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

[stmarysmead]

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...between-a-criminal-case-and-a-civil-case.html

The American legal system is comprised of two very different types of cases, civil and criminal. Crimes are generally offenses against the state, and are accordingly prosecuted by the state. Civil cases on the other hand, are typically disputes between individuals regarding the legal duties and responsibilities they owe one another. These cases are adjudicated through civil lawsuits.

Here are some of the key differences between a criminal case and a civil case:

Crimes are considered offenses against the state, or society as a whole. That means that even though one person might murder another person, murder itself is considered an offense to everyone in society. Accordingly, crimes against the state are prosecuted by the state, and the prosecutor (not the victim) files the case in court as a representative of the state. If it were a civil case, then the wronged party would file the case.
Criminal offenses and civil offenses are generally different in terms of their punishment. Criminal cases will have jail time as a potential punishment, whereas civil cases generally only result in monetary damages or orders to do or not do something. Note that a criminal case may involve both jail time and monetary punishments in the form of fines.
The standard of proof is also very different in a criminal case versus a civil case. Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way). The difference in standards exists because civil liability is considered less blameworthy and because the punishments are less severe.
Criminal cases almost always allow for a trial by jury. Civil cases do allow juries in some instances, but many civil cases will be decided by a judge.
A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to an attorney, and if he or she can't afford one, the state must provide an attorney. A defendant in a civil case is not given an attorney and must pay for one, or else defend him or herself.
The protections afforded to defendants under criminal law are considerable (such as the protection against illegal searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment). Many of these well known protections are not available to a defendant in a civil case.
In general, because criminal cases have greater consequences - the possibility of jail and even death - criminal cases have many more protections in place and are harder to prove.

 

[stmarysmead]

http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm


In a criminal case, the suspect or defendant has the right to remain silent during questioning by police and prosecuting attorneys. In a criminal case, the defendant may choose to refuse to be a witness, and the jury may infer nothing from the defendant's choice not to testify. However, in a civil case, the defendant must be available and cooperative for depositions and testimony as a witness in the trial. In fact, the defendant in a civil case in Federal court must voluntarily provide his/her opponent with a copy of documents "in the possession, custody, or control of the party that are relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings." [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(B)] Further, the defendant in a civil case must voluntarily provide names of people who are "likely to have discoverable information relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings." [FRCP 26(a)(1)(A)] In other words, the defendant in a civil case must help his/her opponent collect evidence that will defeat the defendant. And, at trial, if a party invokes their fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, then the judge will instruct the jury that they may make an adverse inference against the party who refused to testify.

 

[Francesca]

I am unsure what SMs involvement was. I do believe she knew what was going on upstairs or at least came for a look before the paramedics arrived and most likely was told by TM to go back downstairs and stay out of it. I'm wondering if she was ill at this time, possibly a reason for completly minimising her involvement. Apart from a few shares on fb of Molly's photos she seemed to take a back seat for 2 years leaving her brother do the talking. As far the destruction of evidence, I am interested in that. Wasn't it stated at the trial that the martens were allowed back to the house at around 10am, that crime scene people had released the scene? The evidence they did gather in that time frame was irrefutable so what else is there i wonder that the Lynchs think was there that the police did not find? Civil proceedings IMO are usually a preemptive move in some cases to cover the possibility of defendants being acquitted so they can be pursued the money route instead if things go very wrong.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

I think the main reason for minimizing her involvement was to reduce the risk to all of them - with two people, you can argue a case of self-defense... with three people, it is a systematic collaboration.
The one thing Tom did successfully achieve was to maintain sufficient reasonable doubt about pre-meditation, by claiming it all happened spontaneously. He happened to have the bat in his room and happened to take it with him; Molly had some artwork on her night stand; Sharon slept through the whole thing; he "can't remember" why Molly rang them that day or why they went down there that day, and Molly and Sharon won't testify to that. There are so many unanswered questions there, and no opportunity to ask them... yet. But if one of those factors crumbles, then you are exposing the fact that they had weapons at the ready, and there was one extra person involved who could have rendered assistance to Jason.
It would be very interesting if a strand of Sharon's hair was found in the crime scene!

 

[otto]

I've just one want.. and that is to find a law or petition used before to have pictures of minors removed from social media I was thinking it could be our nod to JC to find laws that could actually help.

Unfortunately every time I talk law or hear myself thinking about it, it sounds like a brain fart[emoji22]

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

I would expect that there's something in Facebook rules about not posting pictures of other people's minor children. Molly was never, by law, their stepmother. She was simply married to their father.

Couldn't a request be made by the minor children, or their legal guardians, to have their photos removed - especially given their history?

 

[courtney2662]

I think the main reason for minimizing her involvement was to reduce the risk to all of them - with two people, you can argue a case of self-defense... with three people, it is a systematic collaboration.
The one thing Tom did successfully achieve was to maintain sufficient reasonable doubt about pre-meditation, by claiming it all happened spontaneously. He happened to have the bat in his room and happened to take it with him; Molly had some artwork on her night stand; Sharon slept through the whole thing; he "can't remember" why Molly rang them that day or why they went down there that day, and Molly and Sharon won't testify to that. There are so many unanswered questions there, and no opportunity to ask them... yet. But if one of those factors crumbles, then you are exposing the fact that they had weapons at the ready, and there was one extra person involved who could have rendered assistance to Jason.
It would be very interesting if a strand of Sharon's hair was found in the crime scene!

SM has remained up drinking "rum drinks" with MM and JC, while TM went to bed ahead of them all. She would have been aware of how MM and JC interacted before JC went to bed, and also if MM did indeed spike JC drink. If SM were to slip up under police questioning that would have put MM and SM in line for Murder One charges, given that was hours before the murder. TM testimony lacked credibility, one minute he's answering questions with much detail, especially the story of how he awoke to sounds from above, loud enough to wake him, make him go up there with a weapon in hand, the details of the life-or-death fight, yet minutes later can't remember if his wife also woke up frightened by the noise also? Also, TM and SM are traveling together, he's driving for hours, yet it's he who had the telephone conversations with MM, not the mother, SM? I don't buy that either, but that's his testimony so that again, SM isn't questioned or required to testify. Totally Incredulous. As incredulous as the story they told of SM's part that night.

 

[Frizby]

SM has remained up drinking "rum drinks" with MM and JC, while TM went to bed ahead of them all. She would have been aware of how MM and JC interacted before JC went to bed, and also if MM did indeed spike JC drink. If SM were to slip up under police questioning that would have put MM and SM in line for Murder One charges, given that was hours before the murder. TM testimony lacked credibility, one minute he's answering questions with much detail, especially the story of how he awoke to sounds from above, loud enough to wake him, make him go up there with a weapon in hand, the details of the life-or-death fight, yet minutes later can't remember if his wife also woke up frightened by the noise also? Also, TM and SM are traveling together, he's driving for hours, yet it's he who had the telephone conversations with MM, not the mother, SM? I don't buy that either, but that's his testimony so that again, SM isn't questioned or required to testify. Totally Incredulous. As incredulous as the story they told of SM's part that night.

In relation to the calls made by MM to the parents during that drive, did they say in court that all the calls were made to TM? Or even whether they could prove which one in the vehicle took the calls regardless of what phone it was made to. I don't recall the information reported on being so specific. The jist that I got of the questioning was that numerous calls had been made (nothing specific as to which phone was being rung) and that as TM was in the car all that time, regardless if he was driving or not, then he should know what had been discussed. Maybe I picked it up wrong. Did TM even testify that he had been the one who had done all the driving. I would suspect that telephone records were entered into court records as evidence. Shame we don't have the court transcripts yet to find out exactly what was said.

 

[stmarysmead]

In relation to the calls made by MM to the parents during that drive, did they say in court that all the calls were made to TM? Or even whether they could prove which one in the vehicle took the calls regardless of what phone it was made to. I don't recall the information reported on being so specific. The jist that I got of the questioning was that numerous calls had been made (nothing specific as to which phone was being rung) and that as TM was in the car all that time, regardless if he was driving or not, then he should know what had been discussed. Maybe I picked it up wrong. Did TM even testify that he had been the one who had done all the driving. I would suspect that telephone records were entered into court records as evidence. Shame we don't have the court transcripts yet to find out exactly what was said.

I'd like to know what kind of car TM was driving. My car has a "bluetooth" function where if my cell phone rings... I can answer through this touchscreen. Everyone in the car can hear the conversation through the speakers. I have always imagined this was how they conversed with MM on the drive down.

 

[stmarysmead]

SM has remained up drinking "rum drinks" with MM and JC, while TM went to bed ahead of them all. She would have been aware of how MM and JC interacted before JC went to bed, and also if MM did indeed spike JC drink. If SM were to slip up under police questioning that would have put MM and SM in line for Murder One charges, given that was hours before the murder. TM testimony lacked credibility, one minute he's answering questions with much detail, especially the story of how he awoke to sounds from above, loud enough to wake him, make him go up there with a weapon in hand, the details of the life-or-death fight, yet minutes later can't remember if his wife also woke up frightened by the noise also? Also, TM and SM are traveling together, he's driving for hours, yet it's he who had the telephone conversations with MM, not the mother, SM? I don't buy that either, but that's his testimony so that again, SM isn't questioned or required to testify. Totally Incredulous. As incredulous as the story they told of SM's part that night.

The reason I posted the laws about civil,trials is to show how much more onerous this trial situation will be for the M family both financially and legally. Once again they will probably all three need separate lawyers...though they can represent themselves if they want to wing it.

They must submit to depositions, answering questions before the trial separately....individually. So opposing attorneys will have a chance to ask MM and SM many questions in detail. They don't have to testify in court but that CAN be held against them...unlike in a criminal case.

This is where many conspiracies fall apart. I think we will learn a great deal.

 

[Frizby]

You know, I have been trying to rationalise as to how MM convinced so many people of her innocence, that she was the victim, like she did and is still evident on her FB page. I explained my rational behind her post in December 2015 in my post #584. The issue around the custody was a battle and a half, even just trying to get the children's possessions.

But you can see the dismissive nature of MM when you read her posts, particularly about the ring. This ring that they wanted to be returned was JC's first wife's engagement ring. There were also other items of extreme sentimental value wanted, like the videos of the children & a plaque of imprints of the children's hands. In MM eyes, or what she wants to portray to her loyal supporter, was that she did not breach any court order. She says that she had on numerous occasions offered these items to the Guardians but they were refused according to MM. Her way of painting the Guardians as the ones in the wrong. A lot of this can be seen in her post & responses of 18th & 23rd December.

However, she did breach the court order, every time she offered the items back, she did it on the stipulation that she received in writing a letter from the children that they got the items back or a picture of them with the items. The Guardians Lawyers would not take the items on MM conditions. It's a bit like you or me receiving a speeding fine and telling the police that you will pay but only if they send you a birthday card.

http://evoke.ie/news/irish-news/court-bid-for-magss-rings

http://evoke.ie/news/irish-news/jasons-childrens-toys-strewn-on-driveway

 

[Deleted member 165489]

Let's not forget there were no fingerprints found on the bat. This suggests the bat was wiped of prints. Why would TM do this? He would do it if it was young JC's bat as his prints would be on it and this could prove premeditation. IMO it WAS young JC's bat. Would this suggest M already had it in the bedroom as well as the brick? Maybe M's prints were also on the bat? If only that bat could talk!!

I think the main reason for minimizing her involvement was to reduce the risk to all of them - with two people, you can argue a case of self-defense... with three people, it is a systematic collaboration.
The one thing Tom did successfully achieve was to maintain sufficient reasonable doubt about pre-meditation, by claiming it all happened spontaneously. He happened to have the bat in his room and happened to take it with him; Molly had some artwork on her night stand; Sharon slept through the whole thing; he "can't remember" why Molly rang them that day or why they went down there that day, and Molly and Sharon won't testify to that. There are so many unanswered questions there, and no opportunity to ask them... yet. But if one of those factors crumbles, then you are exposing the fact that they had weapons at the ready, and there was one extra person involved who could have rendered assistance to Jason.
It would be very interesting if a strand of Sharon's hair was found in the crime scene!

 

[stmarysmead]

SM has remained up drinking "rum drinks" with MM and JC, while TM went to bed ahead of them all. She would have been aware of how MM and JC interacted before JC went to bed, and also if MM did indeed spike JC drink. If SM were to slip up under police questioning that would have put MM and SM in line for Murder One charges, given that was hours before the murder. TM testimony lacked credibility, one minute he's answering questions with much detail, especially the story of how he awoke to sounds from above, loud enough to wake him, make him go up there with a weapon in hand, the details of the life-or-death fight, yet minutes later can't remember if his wife also woke up frightened by the noise also? Also, TM and SM are traveling together, he's driving for hours, yet it's he who had the telephone conversations with MM, not the mother, SM? I don't buy that either, but that's his testimony so that again, SM isn't questioned or required to testify. Totally Incredulous. As incredulous as the story they told of SM's part that night.

I am betting that Mastermind TM sits in his cell and frets over these civil suit depositions. It's not just the money. It's their reputations...the shredding of the fantasy of decency and integrity.

TM must know that MM is totally unpredictable if they upset her or make her mad. She will not be treated with kid gloves. Remember her stomping out of the trial that day? Put her in that fury having to answer questions....

Then there's SM. TM may not have prepped her story in detail. He intended to carry the whole storyline himself. But they have plenty of areas to cover where SM is directly involved...going back well before the murder as well.

Maybe they can even bring in the financing of the trip to Ireland for a daughter just out of a mental hospital to care for infants....as that deliberate act planted their mentally ill daughter in the C household...the first step in this tragedy.

 

[Logic-lady]

Remember in the 911 call it sounded as though MM was talking to someone else in the background while TM was on the phone to the dispatcher? Grouchymom from your previous posts, you seem to have the knack when it comes to all things technical, do you think you could clean up the audio to see if we could get a clearer idea of who it was? If the kids were asleep as per the detectives testimony, it really only leaves one logical conclusion doesn't it? Is this why she has been named in the civil suit?

 

[stmarysmead]

You know, I have been trying to rationalise as to how MM convinced so many people of her innocence, that she was the victim, like she did and is still evident on her FB page. I explained my rational behind her post in December 2015 in my post #584. The issue around the custody was a battle and a half, even just trying to get the children's possessions.

But you can see the dismissive nature of MM when you read her posts, particularly about the ring. This ring that they wanted to be returned was JC's first wife's engagement ring. There were also other items of extreme sentimental value wanted, like the videos of the children & a plaque of imprints of the children's hands. In MM eyes, or what she wants to portray to her loyal supporter, was that she did not breach any court order. She says that she had on numerous occasions offered these items to the Guardians but they were refused according to MM. Her way of painting the Guardians as the ones in the wrong. A lot of this can be seen in her post & responses of 18th & 23rd December.

However, she did breach the court order, every time she offered the items back, she did it on the stipulation that she received in writing a letter from the children that they got the items back or a picture of them with the items. The Guardians Lawyers would not take the items on MM conditions. It's a bit like you or me receiving a speeding fine and telling the police that you will but only if they send you a birthday card.

http://evoke.ie/news/irish-news/court-bid-for-magss-rings

http://evoke.ie/news/irish-news/jasons-childrens-toys-strewn-on-driveway

"It's a bit like you or me receiving a speeding fine and telling the police that you will but only if they send you a birthday card."

Well said! This sums up the egregious need to be in control. Always in control. Can you imagine what JC went through by denying her anything...much less what she wanted most in the world?

This family also has an egregious disregard for the law. She was only going to obey this court order on her terms. She completely ignored Shipwash's order on the Estate. I believe she would have kidnapped those children if she could have devised a way. Remember Shipwash surprised her with his final order when she believed they were bringing in a guardian ad litem.

That must have enraged her. She who must be obeyed.

I'm not surprised she has fooled so many people. Remember Lynn Shanahans interview.
http://evoke.ie/news/jason-corbett-wasnt-ready-to-marry-claims-best-friend

She presents as quiet, almost stand-off-ish. She delights in childish things and shines around children. She has a soft voice and is attractive. She's a shiny red convertible with a rusted engine. Those who only interact with her superficially can be easily fooled.

 

[stmarysmead]

With regard to mm fb posts. I followed from day one and fortunately for me I was living out of Ireland and in different time zone so when somebody maybe would appear to have a few mojitos too many and start to write long, badly spelled, ranting raving, nonsensical posts late into the night, I was up and reading.

Always deleted early morning....

I would perhaps be writing posts like that if I was drunk or mixed meds with alcohol... but that's just me ?

Jmo

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

Rage and insomnia. I've always wondered if that's how this murder started as well. Everyone in bed. Molly in her maniac phase, roaming about in a fury. Maybe the second or third day with no sleep.

She roams outside...gets a brick from the garden. She gets a bat from the garage. She is madder and madder and there he sleeps, oblivious.

 

[stmarysmead]

Didn't some neighbor report seeing someone leave the house in the early morning hours? Maybe that was MM outside, gathering another weapon.

 

[Francesca]

Rage and insomnia. I've always wondered if that's how this murder started as well. Everyone in bed. Molly in her maniac phase, roaming about in a fury. Maybe the second or third day with no sleep.

She roams outside...gets a brick from the garden. She gets a bat from the garage. She is madder and madder and there he sleeps, oblivious.

I believe she lived with TM and SM in the lead up to the trial. IMO, that in itself was a small punishment for them. Imagine them lying in bed night after night, and listening to her stomping around the house, knowing that she's fuming with frustration that the children are in Ireland, triggered by whatever she's reading online in the middle of the night, and still sulking over the grim heated family discussions they would have had during the day. We know for sure that TM had seen what she did to Jason, SM probably saw the crime scene too - it could not have been easy sleeping with her in the house after that.
We have no idea of how her rage wound down the night she killed Jason, whether TM had to stop her from hitting the body and then calm her down before he could consider calling 911. We've agreed it's unlikely he would have been there at the start of the assault, but imagine walking into the middle of it.
It was a punishment they brought completely upon themselves, because if they'd admitted the truth in the first place, they could have saved Jason, got Molly the help she needed and protected themselves.

 

[Frizby]

Excerpt from an interesting article about lying and bipolar disease.

http://www.bipolar-lives.com/bipolar-and-lying.html

In my opinion, bipolar and lying go together with bipolar grandiosity, diminished need for sleep, racing thoughts and overall impulsivity and impaired judgment. The person with bipolar disorder may be experiencing a powerful sense of superiority and entitlement, and/or an unshakable conviction they are above the rules and/or an aching feeling of being misunderstood and under-appreciated – that is, the perfect storm!

During an episode, the normal self is temporarily replaced by someone who is convinced they are special and superior. He or she is now so wrapped up in themselves that they can only perceive other people and events through their own self-engrossment. Nothing has significance except for how it relates to their wonderful, perfect self – right here and right now. What are some examples of our society’s “special” or “superior” people? Think about royalty, celebrities, presidents, third-world dictators. Often, we see such people acting as if they can play by a different set of rules. They are above the law. Bipolar liars may have such an inflated sense of self-importance that they feel suffocated and constrained by everyday life. “Great Ones” do not have to stick to drab and suffocating facts, especially if the truth stands in opposition to seemingly brilliant insights and moments of revelation (rather than the base and tawdry need for excitement that others may perceive).

Remember, in grandiosity the perception is not just of being special. It is a conviction of being “superior”. This means having more value than others and more importance than others. It is a hierarchical perception. The grandiose bipolar liar is not just the center of their own delusional universe – they are ABOVE others. This may mean also being above the usual norms of behavior. It is a special sense of immunity and entitlement.

This is why it is so typical for bipolar liars to not only express no remorse but to act as if they are actually the injured party. In their delusional state, they experience any attempt to limit their behavior (for example with the truth) as a malicious and unjustified act of control and domination. Any effort to reason with them will be perceived as manipulative, and ironically may even be perceived as selfish or cruel. They are a bright and shining star and any attempt to curb their manic behavior is a petty, jealous attack by mere mortals who resent true greatness."

Worth bumping this post to give us an understanding of the possible effects of bipolar. While many manage this dreadful affliction well, a deep understanding is hard to fathom for most.

 

[fido]

Remember in the 911 call it sounded as though MM was talking to someone else in the background while TM was on the phone to the dispatcher? Grouchymom from your previous posts, you seem to have the knack when it comes to all things technical, do you think you could clean up the audio to see if we could get a clearer idea of who it was? If the kids were asleep as per the detectives testimony, it really only leaves one logical conclusion doesn't it? Is this why she has been named in the civil suit?

100% agree. This has always bugged me and in my innocence I expected that call to have been enhanced digitally for the trial. I commented on that during 911 operators testimony all the while expecting it to come up. Never could understand how that got glossed over...

 

[Electric Sheep]

I am betting that Mastermind TM sits in his cell and frets over these civil suit depositions. It's not just the money. It's their reputations...the shredding of the fantasy of decency and integrity.

TM must know that MM is totally unpredictable if they upset her or make her mad. She will not be treated with kid gloves. Remember her stomping out of the trial that day? Put her in that fury having to answer questions....

Then there's SM. TM may not have prepped her story in detail. He intended to carry the whole storyline himself. But they have plenty of areas to cover where SM is directly involved...going back well before the murder as well.

Maybe they can even bring in the financing of the trip to Ireland for a daughter just out of a mental hospital to care for infants....as that deliberate act planted their mentally ill daughter in the C household...the first step in this tragedy.

I somehow doubt that it was the Martens who financed Molly's move to Ireland. That was never established, was it? I don't recall ever seeing it in MSM.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

 

[Harmony 2]

Let's not forget there were no fingerprints found on the bat. This suggests the bat was wiped of prints. Why would TM do this? He would do it if it was young JC's bat as his prints would be on it and this could prove premeditation. IMO it WAS young JC's bat. Would this suggest M already had it in the bedroom as well as the brick? Maybe M's prints were also on the bat? If only that bat could talk!!

bbm

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ated-soninlaw-jason-court-hears-35989680.html

The trial also heard North Carolina State Crime laboratory fingerprint expert, Adrianne Reeve, reveal that no identifying fingerprints were found on the blood-soaked Louisville Slugger baseball bat found at the scene.
Ms Reeve said fingerprint-type ridges were found in a dark red dried substance believed to have been blood.

"There were no identifying latent (hidden) print on Item 1 (baseball bat)," she said.

"(I) saw some ride detail - but there was not sufficient quantity or quality of it available," she said.

I posted about this in a prior thread...I interpret the quotes from the fingerprint expert to mean that fingerprint ridges were found but not identifiable, which could mean they were smudged or not of sufficient quality. This is totally different than none were found. IMO

eta: There is obviously a typo in the last statement - should be ridge detail not ride detail.