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

[emmalpage81]

I would add that private conversations among ourselves referred to jury deliberations. which are in effect private conversations.

Kitty absolutely, that is how I read it too, he as describing the deliberations. They are twisting his words as he did not use the correct legalese!

All IMO

 

[emmalpage81]

Thank you you for putting in the hard work this combined with Kitty research really nails home the fact that the jury didn't participate in any misconduct. IMO Also agreeing with the Da on this

It seems all puff. I am interested in what they are referring to as expressions of opinions by jurors during the trial. They say this will be covered in a separate affidavit.

I guess we just wait.


All IMO

 

[fido]

Thank you you for putting in the hard work this combined with Kitty research really nails home the fact that the jury didn't participate in any misconduct. IMO Also agreeing with the Da on this

Emma thank you for that lengthy comprehensive post. I feel better having read it.

 

[emmalpage81]

Emma thank you for that lengthy comprehensive post. I feel better having read it.

Fido all just my opinion on looking at it. I have no doubt the DA's office will go much more in depth and I look forward to reading their response.

All IMO

 

[Logic-lady]

Stephan thanks for the judgment I had a browse on the way home yesterday along with the Robinson v Polk case also referred to and then considered the motion again. I am actually less concerned today by it than I was yesterday. Any references below are in regards to the defence motion which has been linked on the previous pages:

A. Private Conversations

The defence alleged that the comments of the foreman suggest that he and/or other jurors were participating in private conversations. They also suggest that the foreman stated that the closing argument 'had an impact'. Looking at this in two halves my own views are as follows:

(1) when asked if the prosecutions closing argument had impacted him, he stated "i think it impacted everybody, that wasn't a deciding factor though." This sentence immediately preceding the statement they included in their motion. IMO it is wrong to suggest that the foreman suggested he had been impacted by the closing statement in the way that they now suggest.

(2) The defence allege that the foreman's words show that the jurors were participating in private conversations in respect of the case. Looking back on his words, I do not believe this to be the case. He stated "we felt which way we were going to go, i believe, individually, prior to closing arguments. We didn't discuss a verdict but, in having private conversations everybody, we could read that everybody was going in the same direction, just the level of severity. Nobody voted not guilty' IMO the foreman is describing what occurred during deliberation. We know that in respect of MM there was no agreement on the first day. They would have been having conversations about this. IMO they are, basically, trying to circumvent the non-impeachment of the jurors because he used the words 'private conversations' rather than 'deliberations'. The fact he states 'no one voted not guilty' leads me to think he is quite honestly discussing what went on in deliberations and is not any indication of any other conversation.

In respect of the meeting between the foreman and the other juror. Again, I am less concerned now as I was yesterday. Looking at the Mallory XII video that (I think) Kitty helpfully linked yesterday the foreman states 'we got to know each other pretty well' and 'we are all going for lunch, I am just waiting for a phone call'. This suggests that the jury were having various conversations with each other and, it appears got on reasonably well, in such an instance it can be completely innocuous that they were having a conversation in their free time. It could've been about sport, the weather or their grandmother's scone recipes. Unless they have some sort of evidence to suggest that this conversation was about the trial it is useless.

B. Forming Opinion regarding the Defendant Corbett's Role as Aggressor

This argument appears to stem from a social media post by the forman whereby he stated "we decided on 2nd degree for both, but feel Molly was the aggressor", this was elaborated upon in another post where he stated "every one of us believe Jason was asleep when he was hit for the first time. The evidence we saw supports that'. The argument they have put forward seems to suggest that as the Court did not refer to MM as the aggressor the jury were wrong to reach this conclusion. I disagree.

The jurors were privy to the evidence and testimony of Dr James whereby he stated that JC may have been struck for the first time either in, or beside, his bed (http://www.herald.ie/news/jason-may...suffered-the-first-blow-to-head-35991145.html). Can the Court restrict the jurors making inferences from the evidence they hear? Blood and tissue were found on the brick, the brick TM testified he did not wield, and the brick that MM stated she had attempted to use. JC and MM were in a bedroom with the door closed. She has a weapon. I believe that the jury had every right to consider the facts and evidence before them and come to a conclusion.

C. providing less than candid answers to Court's inquiry regarding fitness to serve

IMO this is a nonsensical argument to put into a motion. The juror became ill whilst looking at the photos. She was asked about it and stated "it was a combination of not eating breakfast". In fact, IMO, the full text used in the motion hurts their case more than just that line. The judge asked "as difficult I know as all of this is, do you believe you will be able to continue to view photographs and go forward". IMO her response that it was a combination makes sense when the judge has already raised the fact that the photographs could be hard to look at. Combination means to combine two or more things. I do not believe that the juror in any way contradicted this on 20/20 when she said "I don't think there's anything or any experience in life that can prepare you to look at those pictures".

E. Expression of opinions by jurors is not shown in the motion. I would find this interesting and await to see what the supplemental affidavit shows. I can only assume shaking of heads etc as the defence and prosecution are not allowed to talk to the jurors whilst the trial is ongoing.

F. Comments showing bias

IMO these are comments made after the end of the trial whereby the jurors have been legally allowed to research the case. I am sure they did.

Jurors have clearly stated that they were watching MM during the trial to see when she reacted to things. She never once reacted to pictures of JC's body. She only seemed to react to images of herself or when the children were mentioned. (page 31 of the defence motion).

I do not think that they were biased against TM due to his FBI background I think they watched him on the stand and came to their own conclusions about him, this is not bias. It was put to TM on the stand that he liked trying to outwit people and that he had tried to take command of the interview with LE. The jury heard this in evidence. (Sorry cannot find the link to the article, it was the cross examination of TM and was definitely in the daily mail at the very least).

So all my own thoughts about the contents of the motion. I could very well be wrong, but, at present I am in agreement with the DA it is grasping at straws.

All IMO

Great points! I came to more or less the same conclusions...what intrigued me most about the document though is that the defense and the prosecution had come to an agreement pre-trial that none of them would refer to MM as the aggressor. I wonder how that came about.

 

[Hotchips]

I expect what will happen is that all twelve jurors will be called by the court and interviewed individually about what conversations they had and where they took place with particular emphasis on the two jurors who were unsure of their decision. Hopefully one of these two was not the person in the car with the foreman. Even if they were only discussing the weather , there's no way of proving what they were talking about so it does leave it open to interpretation. I do recall somewhere, (I must look for that link) that it is not permitted for members of the public to take photos of the jury so I don't know does that extend to say staff of the defence' law firm who may have been in attendance or the defence lawyers themselves spotting them on their way out of the court. Such a mess !

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Frizby]

Stephan thanks for the judgment I had a browse on the way home yesterday along with the Robinson v Polk case also referred to and then considered the motion again. I am actually less concerned today by it than I was yesterday. Any references below are in regards to the defence motion which has been linked on the previous pages:

A. Private Conversations

The defence alleged that the comments of the foreman suggest that he and/or other jurors were participating in private conversations. They also suggest that the foreman stated that the closing argument 'had an impact'. Looking at this in two halves my own views are as follows:

(1) when asked if the prosecutions closing argument had impacted him, he stated "i think it impacted everybody, that wasn't a deciding factor though." This sentence immediately preceding the statement they included in their motion. IMO it is wrong to suggest that the foreman suggested he had been impacted by the closing statement in the way that they now suggest.

(2) The defence allege that the foreman's words show that the jurors were participating in private conversations in respect of the case. Looking back on his words, I do not believe this to be the case. He stated "we felt which way we were going to go, i believe, individually, prior to closing arguments. We didn't discuss a verdict but, in having private conversations everybody, we could read that everybody was going in the same direction, just the level of severity. Nobody voted not guilty' IMO the foreman is describing what occurred during deliberation. We know that in respect of MM there was no agreement on the first day. They would have been having conversations about this. IMO they are, basically, trying to circumvent the non-impeachment of the jurors because he used the words 'private conversations' rather than 'deliberations'. The fact he states 'no one voted not guilty' leads me to think he is quite honestly discussing what went on in deliberations and is not any indication of any other conversation.

In respect of the meeting between the foreman and the other juror. Again, I am less concerned now as I was yesterday. Looking at the Mallory XII video that (I think) Kitty helpfully linked yesterday the foreman states 'we got to know each other pretty well' and 'we are all going for lunch, I am just waiting for a phone call'. This suggests that the jury were having various conversations with each other and, it appears got on reasonably well, in such an instance it can be completely innocuous that they were having a conversation in their free time. It could've been about sport, the weather or their grandmother's scone recipes. Unless they have some sort of evidence to suggest that this conversation was about the trial it is useless.

B. Forming Opinion regarding the Defendant Corbett's Role as Aggressor

This argument appears to stem from a social media post by the forman whereby he stated "we decided on 2nd degree for both, but feel Molly was the aggressor", this was elaborated upon in another post where he stated "every one of us believe Jason was asleep when he was hit for the first time. The evidence we saw supports that'. The argument they have put forward seems to suggest that as the Court did not refer to MM as the aggressor the jury were wrong to reach this conclusion. I disagree.

The jurors were privy to the evidence and testimony of Dr James whereby he stated that JC may have been struck for the first time either in, or beside, his bed (http://www.herald.ie/news/jason-may...suffered-the-first-blow-to-head-35991145.html). Can the Court restrict the jurors making inferences from the evidence they hear? Blood and tissue were found on the brick, the brick TM testified he did not wield, and the brick that MM stated she had attempted to use. JC and MM were in a bedroom with the door closed. She has a weapon. I believe that the jury had every right to consider the facts and evidence before them and come to a conclusion.

C. providing less than candid answers to Court's inquiry regarding fitness to serve

IMO this is a nonsensical argument to put into a motion. The juror became ill whilst looking at the photos. She was asked about it and stated "it was a combination of not eating breakfast". In fact, IMO, the full text used in the motion hurts their case more than just that line. The judge asked "as difficult I know as all of this is, do you believe you will be able to continue to view photographs and go forward". IMO her response that it was a combination makes sense when the judge has already raised the fact that the photographs could be hard to look at. Combination means to combine two or more things. I do not believe that the juror in any way contradicted this on 20/20 when she said "I don't think there's anything or any experience in life that can prepare you to look at those pictures".

E. Expression of opinions by jurors is not shown in the motion. I would find this interesting and await to see what the supplemental affidavit shows. I can only assume shaking of heads etc as the defence and prosecution are not allowed to talk to the jurors whilst the trial is ongoing.

F. Comments showing bias

IMO these are comments made after the end of the trial whereby the jurors have been legally allowed to research the case. I am sure they did.

Jurors have clearly stated that they were watching MM during the trial to see when she reacted to things. She never once reacted to pictures of JC's body. She only seemed to react to images of herself or when the children were mentioned. (page 31 of the defence motion).

I do not think that they were biased against TM due to his FBI background I think they watched him on the stand and came to their own conclusions about him, this is not bias. It was put to TM on the stand that he liked trying to outwit people and that he had tried to take command of the interview with LE. The jury heard this in evidence. (Sorry cannot find the link to the article, it was the cross examination of TM and was definitely in the daily mail at the very least).

So all my own thoughts about the contents of the motion. I could very well be wrong, but, at present I am in agreement with the DA it is grasping at straws.

All IMO

I would be in agreement with what you have written. The comments made by the Jury Foreman regarding Private Conversations did not help as it provided a narrative for the defence to exploit other comments which really had no relevance as they were all made after the jury had reached its verdict. Even what was said on the ABC program about bi-polar were made two days after the verdict had been reached. It will be interesting to find out who is making the allegation about the two sitting in the car, my suspicion is that this is one of MM pals. I am not saying that it did not happen as it most certainly did. She really has done a number on some people, snared them into her web of lies, evidence seems to hold no water with some, only what MM told them.

 

[stmarysmead]

We should send Emma's post to the Prosecutor. It's terrific! Made me feel a lot better too.

 

[Mollyanne]

We should send Emma's post to the Prosecutor. It's terrific! Made me feel a lot better too.

My thoughts exactly. Thank you Emma

 

[Logic-lady]

I would be in agreement with what you have written. The comments made by the Jury Foreman regarding Private Conversations did not help as it provided a narrative for the defence to exploit other comments which really had no relevance as they were all made after the jury had reached its verdict. Even what was said on the ABC program about bi-polar were made two days after the verdict had been reached. It will be interesting to find out who is making the allegation about the two sitting in the car, my suspicion is that this is one of MM pals. I am not saying that it did not happen as it most certainly did. She really has done a number on some people, snared them into her web of lies, evidence seems to hold no water with some, only what MM told them.

I did wonder how the jury must feel now that the Marten's spotlight has been turned on them. They were 12 innocent people who gave up their time to abide by their civic duty. Each swore to be upstanding and conduct themselves in line with court instructions, now their characters are being scrutinized, their morals being questioned and they are plunged into suspicion and whisperings. 12 more lives that have been assassinated with the 'no smoke without fire' rule that this defense has applied to every individual they have come into contact with.

How is it that the Martens expect everyone to take them at their word, but somehow everyone else should be questioned and probed and doubted?

 

[Frizby]

I did wonder how the jury must feel now that the Marten's spotlight has been turned on them. They were 12 innocent people who gave up their time to abide by their civic duty. Each swore to be upstanding and conduct themselves in line with court instructions, now their characters are being scrutinized, their morals being questioned and they are plunged into suspicion and whisperings. 12 more lives that have been assassinated with the 'no smoke without fire' rule that this defense has applied to every individual they have come into contact with.

How is it that the Martens expect everyone to take them at their word, but somehow everyone else should be questioned and probed and doubted?

The more holes they dig the deeper they get. I have no doubt that since the trial is over, more people in the area will be more vocal as to their thougths. Their true nastyness and self importance will shine through for all to see, I do not doubt that but for the few, and I do say few, loyal supporters who have been used for years. Some of them will realise it and probably feel horrified. Much of what she has done can be seen in her own words on her facebook page, and as she is now incarcerated, she cannot delete it and nor can anyone else alter it as it would be clear to the authorities that someone had access to control her social media account and that is not allowed.

Hopefully they will also see that they have been sold a pup by their own local paper, the WS Journal. They were the ones who put out the story of the defence motion about Mr F, they have never printed anything about the fact the a sworn statement was made. Whilst many in the country will not be too interested in checking the truth out after that shocking ABC program, those living in the area will. They will find out that Mr F made a sworn statement totally refuting what TM said, they will also see that TM originally said that he was spoken to at the wedding, an event that MrF was not even at. They will sus out that the defence, once they knew of their timing error quickly changed it another date. They will see that the family of MrF also completely refute what TM is claiming and that JC was loved by them for the man he was and not a potential murderer as TM would like people to believe. The existence of the affidavit and the families statements was read out in court.

They will also find out that the reason the children's statements were not allowed was because professionals deemed them as being coached, they will hear what was read out in court about what little JC said when asked how he knew about abuse, because "Mom told him". Maybe the WS Journal will eventually get the balls to actually print some truth rather then spin one side of the story or rather half a story.

I have no doubt that some, who were on the MM side, changed their opinion after the first day of the trial, some it might have taken longer. Many will wake up to what the C's have had to put up with for the past two years. Many eyes will be opened and it will not be pretty. ME fund-raising campaign is going nowhere, in fact it has come to a brick wall, despite her tweeting reporters, congressmen & even past presidents. The truth always outs in the end.

In the meantime, my sympathies lie with the Jury, all focus is now on them, mud has been slung and some unfortunately will stick. If however, the Jury did something that they should not have, they should hang their heads in shame, I doubt it tho.

 

[irishmartin]

Double jeopardy means that the prosecution cannot appeal a verdict. In many countries, the prosecution can appeal a verdict on the basis of law - a legal error. In the US, it doesn't matter whether there is a legal error that effected the prosecution's case. The defense can appeal a verdict on legal grounds in the US.

In a retrial, the charges remain the same, and it is not considered double jeopardy.

Double jeopardy arises where a court finds a Not Guilty verdict.
There are limited rules around in some countries that allow the prosecution go for a fresh trial where new evidence emerges that was not available at original trial. It itself stands a substantive principal of law to avoid repeated trials of not guilty verdicts.

 

[irishmartin]

FBI is far from being an agency of probity saving and serving the nation from terrorist and spies. Rather it indicates a nest of spies and cohorts that looked the other way when the US national security was under threat. One wonders did the same arrogance of TM permeate the FBI and lead to the murder of JC. As for justice and protecting the US interest that should have seen very heavy sentences for the PRC spy Katrina Leung but it was all covered up, no one went to prison and twisted agents retired on full pensions. Yes indeed a culture of covering up and denial.


The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) handling and oversight of PRC spy Katrina Leung.

https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0605/final.pdf
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/spy/etc/synopsis.html

 

[Grouchymom]

[video]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2WO0nov1zHEaDZ2WGQ0a2U2UW8[/video]
Alledged voicemail from little JC

[video]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2WO0nov1zHEalR5RFdOQ1BfYlk[/video]
Interview with little JC

hopefully I have some cuts from the 20/20 footage. This is the first time I have tried to cut the segments and post.
If you can see the videos I will add the jurors comments and the audio of JC upset at dinner as well as any other section you request

 

[otto]

Double jeopardy arises where a court finds a Not Guilty verdict.
There are limited rules around in some countries that allow the prosecution go for a fresh trial where new evidence emerges that was not available at original trial. It itself stands a substantive principal of law to avoid repeated trials of not guilty verdicts.

Yep. In the USA, the prosecution cannot appeal a not guilty verdict because it is considered double jeopardy. In many other countries, such as Canada or Italy, the prosecution can appeal a not guilty verdict on the basis of error in law during trial.

 

[Logic-lady]

[video]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2WO0nov1zHEaDZ2WGQ0a2U2UW8[/video]
Alledged voicemail from little JC

[video]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2WO0nov1zHEalR5RFdOQ1BfYlk[/video]
Interview with little JC

hopefully I have some cuts from the 20/20 footage. This is the first time I have tried to cut the segments and post.
If you can see the videos I will add the jurors comments and the audio of JC upset at dinner as well as any other section you request

Heartbreaking...but not the same little boy in both of those clips IMO.

 

[Grouchymom]

[video]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2WO0nov1zHESWx1ZXVKX1hxYVE[/video]

here is the segment with the jurors from 20/20

[video]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2WO0nov1zHEN1FRSVNmd3FpSFU[/video]

The entire 20/20 episode

[video]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2WO0nov1zHEQmgyT3Z0ZEEzTXc[/video]

the audio of JC upset at dinner

[video]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2WO0nov1zHES3VZN2tjQ3hCOVk[/video]

inside edition episode

[video]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2WO0nov1zHESk5MMDdDalVSWVU[/video]

911 call

I will add a few more later
please let me know anything else you want.

 

[stephanddoody]

That is a Dublin accent . Like say the difference between a New York accent and a southern accent . No comparison. On the other video of his interview I feel they should be jailed . Everyone involved should be jailed . The level of disgust I feel because of it can't be put into words . Also the recording of the last visitation. What a breach of privacy. Absolute disgrace that they provided a tv show with them . I don't know them poor children and feel so protective of their privacy. Never in a million years would a loving parent do that . I would happily sit in a cell for 20 years rather than break the trust of my children . The most disgusting selfish act totally unforgivable.

 

[Grouchymom]

That is a Dublin accent . Like say the difference between a New York accent and a southern accent . No comparison. On the other video of his interview I feel they should be jailed . Everyone involved should be jailed . The level of disgust I feel because of it can't be put into words . Also the recording of the last visitation. What a breach of privacy. Absolute disgrace that they provided a tv show with them . I don't know them poor children and feel so protective of their privacy. Never in a million years would a loving parent do that . I would happily sit in a cell for 20 years rather than break the trust of my children . The most disgusting act totally unforgivable.

Would anyone be able to compare them easier if I strip the audio out of the video and post the sound files? (I am using my Ipad to process the files for the first time LOL)

 

[Frizby]

[video]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2WO0nov1zHEaDZ2WGQ0a2U2UW8[/video]
Alledged voicemail from little JC

[video]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2WO0nov1zHEalR5RFdOQ1BfYlk[/video]
Interview with little JC

hopefully I have some cuts from the 20/20 footage. This is the first time I have tried to cut the segments and post.
If you can see the videos I will add the jurors comments and the audio of JC upset at dinner as well as any other section you request

In my opinion that voice mail purported to be little JC is a Dublin accent, not even a twang of Limerick. It was the way he said 'hard' sealed it for me.