husband were woken by a disturbance upstairs. Her husband went up to investigate but she went back to sleep. So all she really witnessed was sounds of a disturbance upstairs.

However, that begs more questions than answers. If it sounded like a serious disturbance, why did she go back to sleep?

If a witness says they saw the man kill the other man with a knife, they might make a good witness for the prosecution. But if they later say they saw the man kill the other man with a screwdriver, they become less reliable. If they then say they saw the man use a shovel, then you may not be confident of what they will say on the stand. That could be a feeling shared by both the prosecution and the defence.

Sooner this bint is electrocuted along with her knobhead father the better

You're missing the point. An unreliable witness doesn't mean they are lying. It means they are unreliable.

From the RTE website. If you read it through the expert says that the the report didn't contain a cause of death, he also said that there was no strangulation attempt on Molly.

A pathology expert called by the state prosecutors to rebut two defence experts claims about the cause of Mrs Corbett's death said Irish medical reports did not show any cause of death.

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.

Asked if he agreed with the pathology report that described the cause of death as an acute cardio respiratory attack following acute bronchospasm in a known asthmatic, Dr Nichols said he did not agree.

He said fatal asthma attacks are marked by over inflation of the lungs due to an inability of gas to escape.

Dr Nichols said the two-page pathology report from Limerick made no mention of the state of the lungs, nor was the upper respiratory tract removed and manually assessed by the pathologist.

Because of that he rejected the claim that Ms Corbett died from an asthma attack.

Asked about claims made by two defence expert witness reports on the same material, which said it was possible Ms Corbett's death was due to homicide, Dr Nichols said it was possible.

Dr Nichols then listed a whole series of tests and checks that had not been recorded in the pathology report. He said: "We have nothing to indicate the cause of death of this woman."

He added that there was no information in the report to indicate any sign of choking or asphyxiation.

Dr Nicholls also rejected defence expert testimony on an alleged strangulation attempt on Molly Martens Corbett the night Mr Corbett was killed.

He said one of the experts had taken what is possible and made it into something plausibly probable without any basis in science.

Plenty here be believing this.

No molly martens mother