The trial of Molly Martens

So wondering whether or not he was a jerk is important here?

Nobody is claiming him to have been a saint..

They absolutely murdered him, barbarically!!!

She is a fooking monster. Did you hear what happened to him? What she and her father did to him?

we won’t learn anything in the coming weeks, because he’s dead. All you’ll “learn” is likely fabricated lies by her and her defence team

One is reality. One is fairytales.

Not hard to figure out.

Goes to show the importance of dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Our stretched health services dealing with a serious asthma attack, something that was deemed a tragedy and non suspicious is picked apart and questioned in a court room thousands of miles away.

Back to the core, Jason Corbett was battered to death, Molly and her father didn't have a mark on them. Fairly simple.

Must be great to be so black and white about life, no one knows full story, why you so invested in one side?

What evidence?

She was a young, attractive woman. She would catch the attention of most red blooded males. Looks (clearly) aren't everything but it would seem that she was manipulative too.

There was no credible evidence other than fabricated defence lies by two killers.

some a the guff people are entertaining here is sickening. Trying to see reasons and empathy with these two scumbags based off talk of whether or not Mr. Corbett was a saint..

the man is dead, and the two killers have nothing to lose with trying to make folks believe that he somehow deserved to die..

Yeah I mean it was just left out there- I find it extraordinary that they didn’t close that down better - if the judge gives this any credence at all in his sentencing then something stinks with this case- we’ll just have to wait and see.

The "clown" was a prosecution witness. Why would the prosecution employ a witness to "throw **** at the wall". Now the emotive reaction here to this testimony is based purely on the headlines on it which say things like "Court told first wife did not die from asthma attack". Which is not what the court was told at all but people feel the need to react wildly to it becasue the headline does not align with the narrative that they have become heavily invested in.

What the testimony actually said was based on the two page post mortem report the US pathologist could not conclude that it was asthma not that it definitely wasn't asthma. He said based on his reading of the report that "We have nothing to indicate the cause of death of this woman."

Now the Irish coroner when completing the report would have had knowledge of the circumstances of death, probably that there were witnesses and access to medical history so based on there being no evidence to suggest it was anything else would have concluded that it was asthma. But as this "supplementary evidence" was never presented in coroners court it would not have been in the report, therefore the us pathologist would not have access. That is why he did not have enough evidence to conclude on cause of death.