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

[Truthalways]

Interesting little article about another case with the same murder weapon. Only in this case we also have the addition of a paving stone.


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crim...nreasonable-force-with-baseball-bat-1.2185287

“If you find the force was unreasonable and excessive, and we suggest it was, it would be open to you to bring in a verdict of murder,” he said.

Above reads an interesting statement made by prosecution. The force used in Jason's murder could be the key to conviction even if jurors are swayed in the direction of DV by the defence smearing.

Also note victim died from a blow to the head. One hit of a BB bat can kill so it could certainly subdue. What occurs after that is a vicious murder. IMO

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[emmalpage81]

however, as a DV survivor I know that the situation in which Jason was killed involved the two of them in an argument that got out of control

Is there evidence of Molly beating Jason prior to this night?...did he seek treatment for his wounds?... did he talk to anyone about it? I believe KM story in it's entirety and I think I stated before that I believe its evidentiary value has 2 things...it's a double-edged sword...one side is as you described that she would stand at the door and keep him from leaving the room (obsessive engagement in the argument, entrapment?)...and the other side is that KM also said that Molly wasn't physically violent when she was angry

SearchinGirl i usually have some degree of agreement with your comments; i enjoy looking at things from other angles so to speak. In respect of your last two comments i have been scratching my head. With all due respect, could you own experiences be clouding your judgment in this matter?

To put my thoughts in context I have never been subjected to any form of DV. When the DV angle when it was raised I looked to someone who had suffered, in my case, my mum. This was before she met my dad and before I was born so I had no first hand knowledge of it. When my mum considers MM's claims she is vehemently of the view that MM did not suffer from any form of DV. This is for a few specific reasons; firstly the fat shaming. There is no getting away from this. In my mother's experience a victim would NEVER antagonise their abuser in public. The second thing that my mother pointed out was the fact that people were aware of the abuse but did nothing. My mother's experience, as a victim, was that she never told anyone about the abuse. It was only when the final act occurred (in my mother's case being stabbed whilst pregnant!) that she told my grandad. He was there within 90 minutes (which was the time to get from Central London to Windsor where she was based with her army husband). She also has pointed out the fact that MM had financial independence with a credit card to leave whenever she wished.

You state that you know on the night in question they got into an argument that got out of control. Whilst I agree that there was an argument that evening, I have seen nothing to suggest it got out of control (which would suggest a mutual physical altercation between them). The only people who have suggested this are MM and TM. You (albeit in a separate post) talk about whether JC ever got treatment for wounds caused by MM. Can I turn this on you? Where is the evidence of MM ever having treatment for abuse at the hands of her husband? We know that friends of MM have stated that they were aware of the abuse for a year (in my mind this is somewhat suspect as it was at the same time that she was speaking to lawyers about how to get custody of the two children), we also know that neighbours of the couple have brought up an incident of fat shaming the weekend that JC died.

I do accept KM's description that MM was never violent to him and I do not doubt it at all. I do however have to weigh this with the fact that JC was about to take away two children that she wanted more than anything in the world. KM had nothing that she wanted when their relationship broke down, she had nothing to fight for.

 

[searchinGirl]

SearchinGirl i usually have some degree of agreement with your comments; i enjoy looking at things from other angles so to speak. In respect of your last two comments i have been scratching my head. With all due respect, could you own experiences be clouding your judgment in this matter?

To put my thoughts in context I have never been subjected to any form of DV. When the DV angle when it was raised I looked to someone who had suffered, in my case, my mum. This was before she met my dad and before I was born so I had no first hand knowledge of it. When my mum considers MM's claims she is vehemently of the view that MM did not suffer from any form of DV. This is for a few specific reasons; firstly the fat shaming. There is no getting away from this. In my mother's experience a victim would NEVER antagonise their abuser in public. The second thing that my mother pointed out was the fact that people were aware of the abuse but did nothing. My mother's experience, as a victim, was that she never told anyone about the abuse. It was only when the final act occurred (in my mother's case being stabbed whilst pregnant!) that she told my grandad. He was there within 90 minutes (which was the time to get from Central London to Windsor where she was based with her army husband). She also has pointed out the fact that MM had financial independence with a credit card to leave whenever she wished.

You state that you know on the night in question they got into an argument that got out of control. Whilst I agree that there was an argument that evening, I have seen nothing to suggest it got out of control (which would suggest a mutual physical altercation between them). The only people who have suggested this are MM and TM. You (albeit in a separate post) talk about whether JC ever got treatment for wounds caused by MM. Can I turn this on you? Where is the evidence of MM ever having treatment for abuse at the hands of her husband? We know that friends of MM have stated that they were aware of the abuse for a year (in my mind this is somewhat suspect as it was at the same time that she was speaking to lawyers about how to get custody of the two children), we also know that neighbours of the couple have brought up an incident of fat shaming the weekend that JC died.

I do accept KM's description that MM was never violent to him and I do not doubt it at all. I do however have to weigh this with the fact that JC was about to take away two children that she wanted more than anything in the world. KM had nothing that she wanted when their relationship broke down, she had nothing to fight for.

I believe you have misunderstood some of what I'm saying so let me try again...the questions I raised about Jason seeking help are what the prosecution will need to explore if they claim JC died as a result of MMs serial abuse... The prosecution tells the story, the defense creates doubt about the story...and to be honest with you I'm struggling for any clues as to how it might go...
my belief about the argument they got into is based on the charge itself not on either one of them being more abusive than the other...I wonder if either side is planning on demonstrating a pattern of abuse theory and if so does verbal and emotional abuse lead to murder?...or will they turn it the other way and use the fat shaming incident the night before to show JC was so humiliated he was angry enough to physically harm her in retaliation?

The DV I experienced was over 25 years ago but one thing I have found common to all survivors I have met is counseling and/or a support group ... Was that the case with your mum too?...my current beliefs are grounded in the experiences of many other women who survived and helped each other and while we talk about men being victims of DV, I will grant you that I haven't met a man yet who would admit to it...

All of this is just my opinion and I don't intend to offend anyone...

 

[emmalpage81]

I believe you have misunderstood some of what I'm saying so let me try again...the questions I raised about Jason seeking help are what the prosecution will need to explore if they claim JC died as a result of MMs serial abuse... The prosecution tells the story, the defense creates doubt about the story...and to be honest with you I'm struggling for any clues as to how it might go...
my belief about the argument they got into is based on the charge itself not on either one of them being more abusive than the other...I wonder if either side is planning on demonstrating a pattern of abuse theory and if so does verbal and emotional abuse lead to murder?...or will they turn it the other way and use the fat shaming incident the night before to show JC was so humiliated he was angry enough to physically harm her in retaliation?

The DV I experienced was over 25 years ago but one thing I have found common to all survivors I have met is counseling and/or a support group ... Was that the case with your mum too?...my current beliefs are grounded in the experiences of many other women who survived and helped each other and while we talk about men being victims of DV, I will grant you that I haven't met a man yet who would admit to it...

All of this is just my opinion and I don't intend to offend anyone...

But the prosecution do not need to prove that JC was a victim of DV. They need to prove that he was killed and that this killing was unjust. It is MM who is claiming DV and, as such, it is on the defence to adduce evidence to this.

From the police reports and photos of MM taken in the recent aftermath she has no injuries. How is this explainable?

My mother spoke to many people who also suffered DV. She never came across any individual who antagonised their abuser.

 

[Electric Sheep]

I wonder if either Tom or Molly will take the stand. I would guess their lawyers would advise against it, but I could see Molly insisting that she will. Tom would know better, I believe.

Molly on the stand would almost certainly blow her case out of the water.

 

[searchinGirl]

But the prosecution do not need to prove that JC was a victim of DV. They need to prove that he was killed and that this killing was unjust. It is MM who is claiming DV and, as such, it is on the defence to adduce evidence to this.

From the police reports and photos of MM taken in the recent aftermath she has no injuries. How is this explainable?

My mother spoke to many people who also suffered DV. She never came across any individual who antagonised their abuser.

Some people are addicted to their very own emotionally-charged argument ... Co-dependent dysfunctional relationships go hand in hand with a love bully...and for some that is why it is difficult to escape... But I think you and your mum have a point here...if I was sitting on the jury I would consider Molly's mean mouth as needlessly antagonistic and not characteristic of a suffering victim...Almost like she was baiting him...IMO

 

[stmarysmead]

I am starting to see some small pieces of the puzzle come together for me. Let's start, with the fact that Mollys parents seem to travel with the family so often and that there is a finished suite downstairs for their use.

They had been there during Jason's brothers visit and had just left a few days ago and turned around and came back.

Additionally, one of the relatives in one article was quoted as saying that the family employed a full time housekeeper. Here's a young woman , with no job, children in school, and the family is paying the wages,taxes and social security for a full time housekeeper? Jason had a good job, but this is not Donald Trump.

I'm beginning to guess that MM was so ill again, that the family was helping JC with her. I think the days curled up in bed...described by KM...would mean they would need a housekeeper to have decent living conditions for the family. I think the excessive soending mentioned in the court docs...was MM when she was manic.

I think she continued to have severe psychological problems and JC and her family were trying to deal. But once JC was dead, like Cindy Anthony, the first impulse was to save their child.

In my theory, the children of JC receive little regard for their safety...they'd deal with that later. First save Molly and the family secret.

 

[Electric Sheep]

I am starting to see some small pieces of the puzzle come together for me. Let's start, with the fact that Mollys parents seem to travel with the family so often and that there is a finished suite downstairs for their use.

They had been there during Jason's brothers visit and had just left a few days ago and turned around and came back.

Additionally, one of the relatives in one article was quoted as saying that the family employed a full time housekeeper. Here's a young woman , with no job, children in school, and the family is paying the wages,taxes and social security for a full time housekeeper? Jason had a good job, but this is not Donald Trump.

I'm beginning to guess that MM was so ill again, that the family was helping JC with her. I think the days curled up in bed...described by KM...would mean they would need a housekeeper to have decent living conditions for the family. I think the excessive soending mentioned in the court docs...was MM when she was manic.

I think she continued to have severe psychological problems and JC and her family were trying to deal. But once JC was dead, like Cindy Anthony, the first impulse was to save their child.

In my theory, the children of JC receive little regard for their safety...they'd deal with that later. First save Molly and the family secret.

That sounds very plausible to me.

 

[Shadow Girl]

It boggles my mind that Jason could be described simply as "lost" in these pathetic quests for political intervention. Did he wander off at the mall, leaving MM and the children bewildered and then Shipwash stepped in and yanked the kids?

Lost? This is the biggest lie of all! How about telling these politicans that your niece and brother-in-law beat him mercilessly until there was no life left in him. He wasn't lost...his blood and tissue stained the bedroom, his corpse lay there right where MM and TM murdered him!

Jason was "lost." This is what the family is really pushing. "Forget about Jason, Forget about his stated wishes for HIS children. Forget about his money and his possessions that we greed-grabbed. Jason is lost. He doesn't matter. Forget him."

Pity US. Give us our lives back. And his kids. And his money.

There....I just wrote the Defense's opening statement.

Great post. It's like Jason didn't exist. He was deleted from their lives. They wanted to move on with their lives. Oh and deleted from Facebook. No acknowledgement or sorrow of what they did.

 

[emmalpage81]

I wonder if either Tom or Molly will take the stand. I would guess their lawyers would advise against it, but I could see Molly insisting that she will. Tom would know better, I believe.

Molly on the stand would almost certainly blow her case out of the water.

I truly believe that MM is her own worst enemy and will not take the advice of her Counsel. I see her wanting to take that stand and have her day heard, which is her right, but i do not see it favoring her at all.

 

[emmalpage81]

I am starting to see some small pieces of the puzzle come together for me. Let's start, with the fact that Mollys parents seem to travel with the family so often and that there is a finished suite downstairs for their use.

They had been there during Jason's brothers visit and had just left a few days ago and turned around and came back.

Additionally, one of the relatives in one article was quoted as saying that the family employed a full time housekeeper. Here's a young woman , with no job, children in school, and the family is paying the wages,taxes and social security for a full time housekeeper? Jason had a good job, but this is not Donald Trump.

I'm beginning to guess that MM was so ill again, that the family was helping JC with her. I think the days curled up in bed...described by KM...would mean they would need a housekeeper to have decent living conditions for the family. I think the excessive soending mentioned in the court docs...was MM when she was manic.

I think she continued to have severe psychological problems and JC and her family were trying to deal. But once JC was dead, like Cindy Anthony, the first impulse was to save their child.

In my theory, the children of JC receive little regard for their safety...they'd deal with that later. First save Molly and the family secret.

Very interesting I had not seen about the housekeeper, but on the whole; considering the KM information it is very much plausible. One must ask when do they stop covering for their child?

All post are my own opinions.

 

[stmarysmead]

I truly believe that MM is her own worst enemy and will not take the advice of her Counsel. I see her wanting to take that stand and have her day heard, which is her right, but i do not see it favoring her at all.

I agree, Emma. I believe her criminal lawyers tried to cover for her, but I think she was in a manic stage when the house was emptied. She probably arranged that sell on her own. The last thing her attorneys needed was another legal complication. And she certainly did not need more legal bills. The Slayer Statute will determine possession, so it was a very public move that hurt her in the public's perception...and gained her nothing publicly.

And remember, if a Wrongful Death suit is filed, even if she is acquitted, the Slayer Statute can be invoked then. So it was an impulsive but foolish move on her part.

 

[emmalpage81]

Some people are addicted to their very own emotionally-charged argument ... Co-dependent dysfunctional relationships go hand in hand with a love bully...and for some that is why it is difficult to escape... But I think you and your mum have a point here...if I was sitting on the jury I would consider Molly's mean mouth as needlessly antagonistic and not characteristic of a suffering victim...Almost like she was baiting him...IMO

Agree, to an extent. However what we know is that when she baited him, at least on the Friday, he walked away he did not engage. We have nothing to say that he engaged at 3am, with a sedative like substance in his system, when he died.

 

[stmarysmead]

Very interesting I had not seen about the housekeeper, but on the whole; considering the KM information it is very much plausible. One must ask when do they stop covering for their child?

All post are my own opinions.

That is the key question. Now that a man is dead, I've wondered...if TM is convicted and MM goes free...how does SM cope with her now notorious...but free...daughter? How can she be sure MM won't hurt someone again?

 

[emmalpage81]

I agree, Emma. I believe her criminal lawyers tried to cover for her, but I think she was in a manic stage when the house was emptied. She probably arranged that sell on her own. The last thing her attorneys needed was another legal complication. And she certainly did not need more legal bills. The Slayer Statute will determine possession, so it was a very public move that hurt her in the public's perception...and gained her nothing publicly.

And remember, if a Wrongful Death suit is filed, even if she is acquitted, the Slayer Statute can be invoked then. So it was an impulsive but foolish move on her part.

It almost seems that she is so used to people covering for her that she doesn't care. It's someone else's problem. It is only when certain things happen, such as children or belongings being taken from her that she lashes out, like a petulant child, with little regard for those around her.

 

[emmalpage81]

That is the key question. Now that a man is dead, I've wondered...if TM is convicted and MM goes free...how does SM cope with her now notorious...but free...daughter? How can she be sure MM won't hurt someone again?

Her husband has already confessed to hitting him with a baseball bat, they must have some indication that things may go wrong. Local law enforcement were not swayed by his being ex-FBI we know that MM is quick with her own stories regardless of whether they make any sense whatsoever (oylmpic swimmer, penpal, gave birth to SC etc) she has tro know that this may go bad for her. Maybe that is why they are liquidizing assets. She will have her 50% safe as she is not implicated in any crime.

I'm not sure how she deals with MM if she goes free. One would hope we do not have to deal with that scenario.

 

[kittythehare]

I agree, Emma. I believe her criminal lawyers tried to cover for her, but I think she was in a manic stage when the house was emptied. She probably arranged that sell on her own. The last thing her attorneys needed was another legal complication. And she certainly did not need more legal bills. The Slayer Statute will determine possession, so it was a very public move that hurt her in the public's perception...and gained her nothing publicly.

And remember, if a Wrongful Death suit is filed, even if she is acquitted, the Slayer Statute can be invoked then. So it was an impulsive but foolish move on her part.

Other possibility is that she was advised by her lawyers to do it.
Molly was a nobody, a blow-in.. there was and is very little interest or knowledge of this murder in NC.
But, her defence want a change of venue because they know that for some reason she will unlikely be acquitted in NC.
I do not know what those reasons might be, actually.
So they must change venue and need to create a reason for the change.

And she is back in the limelight complete with all her lovely high end designer gear.. media is biting again, Molly loves it and her lawyers are happy and they gush interviews with everyone who will listen to them, high or low end media, mostly latter.
Now one would imagine these 'learned men' would instead be debating the points of law with their peers in the law forums.. they are however absent, though other ongoing cases and laws are being discussed openly.

Our two dudes are instead trying to pull the wool over Nancy Grace, who isnt biting and somewhat humiliates them.. they lap that up too,
(I posted all the links and relevant transcripts here 24 hrs ago, btw in case anybody's interested in reading them)
Molly has brought the case into the most public arena possible.. a source of gossip.. and they call for venue change..

it would be comedic if it was not so indicative of the malice that forms the core theme of this case, from what we know so far..

 

[Electric Sheep]

http://www.pressherald.com/2012/02/07/taking-the-stand-a-balancing-act-for-defendants_2012-02-07/

"“You just have your client who can tell his side of the story,” he said, and witnesses can corroborate various aspects of it.

But if the story is not believable, a defendant who is found guilty can suffer in the sentencing for telling a “fairy tale,” DeGrinney said.

“Many judges will consider that a substantially aggravating factor,” he said."

 

[emmalpage81]

Other possibility is that she was advised by her lawyers to do it.
Molly was a nobody, a blow-in.. there was and is very little interest or knowledge of this murder in NC.
But, her defence want a change of venue because they know that for some reason she will unlikely be acquitted in NC.
I do not know what those reasons might be, actually.
So they must change venue and need to create a reason for the change.

And she is back in the limelight complete with all her lovely high end designer gear.. media is biting again, Molly loves it and her lawyers are happy and they gush interviews with everyone who will listen to them, high or low end media, mostly latter.
Now one would imagine these 'learned men' would instead be debating the points of law with their peers in the law forums.. they are however absent, though other ongoing cases and laws are being discussed openly.

Our two dudes are instead trying to pull the wool over Nancy Grace, who isnt biting and somewhat humiliates them.. they lap that up too,
(I posted all the links and relevant transcripts here 24 hrs ago, btw in case anybody's interested in reading them)
Molly has brought the case into the most public arena possible.. a source of gossip.. and they call for venue change..

it would be comedic if it was not so indicative of the malice that forms the core theme of this case, from what we know so far..

I would doubt it only because her estate lawyers would have advised her rather than the criminal lawyers. The criminal lawyers need her to keep up the charade of being a perfect mother ect as that looks good to a jury. Clearing out the home doesn't look good. It make her look bad, makes it looks like she had an agenda.

I know the old adage is all publicity is good publicity but, in the case of a murder trial, this is not the case.

I think this is why the criminal lawyers have pretty much taken over the civil aspect of the cases; she had a very well respected estate lawyer, yet the appeal has been hijacked by her criminal lawyer.

 

[kittythehare]

I would doubt it only because her estate lawyers would have advised her rather than the criminal lawyers. The criminal lawyers need her to keep up the charade of being a perfect mother ect as that looks good to a jury. Clearing out the home doesn't look good. It make her look bad, makes it looks like she had an agenda.

I know the old adage is all publicity is good publicity but, in the case of a murder trial, this is not the case.

I think this is why the criminal lawyers have pretty much taken over the civil aspect of the cases; she had a very well respected estate lawyer, yet the appeal has been hijacked by her criminal lawyer.

But her lawyers are making questionable and inaccurate comments on national media.. see all yesterdays' posts for evidence of this..They are clearly seeking publicity and are misleading the public in a manner that is verifiable.
Both sets of lawyers have been engaged from the beginning, it is likely they would communicate with eachother

She removed some facebook posts, the post where she called the court corrupt following her indictment being a case in point. It appears as though she was advised to do so. but all the media had published it anyhow..
She takes some advice but is by and large a loose cannon..