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

[searchinGirl]

Molly (the FBI agent's daughter) never made her accusations against Jason in a court of law where he could defend himself, where she might have received custody of the children. Where is "innocent till proven guilty" standard being applied with a fair and equal hand?

Jason was never given a chance to prove his innocence. He was brutally killed instead?

Innocent until,PROVEN guilty...in regard to these smears against the victim...are the least we should demand.

Are you saying that JC was incapable of harming Molly?

 

[emmalpage81]

So, are you saying that Molly being bipolar is direct evidence of her guilt?

Where did I say that? I am saying that the prosecution are free to state that JC was a non-violent person in opening. This is what the defence want to obstruct.

All IMO

 

[stmarysmead]

So, are you saying that Molly being bipolar is direct evidence of her guilt?

I am saying that Molly is the one in this tragedy who has a verified chaotic history. For two years, hundreds of people who knew Jason, have attested to his gentle, caring nature.

I'm saying that bipolar disease is a life long struggle. Medications can help, but not cure...and Mollys problems went well beyond bipolar disease.

I'm saying that the autopsy shows overkill..not the attempt by an FBI sgent TRAINED in techniques to stop an attack without a kill shot..to STOP a "donnybrook." If an MD sees you choking, he is trained where to cut. We don't expect him to decapitate you in the effort.

I'm saying the investigators do not believe that their accounts match the evidence. I'm saying that the oldest son claims he was coached

I'm saying that they entered a legal motion that they had to withdraw because it was a certifiable lie. I'm saying their credibility is already stained.

I'm saying that some who want fairness for Molly, are advocating for anything but fairness for Jason and his grieving family.

People are suffering and have been in tremendous grief. They seem to be forgotten. They know the man they knew had never laid an angry hand on a woman. They are nauseated by those who jump to believe lies in order to release the woman who spattered his brain matter all over his bedroom...back into the lives of other innocents.

Selective empathy. Very selective. That's what I'm saying.

 

[stmarysmead]

Are you saying that JC was incapable of harming Molly?

Is Molly incapable of lying?.

 

[searchinGirl]

Where did I say that? I am saying that the prosecution are free to state that JC was a non-violent person in opening. This is what the defence want to obstruct.

All IMO

I can't speak for the defense so I can't say for sure why they filed this motion. But I suspect they have evidence that demonstrates that he is a not so peaceful person. At least he and Molly were not at peace with each other. And he may have been the nicest man to everyone else in the world, but, not to her. IMO

 

[searchinGirl]

Is Molly incapable of lying?.

No. But the assumption she is incapable of telling the truth is Dishonest. IMO

 

[stmarysmead]

I can't speak for the defense so I can't say for sure why they filed this motion. But I suspect they have evidence that demonstrates that he is a not so peaceful person. At least he and Molly were not at peace with each other. And he may have been the nicest man to everyone else in the world, but, not to her. IMO

Think for a minute. If they had THAT evidence, then that's what should have and WOULD HAVE been in the motion. The only reason for including a lie is because they hadn't anything else.

 

[stmarysmead]

No. But the assumption she is incapable of telling the truth is Dishonest. IMO

And the assumption that Jason abused her is dishonest by your same standard.

 

[emmalpage81]

I can't speak for the defense so I can't say for sure why they filed this motion. But I suspect they have evidence that demonstrates that he is a not so peaceful person. At least he and Molly were not at peace with each other. And he may have been the nicest man to everyone else in the world, but, not to her. IMO

Well if they have this information then it is within their rights to expand upon it during opening. I am an equal opportunity commentator. If the defence wish to counter the prosecution's opening that is their right. It is not their right to hinder it without merit.

All IMO

 

[Fairness71]

No. But the assumption she is incapable of telling the truth is Dishonest. IMO

Well she has been caught out on so many lies already.... Why is there an assumption by people who didn't know Jason that he was violent. When the people who knew him well, know he was the complete opposite. We know MM has been whispering her stories to anyone who'll listen. So we have people who didn't know either Jason or MM choosing to ignore facts & choose a gender bias when it comes to cruelty & violence. So the assumption that Jason deserved to die like this is dishonest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[peregrino]

I'm sorry, i must have missed that class, a trial is not conducted on behalf of the defendants rights and I would love to see some legislation to show this. A trial is for the prosecution to put forward facts to prove a charge, the defence are to debunk these assertions or prove reasonable doubt.

An opening statement is for both parties to put forward their idea of what occured. The rules state that the parties only put forward instances that will then be expanded upon with evidence from witnesses. A defendant cannot limit what a prosecutor says in opening unless they have a reasonable expectation that what is said will not be brougth up during the trial.

This is the law, American or otherwise.

All IMO

Same under Irish (and UK law).

 

[peregrino]

Well if they have this information then it is within their rights to expand upon it during opening. I am an equal opportunity commentator. If the defence wish to counter the prosecution's opening that is their right. It is not their right to hinder it without merit.

All IMO

This is a very important point that goes to the heart of the ethical practice of the law. An 'ethical' lawyer does not try to hinder the lawyer representing the other side, rather they try to use evidence and reason to support their arguments in the best interests of their clients - but they have a duty to behave ethically. Sadly, some lawyers - especially when faced with weak cases - resort to less than ethical practices.

 

[emmalpage81]

This is a very important point that goes to the heart of the ethical practice of the law. An 'ethical' lawyer does not try to hinder the lawyer representing the other side, rather they try to use evidence and reason to support their arguments in the best interests of their clients - but they have a duty to behave ethically. Sadly, some lawyers - especially when faced with weak cases - resort to less than ethical practices.

Yes, just yes!

 

[searchinGirl]

Well she has been caught out on so many lies already.... Why is there an assumption by people who didn't know Jason that he was violent. When the people who knew him well, know he was the complete opposite. We know MM has been whispering her stories to anyone who'll listen. So we have people who didn't know either Jason or MM choosing to ignore facts & choose a gender bias when it comes to cruelty & violence. So the assumption that Jason deserved to die like this is dishonest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is not my assumption that Jason deserved to die. Speak your own thoughts only.

 

[Logic-lady]

Can I just state something that I think has been lost here. Jason is dead. That fact is indisputable. Two people have admitted to causing his death. That fact is indisputable. Jason's death was especially 'heinous and cruel', there is evidently major overkill involved in this crime.

Jason did not need to be an angel to not deserve to die such an atrocious death. Molly does not need to be a monster in order that she be held accountable for her role in this 'heinous' death. Thomas Martens does not need to be a horrible person in order for him to be held accountable for his role in this 'cruel' end to his son-in-laws life. Jason is dead. He died a 'cruel & heinous' death, there was major overkill. THAT is why two people are on trial for Murder 2. THAT is why two people are on trial for voluntary manslaughter. When you commit a crime so aggressive, and so violent, you need to be held accountable for those actions.

All of the rhetoric regarding whether Molly was mother and wife of the year or bi-polar and crippled with serious drug addictions is surplus to these basic facts. Whether Jason was a gentle giant still in love with his anam cara, or someone so unhappy with his current life he had become something darker does not take away from the fact that the accusations levelled at him have been overwhelmingly quashed by the violence of his death on August 2nd 2015.

If the defense cannot present a solid case to defend their client and ensure that there is at least reasonable doubt that their client's version of events are real and true, without inhibiting the prosecutions case, then my argument would be how credible can their case really be?

 

[peregrino]

Can I just state something that I think has been lost here. Jason is dead. That fact is indisputable. Two people have admitted to causing his death. That fact is indisputable. Jason's death was especially 'heinous and cruel', there is evidently major overkill involved in this crime.

Jason did not need to be an angel to not deserve to die such an atrocious death. Molly does not need to be a monster in order that she be held accountable for her role in this 'heinous' death. Thomas Martens does not need to be a horrible person in order for him to be held accountable for his role in this 'cruel' end to his son-in-laws life. Jason is dead. He died a 'cruel & heinous' death, there was major overkill. THAT is why two people are on trial for Murder 2. THAT is why two people are on trial for voluntary manslaughter. When you commit a crime so aggressive, and so violent, you need to be held accountable for those actions.

All of the rhetoric regarding whether Molly was mother and wife of the year or bi-polar and crippled with serious drug addictions is surplus to these basic facts. Whether Jason was a gentle giant still in love with his anam cara, or someone so unhappy with his current life he had become something darker does not take away from the fact that the accusations levelled at him have been overwhelmingly quashed by the violence of his death on August 2nd 2015.

If the defense cannot present a solid case to defend their client and ensure that there is at least reasonable doubt that their client's version of events are real and true, without inhibiting the prosecutions case, then my argument would be how credible can their case really be?

Very well put. (By the way 'anam cara' means 'soul mate' in Irish).

 

[searchinGirl]

Think for a minute. If they had THAT evidence, then that's what should have and WOULD HAVE been in the motion. The only reason for including a lie is because they hadn't anything else.

Evidence isn't presented during opening arguments. There are rules and procedures and case precedence. In this case, the prosecution has to prove the defendants didn't act in self defense. Molly and Thomas Martens are entitled to a fair trial. American Justice is weighing the scales here. Nothing else.

 

[kittythehare]

#Opening Statements
here we go
#clarity
http://www.law.indiana.edu/instruction/tanford/web/reference/04open.pdf

 

[Logic-lady]

Evidence isn't presented during opening arguments. There are rules and procedures and case precedence. In this case, the prosecution has to prove the defendants didn't act in self defense. Molly and Thomas Martens are entitled to a fair trial. American Justice is weighing the scales here. Nothing else.

A fair trial is what everyone wants surely? I don't see that anyone on either side would relish the thought of multiple appeals and overthrown verdicts. If you can provide any legislative reason the character of JC should be eliminated from the prosecutions arguments but not from the defense I would be interested to hear it.

 

[stmarysmead]

Evidence isn't presented during opening arguments. There are rules and procedures and case precedence. In this case, the prosecution has to prove the defendants didn't act in self defense. Molly and Thomas Martens are entitled to a fair trial. American Justice is weighing the scales here. Nothing else.

Not true. Evidence can be referenced in the opening statement..."The Prosecutuon will show that,etc." It happens all the time.

As a fellow American, please stop implying that "American justice" is "weighing any scales." American justice is supposed to be blind...not "weighing scales." In this case MM and TM have admitted the crime. They admitted that every heinous injury on Jason was inflicted by one or the other of them.

The only question is if self defense will be believed and/or if the jury believes self defense allows such horrific overkill.

Pleas don't give our Irish friends the idea that American justice is fiddling with any "scales" to give advantage to these admitted killers.