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

[stmarysmead]

Agreed, I have already felt that is the road they would take from the start and that is why I have been critical of the justice supporters and the media campaign at times, it was very easy to see what route the martens were going down from the very beginning and the social media aspect really has played right into their hands at times . Before anyone mentions mollys medias campaign, I am well aware of it but i do not care about mollys medias campaign. This is about the corbett family seeking justice but unfortunately, social media campaigns may not be necessary helpful. in terms of mona earnests page,it was obvious her fb page was left open deliberately to attract commentary and I was exasperrated to see people still leaving nasty comments on it up to very recently. That said, its up the lawyers to deal with such matters and if there were in fact threats etc made, they will be dealt with legally and not online.

I too, as mentioned yesterday would be interested to hear more of these alleged phone messages from Jack. Are they new messages or the previous crank one referred to some back ago. Not sure I can refer to a comment from the justice page here, if not, I will remove it.... but a comment was posted referring to the fact that it would seem the martens were not concerned that jack may be missing his stepmother and was trying to contact her but more that Jack was trying to get her break her bail conditions, didnt really make sense to me, does this mean he was actually trying to speak to her. These calls/messages can be easily traced anyway so hopefully more on this will be reported as this could be quite a development if true.

with regard to the emails, it was emails between the martens and their defence lawyers that were disclosed and included with discovery which imo was a serious mistake. Attorney-client privilege is there for a reason. the prosecution would have got an idea of the strategy they were taking, possibly what witnesses they would use and other details not known to them. Its a shame that happened, the defence are looking for anything at all to use to discredit the investigation.

Excellent post.

I also read that post on the J4J page. To me, it seemed the poster was trying to make the point that the Martens first thought is that Jack is trying to trap MM, not that Jack sincerely wants to talk to her. Why would that be the assumption about the child? That the child was doing something devious?

I am not sure if we can discuss Mona Earnest...but both she and her husband have been mentioned in the media and Mike Earnest has become the defacto family spokesman. In any event, your point about the FB page is exactly true. Mona has only one other post, from years ago, about cruising...but top and center is the picture if the Corbett children.

The Corbett family has posted on FB for months now that they have demanded that FB rules be enforced and pictures of minor children be removed when the request is made by their parents or guardians. I cannot have your child's picture on my FB if you object, according to FB terms. But the Earnests keep that photo up there and keep their settings to public.

It's a bait trap by the Defense, plain as day. Imagine using children you claim to love that way, as tricksters in a campaign to get away with myrdering their Father?

All my opinion only.

 

[Electric Sheep]

I have just been reading up on the latest set of news articles regarding yesterdays hearing. If you look at the accusations levelled by the defense critically, it is easy to see they are trying to establish a pattern of aggression/intimidation by supporters of Jason, particularly people close to him and his family, as this supports their theory that he was accustomed to this behaviour. It is then not such a leap that he would behave in this intimidating aggressive manner himself and so supports the DV defense to a potential jury pool. In fact we can already see that this method of casting doubt on his character is proving successful if you read some of the comment sections of the news articles posted previously.

I do however, find it strange that they are utilising supposed contact by Jack as part of their strategy....surely these calls would be easily traced? I would be very surprised if the Corbett's had decided to use this as a tactic to make her break her bail conditions, they seem to have played pretty much by the book from the start. It seems like a misnomer...I wonder what they are trying to divert attention away from? She seems adamant that her email and bank records stay private, I wonder what they could possibly reveal.

The part of Molly's email that is being removed from discovery is post-crime communications between Molly, her lawyer, and the lawyer for Jason's estate. There was no request to have any other emails removed from discovery, according to the articles in MSM.

 

[Logic-lady]

Excellent post.

I also read that post on the J4J page. To me, it seemed the poster was trying to make the point that the Martens first thought is that Jack is trying to trap MM, not that Jack sincerely wants to talk to her. Why would that be the assumption about the child? That the child was doing something devious?

I am not sure if we can discuss Mona Earnest...but both she and her husband have been mentioned in the media and Mike Earnest has become the defacto family spokesman. In any event, your point about the FB page is exactly true. Mona has only one other post, from years ago, about cruising...but top and center is the picture if the Corbett children.

The Corbett family has posted on FB for months now that they have demanded that FB rules be enforced and pictures of minor children be removed when the request is made by their parents or guardians. I cannot have your child's picture on my FB if you object, according to FB terms. But the Earnests keep that photo up there and keep their settings to public.

It's a bait trap by the Defense, plain as day. Imagine using children you claim to love that way, as tricksters in a campaign to get away with myrdering their Father?

All my opinion only.

I agree with you about the post on the J4J page, I think the point is, where is the concern for the child that any mother would have if her child is phoning her in desperation? I wonder if constantly mentioning Jack is a precursor to having any evidence he may provide the trial made inadmissable or at the very least cast reasonable doubt on its authenticity? At every turn they seem to be trying to discredit him, maintaining the family have coerced or pressured him into his behaviours. But not Sarah...I wonder if Jack saw something that night? Or maybe the Corbett's assertions during the custody hearings were true and there is more to come regarding Molly's treatment of Jack in the lead up to the murder. If they can cast reasonable doubt that his memories of ill treatment by Molly are sound, it will be harder for Jack to prove he is telling the truth during the trial. (if he is called as a witness) So incredibly sad if this point proves to be true!

Also interesting that Uncle Mike only defended Tom on the Fox8 clip - are they seeing the writing on the wall for Molly I wonder?!

 

[Logic-lady]

The part of Molly's email that is being removed from discovery is post-crime communications between Molly, her lawyer, and the lawyer for Jason's estate. There was no request to have any other emails removed from discovery, according to the articles in MSM.

with regard to the emails, it was emails between the martens and their defence lawyers that were disclosed and included with discovery which imo was a serious mistake. Attorney-client privilege is there for a reason. the prosecution would have got an idea of the strategy they were taking, possibly what witnesses they would use and other details not known to them. Its a shame that happened, the defence are looking for anything at all to use to discredit the investigation.

My apologies, I was referring generally to her reluctance to submit her credit card statements at previous hearings etc and hadn't taken on board the magnitude of the effect the prosecution having access via e-mail to a potential defense would have on the case when I made my post!

 

[Hotchips]

In terms of the alleged messages from jack, if molly had responded she would have been finished, bail revoked and most likely sent to prison until the trial, as much as she might have wanted to respond she knew she couldn't and would have been advised under no under circumstances to do so. A phone call would have been made immediately by the Corbett's whether or not he genuinely wanted to speak to her or not. After all her freedom is on the line. I would find it hard to believe it was a deliberate ploy to revoke her bail, as this would mean that jack would be privy to exactly what is going on in this matter which IMO he is too young for the details of a murder to be discussed with him at this point of his life. The Corbett family have always reiterated that children were settled and were being shielded from the publicity and details surrounding this case and I should hope this continues to be the case. Maybe he does wish to genuinely speak to her, I wouldn't place any blame on him there but she does have to restrain herself here from reacting if she doesn't want to end up in jail. It could well be a smokescreen and they are still referring to the previous crank call, time will tell.

 

[Mollyanne]

Totally agree great post

I am new on here so hello! I too totally agree that Mona Ernest posts up public to gather comments. Also one of the comment sections actually tells you the post are going to be directed to Facebook.... On the point of Jack making the phone call..... we need to remember that Jack is a young child grieving. I understand he is well shielded from all this coverage and media reporting, so does not know about the ban on MM contacting them.But i do feel the kids are the key to this case. only they too lived in the house 24/7 and will know what the situation was even by a feeling of the atmosphere alone. IMO only.

 

[Logic-lady]

In terms of the alleged messages from jack, if molly had responded she would have been finished, bail revoked and most likely sent to prison until the trial, as much as she might have wanted to respond she knew she couldn't and would have been advised under no under circumstances to do so. A phone call would have been made immediately by the Corbett's whether or not he genuinely wanted to speak to her or not. After all her freedom is on the line. I would find it hard to believe it was a deliberate ploy to revoke her bail, as this would mean that jack would be privy to exactly what is going on in this matter which IMO he is too young for the details of a murder to be discussed with him at this point of his life. The Corbett family have always reiterated that children were settled and were being shielded from the publicity and details surrounding this case and I should hope this continues to be the case. Maybe he does wish to genuinely speak to her, I wouldn't place any blame on him there but she does have to restrain herself here from reacting if she doesn't want to end up in jail. It could well be a smokescreen and they are still referring to the previous crank call, time will tell.

I agree, I'm sure both kids have many unanswered questions regarding their current circumstances. I don't believe Molly should/could have responded, but I do feel there is something subversive about putting it in the public domain as they have. I would be interested to see the transcripts of the court hearing to see if there was any concern shown for Jack and how he may be faring. Surely it should have been broached as a child protection issue rather than a factor in the criminal trial.

 

[Electric Sheep]

My apologies, I was referring generally to her reluctance to submit her credit card statements at previous hearings etc and hadn't taken on board the magnitude of the effect the prosecution having access via e-mail to a potential defense would have on the case when I made my post!

I think that many have been so focused on the alleged social media threats that they have not realized the far more significant impact that this breach of attorney/client privilege might have on the trial.

 

[fido]

with regard to the emails, it was emails between the martens and their defence lawyers that were disclosed and included with discovery which imo was a serious mistake. Attorney-client privilege is there for a reason. the prosecution would have got an idea of the strategy they were taking, possibly what witnesses they would use and other details not known to them. Its a shame that happened, the defence are looking for anything at all to use to discredit the investigation.[/QUOTE]

Wasn't it the mail server that provided the Discovery of the electronic communications and handed it over? Surely the investigators didn't know they were getting privileged docs until they saw them and had it half read? I deal a little bit with Discovery issues in my job and it is surprising some of the things that get included when complying with a Discovery Order and some of the things that are disclosed inadvertently. It can be literally a scatter gun approach ie give them everything otherwise they will keep coming back on a piecemeal basis saying something is missing! My point is, the entity complying with the Discovery order should ensure nothing is disclosed that shouldn't be or that doesn't tally to the letter with the Order obtained. Once you get a massive amount of Discovery on your desk and are reading voluminous documents, you could easily read what you shouldn't have been given in the first place. It is extreme to blame the prosecution that they received privileged info. Yes they should have handed it back but at that stage it was probably well read.

I think the Corbetts may be better off if the case is moved from Davidson County otherwise if a conviction is secured, the defendants will appeal (they probably will anyway) and cite unfair trial/prejudice etc. They may have less chance succeeding on Appeal if the case is moved to a neutral playing field.

Re whether Molly had a step daughter in 2006, to me it is equally worrying whether she did or didn't. I agree it would seem pointless to lie about this. If she didn't have a step child then she lied, if she did then it shows a pattern of behaviour in relationships with single/divorced/widowed fathers and an over the top interest in the child at an early stage in the relationship. Mags sister said she always felt Molly was annoyed if Sarah went on her knee or held her hand. Can find link if needs be.

IMO

 

[Hotchips]

I agree, I'm sure both kids have many unanswered questions regarding their current circumstances. I don't believe Molly should/could have responded, but I do feel there is something subversive about putting it in the public domain as they have. I would be interested to see the transcripts of the court hearing to see if there was any concern shown for Jack and how he may be faring. Surely it should have been broached as a child protection issue rather than a factor in the criminal trial.

Perhaps there was something in these alleged messages that have led the martens to believe they are not genuine or on the other hand maybe they want to put it out there that Jack does in fact want to speak to her but molly was not going to risk her bail conditions by responding. However, we would need to see more on this before we can decide without a doubt he did actually phone her since the mention of the previous crank call.

 

[kittythehare]

I agree with you about the post on the J4J page, I think the point is, where is the concern for the child that any mother would have if her child is phoning her in desperation? I wonder if constantly mentioning Jack is a precursor to having any evidence he may provide the trial made inadmissable or at the very least cast reasonable doubt on its authenticity? At every turn they seem to be trying to discredit him, maintaining the family have coerced or pressured him into his behaviours. But not Sarah...I wonder if Jack saw something that night? Or maybe the Corbett's assertions during the custody hearings were true and there is more to come regarding Molly's treatment of Jack in the lead up to the murder. If they can cast reasonable doubt that his memories of ill treatment by Molly are sound, it will be harder for Jack to prove he is telling the truth during the trial. (if he is called as a witness) So incredibly sad if this point proves to be true!

Also interesting that Uncle Mike only defended Tom on the Fox8 clip - are they seeing the writing on the wall for Molly I wonder?!

They lied yesterday
3 times
- re lawyer contacting Fitzpatricks, a post has bee made by a family member on the jfj page just a little while ago refuting that and setting record straight
- re the photographs which are still up, well spotted Marymead
-they lied about the pure real self defence as they called it
- they stated their clients should never even have been charged.
- they said there was no need for prosecution to obtain search warrants, they would have given them everything they needed, but they went and got them anyway!! (guess its a lie)
-Its quite likely they were lying about Jack too. Either way he is a minor, he is safe now with his doting aunt and uncle and I doubt very much a small child would be attending any hearings. we discussed it at lengt in the past.. an agreement was reached by several of us that we would leave the children out of our discussions.. its up to everybody, but its bringing them further unwelcome exposure, they are minors.
The call we did hear a recording of which was purportedly from Jack was flatly denied by his relatives as being even remotely similar to his voice or his language. Its easy to do run a trace.Just because they took another opportunity to expose a child to unwelcome and unhelpful public notoreity, without the consent of his guardians does not mean that we should go there too.
We need to stay out of their webs.. they are masters of the lure.. they remind me of coursing dogs digging out a hare from its home and tearing it asunder- blood scrifice comes to mind. This is my suggestion only. I know there are a lot of people who have not read all the past posts and could have missed that discussion.
What do you think?

 

[Hotchips]

Wasn't it the mail server that provided the Discovery of the electronic communications and handed it over? Surely the investigators didn't know they were getting privileged docs until they saw them and had it half read? I deal a little bit with Discovery issues in my job and it is surprising some of the things that get included when complying with a Discovery Order and some of the things that are disclosed inadvertently. It can be literally a scatter gun approach ie give them everything otherwise they will keep coming back on a piecemeal basis saying something is missing! My point is, the entity complying with the Discovery order should ensure nothing is disclosed that shouldn't be or that doesn't tally to the letter with the Order obtained. Once you get a massive amount of Discovery on your desk and are reading voluminous documents, you could easily read what you shouldn't have been given in the first place. It is extreme to blame the prosecution that they received privileged info. Yes they should have handed it back but at that stage it was probably well read.

IMO

Yes you are correct, it was the mail server who provided the documents. I am familiar with the Discovery process myself and yes there is a vast volume of information which has to be picked through but presenting something that is outside the remit of discovery can result in cases being destroyed on such a technicality. The investigators which Im sure were experienced should have known that post-crime emails between attorney and client were not to be used however instead of say shredding it immediately to ensure it was properly disposed of, they presented it as part of the Discovery hence the defence swooping in on this anomoly. It was sloppy unfortunately. According to the reports yesterday, the investigators and lawyers were meeting to discuss the documentation which were inadvertantly discovered , with this meeting taking place after yesterday's hearing.

 

[kittythehare]

The part of Molly's email that is being removed from discovery is post-crime communications between Molly, her lawyer, and the lawyer for Jason's estate. There was no request to have any other emails removed from discovery, according to the articles in MSM.

also lawyer did not set out any proof that police were following a definite line of enquiry as a result of something they read in the emails. They might well have been following that particular line of enquiry for a totally different reason. He also added that there was nothing of substance in the emails, he cant have it both ways, he showed himself to be careless and thoughtless and a little bewildered in his response to questions, I thought.
as Fido said discovery comes in an avalanche of paperwork, its impossible to siphon in advance.
I believe they were included in discovery because they were part of the avalanche, there is no evidence to suggest the police acted directly from information they gleaned.
Everything is discovery in NC and all has to be produced to defence , unless it arrived very late

 

[fido]

Agreed, I have already felt that is the road they would take from the start and that is why I have been critical of the justice supporters and the media campaign at times, it was very easy to see what route the martens were going down from the very beginning and the social media aspect really has played right into their hands at times . Before anyone mentions mollys medias campaign, I am well aware of it but i do not care about mollys medias campaign. This is about the corbett family seeking justice but unfortunately, social media campaigns may not be necessary helpful. in terms of mona earnests page,it was obvious her fb page was left open deliberately to attract commentary and I was exasperrated to see people still leaving nasty comments on it up to very recently. That said, its up the lawyers to deal with such matters and if there were in fact threats etc made, they will be dealt with legally and not online.

I too, as mentioned yesterday would be interested to hear more of these alleged phone messages from Jack. Are they new messages or the previous crank one referred to some back ago. Not sure I can refer to a comment from the justice page here, if not, I will remove it.... but a comment was posted referring to the fact that it would seem the martens were not concerned that jack may be missing his stepmother and was trying to contact her but more that Jack was trying to get her break her bail conditions, didnt really make sense to me, does this mean he was actually trying to speak to her. These calls/messages can be easily traced anyway so hopefully more on this will be reported as this could be quite a development if true.

with regard to the emails, it was emails between the martens and their defence lawyers that were disclosed and included with discovery which imo was a serious mistake. Attorney-client privilege is there for a reason. the prosecution would have got an idea of the strategy they were taking, possibly what witnesses they would use and other details not known to them. Its a shame that happened, the defence are looking for anything at all to use to discredit the investigation.

100% agree - best post ever

 

[fido]

Yes you are correct, it was the mail server who provided the documents. I am familiar with the Discovery process myself and yes there is a vast volume of information which has to be picked through but presenting something that is outside the remit of discovery can result in cases being destroyed on such a technicality. The investigators which Im sure were experienced should have known that post-crime emails between attorney and client were not to be used however instead of say shredding it immediately to ensure it was properly disposed of, they presented it as part of the Discovery hence the defence swooping in on this anomoly. It was sloppy unfortunately. According to the reports yesterday, the investigators and lawyers were meeting to discuss the documentation which were inadvertantly discovered , with this meeting taking place after yesterday's hearing.

I truly fear they will be acquitted - throw plenty of mud and enough of it will stick. They will keep going until they have enough for reasonable doubt and I am terrified a jury will be swayed. If they are acquitted they will appeal to the fullest possible extent and I am sorry to say I anticipate this will go on for years with no closure for the Corbetts. If they were only interviewed once, this does not augur well for the prosecution - that was a serious mistake. They should have been interviewed again and again to see if they tripped themselves up. Multiple interviews would have unearthed a lot. Now the Discovery issue... If this is an example of the investigation/prosecution competence I am really afraid they will get off either on technicalities or reasonable doubt.

IMO

 

[Hotchips]

I went back and had a look at the search warrant for the email accounts. The search warrant was applied for the 2nd September and they requested all records from the date of the email accounts being opened up to the 2nd September... so they had an entire month of emails to and fro the defence and their client....... I expect there was quite a lot in there covering all aspects of the defence strategy from the custody hearing, estate matters and up to and after the children left the US..... Now I am wondering, where they entitled to look for these records up the 2nd September or should it have been up to the 2nd August only???? there were 14 different threads of emails seemingly covering different aspects of their cases, that is a lot of information. naturally, the investigators are going to read it but they could have covered themselves better in this respect. maybe admitting at the time they received them but had taken steps to destroy them appropriately and therefore covering their backs in the event that the defence would try find fault with the investigation.

 

[stmarysmead]

I agree with you about the post on the J4J page, I think the point is, where is the concern for the child that any mother would have if her child is phoning her in desperation? I wonder if constantly mentioning Jack is a precursor to having any evidence he may provide the trial made inadmissable or at the very least cast reasonable doubt on its authenticity? At every turn they seem to be trying to discredit him, maintaining the family have coerced or pressured him into his behaviours. But not Sarah...I wonder if Jack saw something that night? Or maybe the Corbett's assertions during the custody hearings were true and there is more to come regarding Molly's treatment of Jack in the lead up to the murder. If they can cast reasonable doubt that his memories of ill treatment by Molly are sound, it will be harder for Jack to prove he is telling the truth during the trial. (if he is called as a witness) So incredibly sad if this point proves to be true!

Also interesting that Uncle Mike only defended Tom on the Fox8 clip - are they seeing the writing on the wall for Molly I wonder?!

Brilliant, but frightening post.

Let's recall that at the last hearing, the defense asked specifically for records from the social services department. The consensus here was that they wanted to know what the children said when interviewed. If they have those interviews now, and they did not complain yesterday that they DID NOT...this child may be treated just as Judge Shipwash, the sheriff's department, etc have been. I pray with all I have that this will not be the case. These children have been through too much.

I'm trying to think what I would do if I received such calls and was in MM's position. I think I would record the voicemails and ask my attorney to contact Corbett's attorney and the court that forbid contact. I would say that under the circumstances some form of supervised contact should be allowed. In other words, I'd use the child's imitative to try to get that chance I claimed my heart was pounding for!

Instead it's brought up as if the child is trying to bait the Stepmother into going to prison.

Question: did Uncle Mike speak in court or just afterward? I'm confused by some of these articles.

 

[Mom2catieandtwins]

My recent post stated an email address. I just realized I posted incorrectly. The email address I was referring to is molshka@hotmail.com. It is a interesting search. I hope someone with better sleuthing abilities can use it to fill the many gaps.

 

[searchinGirl]

I am new on here so hello! I too totally agree that Mona Ernest posts up public to gather comments. Also one of the comment sections actually tells you the post are going to be directed to Facebook.... On the point of Jack making the phone call..... we need to remember that Jack is a young child grieving. I understand he is well shielded from all this coverage and media reporting, so does not know about the ban on MM contacting them.But i do feel the kids are the key to this case. only they too lived in the house 24/7 and will know what the situation was even by a feeling of the atmosphere alone. IMO only.

Hello Mollyanne...I appreciate this post because those children very well may know what happened...and those poor small souls lost both their parents in this tragedy ... of course they are grieving... but, they need to believe Molly is ok (even if she's not and nobody else wants them to know) ... I think they loved her and the Corbett family hating on her has got to be hard on them even if they are shielded from publicity... I'm sure they can feel the tension in the atmosphere ...

 

[stmarysmead]

Hello Mollyanne...I appreciate this post because those children very well may know what happened...and those poor small souls lost both their parents in this tragedy ... of course they are grieving... but, they need to believe Molly is ok (even if she's not and nobody else wants them to know) ... I think they loved her and the Corbett family hating on her has got to be hard on them even if they are shielded from publicity... I'm sure they can feel the tension in the atmosphere ...

"Hating on her."

Well, what feelings did they see over the years from this "Mother" toward the Father that they loved? The one she sought to divorce just two years in? The one whose body she shattered in her rage?

Were the Martens "hating on" their dead Dad, blaming him for his own murder in the two weeks after his death when MM kept them by her side?

Was Molly "hating on" the Corbetts to the children when she adamantly refused to let the Corbetts see the children?

Yesterday, I posted a link that said that the custody decison rested in part on the visitations and observations of the children with the Martens vs. with the Corbetts. It was said that weighed "heavily" as I recall.

I don't know what emotion we expect from the Corbetts but they seem like extremely sensitive and kind people who only want these children to heal. I'm not prepared to believe they are "hating on" Molly in front of those children.

To believe that, we must presume a negative image of this family, who are after all...victims as well.