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

[Frizby]

Regarding the birth stories - I don't have a link but I read somewhere that families from the school community/ neighborhood were surprised to learn after Jason's death that Molly was not the children's biological mother. But nobody was directly quoted as saying it. So I think this "nugget" came from a journalist who was looking for background info and got that without anyone being willing to go on record. Does this make it true that Molly intentionally wanted people to believe Jack and Sarah were her biological children? This sounds like a question that could be put on hold until/ if either the prosecution or defense wants to call up neighbors/ friends to testify in court. The lawyers might decide it's not relevant, OR either the prosecution or defense could find a friend/ neighbor with a story that bolsters their case.
With my close friends, I am confident I know for a fact whether their children are biological/ adopted/ stepchildren. With people I say hello to at the school gate or soccer practice, I don't necessarily know and it's not really relevant to me, so if a journalist asked me, I wouldn't be prepared to answer. However, if I'd been socializing with a friend for several years, confiding in each other about various things, in and out of each other's houses, and our kids playing together, it would be strange and disturbing to find out that the children came from a previous marriage that had never been mentioned.

Her lawyer also said this about what the neighbours thought about her being the natural mother. I also read it in another articles that many neighbours were shocked when they found out she was not, can't remember which one but think it was one of the American papers.

Her lawyer Mr Freedman said

“The children were living a good life, I saw a number of Mother’s Day cards, drawings of the family. All the neighbours believed Molly was their natural mother.”

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/community/129601/US-wife-of-slain-Limerickman-misses.html


Also, there was an interview on Newstalk with the DM reporter and within the interview she mentions the six in the house when the event took place but when she is talking about the social event at the house that evening, it would seem to me that this is only referring to JC, MM & the neighbours. It also refers to no domestic disturbance records previously, no police records or hospital records.

http://www.newstalk.com/Limerick-mans-wife-and-fatherinlaw-charged-with-his-murder

 

[Truthseeker79]

Custody disputes anything can be claimed without any proof being needed. This is not "evidence" it is one persons word against another when both parties want access to children. Those children were always being returned back to Ireland. They had no legal rights in the US and even if there was not kin to take them they would have been deported into State Care back in Ireland. The custody issue was resolved on legal issues, not on who could provide the better care or not. The inlaws need not have opened their mouths about her, the kids were always going back. However they chose to go into detail about her revealing all these charachter assinations knowing they would be released to the press in time. This was I feel deliberate. Create doubt in the public eye, counteract her self portrayal as this soccer mom cookie baking domestic queen.
None of it is admissible in a criminal court as it is all circumstantial and heresay

 

[stmarysmead]

I keep coming back to the fact that there were two weapons. And these weapons are not found in bedrooms. Someone had to go out of their way to get these two weapons.

Now, TM says that he had ready access to the bat because it was a gift. He says he had it in the guest room because he had "forgotten" to give it to the child. But if the evidence shows that the child says his bat was kept in the garage and no second bat is found....then why is TM lying about the bat?

Perhaps because he did not bring it to the bedroom and knew, as law enforcement himself, that he would not be able to answer the question of where he found the bat.

The second weapon was a landscaping stone. That had to be obtained from outside. The prosecution will surely ask, why was it necessary to run outside to obtain a second weapon? Wasn't one weapon, the bat, sufficient...seeing that neither TM or MM had any injuries...they seem to have controlled the situation very well with just the bat.

But no matter if you want to believe MM kept stones for painting an art project in the bedroom, why was a second weapon necessary if the intent was just to stop the abuse?

This begins to morph into a thrill kill, in my opinion. He's down,let me get something else to smash him with,inflict as much pain as possible.

Did they treat Jason as a human when they used two weapons to carry out an overkill?

DV is against the law. Why didn't MM press charges to enhance her chances for custody in a divorce? If Jason was so dangerous, why were the Martens content to leave their daughter with this monster and live hours away? Why were the children brought back into an unsafe situation that night? How could the Martens vacation with him, stay in his home? Why would TM bring his elderly wife into a monsters home when he is just there to protect his daughter?

I know about DV because I had a daughter in that situation. I find those who falsely cry DV to excuse their own violence contemptuous.

We are not a society where we may impose the death penalty by executing a man with two weapons and heinous overkill no matter what the circumstances.

Tell me what kind of parents leave their daughter in a DV situation and do nothing for years, except vacation and accept the man's hospitality?

 

[stmarysmead]

Custody disputes anything can be claimed without any proof being needed. This is not "evidence" it is one persons word against another when both parties want access to children. Those children were always being returned back to Ireland. They had no legal rights in the US and even if there was not kin to take them they would have been deported into State Care back in Ireland. The custody issue was resolved on legal issues, not on who could provide the better care or not. The inlaws need not have opened their mouths about her, the kids were always going back. However they chose to go into detail about her revealing all these charachter assinations knowing they would be released to the press in time. This was I feel deliberate. Create doubt in the public eye, counteract her self portrayal as this soccer mom cookie baking domestic queen.
None of it is admissible in a criminal court as it is all circumstantial and heresay

What good Mother allows children to be kept in a home with a violent man? Molly has tremendous family support. The family has means to take lovely frequent vacations therefore they have means to provide for Molly and the children while she presses charges against Jason and uses those charges to pursue custody of the children citing his violent nature. If you google it, that is one very strong issue for granting custody to a stepparent over the natural parent...welfare of the child.

If MM's story is true, she allowed these children to live in a dangerous chaotic environment where they were exposed to violence on a regular basis. All the fancy clothes and vacations in the world could not compensate for the damage that does to children!

She can't have it both ways. She was not a woman without family or resources. And if this went on for years, and she told a lawyer, then the Martens were enablers of this situation as well.

If these children say they saw abuse...yes shame on Jason but shame on Molly and the Martens as well! Did Jason's affluence buy their acquiescence?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Truthseeker79]

All we are bring told it that MM had "no visible injuries". That is all the police report says. Then everyone assumes, ok she wasn't injuried so this isn't sef defence. It is good practice to photograph the neck for a number of days afterwards to see if buising appears....they were interveiew once the following day and that was it. I am sure her legal team would have advised her that she get checked and if there was any markings at all they will have them as their defense. The police report, going on observations of that night and the following morning only....stated "no visible injuries", so redness ( which usually subside after a few minutes), hoarse voice, dizzyness, difficulty swallowing, headaches....none of these constitute a "visible injury". They want bruises and scratches. I really hope they did a fingerprint test on her neck. This would put to rest once and for all if the clamins of strangulation are tru or not. Whilst difficult to lift prints off live skin the technology is there to do it very effectively if done only a few hours afterwards.....surely they would have done this straight away after hearing her claims of strangulation? It could rule the claim in or out very quickly and end a lot of speculation. This is from a crime tecghnican journal about lifting prints from live skin. I have done this myself, if the person is used to it and applies the iodine carefully you can get a clear print easy enough. Again if done very soon after the event.

" Lifting fingerprints from human skin is one of the hardest tasks a crime scene technician can attempt. There are many factors that contribute to the rapid deterioration of the fingerprints on human skin. Heat, moisture, age of the fingerprint, condition of the skin, and environmental exposure all affect recovery. Most prints on human skin must be recovered within the first few hours of deposit. There are many chemical applications used to enhance fingerprints on human skin. Cyanoacrylate (superglue), fuming (then treated with a luminescent stain), iodine fuming, and ninhydrin are just a few of the chemicals used for enhancing fingerprints on dead bodies. The most common techniques for preserving prints off of “live” skin are the use of magneticpowders, lifting paper, and photography"

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2005/01/casting-wide-net-lifting-fingerprints-difficult-surfaces

 

[stmarysmead]

All we are bring told it that MM had "no visible injuries". That is all the police report says. Then everyone assumes, ok she wasn't injuried so this isn't sef defence. It is good practice to photograph the neck for a number of days afterwards to see if buising appears....they were interveiew once the following day and that was it. I am sure her legal team would have advised her that she get checked and if there was any markings at all they will have them as their defense. The police report, going on observations of that night and the following morning only....stated "no visible injuries", so redness ( which usually subside after a few minutes), hoarse voice, dizzyness, difficulty swallowing, headaches....none of these constitute a "visible injury". They want bruises and scratches. I really hope they did a fingerprint test on her neck. This would put to rest once and for all if the clamins of strangulation are tru or not. Whilst difficult to lift prints off live skin the technology is there to do it very effectively if done only a few hours afterwards.....surely they would have done this straight away after hearing her claims of strangulation? It could rule the claim in or out very quickly and end a lot of speculation. This is from a crime tecghnican journal about lifting prints from live skin. I have done this myself, if the person is used to it and applies the iodine carefully you can get a clear print easy enough. Again if done very soon after the event.

" Lifting fingerprints from human skin is one of the hardest tasks a crime scene technician can attempt. There are many factors that contribute to the rapid deterioration of the fingerprints on human skin. Heat, moisture, age of the fingerprint, condition of the skin, and environmental exposure all affect recovery. Most prints on human skin must be recovered within the first few hours of deposit. There are many chemical applications used to enhance fingerprints on human skin. Cyanoacrylate (superglue), fuming (then treated with a luminescent stain), iodine fuming, and ninhydrin are just a few of the chemicals used for enhancing fingerprints on dead bodies. The most common techniques for preserving prints off of “live” skin are the use of magneticpowders, lifting paper, and photography"

Bottom line: the law does not permit one to impose a death penalty by overkill. There's nothing "justified" about the extent of injuries in the autopsy. There nothing "justified" about two assailants, two weapons. At some point, this stopped being about STOPPING Jason and started bring about the thrill of killing him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Francesca]

Truthseeker, where is the link to the police report saying "no visible injuries"? Everything I've seen so far has quoted it as "no injuries." It seems strange wording for a police report to state "no visible injuries" without clarifying other signs of injury.

 

[Truthseeker79]

Police officer who was at the scene wrote in the report which was based on what he saw at that time at the crime scene " Neither Thomas Michael Martens nor Molly Paige Corbett suffered any injuries about their person". So it was a report written by the police officer who made a visible examination at the crime scene of the two adults. This is all we have to go on regarding her lack of injuries, a single polic officers observations looking for pyhsical signs of injury on that night.

Here is an exerpt from FOX News report

" Later in the search warrant, the officer described the physical appearances of Martens and Corbett along with describing the crime scene.The search warrant states:
"Neither Thomas Michael Martens nor Molly Paige Corbett suffered any injuries about their person."

 

[Frizby]

Blood under the nail....not on top of the nail but congealed blood under the nail is called subungual hematoma..this is brusing under the nail when the tips of the fingers are struck with something, it is not blood running under the nail, the autopsy states " the finger nail are trimmed short and have blood underneath"

By that analogy, would you then suggest that his toes were also targeted as his toe nails also had blood under them. The only thing the autopsy says is that there is blood under the nails, he could have easily got this by crawling round in his own blood. In fact given the amount of blood at the scene and in the body bag, I would be surprised if he did not have blood under his nails.

 

[stmarysmead]

Police officer who was at the scene wrote in the report which was based on what he saw at that time at the crime scene " Neither Thomas Michael Martens nor Molly Paige Corbett suffered any injuries about their person". So it was a report written by the police officer who made a visible examination at the crime scene of the two adults. This is all we have to go on regarding her lack of injuries, a single polic officers observations looking for pyhsical signs of injury on that night.

Here is an exerpt from FOX News report

" Later in the search warrant, the officer described the physical appearances of Martens and Corbett along with describing the crime scene.The search warrant states:
"Neither Thomas Michael Martens nor Molly Paige Corbett suffered any injuries about their person."

We are debating on a very small amount of released info. Beyond the autopsy, we don't know what else exists.

MM claimed to have been attacked. Let's see if she was examined at a hospital? Let's see if TM was examined. Let's see if pictures were taken on them in detail. Let's see if they them tested for alcohol or drugs.

There's some reason they are going on trial. There's more than just the autopsy and bad things the Irish family said about her character.

And as you say, there may be lots more from the defense.

For now, the only thing in our hands is that brutal autopsy.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[stmarysmead]

By that analogy, would you then suggest that his toes were also targeted as his toe nails also had blood under them. The only thing the autopsy says is that there is blood under the nails, he could have easily got this by crawling round in his own blood. In fact given the amount of blood at the scene and in the body bag, I would be surprised if he did not have blood under his nails.

I imagine a gruesome scene from this autopsy, much as you do. MM and TM have him down, trying to crawl away, trying to cower and shield his face. His nose broken, they hit him with their weapons from every angle till he collapses and even then, they don't stop.

There is no way to read this and think their intent was just to stop him and somehow he accidentally died. Who could ever endure this viciousness and live?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[peregrino]

Custody disputes anything can be claimed without any proof being needed. This is not "evidence" it is one persons word against another when both parties want access to children. Those children were always being returned back to Ireland. They had no legal rights in the US and even if there was not kin to take them they would have been deported into State Care back in Ireland. The custody issue was resolved on legal issues, not on who could provide the better care or not. The inlaws need not have opened their mouths about her, the kids were always going back. However they chose to go into detail about her revealing all these charachter assinations knowing they would be released to the press in time. This was I feel deliberate. Create doubt in the public eye, counteract her self portrayal as this soccer mom cookie baking domestic queen.
None of it is admissible in a criminal court as it is all circumstantial and heresay

Not sure I quite agree. What was reported as said by Jasons family at the custody hearing must have been in response to some questions asked by the court. I dont think people can simply stand up and issue an unsolicted statement. They must have been asked specific questions and they gave specific answers, in my opinion.

 

[Truthseeker79]

Ok, I think a picture will describe what I mean. When written in an autopsy "blood under the nail" this is what it means. If he was his own blood scrapped under his fingernails they would say "blood samples and fibres were removed from under the nail". Thats the difference.

 

[Truthseeker79]

You are simplifying a very complex situation with " she knew where the support group was, Just go and leave. Its as simple as that". You are obviously not taking into the dozens of factors in why women stay<modsnip>. Everyones story is unique to them. http://www.newchoicesinc.org/educated/abuse/DV/whynotleave

 

[Frizby]

Ok, I think a picture will describe what I mean. When written in an autopsy "blood under the nail" this is what it means. If he was his own blood scrapped under his fingernails they would say "blood samples and fibres were removed from under the nail". Thats the difference.

There is absolutely nothing in the autopsy to suggest this, all it says is that there was blood under the nails as it also does when talking about the toe nails.

And if it was a subungual hematoma I would have expected the autopsy to clearly state this rather than just saying blood under the nails.

 

[stmarysmead]

Poor man. The thoughts of what he endured are heartbreaking.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[stmarysmead]

You are simplifying a very complex situation with " she knew where the support group was, Just go and leave. Its as simple as that". You are obviously not taking into the dozens of factors in why women stay<modsnip>. Everyones story is unique to them. http://www.newchoicesinc.org/educated/abuse/DV/whynotleave

Since every story is unique, which I agree, I have outlined why I believe she had every advantage to take those children out of this dangerous life she now claims they lived.

But I'm interested in what specific reasons, in this unique case, you believe might have justified her staying?

Let's stay on Molly.

<modsnip>


I'm glad you are here however and honing our wits by supporting Molly and Tom. That's good for all of us.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[peregrino]

Ok, I think a picture will describe what I mean. When written in an autopsy "blood under the nail" this is what it means. If he was his own blood scrapped under his fingernails they would say "blood samples and fibres were removed from under the nail". Thats the difference.

Wouldnt the images you suggest be consistent with a person being struck with a brick/ bat with their hands over their head with the backs of their hands facing outwards? Nothing I have seen in the autopsy or interpretations of the autopsy appears to be inconsistent with someone protecting their head from violent blows with a weapon such as a brick/ paving stone and/or a bat.

 

[Mom2catieandtwins]

I reread the autopsy, from Truthseekers point of view. I still come to the same conclusion. In my opinion, Jason was murdered. It was overkill, not an act of self defense.

In my opinion, Molly does not present herself as a DV. She presents herself as very selfish, controlling, and a me monster. It is reported she humiliated Jason the Friday, before he died. I recognize she took care of Jason's children. However, she was not their mother. Mags Corbett is and will always be their mother. Molly with all of her Facebook posts, states they are HER children. She never mentions Jason or the children's mother Mags. Jason gave her the gift of time with his children. She gave that gift up, when she was apart of his murder. Molly though immediately tried to secure custody of the children. She thought only of her needs and not of the children.

 

[Truthseeker79]

Yes, the fingers were hit hard. Was it his hands over his head protecting himself or being hit to release his hand? That's all I'm saying. Open to interpret