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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dumbfounded2 said:
Was Jason killed before MM went to get the children? Did this trip serve a dual purpose?
Click to expand...

Dumbfounded2---I think there is a good chance Jason had been bludgeoned before MM went to pick up the children that night. Do any of you have these thoughts???

IMHO
 
wildebeest said:
Dumbfounded2---I think there is a good chance Jason had been bludgeoned before MM went to pick up the children that night. Do any of you have these thoughts???

IMHO
Click to expand...

If they did decide to wait before calling paramedics (which might have seemed a logical decision, given their frame of mind and their goals) the paramedics surely would have been able to tell by blood clotting that he had been injured some time before the phone call. I read a harrowing case once of a victim that had apparently been rushed to the hospital immediately after being shot by a "stranger" but the emergency team were clearing out heavy blood clots which indicated the victim had been injured much earlier than claimed.
 
emmalpage81 said:
Thanks for tracking it down. Was giving myself a headache on the commute this morning trying to find it!
Click to expand...

Its interesting she agreed not to remove the property from the house previously and her lawyers are playing that down by making out she was doing a favour to the Estate by removing them. Also that she failed to provide documents to back her own claims. I see also mentioned there was 50k paid to Tm and sm account 80 k was also moved to US account and the money for the house. I for one can't see this being overturned.
 
Interesting that she never even bothered, if I'm reading this correctly, to respond to the Court or provide what they required. These people live in an alternative universe where they believe that they are above the law, in my opinion.

Not for a second do I believe this was done in advice of counsel...or all the necessary papers would have been provided. Maybe the prosecutor will put her civil attorney under oath at her criminal trial and ask him. That could show the criminal jury that she lied under oath to a court and has zero credibility.

Just opinions...
 
stephanddoody said:
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...-5cad-8e9b-ba7f55f4ccfc/56e1083eafd3c.pdf.pdf
just putting Shipwashs findings here . I don't believe he made the ruling based on hearsay as suggested by Mollys lawyer.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link Stephen.

On the morning of the removal of the property by MM (21/1/16), her lawyers contact the executors lawyers to advise that she would be removing her personal property. Then the executors found out that there was much more being removed so they requested a hearing that very afternoon. MM Lawyers could not attend and when they did attend, it was the statement of MM that all she took was hers as it was paid for by her CC and by her parents. This was disputed by Shipwash as the money to pay the CC came from joint account and it would appear that he is relating the money paid to the parents & to her as payment for goods also. In 2011, JC transferred €80,000 to MM, €50,000 to Tom & Sharon Martens and €340,000 to purchase property.

After she took the property from the home on 21/1/16, all that remained in the home was JC clothes, items that JC had brought from Ireland & items owned by the children. So she was basically saying, she owned everything. Also, with this document, it states that MM stated in the hearing on 2/2/16 that the items were transferred to Tennessee.

There is no mention in any of this regarding her only wanting to safeguard the items, he contention was always that she owned all the goods she removed from the property. Cannot see how she is going to win this appeal. His ruling was based on the facts presented to him on 2/2/16 and lack of any corroboration by MM on matter.
 
Dumbfounded2 said:
Agree, I too will be flabbergasted if that ruling is overturned. Also, agree that MM's attorney is paid to TRY to repair her image. However, not sure that MM will ever realize that she is fooling no one. It might be in her DNA to think that she is always right even if it means that the innocent are murdered. For instance, at least one relative still has only one photo on their FB page & that is a picture of Jason’s children with her and her husband. Why would anyone post a pic of a murdered person ‘s children? How could anyone not want to protect innocent children? Have no doubt that EVIL lives there. MM pens tribute to Jason hours after being charged with his murder. Have no doubt that EVIL lives there too. Agree, everything is at risk, just not sure they know it yet because they seem to think the laws do not apply to them. I hope that Jason’s autopsy report will tell the truth. Yes, Jason was generous. So sad that Jason’s generosity was NOT reciprocated.

· [FONT=&amp]'I will always love you': Molly Martens pens tribute to Jason Corbett... hours after being charged with his murder. Her uncle says she will plead not guilty and can expect to be ‘exonorated’ of all charges[/FONT]
· http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Wi...mpts-to-access-murdered-Irishmans-office.html
· http://evoke.ie/news/irish-news/molly-martens-uncle-tried-to-get-access-to-jasons-office
Click to expand...

I don't think the contents of that article is any penning of a tribute to JC, it was one of her FB comments directed at the children. The Sun, a rag red top paper, are not known for accuracy.
 
Was the civil attorney on the scene the whole time? I just don't believe an officier of the court would allow her to play fast and loose like this.
 
Maybe she hasn't been charged because it's a civil case and if she is found innocent in the criminal trial, she will be entitled to some part of the estate.
 
but she is in clear breach of conditions set down.
Surely thats a breach that is punitive in law, both civil and criminal?
 
kittythehare said:
but she is in clear breach of conditions set down.
Surely thats a breach that is punitive in law, both civil and criminal?
Click to expand...

IMO a clear breach of conditions. She put up her initial defence saying that she actually owned all the items because they were paid for via a credit card in her name. She left the house practically empty as detailed in the ruling. Even the new defence that they are putting forward saying that she was just minding the stuff when she removed them is a clear breach by another manner. Are the lawyers who supposedly said this to her saying that they did not read or understand the order. Clutching at straws, for what purpose I have no idea. No idea also regarding what penalty can be put forward for such a breach apart from all the legal costs have been ordered attributed to her.
 
Frizby said:
IMO a clear breach of conditions. She put up her initial defence saying that she actually owned all the items because they were paid for via a credit card in her name. She left the house practically empty as detailed in the ruling. Even the new defence that they are putting forward saying that she was just minding the stuff when she removed them is a clear breach by another manner. Are the lawyers who supposedly said this to her saying that they did not read or understand the order. Clutching at straws, for what purpose I have no idea. No idea also regarding what penalty can be put forward for such a breach apart from all the legal costs have been ordered attributed to her.
Click to expand...

theft from the lawful estate of the late Jason Corbett?
 
Dumbfounded2 said:
Was Jason killed before MM went to get the children? Did this trip serve a dual purpose?
Click to expand...

I doubt it cos that would have been at minimum 4 hours and it would have been very apparent to EMT's and police who would routinely check for post mortem changes.
 
I have been reading old newspaper articles about the removal of property from Jason's estate. I don't know how to post the link from my phone, but in an article written by the Winston Salem Journal, it was written that Mollyhad gained employment by a clothing store Chicos. I copied what was written. MM is a suspect in the murder of her husband. That would be my guess as to why she was suspend. Again she takes no responsibility for Jason's death.

Molly Corbett said she is now employed at a Chico’s clothing store in Knoxville, Tenn., but has been temporarily suspended because “they didn’t like that (she) was on the news.”

 
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...-5cad-8e9b-ba7f55f4ccfc/56e1083eafd3c.pdf.pdf
Page 6/15.. $12,000 -$13,000 0wed on her card at time of Jason's death..
7/15 o- she allowed both her father and her brother to drive the jointly owned car.. Why? Does this suggest her father also lacks the most basic of knowledge regarding consent laws, or did he choose to ignore them?

18, and 19- she failed to produce the records requested by the court, even though she had been granted sufficient time

No.11-a perverse determination of ownership and manipulation of intent
Is that not fraud ?


And how is she going to pay the court fees?
 
Frizby said:
Let's look at the facts of this "property case" as it is reported. Judge Shipwash found that she failed to work with the executors of the estate. This is fact, as the executors only found out about it when a neighbour informed them when this was all going on. He also found that she had violated the court order by allowing someone else to use the vehicle. This is also fact as she says she was not there when this was all taking place. The newspaper reports says that the court order instructed her to use any of the property so even if she had driven it, it would still be against the original order. How these two finding from Shipwash can be overturned is beyond me.

Also, when she was questioned in court about all this in February, she put up a defence that she had paid for some items by a credit card in her name, so she was obviously was arguing that some of the property was hers. Now her defence is her lawyer told her to do it. Did her lawyers also tell her to keep it quiet? Off all people, they should know this was going to cause problems.

The lawyer also makes a point of saying that the property was held in NC and not Tennessee, personally I don't see how it can make much difference as to where the property was held, the fact is she removed the property without consulting the executors and also used property. But I do find it odd that the lawyer makes the distinction between NC & Tennessee. Can't see this appeal working.

And if the property was not worth much, as they put it, why bother add to the expense by renting out storage units.

The various article don't really give a clear picture of the original order, they are all paraphrasing. Does anyone know if this order was ever published?
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if the fact that it was stated that the property was being stored in Tenessee would be enough of an 'error in the judgement' to have it overturned? Sometimes there are crazy loopholes in the system whereby if everything is not stated exactly as it should havhe been it can be grounds for appeal...not sure if an error in location of property would be grounds enough for this though!

Also, I believe (again just from FB though!) that it is being stored by a friend in NC so therefore this may negate the normal costs involved in paying for storage.
 
Logic-lady said:
I'm wondering if the fact that it was stated that the property was being stored in Tenessee would be enough of an 'error in the judgement' to have it overturned? Sometimes there are crazy loopholes in the system whereby if everything is not stated exactly as it should havhe been it can be grounds for appeal...not sure if an error in location of property would be grounds enough for this though!

Also, I believe (again just from FB though!) that it is being stored by a friend in NC so therefore this may negate the normal costs involved in paying for storage.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that thought had gone through my head also but it appears that the reference to Tenessee was direct from the statement that MM gave in the initial court case. I would suspect if there is a question over this, the question has to be raised to MM as to why she gave that evidence in the first place. Maybe that was where it was initially and then subsequently moved to NC, maybe even into a friends property. I cannot tbh seeing this really as a reason to vacate the entire judgement as the judgement was given on the basis of the action of removing the items. But nothing really would surprise me in this case, there seems to be a lot of game playing on the side of the Martens.

Doesn't make sense as to why a lawyer would hold their hands up to advising on a matter while in doing so they will also have to admit that they advise on breaking an existing court order. None of this was mentioned until the judgement this week was handed down, prior to this judgement the whole case was focused on the fact the MM claimed to own the property.
 
kittythehare said:
theft from the lawful estate of the late Jason Corbett?
Click to expand...

But theft from the estate could really only be determined if she was not possibly entitled to any of it. This cannot really be definitive until after the trial. She clearly broke a court order though. The costs of the legal action and also the costs of any items missing would be at the very least, no idea if the original court order stated any stipulation on sanction on it being broken. Have not seen the original court order on this matter. Has anyone here ever seen it or have a link to it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 129 more.
Total: 1,951 (members: 130, guests: 1,821)

Online statistics

Members online
130
Guests online
1,821
Total visitors
1,951
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,674
Messages
18,128,142
Members
231,121
Latest member
GibsonGirl
Back
Top