GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #4

[stmarysmead]

I wonder could they request it through the courts if relevant, as Molly has done with the kids counselling notes?

They can request it. But whether the jury gets to hear it is up to the judge. I'm very confused about how much leeway the law allows.

The case I was close to was also in NC. The accuser had a medical record inches thick. She was an addict, alcoholic, and suffered from bi-polar disease. The media built a narrative that she was a brilliant young student...near perfect. We understood that her medical history could not be brought in at trial because of HIPPA laws.

The case never got to trial...the DA was disbarred. One year later she set fire to an apartment her children were in. A few years later, she murdered her then-boyfriend. But the jury would never have been told how unstable she was. And the media projected such a false narrative!

This is what makes me uncertain. But I have no real knowledge of the law on this subject.

 

[Logic-lady]

They can request it. But whether the jury gets to hear it is up to the judge. I'm very confused about how much leeway the law allows.

The case I was close to was also in NC. The accuser had a medical record inches thick. She was an addict, alcoholic, and suffered from bi-polar disease. The media built a narrative that she was a brilliant young student...near perfect. We understood that her medical history could not be brought in at trial because of HIPPA laws.

The case never got to trial...the DA was disbarred. One year later she set fire to an apartment her children were in. A few years later, she murdered her then-boyfriend. But the jury would never have been told how unstable she was. And the media projected such a false narrative!

This is what makes me uncertain. But I have no real knowledge of the law on this subject.

I guess the prosecution would need to prove that her medical history was pertinent to the case, as in she is claiming self defense so her medical history is irrelevant. (in the same way that often someone being tried for murder will not have their violent history made privy to the jurors as they need to find them guilty of this crime alone rather than being influenced by his background) Hopefully, the fact that they have not requested it implies they believe they have a strong enough case without bringing in her mental health issues.

 

[kittythehare]

Following an off site discussion regarding whether crime scene photos will be made available to jurors or public, I found these links ,

https://benchbook.sog.unc.edu/sites/benchbook.sog.unc.edu/files/pdf/Rule 403 Mar 2015.pdf

this from 2013, not sure it has not been revised https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0364.htm

 

[Truthalways]

Following an off site discussion regarding whether crime scene photos will be made available to jurors or public, I found these links ,

https://benchbook.sog.unc.edu/sites/benchbook.sog.unc.edu/files/pdf/Rule 403 Mar 2015.pdf

this from 2013, not sure it has not been revised https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0364.htm

1st link wouldn't work for me 2nd link did

Would never have even imagined there would be laws governing the crime scene photos as evidence.

Also didn't think about it until logic lady's post that the self defence could be distanced from MM medical history.

Both posts New info for me.



Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[kittythehare]

1st link wouldn't work for me 2nd link did

Would never have even imagined there would be laws governing the crime scene photos as evidence.

Also didn't think about it until logic lady's post that the self defence could be distanced from MM medical history.

Both posts New info for me.



Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

from this link https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0364.htm

Autopsy Report

[FONT=&quot]North Carolina[/FONT] [FONT=&quot](N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 132-1.8 and 130A-389.1)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Autopsy report text (including findings and interpretations) is a public record. Autopsy photos, video, or audio are not public records, but may be examined at reasonable times and under reasonable supervision. [/FONT]

Re 911 transcripts and tapes;

[FONT=&quot]North Carolina[/FONT] [FONT=&quot](NC Stat. § 132-1.4 (c))[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]911 calls are public records, except for contents revealing the caller[/FONT][FONT=&quot]'[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s natural voice, name, address, phone number, or other identifying information.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]To protect a caller[/FONT][FONT=&quot]'[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s identity, the contents of a 911 call may be released as a written transcript (or altered to protect his or her identity).[/FONT]

 

[Electric Sheep]

Interesting point, it may well go some way towards explaining why some of her supporters so vehemently believe that to be the case also. Do you believe she would be able to carry on the delusion right up to this point or is there a question in your mind as to whether she should have gone with an incapacitated mental health defense?

I don't know how long a delusion can last. My friend was treated for psychosis on several occasions, which seemed to get rid of the delusions.

I doubt Molly could use it as a defense, even if she did have delusions. I am merely speculating based on personal experience. Just wondering if it is possible that she was having a psychotic break and Jason called her parents to "talk her down" (which would not work in my experience).

 

[kittythehare]

https://benchbook.sog.unc.edu/sites/benchbook.sog.unc.edu/files/pdf/Rule 403 Mar 2015.pdf

From above Page 12
State v. Smith, 359 N.C. 199, 209-10 (2005) (basis of expert’s opinionthat defendant’s cocaine dependency impaired his ability to reason, plan,and think was properly excluded where basis included defendant’s ownstatements; defendant’s self-serving statements were the only evidenceof cocaine use on the day in question; the trial court found that the jurywould have difficulty following a limiting instruction and understanding thatthe statements were not offered for their truth).

 

[stephanddoody]

I'm not sure that Mollys mental health records and medical records wouldn't have be requested in fact I'm nearly sure they would be they would be totally relevant . I think we have only a minimal amount of information regarding the prosecutions plans for trial and all we have from defendants is they will claim self defence, Jason was a big drunk Irish man and Molly is the weak victim mother of the year material . We are not privy to the court transcripts in either the custody hearing, estate hearing or at the Pre trials . We don't have the transcript of Molly testifying at the custody hearing or the estate hearing we are just getting snippets here and there . Sn says in the custody hearing Molly admitted to suffering from depression on the stand she was there but we never saw that information or the testimony . My hope is that this is intentional. That maybe they dotted there I 's and crossed there t's because they knew all eyes would be on them . My hope is that American newspapers allowed Mollys lawyer to make public statements but didn't print inaccuracies because they weren't contacted to verify them by Jason's family or the prosecution. This was done for a reason . I think they succeeded when the trial wasn't moved from Davisoms county . . Maybe I'm being naive .

 

[stmarysmead]

Sometimes I don't understand, as an American, what American "justice" means anymore. If MM's history of instability is not admitted, why should the jury doubt her version of what happened? How can the jury be "fair" to all parties if such pertinent information is hidden from them?

 

[kittythehare]

Sometimes I don't understand, as an American, what American "justice" means anymore. If MM's history of instability is not admitted, why should the jury doubt her version of what happened? How can the jury be "fair" to all parties if such pertinent information is hidden from them?

This is completely off topic, I just found it and am reading it and I think you might enjoy it. I am not familiar with this old case but its very readable.. have a look if you have time, it was in NC is the only connection
heres the link http://freemarkcarver.com/timeline-scene-findings

 

[stmarysmead]

This is completely off topic, I just found it and am reading it and I think you might enjoy it. I am not familiar with this old case but its very readable.. have a look if you have time, it was in NC is the only connection
heres the link http://freemarkcarver.com/timeline-scene-findings

Thanks, Kitty, so glad you are back!

 

[searchinGirl]

Unfortunately the trial will inevitably bring with it endless theories designed to throw doubt into jurors' minds.

Perhaps it's a cultural difference between us, but IMO the idea of "endless theories designed to throw doubt into the jurors' minds" isn't going to happen, no disrespect intended. In North Carolina, there's first degree pre-meditated murder and then there's second degree malice murder with all lesser offences included. The Martens have their story of what happened. They made their statements to the police long ago.

The Prosecution presents one theory of the crime. The Defense rebuts it. So I guess in this case the theory is the story already told by the Martens. The Prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not act in self-defense; or failing in this, that the defendant was the aggressor with the intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm. The trouble with this, even without intent, is that JC & MM were married so determining the aggressor is near impossible to prove. There is doubt either way.

Just another theory But, he was found naked. It can't be ruled out they had sex and in the heat of passion, or after the fact, they began to argue and he began to choke her. Even if he had never done it before, she has a right to defend herself; and so does her father (have that right in defense of her) if it happened that way. Who is to say otherwise? Many haven't heard her version of events. IMO I can't see at all how the endless theories and speculation of Molly's provocative personality flaws prove Molly Murder. It borders on Tabloid Journalism IMO. So, there is doubt.

I think two witnesses for sure will be a forensic expert for each side that will interpret the Autopsy Report to reconstruct the blunt force trauma inflicted at the scene. The prosecution should have been working on their presentations and arguments all this time, matching their story to Jason's injuries; looking for that "couldn't have happened that way" moment in reconstructing the crime scene, and inconsistencies to prove untruthfulness. I know I've been waiting to hear it. But, they are waiting for someone to come up with it over the weekend? There is doubt there too.

The idea the prosecution isn't prepared and looking for endless suggestions about new theories just can't be true. IMO the prosecution's best case for a guilty verdict is voluntary manslaughter (self-defense w/excessive force). I mean, IMO the only reason I can think of for killing someone this bad is that he tried to kill her first. And, even there, I don't believe there was a duty to retreat being that this occurred in the home. So there is doubt.

The two outstanding motions that won't be decided until the trial begins have me scratching my head. If the one to strike the previous ruling of the children's medical evaluation is granted, then I don't see any reason why the defense wouldn't get a mistrial; I mean, it's a ruling that's already been granted and the defense is relying on it. Some legal mind here might be able to answer that for me but I don't see that motion being granted. Just think of the delay. IMO

The other one about Jack's interview in Ireland, and I get this is a sensitive subject, but even without hearing more, if I was on the Jury, it's clear to me he feels responsible for this mess. All of it. As though he might have had some control over it; as though he somehow believes he can still change the outcome. Kids are like that. Sad but true. Breaks my heart. Praying for this to be over soon. IMO

 

[stmarysmead]

You say:

The Prosecution presents one theory of the crime. The Defense rebuts it. So I guess in this case the theory is the story already told by the Martens. The "Prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not act in self-defense; or failing in this, that the defendant was the aggressor with the intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm. The trouble with this, even without intent, is that JC & MM were married so determining the aggressor is near impossible to prove. There is doubt either way."

I respectfully disagree.

Do you remember the Scott Peterson trial. No one could even prove they had a fight. But the prosecution had so much evidence of his lying and suspicious activity that...as one juror said... "Buh-bye Scotty"" and Scot Peterson is still in jail over 10 years later, appeals denied.

Furthermore, there would be no indictments if "determining the aggressor is hard to prove." That "doubt" is meaningless. Even if Jason were the aggressor, the state of NC does not allow in home executions. All they need to prove is that they went far beyond "stopping" him...indeed they continued until they executed him. Overkill. Not allowed. No doubt there.

As for "the only reason for killing someone this bad is that he tried to kill her first"...well, Read around this Website...people do heinous things out of jealousy, frustration, and yes, mental illness. Some people enjoy inflicting pain. The brutality done to Jason was done very close up and personal. The jury will consider how the killer could see the heinous pain she was inflicting ...each...and...every blow.

It is undisputed that Molly suffers from bipolar disease. Maginn's book describes how medication for a common infection could cause her pills not to work, until her mental,state switched to a chaotic one, overnight. Bipolar disease is not the flu...thatjust goes away. Molly mental health depended on maintenance from a large variety of medications. She was also an insomniac who sometimes went days without sleep! Think what sleep deprivation can do to the mental state of a normal person! How can any juror not look at the REAL Molly Martens and not think, with her history, her mental and physical problems, that she was a potential time bomb?

She could post a zillion phony FB posts...there is no doubt she is troubled. No doubt she is prone to rages, no doubt that she has a mental disorder that changes her personality on a dime, no doubt that she has insomnia at times that keeps her awake for days, no doubt that her husband lay dead from a MULTITUDE Of heinous injuries, his brains spattered on the wall..and the police say her story does not match the evidence.

Why doesn't her story match the evidence? We will find out.

If the criteria you set out, that anytime a corpse was found deceased in a bedroom, and no one could tell which spouse started the fight...that it created such powerful DOUBT...just think of all the trials that would never happen! The police would walk in the bedroom, remove the corpse...and say..."Good night, Ma'am."

This trial is about overkill and credibility.

 

[searchinGirl]

This trial is about overkill and credibility.

Just like I said it was. But it's hardly credible to be so angry about a persons guilt before the trial even starts. IMO

 

[kittythehare]

You say:

The Prosecution presents one theory of the crime. The Defense rebuts it. So I guess in this case the theory is the story already told by the Martens. The "Prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not act in self-defense; or failing in this, that the defendant was the aggressor with the intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm. The trouble with this, even without intent, is that JC & MM were married so determining the aggressor is near impossible to prove. There is doubt either way."

I respectfully disagree.

Do you remember the Scott Peterson trial. No one could even prove they had a fight. But the prosecution had so much evidence of his lying and suspicious activity that...as one juror said... "Buh-bye Scotty"" and Scot Peterson is still in jail over 10 years later, appeals denied.

Furthermore, there would be no indictments if "determining the aggressor is hard to prove." That "doubt" is meaningless. Even if Jason were the aggressor, the state of NC does not allow in home executions. All they need to prove is that they went far beyond "stopping" him...indeed they continued until they executed him. Overkill. Not allowed. No doubt there.

As for "the only reason for killing someone this bad is that he tried to kill her first"...well, Read around this Website...people do heinous things out of jealousy, frustration, and yes, mental illness. Some people enjoy inflicting pain. The brutality done to Jason was done very close up and personal. The jury will consider how the killer could see the heinous pain she was inflicting ...each...and...every blow.

It is undisputed that Molly suffers from bipolar disease. Maginn's book describes how medication for a common infection could cause her pills not to work, until her mental,state switched to a chaotic one, overnight. Bipolar disease is not the flu...thatjust goes away. Molly mental health depended on maintenance from a large variety of medications. She was also an insomniac who sometimes went days without sleep! Think what sleep deprivation can do to the mental state of a normal person! How can any juror not look at the REAL Molly Martens and not think, with her history, her mental and physical problems, that she was a potential time bomb?

She could post a zillion phony FB posts...there is no doubt she is troubled. No doubt she is prone to rages, no doubt that she has a mental disorder that changes her personality on a dime, no doubt that she has insomnia at times that keeps her awake for days, no doubt that her husband lay dead from a MULTITUDE Of heinous injuries, his brains spattered on the wall..and the police say her story does not match the evidence.

Why doesn't her story match the evidence? We will find out.

If the criteria you set out, that anytime a corpse was found deceased in a bedroom, and no one could tell which spouse started the fight...that it created such powerful DOUBT...just think of all the trials that would never happen! The police would walk in the bedroom, remove the corpse...and say..."Good night, Ma'am."

This trial is about overkill and credibility.

I think you're right, it is about overkill, extreme violence and credibility.
I remember us analysing the descriptions under law-
heinous
atrocious
and cruel.
These came from those who know so much more about the manner in which Jason Corbett died.
I remember some of the terms suggesting he was at least in some pain, so conscious for part of it, thus cruelty.

I too frequently wonder at the nature of the spirit that is capable of inflicting such extreme violence on another human being, whether they would do it again and whether there exists even a screed of evidence that any remorse ever took place subsequently.

It is quite astounding. I wonder too whether or not it was the first kill for this or these people..so blase..so 'get it over and move on asap', to the extent of denying his family access to his most precious children.
Utterly outrageous and thanks for bringing the point home so clearly.

 

[stmarysmead]

Just like I said it was. But it's hardly credible to be so angry about a persons guilt before the trial even starts. IMO

I will try to explain why I'm angry. I'm an American...if that matters...and my interest in this case began here. I'm very familiar with bipolar disease as someone in our extended family has a daughter who suffers from it. One day,at nineteen,they got a call from their daughter's college roommate that she was speaking gibberish. Inthe years that have followed, there have been hospitalizations, periods of calm, cycles of chaos, more hospitalizations. Getting the meds right seem to be tough. It's tragic for everyone, this young woman who has had this curse come upon her...but also her parents, who "lost" their healthy, happy daughter overnight. This is going to be a lifetime proposition. Their lives are very changed, limited even.

But they have taken responsibility. They adore their daughter but they would never allow her to undertake the care of little children, much less in a foreign country...even in one if her good periods when her meds are working.

The Martens seem to have just let Molly and her problems range free. How could they be sure that an insomniac on a cocktail of medicines could keep those precious little babies safe? They just let her go...and hoped for a good long spell of the medicines working.

That uncaring selfishness makes me furious. They were not even caring for THEIR child. They are educated, understand the ramifications of her illness. They just seem to want someone to take her off their hands.

I think Jason, like Keith Maginn, really tried to love and help Molly. He and his family have paid a terrible price for their caring and generous nature. Their kindness was repaid with immense cruelty. That makes me furious as well.

I am furious about the lying. I don't believe for a moment that Molly was ever abused. Her medicines probably failed her in the leadup to her crime. But the reason her story does not match the crime scene, is because, once again, the Martens are not willing to deal truthfully with her illness. They would prefer to annihilate the memory of a man who was exceedingly kind to them. This is beyond the pale in regards to cruelty.

I am furious that after seeing the Jason's battered corpse in that bedroom, after years of knowing all the chaos of their daughter's life...they fought to give her those children...alone in her custody! I can hardly speak of how angry that makes me. Do they ever think of anything other than "saving face" and capitulating to their sick daughter's moods?

Ahh, but the "wedding warning lie" was the topper. What a heinous lie to inflict on Mags family...what a heinous lie to throw at those children! No one can ever convince me that they "love" these children. They would destroy theur lives, with their self-serving lies that their dead Dad murdered their dead Mom.

There is no denying that was a flat out horrific lie. But it was also a teaching moment about the deranged character, the lack of credibility, and the cruelty of this "family."

And yes, I am angry at all the damage these liars and their lies have done. And I'm angry that those lies may inflict their dangerous daughter on another family, other children...if the jury is deceived.

These are my opinions only.

 

[Truthalways]

Perhaps it's a cultural difference between us, but IMO the idea of "endless theories designed to throw doubt into the jurors' minds" isn't going to happen, no disrespect intended. In North Carolina, there's first degree pre-meditated murder and then there's second degree malice murder with all lesser offences included. The Martens have their story of what happened. They made their statements to the police long ago.

The Prosecution presents one theory of the crime. The Defense rebuts it. So I guess in this case the theory is the story already told by the Martens. The Prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not act in self-defense; or failing in this, that the defendant was the aggressor with the intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm. The trouble with this, even without intent, is that JC & MM were married so determining the aggressor is near impossible to prove. There is doubt either way.

Just another theory But, he was found naked. It can't be ruled out they had sex and in the heat of passion, or after the fact, they began to argue and he began to choke her. Even if he had never done it before, she has a right to defend herself; and so does her father (have that right in defense of her) if it happened that way. Who is to say otherwise? Many haven't heard her version of events. IMO I can't see at all how the endless theories and speculation of Molly's provocative personality flaws prove Molly Murder. It borders on Tabloid Journalism IMO. So, there is doubt.

I think two witnesses for sure will be a forensic expert for each side that will interpret the Autopsy Report to reconstruct the blunt force trauma inflicted at the scene. The prosecution should have been working on their presentations and arguments all this time, matching their story to Jason's injuries; looking for that "couldn't have happened that way" moment in reconstructing the crime scene, and inconsistencies to prove untruthfulness. I know I've been waiting to hear it. But, they are waiting for someone to come up with it over the weekend? There is doubt there too.

The idea the prosecution isn't prepared and looking for endless suggestions about new theories just can't be true. IMO the prosecution's best case for a guilty verdict is voluntary manslaughter (self-defense w/excessive force). I mean, IMO the only reason I can think of for killing someone this bad is that he tried to kill her first. And, even there, I don't believe there was a duty to retreat being that this occurred in the home. So there is doubt.

The two outstanding motions that won't be decided until the trial begins have me scratching my head. If the one to strike the previous ruling of the children's medical evaluation is granted, then I don't see any reason why the defense wouldn't get a mistrial; I mean, it's a ruling that's already been granted and the defense is relying on it. Some legal mind here might be able to answer that for me but I don't see that motion being granted. Just think of the delay. IMO

The other one about Jack's interview in Ireland, and I get this is a sensitive subject, but even without hearing more, if I was on the Jury, it's clear to me he feels responsible for this mess. All of it. As though he might have had some control over it; as though he somehow believes he can still change the outcome. Kids are like that. Sad but true. Breaks my heart. Praying for this to be over soon. IMO

Respectfully no I don't think it's a cultural difference. I think it's more how one chooses to look at fact and evidence and apply their own personal experiences to them. I am looking at it from the murder victims view, The testaments to his character, his nature, his life pre murder and the nature of his death and I am doing so through the evidence that has come to light to date through authorities.

My experiences should tell me "poor woman" "he was a violent brute" " she was right to pummel him to death" "he doesn't matter as long as she defended herself" they should, if I took the attitude that all men are capable of DV it's never the females fault, the men are stronger, men are angrier and it would be understandable given my experiences. However as I said the other day abuse sees no gender whether it be verbal or physical. And I know this because I would never surround myself with only female victims for support because that would foster an unrealistic and toxic environment where this bias view of "men are the enemy" mentality which would muddy my views and affect future relationships. It works for some it doesn't for me.

So when this Murder happened I looked at MM with experience, I read her posts,I saw her behaviour and those around her and I thought are you a victim, have you been living your life walking on egg shells, insulted, degraded, financially abused, is your self confidence shattered, Have you been covering up to hide your abuse, have you checked out socially with friends and family, have you been forced to change your looks, are you a woman who felt scared of your partner. ?

She answered all this herself, not hearsay, not tabloids, in her own words. The answer was NO

The unlikely victim Jason, his behaviour, his nature, his actions and sadly his body at postmortem answered YES.

It's a disservice to victims of DV to ignore the signs simply because of gender. And its sadly a case in many DV story's where the abuser blames the victim. Even more so when she is supported to do so.

Moo






Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[Logic-lady]

Sometimes I don't understand, as an American, what American "justice" means anymore. If MM's history of instability is not admitted, why should the jury doubt her version of what happened? How can the jury be "fair" to all parties if such pertinent information is hidden from them?

Well I think to be fair, if the prosecution can call witnesses who would reference MM instabilities in prior relationships then the prosecution would 'open the door' for the background info to be admissible (and they could then request it) So for instance if KM is called to testify as to Molly's volatility in a previous relationship, and he states under oath that Molly was institutionalised for severe depression & bi-polar and on serious amounts of prescription medication, then the prosecution could legitimitely request Molly's medical history I believe, including any meds that she may currently be prescribed. I think this would be particularly relevant if the drug in Jason's system isn't his own Rx.

 

[Logic-lady]

Perhaps it's a cultural difference between us, but IMO the idea of "endless theories designed to throw doubt into the jurors' minds" isn't going to happen, no disrespect intended. In North Carolina, there's first degree pre-meditated murder and then there's second degree malice murder with all lesser offences included. The Martens have their story of what happened. They made their statements to the police long ago.

The Prosecution presents one theory of the crime. The Defense rebuts it. So I guess in this case the theory is the story already told by the Martens. The Prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not act in self-defense; or failing in this, that the defendant was the aggressor with the intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm. The trouble with this, even without intent, is that JC & MM were married so determining the aggressor is near impossible to prove. There is doubt either way.

Just another theory But, he was found naked. It can't be ruled out they had sex and in the heat of passion, or after the fact, they began to argue and he began to choke her. Even if he had never done it before, she has a right to defend herself; and so does her father (have that right in defense of her) if it happened that way. Who is to say otherwise? Many haven't heard her version of events. IMO I can't see at all how the endless theories and speculation of Molly's provocative personality flaws prove Molly Murder. It borders on Tabloid Journalism IMO. So, there is doubt.

I think two witnesses for sure will be a forensic expert for each side that will interpret the Autopsy Report to reconstruct the blunt force trauma inflicted at the scene. The prosecution should have been working on their presentations and arguments all this time, matching their story to Jason's injuries; looking for that "couldn't have happened that way" moment in reconstructing the crime scene, and inconsistencies to prove untruthfulness. I know I've been waiting to hear it. But, they are waiting for someone to come up with it over the weekend? There is doubt there too.

The idea the prosecution isn't prepared and looking for endless suggestions about new theories just can't be true. IMO the prosecution's best case for a guilty verdict is voluntary manslaughter (self-defense w/excessive force). I mean, IMO the only reason I can think of for killing someone this bad is that he tried to kill her first. And, even there, I don't believe there was a duty to retreat being that this occurred in the home. So there is doubt.

The two outstanding motions that won't be decided until the trial begins have me scratching my head. If the one to strike the previous ruling of the children's medical evaluation is granted, then I don't see any reason why the defense wouldn't get a mistrial; I mean, it's a ruling that's already been granted and the defense is relying on it. Some legal mind here might be able to answer that for me but I don't see that motion being granted. Just think of the delay. IMO

The other one about Jack's interview in Ireland, and I get this is a sensitive subject, but even without hearing more, if I was on the Jury, it's clear to me he feels responsible for this mess. All of it. As though he might have had some control over it; as though he somehow believes he can still change the outcome. Kids are like that. Sad but true. Breaks my heart. Praying for this to be over soon. IMO

I agree with much of what you say here, the forensics will be the forensics, each side will have their experts who will analyse the information found in that room and try to spin it in their favour or at least cast doubt on the opposing sides testimony. (I do think Molly's side will have an uphill battle here as it seems like a particularly brutal beating, but as I said before, some people will overlook the overkill on the basis of the self defense claim) I don't think we've heard the prosecutions version of what they think happened yet because they are saving it for trial, as they have with their entire case thus far, unlike the defense IMO.

For me, that is why Molly's behaviours and personality become so important for the trial. Molly is a personable person, even if you are to take KM's testimony as fact, then the defense could confidently put forward the case that despite this sketchy start in life Molly had found her niche, she had overcome all of these troubles to create a 'perfect' family life for herself. She is the all American girl-next-door, she comes from a good educated family, she is physically fit, she took on someone else's children as her own....could there be an easier person to defend in this case? She also understands how to play vulnerable. I've not read KM's book but from the snippets I've read on here it seems she is well versed in using emotional blackmail to get her own way. Her FB posts would definitely suggest the same. I am interested to know, when she is faced with losing this entire life that she has built and created, how she would react. For me, this is the source of the rage that night.

We haven't heard Molly's version of events yet, but I think we all have an inkling of what she is going to claim. I do find it incredibly strange that from the outset, she has worked so hard to get the public on side. She has taken such an aggressive stance on making sure she is perceived as the one and only victim in all of this (and I include the kids in this statement). She has done her utmost to turn public opinion not just of Jason, but of his entire family, against them - I find all of this unusual.

Has the original request for the submission of the kids interviews already been granted? I thought it was still undecided. I think if it is the case that is has already been submitted, they would need to submit both. I don't we will agree as to which is the truthful interview, but we can both agree that Jack feels responsible, and that is the biggest tragedy in all of this, when the child feels more responsible for what happened than the adults who are supposed to protect him.

 

[emmalpage81]

I agree with much of what you say here, the forensics will be the forensics, each side will have their experts who will analyse the information found in that room and try to spin it in their favour or at least cast doubt on the opposing sides testimony. (I do think Molly's side will have an uphill battle here as it seems like a particularly brutal beating, but as I said before, some people will overlook the overkill on the basis of the self defense claim) I don't think we've heard the prosecutions version of what they think happened yet because they are saving it for trial, as they have with their entire case thus far, unlike the defense IMO.

For me, that is why Molly's behaviours and personality become so important for the trial. Molly is a personable person, even if you are to take KM's testimony as fact, then the defense could confidently put forward the case that despite this sketchy start in life Molly had found her niche, she had overcome all of these troubles to create a 'perfect' family life for herself. She is the all American girl-next-door, she comes from a good educated family, she is physically fit, she took on someone else's children as her own....could there be an easier person to defend in this case? She also understands how to play vulnerable. I've not read KM's book but from the snippets I've read on here it seems she is well versed in using emotional blackmail to get her own way. Her FB posts would definitely suggest the same. I am interested to know, when she is faced with losing this entire life that she has built and created, how she would react. For me, this is the source of the rage that night.

We haven't heard Molly's version of events yet, but I think we all have an inkling of what she is going to claim. I do find it incredibly strange that from the outset, she has worked so hard to get the public on side. She has taken such an aggressive stance on making sure she is perceived as the one and only victim in all of this (and I include the kids in this statement). She has done her utmost to turn public opinion not just of Jason, but of his entire family, against them - I find all of this unusual.

Has the original request for the submission of the kids interviews already been granted? I thought it was still undecided. I think if it is the case that is has already been submitted, they would need to submit both. I don't we will agree as to which is the truthful interview, but we can both agree that Jack feels responsible, and that is the biggest tragedy in all of this, when the child feels more responsible for what happened than the adults who are supposed to protect him.

The motion to have the records released to the defence was granted. The argument now is if any or all can be produced during the hearing. We have two interviews by the children when in the custody of MM and her family which are contradictory. We then have the Skype interview JC gave from Ireland. My understanding is the prosecution say all should be excluded whilst the defence want the Dragonfly House one only included. If the interviews are all excluded; I do not think there is any ground for mistrial. I believe they will not be admitted as they are too unreliable.

All IMO