Yeah, but- even setting slayer statute to one side and even setting her role in the murder to one side.. a couple separate, due to death or divorce- its 50/50 It is done by using a valuation service.. not cleaning it out and holding items in a separate private place.. thats psychiatric!
What was her intention? Ransom demand? There is no way to divide a washing machine in two without smashing it.
She then lobs in a #protectionOfPropertyFromTheElements reason.
A phone call to the Lynch solicitors regarding an agreement to switch on air conditioning, heat for a few hours periodically would have sorted all that..
The flight outa Panther Creek with every stick of furniture is the act of a madwoman!
It does , however prove greed, yet again.
We can now understabd it to be a very fundamental aspect of her character. Molly is greedy.
She had a Chase card debt of $13K at the time of Jason's murder.
Thats pretty telling.
She made that, his bill.
Every bill was ultimately his bill.
Even though he never spent the money and quite possibly wasn't even aware of the extent of her flamboyant careless selfish narcissism..
it was all for her and her only.
She is the centre of her universe.
I think everyone looking at this from the outside would make all sorts of suggestion like turning on the air conditioning peridoically, ah sure what damage could have occurred if the house was left cold, what the heck has water got to do with preservicng the items, it is not as it the furniture needs watering.
The way I read all this, and this is only on what was produced following Mondays decision, is that MM first and only defence was that she owned all the property, she claims this on the basis that the transaction went through a credit card in her name and some stuff was bought by her parents. However, as Shipwash sees it, the CC was paid from the joint account and JC transferred large sums of money to both MM & also her parents. Slayer status only kicks in if found guilty.
No idea what the balance of her CC was at the time of death, I believe that the figure of $12k was only referring to the balance at the time of this court action.
Why is it now, only after this event, is the defence coming up with "ah sure her lawyers told her to do it"? This excuse it totally alien to the original defence by MM saying she is entitled to ownership because the transaction went through her CC. It is not as it she only took a few things, she cleared the house out, as stated in the Monday Judgement, all that was left in the property was JC clothes, items brought from Ireland by JC and items owned by the children.
She either did a)take the goods on the basis that she owned them entirely as personal possessions or b)took them for safekeeping. She has tried A, that one did not go well for her so she is resorting to plan B. But plan B also calls into question the ability of her lawyers. Her lawyers contacted the lawyers of the estate to advise them that she would be removing personal items, so they stood by and allowed the house to be cleared based on her saying I have a credit card. Regardless which one she picks, she broke the order.
As to her intention, well that is anyone's guess, I just cannot get my head around her actions.
