Do we actually know how the fight went down? And what if Molly didn't use deadly force? Her lack of injuries might mean that, but we just don't know and that is my point. In a quest for the truth you have to go where the evidence takes you. IMO
But that applies both ways surely? None of us know what happened, it is all theorising, but at present the information which is in the public domain consistently throws doubt on the statements of the accused. If we go back to the very start - it is 3.04am TM phones 911 to report that he thinks he 'may have killed' his son-in-law as he was choking his daughter. If we just take that statement, we have no further evidence at this point, then there is every possibility that the defense of self defense is an accurate one.
But they are charged with second degree murder, the DA could have chosen just an involuntary manslaughter charge and let them plead out, but instead he chose second degree murder - why? You have to look at the facts from both sides, Molly hasn't been victimised in this, they are the prime candidates for sympathy from the local PD. Ex-FBI, upper middle class, no known past offences....how many other white collar defendants can you name who have been put through the whole trial process unless the DA is confident of a conviction? They have been afforded bail (quite a lengthy bail IMO) and allowed to reside out of state, which has given them time with their family, but also given them the opportunity to build character references for trial - Molly returned to education, was on the Dean's list, has had the opportunity to show that she can be a positive addition to society. How many black defendants would be afforded the same opportunities? The Martens have not been victimised by this process, they have been treated exemplary IMO.
So back to the 911 call, personally I don't think the prosecution even need the testimony of the operator to highlight the glaring failings in life saving techniques, but that is clue 1 from independent witnesses that something about Molly's testimony may be amiss.
Investigating officers who arrived found the scene 'inconsistent' with the story the MM & TM alleged to have taken place. They are investigating officers, it is their job to find out the truth of what happened. Why would they assume Molly & Tom weren't telling the truth? It would have been a whole lot easier for them to just accept the story as fact and let this all go away. Why didn't they?
Is it the overkill? Is it the lack of any injuries to Molly and Tom? Catastrophic injuries to one party and zero to the other two would be suspicious in a 'Donneybrook' situation. That would warrant investigation, that would be evidence that something was amiss with the account of what happened.
Two weapons were recovered - a bat and a paving stone. Only one was referenced in the 911 call, why? Three people involved in an altercation, one is dead, two remain with no injuries, there are two weapons, how does this fit in with the account of what happened? Why would someone telling the truth omit to mention that two weapons were used in the assault to subdue the victim?
Now onto the weapons of choice - a class project sitting on the bedside locker...fine. A child's baseball bat, where did it come from? TM brought it as a present for Jack, ok where is Jack's existing bat - missing. On further investigation detectives believe they have seen photos in the house of Jack playing baseball with said bat, so it surely begs the question, if TM is telling the truth why make up a story about bringing the bat? He could have easily said, I knew where Jack's bat was kept and knew I would need help to get him off my daughter/Jack had left the bat lying at the top of the stairs etc etc. Suspicious, requires further investigation.
I am purposefully not mentioning SM here as she is not charged criminally with any wrong-doing.
Next we have the autopsy - JC is naked apart from his wedding ring. Unusual for someone to participate in an argument in the nude, but not unheard of. The question is if Jason was the aggressor, would the appearance of his father-in-law not be enough to jolt him out of his 'attack' given that he was naked? We know he was self conscious about his weight, the person entering the room could have been one of the kids for all he would have known, surely the introduction of another person into the space would have changed the dynamic enough for him to have let go of her?
The introduction of the Trazadone...I am so tired of this argument! The assertion that JC needed it for erectile dysfunction is as ludicrous as the suggestion that Molly may have had hyper-sexuality as a result of her bi-polar. We have discussed both in depth and one neither is founded in fact or evidence. It is tiresome that these keep getting thrown out when people are frustrated with other people on the thread IMO. The Trazadone is of relevence for a number of reasons actually based in reality in relation to the case - why did JC have a sleeping aid in his system and as such would that imply he was actually sleeping when the attack took place? This would again raise questions as to Molly & Tom's assertion of what happened. If he did have a sedative in his system, was it his? Again possible, we know the relationship was under strain, JC was the only breadwinner in the house, that would certainly have put him under pressure, and he had potentially had recent surgery...all of which may have resulted in him being prescribed a sedative. The problem is, this particular drug is contraindicated for people with heart problems. We know from the autopsy & the defense motions that Jason both had a heart problem and was under the advice of a cardiologist so that begs the question was it his Rx? If it wasn't then who's was it...is this a reason for the charge of second degree murder?
The injuries are severe and defensive, why would a trained member of the FBI need to inflict such catastrophic injuries in order to subdue an assailant?
The evidence has taken the DA to charge BOTH Molly & Tom with second degree murder, we have to assume that all of the independent people involved in this case have done their duties diligently and so there is a sound basis that both defendants warrant that charge.
