GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #4

[stmarysmead]

Other than what is said in the search warrants I have seen no further info in respect of what the plans were for the Saturday. Just that they changed plans and that 'according to information received this behavior would be considered unusual for Mr Martens'.

Just out of curiosity I had a look for the search warrant in respect of the phones; they looked for records of mobile phones only.

All IMO

A mobile phone record shows who owns it...not who uses it.

 

[Electric Sheep]

I disagree. These questions only apply because ONLY Molly is equating her situation in that home to a dangerous one.

Therefore there is one glaring difference: it is MM who is claiming frequent ongoing physical abuse. That is supposed to be her excuse for her state of mind. Those questions go to her ability and knowledge of the resources available to her. They go to all the ma y alternatives to murder if her story of abuse was true.

It is also MM's father who claimed his mental state was due in part to believing that Jason may have murdered his first wife. That means there should have been a real...urgency ...to Mollys actions if physical danger was lurking in that house to such an extent that her only option was to beat her husband to death. There is no evidence of urgency. The questions prove that.

The questions however do not apply to Jason because the Lynch family has indicated he was making careful, methodical plans to leave MM. He had visited Ireland without her....but with the children. He had moved a large sum of money. He was going home, with the children, but without her. He was emotionally exhausted as Keith Maginn was...but he never claimed he felt he was in physical danger.

He wasn't looking for domestic abuse shelters.

Though, sadly, he might be alive today if he had.

The Lynch family indicating these things won't hold up unless there is evidence to back up those claims in court. Just as Molly's claims of being a victim of domestic abuse won't hold up without some sort of evidence.

It's going to be an interesting trial, I guess. I am expecting that we will get a few curve balls from both sides.

 

[emmalpage81]

A mobile phone record shows who owns it...not who uses it.

A mobile phone record shows what calls and texts are made; not who made them. It is for the jury to make a decision on who they believe made them based on the contents of said messages etc - and would only arise if MM or TM disputed who made the call. I am much more interested in the timing of the call. I still think if MM says she rang as JC was acting abusive the question remains why not call somebody nearer, why get your parents to drive 4.5 hours to diffuse the situation.

All IMO

 

[stmarysmead]

A mobile phone record shows what calls and texts are made; not who made them. It is for the jury to make a decision on who they believe made them based on the contents of said messages etc - and would only arise if MM or TM disputed who made the call. I am much more interested in the timing of the call. I still think if MM says she rang as JC was acting abusive the question remains why not call somebody nearer, why get your parents to drive 4.5 hours to diffuse the situation.

All IMO

Good point! I wonder if it was a text.

 

[stmarysmead]

The Lynch family indicating these things won't hold up unless there is evidence to back up those claims in court. Just as Molly's claims of being a victim of domestic abuse won't hold up without some sort of evidence.

It's going to be an interesting trial, I guess. I am expecting that we will get a few curve balls from both sides.

I agree that there will probably be some curve balls. It's strange to me that the Defense put the "Wedding Warning" Hoax into the public domain before the trial...if they really believed the assertion. Unless it was about contaminating the jury pool...which might be an indicator that the Defense perceives all too well the weakness of their case.

There is no question here who killed Jason. That's settled fact. The Defense needs to explain why. But more than that, they need to explain the sustained brutality indicated by the autopsy.That will be a real hurdle IMO.

 

[Electric Sheep]

I agree that there will probably be some curve balls. It's strange to me that the Defense put the "Wedding Warning" Hoax into the public domain before the trial...if they really believed the assertion. Unless it was about contaminating the jury pool...which might be an indicator that the Defense perceives all too well the weakness of their case.

There is no question here who killed Jason. That's settled fact. The Defense needs to explain why. But more than that, they need to explain the sustained brutality indicated by the autopsy.That will be a real hurdle IMO.

Yes, it will. There is no doubt about who did it, and I would imagine it will be quite difficult to come up with an explanation that passes the "reasonable doubt" test. But you never know what evidence will be presented at trial, and how it will be interpreted by a jury. Casey Anthony is walking around free.

 

[stmarysmead]

Yes, it will. There is no doubt about who did it, and I would imagine it will be quite difficult to come up with an explanation that passes the "reasonable doubt" test. But you never know what evidence will be presented at trial, and how it will be interpreted by a jury. Casey Anthony is walking around free.

Amen to that.

 

[emmalpage81]

Just going through the search warrants (been a very long time since i last looked at them); can anyone recall if anything found during the search of the golf club locker was published. They seemed to be looking for things that I wouldn't expect to find in the locker room of a clubhouse. I can only assume that they undertook this search on the basis of something said by a friend / family member of JC.

All IMO

 

[searchinGirl]

It will be interesting to see if at the trial the prosecution takes the position that Jason was the victim of ongoing domestic abuse. If he does, the jury will wonder exactly the same things that you mention above, but about Jason. They will ask "why didn't he leave"?

He held the financial power - he was the one with the job and the money in the bank.
He held the physical power - he was much stronger and larger than Molly.
He held the ultimate power - the kids were his, he could leave with them at any time and return to Ireland.
He had the power of family support, family who would be willing to do whatever was needed to help the kids settle back.

We know that Jason's family claim that he WAS going to leave, and we know that the most danger to the victim of domestic abuse is when they try to leave. But I don't think that a jury will be swayed by hearsay evidence of this from Jason's family. So if the prosecution takes this tack, they will almost certainly have evidence that Jason was planning to leave. One way plane tickets, emails to family, arrangements made at his employment for a transfer back to Ireland, consultation with a divorce lawyer. With that, they have a very compelling case against Molly as far as motive is concerned. Without that, the jury may say exactly what you are saying about Molly, but about Jason.

Boom! You got it. Molly didn't have the power to force Jason to do anything against his will; a concept inherent in proving abuse. Thanks for the fair post.

 

[searchinGirl]

Just going back to something that peregrino raised a few pages back regarding the brick/stone. I note the ME's report lists it as being a 'landscaping stone'. However, looking back through old articles it is variously called a landscaping stone, landscaping brick, concrete brick and paving slab. I cannot see any reason to have a brick or paving slab just lying about in a bedroom. Given images showing an upscale and well kept house I doubt they felt the need to use a brick as a door stop... I for one am quite intrigued as to what this item actual is.

All IMO

Around North Carolina (and maybe elsewhere IDK) there are "paver programs" that are fund-raising efforts. In these programs people donate money for their name, or a name in memoriam, to be inscribed in the brick and then built into something like a roundabout or a walkway. Could have been something like this for which a sample was brought home.

 

[Hotchips]

The Lynch family indicating these things won't hold up unless there is evidence to back up those claims in court. Just as Molly's claims of being a victim of domestic abuse won't hold up without some sort of evidence.

It's going to be an interesting trial, I guess. I am expecting that we will get a few curve balls from both sides.

http://www.journalnow.com/news/loca...cle_3a84b369-6e32-5091-91d2-f9c3230ac4ff.html

Agreed, hearsay won't hold up, it may indicate what he had been considering doing but if he didn't actually do them, claims won't hold much weight. . The attached link goes back to the search warrants and gives us an insight on how the defence intend proceeding. Imo the defence intend interpreting whatever info was gained from the search warrants to make a case that Jason wasn't planning on leaving molly at all or moving to ireland if nothing referring to this showed up and no money was moved. Doesnt mean he wasn't intending to do this but it will be harder to prove he was if they present evidence of upcoming holidays in the US and no money transfers made by any party in that particular time period. However the prosecution also has access to this info so they have to do their best to refute it. As we all know there is no question they were both involved in his murder however evidence uncovered at trial will impact on the severity or leniency of their sentencing. I do believe there is a lot to come yet from both sides on this.

 

[bernie millar]

I think much of what has been reported in the media so far isn't a fair and accurate portrayal of what transpired in the Corbett household, be it in Ireland or North Carolina. I'm hoping the trial brings some of the truth to light.

It's my understanding that the interviews conducted at Dragonfly were on behalf of the children themselves as victims of DV in protection of their rights. They contain information not just helpful to Molly's defense, but potentially exculpatory. That's a big deal in terms of the right to a fair trial. Precautions were taken to ensure that the truth was being told by the same detective who then declared the children were coached when he didn't hear what he wanted to hear. Easy to say they were coached but then not act on it. A detective trying to make a case instead of investigating a crime. A detective whose colleague was abusing system privileges to embezzle money (previously linked). It's tainted. IMO It's extremely disappointing that law enforcement would further victimize anyone.

Preparing a child for testimonial interviews is not the same as coaching them about what to say. I hope these children eventually get over the idea that their life in NC was all about murder. I mean, Molly stepped forward to be their Mother when no one else did. (Not that anyone else wouldn't, just didn't). And, she was obviously loved by Jack and Sarah, so to convince them now that wasn't real is not morally right and not credible IMO. I don't think the Jury will buy it. It appears Molly devoted her life to giving those children a happy, healthy family life in North Carolina until the domestic violence crept in. IMO She assumed a rather pitiful thankless role in life. Molly had no power over Jason as in money or children, so it's hard to see her as the primary abuser when she had nothing to hold over his head with which to emotionally extort him (except maybe sex). But, all Jason needed to do to win the fight was intimidate her with his size. Not such a fair fight really. IMO. I see her as more vulnerable than he was. And it surprises me that people that love him want to paint him as the only victim of domestic violence in this situation, as if any man would really appreciate being portrayed to his children and the world by his own family. Sorry if anyone is offended by what I'm saying but I don't think anyone has a right to not be offended.

Trial By Social Media wherein justice is weighed by click-bait is fake news. IMO... It has no evidentiary value and I'm doubtful it will be introduced at the trial. It's so hard to know what to believe in the news anymore. Everyone seems to have their own agenda and wants you to believe what they say rather than letting you decide for yourself. I mean, constantly trying to convince you of something being true instead of telling you something because it's the truth and backing it up with facts. It's never ending. Fake news goes on forever. And it will surely be here to read when Jack and Sarah grow up. It's a shame. IMO

i have to disagree to some of what you say interview at dragonfly was conducted after detective briggs was informed the children had a secret phone he would need to establish who gave them the phone was it mm to ring her parents should anything happen to her at the hands of jc ? was it jc who gave them the phone in the event mm had explosive episode while he was at work or away on business ? or did tm/sh give it to them in the event mm had an episode so they could get to her no need to ring emergency services? what brought him to conclude coaching was the fact he was informed sm was insistent jc was interviewed first there is nothing to say it was because of the childrens statement ,also thinking of the therapist was it a referred by social services, mm, or were the children seen by a doctor who referred them ?you say mm had nothing to hold over jc head as abuser keith maginn book revels mm spoke a lot of suicide did mm threaten jc if he left her she would commit suicide she was hard work according to keith maginn even a compliment could turn in to a row could it be that jc was wore down by her but was afraid to leave incase she done something to herself ?still cant understand how mm attorneys knew what was said at dragon fly before they put in a motion would it be a case they were given they kids statement and was the notes and findings they wanted?

 

[searchinGirl]

i have to disagree to some of what you say interview at dragonfly was conducted after detective briggs was informed the children had a secret phone he would need to establish who gave them the phone was it mm to ring her parents should anything happen to her at the hands of jc ? was it jc who gave them the phone in the event mm had explosive episode while he was at work or away on business ? or did tm/sh give it to them in the event mm had an episode so they could get to her no need to ring emergency services? what brought him to conclude coaching was the fact he was informed sm was insistent jc was interviewed first there is nothing to say it was because of the childrens statement ,also thinking of the therapist was it a referred by social services, mm, or were the children seen by a doctor who referred them ?you say mm had nothing to hold over jc head as abuser keith maginn book revels mm spoke a lot of suicide did mm threaten jc if he left her she would commit suicide she was hard work according to keith maginn even a compliment could turn in to a row could it be that jc was wore down by her but was afraid to leave incase she done something to herself ?still cant understand how mm attorneys knew what was said at dragon fly before they put in a motion would it be a case they were given they kids statement and was the notes and findings they wanted?

According to this link,

http://www.irishexaminer.com/irelan...betts-children-must-release-notes-425441.html

"Mr Corbett’s two children from a previous marriage were seen by a specialist paediatrician in the days following his death.
Now Dr Evelyn Amy Suttle of Dragonfly House, North Carolina, has been instructed to produce all “medical records, reports, notes, forms, or other documents generated” relating to the medical examinations of Jack and Sarah Corbett during their time at the children’s advocacy centre.
Court documents released last week have revealed the Superior Court of Davidson County in North Carolina last week ruled Ms Martens’ right to a fair trial “outweighs any confidentiality statutes or other confidential protections shielding the requested documents from production and the interests of justice require the materials be produced”."
The Lawyers knew what was in the file because it was part of the discovery materials provided to them. IMO The original motion was to have the Court waive any confidentiality issues. Since it's been challenged by the prosecution, I believe the new additional argument for the defense is a hearsay exception rule that doesn't consider hearsay any information that can be obtained in pursuit of a medical diagnosis. Interesting. It's the language in the order here makes me think the information in these interviews is considered exculpatory, like "interests of justice require".
I completely agree with you that threatening suicide to another is abusive behavior. But, it doesn't command the kind of power to coerce another in control of his behavior. And I mean, in this case, if Molly threatened suicide that night did he offer to help her with that?

 

[stmarysmead]

I think much of what has been reported in the media so far isn't a fair and accurate portrayal of what transpired in the Corbett household, be it in Ireland or North Carolina. I'm hoping the trial brings some of the truth to light.

It's my understanding that the interviews conducted at Dragonfly were on behalf of the children themselves as victims of DV in protection of their rights. They contain information not just helpful to Molly's defense, but potentially exculpatory. That's a big deal in terms of the right to a fair trial. Precautions were taken to ensure that the truth was being told by the same detective who then declared the children were coached when he didn't hear what he wanted to hear. Easy to say they were coached but then not act on it. A detective trying to make a case instead of investigating a crime. A detective whose colleague was abusing system privileges to embezzle money (previously linked). It's tainted. IMO It's extremely disappointing that law enforcement would further victimize anyone.

Preparing a child for testimonial interviews is not the same as coaching them about what to say. I hope these children eventually get over the idea that their life in NC was all about murder. I mean, Molly stepped forward to be their Mother when no one else did. (Not that anyone else wouldn't, just didn't). And, she was obviously loved by Jack and Sarah, so to convince them now that wasn't real is not morally right and not credible IMO. I don't think the Jury will buy it. It appears Molly devoted her life to giving those children a happy, healthy family life in North Carolina until the domestic violence crept in. IMO She assumed a rather pitiful thankless role in life. Molly had no power over Jason as in money or children, so it's hard to see her as the primary abuser when she had nothing to hold over his head with which to emotionally extort him (except maybe sex). But, all Jason needed to do to win the fight was intimidate her with his size. Not such a fair fight really. IMO. I see her as more vulnerable than he was. And it surprises me that people that love him want to paint him as the only victim of domestic violence in this situation, as if any man would really appreciate being portrayed to his children and the world by his own family. Sorry if anyone is offended by what I'm saying but I don't think anyone has a right to not be offended.

Trial By Social Media wherein justice is weighed by click-bait is fake news. IMO... It has no evidentiary value and I'm doubtful it will be introduced at the trial. It's so hard to know what to believe in the news anymore. Everyone seems to have their own agenda and wants you to believe what they say rather than letting you decide for yourself. I mean, constantly trying to convince you of something being true instead of telling you something because it's the truth and backing it up with facts. It's never ending. Fake news goes on forever. And it will surely be here to read when Jack and Sarah grow up. It's a shame. IMO

When Jack and Sarah grow up, they can read the Maginn account of his heinous life with Molly. That's not "fake news."

They can read their Father's autopsy report. That's not "fake news."

They can read newspaper accounts of the Father of their Stepmother (who admits killing their Father) ...trying to smear Jason's memory by lying about "Murder accusations" from their real grandfather. That is "fake news" but it's coming straight from the Martens attorney and Molly's father..

And here is the kicker. The children knew and loved Mags father. They will know what he felt for their Dad. They will also know how their maternal grandmother suffered from this lie. Nothing speaks to the "character" of the Martens family more than the Martens horrific attempt to use Mags deceased Dad to escape their punishment for murdering Jason.

We don't know these people, yet this lie seems outrageous to many of us. How will it seem to the children who will remember their beloved Grandmother's outrage and despair?

What will the children think of this when they can read and digest ALL this information for themselves?

No matter what happens in the courtroom...this will be "justice for Jason."

 

[Columbo16]

According to this link,

http://www.irishexaminer.com/irelan...betts-children-must-release-notes-425441.html

"Mr Corbett’s two children from a previous marriage were seen by a specialist paediatrician in the days following his death.
Now Dr Evelyn Amy Suttle of Dragonfly House, North Carolina, has been instructed to produce all “medical records, reports, notes, forms, or other documents generated” relating to the medical examinations of Jack and Sarah Corbett during their time at the children’s advocacy centre.
Court documents released last week have revealed the Superior Court of Davidson County in North Carolina last week ruled Ms Martens’ right to a fair trial “outweighs any confidentiality statutes or other confidential protections shielding the requested documents from production and the interests of justice require the materials be produced”."
The Lawyers knew what was in the file because it was part of the discovery materials provided to them. IMO The original motion was to have the Court waive any confidentiality issues. Since it's been challenged by the prosecution, I believe the new additional argument for the defense is a hearsay exception rule that doesn't consider hearsay any information that can be obtained in pursuit of a medical diagnosis. Interesting. It's the language in the order here makes me think the information in these interviews is considered exculpatory, like "interests of justice require".
I completely agree with you that threatening suicide to another is abusive behavior. But, it doesn't command the kind of power to coerce another in control of his behavior. And I mean, in this case, if Molly threatened suicide that night did he offer to help her with that?

No I don't believe that he did offer any help with that, what I do think that he offered was to take his children and himself out of the relationship and return to Ireland and some thing about the way he said it that day, MM knew that he meant it.IMO

 

[emmalpage81]

No I don't believe that he did offer any help with that, what I do think that he offered was to take his children and himself out of the relationship and return to Ireland and some thing about the way he said it that day, MM knew that he meant it.IMO

It makes me think of something KM said in his book - he was told by MM's therapist that she pushed people away to see if they would come back it was her way of getting them to prove they loved her (that is no way near verbatim but i think gives the jist of it); it could be that JC finally reached his limit.

IMO

 

[stmarysmead]

According to this link,

http://www.irishexaminer.com/irelan...betts-children-must-release-notes-425441.html

"Mr Corbett’s two children from a previous marriage were seen by a specialist paediatrician in the days following his death.
Now Dr Evelyn Amy Suttle of Dragonfly House, North Carolina, has been instructed to produce all “medical records, reports, notes, forms, or other documents generated” relating to the medical examinations of Jack and Sarah Corbett during their time at the children’s advocacy centre.
Court documents released last week have revealed the Superior Court of Davidson County in North Carolina last week ruled Ms Martens’ right to a fair trial “outweighs any confidentiality statutes or other confidential protections shielding the requested documents from production and the interests of justice require the materials be produced”."
The Lawyers knew what was in the file because it was part of the discovery materials provided to them. IMO The original motion was to have the Court waive any confidentiality issues. Since it's been challenged by the prosecution, I believe the new additional argument for the defense is a hearsay exception rule that doesn't consider hearsay any information that can be obtained in pursuit of a medical diagnosis. Interesting. It's the language in the order here makes me think the information in these interviews is considered exculpatory, like "interests of justice require".
I completely agree with you that threatening suicide to another is abusive behavior. But, it doesn't command the kind of power to coerce another in control of his behavior. And I mean, in this case, if Molly threatened suicide that night did he offer to help her with that?

There can exist no "exculpatory" evidence because there is no law that permits private spousal executions in NC. There is a right to self-defense. But the curious matter of the paving brick shows that this was an execution not self defense.

I hope the prosecution will ask the jury to consider carefully the two weapons in this case...a bat and a paving brick. A bat makes sense to be used by a third party in defense of someone being "choked." It can be swung to bring another person "down." It can be swung at that person's head to disorient or disable him. So the bat fits in to the story the Martens are telling.

But let's consider the paving brick. How did Jason come to have so many wounds from a paving brick?

You cannot "swing" a paving brick.

If TM was flailing away at Jason with the bat, there's no way MM could get close enough to hit JC with the paving brick. She would have been hit by the bat too.

No, the paving brick was the weapon of overkill. The paving brick was MM indulging her vicious rage. The paving brick is only suitable as a weapon on a victim already down and disabled. You are only inches from the body when you strike with a paving stone. Very close. Very personal.

Jason had to be incapacitated when MM decided she needed another weapon and needed to finish him off.

That's why no "abuse" evidence can "exonerate" her. Because the paving stone...if thevprosecution takes time to explain this to a jury...proves this was an execution, not self-defense.

It also makes me wonder where TM was, what he was doing, when the paving stone attack ensued. If we accept his story, he had to have been finished hitting Jason with the bat. Jason had to be on the floor. Did he just stand there and let his daughter get another weapon and indulge her rage?

It's the paving stone that makes me think this attack started with the bat while Jason was asleep...and there was only one assailant...MM. I think TM walked in on her second murderous round...with the paving brick. But since he swears he was part of the killing, that's his choice.

But the paving stone proves this was not selfdefense. This was murder. The oaving stone was the overkill. There can be no "exonerating" evidence.

 

[Logic-lady]

There can exist no "exculpatory" evidence because there is no law that permits private spousal executions in NC. There is a right to self-defense. But the curious matter of the paving brick shows that this was an execution not self defense.

I hope the prosecution will ask the jury to consider carefully the two weapons in this case...a bat and a paving brick. A bat makes sense to be used by a third party in defense of someone being "choked." It can be swung to bring another person "down." It can be swung at that person's head to disorient or disable him. So the bat fits in to the story the Martens are telling.

But let's consider the paving brick. How did Jason come to have so many wounds from a paving brick?

You cannot "swing" a paving brick.

If TM was flailing away at Jason with the bat, there's no way MM could get close enough to hit JC with the paving brick. She would have been hit by the bat too.

No, the paving brick was the weapon of overkill. The paving brick was MM indulging her vicious rage. The paving brick is only suitable as a weapon on a victim already down and disabled. You are only inches from the body when you strike with a paving stone. Very close. Very personal.

Jason had to be incapacitated when MM decided she needed another weapon and needed to finish him off.

That's why no "abuse" evidence can "exonerate" her. Because the paving stone...if thevprosecution takes time to explain this to a jury...proves this was an execution, not self-defense.

It also makes me wonder where TM was, what he was doing, when the paving stone attack ensued. If we accept his story, he had to have been finished hitting Jason with the bat. Jason had to be on the floor. Did he just stand there and let his daughter get another weapon and indulge her rage?

It's the paving stone that makes me think this attack started with the bat while Jason was asleep...and there was only one assailant...MM. I think TM walked in on her second murderous round...with the paving brick. But since he swears he was part of the killing, that's his choice.

But the paving stone proves this was not selfdefense. This was murder. The oaving stone was the overkill. There can be no "exonerating" evidence.

So I think it is clear for everyone to see that what the defense will claim is that Jason was choking Molly, TM enters and fearing for his daughters life hits Jason with the bat, Jason 'turns towards him' (the implication here is that Jason moved towards him in a menacing manner) Molly fearing for her father's safety hits Jason with the brick which was on the nightstand. The both feared for the others safety and therefore they both acted in self defense of another.

None of us know what actually happened in the room that night, none of us can state categorically that something did or did not occur. We are interpreting the information we have to hand, but to my knowledge none of us are experts in the field of forensics. In my lay mans opinion, the beating was severe. In my lay mans opinion, the beating was overkill. However, to many who believe the Martens story, overkill can be justified by the fact that a 'slight' woman was being choked and her 'elderly' father was trying to save her, from a physically imposing man.

I don't believe the contents of the interviews with the children were in the discovery documents, save for the pertinent information regarding the children being coached, hence why the lawyers were required to go to court to have that information unsealed. So it still begs the question, why were the defense so sure as to what the interviews contained information pertinent to the 'interests of justice'? But again, I would be skeptical of the wording which the defense team are using as it is clear they have thus far used pre-trial motions to bolster public opinion in their favour, even when that information is a far cry from the truth. IMO

 

[stmarysmead]

The paving stone also shows that the Martens are lying in their account of how this killing took place. TM says JC was choking MM and he used the bat to intervene. They imply he hit JC just enough times to stop him, and oops, JC was dead.

But MM could not have simultaneously been hitting JC with the brick. By their story she was intially being "choked." When she got free...she jwouod have also been in the range of that swinging bat...she could not have gotten close enough to hit JC with the brick when her father was slamming him with a bat.

So this murder had two parts...first bat...then brick. It was not a "stop him and oops." The Martens are lying about that. It was an execution in two parts.

 

[stmarysmead]

So I think it is clear for everyone to see that what the defense will claim is that Jason was choking Molly, TM enters and fearing for his daughters life hits Jason with the bat, Jason 'turns towards him' (the implication here is that Jason moved towards him in a menacing manner) Molly fearing for her father's safety hits Jason with the brick which was on the nightstand. The both feared for the others safety and therefore they both acted in self defense of another.

None of us know what actually happened in the room that night, none of us can state categorically that something did or did not occur. We are interpreting the information we have to hand, but to my knowledge none of us are experts in the field of forensics. In my lay mans opinion, the beating was severe. In my lay mans opinion, the beating was overkill. However, to many who believe the Martens story, overkill can be justified by the fact that a 'slight' woman was being choked and her 'elderly' father was trying to save her, from a physically imposing man.

I don't believe the contents of the interviews with the children were in the discovery documents, save for the pertinent information regarding the children being coached, hence why the lawyers were required to go to court to have that information unsealed. So it still begs the question, why were the defense so sure as to what the interviews contained information pertinent to the 'interests of justice'? But again, I would be skeptical of the wording which the defense team are using as it is clear they have thus far used pre-trial motions to bolster public opinion in their favour, even when that information is a far cry from the truth. IMO

If Jason was standing and still strong enough to "turn"...he would have grabbed the bat and disarmed TM. They can't use his size and strength only in arguments that favor them. There are too many injuries to Jason to believe that they all occurred to a healthy, equal "opponent."

But I agree that we may well be jurors who want to set MM out among the public again. They want her around children. Maybe they even want Jason's children returned to live alone in her house with her.

I was very close to a case once where public opinion was strongly divided. The central figure in this case had the sympathy of every news media...what a narrative they wove! Oh, the virtue-signaling! One year later, she set fire to an apartment with her children in it. She got off with a wrist slap,..such a tragic heroine. Two years later, she murdered her boyfriend of the moment.

Her once adoring advocates have now gone silent. The danger she posed was all there to see all along...but they refused and now a man is dead.

If MM goes free, what will her future exploits bring?