GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #3

[kittythehare]

Not sure about a plea kitty, but I would imagine the DA had to take into consideration that despite whatever motive evidence they could find on Molly, the reality is TM (and presumably Sharon) are all singing from the same hymn sheet and claiming domestic dispute/self defense. The likelihood of a jury unanimously convicting a Murder 1 charge for both of them is highly unlikely and so Murder 2 charges were sought.

Would be interesting if there was a plea though...

Agree with yourself and Emma, but WHY did they initially go for murder 1?
I could be wrong cos too much info in head re case and none of it in a filing system, but was iit not murder 1 as rationale for the search warrants and they were executed quite some time since the murder.
I wonder whether it was based on the 14 pieces of 'discovery' removed recently.
Was it there they found evidence for 1 or something that was the same as what they found in the 14 pieces, as I realise they didnt get these until after the warrants were issued?

Did they find something immediately that aroused their suspicion of murder1?(they could have requested under murder 2, could they not?)

Other question I have is whether the fact that warrants were executed under murder 1 and not 2- could this possibly make the findings inadmissable?
Sorry for the technical questions.. just trying to understand the process in this particular case.

 

[stmarysmead]

Often the police recommend a charge of Murder One when they feel that the evidence is solid and compelling. But the Prosecutor is the one that actually has to try the case in court. He may decide to make it easier on himself to get that conviction. He might be solid on murder bit feel that "premeditation" was tougher to prove. Especially with Daddy Dearest also on trial.

 

[emmalpage81]

Agree with yourself and Emma, but WHY did they initially go for murder 1?
I could be wrong cos too much info in head re case and none of it in a filing system, but was iit not murder 1 as rationale for the search warrants and they were executed quite some time since the murder.
I wonder whether it was based on the 14 pieces of 'discovery' removed recently.
Was it there they found evidence for 1 or something that was the same as what they found in the 14 pieces, as I realise they didnt get these until after the warrants were issued?

Did they find something immediately that aroused their suspicion of murder1?(they could have requested under murder 2, could they not?)

Other question I have is whether the fact that warrants were executed under murder 1 and not 2- could this possibly make the findings inadmissable?
Sorry for the technical questions.. just trying to understand the process in this particular case.

I think 1st degree may have been the initial thinking due the scene they found themselves in; I think we have all read the autopsy and can agree it was complete overkill which coupled with the fact two weapons used were not objects which would usually be found in the room in which the murder occurred (a bedroom). I think the DA may have simply played in safe.

Obviously my own opinion.

 

[Logic-lady]

Also, I think they have to be aware that there will also be the people who believe that the level of overkill was justified if Molly and Tom are convincing with their testimony. We have seen it over and over with the commentary, particularly on the new articles and Nancy Grace segments, lots of people saying 'Well if my Dad found my husband choking me he'd have done worse' or 'If it was my daughter...' - when the evidence is circumstantial (as in the Casey Anthony example above) it is wise to make a reserved decision on the charges.

It will be interesting to learn if the DA does in fact have a 'smoking gun' during trial though, he seems very confident of a conviction.

 

[emmalpage81]

Also, I think they have to be aware that there will also be the people who believe that the level of overkill was justified if Molly and Tom are convincing with their testimony. We have seen it over and over with the commentary, particularly on the new articles and Nancy Grace segments, lots of people saying 'Well if my Dad found my husband choking me he'd have done worse' or 'If it was my daughter...' - when the evidence is circumstantial (as in the Casey Anthony example above) it is wise to make a reserved decision on the charges.

It will be interesting to learn if the DA does in fact have a 'smoking gun' during trial though, he seems very confident of a conviction.

I had previously thought about this, however, since KM released his interview I think they may have more up their sleeves than I had originally thought. Maybe not a smoking gun per se, if they had this i would have thought they would have pushed harder for murder one, but there is more to come to light.

 

[kittythehare]

I had previously thought about this, however, since KM released his interview I think they may have more up their sleeves than I had originally thought. Maybe not a smoking gun per se, if they had this i would have thought they would have pushed harder for murder one, but there is more to come to light.

I think it is very strange and significant that neither US or Mailonline online editions did not run his interviews.
It is also very strange that none of the other media sources, Irish or Intl did not pick it up..
Not even Evoke..

Agree they have more.. much more re DA

 

[emmalpage81]

Agree with yourself and Emma, but WHY did they initially go for murder 1?
I could be wrong cos too much info in head re case and none of it in a filing system, but was iit not murder 1 as rationale for the search warrants and they were executed quite some time since the murder.
I wonder whether it was based on the 14 pieces of 'discovery' removed recently.
Was it there they found evidence for 1 or something that was the same as what they found in the 14 pieces, as I realise they didnt get these until after the warrants were issued?

Did they find something immediately that aroused their suspicion of murder1?(they could have requested under murder 2, could they not?)

Other question I have is whether the fact that warrants were executed under murder 1 and not 2- could this possibly make the findings inadmissable?
Sorry for the technical questions.. just trying to understand the process in this particular case.

Just realised my previous post was lacking in detail. We keep talking about 1st degree V the final charge of 2nd degree and manslaughter (which is a good thing to consider). My understanding was that the local law enforcement will (hopefully) investigate the highest possible level of a crime. Unless there evidence is related solely to one aspect of a crime it is admissable at any level. This case has been described as heinous. We have read the autopsy report and agree with this. It may be a case of making sure a pretty girl (yes I think this plays a role with the jury) ,and an FBI agent (who may feel he is above the law as per his brother-in-law) are subjected to some form of Justice........

 

[emmalpage81]

I think it is very strange and significant that neither US or Mailonline online editions did not run his interviews.
It is also very strange that none of the other media sources, Irish or Intl did not pick it up..
Not even Evoke..

Agree they have more.. much more re DA

Actually I had been thinking this during the week. Why not post an online version? I know he received abuse online but why would this stop the publication, and who would stop it?

 

[searchinGirl]

Agree with yourself and Emma, but WHY did they initially go for murder 1?
I could be wrong cos too much info in head re case and none of it in a filing system, but was iit not murder 1 as rationale for the search warrants and they were executed quite some time since the murder.
I wonder whether it was based on the 14 pieces of 'discovery' removed recently.
Was it there they found evidence for 1 or something that was the same as what they found in the 14 pieces, as I realise they didnt get these until after the warrants were issued?

Did they find something immediately that aroused their suspicion of murder1?(they could have requested under murder 2, could they not?)

Other question I have is whether the fact that warrants were executed under murder 1 and not 2- could this possibly make the findings inadmissable?
Sorry for the technical questions.. just trying to understand the process in this particular case.

nice post kitty...good questions...initially what jumps out at me is they couldn't put together the financial trail to prove that as motive...sounds like they thought they could put together her parents sudden trip and her bank transfers as a conspiracy theory...but, it didn't pan out...the search warrants were executed late by their own admission (sheriff) and its unfortunate things were delayed because a deputy's paperwork was delayed "due to illness"...(pardon me the lack of link but I'm helping a neighbor move) ... so the way it works I think, the sheriff presents its case to the DA's Office and they decide what charges to seek from the Grand Jury for a true bill indictment...in this case they were sealed for 12 days or so... the DA then files charges and arrest warrants are issued and the accused parties must appear...and so begins the process...the defendants are advised of their rights and summoned to court to make sure they understand the charges they are facing, enter a plea, the prosecutor begins stating his case and in this case it was the Autopsy Report IMO...and then a date is set for a preliminary hearing, which I think they just had...at that point the prosecution must hand over to the defense all the evidence they have to prove their case...in this case it's interesting to note that Holton says when asked on TV that there are elements of what we believe to be true aren't there in discovery... like the bat ... I find TM story about bringing it there that day plausible it must not have been the same bat Jack spoke of in therapy...or the money transfers ... by law she was entitled to everything in that account on the day of JCs death (if joint account with right of survivorship)... I think that might end up being a "clawback" situation and might only be difference between a debit or credit on the asset worksheet... but, it's only under the slayer statute that she would have to relinquish it as the court acknowledges us wives need maintenance...and... my guess is they too were horrified by what they witnessed...and TM and MM were ineffective in convincing them other wise...just like they said...no donnybrook...

IDK about the 4 pieces of inadmissible evidence... remember the sheriff and prosecution would have been the only ones to know about it then and had they been aware they surely would have removed it IMO...it's too big a risk to take for the prosecution to leave it in... it was communication between the Martens and the Martens lawyers but I think if anything incriminating had been said, we would be talking a different story... .

IDK for sure, but I believe any evidence they did obtain could be used to prosecute her as long as it goes to 2nd degree murder...they would have to exclude it otherwise...for example, say they hadn't found Jack's year-old bat (assuming they did) then I think they could question is TM lying about it as evidence of a consciousness of guilt...and use that as evidence as long as it was legally obtained...IMO...

You know...there are reasons we do things once and there are reasons we do things again... why did Molly hit him in the first place?...why did she keep hitting him with so much malice after that?

sorry about this long-winded brain dump but I've been holding back lately...thanks for the conversation...

 

[searchinGirl]

(Subscribing per the invitation of searchinGirl :wave

Welcome Mags...good to see you here...

 

[emmalpage81]

nice post kitty...good questions...initially what jumps out at me is they couldn't put together the financial trail to prove that as motive...sounds like they thought they could put together her parents sudden trip and her bank transfers as a conspiracy theory...but, it didn't pan out...they were executed late by their own admission (sheriff) and its unfortunate things were delayed because a deputy's paperwork was delayed "due to illness"...(pardon me the lack of link but I'm helping a neighbor move) ... so the way it works I think, the sheriff presents its case to the DA's Office and they decide what charges to seek from the Grand Jury for a true bill indictment...in this case they were sealed for 12 days or so... the DA then files charges and arrest warrants are issued and the accused parties must appear...and so begins the process...the defendants are advised of their rights and summoned to court to make sure they understand the charges they are facing, enter a plea, the prosecutor begins stating his case and in this case it was the Autopsy Report IMO...and then a date is set for a preliminary hearing, which I think they just had...at that point the prosecution must hand over to the defense all the evidence they have to prove their case...in this case it's interesting to note that Holton says when asked on TV that there are elements of what we believe to be true aren't there in discovery... like the bat ... I find his story about bringing it there that day plausible it must not have been the same bat Jack spoke of in therapy...or the money transfers ... by law she was entitled to everything in that account on the day of JCs death (if joint account with right of survivorship)... I think that might end up being a "clawback" situation and might only be difference between a debit or credit on the asset worksheet... but, it's only under the slayer statute that she would have to relinquish it as the court acknowledges us wives need maintenance...and... my guess is they too were horrified by what they witnessed...and TM and MM were ineffective in convincing them other wise...just like they said...no donnybrook...

IDK about the 4 pieces of inadmissible evidence... remember the sheriff and prosecution would have been the only ones to know about it then and had they been aware they surely would have removed it IMO...it's too big a risk to take for the prosecution to leave it in... it was communication between the Martens and the Martens lawyers but I think if anything incriminating had been said, we would be talking a different story... a point here...

IDK for sure, but I believe any evidence they did obtain could be used to prosecute her as long as it goes to 2nd degree murder...they would have to exclude it otherwise...for example, say they hadn't found Jack's year-old bat (assuming they did) then I think they could question is TM lying about it as evidence of a consciousness of guilt...and use that as evidence as long as it was legally obtained...IMO...

You know...there are reasons we do things once and there are reasons we do things again... why did Molly hit him in the first place?...why did she keep hitting him with so much malice after that?

sorry about this long-winded brain dump but I've been holding back lately...thanks for the conversation...

Don't be sorry about a brain dump they are usually extremely helpful!

I am slightly confused does that mean once charges are filed in the US no further evidence can be adduced? In Europe you have a very small window to file charges and you can continue your investigation, to help your cause, during the preliminary motions.

I had assumed the only evidence which was adjudicated on as being inadmissable was the lawyer \ client correspondence via email for obvious reasons.

I don't think the prosecution need to prove any monetary trail. Just that MM was reckless in causing JC' s death.

 

[kittythehare]

Actually I had been thinking this during the week. Why not post an online version? I know he received abuse online but why would this stop the publication, and who would stop it?

Nobody could stop it.. its his copyrighted material.

Other possibility is her lawyers issued writ stating article was not to be made available to online editions of public media.
Remmber, keith did not return their calls.

also took them an age to respond to mail offer of interview and , possibly, approval..
Then, it was following keith's rejection of their attempts to contact him..

One version, print media only and ran for only one day.
Was there further legal threats delivered to mail after the publication, I wonder?

 

[searchinGirl]

Actually I had been thinking this during the week. Why not post an online version? I know he received abuse online but why would this stop the publication, and who would stop it?

I wouldn't be surprised if the Irish Daily Mail was issued a cease and desist order...can you think of any way to find out?

 

[stmarysmead]

Don't be sorry about a brain dump they are usually extremely helpful!

I am slightly confused does that mean once charges are filed in the US no further evidence can be adduced? In Europe you have a very small window to file charges and you can continue your investigation, to help your cause, during the preliminary motions.

I had assumed the only evidence which was adjudicated on as being inadmissable was the lawyer \ client correspondence via email for obvious reasons.

I don't think the prosecution need to prove any monetary trail. Just that MM was reckless in causing JC' s death.

No. Evidence can be introduced even as late as during the trial, though both sides must be given the time and opportunity to peruse it for their purposes. This idea that the second degree charge somehow limits the Prosecution is wrong. It frees them from having "to prove" premeditation. They can put all they have in front of the jury. They just cannot get a first degree conviction because they did not ask for it.

 

[emmalpage81]

Nobody could stop it.. its his copyrighted material.

Other possibility is her lawyers issued writ stating article was not to be made available to online editions of public media.
Remmber, keith did not return their calls.

also took them an age to respond to mail offer of interview and , possibly, approval..
Then, it was following keith's rejection of their attempts to contact him..

One version, print media only and ran for only one day.
Was there further legal threats delivered to mail after the publication, I wonder?

I had taken their attempts to contact him as a form of emotional blackmail (apologies it is a Friday and my brain has shut off), if you cared you would not do this type thing...... KM's actions during his relationship were to protect MM maybe she assumed this would continue?

 

[kittythehare]

I had taken their attempts to contact him as a form of emotional blackmail (apologies it is a Friday and my brain has shut off), if you cared you would not do this type thing...... KM's actions during his relationship were to protect MM maybe she assumed this would continue?

or threats..?

 

[emmalpage81]

No. Evidence can be introduced even as late as during the trial, though both sides must be given the time and opportunity to peruse it for their purposes. This idea that the second degree charge somehow limits the Prosecution is wrong. It frees them from having "to prove" premeditation. They can put all they have in front of the jury. They just cannot get a first degree conviction because they did not ask for it.

I had thought as much. Evidence is evidence.

 

[emmalpage81]

or threats..?

I didn't really want to say that.....

 

[stmarysmead]

Nobody could stop it.. its his copyrighted material.

Other possibility is her lawyers issued writ stating article was not to be made available to online editions of public media.
Remmber, keith did not return their calls.

also took them an age to respond to mail offer of interview and , possibly, approval..
Then, it was following keith's rejection of their attempts to contact him..

One version, print media only and ran for only one day.
Was there further legal threats delivered to mail after the publication, I wonder?

The article was labeled an "exclusive." Other media may not be permitted to use the "exclusive" work of the Irish DM. It may also be that neither Defense or Prosecution want this devastating account of the chaotic Psychological state of MM in the American media because it could effect the jury pool. Instead the Prosecution will bring it in at trial to devastate their credibility.

 

[emmalpage81]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Irish Daily Mail was issued a cease and desist order...can you think of any way to find out?

I had considered this but had thought that the book had been in publication for 4-5 years. Could any court have ordered a cease and desist for the contents?