The trial of Molly Martens

Well, I can’t agree with anyone targeting a poster in a bullying fashion; so apologies here if you feel I may have.

separately: I really do believe you are not posting in good faith, and this is what is leading to your being “targeted.”

Some of your postings in surreptitiously defending everything that paints these killers unfavourably is actually insulting. And I’d imagine incredibly upsetting if members of the Corbett family were reading.

I think the only actual issue you have is the killers over-doing the beating. Mother a jaysus, that’s an awful view to only have.

And your defiance in disbelieving the harrowing statements from Jason’s children, while using courts this and courts that, beggars belief.

Nobody is obsessed. It's a discussions board, and if people see some postings that they believe/deem are outrageous they will respond. It's not about taking offence. Nobody needs to ignore anyone, as long as it's kept civil.

Are you going to address the version about Jason (big man) attacking Molly and him being left destroyed, and Molly and Tom with no injuries.

Bear in mind, it was allegedly Molly and Jason alone for a period before Tom got involved. How is it that in that time, Molly was injury free from her attacking husband?

....... I'd remind you that both prosecution and defence agreed that Molly Marten considered herself to be in danger. Do you accept this?........

Presuming you do, then if she considered her life to be in danger and all accept this, then does this not imply to you therefore that it's accepted that the deceased was attacking or had attacked Molly to some extent on the night in question?

If you don't accept that the both prosecution and defence agreed that Molly Marten considered herself to be in danger. Well I can't help any further, cos that's just making stuff up to suit a narrative.

The benefit has been made abundantly clear since the beginning. Molly hated Jason and wanted the kids. And likely his money too.

Greed is a powerful motivator. To say it can’t lead to murder, especially when the person who committed the crime is known to be unstable, is just naive.

I'm answering you with a question as you haven't answered it previously. I believe it was established in this sentence hearing that the accused had marks on her neck. Now you can vacillate on how she got these, but nobody really knows. As it stands, that is an indication that she considered her life to be in danger. Maybe she attacked him first as you suggest and he turned on her, for her father to enter the room. Who knows?

Its really not that complicated.

Clearly they were arrogant enough to think they could fool the police, the courts and child protective services.

Molly is an accomplished liar and I believe she really thought she could fool everyone into believing Jason was abusive and that she was a good mother.

I'm sure this has already been answered in this thread but does anyone know why the Prosecution didn't get Corbett's former wife's sister over to testify? She could have easily contradicted all the BS strangulation "experts" since she was in the house the night that her sister died and witnessed her trying and failing to use inhalers to stymy the asthma attack that killed her.

I mean if that's the case then I wonder could the prosecution get a re-re-trial "in light of new evidence"

Some a the posting here would have seen Puska get acquitted....that is the level of naivety and silliness here. People needing a full honest confession and detailed video evidence before they see what everyone else sees

What's ludicrous is that someone who clearly has very little knowledge of the actual facts surrounding the case is so confident that the Martens story is true, for no other reason than 'i can't believe that two people would do that'

You're actually a great example of why prosecutors can be reluctant to go to trial, some people just won't be swayed from their own emotively driven thinking no matter what evidence they're presented with.

Why do you think Sharon Martens stayed in bed, or did you even know that?

You say 'the marks on her neck that were self-inflicted and superficial'.. How do you know? Were you there, did you see them or her self inflicting these marks??

No I'm a good example of someone who keeps an open mind on things. There are others here characteristic of many boards threads, that like to jump on a bandwagon and join the lynching posse.

There is no doubt but that the deceased was badly beaten to death by possibly Molly but certainly her father. What is at doubt is how the situation developed. I simply find it hard to swallow the 'pure evil' narrative. And suspect it was a lot more nuanced that that - good and bad on both sides of that marriage. That things got out of hand.

If you and others are happy in the lynch mob, I'll leave you to it. :)

You do realise criminals do $hit all the time that to normal law abiding minds would be absolute madness yeah?

Like that's essentially the difference between the two. I could use your logic for every murderer and be like nobody is ever guilty because "shur begorraah who'd be mad enough to do that'.

Yeah posted that earlier - between that and the defence lawyers saying how painful and upsetting it was for Molly to have to sit through the victim impact statements, you can tell just how little level of remorse there is in that family and their hangers on

A glimpse into the mindset that prevailed within the family and their attitude to Jason