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

[Truthseeker79]

And he never once raised his hand to them to retaliate? Would you not even try fight back? Both MM and TM were much much smaller than him, he would have been justified in defending himself by giving them a punch at least. JC submitting to an assault and not retaliating in any physical way is what I find hard to believe. Fight or flight...he did neither. Now was it 'overkill'? That's where the question lies for me....render a threat unconscious and remove perceived threat, that's what a jury will have to decide. If TM had no other way of removing the threat ( if there was a threat there in the first place)

 

[Truthseeker79]

The judge said in his deciding statement he based the decision on the fact they are Irish citizens, that the birth parents wanted them with relatives through the will being made, and that they had extended family to go to. Not that the children were at risk with MM or any reference to the inlaws claims. He said of the children were American in another Country he would want them back in America. After 'legal' deliberations he grated custody to the guardians. It was primarily a citizenship case.

 

[Mom2catieandtwins]

And he never once raised his hand to them to retaliate? Would you not even try fight back? Both MM and TM were much much smaller than him, he would have been justified in defending himself by giving them a punch at least. JC submitting to an assault and not retaliating in any physical way is what I find hard to believe. Fight or flight...he did neither. Now was it 'overkill'? That's where the question lies for me....render a threat unconscious and remove perceived threat, that's what a jury will have to decide. If TM had no other way of removing the threat ( if there was a threat there in the first place)

The facts lead me to believe, Jason was first struck while he slept. The first blow to his head left him unable to defend himself.

 

[Mom2catieandtwins]

The judge said in his deciding statement he based the decision on the fact they are Irish citizens, that the birth parents wanted them with relatives through the will being made, and that they had extended family to go to. Not that the children were at risk with MM or any reference to the inlaws claims. He said of the children were American in another Country he would want them back in America. After 'legal' deliberations he grated custody to the guardians. It was primarily a citizenship case.

The judge granted custody to the children's family. The family that MM pretends does not exist. The blood relatives that have nothing to do with the death of the children's father. The blood relatives who in the best interest of the children will keep both Mags and Jason's memory alive.

 

[peregrino]

And he never once raised his hand to them to retaliate? Would you not even try fight back? Both MM and TM were much much smaller than him, he would have been justified in defending himself by giving them a punch at least. JC submitting to an assault and not retaliating in any physical way is what I find hard to believe. Fight or flight...he did neither. Now was it 'overkill'? That's where the question lies for me....render a threat unconscious and remove perceived threat, that's what a jury will have to decide. If TM had no other way of removing the threat ( if there was a threat there in the first place)

I also dont believe there was a threat to Molly in the first place. I think it was an unprovoked assault. Re the retaliation angle though, many men - me included - would not punch their partner if attacked by them. My first instinct would be to protect my head from a blunt weapon. My second instinct would be flight - if at that stage I was able. IMO Jason was struck repeatedly in an unprovoked attack and would have been too incapacitated to flee.

 

[stmarysmead]

And he never once raised his hand to them to retaliate? Would you not even try fight back? Both MM and TM were much much smaller than him, he would have been justified in defending himself by giving them a punch at least. JC submitting to an assault and not retaliating in any physical way is what I find hard to believe. Fight or flight...he did neither. Now was it 'overkill'? That's where the question lies for me....render a threat unconscious and remove perceived threat, that's what a jury will have to decide. If TM had no other way of removing the threat ( if there was a threat there in the first place)

Ah, you have hit upon something very curious.

If we are to believe TM's story, he enters the room and sees JC choking MM so he strikes him with the bat. How many blows with the bat until JC lets go of MM in this scenario? Do you picture him still throttling MM (but leaving no marks) as TM dances around him, swinging the bat, hitting his head, hands etc?

How would TM hit the hands of JC that are around his daughters neck and not hit MM in the chin or the face? Put your hands around your own neck and try to imagine a blow that hits the hands but not the chin or face. She would have been also hit by the bat.

And as for Jason, if you were hit from behind, isn't it a more natural reaction to let go of MM, and turn and see WHO is hitting you and make it stop?

I think JC was either asleep or stunned and immobilized quickly.

Here is where the overkill comes in. If JC is down...Molly is free...why doesn't she run to call police instead of running to get another weapon and join in the assault?

I think that will be asked at trial. She did NOT go for help. She went to find something so she could participate in an execution.

 

[wildebeest]

I believe Jason was asleep when he was attacked. The fact he wasn't dressed and able to defend himself leads me to this conclusion. Why would he be trying to strangle Molly, knowing his in laws were nearby? And his father-in-law was former FBI, who, possibly carried a firearm??? It doesn't make sense. As Judge Judy likes to say, "If it doesn't make sense, it must not be true."

IMHO

 

[Truthseeker79]

Looks like this thread is not a place for discussing criminal cases objectively but rather it's being run by a certain group of Irish individuals under pseudonyms who are using it as a platform to ensure nothing but what they agree with is tolerated on social media. This is a victim friendly forum whereby the victims behaviour, be it good or bad, can be discussed if it is to substantiate the issue and case and done so in a respectful way. Discussing autopsy injuries and giving another interpretation of them is apparently not allowed in some quarters. Whilst open degradation of a family who have not been convicted of any offence is openly encouraged in certain Facebook pages pertaining to Justice, any speculation that questions the status quo is met with rage. Which leads me to
wonder about the ethics of the US system which allows pre-trial evidence to be aired and its effect on potentially contaminating a jury pool. I have seen a few people raise this on certain Facebook pages only to be shot down with claims of 'we know all we need to know, we don't need due process, we don't care about what a defence has to say, we have all we need to know guilty as charged'. I am glad as a US citizen that I am protected by the 1st amendment and have also abided by the rules of this forum which allows respectful debate.

 

[Truthseeker79]

Would you not wake up if you were hit on your sleep, where did the pulled hair taken from his hands at the autopsy come from if he was asleep the whole time? Why scratch him on the torso if the intention was to kill the man and the head injuries would have done so?

 

[Truthseeker79]

Blood under the nails would have been removed as evidence and bagged this didn't happen as it was a hematoema not fresh blood.

 

[Maryagnes]

You are simplifying a very complex situation with " she knew where the support group was, Just go and leave. Its as simple as that". You are obviously not taking into the dozens of factors in why women stay<modsnip>. Everyones story is unique to them. http://www.newchoicesinc.org/educated/abuse/DV/whynotleave[/QUOTE

Just to flip the situation....what if the deceased was the victim of DV? What if the accused subjected him to DV? Isn't it harder for a man to admit his partner hits him or verbally abuses him.

 

[Truthseeker79]

So you receive a multitude of injuries from not one but two people and you wouldn't strike back in defence? Ok, if you say you wouldn't then you wouldn't. I'm a man and if another male or female was hitting me around the head with a paving stone or bat I'd sure as hell do anything to fend them off. But that's just difference in opinion

 

[Mom2catieandtwins]

Looks like this thread is not a place for discussing criminal cases objectively but rather it's being run by a certain group of Irish individuals under pseudonyms who are using it as a platform to ensure nothing but what they agree with is tolerated on social media. This is a victim friendly forum whereby the victims behaviour, be it good or bad, can be discussed if it is to substantiate the issue and case and done so in a respectful way. Discussing autopsy injuries and giving another interpretation of them is apparently not allowed in some quarters. Whilst open degradation of a family who have not been convicted of any offence is openly encouraged in certain Facebook pages pertaining to Justice, any speculation that questions the status quo is met with rage. Which leads me to
wonder about the ethics of the US system which allows pre-trial evidence to be aired and its effect on potentially contaminating a jury pool. I have seen a few people raise this on certain Facebook pages only to be shot down with claims of 'we know all we need to know, we don't need due process, we don't care about what a defence has to say, we have all we need to know guilty as charged'. I am glad as a US citizen that I am protected by the 1st amendment and have also abided by the rules of this forum which allows respectful debate.

You are ill informed. I am American. I live in the wonderful state of North Carolina. I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

 

[stmarysmead]

Looks like this thread is not a place for discussing criminal cases objectively but rather it's being run by a certain group of Irish individuals under pseudonyms who are using it as a platform to ensure nothing but what they agree with is tolerated on social media. This is a victim friendly forum whereby the victims behaviour, be it good or bad, can be discussed if it is to substantiate the issue and case and done so in a respectful way. Discussing autopsy injuries and giving another interpretation of them is apparently not allowed in some quarters. Whilst open degradation of a family who have not been convicted of any offence is openly encouraged in certain Facebook pages pertaining to Justice, any speculation that questions the status quo is met with rage. Which leads me to
wonder about the ethics of the US system which allows pre-trial evidence to be aired and its effect on potentially contaminating a jury pool. I have seen a few people raise this on certain Facebook pages only to be shot down with claims of 'we know all we need to know, we don't need due process, we don't care about what a defence has to say, we have all we need to know guilty as charged'. I am glad as a US citizen that I am protected by the 1st amendment and have also abided by the rules of this forum which allows respectful debate.

We are very victim friendly here at WS. The victim is Jason Corbett. He is dead. Battered viciously to death. That is a fact.

There is no other "victim" at this point. Molly has not proven she is a victim of anything yet. Her assertions have not be vetted in any way. And, as I've said before...even if true...under our laws (I'm an American) one set of victims is not allowed to execute another set of victims.

That's why she has been charged.

Not sure if NC is an open discovery state but if it is...much more will be released as time goes by. The ability to review factual evidence such as the autopsy is a deterrent to emotional social media campaigns....on either side that might interfere with Justice.

I agree that polluting the jury pool is a real concern. Whose Facebook campaign began first?

 

[Hotchips]

What good Mother allows children to be kept in a home with a violent man? Molly has tremendous family support. The family has means to take lovely frequent vacations therefore they have means to provide for Molly and the children while she presses charges against Jason and uses those charges to pursue custody of the children citing his violent nature. If you google it, that is one very strong issue for granting custody to a stepparent over the natural parent...welfare of the child.

If MM's story is true, she allowed these children to live in a dangerous chaotic environment where they were exposed to violence on a regular basis. All the fancy clothes and vacations in the world could not compensate for the damage that does to children!

She can't have it both ways. She was not a woman without family or resources. And if this went on for years, and she told a lawyer, then the Martens were enablers of this situation as well.

If these children say they saw abuse...yes shame on Jason but shame on Molly and the Martens as well! Did Jason's affluence buy their acquiescence?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If you flip the coin on this, the same could be said for jason and his extended family allowing his children to continue live with a violent unstable molly who drank alcohol frequently throughout the day and also drove the children while under the influence of alcohol. both sides are playing the same card so which one is telling the truth?. They are saying she was the violent unstable one while the martens are going to claim he was the violent unstable one! Whilst molly and her family have not yet revealed any stories of how Jason was allegedly violent or abusive towards her but the corbett family has in shocking detail. i get people not wanting to get involved in peoples marriages however, the corbett family and indeed his former in laws seem to be extremely tight knit, holidaying together all the time and keeping up very regular contact, i mean jason allegedly discussed financial concerns about molly with them. i find it hard to believe they would have shied away and said or done nothing if the children were in danger. Perhaps some of their testimony is true as to her character however i do believe it has been possibly exagerrated to benefit the custody hearing. It happens all the time in custody hearings, destroy the other party's character as best they can.

 

[Mom2catieandtwins]

My thought is the first blow to Jason's head killed him. Another scenario is the blow left him injured to a degree he could not defend himself. I did reread the autopsy from your point of view. I don't see your point.

 

[Frizby]

Blood under the nails would have been removed as evidence and bagged this didn't happen as it was a hematoema not fresh blood.

If it was a Haematoma I would have expected to see this detailed in the autopsy as it is done in many other autopsy's where a Haematoma was evident. And for all we know, they might have taken samples from under the finger nails, they prepared a blood card, what exactly is a blood card, is this detailing all the samples of blood they took. If you expected it to be shown that they took a sample/scraping from under his finger nails, then it stands to reason that they would show that the same process was afforded to the blood under his toe nails.

With regards to the "pulled hair", you have stated a few times that this was taken from his hand. Where in the Autopsy does it stated that pulled hair was taken from his hand? And even if it was, it does not state the type/colour of the hair.

 

[Hotchips]

Looks like this thread is not a place for discussing criminal cases objectively but rather it's being run by a certain group of Irish individuals under pseudonyms who are using it as a platform to ensure nothing but what they agree with is tolerated on social media. This is a victim friendly forum whereby the victims behaviour, be it good or bad, can be discussed if it is to substantiate the issue and case and done so in a respectful way. Discussing autopsy injuries and giving another interpretation of them is apparently not allowed in some quarters. Whilst open degradation of a family who have not been convicted of any offence is openly encouraged in certain Facebook pages pertaining to Justice, any speculation that questions the status quo is met with rage. Which leads me to
wonder about the ethics of the US system which allows pre-trial evidence to be aired and its effect on potentially contaminating a jury pool. I have seen a few people raise this on certain Facebook pages only to be shot down with claims of 'we know all we need to know, we don't need due process, we don't care about what a defence has to say, we have all we need to know guilty as charged'. I am glad as a US citizen that I am protected by the 1st amendment and have also abided by the rules of this forum which allows respectful debate.

I beleive the rise and power of social media in recent years is a real risk to fair trials and unbiased juries going forward. i am aware of the pages you mention but since the last hearing the commentary has toned down somewhat on all bar one. I am Irish and was horrified at the attitude of my fellow irish esp women towards someone they dont even know personally. some attitudes that women fought hard to be free off decades ago reared their ugly head. that being said that i why came to this forum, I had always read different cases on here over the years and found it encouraged healthy impartial debate and most importantly people are respecful of eachother even if there is a differing opinion. of course some of the irish supporters are entitled to come on here in a respecful manner, I do beleive a lot of them are actively reading this forum however that is their entitlement.

 

[Truthseeker79]

So the first strike was the fatal on and she scratched his chest numerous times afterwards?

 

[Frizby]

So the first strike was the fatal on and she scratched his chest numerous times afterwards?

I don't think the first blow was the fatal one, I suspect that the first blow as a stunning blow. Didn't the autopsy refer to the scratches on the chest as possibly coming from the pads?