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

[fido]

I am sure they will be at the trial. I wouldn't take anything said by either side at the custody hearing for gospel. Desperate times, desperate means.

True enough but if Tracey gave this evidence under oath and it was a lie would she not have been charged with perjury? It was extremely relevant to the custody hearing, there were allegations that Molly had explosive rages which could be due to her not taking meds..(it was her own lawyer who said she hasn't taken meds in years).
My point is that if this was a blatant lie then her custody lawyers would have been all over it like a rash and cried foul. She had a lot to lose so a lie of this magnatude would have been pounced on at the custody hearing. It would have severely discredited the corbetts.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I have never heard any denial by MM lawyers that she had bi polar disorder. Either custody lawyers or criminal.

 

[lisette]

It's more like as Clerk he serves as judge of probate and some special proceedings...
http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/OCO/Clerk/ ...

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Yes, that was a good explanation of what Clerk of Court does. I know that it is an elected position and that you don't have to be a judge to hold that office.

 

[searchinGirl]

True enough but if Tracey gave this evidence under oath and it was a lie would she not have been charged with perjury? It was extremely relevant to the custody hearing, there were allegations that Molly had explosive rages which could be due to her not taking meds..(it was her own lawyer who said she hasn't taken meds in years).
My point is that if this was a blatant lie then her custody lawyers would have been all over it like a rash and cried foul. She had a lot to lose so a lie of this magnatude would have been pounced on at the custody hearing. It would have severely discredited the corbetts.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I have never heard any denial by MM lawyers that she had bi polar disorder. Either custody lawyers or criminal.

I'm not sure any evidence from the civil proceedings can be used in the criminal trial and as far as what evidence can be introduced for consideration, superior court and district court have different rules of procedure...as I recall (I don't have the link handy), Mr. Shipwash based his ruling on JCs will and expressed desire to have his children returned to Ireland...it's hard to say if anyone's testimony swayed him in either direction...but perjury is a criminal charge and there in civil court I'm not sure how to bring charges.. IMO Mr. Shipwash's order that was stayed smacks of Molly already being found guilty of murder....I'm not surprised it was stayed...IMO

 

[searchinGirl]

Yes, that was a good explanation of what Clerk of Court does. I know that it is an elected position and that you don't have to be a judge to hold that office.

I've been before a Clerk of Court in NC twice...to be honest with you, evidence didn't matter rather it was arguments of interpretation of the law...seemed kinda fast and loose...

 

[wildebeest]

Not to be a pest, I'm looking for info/verification of SM's absence from court hearings in this case. I can't fathom being in my sixties going along with day to day living & next thing I know my husband & daughter are charged with murder of my son-in-law. My life has become Topsy turvy, future plans for retirement have been destroyed. I can no longer see J & S. Where does my life go from here?

pet friend---I don't think Sharon has been seen lately, which is probably a calculated move, so as to distance herself from the seriousness of this crime.

IMHO

 

[kittythehare]

I'm not sure any evidence from the civil proceedings can be used in the criminal trial and as far as what evidence can be introduced for consideration, superior court and district court have different rules of procedure...as I recall (I don't have the link handy), Mr. Shipwash based his ruling on JCs will and expressed desire to have his children returned to Ireland...it's hard to say if anyone's testimony swayed him in either direction...but perjury is a criminal charge and there in civil court I'm not sure how to bring charges.. IMO Mr. Shipwash's order that was stayed smacks of Molly already being found guilty of murder....I'm not surprised it was stayed...IMO

He did NOT base it upon Jason Corbett's will and he stated clearly that even in the absence of the will, he would have returned the children to Ireland as they are Irish citizens.
Basically theres an estate.. the division of the state has been delayed because one of the stakeholders has been indicted for the murder of the estate holder.
So,nobody touches anything until the courts either find her guilty or acquits her.
As usual she could not wait and went a grabbing. IMO this should have been a criminal case from the outset- theft from the estate of the late Jason Corbett,
Theft of assets that are rightfully owned by his real next of kin, his two children.
Electric sheep, it is in the court transcript dated March 9 that Jason Corbett paid cash for the house and a list of some of his other many outlays.
Thats a COURT TRANSCRIPT, not makey uppy or fudged journalism. It is a stated fact

 

[stephanddoody]

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

page 7 point j is where it states Jason paid for the house with cash. Also on that page there is a point stated that Molly bought a Honda Pilot. It says she may have paid for it a credit card in her own name which is linked to the joint bank account. She refused to give her credit card statements to the court. Does this mean this will be part of the estate ? So does she continue to take from Jason even after his death. Why did she have to get another car ? The car she had is driving fine it's only 5 years old . It also states on that same page she allowed her brother and father drive it so why the need for a new car and what was in her credit statements and those of her parents she didn't want uncovered . I'm sure we will find out at the trial but it was a perfect chance to prove herself . I would most definitely think some of the findings of the civil court will be used . I also think Mollys lawyers will bring up statements made in the custody trial if they can prove the statements to be untrue . Imo

 

[Logic-lady]

He is not a judge...He is Clerk of Superior Court.

Nevertheless, in his position of presiding over cases the point of the post still stands.

 

[Logic-lady]

I'm not sure any evidence from the civil proceedings can be used in the criminal trial and as far as what evidence can be introduced for consideration, superior court and district court have different rules of procedure...as I recall (I don't have the link handy), Mr. Shipwash based his ruling on JCs will and expressed desire to have his children returned to Ireland...it's hard to say if anyone's testimony swayed him in either direction...but perjury is a criminal charge and there in civil court I'm not sure how to bring charges.. IMO Mr. Shipwash's order that was stayed smacks of Molly already being found guilty of murder....I'm not surprised it was stayed...IMO

Not sure if this is the link you mean SearchinGirl but here's the link to Brian Shipwash's ruling on custody - https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/corbett-order.pdf

It does state quite clearly that 'The Court concludes that appointing applicant Molly Corbett instead of applicants Tracey and David Lynch would not be in minor child ....'s best interests in light of all facts, evidence, and relevent statutory authority'. This would seem to state that there was further evidence taken into consideration prior to the judgement being made. I'm sure that on one of the Nancy Grace interviews it was stated that Jack and Sarah's DSS interviews played a key part in the judge's swift action to remove them from Molly but I can't remember which one exactly...I'll have a look through and see if I can find it.

Also, on re-reading this, it is interesting to note that one of the facts of law stated on the order is that 'Pursuant to NCGS 35A-1201(6), "Minors, because they are legally incompetent to transact business or give consent for most purposes, need responsible, accountable adults to handle property or benefits to which they are entitled..." I wonder how quickly Molly had started to remove money from the joint account, and if this ultimately worked against her in her bid for custody. It would certainly have been a red flag given the circumstances under which the order was made if so.

 

[searchinGirl]

Just came across this info re Judge Brian Shipwash - http://www.brianshipwash.com/projects.html

Interesting to note that the judge the defense are trying to get removed, seems to be actively engaged with the issue of domestic violence in Davidson County. One could presume if he is actively pioneering system reform on the issue, he would certainly be engaged with the issue in relation to any cases which come before him.

bumping this up for you Logic-lady...I think as Clerk he probably oversees everything administrative...and observes everything in-between...

 

[searchinGirl]

Not sure if this is the link you mean SearchinGirl but here's the link to Brian Shipwash's ruling on custody - https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/corbett-order.pdf

It does state quite clearly that 'The Court concludes that appointing applicant Molly Corbett instead of applicants Tracey and David Lynch would not be in minor child ....'s best interests in light of all facts, evidence, and relevent statutory authority'. This would seem to state that there was further evidence taken into consideration prior to the judgement being made. I'm sure that on one of the Nancy Grace interviews it was stated that Jack and Sarah's DSS interviews played a key part in the judge's swift action to remove them from Molly but I can't remember which one exactly...I'll have a look through and see if I can find it.

Also, on re-reading this, it is interesting to note that one of the facts of law stated on the order is that 'Pursuant to NCGS 35A-1201(6), "Minors, because they are legally incompetent to transact business or give consent for most purposes, need responsible, accountable adults to handle property or benefits to which they are entitled..." I wonder how quickly Molly had started to remove money from the joint account, and if this ultimately worked against her in her bid for custody. It would certainly have been a red flag given the circumstances under which the order was made if so.

thank you this is the one I remember reading and I guess I thought of what the parents wanted for their children as translating to their will in my mind...he did focus on the children's Irish citizenship...but I was trying to make the point about the evidence being used at trial...I have no doubt that Molly moved quickly to probate Jason's estate as his surviving spouse...and that's how and why she got it before the court so quickly...I asked before if she knew about his will before he died?...I'm only curious because maybe she would have done things differently had she known? did she expect the Lynchs to show up here and contest her?...she obviously relinquished his body pretty quick...and yet she wouldn't let them see the children because why?... IMO for that reason alone, she presented herself as uncaring and unstable like she couldn't see anything coming... but my point is I don't think evidence presented to a probate judge can be used against a defendant in a criminal trial...I found this article here that talks about NC's "trial de novo"...the way I'm reading it not only is there a "start fresh" aspect for the criminal proceedings, there is also that aspect to her property appeal being heard in superior court... http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/trial-de-novo/

 

[pet friend]

I keep reading & in some instances rereading posts. I must have missed something written in regards to the lighting in the master bedroom. In the 911 call where Thomas Martens talks about wiping blood off of Jason's face, he comments on what a mess he is. I can't imagine the mb was light when the attack took place. When ems arrived what was there observation? I understand answers to these questions may not come until trial.

 

[Logic-lady]

thank you this is the one I remember reading and I guess I thought of what the parents wanted for their children as translating to their will in my mind...he did focus on the children's Irish citizenship...but I was trying to make the point about the evidence being used at trial...I have no doubt that Molly moved quickly to probate Jason's estate as his surviving spouse...and that's how and why she got it before the court so quickly...I asked before if she knew about his will before he died?...I'm only curious because maybe she would have done things differently had she known? did she expect the Lynchs to show up here and contest her?...she obviously relinquished his body pretty quick...and yet she wouldn't let them see the children because why?... IMO for that reason alone, she presented herself as uncaring and unstable like she couldn't see anything coming... but my point is I don't think evidence presented to a probate judge can be used against a defendant in a criminal trial...I found this article here that talks about NC's "trial de novo"...the way I'm reading it not only is there a "start fresh" aspect for the criminal proceedings, there is also that aspect to her property appeal being heard in superior court... http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/trial-de-novo/

I'm not sure if Molly knew about the will, I presume she would have known that there was a will in place but perhaps not what it contained? IMO, Molly was playing a long game, she was trying to 'encourage' Jason to allow a step-parent adoption with the intention of divorcing him and challenging him for custody of the children. Something happened that night to dramatically change that plan, whether that was an argument that got out of hand, or Jason simply stating he had had enough I'm not sure we'll ever know, but I think the level of rage evident in the attack highlights that something snapped in Molly that night.

I have been trying to understand how/why both Molly and her extended family could behave in such a cold and heartless manner in the aftermath. Surely they would understand how this would be perceived by the general public. The only conclusion I can come to is that they realised the severity of the situation they found themselves in and so they needed to close ranks and establish themselves as the survivors of the situation, by refusing the extended family access to the children, they were in effect establishing a nucleus of their own, one which had survived a trauma together. This instantaneously placed the children on their side of the fence and created a barrier to anyone associated with Jason. This would give them more legitimacy and strengthen their ultimate defense. See this statement released by Mike Earnest on behalf of the family - http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...-5590-986d-5d65641a2dea/55d540217a60a.pdf.pdf

Most people would find it unusual that one week after losing their father in such traumatic circumstances that the children would be 'excited' to start the new school term or happily 'moving on' with their lives. There is no mention of grief, or regret, simply a race to retain possession of the children.

Really interesting article re the 'trial de novo', it is difficult to establish what information can be used where, as there are so many different cases in relation to the same people going on in different courts at the same time. It was my understanding that the criminal proceedings are a blank canvas, it will consist of statements and evidence garnered to present to a new judge and jury and so, even if testimony was submitted by people for the custody hearings, they would have to be called as new witnesses in the criminal proceedings and restate their testimony. Do you know if the appeal re the property is being appealed on a 'trail de novo' basis? It would certainly be interesting to see how it progresses if this is the case.

 

[Logic-lady]

I keep reading & in some instances rereading posts. I must have missed something written in regards to the lighting in the master bedroom. In the 911 call where Thomas Martens talks about wiping blood off of Jason's face, he comments on what a mess he is. I can't imagine the mb was light when the attack took place. When ems arrived what was there observation? I understand answers to these questions may not come until trial.

I don't recall any mention of the scene anywhere so far in this case, other than the fact that the scene was not consistent with a 'Donnybrook' as attested by TM. I would imagine that whichever way you interpret the events of the night, you could assume that once TM came upon the scene, the first thing he would have done was switch on the lights if he was concerned about what was happening in the room when he entered?

It would appear, certainly by the point of the 911 call, that the lights were on in the room. I'm intrigued to know why this point is of interest to you?

 

[pet friend]

I looked up the time of dawn breaking in nc on 8-2-15. It was @ 6:05 am. I'm thinking that the attack by MM &TM was done stealthily before Jason had a chance to defend himself. He had no chance against the brutality due to the catastrophic wounds from the baseball bat & paving stone. At what point we're lights turned on? How can TM describe how Jason looked without lights? With first responders on their way what was occurring just before their arrival? As I have noted these questions may have to wait until trial & crime scene reconstruction. The scene would have been photographed extensively. Imoo

..

 

[pet friend]

Please pardon my redundant last few posts. At times my add kicks in w/my senioritis.

 

[searchinGirl]

Do you know if the appeal re the property is being appealed on a 'trail de novo' basis? It would certainly be interesting to see how it progresses if this is the case.

the article says it's an appeal by right and not by process so perhaps so... http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/trial-de-novo/ ...

it's hard to say why the Martens family treated the Corbett family so poorly but I don't think it infers a consciousness of guilt legally speaking no matter how morally reprehensible it is...it could be they view TM as their leader and feel like he is the real victim here...

this is what is bothering me...

http://myfox8.com/2016/04/06/attorn...er-case-citing-concerns-with-sheriffs-office/

"She's innocent," Holton said. "She doesn't deserve even to be charged. But much less to be subject to this level of harassment."

if he thinks she doesn't deserve to be charged, then is he saying there is no evidence Molly struck any blows?...

 

[searchinGirl]

I looked up the time of dawn breaking in nc on 8-2-15. It was @ 6:05 am. I'm thinking that the attack by MM &TM was done stealthily before Jason had a chance to defend himself. He had no chance against the brutality due to the catastrophic wounds from the baseball bat & paving stone. At what point we're lights turned on? How can TM describe how Jason looked without lights? With first responders on their way what was occurring just before their arrival? As I have noted these questions may have to wait until trial & crime scene reconstruction. The scene would have been photographed extensively. Imoo

..

I'm pretty sure it was 3:04am...on Sunday morning ... maybe misunderstanding you...

 

[pet friend]

I did not clarify what I meant-approximately 3hrs from the 911 call to daylight.

 

[Logic-lady]

the article says it's an appeal by right and not by process so perhaps so... http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/trial-de-novo/ ...

it's hard to say why the Martens family treated the Corbett family so poorly but I don't think it infers a consciousness of guilt legally speaking no matter how morally reprehensible it is...it could be they view TM as their leader and feel like he is the real victim here...

this is what is bothering me...

http://myfox8.com/2016/04/06/attorn...er-case-citing-concerns-with-sheriffs-office/

"She's innocent," Holton said. "She doesn't deserve even to be charged. But much less to be subject to this level of harassment."

if he thinks she doesn't deserve to be charged, then is he saying there is no evidence Molly struck any blows?...

In my opinion, Holton is stating Molly's innocence on the basis that the actions they took were 'justified and necessary' to deal with the situation in which they found themselves on the night in question, rather than she is innocent of any action on the night. Molly has already admitted to striking Jason in interviews with the police so I would doubt they would try to change that account at this stage as it would challenge her credibility.

My issue with the harrassment statement is that once again there is no level of responsibility or accountability placed on Molly (or her defense team it seems) that their actions (constant FB posts, media and television interviews etc) could have attributed to the level of harrassment received by her. Anyone knows that to post anything publicly online leaves you open to trolls and bullies, to post personal contact details is an absolute no-no, but yet, they claim that Molly is being harrassed as though people are personally seeking her out to do so. I find it interesting that even on this point, they seem reluctant to place any form of responsibility on her, instead they continue to paint the picture of the virtuous oppressed victim.