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

[Logic-lady]

I agree, it should be all or none.

Would MMC not have medical evidence to back up her claim that she was a victim of DV? I would assume that if someone drove over her foot, she would have received medical attention for this. Also, general question as I am not sure on the admittance of medical evidence in US trials, if the defence admit certain medical evidence relating to MMC does that make her complete medical history fair game for the prosecution?

All IMO

It would be good to get someone who is conversant with US law to comment on this. I assume they would have to prove its relevance to the case, however if the defense can argue that Jason's cardiology medical records are relevant, then I don't see why the prosecution couldn't argue that any meds Molly may have been on could equally be of importance. It does seem at present as though any argument levelled against Jason at this point could equally be levelled at Molly herself. It will be interesting to see how the trial starts to differentiate the evidence. IMO only.

 

[Logic-lady]

I agree, it should be all or none.

Would MMC not have medical evidence to back up her claim that she was a victim of DV? I would assume that if someone drove over her foot, she would have received medical attention for this. Also, general question as I am not sure on the admittance of medical evidence in US trials, if the defence admit certain medical evidence relating to MMC does that make her complete medical history fair game for the prosecution?

All IMO

Also, and this is just my opinion, but would it not be very difficult to drive over someones foot on purpose? When I read that, it appeared to me as though Sarah had been asked a specific question about whether she had ever seen her Dad hurt her Mom, kids are generally very literal, and so even if it was accidental technically Jason had hurt Molly when he rolled over her foot, so Sarah told the truth. Its the difficult thing about getting excerpts from the kids supposed testimony, there is no context.

I only say it because I've nearly done it myself, and if I was asked to do it again on purpose I don't think I'd be able to!

 

[emmalpage81]

I would say it would be extremely hard to run over someones foot on purpose. I am also trying to find a situation whereby you could run over someones foot (either on purpose or accidentally). Wouldn't you need to have your leg at an angle for it to happen? I mean, otherwise, your foot doesn't get run over, you get hit by the car or the wing mirror. I pretty sure there are flukes where it does happen, but not sure someone would be able to purposely do it without causing further injuries.

All IMO

 

[emmalpage81]

Thanks for the link, I appreciate it! Definitely inflammatory, I wonder why the detectives thought these statements were coached.

I don't know how a judge could make these statements admissible but not the ones where Jack retracts his statements though. I really hope if that's the case they just deny submission of all the interviews because the last thing that boy needs is to be called to clarify which of the statements is correct.

Certainly on social media at the time, there were a long list of adults willing to state that they had seen/heard of the on-going abuse in the home, surely MM would be able to mount a defense of DV with other witnesses who could testify on her behalf. While it is true that alot of DV goes on behind closed doors, secret phone numbers etc would imply that more people were aware of the situation than just the immediate family so why the need to drag the kids into it any further. IMO

PS - I still have an issue with the word cuss, even more-so in the context it reads here.

I thought that the officers formed a view that they had been coached before the interview started, I could have processed it completely wrong; I got the impression they believed coaching had gone on when SM tried to dictate how and in what order the children were to be interviewed.

I still have issues with the language that the children used during the Dragonfly House interviews. There were certain words that I would not see children of 8 and 10 using of their own accord. It seemed, iMO, that they were parroting some things.

I think we all have little things that stick out to us. I still have trouble with the letter that JC and SC allegedly wrote to MMC before leaving the States. I still do not see an 8 and 10 year old making amendments to a note they have written without being guided on what to say. I mean, for instance, why would JC - whilst writing what appears to be a very quick note for MMC - feel the need to go back to amend the word 'mam' to 'mom'?

All IMO

 

[bernie millar]

mm had a visitation with the children on the day the lynches were awarded custody of the children could have been an opportunity for mm to tell them what to write ? all imo

 

[Logic-lady]

I thought that the officers formed a view that they had been coached before the interview started, I could have processed it completely wrong; I got the impression they believed coaching had gone on when SM tried to dictate how and in what order the children were to be interviewed.

I still have issues with the language that the children used during the Dragonfly House interviews. There were certain words that I would not see children of 8 and 10 using of their own accord. It seemed, iMO, that they were parroting some things.

I think we all have little things that stick out to us. I still have trouble with the letter that JC and SC allegedly wrote to MMC before leaving the States. I still do not see an 8 and 10 year old making amendments to a note they have written without being guided on what to say. I mean, for instance, why would JC - whilst writing what appears to be a very quick note for MMC - feel the need to go back to amend the word 'mam' to 'mom'?

All IMO

I agree, I think the detectives believed SM had been coaching the kids on what to say and that's why they denied her repeated requests to interview Jack first. Which is why it is so interesting that she has been completely left out of any charges, perhaps if MM & TM are convicted she could be charged with witness tampering at a later date?

I've looked into the letters, if you go back through MM photos on social media there are two letters from Jack - the one sent from the social workers and one was an old card MM had shared from him for Mother's Day. To my eye, the handwriting matched, and so while I still find the letters interesting for what they reveal, I do think Jack wrote them. I think the letter shows just how much pressure Jack was under in the interviews, Sarah's note is a very natural response to being in a very unnatural situation 'I love you so much, I hope this makes you smile' she doesn't feel the need to validate Molly, she is just telling her how she feels. Jack on the other hand feels the need to reassure Molly, to tell her what an amazing mother she is, how much he loves her, how they will never leave her, that she is a 'supermom' He naturally wrote Mam but then changed it to Mom as he knew the former would bother Molly. (which again backs up the fact that he was still predominantly using an Irish vocabulary rather than the very American cuss) It just seems excessive and over the top, as though he was trying to prove something, that he hadn't let her down. So either he had been living in an environment where he was concerned about Molly's mental health and at 11 was used to having to validate her and reassure her and knew what being apart from them would be doing to her. (which is a lot of pressure for a child of that age, most kids of that age would be the ones looking for reassurance not giving it) or he was trying to show that he had followed orders and hadn't given up the game...which in my opinion is worse, because then I wonder what Jack actually saw that night, and that just doesn't bear thinking about.

All IMO.

 

[emmalpage81]

I agree, I think the detectives believed SM had been coaching the kids on what to say and that's why they denied her repeated requests to interview Jack first. Which is why it is so interesting that she has been completely left out of any charges, perhaps if MM & TM are convicted she could be charged with witness tampering at a later date?

I've looked into the letters, if you go back through MM photos on social media there are two letters from Jack - the one sent from the social workers and one was an old card MM had shared from him for Mother's Day. To my eye, the handwriting matched, and so while I still find the letters interesting for what they reveal, I do think Jack wrote them. I think the letter shows just how much pressure Jack was under in the interviews, Sarah's note is a very natural response to being in a very unnatural situation 'I love you so much, I hope this makes you smile' she doesn't feel the need to validate Molly, she is just telling her how she feels. Jack on the other hand feels the need to reassure Molly, to tell her what an amazing mother she is, how much he loves her, how they will never leave her, that she is a 'supermom' He naturally wrote Mam but then changed it to Mom as he knew the former would bother Molly. (which again backs up the fact that he was still predominantly using an Irish vocabulary rather than the very American cuss) It just seems excessive and over the top, as though he was trying to prove something, that he hadn't let her down. So either he had been living in an environment where he was concerned about Molly's mental health and at 11 was used to having to validate her and reassure her and knew what being apart from them would be doing to her. (which is a lot of pressure for a child of that age, most kids of that age would be the ones looking for reassurance not giving it) or he was trying to show that he had followed orders and hadn't given up the game...which in my opinion is worse, because then I wonder what Jack actually saw that night, and that just doesn't bear thinking about.

All IMO.

Now you mention it the earlier note always bothered me; but i do think you are right he tends to try to validate MMC in them. Again some of the sentences he uses just feel, to me, slight off. 'you are very nice', 'thank you for trying hard to get money', 'thank you for trying to make me a better person in life'.

Again I can only go from my own experience with having a son at that age, my son would never dream to write 'you are very nice' in a card or note to me (although to be fair I have never seen a child write that much information in a card at that age!). He might say you're the best, you're awesome, you're the best mammy in the world, but not you are very nice. I don't know what it is but it just feels strange to me. Secondly, we know that JC was the breadwinner in the home. He had a very good job and MMC did not work (unless she was paid to be the swim coach). Why would he talk about her trying hard to make money? Thirdly, I am wondering what MMC was doing to try to make him a better person. He was a child of approximately 8 or 9 years old in May 2013, why would an 8 year old think he needs to be a better person. It could simply be my interpretation without looking at context at that time in their lives but the notes always struck me as odd.

Your views on his trying to reassure her make perfect sense keeping in mind he stated during the first interview with social workers that he didn't want to hurt her feelings. He was clearly aware of her feeling and emotions and appeared to coddle her to a degree. This may also tie in with the emergency phone number for the Martens in Tennessee he may have been the one tasked with keeping an eye on MMC.

I truly hope that those children did not witness anything that night. Although it then brings us back to the question, why did MMC bring them back to the house from a sleepover if she was scared for her safety to a point that she needed to call her parents?

All IMO

 

[Logic-lady]

Now you mention it the earlier note always bothered me; but i do think you are right he tends to try to validate MMC in them. Again some of the sentences he uses just feel, to me, slight off. 'you are very nice', 'thank you for trying hard to get money', 'thank you for trying to make me a better person in life'.

Again I can only go from my own experience with having a son at that age, my son would never dream to write 'you are very nice' in a card or note to me (although to be fair I have never seen a child write that much information in a card at that age!). He might say you're the best, you're awesome, you're the best mammy in the world, but not you are very nice. I don't know what it is but it just feels strange to me. Secondly, we know that JC was the breadwinner in the home. He had a very good job and MMC did not work (unless she was paid to be the swim coach). Why would he talk about her trying hard to make money? Thirdly, I am wondering what MMC was doing to try to make him a better person. He was a child of approximately 8 or 9 years old in May 2013, why would an 8 year old think he needs to be a better person. It could simply be my interpretation without looking at context at that time in their lives but the notes always struck me as odd.

Your views on his trying to reassure her make perfect sense keeping in mind he stated during the first interview with social workers that he didn't want to hurt her feelings. He was clearly aware of her feeling and emotions and appeared to coddle her to a degree. This may also tie in with the emergency phone number for the Martens in Tennessee he may have been the one tasked with keeping an eye on MMC.

I truly hope that those children did not witness anything that night. Although it then brings us back to the question, why did MMC bring them back to the house from a sleepover if she was scared for her safety to a point that she needed to call her parents?

All IMO

Great points! You are right about the phrasing of the notes, it is peculiar for a child to write in such a stunted manner. I think obviously Molly's spending was an issue in the home, it came out in the search warrants that Jason had concerns about her spending. I would assume that this led to arguments between them so perhaps Molly's answer was to try to earn money to alleviate the situation. The issue as I see it is that if Jack as a child felt he needed to support Molly through this situation by encouraging her, and thanking her for 'trying hard' how much did she rely on him for emotional support. At the end of the day, most parents would try to shield their children from adult issues, particularly money worries. Especially if those issues were actually more a source of conflict with your spouse than life changing in nature. (ie Jason was worried about how much Molly was spending rather than they were in danger of losing the house) I think it could definitely point to her state of mind if she needed the children to be reinforcing her value and worth. Obviously her relationship with Jason had disintegrated to a point where he was questioning her abilities, realistically at that point all it could take would be the kids to fall out with her or dismiss her (as kids of that age will do) for it to push her over the edge if she was in a fragile state of mind already. You may very well be onto something with the secret phone number, maybe if her parents had seen the warning signs they tried to put in a safe-guard for the kids?

As regards to helping Jack to ‘be a better person’, it seems to have been her style of parenting. I remember being struck by some of her posts on FB right after she lost custody of the kids, she would speak directly to them, reminding them to be the best version of themselves, to push themselves in school, to be kind to their new friends. At the time I thought it was a dig at the Lynches, as in that she still needed to parent them from afar as the Lynches weren't fit to do it. (the custody battle was on-going) But in hindsight I think Molly will have required great strength and determination to cope with her mental illness, pushing herself and focusing on being a 'better version of herself' will have been what allowed her to move past the person she was when she was engaged to Keith McGinn and become the mother and homemaker that she wanted to be. The fact that Jason built a life with her would imply she was successful at this to some degree. Therefore, it is natural that her style of parenting would reflect that rigid, focus on becoming a better person, and therefore she treated the kids in the same way. Perhaps she was tougher on Jack because he needed more ‘help’ to become a ‘better person’ as he was more influenced by the more relaxed approach he was used to from his time in Ireland?
Do we have anything other than hearsay about when the kids were brought home and when the parents arrived? It has always struck me as very odd that the family were apparently enjoying a community BBQ on the street in relative harmony, at ease enough that the kids were allowed to sleepover at a friends but yet something so dramatic happened at 11 that the kids were suddenly collected, brought home and put to their own beds, where they apparently fell into a comfortable sleep, before this explosive argument at 2am where Jason died. The flow of the evening/night does not make sense to me.

 

[Electric Sheep]

Regarding "cuss" - possibly Jack actually used the word curse and it was transcribed as "cuss".

 

[Logic-lady]

Seems like a rookie error from TM and his legal team...

https://www.facebook.com/BringJackandSarahHome/?fref=ts

 

[bernie millar]

just read the article on daily mail re marion fitzpatrick wife of michael fitzpatrick denys tms allegations that michael fitzpatrick told tm that he believed his daughter mags died at the hands of jason as mr fitzpatrick did not attend the wedding of jason and molly what do ye make of this ,seems like a big blunder on their part to me all imo as always would love to hear yer thoughts on this

 

[emmalpage81]

Seems like a huge error on the part of the defence. In my opinion the motion regarding this was filed in order to garnish publicity in the local media. I have yet to see any of the US media stations picking up the story from the Daily Mail. But still, if you are going to lie about a conversation, at least double check the person was in attendance.

All IMO

 

[stephanddoody]

Seems like a huge error on the part of the defence. In my opinion the motion regarding this was filed in order to garnish publicity in the local media. I have yet to see any of the US media stations picking up the story from the Daily Mail. But still, if you are going to lie about a conversation, at least double check the person was in attendance.

All IMO

https://www.facebook.com/TheIrishMail/posts/1915813922009483:0

Huge error I agree emma and Bernie . Very low blow to do that to a grieving family IMO . However I suspect the same . Tms allegation was never going to be admissible at the trial . It's hearsay and the man that said it conveniently for them was deceased. Like you said it was put forward in motions for public sympathy and to garner support for the alleged "domestic violence victim" Who was the journalist to contact for a response to the allegation?

 

[bernie millar]

mich[FONT=&quot]The content of the statements were that Mr. Fitzpatrick believed that Jason Corbett had caused the death of Mr. Fitzpatrick’s daughter Margaret Corbett,” the motion says. “Mr. Fitzpatrick’s prior statements are offered in support of the defendant’s asserted defenses of self-defense and the defense of others, in that they are relevant to the defendant’s state of mind during the alleged altercation with Jason Corbett.”[/FONT]ael hewlett ran the story on the winston salem journal now.com on june 3rd, dont know how to post link

 

[bernie millar]

[FONT=&amp]The content of the statements were that Mr. Fitzpatrick believed that Jason Corbett had caused the death of Mr. Fitzpatrick’s daughter Margaret Corbett,” the motion says. “Mr. Fitzpatrick’s prior statements are offered in support of the defendant’s asserted defenses of self-defense and the defense of others, in that they are relevant to the defendant’s state of mind during the alleged altercation with Jason Corbett.”[/FONT]ael hewlett ran the story on the winston salem journal now.com on june 3rd, dont know how to post link i coppied and pasted that bit from the winston salem article june 3rd

 

[bernie millar]

sorry that should say michael hewlett

 

[stephanddoody]

mich[FONT=&amp]The content of the statements were that Mr. Fitzpatrick believed that Jason Corbett had caused the death of Mr. Fitzpatrick’s daughter Margaret Corbett,” the motion says. “Mr. Fitzpatrick’s prior statements are offered in support of the defendant’s asserted defenses of self-defense and the defense of others, in that they are relevant to the defendant’s state of mind during the alleged altercation with Jason Corbett.”[/FONT]ael hewlett ran the story on the winston salem journal now.com on june 3rd, dont know how to post link

http://www.journalnow.com/news/crim...cle_ebc95ee5-20b8-55b3-974b-4793c0741c38.html

I believe this is the link bernie

 

[stephanddoody]

michThe content of the statements were that Mr. Fitzpatrick believed that Jason Corbett had caused the death of Mr. Fitzpatrick’s daughter Margaret Corbett,” the motion says. “Mr. Fitzpatrick’s prior statements are offered in support of the defendant’s asserted defenses of self-defense and the defense of others, in that they are relevant to the defendant’s state of mind during the alleged altercation with Jason Corbett.”ael hewlett ran the story on the winston salem journal now.com on june 3rd, dont know how to post link

http://www.journalnow.com/news/crim...cle_ebc95ee5-20b8-55b3-974b-4793c0741c38.html

I believe this is the link bernie. Again we see lies

[FONT=&amp]The father of Jason Corbett’s first wife believed Corbett was responsible for his daughter’s death, according to a motion filed by attorneys for Thomas Martens, who is charged in Corbett’s death.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]“The content of the statements were that Mr. Fitzpatrick believed that Jason Corbett had caused the death of Mr. Fitzpatrick’s daughter Margaret Corbett,” the motion says. “Mr. Fitzpatrick’s prior statements are offered in support of the defendant’s asserted defenses of self-defense and the defense of others, in that they are relevant to the defendant’s state of mind during the alleged altercation with Jason Corbett.”[/FONT]

http://www.independent.ie/world-new...sed-the-death-of-his-first-wife-35803451.html

Now, the former FBI agent is claiming in a motion filed to the court ahead of the trial that he was "approached by Michael Fitzpatrick (since deceased), the father of Jason Corbett's late first wife Margaret Corbett" at his daughter and Jason's wedding in 2011.It reads; "On that occasion, Mr Fitzpatrick told Mr Martens that he believed that Jason Corbett had caused the death of his daughter Margaret."

The motion reads; "Specifically, during the alleged altercation that resulted in the death of Jason Corbett, Mr Martens witnessed Jason Corbett, a man far larger and more physically powerful than he or his daughter, choking his daughter and threatening to kill her, and thereafter acted in defense of his daughter and, eventually, in his own defense [sic]."
It adds that Mr Martens was allegedly aware of Jason Corbett's size during the assault, and that "Mr Fitzpatrick had represented to him that Mr Fitzpatrick believed his duaghter's death to have come at the hands of Jason Corbett.""[The allegation] is being offered... to show the reasonableness of Mr Martens' apprehension of death or serious bodily to he and his daughter - and thus is competent evidence with respect to Mr Martens' state of mind."

Mrs Fitzpatricks response

Claims are blatant lies Jason was just a great husband to my daughter

My husband was not at Jasons second wedding , None of us were , so the incident described at the wedding in the States is nothing more than a fabrication . We were in Ireland at the time so its physically impossible that Tom Martens had any conversation with my husband in Tennessee

And in interviews with the Mail several other guests at Mr Corbetts second wedding confirmed Mr Fitzpatrick was not there

Mrs Fitzpatrick broke down as she described the agony she felt in light of the claims . These claims have been deeply hurtful. I recently lost my own father as well as my husband its a very difficult time

But the truth is these claims are all blatant lies Michael got on extremely well with Jason. He was a great husband to Mags and a wonderful person

If you had known my husband you would have known he was a gentleman. If there had been any risk to Mags he would have stepped in

Michael Fitzpatrick was not at that wedding said Brendan O Callaghan Mr Corbetts best man . None of the FitzPatricks were

I was Jasons best man. I was there for the rehearsals the ceremony the reception the whole lot. I know for a fact MIchael Fitzpatrick was not there

I don't know why Mr Martens is making up these allegations. Mags died of an asthma attack. There was a post mortem

Karen Gorey whose daughter was a flower girl at the wedding said she found the allegations

deeply disturbing

Michael Fitzpatrick wasn't there . His passing is still very raw so these claims have been very upsetting for his family

The allegation is very serious and the fact is it is simply untrue. The fact he is not here to state that says it all. Its a very low blow to drag a deceased man into a lie

https://www.facebook.com/TheIrishMail/posts/1915813922009483:0?hc_location=ufi

Sorry about all the quotes just wanted to put up the mail article in quotes for discrepancies between both accounts and what may come further up the line

 

[emmalpage81]

https://www.facebook.com/TheIrishMail/posts/1915813922009483:0

Huge error I agree emma and Bernie . Very low blow to do that to a grieving family IMO . However I suspect the same . Tms allegation was never going to be admissible at the trial . It's hearsay and the man that said it conveniently for them was deceased. Like you said it was put forward in motions for public sympathy and to garner support for the alleged "domestic violence victim" Who was the journalist to contact for a response to the allegation?

A blatant attempt to taint the jury pool. I have had a look this morning and cannot see any of the US based newspapers that have covered the story picking this up. So, if you are local to North Carolina, all you will have in the back of your head is what was reported from the motion.

You are absolutely correct, it was clearly hearsay and was never going to be admitted into evidence so the only benefit would be if it stuck in peoples head prior to the trial commencing. Even still, TM's attorney are extremely well versed in the law and this appears to be a rookie mistake to make as it was something that could easily have been checked by the law firm and, when it became apparent that MF wasn't even at the wedding, they could have changed tract.

Will be interesting to see what else occurs as we get closer to the trial.

All IMO

 

[emmalpage81]

Just doing a little research and can find legislation that covers truthfulness in civil cases but not yet in criminal. I would assume there would be something of the same type. In civil cases it is governed by Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states as follows (BBM):

Rule 11. Signing and verification of pleadings.

(a) Signing by Attorney. - Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name, whose address shall be stated. A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign his pleading, motion, or other paper and state his address. Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. If a pleading, motion, or other paper is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the pleader or movant. If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney's fee.



Experienced lawyers would know what they can and cannot do in a motion. Obviously this particular rule is relevant to civil cases. Hopefully I, or someone with a bit more know how that me, can find something similar in respect of criminal cases.

All IMO