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

New Posts

kittythehare said:
Excellent response.
Shame they were again forced to devote resources to answering nonsense!
Click to expand...

Agree,

EmilysQuotes.Com-money-cost-0-being-a-decent-person-being-a-good-person-inspirational-unknown-500x279.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Truestory said:
One thing that has always stood out to me about the bat and if it was actually brought there that night as aledged.
TM stated he brought it as a gift for his 'grandson' as he liked to label him, JC jnr.
Was he ever asked what did he bring for SC?
What grandparent brings a gift just for one grandchild and not another. Even if it is a hand me down sporting item as claimed.
It was still regarded as a gift and another child was there. Two children.
No one just gets something to give to one child and leaves another look on empty handed.
No grandparent I know would ever do that.

All my opinion only.
Click to expand...

That's so true! And I'd never thought of that.
I wonder if they were ever asked?
Another example of the advantages of the hive-mind on here

:great:
 
DaleTray said:
Your post appears from a female name but sounded like it came directly from a man. Some of men's thoughts to live by.
Never kick a man's dog
Never sleep with a man's wife
Never drive a man's car anytime after killing said man
Click to expand...

Not that it matters, but very much female. I believe everyone lives by the rule, never kick a dog. Everyone should live by the rule never sleep with anyone else's spouse. I find it twisted and sickening that TM was able to sit in the driver's seat of Jason's car, knowing full well what he had done with his bare hands to that innocent man. It speaks to an evil that is so ingrained, an absolute lack of conscience. It shows there was no sense of remorse at having participated in such a bloody barbaric murder, having caused JC a gruesome prolonged painful death, no compassion at alll. Most murderers will at some point admit to sense of remorse or even sorrow at having taken another's life. But not old TM, he went on as if he had done nothing at all, got in the man's car and went about his daily chores. That is a man without a moral compass IMO.

Why does it matter if I were female or male anyway? That's an odd comment, also IMO.
 
Shadow Girl said:
No MM was posting on Facebook long before November. I don' know the exact date but was as early a beginning of September and probably August 2015. All pictures of JC were removed and only her and the children were posted. She deleted all these posts prior to November. SM was also posting on her page from September 1st 2015.
Click to expand...

I first became aware MM was posting on FB once Tracey Lynch received custody of JC's children, Aug 2015 and returned to Ireland with them. MM went on social media rampage, and MM and ME went to Irish Media. MM had removed all traces of JC from her FB first, including any and all pictures of the kids with their father.

http://www.journalnow.com/news/crim...cle_8a3e350b-b020-5052-a7f6-9c3fb74f70c6.html
 
'Expression of opinions by jurors during the presentation of evidence is the defendants' fifth allegation of juror misconduct. It is unsupported by any allegations or argument. The State requests thirty days to reply should any amendment be allowed by this Court' (page 7 of the prosecutions reply to the motion)

So it seems they never filed the additional affidavit that they said would cover this. I was rather intrigued as to what it would be; I may never know.

I think it was a good reply from the prosecution.

All IMO
 
courtney2662 said:
I first became aware MM was posting on FB once Tracey Lynch received custody of JC's children, Aug 2015 and returned to Ireland with them. MM went on social media rampage, and MM and ME went to Irish Media. MM had removed all traces of JC from her FB first, including any and all pictures of the kids with their father.

http://www.journalnow.com/news/crim...cle_8a3e350b-b020-5052-a7f6-9c3fb74f70c6.html
Click to expand...

I wonder why she removed her own posts before November? Everything is calculated with these people, so there must be a reason. She wrote most of these thinking they were getting away with murder. Anyone remember them?.
 
"Moreover the defendants have only provided general assertions and speculation, and as such, the motion contains insufficient admissible evidence to establish that jury misconduct has occurred." [p 9]
"General assertions and speculation" combined with insufficient admissible evidence could sum up their entire defense strategy.
 
emmalpage81 said:
'Expression of opinions by jurors during the presentation of evidence is the defendants' fifth allegation of juror misconduct. It is unsupported by any allegations or argument. The State requests thirty days to reply should any amendment be allowed by this Court' (page 7 of the prosecutions reply to the motion)

So it seems they never filed the additional affidavit that they said would cover this. I was rather intrigued as to what it would be; I may never know.

I think it was a good reply from the prosecution.

All IMO
Click to expand...

I wonder if most of this isn't another "show"...now they can claim another unfair situation...juror mis conduct,..and beg money and hope they can garner more sympathy in case they get another trial. They are using the local paper like they used FB...to promote their latest sob story.
 
stmarysmead said:
I wonder why she removed her own posts before November? Everything is calculated with these people, so there must be a reason. She wrote most of these thinking they were getting away with murder. Anyone remember them?.
Click to expand...

I didn't see anything during that timeframe, but maybe she overdid the whitewash over Jason's death? You can see from what is left that she was running with the first of two separate narratives - the first narrative was that he wanted her to raise the children in the US if something happened to him; second,their marriage was in trouble because he was abusive. The two stories don't fit neatly together because there's no factual evidence for either scenario.
In the earliest posts available, and in the first viral FB post I ever saw (Jan 2016) there does seem to be the implication that he just died suddenly and his cruel relatives had snatched away the children, even though he would have wanted her to raise them herself in the US. This was when she was focusing the social media campaign on getting the children back, not on defending herself for a murder charge. Even the earliest ones remaining are worded oddly when you consider she was being investigated for his murder. The ones she deleted might have seemed more strange in that context.
Is it possible that she had thought the police had just dropped the question of how Jason died, so she was 100% focused on getting the kids back? Then when she realized the murder charge was looming, she quickly got rid of anything that was too family-focused. Later, she had to drop the custody question (unwillingly) to concentrate on the murder charge, but even Molly would have seen it was a bit of a stretch to combine the two narratives and claim that Jason's dying thought as she beat him to death was that she was the woman he wanted raising his children.
 
Francesca said:
I didn't see anything during that timeframe, but maybe she overdid the whitewash over Jason's death? You can see from what is left that she was running with the first of two separate narratives - the first narrative was that he wanted her to raise the children in the US if something happened to him; second,their marriage was in trouble because he was abusive. The two stories don't fit neatly together because there's no factual evidence for either scenario.
In the earliest posts available, and in the first viral FB post I ever saw (Jan 2016) there does seem to be the implication that he just died suddenly and his cruel relatives had snatched away the children, even though he would have wanted her to raise them herself in the US. This was when she was focusing the social media campaign on getting the children back, not on defending herself for a murder charge. Even the earliest ones remaining are worded oddly when you consider she was being investigated for his murder. The ones she deleted might have seemed more strange in that context.
Is it possible that she had thought the police had just dropped the question of how Jason died, so she was 100% focused on getting the kids back? Then when she realized the murder charge was looming, she quickly got rid of anything that was too family-focused. Later, she had to drop the custody question (unwillingly) to concentrate on the murder charge, but even Molly would have seen it was a bit of a stretch to combine the two narratives and claim that Jason's dying thought as she beat him to death was that she was the woman he wanted raising his children.
Click to expand...

Thank you so much. That makes absolute sense finally!

Perhaps she really thought the guardians broke in and took her pictures, etc...because their arrogance was so far reaching that she could not fathom that they were at risk of being indicted. It was all about custody until....whoa, I'd love to have been fly on the wall and watched when she and TM figured out the truth.
 
stmarysmead said:
Thank you so much. That makes absolute sense finally!

Perhaps she really thought the guardians broke in and took her pictures, etc...because their arrogance was so far reaching that she could not fathom that they were at risk of being indicted. It was all about custody until....whoa, I'd love to have been fly on the wall and watched when she and TM figured out the truth.
Click to expand...

There is a post on her FB page dated December 2015 where someone commented that the children's parents would have wanted Molly to be the one looking after them - their mother looking down in heaven would want it to be the one "their father chose." The person who wrote this could not possibly have known how Jason died.
 
What MM forgot is that there is another person in almost all of her pretty FB pictures. It's JC that she and the children are smiling at....the man behind the camera. The expensive clothes, the lovely home, the seemingly endless vacations all over the world...it's The Man Behind the Camera who is working hard and providing that life for her. The man she murdered speaks to us from every picture she ever posted on FB or Instagram.

He tried so hard to please her, didn't he? It's to their Daddy that thie children give their smiles. He tells Molly to gather them in, as photo takers do. He catches her and SC sleeping on a ferry....or dressed, both of them, for an elegant NYE party. On trips, he's taking pictures of his children and the woman who would literally beat his brains out.

MM forgot that for anyone educated in this case at all, we could see JC, that kind and generous man....frequently in her FB posts. Her efforts to erase him from memory failed for us. And failed in every court of law she and her father have faced.
 
Francesca said:
I didn't see anything during that timeframe, but maybe she overdid the whitewash over Jason's death? You can see from what is left that she was running with the first of two separate narratives - the first narrative was that he wanted her to raise the children in the US if something happened to him; second,their marriage was in trouble because he was abusive. The two stories don't fit neatly together because there's no factual evidence for either scenario.
In the earliest posts available, and in the first viral FB post I ever saw (Jan 2016) there does seem to be the implication that he just died suddenly and his cruel relatives had snatched away the children, even though he would have wanted her to raise them herself in the US. This was when she was focusing the social media campaign on getting the children back, not on defending herself for a murder charge. Even the earliest ones remaining are worded oddly when you consider she was being investigated for his murder. The ones she deleted might have seemed more strange in that context.
Is it possible that she had thought the police had just dropped the question of how Jason died, so she was 100% focused on getting the kids back? Then when she realized the murder charge was looming, she quickly got rid of anything that was too family-focused. Later, she had to drop the custody question (unwillingly) to concentrate on the murder charge, but even Molly would have seen it was a bit of a stretch to combine the two narratives and claim that Jason's dying thought as she beat him to death was that she was the woman he wanted raising his children.
Click to expand...

What we need to remember when looking at the social media posts is that MM & TM were not actually charged with anything until Jan 2016. Her sole focus up until that point WAS the custody dispute. I truly believe she never even considered that she would be held accountable for this murder and therefore she felt thwarted and frustrated that she was being denied the very thing she wanted by carrying out the murder in the first place - the kids.

Remember, local people were not privy to the violence of JC's death. It was referred to as him having 'passed away' as though it were peaceful and these poor kids who had already lost a father, were now about to lose the only mother they had ever known. The frustration at being denied the children very swiftly became focused on the Irish family - how heartless they were being, only in it for the money. They were not charged so they had nothing to fear. JC was no longer there to stand up for himself so they could use his 'opinion' any way they wanted - HE wanted to make the kids US citizens, HE chose MM to be the kids mother, HE would have wanted their life to continue in the US without him. TM LOVED golfing with his buddy JC, this was a 'home, sweet, home'.

The narrative only changed once MM was charged. The rumours and suggestions that JC killed his first wife and that MM had lived for years under this oppressive 'bear' of a man were shouted from the rooftops. IMO completely ignoring the impact that this would have on the two children she claims to have loved.

IMO the interesting factor about this sudden change in outlook, is not the fact that the story changes, it is how the Martens were from the very outset manipulating the media to achieve an outcome which they wanted. They presented 'facts' that would garner the most sympathy and completely gloss over the heinous FACTS that lay underneath. They did this right up to the trial IMO.
 
The pre November posts were removed because she pulled a bit of a hissy fit . Mm opened her page to comments as she sometimes did .She was asked to return the children's belongings she gave the usual spiel l would give my children anything but the guardians don't want/won't let me give them SS of the guardianship papers were posted on it . They included the pages where it was ordered that the children's belongings be handed over . THey were dated from August and she hadn't given the children their belongings. She said the Ss were falsified so the guardianship papers were posted . The Ss were not falsified. She was caught out lying to her followers and closed the page for a few days and reopened it again but with all those posts missing . I was raging because she had a lovely lasagna recipe posted and I no longer had access to it . She posted that on Jason's birthday while the rest of the world posted Birthday messages to Jason and Wayne on the jfj page
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Staff online

Members online

... and 82 more.
Total: 345 (members: 83, guests: 262)

Online statistics

Members online
83
Guests online
262
Total visitors
345
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
615,954
Messages
18,343,373
Members
236,879
Latest member
Sleuthnewb
Back
Top