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

[kittythehare]

Now that is a little different than two children you said MM refereed to in her posts as you put it "The posts either referred to 2 different children or one child who managed to age by 2 years or three in the course of a single year! ". In MM posts she referred to an 8 year old step daughter twice, both posts were made 10 years ago, she never changed the age, both of her posts referred to an 8 year old, the reference to a six year old boy was made by the Lynch family.

Yes Frizby this is an entirely different post about a different or one of the same children in a different media source

 

[stmarysmead]

Now that is a little different than two children you said MM refereed to in her posts as you put it "The posts either referred to 2 different children or one child who managed to age by 2 years or three in the course of a single year! ". In MM posts she referred to an 8 year old step daughter twice, both posts were made 10 years ago, she never changed the age, both of her posts referred to an 8 year old, the reference to a six year old boy was made by the Lynch family.

The Internet "changes" during these trials. Articles are deleted. Twitter accounts taken down. Even news stories are edited after the fact. But here on WS, we can only deal with these things as they are..at the moment they are discussed. Not as they were in the past. Fair enough.

But the REAL question in regard to our sleuthing of this murder is this: who are these children? Were they fantasies, part of Mm's lies? Or did they exist and are part of her missing past?

 

[Logic-lady]

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...s-for-wife-of-jason-corbett-say-34605451.html

Irish media report just in

So that's why they lodged the proceedings against Shipwash....to further their argument of bias!

 

[kittythehare]

The Internet "changes" during these trials. Articles are deleted. Twitter accounts taken down. Even news stories are edited after the fact. But here on WS, we can only deal with these things as they are..at the moment they are discussed. Not as they were in the past. Fair enough.

But the REAL question in regard to our sleuthing of this murder is this: who are these children? Were they fantasies, part of Mm's lies? Or did they exist and are part of her missing past?

Yes, we have indeed seen editing.. it is worrying..
I wonder whether there are any good techies online who can retrieve articles pre editing? thats the point of my posts, actually. We must know more about these fantasy children or discern whether any of them were even real?

 

[stephanddoody]

So that's why they lodged the proceedings against Shipwash....to further their argument of bias!

I think you are right plan is discredit them all then change venue and discredit all evidence . Wonder will they try to discredit the ME also. This seems to the only person they haven't claimed is corrupt. So far on the list are Shipwash and the other 2 Judges that ruled against her and now the entire sheriffs department if this wasn't so serious it would be laughable.

 

[stmarysmead]

I think you are right plan is discredit them all then change venue and discredit all evidence . Wonder will they try to discredit the ME also. This seems to the only person they haven't claimed is corrupt. So far on the list are Shipwash and the other 2 Judges that ruled against her and now the entire sheriffs department if this wasn't so serious it would be laughable.

Desparate tactics because they haven't anything else.

 

[Electric Sheep]

From the Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...ns-lawyers-claim-inquiry-mishandled-1.2601074

 

[stmarysmead]

From the Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...ns-lawyers-claim-inquiry-mishandled-1.2601074

Yes, we have a woman who rage-killed her husband now claiming that everyone who has looked at this case ...from the custody case...to the greed-grab of the house contents...to the savage murder..ALL! Everyone is corrupt...but not Molly.

 

[stephanddoody]

http://m.the-dispatch.com/Section/431/Article/160409872

garry frank responds

 

[Sparky]

Ok folks,

Let's try this....when you post something that is your opinion add jmo (just my opinion) or imo (in my opinion). This way all members will know it's your opinion.

If you are referring to something that needs a link add the link. If they'd like to read what you've posted from the research you've found, you have a link to back it up.

If you have a issue, you can always alert the post or scroll and roll. Please don't call other posters out on the site. Everyone here is for Jason.

Thanks!

 

[Frizby]

The Internet "changes" during these trials. Articles are deleted. Twitter accounts taken down. Even news stories are edited after the fact. But here on WS, we can only deal with these things as they are..at the moment they are discussed. Not as they were in the past. Fair enough.

But the REAL question in regard to our sleuthing of this murder is this: who are these children? Were they fantasies, part of Mm's lies? Or did they exist and are part of her missing past?

I agree that the real question is who are these children, the one MM refers to the 8 years old step daughter and the 6 year old foster boy refereed to by the Lynch. But MM posts did not change, she never changed the age of the child she referred to in her posts. MM posts are identical now to what they were a couple of months back which is confirmed within the previous thread, one is even copied in this previous thread. Articles might change but these posts by MM did not. IMO it is unfair to make out that she personally changed the ages of the child she was posting about, thus adding another twist, when in fact she did not.

https://answers.yahoo.com/activity/answers?show=2JJVCB5LGGTW3X67DEWXWS5C4A&t=g

No idea about the six year old foster boy, it might be a fantasy of MM, but reference to this has only come from the Lynch family, I do however suspect that the 8 year old girl that she refers to as a "step daughter" does exist. At the time when she posted it, she would have been 21/22 and she claims to being a primary school teacher.

 

[stmarysmead]

I agree that the real question is who are these children, the one MM refers to the 8 years old step daughter and the 6 year old foster boy refereed to by the Lynch. But MM posts did not change, she never changed the age of the child she referred to in her posts. MM posts are identical now to what they were a couple of months back which is confirmed within the previous thread, one is even copied in this previous thread. Articles might change but these posts by MM did not. IMO it is unfair to make out that she personally changed the ages of the child she was posting about, thus adding another twist, when in fact she did not.

https://answers.yahoo.com/activity/answers?show=2JJVCB5LGGTW3X67DEWXWS5C4A&t=g

No idea about the six year old foster boy, it might be a fantasy of MM, but reference to this has only come from the Lynch family, I do however suspect that the 8 year old girl that she refers to as a "step daughter" does exist. At the time when she posted it, she would have been 21/22 and she claims to being a primary school teacher.

I'm not alleging MM changed these posts. But for some reason, things drop off the Internet..or news entities edit their articles. But your point is well taken nevertheless.

But who ARE these children? IMO, there is a lot to learn about MM's past. Maybe investigators with their excellent skills...particularly concerning the Internet...already have the knowledge.

Why would a young woman lie about a step-child? I can see lying about college degrees etc. But lying about a step-child?

 

[kittythehare]

I agree that the real question is who are these children, the one MM refers to the 8 years old step daughter and the 6 year old foster boy refereed to by the Lynch. But MM posts did not change, she never changed the age of the child she referred to in her posts. MM posts are identical now to what they were a couple of months back which is confirmed within the previous thread, one is even copied in this previous thread. Articles might change but these posts by MM did not. IMO it is unfair to make out that she personally changed the ages of the child she was posting about, thus adding another twist, when in fact she did not.

https://answers.yahoo.com/activity/answers?show=2JJVCB5LGGTW3X67DEWXWS5C4A&t=g

No idea about the six year old foster boy, it might be a fantasy of MM, but reference to this has only come from the Lynch family, I do however suspect that the 8 year old girl that she refers to as a "step daughter" does exist. At the time when she posted it, she would have been 21/22 and she claims to being a primary school teacher.

when you say ONLY from the Lynch family do you mean you do not find them to be credible?

 

[Electric Sheep]

I'm not alleging MM changed these posts. But for some reason, things drop off the Internet..or news entities edit their articles. But your point is well taken nevertheless.

But who ARE these children? IMO, there is a lot to learn about MM's past. Maybe investigators with their excellent skills...particularly concerning the Internet...already have the knowledge.

Why would a young woman lie about a step-child? I can see lying about college degrees etc. But lying about a step-child?

The most likely answer is that she wasn't lying. I am sure it will all come out at the trial. It sounds like that step daughter would even be old enough to testify.

 

[Frizby]

I'm not alleging MM changed these posts. But for some reason, things drop off the Internet..or news entities edit their articles. But your point is well taken nevertheless.

But who ARE these children? IMO, there is a lot to learn about MM's past. Maybe investigators with their excellent skills...particularly concerning the Internet...already have the knowledge.

Why would a young woman lie about a step-child? I can see lying about college degrees etc. But lying about a step-child?

She could not have changed them anyway, they are held by here email provider. Her past does however seems to be a can of worms. At the age of 21.22 she was posting about having a step daughter and also saying that the father did no have a clue when she is looking for tips for a birthday present speaks volumes imo. Even back then she appears to be cutting the father out of the picture, we are not talking about a two three year old, the little girl was eight. I don't know how others feel about it, but if I was dating a guy who had a child, I would not be referring to that child as a step child, she would be my boyfriends daughter. Step child suggests that she was claiming ownership, long term relationship with a view to marriage. Let's hope that the investigation team have dug into her past, it could be very revealing.

 

[Frizby]

when you say ONLY from the Lynch family do you mean you do not find them to be credible?

No, I was not suggesting that at all. The reference to a six year old boy seems to have come from the Lynch family, MM herself did not refer to a six year old foster boy in her emails.

 

[stmarysmead]

The most likely answer is that she wasn't lying. I am sure it will all come out at the trial. It sounds like that step daughter would even be old enough to testify.

Why do you think that the most "likely" reason is that she "wasn't lying?" Why is that "most likely" in your opinion. I think it's helpful to understand each other's point of view. Thank you.

 

[kittythehare]

No, I was not suggesting that at all. The reference to a six year old boy seems to have come from the Lynch family, MM herself did not refer to a six year old foster boy in her emails.

I provided the link which referred to sworn testimony. when you say her emails do you mean her yahoo posts?

 

[stephanddoody]

Ok folks,

Let's try this....when you post something that is your opinion add jmo (just my opinion) or imo (in my opinion). This way all members will know it's your opinion.

If you are referring to something that needs a link add the link. If they'd like to read what you've posted from the research you've found, you have a link to back it up.

If you have a issue, you can always alert the post or scroll and roll. Please don't call other posters out on the site. Everyone here is for Jason.

Thanks!

Lets move on I didn't see changes myself not saying they can't be change just Im not sure of the dates that were said . We will all provide links or IMO in future as the moderator has suggested

 

[Frizby]

The most likely answer is that she wasn't lying. I am sure it will all come out at the trial. It sounds like that step daughter would even be old enough to testify.

I also don't think that she was lying about the little girl however I do think that she was embellishing it by referring to her as a 'step daughter". I suspect, also considering her age at the time of 21/22, that she was in a relationship with a man who had an 8 year old daughter. If she had been married before, surely it would have come out by now. Maybe the relationship was serious, whether that was in her eyes or reality, is anyones guess.