The trial of Molly Martens

have you figured out how court cases go, prosecution makes a defendant look bad, defense makes defendant good

The defense will try and do anything to win, including calling witnesses who will make misleading statements even false ones, the prosecution has a vested interest in not doing this, the defense does not

all you did was jump all over what the defense said, no thought for context

nothing martens says can be taken at face value because she has been proven to be a liar

she accidentally left phones on so people could hear arguments, had been recording for months, had feck all from that, destroyed the other evidences and recordings

had motive

made sure he was dead using a block/paving slab

tried to keep the kids in the states after the fact, like madness

A possibility of about 1 percent is all this is.

Nowhere near a real possibility for any half-educated person to realize that the defence are utterly desperate.

She murdered him not because he was abusive, and not because she was defending her life. And no minuscule amount of “possibility” changes that. And nor will the judge’s judgement change that.

Can you point to evidence physical , witness or otherwise that would warrant the reasonable opinion.

I've yet to see you provide any based on what we've all read from the trial so far.

A judge would take the recorded testimony(s) of a defendant and then compare that to corroborating evidence.

Listen I feeling you are just going to blindly dismiss whatever I tell you, so Séan Whelan who has been excellent throughout this, u have a pretty decent summarisation of the hearing so far.

That was filed Sunday, the only real thing we have learned since then is the Prosecution cannot find one doctor in America who will state his first wife died from an Asthma attack.

I asked you a very specific question.

What evidence of domestic abuse physical, witness statements or otherwise did you find that would make your assertion that domestic abuse was occurring as you put it a valid viewpoint.

Be specific, don't link articles that don't provide me with your opinion.

I gave you mine.

My opinion is you have no physical evidence and are relying on a couple of seconds of raised voices.

So , over to you

So you didn't read it?

The article broadly aligns with my opinion, in respect to the audio recording.

But on Thursday the court heard a secret recording, made by Molly Martens Corbett in the kitchen dining area of the family home on Shrove Tuesday 2015, six months before Mr Corbett’s killing.

For the first time the court heard the voice of the victim and his wife.

And his two children, 10-year-old Jack and eight-year-old Sarah.

Arguing, bickering, occasionally shouting - all four of them were involved.

There was no cursing, no violence; it was not a particularly out-of-the-ordinary family dispute.

But it was strong corroborating evidence for a lot of other evidence and statements heard by the court.

The other evidence and statements he talked about is contained within, but to summarise.

The Children's Interviews

The emergency code words.

5 Neighbours testimony.

Doctors

Social Worker testimony.

It's all in the article.

Séan has been there for every second of the hearing.

Corroborated what? Her tales/lies to pals?The tape was a nothing. There is no reasonable/clear evidence to suggest Jason was an abusive husband.

Reciprocated what ?

You've presented nothing substantial.

I've stated the American judicial system is a joke. There's ample history of same.

I firmly believe this 'trial' is predetermined.

You'll pretend you won something. For what end sure who knows only you.

A father was stolen from his children by a manipulative narcissist who will probably go off to ruin someone else's life in future.

That's a no then.

I still will.

Hold your hands up to what? The judge isn't giving some exact and definitive real answer as regards whether or not Jason was an "abusive" husband.......society cannot even agree fully on what abuse actually is. It's a very diluted/subjective discussion

Really. so what is it, and specifically, what is it that Jason did (according to a liar's tales)

The tape.....some raised voices.....is that the silver bullet?

It's like you want it to be true so much and are clinging to Molly's tales/lies to make it true.....

It's very far from being proved to be true, though. Most people know this, think this

Are the children to this day maintaining that their father was an abusive husband (wife beater)?

Both interviews were recanted by the children almost immediately after they returned to Limerick. 

interviews given when in sole custody of Molly.

serious clutching from you, Boggles. No idea why you keep wanting to push this “he was an abuser” agenda. Or at the very least, you want to give Molly's claims real credence

Like I said, what he said on the stand is disgusting.

The irony is, the Supreme Court over turned the previous conviction to allow the defence to spew this type of bolloxology

So why were the statements recanted? Are the children maintaining to this day that their father was a wife beater abusive husband? Yes or no? If children are to be so believed, as you’re trying to suggest (with the judge), are you saying the children today are to be believed?

again, it’s clear to any half-educated person that they were absolutely coached by Molly, and today we know the truth as regards Jason’s children’s views