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

[emmalpage81]

Kitty, Truthalways as the two members who seem to have a good grasp on the medical side (it's all gibberish to me i'm afraid) the avulsion wound to JC. Could they have been caused by the bat? I was thinking as a metal smooth object it might be hard for this to basically rip parts of his hair, tissue etc off his scalp. Would this lean more to the rock / brick / paving slab which IMO would have a more jagged edge?

All IMO

 

[emmalpage81]

(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 thought overkill or excessive force negates a self defence claim? According to my understanding you must only use reasonable force; excessive force is not allowed. According to the North Carolina Pattern Jury Instructions (N.C.P.I.)—Criminal 308.45 it is stated:

Therefore I instruct you, if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed (name offense, including appropriate lesser included offenses),you may return a verdict of guilty only if the State has satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s action was not in self-defense; that is, that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the assault was necessary or appeared to be necessary to protect the defendant from death or serious bodily injury, or that the defendant used excessive force, or that the defendant was the aggressor. If you do not so find or have a reasonable doubt that the State has proved any of these things, then the defendant’s action would be justified by self-defense and it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.

Would that not mean that if excess force is proven; self defence falls?

All IMO

 

[Logic-lady]

I thought overkill or excessive force negates a self defence claim? According to my understanding you must only use reasonable force; excessive force is not allowed. According to the North Carolina Pattern Jury Instructions (N.C.P.I.)—Criminal 308.45 it is stated:

Therefore I instruct you, if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed (name offense, including appropriate lesser included offenses),you may return a verdict of guilty only if the State has satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s action was not in self-defense; that is, that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the assault was necessary or appeared to be necessary to protect the defendant from death or serious bodily injury, or that the defendant used excessive force, or that the defendant was the aggressor. If you do not so find or have a reasonable doubt that the State has proved any of these things, then the defendant’s action would be justified by self-defense and it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.

Would that not mean that if excess force is proven; self defence falls?

All IMO

I agree, I believe that is why they have introduced the theory that TM believed that Jason had already murdered Mags. This would mitigate the force used, as he would have reason to believe his own life was in grievous danger. Again, focusing on Jason's size, how would TM have calculated how much force was 'reasonable' to take him down and keep him down. Did he accidentally use too much force. You are relying on a jury to convict on a fact that is very hard to define, to convict on a circumstance that anyone could find themselves in - if you found yourself in a similar horrific circumstance, how would you determine in the heat of the moment how much force was enough force? If in the heat of the moment, with all of these thoughts rushing through your mind you hit too hard, would you deserve to be prosecuted for second degree murder?? Again, it is the emotive defense....put the jury in your shoes, show them how easily it could be one of them on the stand and they will find it harder to convict.

This is where the 911 call plays such an important role. I don't think there is a person who could listen to that tape who could find TM anything but cold and detached. If the defense present the theory that his FBI training had kicked in by this point and so he went into automatic FBI-mode it begs two questions - why did this automatic reaction to a stressful situation not kick in immediately as he entered the room? and two if he was in automatic FBI-mode why was the information relayed to the operator not clearer, more defined...there were catastrophic injuries here, he would have known the severity involved at the scene. Molly had been choked (and worse?) why did he not request any medical assistance for her etc.
All MOO.

 

[stmarysmead]

TM's lie about the wedding warning ...which the Defense probably wishes they'd never mentioned...does not fit with Mollys story of being abused. Because if TM really believed his son-in-law was possibly a murderer, the first time he laid a hand on Molly...what would they have done? Go cruising with him on his dime? Swan around the golf course with him? Mr FBI agent had the knowledge and connections to protect his daughter. He did nothing.

TM's excuse just does not make sense when aligned with MM's excuse.

 

[Truthalways]

Kitty, Truthalways as the two members who seem to have a good grasp on the medical side (it's all gibberish to me i'm afraid) the avulsion wound to JC. Could they have been caused by the bat? I was thinking as a metal smooth object it might be hard for this to basically rip parts of his hair, tissue etc off his scalp. Would this lean more to the rock / brick / paving slab which IMO would have a more jagged edge?

All IMO

Good question. Tried to read up on this last night. Curved linear is a term used in much of the head injuries along with linear avulsion injuries from what I've looked at so far are known to hold the shape of the weapon right through to soft tissue . I'm having a lot of doubt when connecting the bat to the injuries. I've even looked into curved pavers o see would this fit better but to no avail. Even at a high amount of force and speed behind the bat in particular its not making sense to me.

I will keep searching and back up my doubts when I find something that helps make more sense.

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[Logic-lady]

I thought overkill or excessive force negates a self defence claim? According to my understanding you must only use reasonable force; excessive force is not allowed. According to the North Carolina Pattern Jury Instructions (N.C.P.I.)—Criminal 308.45 it is stated:

Therefore I instruct you, if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed (name offense, including appropriate lesser included offenses),you may return a verdict of guilty only if the State has satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s action was not in self-defense; that is, that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the assault was necessary or appeared to be necessary to protect the defendant from death or serious bodily injury, or that the defendant used excessive force, or that the defendant was the aggressor. If you do not so find or have a reasonable doubt that the State has proved any of these things, then the defendant’s action would be justified by self-defense and it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.

Would that not mean that if excess force is proven; self defence falls?

All IMO

I would also be interested to see what the introduction of a second person into the scenario does in regards to the self defense claim. So one on one it is difficult to establish what force is being used...but two on one gives them both that breathing room that one of them should have recognised he was down and the threat had abated. (ie no need to keep hitting to be sure, there are two people who can take action if the threat resurfaces, one could call for help while the other protects them etc etc) Is there a case to be made that in the instance where two people are dealing with the threat that in essence there is a requirement for LESS force? Therefore the excessive force used in this case would have no basis as it was two on one?

 

[Truthalways]

I would also be interested to see what the introduction of a second person into the scenario does in regards to the self defense claim. So one on one it is difficult to establish what force is being used...but two on one gives them both that breathing room that one of them should have recognised he was down and the threat had abated. (ie no need to keep hitting to be sure, there are two people who can take action if the threat resurfaces, one could call for help while the other protects them etc etc) Is there a case to be made that in the instance where two people are dealing with the threat that in essence there is a requirement for LESS force? Therefore the excessive force used in this case would have no basis as it was two on one?

Your right and especially with TM fbi training. But it's much like the CPR MM trained TM we can assume in some way first aid trained for job and they didn't even turn Jason over to clear airway or move to recovery position before being prompted several minutes into 911 call.

If you are first aid trained that's instinctive, roll over listen for breaths watch the chest clear airway, cpr

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[Logic-lady]

Just came across this interesting article on the use of self defense as a defense in NC -

https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/statutory-felony-disqualification-self-defense/

Interestingly it notes that the 'jury may return verdict of voluntary manslaughter if the defendant kills in self-defense but was the aggressor without murderous intent or used excessive force.'

So the excessive force will definitely come into play in terms of the gravity of sentence handed down, therefore self defense alone is not a perfect defense, so even if the jury believed the Martens account of events, the excessive force used would require them to be convicted of the voluntary manslaughter charge. Voluntary manslaughter commands a minimum jail term in NC of 4 years.

 

[stephanddoody]

From what we know from the 911 Jason was lying flat faced on the ground . Molly was not underneath him so at some point he released his grip How did he come to be in that position? Even with the self defence scenario this doesn't explain away the overkill.

 

[stmarysmead]

I would also be interested to see what the introduction of a second person into the scenario does in regards to the self defense claim. So one on one it is difficult to establish what force is being used...but two on one gives them both that breathing room that one of them should have recognised he was down and the threat had abated. (ie no need to keep hitting to be sure, there are two people who can take action if the threat resurfaces, one could call for help while the other protects them etc etc) Is there a case to be made that in the instance where two people are dealing with the threat that in essence there is a requirement for LESS force? Therefore the excessive force used in this case would have no basis as it was two on one?

And sctually there was another adult able to call for help...Sharon. Unless they are claiming that she slept through the whole "donnybrook."

 

[stmarysmead]

I'm also puzzled how a child's bat wielded by an elderly man...could do such damage?
Do we know if the bat was wooden or aluminum?

 

[stephanddoody]

I'm also puzzled how a child's bat wielded by an elderly man...could do such damage?
Do we know if the bat was wooden or aluminum?

The warrant explains how Mr Martens said he was awoken by a disturbance, went into the master bedroom and “intervened with the use of an aluminium bat striking Jason Paul Corbett in the head”.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.iri...rding-of-911-call-released-1.2489393?mode=amp

Also in this link

According to search warrants, detectives seized the bat on August 2nd and it had blood and human hair on it.

 

[Truthalways]

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.iri...rding-of-911-call-released-1.2489393?mode=amp

Also in this link

Great, was looking for that!

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[stmarysmead]

I'd like to say a word in admiration to the friends, family and supporters of the Lynch family. What a dedicated and faithful army for justice they all have been! As the days turned to years, the same names continued to appear on the Justice for Jason page...offering never-ending comfort, kindness, hope and allegiance. It has been inspiring...to say the least.

Their dedication taught me a lot about Jason and his extended family. Their loyalty was borne out of love and respect for the real person they knew in Jason...for the real people they knew in that family. This wasn't about "causes", politics, their own pain, or social idelogy. The people who knew the Corbetts best...who knew Jason the best...stayed loyal over the years because they knew THE TRUTH of the fine character of this family. If Jason had had a local reputation as a bully, a wife beater, a potential murderer of Mags...there would not have been such devoted long term loyalty. There could not have been such a multitude of loving DAILY determination!

So to the Irish family and friends, to the NC workmates and friends, thank you for being our guides to the truth. No matter what happens in our crazy justice system, the Lynches will return home to raise Jason and Mags children in the cocoon of truth and love you created ...so evident on the J4J page.

Blessings on you all.

 

[Truthalways]

Abrasions are usually seen in accidents and assaults. Suicidal abrasions are rare. Abrasions have to be differentiated from: (1) Erosion of skin produced by ants. (2) Excoriations of the skin by excreta. (3) Pressure sores.

Medico-legal Importance:

They Indicates site of impact and direction of the force.They may be the only external signs of a serious internal injury.Patterned abrasions are helpful in connecting the crime with the object which produced them.The age of the injury can be known.In open wounds dirt, dust, grease or grit are usually present, which may connect the injuries to the scene of crime.Manner of injury may be known from its distribution: (a) In throttling, curved abrasions due to finger-nails are found on the neck. (b) In smothering, abrasions may be seen around the mouth and nose. (c) In sexual assaults, abrasions may be found on the breasts, genitals, inside of the thighs and around the anus. (d) Abrasions on the face or body of the assailant indicate a struggle.



***This is a line of legal importance that got me

(d) Abrasions on the face or body of the assailant indicate a struggle.


The search warrant states:

"Neither Thomas Michael Martens nor Molly Paige Corbett suffered any injuries about their person."





Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[Truthalways]

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/listen-distressing-911-call-molly-7138002


"In my opinion; the struggle described was not consistent with the evidence at the scene, particularly the master bedroom."

Were MM and Jason elsewhere like downstairs in the house when disagreement started he walks away from her up to the room starts to undress for bed she follows with paving/stone/ bat assault follows? Would explain why he was naked and it was obviously shock attack perhaps from behind?

The word " particularly" is throwing me off never noticed it before.


Moo

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[searchinGirl]

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

I'm linking to this article again. It's the one that describes the Judges original order, who talks about her right to a fair trial.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/irelan...betts-children-must-release-notes-425441.html

This is a link to the Hearsay rules in North Carolina.

http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_8C/Article_8.pdf

Exception 803 (4) excepts statements of Hearsay that were made for purposes of Medical Diagnoses. This is why I think the children's' statements at Dragonfly House will be allowed because I'm sure there is case precedent for doing so.

Say what you will. It appears to me that in the time she had the kids prior to relinquishing them, she was being advised about her defense. These interviews with the children were set up by Law Enforcement so they can't be attributed to anyone's manipulation; and, in the eyes of the Law they are the truth. Even if you don't believe them. IMO

 

[Logic-lady]

I'm linking to this article again. It's the one that describes the Judges original order, who talks about her right to a fair trial.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/irelan...betts-children-must-release-notes-425441.html

This is a link to the Hearsay rules in North Carolina.

http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_8C/Article_8.pdf

Exception 803 (4) excepts statements of Hearsay that were made for purposes of Medical Diagnoses. This is why I think the children's' statements at Dragonfly House will be allowed because I'm sure there is case precedent for doing so.

Say what you will. It appears to me that in the time she had the kids prior to relinquishing them, she was being advised about her defense. These interviews with the children were set up by Law Enforcement so they can't be attributed to anyone's manipulation; and, in the eyes of the Law they are the truth. Even if you don't believe them. IMO

There is precedent for medical records to be used as per the link you provided and so the information could in theory be used by the defense. The issue as I understand it is that there are two sets of interviews conducted by the same law enforcement teams with two sets of professional therapists with differing results. I am unsure how you can determine that one would be considered to be more truthful than the other. The defense will always claim that Jack was unduly influenced by his relations to recant his original statement, and equally, there is very large doubt regarding the initial statement when the investigating officers themselves suspected coaching. Who determines which is the more truthful?

 

[Truthalways]

I'm linking to this article again. It's the one that describes the Judges original order, who talks about her right to a fair trial.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/irelan...betts-children-must-release-notes-425441.html

This is a link to the Hearsay rules in North Carolina.

http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_8C/Article_8.pdf

Exception 803 (4) excepts statements of Hearsay that were made for purposes of Medical Diagnoses. This is why I think the children's' statements at Dragonfly House will be allowed because I'm sure there is case precedent for doing so.

Say what you will. It appears to me that in the time she had the kids prior to relinquishing them, she was being advised about her defense. These interviews with the children were set up by Law Enforcement so they can't be attributed to anyone's manipulation; and, in the eyes of the Law they are the truth. Even if you don't believe them. IMO

It was said in court that LE suspected by SM behaviour on the day of interview that it was reherced/cohersed. And yes they can suggest that their statements were manipulated by others they are trained LE it's their job to highlight any attempts to manipulate evidence. Unless your MM of course then it's not their job their all corrupt and this is all a big conspiracy.

I think it's time everyone including us sleuths left these kids alone. They won't be called to testify and with question marks over all their statements I can't see them being admitted.





Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[stmarysmead]

I'm linking to this article again. It's the one that describes the Judges original order, who talks about her right to a fair trial.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/irelan...betts-children-must-release-notes-425441.html

This is a link to the Hearsay rules in North Carolina.

http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_8C/Article_8.pdf

Exception 803 (4) excepts statements of Hearsay that were made for purposes of Medical Diagnoses. This is why I think the children's' statements at Dragonfly House will be allowed because I'm sure there is case precedent for doing so.

Say what you will. It appears to me that in the time she had the kids prior to relinquishing them, she was being advised about her defense. These interviews with the children were set up by Law Enforcement so they can't be attributed to anyone's manipulation; and, in the eyes of the Law they are the truth. Even if you don't believe them. IMO

I'm linking to this article again. It's the one that describes the Judges original order, who talks about her right to a fair trial.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/irelan...betts-children-must-release-notes-425441.html
k
Law enforcement ARE attributing them to manipulation.

If they come in, they will counter with that exact testimony. If they come in, the earlier conflicting accounts will come in too. That will give credence to,law enforcements view that the children, in the custody of their Fathers killers, were frightened and manipulated into giving false accounts.

They are not the truth "9in the eyes of the Law." The Law is disputing their veracity.

This is a link to the Hearsay rules in North Carolina.

http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_8C/Article_8.pdf

Exception 803 (4) excepts statements of Hearsay that were made for purposes of Medical Diagnoses. This is why I think the children's' statements at Dragonfly House will be allowed because I'm sure there is case precedent for doing so.

Say what you will. It appears to me that in the time she had the kids prior to relinquishing them, she was being advised about her defense. These interviews with the children were set up by Law Enforcement so they can't be attributed to anyone's manipulation; and, in the eyes of the Law they are the truth. Even if you don't believe them. IMO

It's the Law that is disputing them.,p In the "eyes of the Law", the children were manipulated. There will be testimony to that effect if the interviews come in.

If that interview comes in, so will the earlier conflicting interview. The jury will be asked to consider why, after two weeks isolated in the custody of their Fathers killers, the accounts changed.

In the eyes of the Law, the second interview is already considered discredited. It is not considered "the truth." The jury decides what is "the truth."