Can I just state something that I think has been lost here. Jason is dead. That fact is indisputable. Two people have admitted to causing his death. That fact is indisputable. Jason's death was especially 'heinous and cruel', there is evidently major overkill involved in this crime.
Jason did not need to be an angel to not deserve to die such an atrocious death. Molly does not need to be a monster in order that she be held accountable for her role in this 'heinous' death. Thomas Martens does not need to be a horrible person in order for him to be held accountable for his role in this 'cruel' end to his son-in-laws life. Jason is dead. He died a 'cruel & heinous' death, there was major overkill. THAT is why two people are on trial for Murder 2. THAT is why two people are on trial for voluntary manslaughter. When you commit a crime so aggressive, and so violent, you need to be held accountable for those actions.
All of the rhetoric regarding whether Molly was mother and wife of the year or bi-polar and crippled with serious drug addictions is surplus to these basic facts. Whether Jason was a gentle giant still in love with his anam cara, or someone so unhappy with his current life he had become something darker does not take away from the fact that the accusations levelled at him have been overwhelmingly quashed by the violence of his death on August 2nd 2015.
If the defense cannot present a solid case to defend their client and ensure that there is at least reasonable doubt that their client's version of events are real and true, without inhibiting the prosecutions case, then my argument would be how credible can their case really be?