GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #10

[IrishKathy]

Just a note on that recording, when JC raised his voice did MM make any attempt to get herself or the children out of that situation. NO, in fact, she was about to make pancakes to me that suggests that she that she had no fear of him what-so-ever.

He did raise his voice but there was almost a pleading sound to it as if he was begging her to speak to him and not close him out.

 

[Frizby]

Just a note on that recording, when JC raised his voice did MM make any attempt to get herself or the children out of that situation. NO, in fact, she was about to make pancakes to me that suggests that she that she had no fear of him what-so-ever.

And remember in the ABC program, MM said that her father was not really welcome staying at their house but "he knew it was beneficial". So she is insinuating that her father knew of DV but in court he testified that he knew nothing.

 

[Fairness71]

Calling this taoe "abuse" is like a man standing in a puddle telling a drowning man...that they have the same problems. It's quite a fantastic stretch.

I HAVE had a daughter subjected to abuse. You don't ignore your abuser You don't talk over him like MM is doing. You don't isolate the abuser from family dinners that you know will provoke him. Fear doesn't let you.

Abuse is about living in a constant pervasive state of fear, weighing every word, trying to always anticipate and avoid trouble. Like a dog that runs under the bed when his Master's voice is angry...there are learned reactions. MM shows none of these in this tape. It's real and it shows her to be a liar.

The key word about these behaviors is..."learned." The abused are trying to survive, get through another day, walk a tightrope not to provoke. Abuse TEACHES them certain reactions, MM shows none of these.

If you have ever seen abuse, been close to it...you'd never forget it. And you'd never call this puddle, an ocean. It's not about raised voices. It's about bruises and abrasions, broken furniture, ripped up papers you have worked hard on for classes, walls punched in...Its about spitting at you in front of neighbors as you try to leave.

It's not a raised voice alone.

Where is the documentation of any thing like this?

Not getting your own way is not ABUSE.

Abused women do not fat shame their abusers in front of others as MM. did. They don't ridicule. If he wants dinner with the family, by God, that's what you do...even if it's at midnight.

In this tape...she's setting him up. MM Is calculated. She knows how much time with those children mean to him. So she feeds them early with HER, so JC has to eat alone. Isolated. "These are MY children."

She ignores him willfully, talking only to the children. She is humiliating him in front of them purposely.

He raises his voice. Okay.

This is abuse on HIS part?

This is the worst she had for ABC?

But it's terrific that she did this interview. She's now on tape saying JC was standing until the last blow. Remember all that blood above the floorboards?

Oh, I cannot wait for the civil suit.

But please, in deference to those who live and suffer from DV, let's not call this puddle an ocean.












Yiu try

BRAVO [emoji1319][emoji1319][emoji1319]❤️


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mairead]

He did raise his voice but there was almost a pleading sound to it as if he was begging her to speak to him and not close him out.

I agree with you but what most people will hear is a raised voice, which is what she wanted to record.

 

[Mairead]

And remember in the ABC program, MM said that her father was not really welcome staying at their house but "he knew it was beneficial". So she is insinuating that her father knew of DV but in court he testified that he knew nothing.

It's an odd statement "he knew it was beneficial".

Also in that program, he said "I was not going to interfere in Molly's marriage, Molly's marriage is Molly's marriage" then at the end he says something to the effect of he would do anything to protect his daughter.

 

[jackkay]

I was wondering about some things.
I read somewhere that the Sheriff's department interviewing Tom Martens just one time only, was deliberate.
It also seems from his interview with ABC that both Tom Martens and Molly expected and wanted to be interviewed again.
I wonder what were the motivations on both sides were, regarding this?

The jury foreman said that Tom Martens came across as arrogant when he was on the stand.
I'd love to know how they got this feeling about him given that he cried while testifying and likely was smart enough
to 'make nice', as he'd put it.

 

[Frizby]

It's an odd statement "he knew it was beneficial".

Also in that program, he said "I was not going to interfere in Molly's marriage, Molly's marriage is Molly's marriage" then at the end he says something to the effect of he would do anything to protect his daughter.

Yeah, very odd indeed. She say that they (the parents) would not always feel comfortable at the house but they knew it was beneficial. You can see her say it on the following clip (Part 2 of the show on the ABC.go.com site)

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/fbi-agent-daughter-happened-night-husbands-death-part-49168727

 

[stephanddoody]

The reporting done about Toms time on the stand was mostly not very well documented but from Catherine fegan who was with the case from the start I can see why the jurors thought him arrogant



[video=twitter;893758480288329728]https://twitter.com/irishdailymail/status/893758480288329728[/video]

https://www.facebook.com/TheIrishMail/posts/1941723026085239

O

 

[Mairead]

Yeah, very odd indeed. She say that they (the parents) would not always feel comfortable at the house but they knew it was beneficial. You can see her say it on the following clip (Part 2 of the show on the ABC.go.com site)

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/fbi-agent-daughter-happened-night-husbands-death-part-49168727

That would lead me to think about their reason for the sudden visit which apparently was very out of character for TM. I wonder was he trying to protect himself (she said beneficial but not to whom it was beneficial), in the sense of his reputation, his standing in the community.

Something was going on that lead to a number of calls from MM on the day. Supposing Molly had let them know that she was going to abduct the children before JC got a chance to take them to Ireland. Would this
be a threat to his reputation and cause him to drop his plans and immediately try to stop her. Could this lead to an FBI CARD investigation, how would TM have felt then.

It might also explain the urgency of ME to find the childrens passports so soon after JC's horrific death, if MM was still in a mind to abduct the children at this stage, they needed to make sure she was not. Imagine what an FBI investigation (with a much bigger budget than a local police department had) would uncover at this stage.

 

[IrishKathy]

Also she was told to document everything and was making recording and said in the 20/20 program that she was choked in the bedroom over 20 times so why has she no recordings of these times.

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

In relation to collaborating evidence wouldnt the nurse who says that Jason outlined to her that he got angry for unexplained reasons count as that? I think the defence could have outlined a narrative that DV existed in the Panther Creek home.

No.

Anger is in no way de facto evidence of domestic violence.

Really, virtually everyone gets angry. Virtually all couples have had arguments.

Any of the jurors who have gotten angry or had an argument with their significant other (in other words, all of them) would have asked "is that all? ".

Going that route would only have hurt her case.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[fido]

Also she was told to document everything and was making recording and said in the 20/20 program that she was choked in the bedroom over 20 times so why has she no recordings of these times.

Exactly. Well said. She had enough access to money to afford multiple nanny cameras in every room.... if she was documenting DV over a period of years, she hasn't much to show for it, has she...

 

[Logic-lady]

I was wondering about some things.
I read somewhere that the Sheriff's department interviewing Tom Martens just one time only, was deliberate.
It also seems from his interview with ABC that both Tom Martens and Molly expected and wanted to be interviewed again.
I wonder what were the motivations on both sides were, regarding this?

The jury foreman said that Tom Martens came across as arrogant when he was on the stand.
I'd love to know how they got this feeling about him given that he cried while testifying and likely was smart enough
to 'make nice', as he'd put it.

http://extra.ie/news/irish-news/molly-damage-says-sherriff

He explained that they only took one statement from Mr Martens as part of a strategy. He said: ‘He had confessed. What else could he say?’ And he added: ‘I don’t think Tom Martens ever thought he would be charged.’

I think it was quite a clever strategy really. They knew when they walked into the scene that things didn't add up, that the crime scene didn't tie in with the story, that the body was cool and so there was potential for the scene to be staged and that they were dealing with law enforcement. They must have known it was going to be difficult to get conclusive physical evidence to achieve a slam dunk in this case so they did the next best thing.

By only taking a single statement for MM and TM (and we can see from MM's statement the HUGE gaps it contained regarding the events of that night) it forced one of them to have to take the stand. There was no other way to counter the States evidence. If they had been allowed to make multiple statements after having the opportunity to confer with each other and revisit the crime scene then TM's experience may have been able to account for some of the doubts the jurors had, and he would not have had to take the stand in his defense.

By putting him on the stand, the jurors were able to see for themselves the superior attitude that JC would have faced when dealing with his father-in-law. He came across as contrite and unapologetic. Given that the jury had just witnessed the appalling injuries JC had inflicted upon him at the hands of this man, I think a little humility would have gone a long way in his favour.

 

[wildebeest]

In relation to collaborating evidence wouldnt the nurse who says that Jason outlined to her that he got angry for unexplained reasons count as that? I think the defence could have outlined a narrative that DV existed in the Panther Creek home.

Yes, the defense could have outlined a narrative for DV, but they didn't because there wasn't any DV, and it wouldn't have been the truth.

IMHO

 

[emmalpage81]

Hello all,

The recording of home life at panther creek - included in link from 7:30 to 8 minutes- do people think it is real? Have the Corbetts commented on whether they believe the tape to be genuine?

if it is real it definitely shows things were not happy.

Also so is that SC crying out at the end?

I would be ashamed if i behaved like that in my home and I would be very worried if my daughter or sister was subjected to that.

https://youtu.be/sg-ZnGvBkgI

There is something desperately not right with this whole story and situation. You have one dead wife, a new fairytale relationship, mental illness, a dead husband and 2 people in prison. You almost could not make it up.

If this tape is real i cannot understand why the defence did not introduce it. It is highly suggestive of domestic abuse. Was this the M's strategy all along to hold back evidence for an appeal.

Im interested to know if the tape is real or not. Thank you.

I think you and I have very different views on the audio recording. IMO JC comes across as someone who is completely exasperated with the situation; he has come home looking to have dinner with his family and they are finishing up and going to do other activities.

The tape is not complete. We do not know how the conversation started; the tape - as played- starts with JC stating '...dinner with my family when I get home'. Instead of engaging him in conversation MM only speaks to the children 'have you finished your dinner hon?' (to which a child replies 'no'). 'can you guys get out the stuff for pancakes' (strange considering a child just said they had NOT finished with their dinner). JC is irritated, he is being ignored. IMO this was most likely a common occurrence as JC states 'i shouldn't have to say it over and over again, I shouldn't have to say Molly could you.....' - at this point what MM says to the children is inaudible, if anyone can make it out please let me know.

IMO this tape does not sound like a man who is abusive. It sounds like a man who is angry and frustrated that his wife is ignoring him when he is trying to talk to her.

We know that MM spoke to a lawyer two years before JC's murder. If this is the worst tape they could come up with in 2 years well, IMO, that speaks volumes.

As to why it was not exhibited in Court, IMO that is simple, it would need to be corroborated by someone who was there when it was recorded. JC is dead. MM would need to take the stand. The prosecution would also require that any and all recordings be handed over to them in discovery. The whole tape would need to be played not just the snippet that was shown.

All IMO

 

[emmalpage81]

In relation to collaborating evidence wouldnt the nurse who says that Jason outlined to her that he got angry for unexplained reasons count as that? I think the defence could have outlined a narrative that DV existed in the Panther Creek home.

I would not think so.

JC spoke to the nurse in the weeks before his death to say he had recently been getting angry. We do not know when this recording was made. It could have been made anytime in the two year period before JC was killed.

All IMO

 

[Frizby]

That would lead me to think about their reason for the sudden visit which apparently was very out of character for TM. I wonder was he trying to protect himself (she said beneficial but not to whom it was beneficial), in the sense of his reputation, his standing in the community.

Something was going on that lead to a number of calls from MM on the day. Supposing Molly had let them know that she was going to abduct the children before JC got a chance to take them to Ireland. Would this
be a threat to his reputation and cause him to drop his plans and immediately try to stop her. Could this lead to an FBI CARD investigation, how would TM have felt then.

It might also explain the urgency of ME to find the childrens passports so soon after JC's horrific death, if MM was still in a mind to abduct the children at this stage, they needed to make sure she was not. Imagine what an FBI investigation (with a much bigger budget than a local police department had) would uncover at this stage.

The way I took it as to what she said on that video was her playing the DV card to all who would listen, she had bated them with her words of being choked numerous times, she did further bating in the program by using a non-sensenicle clip of Jason shouthing passing it off as abuse and then using a carefully audited clip of the kids say he was "Physically & Abusing her". Like what 10 year old using words like that anyway. It is no wonder people jumped to conclusions during the program, it was fast moving and was all in her favour. We on the other hand knew the story, we have been looking into this for 2 years. How many people who watched that would have had a different opinion if they play what the kids actually said "Mom told me that he would physically & verbally abuse her". Puts a whole new context on it. Both children retracted their statement, they made those first statement because they were afraid of making MM mad but what they want people to believe is that the children were manipulated by their Irish family when it was all them in the first place.

I don't think that there was any abduction in their mind, maybe she was planning a little trip for them so she could work on her plan but not long term, she would never last on the run and they knew it.

They had concocted a story and they were doing everything to cement it, a key part was to get the kids. They failed miserably and it all unfolded. But that did not stop her going on National Airwaves and playing the DV card, she played on the emotions of many people who have actually suffered from DV, She had no evidence, if there was evidence it would have been provided in court, she would have taken the stand but she had no problem sitting in front of a camera for all the nation.

 

[stephanddoody]

Emma I know your knowledgeable in points of law . On what grounds do you think they would have any chance of appeal . I know we don't have court transcripts so will be hard to tell for sure but what wasn't allowed from them were Mr Fitzpatricks statement to Tom which the prosecution had a sworn affidavit to contradict it and the children's statements which were believed to be coached and also recanted. There are also the diaries that they were told to document their feelings in . I think the Judge reintroducing the lesser charge was a sensible move . The jurors did have the lesser sentence option but chose based on the evidence presented to them the 2nd degree charges. As for introducing new evidence would giving the recording effectively rule that out being introduced. Jason's family was advised not to engage with ABC before the trial as it wouldn't be appropriate and could have jeopardised the outcome of the trial could the same be said for the information given by Molly for the appeal if it was granted. She gave the show recordings of the children's interviews which in itself should be a crime IMO

 

[jackkay]

Thanks Stephanddoody, i would love to read the articles you have there but the resolution is too low and when you magnify them it's all blurry, even with my nose to the screen!

 

[Logic-lady]

For anyone interested in understanding whether or not there are grounds for appeal I found this interesting document -

https://www.ncbar.org/media/758546/ncba-appellate-rules-committee-guide-to-appealability-2017.pdf

Being denied the motion to dismiss is not grounds for an appeal...still working through the rest!