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

[stmarysmead]

Aren't the motions that are filed available to the public in NC? I remember in the Duke Lacrosse case, also in NC, every time a motion was filed by the defense, local blogs would have copies for discussion. In that case, the newspapers were carrying links to the full motions. In this case, the actual motions are not being easily accessed. But I believe they are publicly available at the courthouse.






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Hotchips]

http://www.journalnow.com/news/colu...-88ab-bb846cd4d4d2.html#.VufBsBs0oE8.facebook
not necessarily credit card bills..
this is one -sided 'journalism'.
we are not privy to Shipwash's response t this time.
the big question is a matter of ethics of the defendant's lawyers.. why is the criminal lawyer involved here? Under what legal circumstances is he allowed to speak on a civil matter?
This strikes me as vexatious.
an attempt to add more hardship to the lives of the Corbett and the Lynch families. A successful attempt to bring the children more and more into public notoriety and thus expose them to further risk, even though they took nothing at all.
Classic oppressor as victim.
Disgusting!

Im thinking its possible that Molly may have instructed Mr Holton to take over the estate case as well on her behalf.

Also I think in terms of them seeking to re-examine Shipwashs involvement in the custody case, this is to dig further and see if there were any ex-parte communications between any parties and Mr Shipwash before a decision was made by him which may indicate bias on his behalf. The children wont be returning to the US so its unlikely they are seeking this in order to bring the children back but more so to discredit Mr Shipwash.

 

[kittythehare]

Im thinking its possible that Molly may have instructed Mr Holton to take over the estate case as well on her behalf.

Also I think in terms of them seeking to re-examine Shipwashs involvement in the custody case, this is to dig further and see if there were any ex-parte communications between any parties and Mr Shipwash before a decision was made by him which may indicate bias on his behalf. The children wont be returning to the US so its unlikely they are seeking this in order to bring the children back but more so to discredit Mr Shipwash.

If she had changed lawyers a FORMAL statement would have been made to the courts and permissions sought.
Either way, the childrens' security and rights have again been placed on this macabre altar.

 

[emmalpage81]

Holton again taking the reigns. If they are alleging that there were communications made ex parte then why are the firm who actually represented her not bringing this motion? How did they get copies of the correspondence to attach to the motion? IMO they may be trying to suppress something that will damaging to the criminal case. The talk of revisiting the custody decision is moot; it has been adjudicated on and upheld by at least three separate judges.

 

[kittythehare]

Emma, I imagine that upon discovery they found the rationale Shipwash used for his decision and they are now saying it was flawed or not argued fully. However, the children are Irish, with Irish passports and I think that takes precedence. Its marely tactical, inflammatory and provocative, its sole aim is probably to establish proof that Molly cannot receive a fair trial in NC- thats the fire they are feeding. Molly is not native to NC and is therefore an 'outsider' who will be dealt with impartially due to outsider status. Prosecution would prefer if trial happened in an area where they would have more 'power'.

 

[stephanddoody]

http://www.hlntv.com/shows/nancy-grace/articles/2016/03/15/molly-martens-corbett-fights-order-to-return-items-from-home


A lot more than personal items removed . Who has their own personal washer and dryer? Were all the beds and mattresses in the house hers ? A child's crib .It's ridiculous and laughable if this wasn't so serious. I do agree the jury will have access to this which will be good for prosecution.

 

[kittythehare]

http://www.hlntv.com/shows/nancy-grace/articles/2016/03/15/molly-martens-corbett-fights-order-to-return-items-from-home


A lot more than personal items removed . Who has their personal washer and dryer. It's ridiculous and laughable if this wasn't so serious. I do agree the jury will have access to this which will be good for prosecution

The BEDFRAME and THE MATTRESS from the master bedroom- the murder room.
chain of evidence corrupt?
Or mere ghoulishness?
or some other reason entirely?
weirder and weirder..
The multi clothes collections..
see last clip too

http://www.hlntv.com/shows/nancy-gr...orbett-fights-order-to-return-items-from-home

 

[Frizby]

The gloves are most definitely off, what we have to remember is that MM & TM are fighting for their lives so it is not surprising that every book on the shelf will be thrown. From what I can see, there are three separate issues, the custody case, the removal of the property and the murder case.

The custody case was ruled upon by three judges, Shipwash was just one of those. His ruling was examined by the Superior Court and was deemed to be lawful.

Last night Tracey said: ‘We are delighted and looking forward to going back home to our family.’ Upholding an earlier decision, Superior Court Judge Ted Royster ruled that District Court Judge April Wood was correct in ruling Brian Shipwash, Clerk of Superior Court, was within his jurisdiction to grant guardianship to David and Tracey Lynch.

http://evoke.ie/news/molly-loses-us-custody-battle-over-jasons-two-children

So if they are questioning Shipwash, in the case of the custody hearing, are they not questioning three judges. Shipwash, in his ruling, he put aside outside influences and made his decision on the facts in the best interest of the children. As he also says, if the children were US citizens, he would want them to be brought home to the US. Additionally, all this was done prior to MM & TM being indicted for murder. Cannot see how any fresh eyes on the case of custody could be changed.

Link to Shipwash ruling on the custody matter.
https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/corbett-order.pdf

On the matter of the property, MM was asked to provide proof to back up her original claim that she owned the property based on her saying they were bought on her or her parents CC. She provided no back up to this claim, in fact flatly refused to provide any details, the judge ruled on the fact placed before him. Her original claim was that she owned the property but now, having being ruled against, comes up with a defence to say she was only minding the property.

The latest article makes out that this was all about money however they do not specify which side he was arguing it was all about money. If you look at it based on what the journalist put in the article, you would be forgiven in thinking it was all about money however if you read the ruling it is clear that there was a stipulation that no property was to be moved, a agreement entered into by both parties. So imo it was not all about money, it was about the fact that the original order was broken. All about money on either sides does not seem to wash, we are just taking about some furniture, yes it might have been worth a lot but not in the overall scheme of things. MM informed the lawyers of the estates that she would be removing personal items but went ahead to practically clear the house out.

Link to ruling on 7th March 2016 regarding removal of property
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...-5cad-8e9b-ba7f55f4ccfc/56e1083eafd3c.pdf.pdf

The correspondence between Shipwash's office and the other lawyers is not clear in the article but what is clear is that MM lawyers is doing their level best to discredit Shipwash. If there are improprieties by the Judge I would be shocked but in a case that has taken so many turns nothing would surprise me. I would not have thought that Shipwash would be the judge in the murder trial anyway. So where does discrediting him get them, custody case re-looked at, can't see the ruling in that matter altering. Re-look at the property case, clear to me that she breached the original order based on what was stated in the ruling of 7th March, would be useful if we had a copy of the original order.

 

[kittythehare]

The gloves are most definitely off, what we have to remember is that MM & TM are fighting for their lives so it is not surprising that every book on the shelf will be thrown. From what I can see, there are three separate issues, the custody case, the removal of the property and the murder case.

The custody case was ruled upon by three judges, Shipwash was just one of those. His ruling was examined by the Superior Court and was deemed to be lawful.



http://evoke.ie/news/molly-loses-us-custody-battle-over-jasons-two-children

So if they are questioning Shipwash, in the case of the custody hearing, are they not questioning three judges. Shipwash, in his ruling, he put aside outside influences and made his decision on the facts in the best interest of the children. As he also says, if the children were US citizens, he would want them to be brought home to the US. Additionally, all this was done prior to MM & TM being indicted for murder. Cannot see how any fresh eyes on the case of custody could be changed.

Link to Shipwash ruling on the custody matter.
https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/corbett-order.pdf

On the matter of the property, MM was asked to provide proof to back up her original claim that she owned the property based on her saying they were bought on her or her parents CC. She provided no back up to this claim, in fact flatly refused to provide any details, the judge ruled on the fact placed before him. Her original claim was that she owned the property but now, having being ruled against, comes up with a defence to say she was only minding the property.

The latest article makes out that this was all about money however they do not specify which side he was arguing it was all about money. If you look at it based on what the journalist put in the article, you would be forgiven in thinking it was all about money however if you read the ruling it is clear that there was a stipulation that no property was to be moved, a agreement entered into by both parties. So imo it was not all about money, it was about the fact that the original order was broken. All about money on either sides does not seem to wash, we are just taking about some furniture, yes it might have been worth a lot but not in the overall scheme of things. MM informed the lawyers of the estates that she would be removing personal items but went ahead to practically clear the house out.

Link to ruling on 7th March 2016 regarding removal of property
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...-5cad-8e9b-ba7f55f4ccfc/56e1083eafd3c.pdf.pdf

The correspondence between Shipwash's office and the other lawyers is not clear in the article but what is clear is that MM lawyers is doing their level best to discredit Shipwash. If there are improprieties by the Judge I would be shocked but in a case that has taken so many turns nothing would surprise me. I would not have thought that Shipwash would be the judge in the murder trial anyway. So where does discrediting him get them, custody case re-looked at, can't see the ruling in that matter altering. Re-look at the property case, clear to me that she breached the original order based on what was staed in the ruling of 7th March, would be useful if we had a copy of the original order.

Great post, thanks Frizby.
throws up the question on why her criminal lawyer would deem it so important?
Why??
Even if Shipwash was wrong, I doubt it based upon your post and the other judges' rulings regarding the custody case but whose grail does it serve to defend her against a long list of furniture, some of which likely had blood and bone fragments attached?
Its well worth exploring

 

[Frizby]

Great post, thanks Frizby.
throws up the question on why her criminal lawyer would deem it so important?
Why??
Even if Shipwash was wrong, I doubt it based upon your post and the other judges' rulings regarding the custody case but whose grail does it serve to defend her against a long list of furniture, some of which likely had blood and bone fragments attached?
Its well worth exploring

She had loads of time to clear any blood or bone fragments up, there would have been no real need to clear the house out for that purpose. The house was cleared out the day after she informed the lawyers of the estate that she was taking her personal items. By her clearing out the house, it was akin to her saying all what she was removing was her personal items. Lawyers on MM side made a specific in highlighting that the items were stored in NC however the Salem Journal got a hold of the original testament of the trial which stated that MM testified that property had been moved to Tennessee. Some games going on here. Still don't see why the location of the property matters, the original order entered into by both parties was clear, no items belonging to the estate was to be removed.

 

[fido]

I think Holton has waded into this because he was alarmed at adverse publicity surrounding Mr SHipwashs ruling. It has painted his client in negative light and he is trying to salvage her image by putting up a smokescreen surrounding the basis for the ruling on the property case. The ruling may not be changed but he can create enough doubt in the publics mind over whether the ruling was correct. It's a ploy. Regarding the furniture and whether any physical evidence is still evident from same, I sincerely doubt it. CSI would have gathered all they needed st this statge. I am now doubting that poor Jason was murdered whilst in bed. The mattress would not have been salvageable after that sustained attack and that's one of the things that she took.

 

[kittythehare]

She had loads of time to clear any blood or bone fragments up, there would have been no real need to clear the house out for that purpose. The house was cleared out the day after she informed the lawyers of the estate that she was taking her personal items. By her clearing out the house, it was akin to her saying all what she was removing was her personal items. Lawyers on MM side made a specific in highlighting that the items were stored in NC however the Salem Journal got a hold of the original testament of the trial which stated that MM testified that property had been moved to Tennessee. Some games going on here. Still don't see why the location of the property matters, the original order entered into by both parties was clear, no items belonging to the estate was to be removed.

she could be planning on setting up a new home for he?self and the children. its possible.
Still does not explain this crude attempt to sacrifice Shipwash, however.. is it vendetta politics, I wonder/

 

[Frizby]

she could be planning on setting up a new home for he?self and the children. its possible.
Still does not explain this crude attempt to sacrifice Shipwash, however.. is it vendetta politics, I wonder/

Sacrifice in saving ones life is no sacrifice, MM & TM are launching a case to save their lives. Defence are not interested in who they obliterate, their only concern is for their client, everyone else is just collateral damage. Discredit one thing that someone does or even publicly state that they are being discredited, discredits all that someone does in the same matter. There is a lot of straw clutching going on

 

[kittythehare]

Sacrifice in saving ones life is no sacrifice, MM & TM are launching a case to save their lives. Defence are not interested in who they obliterate, their only concern is for their client, everyone else is just collateral damage. Discredit one thing that someone does or even publicly state that they are being discredited, discredits all that someone does in the same matter. There is a lot of straw clutching going on

I meant the sacrificing of the NC justice system

 

[Hotchips]

Anyone else think it odd there was a child's crib in the house? The children were well over the age of needing one of these even when they moved there over four years ago.

 

[Frizby]

I meant the sacrificing of the NC justice system

I see, do you think that they are making a sacrifice of the NC justice system? Don't see it tbh, in their view, or rather what they would say, they would suggest that they are defending it. Their defence is full of holes however, they are defending MM on a totally different aspect that she defended herself when this property issue came to court. First, she claimed that she owned the property and that was the reason why she removed it, now it is all about her being the protector of the property and the Judge erred in his ruling. Still wish we had access to the original Order as we only have what is being stated in the ruling of 7th March as to what was contained in the original order regarding what rules they were subjected to on removing the property.

 

[Frizby]

Anyone else think it odd there was a child's crib in the house? The children were well over the age of needing one of these even when they moved there over four years ago.

Yeah, that one is a bit odd but only got the Nancy Grace show to confirm that. Has anything else been released regarding the items that were taken? From the ruling on 7th March, everything was taken apart from JC clothes, items which he brought from Ireland and items belonging to the children. Even if it was used for the youngest child, she would have been four or five when they moved in so a crib was necessary. Odd one thought.

 

[Francesca]

Anyone else think it odd there was a child's crib in the house? The children were well over the age of needing one of these even when they moved there over four years ago.

I agree - that stood out to me as well. I'm speculating that this crib was bought by Mags and brought over from Ireland as Jason and Molly probably initially planned to have children of their own; either that, or it was the little girl's toy crib (as it was in her room). Either way, it could not possibly have belonged to Molly or had any personal connection to her, as the children were too old for cribs by the time they were in her care.

 

[Electric Sheep]

I agree - that stood out to me as well. I'm speculating that this crib was bought by Mags and brought over from Ireland as Jason and Molly probably initially planned to have children of their own; either that, or it was the little girl's toy crib (as it was in her room). Either way, it could not possibly have belonged to Molly or had any personal connection to her, as the children were too old for cribs by the time they were in her care.

It could well have belonged to Molly if she had lost a child or children before birth. It could even belong to Molly if pregnancy was just a hope.

 

[kittythehare]

“This appeal is made on the grounds that the findings made by Clerk of Superior Court Brian Shipwash are not supported by the evidence, the conclusions of law are not supported by the findings of fact and the order is inconsistent with the conclusions of law and applicable law,” Thompson wrote in his notice of appeal. “Additionally, this order constitutes an abuse of discretion by the Clerk.”

Shipwash said he would not comment on a pending case.

Thompson wants Shipwash’s ruling reviewed by a Davidson Superior Court judge. A hearing has not been set.
source- http://www.journalnow.com/news/crim...cle_ccec63c4-d9d2-5f23-8beb-277ef07df3bf.html