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

[bernie millar]

the irish daily star has an article "suspects ditch corbett claim" murder rap pairs lawyers retract "fabrication" again cant find online link i am reading it on the irish daily star newspaper they are now claiming "martens legal team retracted the statement claiming an error by the legal team and said michael made the claim at another gathering in 2012"

 

[Logic-lady]

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

So I assume that because TM has not been sworn yet, then technically this pre-trial motion does not count as a lie. The defense has put the 'reasonable doubt' out into the potential jury pool but they will never use this motion in court (and therefore never force TM to perjur himself). They have basically put the prosecution into a position where if they want to prove that TM is an out and out liar, THEY will have to introduce evidence into the court that could taint some of the jurors. Its calculated and its clever...and definitely not what a lawyer representing an innocent man would have to resort to.

IMO

 

[Logic-lady]

the irish daily star has an article "suspects ditch corbett claim" murder rap pairs lawyers retract "fabrication" again cant find online link i am reading it on the irish daily star newspaper they are now claiming "martens legal team retracted the statement claiming an error by the legal team and said michael made the claim at another gathering in 2012"

Ludicrous!

 

[stephanddoody]

I got the paper hope the pictures of the article are allowed for users that can't get the paper as I neither could find an online link

 

[Logic-lady]

Thanks Stephan it's great for those of us who don't have access to the Irish papers.

It's just a ludicrous claim all round, getting information like that has to be like a car crash moment, you would remember every detail, particularly if you had just realised that your daughter had married this man. It would not be confused for another time/place...and also, if it were the case that it was an error on behalf of one of the lawyers then why didn't he raise it when they were in all in court together last week and it was set before the judge?

 

[bernie millar]

my thoughts exactly does anyone know if the judge made a decision on that motion yet ? will they have to go before the judge again to retract the motion and submit the new motion?my thoughts and opinions only

 

[emmalpage81]

So I assume that because TM has not been sworn yet, then technically this pre-trial motion does not count as a lie. The defense has put the 'reasonable doubt' out into the potential jury pool but they will never use this motion in court (and therefore never force TM to perjur himself). They have basically put the prosecution into a position where if they want to prove that TM is an out and out liar, THEY will have to introduce evidence into the court that could taint some of the jurors. Its calculated and its clever...and definitely not what a lawyer representing an innocent man would have to resort to.

IMO

I think that it is more to do with professional conduct. The lawyers swore the motion and affidavit (if any was submitted) and therefore the onus would have been on them to ensure that after reasonable enquiry the information they submitted was grounded in fact. This was clearly not done. I keep coming back to this being a very rookie mistake to make; TM's lawyers are anything but rookies.

If i recall their motion was that TM's state of mind at the time of JC's death was reasonable due to this conversation. Now it seems he cannot even remember when this fictional conversation took place! It is completely ludicrous and I would think his lawyers will be very embarrassed at the moment as it is their professional competency that will be questioned.

I wonder if the withdrawal of this motion will be publicised as much as the original motion? If so, IMO, they may have a big problem with people believing the next version of this tale.

All IMO

 

[emmalpage81]

Stephan many thanks, it is very much appreciated. I agree with Logic-lady entirely, the pretrial motions happened last week and this is a huge error that should have been obvious to the legal team. Wrong year, wrong event (i note they haven't said what event in 2012 it happened at; they wouldn't want to be proven false again!). There would have been ample opportunity to for them to rectify it up to and during the pretrial motions. As it stands, in my view, they are only withdrawing as it has been proven as lies.

All IMO

 

[emmalpage81]

Very interesting question Bernie. As there appears to be proof that MF was not at the wedding I would think that the defense will move quickly to withdraw the motion as there may be more publicity if the prosecutor looks to have it struck out as being baseless. I am sure they will be able to do this as there will be compelling evidence that MF could not have had the conversation as claimed.

It would obviously be open to them to issue a new motion but, given this was done to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of potential jurors. It could do more harm than good. As has been said before, a conversation like that would be burned into the back of your brain you would remember every single detail. Many people will, IMO, find it hard to accept that they simply mixed up when the conversation occurred (and only realised after the information in their motion was shown to be fabricated).

All IMO

 

[Logic-lady]

I think that it is more to do with professional conduct. The lawyers swore the motion and affidavit (if any was submitted) and therefore the onus would have been on them to ensure that after reasonable enquiry the information they submitted was grounded in fact. This was clearly not done. I keep coming back to this being a very rookie mistake to make; TM's lawyers are anything but rookies.

If i recall their motion was that TM's state of mind at the time of JC's death was reasonable due to this conversation. Now it seems he cannot even remember when this fictional conversation took place! It is completely ludicrous and I would think his lawyers will be very embarrassed at the moment as it is their professional competency that will be questioned.

I wonder if the withdrawal of this motion will be publicised as much as the original motion? If so, IMO, they may have a big problem with people believing the next version of this tale.

All IMO

If i recall their motion was that TM's state of mind at the time of JC's death was reasonable due to this conversation. Now it seems he cannot even remember when this fictional conversation took place! It is completely ludicrous and I would think his lawyers will be very embarrassed at the moment as it is their professional competency that will be questioned.

I wonder if the withdrawal of this motion will be publicised as much as the original motion? If so, IMO, they may have a big problem with people believing the next version of this tale.

All IMO[/QUOTE]

I agree, my initial thoughts on them using this motion was to put 'reasonable doubt' out into the public domain. The local papers have been very single-minded in favour of the defendants in their reporting - there is still no article as far as I am aware of the retraction of this motion, and so it was a tactical move to put forward a motion which they would never call in court, however, the damage is already done as they say.

I am surprised however, by the flimsy story which they chose to build this motion on. It has been so easily disproved that surely it damages the credibility of their case going forward? They didn't need to go into such detail in the original motion, they could simply have said that TM had at any point had a conversation with MF where this information was disclosed. It seems by trying to make the claim more plausible they have caught themselves out in the lie. It is surprising for a firm that regularly represents law enforcement to have made such an error. Either the Martens are not being 100% truthful with their legal team, or there is something bigger going on here I feel. Credibility is such a big part of the defense, I cannot fathom why they would have jeopardized that on the first hurdle.

IMO

 

[bernie millar]

the following is based solely my opinion .i feel this fabrication came from mm as this is not the first time the onus has been put on jc for the death of his wife, twice friends of the martens has questioned mags corbetts death, one couldnt figure out on a post around the time they were charged how a person could die from an asthma attack late at night this was removed afterwards,another even went as far as to say mc death should be reinvestigated this was made in a comment on a relative of mm social media page early march of last year while the initial comment has been removed some replys are still there,which leads me t wonder did mm spin this story to her father but what does shock me is their attorneys not following up the claim if they knew about this claim before mf died did they contact him for a statement ? if it was after he died did they contact his family to verify it ?as this motion lays the basis for tm self defence claim as he argues it is highly relevant to tm state of mind during the alleged altercation one would surely check and double check to have this as solid as possible to make for a credible defence ?surely they discussed the motion before they filed it?it just dosent add up for me

imo

 

[emmalpage81]

I agree, my initial thoughts on them using this motion was to put 'reasonable doubt' out into the public domain. The local papers have been very single-minded in favour of the defendants in their reporting - there is still no article as far as I am aware of the retraction of this motion, and so it was a tactical move to put forward a motion which they would never call in court, however, the damage is already done as they say.

I am surprised however, by the flimsy story which they chose to build this motion on. It has been so easily disproved that surely it damages the credibility of their case going forward? They didn't need to go into such detail in the original motion, they could simply have said that TM had at any point had a conversation with MF where this information was disclosed. It seems by trying to make the claim more plausible they have caught themselves out in the lie. It is surprising for a firm that regularly represents law enforcement to have made such an error. Either the Martens are not being 100% truthful with their legal team, or there is something bigger going on here I feel. Credibility is such a big part of the defense, I cannot fathom why they would have jeopardized that on the first hurdle.

IMO

I agree i think this has blown a hole in their credibility. IMO it looks as though they were trying to find a situation to try to explain away the severe and numerous injuries that JC suffered. That due to this fictitious conversation he was of the reasonable view that JC could and would be capable of committing murder. However, they messed up big time. If you are going to make such a huge allegation which would impact the Fitzpatrick family in such a way, at least fact check the simplest of details. If the defence are filing motions solely based on the word of TM they really need to reconsider this as it may well blow up in their faces.

the following is based solely my opinion .i feel this fabrication came from mm as this is not the first time the onus has been put on jc for the death of his wife, twice friends of the martens has questioned mags corbetts death, one couldnt figure out on a post around the time they were charged how a person could die from an asthma attack late at night this was removed afterwards,another even went as far as to say mc death should be reinvestigated this was made in a comment on a relative of mm social media page early march of last year while the initial comment has been removed some replys are still there,which leads me t wonder did mm spin this story to her father but what does shock me is their attorneys not following up the claim if they knew about this claim before mf died did they contact him for a statement ? if it was after he died did they contact his family to verify it ?as this motion lays the basis for tm self defence claim as he argues it is highly relevant to tm state of mind during the alleged altercation one would surely check and double check to have this as solid as possible to make for a credible defence ?surely they discussed the motion before they filed it?it just dosent add up for me

imo

I could be wrong here but was there not an article stating that the defence had tried to contact the Fitzpatrick family but that they had refused to speak with them? Now this is going back a while so not clear in my head.

I have no doubt that MM or friends of MM put the seed of thought about this in TM's head. It was a convenient story to spin; his wife had died - this is fact. Why not throw mud towards it and see if any sticks to muddy the waters. If I remember correctly - and please somebody correct me if I am wrong - was MC's sister not with her the night she died? there was also an autopsy? I mean it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth that people would so opportunistic to try to cash in on someones death for their own gain.

Given that social media comments had been made about this from people close to the Martens family I would think that the prosecution would be clever enough to look into this and it would have been clear that this may well be the road they planned on taking; clearly it was.

One would think that the first thing you would do is to check the facts before you make such outlandish claims.

All IMO

 

[stmarysmead]

Martens and his brother-in-law and his attorneys have previously used his career as an FBI officier to attest to his so-called sterling character and impeccable credibility. "This is an FBI man!"..they said...as if that proved his innocence! Once upon a time, being associated with the FBI might have been a helpful nudge for TM in his upcoming trial.

But, I offer the following observation to our Irish friends who may not follow American politics closely. In our politically divided country, there is heated controversy at the moment over the firing of the FBI director by President Trump. Without bringing politics into this, many Trump supporters believe the FBI has been corrupted. Many Hillary supporters believe the unfair actions of the FBI cost her the election.

So trying to say that being a career FBI officier makes you a man of integrity, a man of truth...really is not a viable strategy anymore. Let me point out that Davidson County voted over 75% for Trump in the presidential election. That is important in this discussion only for some insight into how the political controversies over the FBI have undermined TM's ability to lean on that as some character reference.

IMO Martens lie about the death of JC's first wife comes at a time when bragging about the credibility of the FBI to bolster your own credibility is not the slam dunk that it used to be.

One more point...the local media have chosen a side and they are slanting their reporting for MM and TM. They should in all good conscience write a retraction of that murder accusation...because that is what it was. It should be placed in the same slot in the newspaper with a headline just as large. Online, it should be given the exact same prominence.

But it is doubtful this will happen. When an inconvenient truth contradicts a narrative the media is pushing...when it is (rarely)retracted...the former BLARING headline story is a tiny line hidden at the bottom of page 15.

 

[Hotchips]

I could be wrong here but was there not an article stating that the defence had tried to contact the Fitzpatrick family but that they had refused to speak with them? Now this is going back a while so not clear in my head.

I have no doubt that MM or friends of MM put the seed of thought about this in TM's head. It was a convenient story to spin; his wife had died - this is fact. Why not throw mud towards it and see if any sticks to muddy the waters. If I remember correctly - and please somebody correct me if I am wrong - was MC's sister not with her the night she died? there was also an autopsy? I mean it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth that people would so opportunistic to try to cash in on someones death for their own gain.

Given that social media comments had been made about this from people close to the Martens family I would think that the prosecution would be clever enough to look into this and it would have been clear that this may well be the road they planned on taking; clearly it was.

One would think that the first thing you would do is to check the facts before you make such outlandish claims.

All IMO[/QUOTE]

http://www.journalnow.com/news/loca...cle_d4c1f7c5-eda5-53a9-9cec-c35ef1597340.html

Link to article referencing the defence attempt to speak with Fitzpatrick family back in 2016. Was Mr Fitzpatrick still alive at this point? The court confirmed the order of no contact did not apply to the Fitzpatrick family so do we know if members of the family actually spoke to them after this was clarified?

 

[emmalpage81]

http://www.journalnow.com/news/loca...cle_d4c1f7c5-eda5-53a9-9cec-c35ef1597340.html

Link to article referencing the defence attempt to speak with Fitzpatrick family back in 2016. Was Mr Fitzpatrick still alive at this point? The court confirmed the order of no contact did not apply to the Fitzpatrick family so do we know if members of the family actually spoke to them after this was clarified?

Thanks Hotchips. According to www.rip.ie Mr Fitzpatrick passed away in October 2016; so some months after they had attempted to contact the family. I do not recall anything to say that they spoke to the defence after the hearing in April 2016.

All IMO

 

[stmarysmead]

I could be wrong here but was there not an article stating that the defence had tried to contact the Fitzpatrick family but that they had refused to speak with them? Now this is going back a while so not clear in my head.

I have no doubt that MM or friends of MM put the seed of thought about this in TM's head. It was a convenient story to spin; his wife had died - this is fact. Why not throw mud towards it and see if any sticks to muddy the waters. If I remember correctly - and please somebody correct me if I am wrong - was MC's sister not with her the night she died? there was also an autopsy? I mean it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth that people would so opportunistic to try to cash in on someones death for their own gain.

Given that social media comments had been made about this from people close to the Martens family I would think that the prosecution would be clever enough to look into this and it would have been clear that this may well be the road they planned on taking; clearly it was.

One would think that the first thing you would do is to check the facts before you make such outlandish claims.

All IMO

http://www.journalnow.com/news/loca...cle_d4c1f7c5-eda5-53a9-9cec-c35ef1597340.html

Link to article referencing the defence attempt to speak with Fitzpatrick family back in 2016. Was Mr Fitzpatrick still alive at this point? The court confirmed the order of no contact did not apply to the Fitzpatrick family so do we know if members of the family actually spoke to them after this was clarified?[/QUOTE]

Even stranger is the fact that an hour of reading on social media would have alerted TM's attorneys to the fact that the two families are very close and suppportive of each other.

 

[bernie millar]

Yes your right mags sister was living with them at the time and was there on the night,yes I remember reading the article that mm tms attorneys said the fitzpatrick family said they could not speak to them, would the prosecution have known about the motion before it was filed? Also noted how some papers are putting only the martens side out there I emailed the article that denied the allegations but got no reply and didn't see it printed although that's neither here or there I also feel they should print that tms attorneys have retracted the claim, I am also wondering is mm just pleading not guilty or is she using the self defense? Is her medical records public?

 

[stephanddoody]

Can I just say welcome back StMaryMeade

 

[stephanddoody]

Personally and IMO if I was in the Fitzpatricks position I wouldn't want to correspond with the Martens or their lawyers either unless obligated and would also direct them to my lawyers . I'm assuming that Mr Fitzpatrick was very ill at the time as he passed away a few months later . There was also the irate phone call from Molly in the early hours of the morning demanding to speak to "her children" which wouldn't sit well with me either if I was in Mrs Fitzpatricks position. I was following Emmas trail of thought and found this I thought that hear say evidence wouldn't be admitted to court under any circumstances but apparently it is .

Declarant Unavailable
Some hearsay statements may still be admitted in court, but only if the person who made the original statement cannot testify for some reason. If that person can testify, he must do so, or the statement cannot be used in court.

http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-are-the-hearsay-exceptions/

I wonder would the Martens lawyers know that Mr Fitzpatrick was very unwell and used the opportunity for their own benefit.

 

[stephanddoody]

Discovery Practice (a) In discovery, as in all other professional matters, a lawyer’s conduct must be honest, courteous, and fair. (1) A lawyer should conduct discovery efficiently to elicit relevant facts and evidence and not for an improper purpose, such as to harass, intimidate, unduly burden another party or a witness or to introduce unnecessary delay. Overly broad document requests should be avoided by focusing on clear materiality and a sense of cost/benefit.

Relationships with Witnesses and Litigants A lawyer must treat all persons involved in a case with candor, courtesy and respect for their roleand rights in the legal process. Communicating with Nonparty Fact Witnesses(a) A lawyer must carefully comply with all laws and rules of professional responsibilitygoverning communications with persons and organizations with whom the lawyer does not have anattorney-client relationship. A lawyer must be especially circumspect in communications with nonpartyfact witnesses who have a relationship to another party.(b) In dealing with a nonparty who is a fact witness or a potential fact witness, a lawyer must1) disclose the lawyer’s interest or role in the pending matter and avoid misleadingthe witness about the lawyer’s purpose or interest in the communication;(2) be truthful about the material facts and the applicable law;(3) if the nonparty has no counsel, correct any misunderstanding expressed by thenonparty;(4) treat the nonparty courteously; and(5) avoid unnecessarily embarrassing, inconveniencing or burdening the nonparty.(c) If a lawyer is informed that a nonparty fact witness is represented by counsel in thepending matter, the lawyer must not communicate with the witness concerning the pending litigationwithout permission from that counsel.(d) If communicating with a nonparty fact witness, the lawyer should be careful to avoidfostering any impression that the lawyer also represents that witness unless the lawyer does, in fact,represent the witness in compliance with the applicable rules of professional responsibility.(e) A lawyer should not obstruct another party’s access to a nonparty fact witness or induce anonparty fact witness to evade or ignore process.

A lawyer must not attempt to introduce evidence or to make any argument that the lawyerknows is improper. If a lawyer has doubt about the propriety or prejudicial effect of any disclosure to thejury, the lawyer should request a ruling out of the jury’s hearing.A lawyer should not in argument assert as a fact any matter that is not supported byevidence.(j) A lawyer must never knowingly misquote or mischaracterize the contents of documentaryevidence, the testimony of a witness, the statements or argument of opposing counsel, or the language ofa judicial decision.(k) A lawyer should not propose a stipulation in the jury’s presence unless the lawyer knowsor has reason to believe the opposing lawyer will accept it.(l) A lawyer who receives information clearly establishing that the client has, during therepresentation, perpetrated a fraud on the court should immediately take the actions required by theappropriate procedural and ethical rules. Public Statements about Pending LitigationA case should be tried in the courtroom and not in the media. A lawyer should follow all rulesand orders of the court concerning publicity. In the absence of a specific rule or order, a lawyer shouldnot make any extrajudicial statement that may prejudice an adjudicative proceeding.

http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/media/3143/pretrial_and_trial_conduct.pdf


I have to add that if all defence lawyers were disbarred for not following these rules there wouldn't be a whole lot of defence lawyers left but certainly is food for thought .Either the Martens attorney's knowingly introduced a motion they knew to be lies to taint the jury pool (no retraction reported in US) or they believed Mr FBIs version of events without making the proper verifications they could have just looked at the wedding photos to verify if they were there or not