The trial of Molly Martens

I think the defense have muddied the waters enough to get lenient sentences. Unfortunately, the judge said if Molly had enough time to coach the children, the Irish relations had enough to force the recant. I think Molly is a manipulative person and will reap the benefits. The reports on the secret recordings are calling Molly a parent and not step parent. Parent is much more sympathetic than step parent.

The Judge went a bit further than that to be fair.

But, on balance, he said that he found that there was not enough time to successfully coach such young children in such a detailed presentation of facts.

It mimics the Supreme Courts opinion that cast doubt on Jack recanting what he told the specialists.

They also highlighted that the 2 children were interviewed the morning after the killing by an unannounced visit from a social worker when Molly was not there.

What the 2 children said in that interview was consistent with what they said in subsequent interviews.

In fact what the children stated in the interviews backs up large portions of Molly's defence.

It's the very reason the first conviction was quashed.

Whether you hate the woman or not and believe she is evil or not, what the trial judge excluded in the first trial was beyond negligent.

Unfortunately I tend to agree, the defense have muddied the waters, planting the seed of doubt, blackening peoples characters, etc. Unfortunately that's what these defense teams are there for, and given her fathers background too, and the resources he would have available, I don't see these people doing much if any time... I really hope I am wrong, its awful what is unfolding given the original murder evidence and massive flaws and gaps in their stories.

Really? I don't think this thread backs up your claim TBF.

The vast majority on here dismissed her claims of domestic abuse outright and still do now.

It’s as if this is an altogether new trial except it’s not a trial it’s a sentencing hearing- absolutely bizzare

Or some clown belittling the evidence of a highly qualified trained pathologist.

A quick glance over the contents of this thread should quickly disabuse anyone of that notion, as would media coverage of the murder to date here which has very much glossed over accusations of abuse. And you have to remember that these are accusations verified by the children in statements, by a recording, by evidence of friends and family, by the fact that her mother had written her number under a lamp so the children could call her when they were frightened so she could then call police. That was confirmed by the children and the number was found written where she said it would be. You also have to remember that these allegations didn't form part of the initial trial so clearly weren't taken without question or even weighed up as worthy context.

To be suspicious that the murder may not have been self-defence is valid - none of us can know for sure.

To assume claims of abuse are fabricated despite several confirmations is another thing, to assume that a bias towards believing all victims without question exists is also another again.

It certainly won't open up every death in the history of the state to a murder charge. But unfortunately every coroners report isn't as highly detailed/well investigated. In my father's case, the coroner rang to tell me they would be issuing a death certificate which didn't take into account the fact that the hospital had an internal investigation ongoing into the circumstances of his death (because the hospital didn't tell them). Only the fact that I pushed them to contact the hospital - and reviewed the information (including my father's postmortem report, which I really didn't want to have to read), meant that it went to an inquest at all. Cause of death would have been very different had I not.

It doesn't surprise me at all the post mortem in this case was a bit lax if the hospital thought they knew what had happened (doesn't make me think it was murder, mind you).

Give us the gist of the story?

You are reading different independent facts and information than I am.

“What the evidence paints is someone who is not a very pleasant individual, classic coercive control traits along with undoubted bouts of anger and violence.”

You've just described Molly.

If Jason was so controlling as you make out, why the fck was he planning to leave Molly? Most abusers I’ve read about like to stay with their victims so that they can continue to abuse them- Jason must have been the exception so.

Unfortunately the narrative of the trial no less the narrative starting to emerge on here is Jason bad Molly good. You couldn’t make it up .

I wonder to what degree would ALL of this so called “evidence” be permitted if this was a jury trial as opposed to a sentencing hearing.

Yes I know the Supreme Court is allowing certain evidence to be submitted but as a result, the prosecution need to get their finger out and adapt and treat this like a brand new trial- doesn’t look like they’re doing that - they’re using old arguments against new information- not good enough

Yep.. and now some folks ready to swallow anything two killers will say to try minimise the barbarity of what happened.

you dont seem to know much