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

[peregrino]

Quite honestly, at this point in time an awareness is arising in me that she cares nothing at all for those children

They are a mere distraction, a red herring so that nobody points the finger and says quite simply- DID YOU DO THAT TO JASON?

She is largely successful in this tactic.. even her lawyer stated it upsets her more than her murdered husband.. sure, nice try.

But wasn't Molly about to swan off into the sunset with an old love she had rediscovered on facebook? What happened to that?

I got a sense reading posts today that maybe we should consider refraining from discussing the children here?
They are vulnerable and their images have been overly exploited in an effort to both extort revenge on the Lynches (legally appointed Guardians) and to distract as many people as possible from the chief case?

I dont think it needs to be a hard and fast rule, but maybe if we became conscious that these discussions are a permanent record and those children should be supported and their privacy respected.
The custody case may intersperse our discussions but I'm not sure we should discuss it here?
I really dont mean to be lecturing and I would appreciate feedback on this notion, which could well be no more than me being over sensitive for their welfare.. (I can be like that and its often irrational)
What do people think?

Actually that may be very good advice Kitty. I think some recent posters may have attempted to move the discussion away from sleuthing and more towards the custody battle which is done and dusted. I am not for one moment suggesting that this was done with an agenda in mind, but it did tend to distract attention from the elements that are relevant to the murder case. I for one am happy to avoid bringing the children into the discussion if at all possible.

 

[peregrino]

I absolutely agree with you on MM's FB posts, but I'm beginning to doubt my earlier belief that her attorneys object to what she is doing.

We live in a time where many people apply their opinions on larger social issues to the question of responsibility. We excuse people and crimes because of historical metanarratives that make them "victims" in our defintion of social justice. Among Molly's 400+ friends are certainly people who care very strongly (rightfully so) about the GENERAL issue of DV. That admirable concern, however, may bring them to read her FB posts quite differently. It may cause them to dismiss the violence obvious in the autopsy.

Molly is marketing herself to those people as the primary victim in this case. She is doing this by describing the enchanted life she created for the children while they were all living "in the circumstances we found ourselves." She is the Mother-Martyr who endured DV because she could not leave the kids.

Although she is not mentioning the children now, she continues to post and build her victim brand with childlike posts. Behind all this is the unspoken narrative that she is the real victim and JC deserved to die. Any potential jurors who feel passionately about DV may be very susceptible to that pitch.

Good post - and the earlier one from Truthalways too. It is scary if her lawyers are in favour of MMs FB campaign to portray herself as a martyr. Mind you, if true that they support it, it would smack of a little bit of desperation. Up to now all we hear from the defence apprears to be"Molly is a good mom" and "Tom is a good Fed" - well guess what good moms and good feds are as capable of murder as anyone. Not a very convincing defence so far, IMO.

 

[kittythehare]

Actually that may be very good advice Kitty. I think some recent posters may have attempted to move the discussion away from sleuthing and more towards the custody battle which is done and dusted. I am not for one moment suggesting that this was done with an agenda in mind, but it did tend to distract attention from the elements that are relevant to the murder case. I for one am happy to avoid bringing the children into the discussion if at all possible.

Yep!
Thanks!

 

[Truthalways]

Quite honestly, at this point in time an awareness is arising in me that she cares nothing at all for those children

They are a mere distraction, a red herring so that nobody points the finger and says quite simply- DID YOU DO THAT TO JASON?

She is largely successful in this tactic.. even her lawyer stated it upsets her more than her murdered husband.. sure, nice try.

But wasn't Molly about to swan off into the sunset with an old love she had rediscovered on facebook? What happened to that?

I got a sense reading posts today that maybe we should consider refraining from discussing the children here?
They are vulnerable and their images have been overly exploited in an effort to both extort revenge on the Lynches (legally appointed Guardians) and to distract as many people as possible from the chief case?

I dont think it needs to be a hard and fast rule, but maybe if we became conscious that these discussions are a permanent record and those children should be supported and their privacy respected.
The custody case may intersperse our discussions but I'm not sure we should discuss it here?
I really dont mean to be lecturing and I would appreciate feedback on this notion, which could well be no more than me being over sensitive for their welfare.. (I can be like that and its often irrational)
What do people think?

Agreed and appreciated.😊

 

[stephanddoody]

Actually that may be very good advice Kitty. I think some recent posters may have attempted to move the discussion away from sleuthing and more towards the custody battle which is done and dusted. I am not for one moment suggesting that this was done with an agenda in mind, but it did tend to distract attention from the elements that are relevant to the murder case. I for one am happy to avoid bringing the children into the discussion if at all possible.

Im glad I'm not the only thinking that. I agree unless it's relevant to the murder investigation (for the most part they are not which is a blessing .) They have been exposed enough and will be glad to comply

 

[Mom2catieandtwins]

Quite honestly, at this point in time an awareness is arising in me that she cares nothing at all for those children

They are a mere distraction, a red herring so that nobody points the finger and says quite simply- DID YOU DO THAT TO JASON?

She is largely successful in this tactic.. even her lawyer stated it upsets her more than her murdered husband.. sure, nice try.

But wasn't Molly about to swan off into the sunset with an old love she had rediscovered on facebook? What happened to that?

I got a sense reading posts today that maybe we should consider refraining from discussing the children here?
They are vulnerable and their images have been overly exploited in an effort to both extort revenge on the Lynches (legally appointed Guardians) and to distract as many people as possible from the chief case?

I dont think it needs to be a hard and fast rule, but maybe if we became conscious that these discussions are a permanent record and those children should be supported and their privacy respected.
The custody case may intersperse our discussions but I'm not sure we should discuss it here?
I really dont mean to be lecturing and I would appreciate feedback on this notion, which could well be no more than me being over sensitive for their welfare.. (I can be like that and its often irrational)
What do people think?

You make a great point. I agree 100%.

 

[Truthalways]

http://www.omicsonline.com/open-acc...all-bat-blows-to-the-head-2090-2697-2-108.pdf

apologies if this has been posted before. I just came across it and it's an interesting case study.

also this which I can't link so I hope it's ok to copy and paste. It's a reply to a question on Reddit.com

"A simple fracture in the human skull can be caused by as little as 73 Newtons of force. An unrestrained adult falling to the ground can produce more than 873 Newtons, which is more than enough to fracture the skull. The upper bound of 873 Newtons converts to approximately 196.26 pounds of force required to fracture a skull. A study of a baseball bat swung at a ball produces forces averaging 4124 pounds with peak forces at 8314 pounds (20-40 times more force than necessary to fracture a skull). Even with a relatively light swing, a baseball bat can easily crush a human skull, causing tremendous brain damage, especially if aimed at weaker sections such as the temples."

 

[kittythehare]

http://www.omicsonline.com/open-acc...all-bat-blows-to-the-head-2090-2697-2-108.pdf

apologies if this has been posted before. I just came across it and it's an interesting case s

also this which I can't link so I hope it's ok to copy and paste. It's a reply to a question on Reddit.com

"A simple fracture in the human skull can be caused by as little as 73 Newtons of force. An unrestrained adult falling to the ground can produce more than 873 Newtons, which is more than enough to fracture the skull. The upper bound of 873 Newtons converts to approximately 196.26 pounds of force required to fracture a skull. A study of a baseball bat swung at a ball produces forces averaging 4124 pounds with peak forces at 8314 pounds (20-40 times more force than necessary to fracture a skull). Even with a relatively light swing, a baseball bat can easily crush a human skull, causing tremendous brain damage, especially if aimed at weaker sections such as the temples."

Brilliant info. Thank you.

 

[wildebeest]

Good post - and the earlier one from Truthalways too. It is scary if her lawyers are in favour of MMs FB campaign to portray herself as a martyr. Mind you, if true that they support it, it would smack of a little bit of desperation. Up to now all we hear from the defence apprears to be"Molly is a good mom" and "Tom is a good Fed" - well guess what good moms and good feds are as capable of murder as anyone. Not a very convincing defence so far, IMO.

Never understood how MM attorneys would condone her FB campaign. Unless, it is to establish an insanity defense. Don't think we've heard this mentioned, have we???

 

[Mom2catieandtwins]

Never understood how MM attorneys would condone her FB campaign. Unless, it is to establish an insanity defense. Don't think we've heard this mentioned, have we???

I don't understand either. Her last post is questionable. Did that break the terms of her bail? The autopsy does not support self defense. Pleading Insanity might be her only choice left.

 

[stmarysmead]

I think the problem with the insanity defense is that there are two assailants.

The reference to online intimidation of "witnesses" by MM's attorney seemed to allow some insight into trial strategy. Thinking about various FB posts and guessing who those witnesses might be, I think MM may have one or two "witnesses" who will support her allegations of DV.

Did any of you follow the notorious Casey Anthony trial and in particular the testimony of her mother, Cindy Anthony. Casey was acquitted...there has been no justice for her baby girl, Caylee.

Let's pray for none of that in this case. Hopefully, all witnesses will be interested in the truth and nothing else.

My opinion only as always.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[stephanddoody]

I don't understand either. Her last post is questionable. Did that break the terms of her bail? The autopsy does not support self defense. Pleading Insanity might be her only choice left.

I think it has and mentioned it before especially if any of those quotes were used in the home or something they spoke about . Im not sure they were but if they were and it could be proven it could possibly be perceived as a form of contact. But then again she didn't actually post the quotes just posted a link to the quotes so she will probably get away with it. She shows total disregard for the law and the people that withhold it and total disregard to how anybody else feels about what she is posting. She is still posting to her friends which I have no problem with but I think she should be told to remove her previous posts or privatised her page totally.

 

[peregrino]

Another thing which is at the back of my mind is that it is taking a long time for the ruling on the items taken from the house. Does anyone know anything new about this? Also if it is shown that she did violate a court order to not remove items (other than personal items) would that violate her bail conditions?

 

[Frizby]

Another thing which is at the back of my mind is that it is taking a long time for the ruling on the items taken from the house. Does anyone know anything new about this? Also if it is shown that she did violate a court order to not remove items (other than personal items) would that violate her bail conditions?

You know I found that whole saga bizarre. It is not as if she did a solo run, this was planned and many were involved. There was a purpose behind this action, whether it was to infuriate people, whether it was to garnish more support or sympathy when many people would no doubt condemn such action, I have no idea. Just struck me as bizarre.

 

[Truthalways]

Another thing which is at the back of my mind is that it is taking a long time for the ruling on the items taken from the house. Does anyone know anything new about this? Also if it is shown that she did violate a court order to not remove items (other than personal items) would that violate her bail conditions?

wa curious about this too but cannot find any dates for hearing.

one thing that I did wonder about regarding the hearing about the items removed from the house was the statement mm made when asked about income

http://evoke.ie/news/irish-news/jason-corbett-gave-martens-family-80k‘He worked and he was my husband,’ she said of Jason Corbett. ‘I stayed home and was his wife.’mm.

what I would have expected in this reply and what would be commonly heard from genuine DV victims would perhaps be
"my husband controlled the finances"
"my husband gave me an allowance"
"my husband checked my receipts"
"I wasn't allowed to have a job"
" I had no access to accounts"
"I needed permission from my husband to spend money"

Financial control of a partner is a massive red flag when determine emotional abuse. IMO between the hundreds of fb posts about holidays, days out , shopping trips, matching outfits and lobster dinners I'm perplexed. Those Facebook posts might come back to haunt this defense I think! ....All just my thoughts

 

[peregrino]

wa curious about this too but cannot find any dates for hearing.

one thing that I did wonder about regarding the hearing about the items removed from the house was the statement mm made when asked about income

http://evoke.ie/news/irish-news/jason-corbett-gave-martens-family-80k‘He worked and he was my husband,’ she said of Jason Corbett. ‘I stayed home and was his wife.’mm.

what I would have expected in this reply and what would be commonly heard from genuine DV victims would perhaps be
"my husband controlled the finances"
"my husband gave me an allowance"
"my husband checked my receipts"
"I wasn't allowed to have a job"
" I had no access to accounts"
"I needed permission from my husband to spend money"

Financial control of a partner is a massive red flag when determine emotional abuse. IMO between the hundreds of fb posts about holidays, days out , shopping trips, matching outfits and lobster dinners I'm perplexed. Those Facebook posts might come back to haunt this defense I think! ....All just my thoughts

Thanks Truthalways and Fizby. I think there is a defiance there from MM and family e.g. the pushing things to the edge like the taking of the furniture, the failure to take down photos from FB sites etc., that seems at odds with the 'mommy martyr' scenario. I don't know how such things are perceived by U.S. audiences - perhaps particularly southern U.S. audiences, but would the 'wronged but defiant' approach get her more support or less? Is it saying, we are so victimized here we have to resist?

Secondly, is it a lawyer sanctioned tactic or just a family trait? I cant believe it is a laywer sanctioned tactic, if it were they would be at the forefront of it, explaining and justifiying their actions. If it is a family trait i.e. the stubborn resistance, is it likely to help their case or hinder it?

 

[Truthalways]

Thanks peregrino, I too would ask the same questions it's hard to believe seasoned lawyers would encourage such behavior or statements pre trial. Their whole case rests on "self defense" "dv victim" and just as in the case of Jody Ariashttp://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2015/02/06/prosecution-psychologist-paints-jodi-arias-stalker/22997965/
and The Harper trial a trained professional in psychology for prosecution will surely use any of the many tools they have to look for specific behaviors associated with DV victims and compare them to the behavior of mm before and after the murder. All imo.

 

[kittythehare]

I thought it an utterly bizarre response from her.
Implications of that statement are many faceted, weird, archaic,
We can assume from 'he worked and he was my husband'
'I stayed home and I was his wife'
(and everyone knows thats how it works, where I come from is the implication)
But the question she had been asked related to her financial input in the home.

It will anger many of those she hopes will be sympathetic to her DV theme and as you so rightly said it casts much doubt on her DV allegations.
Peregrino, I think its taking as long as it is because so many points of law which will also be common to the main trial will be playing out, as well as the most important logistics of working out where all those receipts are etc.

The ruling clerk is up for re re election next year as well and I saw many uncomplimentary comments on public boards where they would get the highest viewings. I do not know whether there is political pressure being brought to bear here or whether it would be effective, if so.
Its difficult not knowing how things work exactly, politically or judicially in this county. Every county has different ethos, methodology and law variations too..

 

[stephanddoody]

wa curious about this too but cannot find any dates for hearing.

one thing that I did wonder about regarding the hearing about the items removed from the house was the statement mm made when asked about income

http://evoke.ie/news/irish-news/jason-corbett-gave-martens-family-80k‘He worked and he was my husband,’ she said of Jason Corbett. ‘I stayed home and was his wife.’mm.

what I would have expected in this reply and what would be commonly heard from genuine DV victims would perhaps be
"my husband controlled the finances"
"my husband gave me an allowance"
"my husband checked my receipts"
"I wasn't allowed to have a job"
" I had no access to accounts"
"I needed permission from my husband to spend money"

Financial control of a partner is a massive red flag when determine emotional abuse. IMO between the hundreds of fb posts about holidays, days out , shopping trips, matching outfits and lobster dinners I'm perplexed. Those Facebook posts might come back to haunt this defense I think! ....All just my thoughts

what a fantastic point . She says she had her own credit card not typically something you are given by an abusive partner . Abusers are not only physical it's control, it's power, isolation , making the victim lose their self worth .

 

[Frizby]

I thought it an utterly bizarre response from her.
Implications of that statement are many faceted, weird, archaic,
We can assume from 'he worked and he was my husband'
'I stayed home and I was his wife'
(and everyone knows thats how it works, where I come from is the implication)
But the question she had been asked related to her financial input in the home.

It will anger many of those she hopes will be sympathetic to her DV theme and as you so rightly said it casts much doubt on her DV allegations.
Peregrino, I think its taking as long as it is because so many points of law which will also be common to the main trial will be playing out, as well as the most important logistics of working out where all those receipts are etc.

The ruling clerk is up for re re election next year as well and I saw many uncomplimentary comments on public boards where they would get the highest viewings. I do not know whether there is political pressure being brought to bear here or whether it would be effective, if so.
Its difficult not knowing how things work exactly, politically or judicially in this county. Every county has different ethos, methodology and law variations too..

I got the feeling that she was being asked about her contribution was relating to her defence of taking items that were purchased on a Credit Card in her sole name.