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

[stephanddoody]

That makes sense and anyway the information that she was required to produce was really proof of purchase, by who & what account or CC, back up to her claim. She decided to dismiss the request of the court and now they have ruled against her she comes up with another excuse saying that she was only minding the stuff & keeping it safe. The new excuse it totally opposite to her original claim and even if there was any cross over, the original order was still breached. I do not think her actions are justified in the slightest, and that is for the action relating to the property & dismissing the requests of the court. I don't get why a lawyer would make the suggestion that her counsel advised her to do this, it is not as if she took the odd thing, she cleared out the house.

Agree wholeheartedly . Halton is defending this because of the " Supermom" image they are trying to portray . They weren't worried when the children's belongings where left out in the yard so the Lynchs couldn't access the house . There is no way Thompson advised her to take the property if he did he would have made the statement. If he was able to prove Mollys claims he would have made sure the documentation needed was provided to the court . That is wasn't made available in my opinion means they don't have it . Mr Shipwash didn't take nearly 2 months to rule without doing the necessary investigation to back up his findings.

 

[peregrino]

That makes sense and anyway the information that she was required to produce was really proof of purchase, by who & what account or CC, back up to her claim. She decided to dismiss the request of the court and now they have ruled against her she comes up with another excuse saying that she was only minding the stuff & keeping it safe. The new excuse it totally opposite to her original claim and even if there was any cross over, the original order was still breached. I do not think her actions are justified in the slightest, and that is for the action relating to the property & dismissing the requests of the court. I don't get why a lawyer would make the suggestion that her counsel advised her to do this, it is not as if she took the odd thing, she cleared out the house.

I honestly think her lawyers are running to catch up with her. They do not appear to be able to control her and have to make up stuff on the fly in order to justify her actions after the event IMO.

 

[Marshleon]

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...-5cad-8e9b-ba7f55f4ccfc/56e1083eafd3c.pdf.pdf

If you look at para 2. both the Petitioner and Respondant (MM) through their respective legal counsel agreed to the exeuction of a consent order in response to the Petition to Recover Property, and the Court entered the Consent Order on the 17th September 2015, setting out the rights of the Estate, Petitioner and Respondant. Para 3. directed the Respondant not to remove any tangible personal property owned by Jason at the time of his death from the home.

Para 4. set out the particulars of what was considered to be part of the Estate (as did Para 5. Exhibit A). My point is, as her counsel agreed to the provisions contained in the Consent Order, why are her lawyers claiming that she only removed her property, and the property she removed didn't cost much? Why didn't her lawyer who was present at the removal of the property not seem to think that as it took (I think) 4 removal vans to transport 'her' property that something may be amiss?

The assets set out in Para 4 (and 5 Exhibit) would not appear to be of an 'insignificant' amount so I don't understand how (having agreed in the first place) her lawyers allowed her to not only remove the assets that she did remove, they apparently advised her to remove said assets and lastly failed to realise that it could be construed as a breach of the Consent Order, which in fact it later was by the Clerk of the Superiour Court, Shipman. Maybe I am reading it all wrong, (if so apologies) but IMO her own lawyers are playing fast and loose with their own interpretation of the law, and that is why I don't think Shipmans ruling will be overturned on appeal.

Any opions on this would be welcome.

 

[peregrino]

Going back to the 911 call again, I got the feeling that TM was 'emotionally weary' and exhibited a sort of a 'here we go again' attitude, as if he were resigned to the fact that he would have to bail MM out of her predicament. I get a feeling that Sharon and Uncle Mike may be directing things a lot more than we think. Perhaps it could be worth looking at the background of the Earnest side of the family? What sort of environment did they grow up in? Did the apparently skewed sense of entitlement come from the Earnest clan? Really curious about this as I think the manipulation appears to be coming from the sister and brother pair of Sharon and Mike Earnest. All of this is my opinion only, of course.

 

[Frizby]

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...-5cad-8e9b-ba7f55f4ccfc/56e1083eafd3c.pdf.pdf

If you look at para 2. both the Petitioner and Respondant (MM) through their respective legal counsel agreed to the exeuction of a consent order in response to the Petition to Recover Property, and the Court entered the Consent Order on the 17th September 2015, setting out the rights of the Estate, Petitioner and Respondant. Para 3. directed the Respondant not to remove any tangible personal property owned by Jason at the time of his death from the home.

Para 4. set out the particulars of what was considered to be part of the Estate (as did Para 5. Exhibit A). My point is, as her counsel agreed to the provisions contained in the Consent Order, why are her lawyers claiming that she only removed her property, and the property she removed didn't cost much? Why didn't her lawyer who was present at the removal of the property not seem to think that as it took (I think) 4 removal vans to transport 'her' property that something may be amiss?

The assets set out in Para 4 (and 5 Exhibit) would not appear to be of an 'insignificant' amount so I don't understand how (having agreed in the first place) her lawyers allowed her to not only remove the assets that she did remove, they apparently advised her to remove said assets and lastly failed to realise that it could be construed as a breach of the Consent Order, which in fact it later was by the Clerk of the Superiour Court, Shipman. Maybe I am reading it all wrong, (if so apologies) but IMO her own lawyers are playing fast and loose with their own interpretation of the law, and that is why I don't think Shipmans ruling will be overturned on appeal.

Any opions on this would be welcome.

I can only assume that they are going to argue it on the basis that the original order was flawed in some manner. Shame we have not got access to it.

 

[courtney2662]

I would think that they would have had asked her provide the nessecary documentaion. I doubt they would take her on her word. After all this is just one case to them their reputations are on the line. They are only as good as their last case. I feel they can't control her impulses but have to look as if they advised her to do so now .

I saw interview with her criminal attorney and he looked bewildered and said she's concentrating on getting custody of Jason's children. She had a custody lawyer first, then an estate lawyer and finally the criminal lawyer. She's probably been telling them all different versions to suit that case at that moment. This move of taking all these items out of the home appears to have been a stupendously reckless one given her criminal trial situation.

 

[courtney2662]

I am wondering if there is any reason that Holton (her criminal lawyer) is the one making statements about the removal of property rather than Thompson (her civil lawyer) who had dealt with the matter?

WOuldn't the testimony from civil trial be able to be entered into evidence in the criminal trial? She's presenting one perception of herself in the estate case, another in custody case, and then a third in the criminal case. The criminal case outcome affects the rest of her life, so I'd expect the criminal attorney to become the most important guy at the table.

 

[courtney2662]

Going back to the 911 call again, I got the feeling that TM was 'emotionally weary' and exhibited a sort of a 'here we go again' attitude, as if he were resigned to the fact that he would have to bail MM out of her predicament. I get a feeling that Sharon and Uncle Mike may be directing things a lot more than we think. Perhaps it could be worth looking at the background of the Earnest side of the family? What sort of environment did they grow up in? Did the apparently skewed sense of entitlement come from the Earnest clan? Really curious about this as I think the manipulation appears to be coming from the sister and brother pair of Sharon and Mike Earnest. All of this is my opinion only, of course.

Jason was killed Aug 2nd early morning, Aug 3rd Mike Earnest had made several calls to Jason's office insisting on gaining evidence to Jason's office. The man had been dead only 28-30 hours. Aug 4th Molly and Mike showed up at Jason's office, still trying to gain access to Jason's office which was once more denied. Mike spent the next couple of months making arrangements for interviews for himself and Molly with as many news outlets in Ireland as they could, with Molly begging for access to Jason's children. Mike also contacted several pilots in Ireland to try to hire them to fly a banner over the Limerick for the children to see. My theory is that Mike knew that they needed to see what the children had said to police, to lawyers, to see if they'd 'turned' on Molly. Mike was also the one to give statement to press about Molly emptying out the house. He's a prime actor in this situation IMO. Mike Earnest and two fellow senior internal affairs investigators from SIGAR are subject of internal inquiry for trying to gain access to Jason's office, and then the two senior internal investigators for traveling from DC to MPS, Jason's employer, and interviewing the staff.

 

[Frizby]

Jason was killed Aug 2nd early morning, Aug 3rd Mike Earnest had made several calls to Jason's office insisting on gaining evidence to Jason's office. The man had been dead only 28-30 hours. Aug 4th Molly and Mike showed up at Jason's office, still trying to gain access to Jason's office which was once more denied. Mike spent the next couple of months making arrangements for interviews for himself and Molly with as many news outlets in Ireland as they could, with Molly begging for access to Jason's children. Mike also contacted several pilots in Ireland to try to hire them to fly a banner over the Limerick for the children to see. My theory is that Mike knew that they needed to see what the children had said to police, to lawyers, to see if they'd 'turned' on Molly. Mike was also the one to give statement to press about Molly emptying out the house. He's a prime actor in this situation IMO. Mike Earnest and two fellow senior internal affairs investigators from SIGAR are subject of internal inquiry for trying to gain access to Jason's office, and then the two senior internal investigators for traveling from DC to MPS, Jason's employer, and interviewing the staff.

I thought it was only Mike Earnest that was under investigation. The only reference I came across about two internal affairs investigators is that they travelled to the workplace of JC to interview staff about Mike trying to gain access.??

 

[kittythehare]

Jason was killed Aug 2nd early morning, Aug 3rd Mike Earnest had made several calls to Jason's office insisting on gaining evidence to Jason's office. The man had been dead only 28-30 hours. Aug 4th Molly and Mike showed up at Jason's office, still trying to gain access to Jason's office which was once more denied. Mike spent the next couple of months making arrangements for interviews for himself and Molly with as many news outlets in Ireland as they could, with Molly begging for access to Jason's children. Mike also contacted several pilots in Ireland to try to hire them to fly a banner over the Limerick for the children to see. My theory is that Mike knew that they needed to see what the children had said to police, to lawyers, to see if they'd 'turned' on Molly. Mike was also the one to give statement to press about Molly emptying out the house. He's a prime actor in this situation IMO. Mike Earnest and two fellow senior internal affairs investigators from SIGAR are subject of internal inquiry for trying to gain access to Jason's office, and then the two senior internal investigators for traveling from DC to MPS, Jason's employer, and interviewing the staff.

Do you have a link regarding the SIGAR internal affairs investigators being under investigation?
mike did not work for SIGAR, Thomas martens did.
Are you saying that SIGAR employees interviewed Jason's workmates? They would not have jurisdiction to do that unless the murder was related to events at SIGAR itself.. we have not seen any evidence to that effect.
Would be interesting if it can be validated?

 

[Frizby]

Do you have a link regarding the SIGAR internal affairs investigators being under investigation?
mike did not work for SIGAR, Thomas martens did.
Are you saying that SIGAR employees interviewed Jason's workmates? They would not have jurisdiction to do that unless the murder was related to events at SIGAR itself.. we have not seen any evidence to that effect.
Would be interesting if it can be validated?

I was intrigued also last night when I saw the post, did a bit of searching today and found this. It seems that two investigators have interviewed staff but it was about Mike Earnest supposedly using his credentials just after the murder. The only one under investigation is Mike Earnest.

Molly Martens’s uncle is under investigation by his employers over claims he tried to get into Jason Corbett’s work-place office the day after the Limerick man died.The uncle, Mike Earnest, works for a US federal law enforcement authority called Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR).
Two senior internal affairs investigators from SIGAR are understood to have travelled from Washington to interview staff from Multi-Packing Solutions, where Mr Corbett worked.

http://evoke.ie/news/irish-news/molly-martens-uncle-tried-to-get-access-to-jasons-office

 

[kittythehare]

I was intrigued also last night when I saw the post, did a bit of searching today and found this. It seems that two investigators have interviewed staff but it was about Mike Earnest supposedly using his credentials just after the murder. The only one under investigation is Mike Earnest.



http://evoke.ie/news/irish-news/molly-martens-uncle-tried-to-get-access-to-jasons-office

Confusion, thanks Frizby for clarification.. Thomas worked for Oakridge Laboratories, not SIGAR. I apologise.

 

[Electric Sheep]

I was intrigued also last night when I saw the post, did a bit of searching today and found this. It seems that two investigators have interviewed staff but it was about Mike Earnest supposedly using his credentials just after the murder. The only one under investigation is Mike Earnest.



http://evoke.ie/news/irish-news/molly-martens-uncle-tried-to-get-access-to-jasons-office

Thank you for that Frizby. An excellent example of why statements without citations can be intentionally or unintentionally misleading.

 

[stephanddoody]

Thank you for that Frizby. An excellent example of why statements without citations can be intentionally or unintentionally misleading.

Agreed especially if it is related to medical field as most of us here have no knowledge in that area. There was a poster a few weeks ago that made all sorts of claims without providing the relevant links to back up what they were saying. A medical pathologist. I think it was Dumbfounded that provided the information that proved the claims of the phalanx being bones and not joints as stated to be wrong. There was also claims of "Molly's hair being in Jason's hand" which was also disproved . The only reason for not providing the links may be that they didn't know they had to as they had just joined and weren't fully aware of the rules

 

[Frizby]

Agreed especially if it is related to medical field as most of us here have no knowledge in that area. There was a poster a few weeks ago that made all sorts of claims without providing the relevant links to back up what they were saying. A medical pathologist. I think it was Dumbfounded that provided the information that proved the claims of the phalanx being bones and not joints as stated to be wrong. There was also claims of "Molly's hair being in Jason's hand" which was also disproved . The only reason for not providing the links may be that they didn't know they had to as they had just joined and weren't fully aware of the rules

Thank you for that Frizby. An excellent example of why statements without citations can be intentionally or unintentionally misleading.

I know and unfortunately when something is stated without any backup it can often send the thread all over the place, which I believe is what Stephen is highlighting above. I have added the link I provided plus others to the excellent 'No Comment' thread that KateB set up which contains links to various new articles, autopsy report, ME report, copies of Warrants, etc. relating to this case.

Worth highlighting that this thread exists every now and then, it's quite a handy reference point.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...2015-Media-Links-Documents-Only-No-Discussion

 

[stephanddoody]

I know and unfortunately when something is stated without any backup it can often send the thread all over the place, which I believe is what Stephen is highlighting above. I have added the link I provided plus others to the excellent 'No Comment' thread that KateB set up which contains links to various new articles, autopsy report, ME report, copies of Warrants, etc. relating to this case.

Worth highlighting that this thread exists every now and then, it's quite a handy reference point.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...2015-Media-Links-Documents-Only-No-Discussion

Yes that is a brilliant thread full of everything we have at hand . Good to bring it forward every so often so even if new people join in they no where to refer to go for all the relevant information needed

 

[Francesca]

I was intrigued also last night when I saw the post, did a bit of searching today and found this. It seems that two investigators have interviewed staff but it was about Mike Earnest supposedly using his credentials just after the murder. The only one under investigation is Mike Earnest.



http://evoke.ie/news/irish-news/molly-martens-uncle-tried-to-get-access-to-jasons-office

That was a fascinating and disturbing article to read - Mike Earnest's statements are so convoluted and evasive, plus it's extraordinarily arrogant that he'd defend his actions by saying he had to help organize the funeral and the children's insurance. None of this was his concern. And this is the source of the infamous line where he says: ‘It’s one thing to tell a lie about an average citizen. It’s another to tell a lie about a sworn US federal agent.’

I hope he ends up on the witness stand as well.

 

[Hotchips]

http://www.journalnow.com/news/colu...-88ab-bb846cd4d4d2.html#.VufBsBs0oE8.facebook

Latest news today

 

[stmarysmead]

Is there something very damaging to MM in those credit card bills?

 

[kittythehare]

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!