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

[stmarysmead]

Up until 2006, when I was close to a highly publicized case, I believed that most of our media did straight reporting. I believed they gave me as much information on each side of an issue so that I could form my own opinions.

I trusted them. I did not ever think that they chose villains and victims, but they do. I never believed I was being manipulated. But I was.

Because one time, I knew the truth. Like you do now.

Everything you read and see from our press is selective,shaped, and edited to drive a metanarrative. Please remember this when they spoon feed you opinions in the International press. Remember what they have done to JC...how they have created a bully wife beater. Remember how they have wrapped MM in pink cotton, the pitiful abused wife, fabulous Mother.

Think about what people are being "sold" and what has been left out.

Tonight if you see CNN International or read the our "prestige" press...remember.

Remember the emotional manipulation and the "selective" empathy.

You are seeing it now right before your eyes.

 

[Logic-lady]

They included everything the jurors said in the motion https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.tow...-57e3-8011-3974fc96dfc1/5994ce75ec0b6.pdf.pdf
Where they got the the information about the Foreman and other juror meeting in the car is questionable. It also could be completely innocent. The way they obtained this information is what we are curious about . The only part that could cause concern would be as Frizby pointed out him saying private conversations in the interview outside the courtroom. They will be each questioned by the judge for clarification and the Da will file a motion to reject and on what grounds . Scott Peterson did this as well because a juror was pregnant (he murdered his pregnant wife) it was thrown out . I think it is a frequent occurrence .

On that note we should all probably give a shout out to Mr Holt...he's obviously been following us all for awhile to hear our madcap theories! :websleuther:

 

[Logic-lady]

Are you on tapa talk if you are scroll to the bottom and click switch to full site . I never see it on tapa talk

On the bottom of the post there should be three options Thanks, Reply, and Reply with Quote

 

[Annela]

Are you on tapa talk if you are scroll to the bottom and click switch to full site . I never see it on tapa talk

Cheers Stephan. No I'm not on tapa talk - just a web browser?

 

[Annela]

On the bottom of the post there should be three options Thanks, Reply, and Reply with Quote

Aha! Thanks Logic-lady. That's wierd. I've got :
(1) Swirly arrow (which opens an empty Message Reply dialog box)
(2) Quotation Mark on its own (which opens a Message Reply dialog box with the Quote
(3) Quotation Mark with left pointing arrow (which opens multiple quotes when I reply)
Wahhh! i'm still lost! is the first swirly arrow the Thanks button then?

 

[Logic-lady]

Aha! Thanks Logic-lady. That's wierd. I've got :
(1) Swirly arrow (which opens an empty Message Reply dialog box)
(2) Quotation Mark on its own (which opens a Message Reply dialog box with the Quote
(3) Quotation Mark with left pointing arrow (which opens multiple quotes when I reply)
Wahhh! i'm still lost! is the first swirly arrow the Thanks button then?

How strange!! Ok so to the left of all those arrows there should be a thumbs up button for thanks? It won't show on a post you have put up yourself, but it should be there on posts that others have put up.

 

[Annela]

How strange!! Ok so to the left of all those arrows there should be a thumbs up button for thanks? It won't show on a post you have put up yourself, but it should be there on posts that others have put up.

Yup, curiourser and curiouser... I was on Firefox so thought it might be that. Went on MS Edge and I'm still "thankless"
I do have a nice set of emoticons though. Hmmmm :thinking:

 

[Annela]

Ah... I spoke too soon!!! Now I can Thank people. Yay!! You're my first Thanks Logic-lady.
Sorry for being an eejit and interrupting your discussion. I'm off back to catch up on the thread now. See you later

 

[stmarysmead]

Sometimes if you refresh...the Thanks button comes back. :thinking:

 

[Logic-lady]

Ah... I spoke too soon!!! Now I can Thank people. Yay!! You're my first Thanks Logic-lady.
Sorry for being an eejit and interrupting your discussion. I'm off back to catch up on the thread now. See you later

No worries :cheers:

 

[stmarysmead]

What I hate about the Defense tactics...it's about tricks...not the truth. How did our justice system become about fooling the jury, inflaming the public with lies, finding loopholes?

 

[zozimus]

Simple question.. if a judge talks to the jurors and any one of them admits breaking his instructions about not talking about the case.with others, googling it etc.. is that enough to order a retrial.? Like in the real world... I would say most people would talk about it a little with their wives partners etc... maybe even Google it... go on here perhaps?

 

[fido]

In this age of social media the only way to avoid googling by juries is to sequester them. If they don't want to pay to sequester, they have to accept that there is no 100% fail safe method of keeping information already in the public domain, away from a jury.

 

[irishmartin]

This not double jeopardy.

Double jeopardy is where someone is tried for the same crime twice with fairly recent amendments in most countries setting it aside where new evidence became available after the first trial that was not then available at the first. In that scenario the first trial would have being an acquittal in a Not Guilty verdict. Don’t know if the amended law is applicable to NC but I would believe it is as there has being a massive codification of their criminal statute common law rules.

The scenario here is for a second trial is the first being set aside as being untrustworthy and the appeal judge ordering a new one or just setting the judgment aside. This is not a Not Guilty verdict. It would be then for the DA to decide on a retrial. A retrial doesn’t necessary have to follow the evidence route of the first trial. There is nothing about the M trial that suggest it’s an unsafe verdict if anything the opposite. The courts have no business questioning two jurors what they discussed. If the juror(s) were joined by a prosecution counsel or local sheriff dep and nothing pertinent to the trial discussed at the meeting it would raise an unsafe verdict with the old legal adage raising its head "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.”.

 

[stephanddoody]

[video=twitter;898294295597338626]https://twitter.com/alexrosenews/status/898294295597338626[/video]

 

[irishmartin]

In this age of social media the only way to avoid googling by juries is to sequester them. If they don't want to pay to sequester, they have to accept that there is no 100% fail safe method of keeping information already in the public domain, away from a jury.

It raises the whole issue of unsafe trials that was not of previous. Don’t think it would be possible to imprison juries for duration of trials. It that came to be then one would not be able to impanel juries. All one can do at present is trust and hope. Could the scenario arise of jury members’ laptops and phones being seized during trials to check what they were up to?

 

[irishmartin]

Simple question.. if a judge talks to the jurors and any one of them admits breaking his instructions about not talking about the case.with others, googling it etc.. is that enough to order a retrial.? Like in the real world... I would say most people would talk about it a little with their wives partners etc... maybe even Google it... go on here perhaps?

of course and the question of contempt of court and prison for the jury member possible depending on how much it has cost the state the trial.

 

[stephanddoody]

[video=twitter;898299186021449728]https://twitter.com/alexrosenews/status/89829186021449728[/video]

More than 40 pages were filed on behalf of the defense. The motion cites "misconduct" from some jurors and makes the argument that the trial did not have a fair and impartial jury. It specifically quotes one statement made by jury foreman Tom Aamland during a press conference
after the trial.You know anytime someone is convicted of murder and sent off to prison for 20 years, everything is looked into and you naturally expect anybody to grasp at any straw they can," said Davidson County District Attorney Garry Frank.In a Facebook post on Monday, Aamland stated "any previous posts, statements, and/or theories are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any other members of the jury... The verdict was found by evidence presented in the courtroom only."Meanwhile, defense attorneys have appealed the court’s decision, which will go to the North Carolina Court of Appeals before a panel of three judges.
Freedman expects the appeal to be heard sometime in the summer of 2018.​

 

[zozimus]

This is a problem faced everywhere I guess.. Is there an argument for shortening the period of a trial where jurors are present somehow. And always sequestering them... one thing I do know... They shouldn't be allowed talk to the press like rock stars afterwards. That was highly inappropriate IMO. Even if I agree fully with the verdict itself.

 

[irishmartin]

According to court papers, Molly Corbett has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. But that was never presented to the jury, the motion says. "No evidence from the witness stand supported any conclusions that she suffered from bipolar disorder, was manipulative or could control her 'personalities,' or from which the jury could reasonably infer those conclusions," the motion says. Molly Corbett did not testify, and the jurors' "speculation about Molly Corbett's mental status or manipulative personality also violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to testify, as well as the defendant's Due Process and Equal Protection clause protections," the motion says.

Improper theories


The motion also said that the three jurors talked about their theory that Molly was the aggressor and struck her husband first with the paving brick while he was asleep. That contradicts the court's finding that Molly Corbett was not the aggressor and the evidence doesn't support the theory, the motion says.

Holton and Freedman also allege that the jurors were biased and less than candid. Perez vomited when looking at an autopsy photo and told Lee outside the presence of other jurors that it was because she had skipped breakfast, the motion says. But in the 20/20 interview, Perez said, "I don't think there's anything or any experience in life that can prepare you to look at those pictures."

Perez also talked post-trial about the case on social media, mentioning that Molly Corbett was "delusional" and "how daddy and Sharon (Molly's mother) enabled this non-human person." She said Molly's parents and Molly Corbett lied and that Sharon Martens did crossword puzzles for the last three weeks of the trial, according to the motion.

Ha–ha put that in your pipe and smoke it.
The courts made no finding on the aggressor or who pulled the trigger.
Here we have MM defense playing around with the idea MM was not the original aggressor. Do they know something the public don’t know? Has MM gone gaga on daddy.