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

[Frizby]

Thanks Frizby, I had been wondering where I had read about the socialising in the garden with the neighbours! Apparently, Catherine Fegan is contracted to the IDM and seems to be happy to travel to the US to cover the story, perhaps she was went to Knoxville to do a little bit of local digging?

I still have the original papers, the case is really only covered in any length in 4 of them (8th, 9th, 10th & 13th) and of course last Saturday. They all have tended to be lengthy pieces with many segmented elements. Think they also covered the property removal issue in one but not sure if I have that paper.

The quotes in the papers on the socialising, the brick and the charges being reduced are as follows....

On the evening prior to his death, several neighbours joined Mr Corbett and his wife on the driveway of their home, where he is understood to have consumed a 'few beers'

Sources say that the stone or brick, which came from the back garden, may have been used for one of the children's school projects. As such, there was a 'legitimate reason' for it being present in the room, said the source.

Mr Corbett's second wife, Molly Martens, 31, and her father Thomas, 65, have been charged with second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter in relation to his death.

However, search warrant material,contained in a dossier of documents released by the District Attorney in Davidson Country, North Carolina, state that 'first degree murder' was the criminal offence being investigated. Under North Carolina criminal code, this charge is the most serious of defendant can face. It is defined as an unlawful killing that is both wilful and premeditated, meaning this it was committed after planning or 'lying in wait' for the victim.

Convicted individuals in North Carolina may be sentenced to life in prison or even death by lethal injection for first degree murder.

It is believed that the Davidson County District Attorney Garry Frank opted for lesser grades of homicide as part of a strategy to facilitate a more likely chance of obtaining a successful conviction.

 

[stephanddoody]

I still have the original papers, the case is really only covered in any length in 4 of them (8th, 9th, 10th & 13th) and of course last Saturday. They all have tended to be lengthy pieces with many segmented elements. Think they also covered the property removal issue in one but not sure if I have that paper.

The quotes in the papers on the socialising, the brick and the charges being reduced are as follows....

Thanks Frizby you really are very good . I'm just going to attach the journalists Twitter . https://mobile.twitter.com/kittyf21. This has the front pages and dates articles were printed . People could check them out on pressreader then if they wished .

 

[Frizby]

Thanks Frizby you really are very good . I'm just going to attach the journalists Twitter . https://mobile.twitter.com/kittyf21. This has the front pages and dates articles were printed . People could check them out on pressreader then if they wished .

Thanks for that link. Problem is with the IDM, the majority of their articles are contained within the paper. For example, the one last Saturday, the front page carried on to page two and they there was another three pages further into the paper and within those five pages, there were many segmented pieces within each article. They always do a good job when covering something like this, the other papers really just regurgitate news. They hold their articles and don't put on line so they can sell their papers.

 

[DaleTray]

Thank you so much Frizby for the info. With me just recently starting to follow this case I have been perusing old posts and reading some media links, etc. I have been reluctant to ask a couple of questions as I assumed the answers were heavily discussed months ago and it was up to me to sleuth my answers. The rock/brick was simply driving me crazy. I was wondering if someone had ran outside for a landscaping brick before/during/after the murder. I couldn't derive a natural answer of why said brick would be in their bedroom. Actually, I could see brick in child's room or maybe kitchen area if being using for a school project. I don't think I still feel comfortable with the story of brick in parent's bedroom or that the kid's were working on a school project in parents bedroom. I am maybe thinking MM had completed the murder, went downstairs and notified her parents, Daddy and MM walked back upstairs and FBI Daddy looking for some type of weapon along path to MM bedroom and somewhere along the way picked up the brick.

 

[kittythehare]

Thanks for that link. Problem is with the IDM, the majority of their articles are contained within the paper. For example, the one last Saturday, the front page carried on to page two and they there was another three pages further into the paper and within those five pages, there were many segmented pieces within each article. They always do a good job when covering something like this, the other papers really just regurgitate news. They hold their articles and don't put on line so they can sell their papers.

Frizby didn't they suggest a series of articles in their communications with Holton et al?
I was unclear if the ref pertained to past or future 'episodes'

 

[Frizby]

Thank you so much Frizby for the info. With me just recently starting to follow this case I have been perusing old posts and reading some media links, etc. I have been reluctant to ask a couple of questions as I assumed the answers were heavily discussed months ago and it was up to me to sleuth my answers. The rock/brick was simply driving me crazy. I was wondering if someone had ran outside for a landscaping brick before/during/after the murder. I couldn't derive a natural answer of why said brick would be in their bedroom. Actually, I could see brick in child's room or maybe kitchen area if being using for a school project. I don't think I still feel comfortable with the story of brick in parent's bedroom or that the kid's were working on a school project in parents bedroom. I am maybe thinking MM had completed the murder, went downstairs and notified her parents, Daddy and MM walked back upstairs and FBI Daddy looking for some type of weapon along path to MM bedroom and somewhere along the way picked up the brick.

I think that the brick has puzzled everyone. It was only mentioned in that one paper, well apart from it being mentioned as a weapon used. If there was a school project I am sure that LE can confirm this even thought the murder took place outside school term, maybe they are trying to say it was a summer project or a previous project. But the location of such being in the master bedroom is very odd indeed. It will be interesting when this finally goes to court for forensic to come their opinion of what injuries are attributed to the brick and which are associated with the bat. Afterall, both implements are physically different and would leave different injuries.

TM, when he was admitting to the murder, saying he hit him with a bat, I don't think that he was fully aware of the extent of the injuries or in fact that a brick had also been used. I know that warrants and such has sort of associated the bat uses as being one belonging to the little boy but what I cannot get around is why would TM say it was a new bat. It is not as if he is a novice in the area of forensics, he, of all people, should know that this could be proved or disproved. And if it was the sons bat, why did he not just say he picked it up on the way up the stairs.

 

[Frizby]

Frizby didn't they suggest a series of articles in their communications with Holton et al?
I was unclear if the ref pertained to past or future 'episodes'

I don't get your question?

 

[kittythehare]

I don't get your question?

Did DM refer to a series of articles in the piece regarding their communications with Holton's offices prior to publishing?
As if they were about to do many more OR they meant those already published?
Is that clear?
Was in paragraph towards end,

Actually I found the piece on the jfj page.
I had misread it.
There was no ref to series of articles on that paragraph.
I apologise.

 

[Frizby]

Did DM refer to a series of articles in the piece regarding their communications with Holton's offices prior to publishing?
As if they were about to do many more OR they meant those already published?
Is that clear?
Was in paragraph towards end,

In the latest article, the interview with KM, they mentioned that they had contacted MM lawyers for comment but they did not reply. Instead the lawyers contacted KM but he refused to speak to them. Finally the lawyers did respond to the IDM but did not say really anything. I don't recall them making much other reference in other articles but I would have to re-read them again to see if there was any suggestion of this. I didn't get the feeling that they were hinting on doing any further articles. The reporter is definitely doing her digging and by all account from previous articles, communications have been direct with the IDM. Who knows what she will find, if it is printable I guess we will when it's published.

 

[Logic-lady]

Sorry to change the topic slightly, but I have been pondering something today and would appreciate your thoughts....

So far, we have seen plenty of information that gives weight to the Murder 2 charge against Molly, but the only real information we have for Tom is his confession. So far, the only background information we have to hand regarding Tom is his seemingly happy relationship with Jason prior to these events, and his stellar FBI career. If the forensics do play out as we have surmised recently, that Molly was responsible in the main for the attack on Jason, where does that leave a jury with a Murder 2 charge against Tom? Is his confession alone enough to justify a guilty verdict? Is guilty by association enough for the jury to convict? Or is this why the DA also ran with a Manslaughter charge? As in 'the unintentional killing of another person resulting from recklessness or criminal negligence.'

My problem with this is that surely Tom would have known that forensically his confession alone would not be enough to save Molly (given that we are running on the common theory that we have been discussing recently on the thread). Does this mean he picked up the bat and laid down some blows on Jason's dead body so that forensically his story rang true? Or did he realise Jason was so badly beaten that they were better off if he finished off the job and plead self defense? Is this what the first responders meant by the crime scene not fitting the description of events?

And finally, will separate trials have an impact on any of this? Would information be equally shared between the courts or would information regarding Molly be inadmissible against Tom?

Sorry for the many questions, it has been rattling my brain today!

 

[searchinGirl]

Sorry to change the topic slightly, but I have been pondering something today and would appreciate your thoughts....

So far, we have seen plenty of information that gives weight to the Murder 2 charge against Molly, but the only real information we have for Tom is his confession. So far, the only background information we have to hand regarding Tom is his seemingly happy relationship with Jason prior to these events, and his stellar FBI career. If the forensics do play out as we have surmised recently, that Molly was responsible in the main for the attack on Jason, where does that leave a jury with a Murder 2 charge against Tom? Is his confession alone enough to justify a guilty verdict? Is guilty by association enough for the jury to convict? Or is this why the DA also ran with a Manslaughter charge? As in 'the unintentional killing of another person resulting from recklessness or criminal negligence.'

My problem with this is that surely Tom would have known that forensically his confession alone would not be enough to save Molly (given that we are running on the common theory that we have been discussing recently on the thread). Does this mean he picked up the bat and laid down some blows on Jason's dead body so that forensically his story rang true? Or did he realise Jason was so badly beaten that they were better off if he finished off the job and plead self defense? Is this what the first responders meant by the crime scene not fitting the description of events?

And finally, will separate trials have an impact on any of this? Would information be equally shared between the courts or would information regarding Molly be inadmissible against Tom?

Sorry for the many questions, it has been rattling my brain today!

they could receive different verdicts so there's that...IMO...separate juries ? separate trials? I think it will be one or the other...and I do believe they can use evidence from either trial...IMO...so who goes first?...

 

[stmarysmead]

Sorry to change the topic slightly, but I have been pondering something today and would appreciate your thoughts....

So far, we have seen plenty of information that gives weight to the Murder 2 charge against Molly, but the only real information we have for Tom is his confession. So far, the only background information we have to hand regarding Tom is his seemingly happy relationship with Jason prior to these events, and his stellar FBI career. If the forensics do play out as we have surmised recently, that Molly was responsible in the main for the attack on Jason, where does that leave a jury with a Murder 2 charge against Tom? Is his confession alone enough to justify a guilty verdict? Is guilty by association enough for the jury to convict? Or is this why the DA also ran with a Manslaughter charge? As in 'the unintentional killing of another person resulting from recklessness or criminal negligence.'

My problem with this is that surely Tom would have known that forensically his confession alone would not be enough to save Molly (given that we are running on the common theory that we have been discussing recently on the thread). Does this mean he picked up the bat and laid down some blows on Jason's dead body so that forensically his story rang true? Or did he realise Jason was so badly beaten that they were better off if he finished off the job and plead self defense? Is this what the first responders meant by the crime scene not fitting the description of events?

And finally, will separate trials have an impact on any of this? Would information be equally shared between the courts or would information regarding Molly be inadmissible against Tom?

Sorry for the many questions, it has been rattling my brain today!

I've wondered if they put MM on trial first and get a conviction, if they would offer TM the chance to take a plea to accessory after the fact. Once his daughter is convicted, he might start thinking about SM's future alone and the possibility of wrongful death suits.

 

[Logic-lady]

I've wondered if they put MM on trial first and get a conviction, if they would offer TM the chance to take a plea to accessory after the fact. Once his daughter is convicted, he might start thinking about SM's future alone and the possibility of wrongful death suits.

Yes I suppose it is likely it will be separate trials. I can't think of another trial just now where two defendants were tried together. It will make it a long drawn out process for the Corbett's.

 

[stephanddoody]

Great info and also add that school wasn't to start for 2-4 weeks after Jason was murdered . I was totally baffled as to why a school project would be there especially when school hadn't started back . I will find the link of the school starting back

1. Monday closest to August 26 and end date no later than the Friday closest to June 11 (unless a weather related calendar waiver has been approved, year-round school, charter school or cooperative innovative high school.) If waiver is approved the start date can be no earlier than the Monday closest to August 19

1. http://www.ncpublicschools.org/fbs/accounting/calendar/

Molly Corbett’s uncle, Mike Earnest, said his niece and the children were attempting to move forward with their lives after the death of her husband and their father.


“Jack and Sarah we’re excited to start school on Tuesday. They had just returned from a shopping trip Monday afternoon picking out their school supplies only to be ripped away with zero notification, from their mother and the stable, loving environment that had twice previously been evaluated as safe on all counts,” Earnest said in a statement.

http://www.journalnow.com/news/crim...50b-b020-5052-a7f6-9c3fb74f70c6.html?mode=jqm

Personally I wouldn't think they would be excited about going back to school when their father had just been murdered . But that's just my opinion . Very cold again by Uncle Mike

 

[searchinGirl]

I think that the brick has puzzled everyone. It was only mentioned in that one paper, well apart from it being mentioned as a weapon used. If there was a school project I am sure that LE can confirm this even thought the murder took place outside school term, maybe they are trying to say it was a summer project or a previous project. But the location of such being in the master bedroom is very odd indeed. It will be interesting when this finally goes to court for forensic to come their opinion of what injuries are attributed to the brick and which are associated with the bat. Afterall, both implements are physically different and would leave different injuries.

TM, when he was admitting to the murder, saying he hit him with a bat, I don't think that he was fully aware of the extent of the injuries or in fact that a brick had also been used. I know that warrants and such has sort of associated the bat uses as being one belonging to the little boy but what I cannot get around is why would TM say it was a new bat. It is not as if he is a novice in the area of forensics, he, of all people, should know that this could be proved or disproved. And if it was the sons bat, why did he not just say he picked it up on the way up the stairs.

because of the search warrants I can't help but believe that they found the child's bat in the garage (they already had the murder weapon) and TM wasn't lying about that...Had they not found the bat (if they did) they could have concluded that TM was lying about having brought it that day and that it was the same as the one Jack is swinging in pictures...but, it might have proved their theory of first-degree murder had they not found it...I thought that picture with the bat cover so prominent was a statement of some kind...

 

[Frizby]

because of the search warrants I can't help but believe that they found the child's bat in the garage (they already had the murder weapon) and TM wasn't lying about that...Had they not found the bat (if they did) they could have concluded that TM was lying about having brought it that day and that it was the same as the one Jack is swinging in pictures...but, it might have proved their theory of first-degree murder had they not found it...I thought that picture with the bat cover so prominent was a statement of some kind...

But they did not find any bat at the property under that search warrant

 

[searchinGirl]

But they did not find any bat at the property under that search warrant

I didn't realize that ...I apologize...could he have produced a receipt?...this was one of the things Holton denied was part of the discovery...IMO

 

[Frizby]

I didn't realize that ...I apologize...

That's OK. There is so much stuff going on with this case it is easy to miss stuff. But not only did they not find a a bat, they also did not find any bag which was also named on the warrant as items to look for however one of MM pics on FB has the sleeve of a baseball bat with 'Jack Corbett' clearly written across it placed on top of the clothes she was photographing. It was not sitting in the corner of the picture, it was not amongst the cloths, it was carefully placed on top of the cloths. It was not even in the photographs of the many bags & toys that she took pictures of, it took pride of place on his cloths. I thought that that was really bizarre.

 

[Frizby]

I didn't realize that ...I apologize...could he have produced a receipt?...this was one of the things Holton denied was part of the discovery...IMO

If the bat was new, I am sure that forensics can prove this. Proof of purchase thereafter would be questioned I suspect. I don't think he denied the bat as part of discovery, he suggested that the statements from Jack regarding the bat or from his uncle David Lynch, was not in the discovery documents.

 

[kittythehare]

I was reading and thinking about Logic lady's post re legal complexities.
I was searching for exact NC law. I did not find it but I did find this.

The comments section is a bombshell to me. (Its about alterations to sentencing for 2nd degree murder in NC)
I am no clearer having read it but the comments are a revelation
.. Heres the link

http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/change-in-punishment-for-second-degree-murder/