The trial of Molly Martens

This has been explained to you over and over again. Unfortunately spouses killing their partners in bad relationships is not unusual. Hate, rage, jealousy are enough. Stop pretending this is an unheard of situation. I don't believe you are that naive. There are also a lot of fathers out there who would take the rap for their children.

If there were emails and phone calls communicating he was immediately returning home why did Tracy not testify to that in court? Instead of admitting there was no plans made to come home.

That is pretty overwhelming evidence that would support premeditation. Don't you agree?

Again this is what she said testified to under oath.

Outside the presence of the jury, Lynch testified that Jason had expressed to her he wanted to go back to Ireland.

Ms Lynch added: “He had good friends there (in Ireland) and appreciated them. He planned to go back there before Jack started secondary school.”

But David Freedman, Martens’ attorney, got her to acknowledge on cross-examination that Jason had not made any plane reservations or made any other arrangements to return to Ireland on a permanent basis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The suitcases one would assume were taken, as were a lot of other personal items, by the Martens family.

Who the mystery suitcase was taken by is moot, how did she know there was a mystery suitcase sitting in the hall and removed before the police arrived when she was 3 and a half thousand miles away?

You tell me why he got so involved?

bear in mind Tom and Molly had next to injuries at all. So, why would he be so so violent in his response?

One would expect that kind of reaction if your daughter was clearly in a bad way. She had no injuries at all.

The situation was set up by Molly, and Tom (who hated Jason), which would make it a lot easier to be violent against Jason, was very much part of it. Part of wanting Jason dead.

Tom admitted to beating and beating him. Yet Molly was un-injured. There’s your hate… he saw his chance, and he took it on a man he hated, and on a man that was not physically hurting his (unmarked) daughter.

ffs, they waited quite a time to even call an ambulance. That was done for two reasons: a hatred and lack of remorse, and to concoct lies to explain their killing.

not my issue you’re too gullible to not see this.

"District Attorney (DA) Garry Frank said the prosecution team in the Corbett trial debated charging Molly Martens Corbett and her father Thomas Martens with first-degree murder.

The prosecution, however, feared despite having probable cause, they would not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt Martens Corbett has planned to murder her husband with the cement brick.

Her decision to not give testimony in her defence meant the prosecution could not question her in front of the jury about the brick and the alleged altercation."

Also interesting,

“I cannot remember if he said something, or just hit Jason to get him off me. Jason grabbed the bat from him and I tried to hit him with a brick... I had on my night stand. I do not remember clearly after that,” she wrote.

The statement was taken on the day of the murder, on August 2nd 2015. It was entering into evidence and seen by the court, but Martens Corbett choose to not testify in front of the court in the trial.

District Attorney Garry Frank said the cement brick was the “smoking gun” in the prosecution’s consideration over potentially taking a first-degree murder charge for the killing of Mr Corbett by his wife and father-in-law.

The North Carolina Davidson county DA said the cement brick kept on the nightstand “strongly” suggested the murder was intended and premeditated.

Poor Molly couldn't keep her lies straight.

Again, this has been covered on thread several times.

One of the main reasons the Supreme Court held up the quashed conviction was that the simple explanation for the brick being in the room was erroneously with held in the first trial.

The Jury foreman also testified it was one of the main reasons they voted to convict her.

Oh the 'art project'. I wondered before how the kids corroborated this since?

And you did. It’s like debating an AI with you..

so if you can’t give your own view (and keep posting tiresome judge and court views), what’s the point of it all?

it’s simple: you keep posting/projecting anything that favours Molly. Absolute everything that is presented to you that shows Molly unfavourably is met with court postings to try quash these criticisms.

Look Boggles it’s obvious that, for whatever reason, you’ve chosen to believe two people who are proven liars. I can see from your replies to my own and others posts there’s no point arguing.

Anyone with half a brain can see what happened here and who is responsible.

because he was asleep having taken sleeping pills.

Again.

The Prosecution in the first trial admitted that the minute traces of Trazodone found in his system would have absolutely no effect on him.

I agree that the brick thing is weak in terms of premeditation, but she hit him with it before the father entered the scene, in her own words

Could I get a link to these words please?

Since the thread has basically descended into a platform to discuss me personally and not the topic I'll bow out.

I never liked seeing anyone infracted or banned anyway, I think it has pretty much run it course TBH.

👍️