The swaggering ex-FBI agent who tried to outwit the police
Tom Martens never felt Jason was good enough for his daughter. He felt the Limerick man ‘never measured up’, despite his providing Molly with a lifestyle she could never pay for herself, writes Catherine Fegan
‘He was not fond of Jason and his rowdy friends’
TOM Martens walked with a swagger as he made his daily arrival into court. His apparent confidence, or some might say smugness, pointed to a man who looked like he was in attendance due to politeness, rather than by necessity. He was, after all, a distinguished FBI agent. Moreover, he was a trained attorney who had been called to the bar in Georgia. The fact that he had beaten in a man’s skull was beside the point. Born on January 20, 1950, Thomas Michael Martens would go on to lead a life that, for the most part, was the stuff of a law enforcer’s dreams.
He had attended prestigious Emory University in Atlanta as an undergraduate student. While there he is believed to have met his wife Sharon, who was studying maths.
Tom went on to study law at graduate level at Emory, eventually graduating in 1975. He was later called to the bar in Atlanta, Georgia, but never practised as an attorney. Instead, shortly after law school, he joined the FBI.
The first part of his career involved mainly criminal investigative work. After initial training, he was stationed in Miami, where he was involved in violent criminal investigations.
The area was particularly volatile in the late 1970s because of the activities of Cuban drug gangs.
During his first year in Miami he was assigned cases attempting to catch violent fugitives.
While he was being interviewed by Davidson County detectives investigating his son-in-law’s death, he proudly told them that it was ‘a great time to be young in Miami’ during this part of his career and that he enjoyed kicking doors in as part of criminal raids.
Not long after, he was assigned to a very lengthy racketeering case that lasted three years. From there, he found himself serving as a lawyer for the bureau, teaching substance and drug law at the Drug Enforcement Administration. After 31 years of service, TomMartens retired at the mandatory age of 57.
Afterwards he went to Oakridge National Laboratory in Tennessee where he worked as a counterintelligence officer for eight years.
An employee of the Department of Energy, he still had a security clearance but was a civilian at that point.
One of his former colleagues at Oakridge, Joanne Lowry, came to court on the fifth day of evidence to testify for the State.
Ms Lowry said that she had worked at the Oakridge National Laboratory for 15 years.
She was the coordinator of the sensitive foreign travel programme and she had the highest level of security clearance, as did Tom.
There were 13 people in the counter-intelligence unit where they both worked. Mr Martens would routinely tell them about his ‘disdain’ for his son-in-law and Mr Corbett’s family, she said.
Two months before Mr Corbett was killed, she said she was sitting next to Mr Martens in an area where they did classified work when she asked him how his weekend went.
‘He said it was fine,’ she told the court. ‘The children were home and as glad as he was to see them come, he was glad to see them go.
‘Then he said, “That son-in-law, I hate him.”’ Ms Lowry said she was aware that Mr Martens had a daugh- ter called Molly. She said that around the time of Molly’s wedding to Jason in 2011, Mr Martens commented on his disdain for Jason. ‘It had to do with the pre-wedding celebrations, she said.
‘Jason and his friends who were going to be at the wedding were staying at his house. He said he was not very fond of Jason and his rowdy friends.’ She added that Mr Martens said they were messy in the house and rude. He did not say anything about drinking.
During his own testimony, Tom Martens himself made no secret about his dislike of Jason.
‘He wasn’t my favourite person,’ he said. ‘I didn’t like him. I’m sure I said disparaging things about him.’
He said Jason and his friends had stayed at his house a few days before his wedding to Molly and that there was a lot of ‘cigarettes and beer cans’.
‘It was just general behaviour that was inconsistent with what I think was polite,’ he said.
The court heard that alongside her mother, Jason and the two children, Molly Martens had made a trip to Washington DC a few months before Jason’s death.
When asked by a work colleague why he didn’t go, Mr Martens said, ‘Why would I go anywhere with that a ****** ?’
His daughter, the court heard, had never had anything more than ‘casual’ employment over the years.
Martens himself admitted that he supplemented her income.
She had worked in a café and had employment as a nanny, he said.
When she met Jason Corbett he held a half-share in a profitable business in Limerick.
Jason gave Tom Martens more than $40,000 to pay for his daughter’s lavish Tennessee wedding. He later provided Molly with an ‘upscale’ house in Wallburg, where the couple settled after marriage.
‘Would you agree that it was upscale?’ asked prosecutor Greg Brown.
‘If that’s the word you want to use,’ replied Tom Martens.
Despite the comfortable life his daughter had suddenly found herself living – the frequent holidays, the nice cars and the beautiful home – Tom Martens wasn’t happy.
In his view, he told the court, Jason Corbett ‘never measured up’ to his expectations for his daughter. He had told her so and advised her to seek legal advice about the marriage.
His disdain for his son-in-law, a dis-
dain that seemed apparent as he testified on the stand, must have been present in his mind on the night he killed Jason Corbett.
During his own testimony, he said that he had arrived to the house to see his son-in-law drinking beer with his neighbour.
‘He was obviously drunk,’ he told the court.
He couldn’t comment on the neighbour, who had drunk the same amount, even though he had spoken to him as well.
With reference to Jason, he said that they ‘made nice’ as Jason came to help him unload his car.
‘We were superficially friendly,’ he said. ‘I am sure he knew I had some feelings about him.’
In his own testimony, Tom Martens said he ‘didn’t know’ how many times he struck the fatherof-two. He hit him until he went down, and probably didn’t even stop then.
What happened next has also been hotly disputed. Martens claimed he waited about ‘two minutes’ to gather himself before he got his daughter to call 911. The prosecution alleged he took longer.
The scene, it appeared, had been altered. A vacuum cleaner that had blood spatter suggesting it was lying down when blood hit it, had been stood upright.
Emergency responders noted Jason’s body was ‘cool’ when they arrived. Martens himself admitted he had CPR training, but waited until a 911 operator told him to start administering it.
Tom Martens’s FBI know-how and legal training may have already kicked in. He had made a point of telling the 911 call operator that his son-in-law had been ‘choking’ his daughter and that he had ‘intervened.’
He must have known the call would be recorded, and later form part of any investigation. From there, he and his daughter went ‘voluntarily’ to the sheriff’s office to give their statements.
The belief of prosecutors is that these statements had already been rehearsed prior to calling 911 and that ‘daddy’ had schooled Molly in what to say, and, more importantly, what not to say.
What he didn’t account for was that the two detectives who were interviewing him had considerable intelligence and know-how themselves.
Tom Martens – the FBI agent with over 31 years’ experience of outfoxing his opponents – thought he would get the better of a couple of detectives from small-town Davidson County.
In court, it was revealed that during the interview, Mr Martens ‘interrupted questioning and took charge’. He had already told the two men that he had a long career in the FBI and that he ‘really enjoyed outwitting’ other spy agencies.
Mr Brown said that at one point during interview, the defendant said: ‘Perhaps it would be helpful if I just launched into a story that would account for my state of mind.’
‘Were you trying to match wits with the detectives?’ asked Mr Brown. ‘No,’ replied Mr Martens. Mr Brown told the court Mr Martens tried to use his FBI training and legal qualifications to lead the interview to support his claim of self-defence.
After his interview at the police station, Mr Martens took his daughter back to Tennessee.
They both engaged a team of high-powered lawyers.
Back in Lexington, detectives had all they needed.
Tom Martens and his daughter were charged in 2016. It was a development he probably never saw coming.
Tom Martens, in his own mind, had nothing to answer for. Investigators, and in the end the jury, thought differently.