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

[Truthseeker79]

Digested food can stay in the stomach 6-8 hours, so that's a large window to guess when he ate that food....
http://www.mayoclinic.org/digestive-system/expert-answers/faq-20058340

 

[kittythehare]

Digested food can stay in the stomach 6-8 hours, so that's a large window to guess when he ate that food....
http://www.mayoclinic.org/digestive-system/expert-answers/faq-20058340

not light meals or vegetable matter or coffee or tea according to peer reviewed and cited links, however

 

[Truthseeker79]

If we were to go with their scenario
Jason ate some greens, drank a large mug of coffee or two, got naked, and attempted to strangle molly, thats assuming attack commenced in the bedroom and not the kitchen which is another possibility.. It was on the same floor as the bedroom in which the emergency staff found him, its also a possibility that part of the attack occurred in the kitchen and the remainder in the bedroom.

kitty---love your sense of humor and your knowledge of medical issues. It gets a bit too technical for me

Thanks for all your hard work :cheers:

not light meals or vegetable matter or coffee or tea according to peer reviewed and cited links, however

coffee takes 45 mins to absorb and can stay in stomach from 4-6 hours

http://www.caffeineinformer.com/caffeine-metabolism

 

[kittythehare]

coffee takes 45 mins to absorb and can stay in stomach from 4-6 hours

http://www.caffeineinformer.com/caffeine-metabolism

Again this argument will come down to the integrity of the sources.
I only provided forensic scientific links.. there are many more that will state similar.
It depends upon which information will take precedence in a court of forensic pathologists. Even from your own link the caffeine in the system- ie- the blood system.. as in detectable by blood levels
caffeine, the drug, not caffeine the liquid

 

[kittythehare]

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...-11e5-80a2-cb827408349b/568fd60db6a63.pdf.pdf
This has probably been posted here already so apologies for double posting if so. The warrant was issued 18th August and in two weeks they had decided to cite First Degree murder as the reason for filing....a few things struck me reading it 1. MM and TM both admitted to striking JC, so she never claimed she never touched him 2. They say SM stayed in the basement the whole time? 3. Every rationale behind each search request was based on info provided by the deceased family and all was in pursuit of evidence to seek a murder charge against the 2 people, now of course there was no one else suspect so on one level that makes perfect sense. But, was there any search warrants issued at all throughout the investigation that sought to look into the self defence claims? Why SM stayed in the basement the whole time I don't know, perhaps the kids woke and she brought them down there to keep them away. Would have thought she would ring the police while down there though. One thing is we don't know what the searches showed up. Did they find the second baseball bat if there was one? Why would the child be describing his baseball bat and the colour of it and where it was kept with a grief counsellor? Bit odd.

The irsh family never had access to the crime scene, or the police investigations. I dont believe they were not considerable.
So you are incorrect to say 'every rationale was provided by family of the deceased. it suggests the crime scene was never examined.
Regarding the child and the grief counselor, why would you find it odd?

 

[Frizby]

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...-11e5-80a2-cb827408349b/568fd60db6a63.pdf.pdf
This has probably been posted here already so apologies for double posting if so. The warrant was issued 18th August and in two weeks they had decided to cite First Degree murder as the reason for filing....a few things struck me reading it 1. MM and TM both admitted to striking JC, so she never claimed she never touched him 2. They say SM stayed in the basement the whole time? 3. Every rationale behind each search request was based on info provided by the deceased family and all was in pursuit of evidence to seek a murder charge against the 2 people, now of course there was no one else suspect so on one level that makes perfect sense. But, was there any search warrants issued at all throughout the investigation that sought to look into the self defence claims? Why SM stayed in the basement the whole time I don't know, perhaps the kids woke and she brought them down there to keep them away. Would have thought she would ring the police while down there though. One thing is we don't know what the searches showed up. Did they find the second baseball bat if there was one? Why would the child be describing his baseball bat and the colour of it and where it was kept with a grief counsellor? Bit odd.

Personally I don't find it odd that this was discussed with a grief councillor, a grief councillor would be discussing many aspects of the child's life with them. We also know from the warrants that you linked that they did not find a bat, the only warrant which requested a search for the bat was the one issued and executed on 4th December 2015 of the property at Panthers Ck.

All warrants, bar two were for telephone & cell phone positioning records, searches of computers, social media searches & bank records. The main reasons for these searches was based on the testimony of the officers at the scene of the crime & the bank ones are also focused on information provided by the attorney dealing with the estate. The other two were from the locker at the Golf Club and for the Residence & Garage. The locker at the Golf Club was mainly based on LE learning he was a member of the club, something I do not suspect they even needed to get from any family member. The only one really that has much content about information provided by the family is the one regarding the search of the home.

Warrants for 1) Facebook Inc, 2) Google Inc
Brief of Affidavit given rise to Search Warrants
During the investigation it has been discovered that the Martens Family sudden change of plans on Saturday August 1[SUP]st[/SUP] 2015 to travel to North Carolina from their home in Knoxville TN. According to information received this behaviour would be considered unusual for Mr Martens.

Note on here it does not state unusual for “the Martens” it states “Mr Martens”.

All other details in the Affidavit are details about the facts in the case such as the officer stating that the scene did not match the story given, no injuries found on MM or TM, JC died as a result, TM & SM were visiting, TM saying he was woken by a disturbance.

Affidavits was signed on 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] September 2015 and executed on 4[SUP]th[/SUP] September 2015


Warrants for 1) Bank of America, 2) PNC Bank
Brief of Affidavit given rise to Search Warrants
The Affidavit mainly speaks of the incident that occurred and then it extends to the family of JC having stated that JC had expressed a wish to return to Ireland and also from his employer stating that JC had discussed transferring $60,000 back to Ireland. However, this Affidavit also state that LE had learned from attorneys handling JC’s estate that since JC’s death, large sums of money had been removed from accounts held jointly by JC & MM.

Affidavits was signed on 16[SUP]th[/SUP] September 2015 and executed on 17[SUP]th[/SUP] September 2015


Warrant - Dell Laptop
This Affidavit mainly speaks of the incident that occurred, scene did not match what was described, no injuries on either TM or MM, behaviour of the Martens visiting was unusual of Mr Martens (as it does in FB warrant). It states that Mr Corbett had been planning a trip to Ireland at the end of August and also that information had developed that JC had expressed a wish of not inviting MM to join him and that he & children were no returning to the US.

Affidavit signed & warrant executed 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] September 2015



Warrant for the search of Property & separate garage at 160 Panthers Creek
The Affidavit with this warrant is more extensive for all the other, it describes the incident but focuses on the baseball bat. It confirm what LE were told by MM & TM, particulary that TM stated that he brough the bat with him when he was visiting but had failed to give this to the child. It describes the bat taken by LE at the scene as aluminium with Black & Red in colour with black grips and describes wet & dry blood on it. The warrant further goes on to say that information had come to their attention which came from grief counselling that Jack Corbett was receiving in Ireland. Jack had told his grief councillor that he had received a baseball bat as a present from his stepgrandfather the previous summer. He described this bat to the grief councillor and this was described as aluminium Black & Red baseball bat with black grips. The Affidavit extend to say that LE officers had viewed photographs that MM had shared showing the child with baseball equipment.

Affidavit was signed & executed on 4[SUP]th[/SUP] December 2015


Warrants for AT&T phone records & cell positioning x 2
Warrants for Cellco phone records & cell positioning x 2
Affidavit describes the incident, what TM had said on the night, the scene not matching the account given, TM & SM were staying in the downstairs bedroom, nothing else really apart from when LE had learned on the night. Warrants for all the above include requests for call durations, cell positioning, text & other media records, etc.

Affidavit was signed & executed on 18[SUP]th[/SUP] August 2015



Warrant for Locker at Golf Club
Affidavit similar to the others describes the incident, what TM said on the night, the scene not matching the account, etc. It also adds that LE learned that JC was a member of the golf club and requested a search of the locker looking for paperwork if it existed in locker. All details of what they suggest to look for is detailed on the warrant, too numerous to type.

Affidavit was signed & executed on 18th August 2015

All the warrants can be viewed here https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B717FUtKwdU8cEpQMURYSEpMcEU/view?pref=2&pli=1

 

[Electric Sheep]

Why would the child be describing his baseball bat and the colour of it and where it was kept with a grief counsellor? Bit odd.

I don't find it odd that Jack discussed it, but I do find it odd that the counsellor disclosed it. It seems like a huge betrayal of trust to me. Isn't counselling meant to be a confidential thing between counsellor and client?

 

[Truthalways]

QUOTE=Electric Sheep;12385314]I don't find it odd that Jack discussed it, but I do find it odd that the counsellor disclosed it. It seems like a huge betrayal of trust to me. Isn't counselling meant to be a confidential thing between counsellor and client?[/QUOTE

Due to the fact Jason's death would be termed a "violent homicide" and the fact that the children were present in the home when the homicide occurred grief counseling will play an important role in helping them deal with their unimaginable traumatic loss and in the process any case related information relayed by the child to both counsellors and social services will be and can be passed on to LE at their request. Also if their is specific information that LE believe to be important such as "The base ball bat" it may be the case that LE requested that this be discussed in an appropriate way during their meetings IMO. Their memories of the night of August 2nd and the days and months preceeding it are crucial in building a picture of life in the home and subsequent events. It's important to note that we have no idea what exactly the children know of that night but in my own opinion they hold the key to this case. LE work closely with counsellors in circumstances such as this to ensure that any crucial information relating to the case is extracted sensitively so as not to cause further trauma.

I believe that mm lawyers are aware of the importance of the children and what they remember as they too requested social services records at the plea hearing which in my opinion only (it hasn't been verified) could possibly be because of the interviews the children may have given to social services in the days proceeding the murder which would also relate to the custody hearing.

.http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/...ther-plead-not-guilty-to-murder-34443218.html

Here is a link that talks about the processes involved in the different types of child grief counseling.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Photocopy/165814NCJRS.pdf

I can't imagine what loss these poor little children must feel. It's the saddest part of this case imo.

 

[Truthseeker79]

If we were to go with their scenario
Jason ate some greens, drank a large mug of coffee or two, got naked, and attempted to strangle molly, thats assuming attack commenced in the bedroom and not the kitchen which is another possibility.. It was on the same floor as the bedroom in which the emergency staff found him, its also a possibility that part of the attack occurred in the kitchen and the remainder in the bedroom.

kitty---love your sense of humor and your knowledge of medical issues. It gets a bit too technical for me

Thanks for all your hard work :cheers:

not light meals or vegetable matter or coffee or tea according to peer reviewed and cited links, however

Personally I don't find it odd that this was discussed with a grief councillor, a grief councillor would be discussing many aspects of the child's life with them. We also know from the warrants that you linked that they did not find a bat, the only warrant which requested a search for the bat was the one issued and executed on 4th December 2015 of the property at Panthers Ck.

All warrants, bar two were for telephone & cell phone positioning records, searches of computers, social media searches & bank records. The main reasons for these searches was based on the testimony of the officers at the scene of the crime & the bank ones are also focused on information provided by the attorney dealing with the estate. The other two were from the locker at the Golf Club and for the Residence & Garage. The locker at the Golf Club was mainly based on LE learning he was a member of the club, something I do not suspect they even needed to get from any family member. The only one really that has much content about information provided by the family is the one regarding the search of the home.

Warrants for 1) Facebook Inc, 2) Google Inc
Brief of Affidavit given rise to Search Warrants
During the investigation it has been discovered that the Martens Family sudden change of plans on Saturday August 1[SUP]st[/SUP] 2015 to travel to North Carolina from their home in Knoxville TN. According to information received this behaviour would be considered unusual for Mr Martens.

Note on here it does not state unusual for “the Martens” it states “Mr Martens”.

All other details in the Affidavit are details about the facts in the case such as the officer stating that the scene did not match the story given, no injuries found on MM or TM, JC died as a result, TM & SM were visiting, TM saying he was woken by a disturbance.

Affidavits was signed on 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] September 2015 and executed on 4[SUP]th[/SUP] September 2015


Warrants for 1) Bank of America, 2) PNC Bank
Brief of Affidavit given rise to Search Warrants
The Affidavit mainly speaks of the incident that occurred and then it extends to the family of JC having stated that JC had expressed a wish to return to Ireland and also from his employer stating that JC had discussed transferring $60,000 back to Ireland. However, this Affidavit also state that LE had learned from attorneys handling JC’s estate that since JC’s death, large sums of money had been removed from accounts held jointly by JC & MM.

Affidavits was signed on 16[SUP]th[/SUP] September 2015 and executed on 17[SUP]th[/SUP] September 2015


Warrant - Dell Laptop
This Affidavit mainly speaks of the incident that occurred, scene did not match what was described, no injuries on either TM or MM, behaviour of the Martens visiting was unusual of Mr Martens (as it does in FB warrant). It states that Mr Corbett had been planning a trip to Ireland at the end of August and also that information had developed that JC had expressed a wish of not inviting MM to join him and that he & children were no returning to the US.

Affidavit signed & warrant executed 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] September 2015



Warrant for the search of Property & separate garage at 160 Panthers Creek
The Affidavit with this warrant is more extensive for all the other, it describes the incident but focuses on the baseball bat. It confirm what LE were told by MM & TM, particulary that TM stated that he brough the bat with him when he was visiting but had failed to give this to the child. It describes the bat taken by LE at the scene as aluminium with Black & Red in colour with black grips and describes wet & dry blood on it. The warrant further goes on to say that information had come to their attention which came from grief counselling that Jack Corbett was receiving in Ireland. Jack had told his grief councillor that he had received a baseball bat as a present from his stepgrandfather the previous summer. He described this bat to the grief councillor and this was described as aluminium Black & Red baseball bat with black grips. The Affidavit extend to say that LE officers had viewed photographs that MM had shared showing the child with baseball equipment.

Affidavit was signed & executed on 4[SUP]th[/SUP] December 2015


Warrants for AT&T phone records & cell positioning x 2
Warrants for Cellco phone records & cell positioning x 2
Affidavit describes the incident, what TM had said on the night, the scene not matching the account given, TM & SM were staying in the downstairs bedroom, nothing else really apart from when LE had learned on the night. Warrants for all the above include requests for call durations, cell positioning, text & other media records, etc.

Affidavit was signed & executed on 18[SUP]th[/SUP] August 2015



Warrant for Locker at Golf Club
Affidavit similar to the others describes the incident, what TM said on the night, the scene not matching the account, etc. It also adds that LE learned that JC was a member of the golf club and requested a search of the locker looking for paperwork if it existed in locker. All details of what they suggest to look for is detailed on the warrant, too numerous to type.

Affidavit was signed & executed on 18th August 2015

All the warrants can be viewed here https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B717FUtKwdU8cEpQMURYSEpMcEU/view?pref=2&pli=1

It was my understanding they originally believed the children did not see or hear anything. See Quote to that effect in article below. The child must have been told or heard that a baseball bat killed his father. So in a kids grief counselling session, a private session in another country paid for by the family ( not an investigative interview set up by LE using a grief therapist to extract information sensitively from a traumatised child) it's conceivable that the child says he likes baseball, his grandfather gave him a bat last year.....etc etc. Why would an independent grief counsellor then go into 'can you describe that bat to me? Where is that bat usually kept?'......their job is to assist the child with their grief, not be criminal investigators.
Affidavit states warrants are sought based on 1. Family say they argued about money 2. Family and work colleague say he was planning a permanent move back 3. Brother in law of JC passes on info about what the grief counsellor said to him....my only pint is that I don't see any record of any warrants issued based on any claims of the Martens, did any investigating at all take place into checking out any claims they may have made?
http://evoke.ie/news/irish-news/molly-martens-painful-sacrifice-to-get-bail-over-murder-charges

 

[stephanddoody]

Great post Frizby. I don't think LE thought it nessecary to interview again . We don't know how much detail Molly and Tom went into at the interview how long it went on Information provided etc. I am assuming their self defence story was at least believed im the beginning otherwise the LE and social services wouldn't have left the children in the care of a murderer . Molly took the children to her brothers house in Charolette . if they didn't believe it was self defence that is definitely child endangerment. Depending on the information provided during the interviews which we aren't aware of they followed up on the claims made by Molly and Tom example how did they know it was unusual for Tom to change plans? I don't know what friends of Mollys they spoke to that would be a follow up to back the self defence I assume they spoke to the school swim team and neighbours basically people that Interacted with Molly daily that would be all to verify dv claims or to eliminate them depending on what information they received .I assume they would follow up on the information that those people provided them with. We don't know if Molly provided them with new information after the fact as it isn't mentioned so we have to assume she didn't give them information to warrant another search .

 

[Truthseeker79]

The search warrant in Dec requested removal of a sports bag and its contents....the inventory showed in Dec showed all that was removed were photographs and SD cards. The sports bag was not in the house....so if the bat was an old one taken from the bag, where was the bag? Two possible explanations : the martens removed the bag before Dec 2015 2. The bag with bat was left somewhere else by the child that day i.e. At a friends place, at the ball field etc
The child stated his bat was usually stored in the sports bag in the garage....all we know as of December 2015 the bag was not there....so not only was the 'second bat' not found but the bag the 'second' bat was supposed to be in. Interesting
There was mention of a public picture put on Facebook of the child playing baseball.. That LE wanted access to social media to see that picture and compare the bat found with the one the child is using ..there is nothing on Facebook showing a baseball picture that but there is a picture on her Instagram account showing him playing, all you can see is that it's a blue bat, you cannot see the colour of the grip padding?

 

[Logic-lady]

It was my understanding they originally believed the children did not see or hear anything. See Quote to that effect in article below. The child must have been told or heard that a baseball bat killed his father. So in a kids grief counselling session, a private session in another country paid for by the family ( not an investigative interview set up by LE using a grief therapist to extract information sensitively from a traumatised child) it's conceivable that the child says he likes baseball, his grandfather gave him a bat last year.....etc etc. Why would an independent grief counsellor then go into 'can you describe that bat to me? Where is that bat usually kept?'......their job is to assist the child with their grief, not be criminal investigators.
Affidavit states warrants are sought based on 1. Family say they argued about money 2. Family and work colleague say he was planning a permanent move back 3. Brother in law of JC passes on info about what the grief counsellor said to him....my only pint is that I don't see any record of any warrants issued based on any claims of the Martens, did any investigating at all take place into checking out any claims they may have made?
http://evoke.ie/news/irish-news/molly-martens-painful-sacrifice-to-get-bail-over-murder-charges

Do we know what type of counselling the children are in? I believe it was a part of the guardianship award that the Lynches had enrolled the children in school and organised grief counselling for the children, but given that they had involved social services in Ireland already at this early stage (http://www.irishexaminer.com/irelan...rt-corbett-familys-custody-battle-348804.html ) Could it be possible that there was a more specialised counselling organised for the children given the ongoing police investigation in the US to ensure anything they had seen wouldn't be lost to the investigation?

I do think whatever the children's statements either to the social services in the US prior to their move, or afterwards in Ireland, will probably be deemed inadmissable based on the possibility of undue influence depending on which side you are arguing. Which is better for the kids IMO.

As regards to the non investigation of the DV claims, I believe (although it is simply through FB posts so I cannot add the link) that many of Molly's friends and acquaintances were interviewed multiple times by police as part of the investigation, one would assume this would be to see if they could support Molly's claims of DV. The reason they wouldn't form part of the warrants would surely be that it is a seperate arm of the investigation? The probable cause required for the warrants was based on information gleaned from interviews with TM himself, the scene, and statements from Jason's work colleagues and family. Presumably, the fact that Jason's work colleagues (independant witnesses) testimony corroborated with information received by the family, this would have given the family's statements more credence in terms of the investigation. (rather than simply being a grieving family saying what they can to ensure they get their own way?) I presume if Molly had stated that she had recorded pictures of previous injuries/voice recorded arguments/written about it in a diary etc to validate her claims of DV, this would have formed part of the warrants also.

 

[stephanddoody]

Also i would suggest the best evidence I think to back up self defence claims would have been found at the crime scene . Blood spatter ,angle of the blows ,number of blows, dna evidence, the discrepancies between the description of what happened and how they found the crime scene,the autopsy results. Remember Jason is dead he has no voice so if LE had a question to ask they would have to ask family members friends or work colleagues . I don't believe they just volunteered all the information . I believe as the investigation began to unfold they needed information from those that were involved in Jason's daily life the same reason why they interviewed Mollys friends and family. I'm sure Molly too volunteered information that they had to follow up. I don't believe Jason's family members were ringing up with the information I believe LE asked them to provide them with it

 

[stmarysmead]

It was my understanding they originally believed the children did not see or hear anything. See Quote to that effect in article below. The child must have been told or heard that a baseball bat killed his father. So in a kids grief counselling session, a private session in another country paid for by the family ( not an investigative interview set up by LE using a grief therapist to extract information sensitively from a traumatised child) it's conceivable that the child says he likes baseball, his grandfather gave him a bat last year.....etc etc. Why would an independent grief counsellor then go into 'can you describe that bat to me? Where is that bat usually kept?'......their job is to assist the child with their grief, not be criminal investigators.
Affidavit states warrants are sought based on 1. Family say they argued about money 2. Family and work colleague say he was planning a permanent move back 3. Brother in law of JC passes on info about what the grief counsellor said to him....my only pint is that I don't see any record of any warrants issued based on any claims of the Martens, did any investigating at all take place into checking out any claims they may have made?
http://evoke.ie/news/irish-news/molly-martens-painful-sacrifice-to-get-bail-over-murder-charges

The Martens had significant influence over two potential witnesses in the case for some time.


"Jack and Sarah Corbett had been in the care of their step mother since their father was found dead and had not been allowed to see Ms Lynch and her husband David who were appointed legal guardians following the death of their mother Mags Corbett nine years ago from an asthma attack."


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...aunt-and-uncle-after-custody-battle-1.2321741

Immediately after their Father's murder and for considerable time, the children were in the custody day and night with one of the murderers. They were allowed no contact with the Irish family.

None.

Why was that?

One might think that Molly might have been emotionally manipulating the children to support her story of DV with the threat that they would lose Mommy, their Grandfather, their school friends, everything!

Surely, with the children entirely in the care of herself and her family...and the Lynch family blocked from contact...the Martens had a great advantage and the police and court allowed it!

Can anyone read MM's FB and not imagine the things she might have said to emotionally manipulate those children? They were interviewed early in by police however. The grief counselor in Ireland may have been asked to gently review certain details to see if their stories changed once out of the control of the Martens.

I have always felt that the desperation to contact the children was in great part due to re-establish control over the narrative she wanted.

Certainly, if one is concerned about fairness and truth, one has to wonder why those children were allowed to stay so long with the woman who admitted murdering their Father...at least when the investigation was at its inception.

My opinion only, of course.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Frizby]

The search warrant in Dec requested removal of a sports bag and its contents....the inventory showed in Dec showed all that was removed were photographs and SD cards. The sports bag was not in the house....so if the bat was an old one taken from the bag, where was the bag? Two possible explanations : the martens removed the bag before Dec 2015 2. The bag with bat was left somewhere else by the child that day i.e. At a friends place, at the ball field etc
The child stated his bat was usually stored in the sports bag in the garage....all we know as of December 2015 the bag was not there....so not only was the 'second bat' not found but the bag the 'second' bat was supposed to be in. Interesting
There was mention of a public picture put on Facebook of the child playing baseball.. That LE wanted access to social media to see that picture and compare the bat found with the one the child is using ..there is nothing on Facebook showing a baseball picture that but there is a picture on her Instagram account showing him playing, all you can see is that it's a blue bat, you cannot see the colour of the grip padding?

It is true that there was no baseball equipment seized during the search in December 2015, it may have been removed also it may have been left elsewhere by the child prior to the event. If another person had this in their possession I would expect that person to give the items up to either LE or return it directly to MM herself. I know if I found a child bag with baseball equipment in my house, particularly after finding out that a man had been beaten to death with a baseball bat, you can be sure the first thing I would do would be surrender it.

I would also expect that forensics can and is being done on the murder weapon to ascertain where this is a used baseball bat or whether it is a new bat. The warrant did not specify to look only for a black & red bat with black grips, it was to look for any bat.

As for her social media pictures, the only pictures that are up on FB & Instagram are the ones that MM presently wishes for the public to see, there were many other pictures posted up on the FB page in particular that have since been removed.

 

[Frizby]

It was my understanding they originally believed the children did not see or hear anything. See Quote to that effect in article below. The child must have been told or heard that a baseball bat killed his father. So in a kids grief counselling session, a private session in another country paid for by the family ( not an investigative interview set up by LE using a grief therapist to extract information sensitively from a traumatised child) it's conceivable that the child says he likes baseball, his grandfather gave him a bat last year.....etc etc. Why would an independent grief counsellor then go into 'can you describe that bat to me? Where is that bat usually kept?'......their job is to assist the child with their grief, not be criminal investigators.
Affidavit states warrants are sought based on 1. Family say they argued about money 2. Family and work colleague say he was planning a permanent move back 3. Brother in law of JC passes on info about what the grief counsellor said to him....my only pint is that I don't see any record of any warrants issued based on any claims of the Martens, did any investigating at all take place into checking out any claims they may have made?
http://evoke.ie/news/irish-news/molly-martens-painful-sacrifice-to-get-bail-over-murder-charges

All we know is that information was provided to the grief councillor about him playing baseball, getting a bat as a gift the summer previous, he might have been asked to describe it by them but also could have been asked afterwards to describe it, I am sure that this was done in a sensitive manner. You can get information from a child without telling them that this might be a murder weapon.

Regarding the warrants, it would appear that all of the warrants issued were on claims of the the Martens, they said it was a Donnybrooke, the offices said that the scene did not match what the Martens said.

What other warrants do you suggest should have been requested. If MM has evidence of DV I am sure should would be handing this on a plate to the investigators, there should be no need to request information via a warrant.

 

[Truthseeker79]

If we were to go with their scenario
Jason ate some greens, drank a large mug of coffee or two, got naked, and attempted to strangle molly, thats assuming attack commenced in the bedroom and not the kitchen which is another possibility.. It was on the same floor as the bedroom in which the emergency staff found him, its also a possibility that part of the attack occurred in the kitchen and the remainder in the bedroom.

kitty---love your sense of humor and your knowledge of medical issues. It gets a bit too technical for me

Thanks for all your hard work :cheers:

not light meals or vegetable matter or coffee or tea according to peer reviewed and cited links, however

The Martens had significant influence over two potential witnesses in the case for some time.


"Jack and Sarah Corbett had been in the care of their step mother since their father was found dead and had not been allowed to see Ms Lynch and her husband David who were appointed legal guardians following the death of their mother Mags Corbett nine years ago from an asthma attack."


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...aunt-and-uncle-after-custody-battle-1.2321741

Immediately after their Father's murder and for considerable time, the children were in the custody day and night with one of the murderers. They were allowed no contact with the Irish family.

None.

Why was that?

One might think that Molly might have been emotionally manipulating the children to support her story of DV with the threat that they would lose Mommy, their Grandfather, their school friends, everything!

Surely, with the children entirely in the care of herself and her family...and the Lynch family blocked from contact...the Martens had a great advantage and the police and court allowed it!

Can anyone read MM's FB and not imagine the things she might have said to emotionally manipulate those children? They were interviewed early in by police however. The grief counselor in Ireland may have been asked to gently review certain details to see if their stories changed once out of the control of the Martens.

I have always felt that the desperation to contact the children was in great part due to re-establish control over the narrative she wanted.

Certainly, if one is concerned about fairness and truth, one has to wonder why those children were allowed to stay so long with the woman who admitted murdering their Father...at least when the investigation was at its inception.

My opinion only, of course.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not true. They had been in touch with their biological mothers family, JC sister in law confirmed the children had spoken with her and their grandmother and that she had spoken with MM as she was 'a large part of the children's lives'....seems like MM was in touch with the Fitzpatricks
http://www.newseveryday.com/article...rbetts-sister-takes-guardianship-children.htm

 

[stmarysmead]

I think we are allowed to quote from MM's FB page. If not, I apologize and ask this be removed.

But here is one of her last posts before she was indicted:

"I have loved, nurtured and protected you to the best of my ability in the environment we found ourselves. I do not know what you will remember about our lives but I know some of the things you are being told. I pray one day you are able to remember with truth and clarity some of the events of our lives. You are my heart and soul, my sunshine and my happy, and I will always love you."

This always struck me as odd.

To start,I have a granddaughter who just turned 7. If anyone sat her down she could tell them with "truth and clarity" anything you wanted to know about her home life. These children are even older. Why would they not "remember" their lives?

Now how would MM know what the children "are being told?" Does she have a mole planted in the Lynch household or has she installed listening devices. All she can "know" is rumors. We know that and she knows it too.

I see this post as reeking with fear. She us trying to discredit the children to the public. "Oh, anything they say is because of the Lynches! Because they were turned against me."

What was she saying to the children in the weeks she and her Karen's controlled them after killing their Father? What was MM telling them about the Lynches and, more tragically, about their Father? How was she justifying to them that Grandaddy and I had to beat your Father to death, but we are the good guys..he was the bad guy?

Now, with the children out if her control, she is trying to manipulate the public that they can no her see things "with truth and clarity". In other words, MM is calling the children liars. That's her fear and manipulation on display in my opinion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[stmarysmead]

Not true. They had been in touch with their biological mothers family, JC sister in law confirmed the children had spoken with her and their grandmother and that she had spoken with MM as she was 'a large part of the children's lives'....seems like MM was in touch with the Fitzpatricks
http://www.newseveryday.com/article...rbetts-sister-takes-guardianship-children.htm

Please read the article. Those calls were made after they were removed from MM. The children are quoted as knowing they were coming home to Ireland. This is AFTER the custody was determined.

"I've spoken to Jack and Sarah and they sounded good. They rang my mother too, who is just out of hospital, and said they were coming home to mind her," Catherine continued.
Read more at http://www.newseveryday.com/article...guardianship-children.htm#IrVuedhDGGPFEPYX.99


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[emmalpage81]

Not true. They had been in touch with their biological mothers family, JC sister in law confirmed the children had spoken with her and their grandmother and that she had spoken with MM as she was 'a large part of the children's lives'....seems like MM was in touch with the Fitzpatricks
http://www.newseveryday.com/article...rbetts-sister-takes-guardianship-children.htm

I think the article suggests that they spoke with their aunt and grandmother once they were in the custody of TL and DL, not whilst they were in the care of MM following the death.