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

[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

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

That article was 15th August, were they in the care of their Aunt that day? Then why was Jason's sister in law speaking with MM too?

 

[peregrino]

Just to reiterate what I said earlier. I plan to respond to posts and posters that are thought provoking and ignore those that I feel are deliberately provocative. It is the best policy IMO.

 

[Electric Sheep]

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.

Social Service records being available I can understand, but if I was a child in crisis and found that the counselor I thought I could trust was passing on what I said in sessions to any outside party, I would totally clam up and the rest of the counselling would be a waste of time. That poor child.

 

[stmarysmead]

That article was 15th August, were they in the care of their Aunt that day? Then why was Jason's sister in law speaking with MM too?

Context is important. Mags sister is being interviewed about the decision granting custody to the Lynches. That's why the media is speaking with her. She explains that she is happy and that the children have told their maternal grandmother who just had surgery, that they are coming home to Ireland to care for her.

Mags sister then makes the point that Mags family never lost touch with the family or the children. She talks about their Christmas visit. She says she has even talked to MM on the phone but it is all in context with explaining that the two families kept in touch.

Do you think that MM who wanted to erase Mags from the children's lives, who would probably never have let them see Mags family again with Jason dead and her pretending to be the birth Mother...why would anyone think MM would give Mags sister phone access to her or the children?,

But no matter...the Sister would surely clear this up if necessary.

The fact that no access was given to the children in the weeks after the murder will stand unquestioned at trial.
.

 

[stephanddoody]

That article was 15th August, were they in the care of their Aunt that day? Then why was Jason's sister in law speaking with MM too?

https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/corbett-order.pdf
if you look at the guardianship documents dated August 14th the decision was made to remove them from Mollys care though they weren't removed from her care till the 17th

 

[stmarysmead]

That article was 15th August, were they in the care of their Aunt that day? Then why was Jason's sister in law speaking with MM too?

The answer to your question is in the very article you linked. In the very FIRST paragraph.

"After having been found dead in his bedroom at Limerick on August 2, Jason's children, Jack (10) and Sarah (8), have been placed under the guardianship of his sister Tracey and her husband David Lynch. It followed a custody battle with Jason's second wife, Molly Martens."

Read more at http://www.newseveryday.com/article...guardianship-children.htm#j5duzEkRS4rMISop.99


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Frizby]

Social Service records being available I can understand, but if I was a child in crisis and found that the counselor I thought I could trust was passing on what I said in sessions to any outside party, I would totally clam up and the rest of the counselling would be a waste of time. That poor child.

Well it would appear that Jack conveyed what he told the grief counsellor to his uncle David who in turn passed this on to LE

According to police records, Jack told his counsellor about the baseball bat his step-grandfather had given him during the summer. It had black and red markings and black grips and he kept it in his black sports bag in the garage. Jack mentioned this to David, who in turn told investigators.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...olatile-nature-of-molly-martens-34349705.html

 

[Electric Sheep]

Well it would appear that Jack conveyed what he told the grief counsellor to his uncle David who in turn passed this on to LE


http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...olatile-nature-of-molly-martens-34349705.html

Why bring the grief counsellor into it at all then? Why does the article not just say Jack told his uncle?

 

[Frizby]

Why bring the grief counsellor into it at all then? Why does the article not just say Jack told his uncle?

Why not. The uncle would have told LE exactly what was said, i.e. Jack told me that he told the grief counsellor this.

And anyway, does that really matter, does it change anything?

 

[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

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.

according to this article the children were still in MM's care until The night of Monday 17th August....the interview given by JC's sisters law was on the 15th August when the children were still with MM, also says the children made the call to Ireland so she allowed them contact with their family. Just dispels the rumour that she denied all contact with family in those 2 weeks.
What is odd though is in this struck the lawyer says they were taken in their PJ's in the night and she claimed on her FB pages she was making their school lunches and I presumed it was day time?

http://www.thejournal.ie/molly-martens-corbett-children-2301841-Aug2015/

 

[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

Why not. The uncle would have told LE exactly what was said, i.e. Jack told me that he told the grief counsellor this.

And anyway, does that really matter, does it change anything?

because if it came through a third party like a grief counsellor people could not claim any bias rather than if the family were questioning the child about the murder weapon directly

 

[stmarysmead]

according to this article the children were still in MM's care until The night of Monday 17th August....the interview given by JC's sisters law was on the 15th August when the children were still with MM, also says the children made the call to Ireland so she allowed them contact with their family. Just dispels the rumour that she denied all contact with family in those 2 weeks.
What is odd though is in this struck the lawyer says they were taken in their PJ's in the night and she claimed on her FB pages she was making their school lunches and I presumed it was day time?

http://www.thejournal.ie/molly-martens-corbett-children-2301841-Aug2015/

Look at that date again...it says 20 August 15.

The article was written on August 20, 2015. The 20 is even bolded to make it more prominent.

http://www.newseveryday.com/article...guardianship-children.htm#j5duzEkRS4rMISop.99


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[stmarysmead]

because if it came through a third party like a grief counsellor people could not claim any bias rather than if the family were questioning the child about the murder weapon directly

The child may testify himself. That's been put forward as a possibility.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[emmalpage81]

according to this article the children were still in MM's care until The night of Monday 17th August....the interview given by JC's sisters law was on the 15th August when the children were still with MM, also says the children made the call to Ireland so she allowed them contact with their family. Just dispels the rumour that she denied all contact with family in those 2 weeks.
What is odd though is in this struck the lawyer says they were taken in their PJ's in the night and she claimed on her FB pages she was making their school lunches and I presumed it was day time?

http://www.thejournal.ie/molly-martens-corbett-children-2301841-Aug2015/

I could be missing it but where does it state that the sister was interviewed on the 15th? The article you had linked first was dated 20 August, the day that custody was decided.

 

[Electric Sheep]

The child may testify himself. That's been put forward as a possibility.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't suppose they can force him to testify from another country if he doesn't want to. That would be traumatic for him, to say the least. I watched my father die at the same age Jack lost his, not by murder, but I would have found it very very difficult to speak in public about it, especially if under duress.

 

[stephanddoody]

Look at that date again...it says 20 August 15.

The article was written on August 20, 2015. The 20 is even bolded to make it more prominent.

http://www.newseveryday.com/article...guardianship-children.htm#j5duzEkRS4rMISop.99


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

thanks for the clarification

 

[stephanddoody]

I don't suppose they can force him to testify from another country if he doesn't want to. That would be traumatic for him, to say the least. I watched my father die at the same age Jack lost his, not by murder, but I would have found it very very difficult to speak in public about it, especially if under duress.

Sorry for your loss. Never something that leaves your mind not matter the circumstances

 

[peregrino]

I don't suppose they can force him to testify from another country if he doesn't want to. That would be traumatic for him, to say the least. I watched my father die at the same age Jack lost his, not by murder, but I would have found it very very difficult to speak in public about it, especially if under duress.

Also sorry for your loss, however I dont think there is any suggestion that the child would be forced to give evidence if he was uncomfortable. I believe it was suggested he could be asked to testify - but he would be under no obligation to do so. I think the use of the words 'under duress' may lead people to believe that he would be forced to do something he did not want to do. I think if the child is asked to testify he will do so voluntarily and in an environment and using media which will ensure he feels secure and comfortable. Duress will not enter into it.

 

[stmarysmead]

I think it will be a last resort. They do have his statements. Of course, if MM refutes the statements, she could probably force the situation through her attorneys. As I posted earlier, I do read into her FB posts a desperate attempt to talk to them in order to control them and the narrative of their lives together.

Children in a DV home collect scenes of violence in their minds that they never forget. If these things happened, the children will have already disclosed them.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[kittythehare]

What does a prosecutor infer when he applies the words heinous, atrocious and/or cruel
to a case he is prosecuting?
Is there precedence for this statement?
I understand his statement may be challenged in a court of law ( based on other unrelated cases i have skimmed)?
http://www.uefap.com/vocab/exercise/awl/reqmur.htm

(actually that link is superfluous as it only applies to UK law)