The trial of Molly Martens

Have not followed this case closely... but where the Marten's not convicted of Murdering Jason Corbett a couple of years ago.... how come they got a re-trial and managed to commute the charge down to manslaughter?

Was there compelling new evidence?

Interesting, first I heard of her having Mononucleosis which was why she supposedly had to leave University

FFS Tom take a break, go put your shirt & tie on.

Absolutely.. and we had folks here labeling him an abuser and an obnoxious creep based off her devious lies and manipulation.

No doubt he’ll try explain and justify this. Anything to make her out to be right and proper. Very odd. The poster has no balance. Not an iota of “sincere” criticism for the two killers..

What a dumb question. No, I am not. And does one have to be related to them to think that the two scumbags who murdered him “being excused/defended” is wrong wrong wrong?

that’s your second one sentence dumb question to me. Yesterday it was asking if he was an “abuser” would I think the same of the killers..

my turn at a dumb question: are you related to the Martens?

But why is it that you defend and excuse and justify glaring negative points brought up about Martens?

What is that about? You keep harping back to the "law." Have you, as a person any actual opinions on Molly as a person from all that has been relayed....

Example: the many lies she told........would you label her a liar based off this, or would you again use the "legal" side (whereby the forensic psychiatrist) prefers not to label people liars....?

You also keep ignoring the custody points by going back to the legal entitlement aspect....you won't even consider that Martens could have planned to kill Jason (gotten away with it) and then this allows her custody...but to you, to even admit this means you would be criticizing Molly.

The recordings in the house..nothing at all to say he was an abuser....and you won't even concede to this.....unreal....to any normal/rational person it's so clear what Martens was trying to do....but you won't entertain it at all...

There are other posters who have some balance, and not all pushing too hard for one side; but your postings are on a different level...you have next to no time for any postings that paints Martens negatively....that is just beyond odd....

No, they haven't. They thought it was pre-meditated before the original trial but opted for muder in second degree to secure a conviction. They used a plea deal here because they assessed that the new 'evidence' could muddy the waters enough to give a reasonable doubt to some jurors and they'd be acquitted. Given the reaction of some posters here to the nonsense that he killed his first wife I think their assessment was correct. At least under this plea deal they are convicted felons which will be a problem for Molly at 40 years of age. Additionally a wrongful death case brought by Jason's children is going to be only a matter of how much now and will likely bankrupt them.

No, they haven't

They have

"Defendant agrees to tender a plea of no contest to Voluntary Manslaughter, a Class D felony, on the theory of imperfect self-defence or defence of another.

"Upon the Defendant's plea, the State concedes the Defendant actually believed that defensive force was necessary but contends that at some point during the encounter that belief became unreasonable, and the amount of force employed was excessive.

"For the purpose of this plea and sentencing, the state does not embrace any other legal theory, including any theory that includes premeditation or malice as an element of the offense.

Additionally a wrongful death case brought by Jason's children is going to be only a matter of how much now and will likely bankrupt them.

Brought and settled over 4 years ago.

1st degree can be almost impossible to prove it a huge risk if only going with that charge - you can see from this thread alone how much mischief a defence attorney could make had the trial gone again with the previous charge of even 2nd degree.

Having seen summaries of the defence statements throughout this hearing, I’m not one bit persuaded that they shouldn’t serve any more time - given the charge now, and the fact that I believe 9 years is the higher area of sentencing for such a case, 7.5 years might have been appropriate given guilty pleas, previous lack of criminal record etc

Im predicting a sentence if about 5.5 though with no more time to be served - o just think that’s getting off way to lightly

I'm still wondering how a consistent domestic abuser who was so foul they forced his new wife into murdering him for peace.'murdered' his previous wife, is entirely absent from any form of evidence of said abuse over months of secret device recordings except for a small snippet of an argument.

I mean you put such significance in it several times surely you'd expect there to be far more actual evidence since he was so foul and dastardly to this poor poor lady.

Consistently indicating they were both at it and there was a toxic relationship... yet no hours of recordings.... where? Why ?

It couldn't possibly be that it's entirely made up could it ?

The official number is not known due to how badly beaten he was.

Don't expect an answer just a glib passive aggressive mumbling about the state.

I don't think I've ever seen a case built on such a tissue of lies.

There's literally nothing there to suggest this was self-defence. She or her father didn't have a mark on them. They caved this poor man's head in with a paving slab.

She is an inveterate pathological liar, lying about being editor of a Limerick publication, lying about being on a prestigious University swim team, lying to a Bible group about giving birth to his kids, lying about meeting his first wife, lying about having a baby sister who died of cancer.

Her father has also plainly lied about talking to Mr. Corbett's first wife's father and being told stuff about his first wife's death. A complete fairytale.

When this mendacity is put to one of the defence experts, a psychiatrist iirc, they laughably euphemised such lying as "future-pacing", so these fellas are clearly bought and sold also.

Why aren't the people in the thread who sympathise with Martens addressing this mountain of lies.

They make OJ look believable.

With the introduction through pure sophistry of the possibility that Jason’s first wife was murdered by him, I actually don’t care what the defence are saying - they went too far with that allegation- it’s obvious that it’s a pile of sh1te and I’m simply placing everything else they say into the “pile of sh1te” bucket also.

When you go too far with trying to stretch my imagination in order to open the door of doubt, you lose all credibility with me so even the things you’re saying which may be true or at least far more believable, get placed in that same bucket.

Molly and Tom are liars - for me the closest there is to the truth about what happened on the night lies in the forensic evidence. Anything after that is she said/ he didn’t because he’s dead.