The trial of Molly Martens

Yes, of course. So as I said, a scheming defence to try limit the amount a time these two scumbags face behind bars. Any decent person with half a brain would throw it out.

This opens up every death in the history of the state to a murder charge

I don’t think you’ve been following this current hearing very closely walshb.

You need to keep up.

The defense didn’t call this expert witness. The prosecution did.

It’s one of the most spectacular incidents of a legal teams plan backfiring on them that I can remember.

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

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

That latest evidence from friends and neighbours as outlined by Sean Whelan on RTE News portrays the deceased in a very bad light - sounds like he was a controlling bully, constantly screaming at her and even manhandling her at social events in front of friends and accusing her of all sorts.

That does not mean he deserved to die of course or get the pair off the hook for killing / murdering him, but it does sound like Corbett was an obnoxious creep.

You keep saying this, and then saying “but he didn’t deserve to die.” He’s dead and cannot defend himself against the gossiping tales of his killer’s friends..

You end you post with quite a disparaging remark about a man that was battered to death..

I don’t think you care too much here. Several posts now where you’re justifying this, but saying you’re not by saying “but he didn’t deserve to die.”

Your posts /analysis here are very coldly dismissive I think.

Keep posting that - it’s all that really matters. Even if there were extenuating circumstances which I doubt , it’s still above and beyond .

The chances of them subduing him if he had been in a rage were close to zero

It was a planned and done when he was sleeping

The incident where a neighbour says he yanked her away at a social event and accused her of being dressed too revealingly is a red flag for me. That's classic domestic abuser / controlling bully behaviour right there.