GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #5

[peregrino]

Thanks Fido, I remember that was what Molly alleged to have happened, I'm just trying to think of ways that SM could be involved in such a way that they can't prove it enough to charge her. Class project on a brick that was kept on the bedside locker always seemed a stretch to me...I guess I'm more thinking out loud at this point sorry!

I always thought the paving stone as a class project was an excuse for having it in the bedroom was a bit weak, just like TM alleging he bought a baseball bat for Jack and didn't get round to giving it to him, so it was conveniently beside TMs bed in the basement. Both stories IMO appear concoted to explain why the 2 weapons were where they say they were, and happened to be 'close at hand'. However, wouldn't both of these stories be relatively easy to verify/ refute? I mean purchase of the bat must have involved sales receipts; the kids teachers can confirm if there were projects involving concrete paving stones. Surely detectives would have checked these things out, wouldn't they?

 

[kittythehare]

this seems interesting.. I wonder who the expert witnesses will be for state and defence.
http://jaapl.org/content/32/1/70

 

[Logic-lady]

I always thought the paving stone as a class project was an excuse for having it in the bedroom was a bit weak, just like TM alleging he bought a baseball bat for Jack and didn't get round to giving it to him, so it was conveniently beside TMs bed in the basement. Both stories IMO appear concoted to explain why the 2 weapons were where they say they were, and happened to be 'close at hand'. However, wouldn't both of these stories be relatively easy to verify/ refute? I mean purchase of the bat must have involved sales receipts; the kids teachers can confirm if there were projects involving concrete paving stones. Surely detectives would have checked these things out, wouldn't they?

Very true, my understanding from some of MM's friends on social media at the time was that their children had completed the same class project and so they knew it to be true, but no way for us to verify that here. Again, the theory was that while the present bat was 'new' to Jack, it was in fact an old one that used to belong to one of Molly's brothers, therefore not new and so no receipt. Again, no way for us to verify that on here. I would hope the detectives have better luck than us!

There was only one bat found in the home by detectives, so that begs the question if TM brought a 'new' bat for Jack where was his old one? There should then have been 2 bats in the home. MM posted a picture of an empty bat cover on her FB page when she was highlighting all of Jack's belongings that she was packing up, it has always niggled at me, why would there be a random empty cover for a baseball bat among his belongings?

 

[courtney2662]

stephanddoody said:
Today 03:49 PM
Emma has already explained it doesn't matter if Mm hit Jason once or ten times or the other way round with Tom . Both are as responsible as each other in the eyes of the law . Molly has admitted hitting him in police statements. She allegedly told Tracy she was responsible for Jason's death . She plays a huge role in this I don't see why her role is being downplayed.


Couldn't agree more, there is no reason to downplay Molly's role in this murder, I firmly believe she was the instigator, the one who attacked Jason Corbett first, on purpose, went and got paving stone, perhaps gloves to protect her hands, and using two hands bashed his head in. She wouldn't have gone to basement to get the bat first, cause her parents were down there, so now makes sense that she went outside in middle of night to get the paving stone. Molly is the one with history of erratic behaviours, instability, mental illness(es), the one who didn't want to be married to Jason Corbett anymore but wanted to take his kids from him. She had been planting the seeds among few friends that she was DV victim, but none witnessed it. I believe one newer friend even tried to assert the notion that she had witnessed DV, but turns out she never even met Jason and had never been invited in to the house for coffee, so the police discounted her totally. There are no medical records or police records for DV, the police had never even received a call about loud fights at the house, so all there is is Molly's family telling the court fables. With Jason and the children heading to Ireland without her that month she had to act fast, and did so. Did she plan to do it with her parents there knowing that they'd help her with the police? with the coverup? That'd be pretty darned cold and calculating to purposefully involve your parents in murder wouldn't it? But that appears to be just who she is.

BUT Both she and her father are equally liable under the law for the murder of Jason Corbett.

 

[Logic-lady]

this seems interesting.. I wonder who the expert witnesses will be for state and defence.
http://jaapl.org/content/32/1/70

I am interested to know this too. I also found this which suggests that unlike other states, both parties can be advised by any number of experts behind the scenes, they only have to name the ones they will be calling to testify.

http://www.testifyingtraining.com/expert-witness-rules-laws-procedure-north-carolina/

https://www.rosen.com/childcustody/carticles/expert-witnesses/

[FONT=&quot]The rules governing discovery of experts in North Carolina differentiate between a “testifying expert” and a “consulting expert.” Sometimes an expert will be both; an expert that is initially retained to consult commonly will become a testifying witness.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Consulting experts are retained to review a file and aid the in the preparation of litigation. In North Carolina, the identity and opinion of a consulting expert that is not going to testify at trial is not discoverable.

Through interrogatories, a party can obtain the identity of and the substance and facts of the others party’s testifying expert in discovery. However, in North Carolina, parties are only entitled to obtain expert disclosure though interrogatories. Pursuant to Rule 26, through the language of the interrogatory, a party can require “[1] any other party to identify each person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at trial, [2] to state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and [3] to state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.”


[/FONT]

 

[courtney2662]

I never thought to look into what TM did before Oak Ridge - this is a broad overview of what Counter Intelligence does within the FBI. Its an interesting read... https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence

Good evening. I'm new on here so hi. I've followed this case since news broke on that weekend. My concerns as kitty pointed out previously that she searched extensively for TM life history and found nothing. Like it had been wiped! If this is so can reports or emails be added to someone life history. ?? It frightens me that they seem so sure to be able to prove a history of dv. The men in this family are no fools, they know how autopsy reports are read and proven. But what do they have?

You are warmly welcomed.
Thanks for such a great and relevant point.
I did a bit of reading in response
This is what I found.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B717FUtKwdU8cEpQMURYSEpMcEU/view

Kate B, put this document together. a long and painstaking task, bless her (we were always losing them and getting them mixed up.
Her post about the documents is in the links file and dated February 20, 2016.

Everyone would benefit from reading it. 98 pages.

Bur regarding internet outside of this and obscure documents suddenly appearing.. as you say.. it is possible.
They had lived in NC for the 4 yrs of their marriage. The local police had never been called to a domestic and had no records of abuse.

Her medical records are sealed.
They are masters of illusion.. thats for sure..
But a man was battered to death.

The warrants state police thought there was a financial motive, they state in the warrants that large sums of money had been removed from the account following Jason's death.

It will be most interesting to discover what the phone records revealed.

The brothers could add lots to the defense case, they could testify that they saw Molly being a great Mom, they could testify as to their Dad's character, they could even testify to having witnessed some of the 'abuse' that the Martens claim has been on-going for years. We just don't know what they will be able to bring to the table, but in terms of credibility certainly two of the three seem to have clean records, and be of reputable character. Perhaps this is why only two of the three are being called? The brother you refer to only moved out of the country since this incident has occurred so once again, we don't know as to what he will be able to testify.

I'm not sure we are allowed to bring the other brother into this as he is not directly involved in the proceedings (mods?) but he was charged with child abuse for failing to secure a minor in the car while driving. This could be a cultural thing as there is currently a video on SM facebook (I presume this is now fair game seeing as she is now a part of the civil suit? Again mods if you could clarify that would be great) of the same little girl being driven while not secured. Some places are more lax regarding how secure children need to be and until what ages. The same with moderate drink driving, (again this may link back to the custody testimony where Tracey stated that Molly drove the children after having a drink, in Ireland this would be extremely uncommon) if it is more commonplace in this part of the States, then potential jurors would not necessarily see this as a huge deal. Perhaps any locals on the forum could give us an idea on this?

*Ms Martens and her father admitted to striking Jason Corbett on the head ‘with a concrete paving brick and an aluminium baseball bat’.

http://evoke.ie/news/jason-corbett-was-hit-on-the-head-with-concrete-block-and-baseball-bat

I've got a hunch she might have hit him too. Think this is from samd article as photo maybe I'm wrong


All my opinions not facts

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

On 911 call the father stated he hit Jason with a bat, the operator repeated "a bat" and that's when Tom says for the first time that 'yes, a bat, he was choking my daughter'. So apparently Tom didn't know about the paving stone at the time of the 911 call, leaving that paving stone the weapon of Molly's. Tom said he brought the bat up with him from the basement...

 

[stephanddoody]

If Evoke have copyright then it was probably first published in the Irish Daily Mail so finding it would be difficult as they don't publish online, only their sister paper, Evoke, produce some articles. I think it was around the custody hearing as you say, so two to three weeks. Can you remember the date of her first court appearance?

i think the first was on the 8th or maybe 12th of August . As far as I'm aware this picture was on the 20th of August . I got the meta data but it didn't include date but John Cogilln is the photographer not sure who he works for .

 

[Be true]

Another scenario, what if mm had beat Jason unconscious, then goes to basement tells the others she's done it adds the DV story, tm being fbi knows if Jason comes around mm will be done for attempted murder so he finishes the job ??? Clean up by third party??

Just a thought
An opinion,
Not at all a fact.

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[kittythehare]

I am interested to know this too. I also found this which suggests that unlike other states, both parties can be advised by any number of experts behind the scenes, they only have to name the ones they will be calling to testify.

http://www.testifyingtraining.com/expert-witness-rules-laws-procedure-north-carolina/

https://www.rosen.com/childcustody/carticles/expert-witnesses/

[FONT=&amp]The rules governing discovery of experts in North Carolina differentiate between a “testifying expert” and a “consulting expert.” Sometimes an expert will be both; an expert that is initially retained to consult commonly will become a testifying witness.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Consulting experts are retained to review a file and aid the in the preparation of litigation. In North Carolina, the identity and opinion of a consulting expert that is not going to testify at trial is not discoverable.

Through interrogatories, a party can obtain the identity of and the substance and facts of the others party’s testifying expert in discovery. However, in North Carolina, parties are only entitled to obtain expert disclosure though interrogatories. Pursuant to Rule 26, through the language of the interrogatory, a party can require “[1] any other party to identify each person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at trial, [2] to state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and [3] to state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.”


[/FONT]

Well done you. This is most enlightening..Thanks!

 

[Logic-lady]

this might help clarify.
Term seems to be collateral estoppel
https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/court-oks-offensive-collateral-est
http://benchbook.sog.unc.edu/sites/benchbook.sog.unc.edu/files/pdf/Double Jeopardy_0.pdf
but they dont help me at all to understand the absence of a criminal indictment here?

I can only assume that given the State have advised that their case will be based on circumstantial evidence, they felt it prudent to charge only the two who admitted the crime. TM does not have to testify against his wife, and Molly is potentially easily controlled by the Martens. If the scene had been wiped down and they could not forensically link her to the crime, they would have been left with little option, despite what they may actually believe happened that night.

The burden of proof is so much lower in civil cases, they only need to show that the 'weight of probabilities' lies in their favour to get a conviction and so it is easier to implicate Sharon in this way. http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1122&context=nclr

 

[stmarysmead]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yGOlONoTUXk

"I'm certified."
But MM does nothing prior to the call.

 

[kittythehare]

Another scenario, what if mm had beat Jason unconscious, then goes to basement tells the others she's done it adds the DV story, tm being fbi knows if Jason comes around mm will be done for attempted murder so he finishes the job ??? Clean up by third party??

Just a thought
An opinion,
Not at all a fact.

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

Also possible that s was instigator and active participant?

I dont have the faintest idea how to go about researching NC law in this regard;
Two people claim the murder and are criminally indicted, the third claims non participation and no knowledge of crime, but is involved and the police know?

Could this trial actually prove that Molly was innocent entirely and could her mother be indicted instead?
Nobody looked at Sharon's hands.. Sharon was not examined by ME..
There is no record that she was even interviewed by police, but she must have been..
Could it be? I know its wild.. but is it possible?
The Search warrants show that the police requested records of all her phonecalls to Molly within specified dates..

Another theory, wild as well, is that tom never participated in the assault at all?
Why would she, as alleged in civil suit have interfered with evidence.
What evidence exactly had been tampered with?
Weapons?
Crime scene/
Clothes worn by attackers?
It could be anything and theres no point speculating..
I remember we discussed many of these theories in the earlier threads.. has everybody read them?
I found lots to jog my memory within those threads, much was theorising ad speculative but lots of food for thought too.
should we maybe be concentrating on new or current information at this point rather that repeating ourselves?
Above is pure speculation on my part, I neither believe it nor disbelieve it..I cannot understand the intertwining of what civil case has thrown up and what criminal law/case will present?

Does anybody anywhere have any light to throw into this dense legal thing?

 

[Be true]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yGOlONoTUXk

"I'm certified."
But MM does nothing prior to the call.

Nor does she do anything before 5 minutes into call.

Notice at 3m 4 sec in after the 911 receiver asks if he is breathing tm replies, I can't..No

What's a reaction to what your eyes are seeing and someone announcing your husband's not breathing, even in a dv situation imo panic screams, crys, that painful belly cry, that its gone too far we need to get him back cry, where are her crys for her mother to help??

All that's heard after that is..... SILENCE. that woman sits In that room with her partner of how many years his scalp open, face swollen black and blue, bleeding, slipping away and shes somewhere in that room silent. Just as the silence from 3.32 to 3.57 left a void filled by the thought only of Jason lying there so does that silence at 3.04

Just my sad observations, my own thoughts opinions and not facts.


Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[stmarysmead]

The DA has to,prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." At this point he has two admitted killers. So he just had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this beatdown went beyond self defense to 2nd degree murder.

But MM and TM have said SM is not involved. If the State argues that she was...when they have two confessed killers, how do they convince a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt."

The jury might also feel that the DA is not sure who did what...and find all three not guilty. So for the criminal trial...it's TM and MM.

But the threshold is much, much lower in a civil trial. There the punishment is not prison. But money, money, money. The civil attorney thinks he can convince HIS jury that all three were involved. Sharon is in! Plus if TM anticipated this civil suit, he probably moved assets into her name.Now her assets, his assets, anything MM has or inherits are all vulnerable.

That's my guess anyway.

 

[Be true]

Also possible that s was instigator and active participant?

I dont have the faintest idea how to go about researching NC law in this regard;
Two people claim the murder and are criminally indicted, the third claims non participation and no knowledge of crime, but is involved and the police know?

Could this trial actually prove that Molly was innocent entirely and could her mother be indicted instead?
Nobody looked at Sharon's hands.. Sharon was not examined by ME..
There is no record that she was even interviewed by police, but she must have been..
Could it be? I know its wild.. but is it possible?
The Search warrants show that the police requested records of all her phonecalls to Molly within specified dates..

Another theory, wild as well, is that tom never participated in the assault at all?
Why would she, as alleged in civil suit have interfered with evidence.
What evidence exactly had been tampered with?
Weapons?
Crime scene/
Clothes worn by attackers?
It could be anything and theres no point speculating..
I remember we discussed many of these theories in the earlier threads.. has everybody read them?
I found lots to jog my memory within those threads, much was theorising ad speculative but lots of food for thought too.
should we maybe be concentrating on new or current information at this point rather that repeating ourselves?
Above is pure speculation on my part, I neither believe it nor disbelieve it..I cannot understand the intertwining of what civil case has thrown up and what criminal law/case will present?

Does anybody anywhere have any light to throw into this dense legal thing?

I'm no good with the legal but I agree we need to have a clear togetherness in sleuthing this week. Have the one aim, take the evidence and statements at the trial and reference them to what's archived here and anything new we can find in relation.

Look for instance at the fb post from ME Stephan posted yesterday, how it helped when the civil case was announced. We have someone confirm SM was awake.


And I think it's important that everyday the trial continues we keep the victim Jason Corbett in our sight because I've no doubt there is a wave of allegations to come from defence imo and it would be a shame after 2 years to let that turn the thread into a back and forth bickering debate.

All just my opinions.

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[Be true]

The DA has to,prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." At this point he has two admitted killers. So he just had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this beatdown went beyond self defense to 2nd degree murder.

But MM and TM have said SM is not involved. If the State argues that she was...when they have two confessed killers, how do they convince a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt."

The jury might also feel that the DA is not sure who did what...and find all three not guilty. So for the criminal trial...it's TM and MM.

But the threshold is much, much lower in a civil trial. There the punishment is not prison. But money, money, money. The civil attorney thinks he can convince HIS jury that all three were involved. Sharon is in! Plus if TM anticipated this civil suit, he probably moved assets into her name.Now her assets, his assets, anything MM has or inherits are all vulnerable.

That's my guess anyway.

Great to have your knowledge of the law there. I'm wondering are DA hoping to put SM on the stand in ghe hopes she may slip up ?

Jmo

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[searchinGirl]

Emma has already explained it doesn't matter if Mm hit Jason once or ten times or the other way round with Tom . Both are as responsible as each other in the eyes of the law . Molly has admitted hitting him in police statements. She allegedly told Tracy she was responsible for Jason's death . She plays a huge role in this I don't see why her role is being downplayed.

I'm not at all trying to downgrade Molly's role in this, but it would be good to get to the truth of the matter. I mean if she didn't strike him except for with the lamp or something less deadly, how could she be held responsible for the overkill? I can't say for sure what would happen then, but Molly might be adjudicated separately from her father. IMO different verdicts for each, it's possible.

 

[Logic-lady]

The DA has to,prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." At this point he has two admitted killers. So he just had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this beatdown went beyond self defense to 2nd degree murder.

But MM and TM have said SM is not involved. If the State argues that she was...when they have two confessed killers, how do they convince a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt."

The jury might also feel that the DA is not sure who did what...and find all three not guilty. So for the criminal trial...it's TM and MM.

But the threshold is much, much lower in a civil trial. There the punishment is not prison. But money, money, money. The civil attorney thinks he can convince HIS jury that all three were involved. Sharon is in! Plus if TM anticipated this civil suit, he probably moved assets into her name.Now her assets, his assets, anything MM has or inherits are all vulnerable.

That's my guess anyway.

I have wondered about the liquidating of the assets...the Martens must have anticipated this civil suit. While I'm sure they do have very large legal fees to cover, it has occurred to me that there is potentially another reason to transfer the assets. If as parents you have four children, you and one of those children are involved in a case where there is a balanced probability that you will be held accountable financially, what about your other three children?

Would you want all of your assets, everything you had worked for, being shipped across the Atlantic...or would you want it to go to your children, your blood, your family.

 

[stmarysmead]

I was discussing this case with a friend yesterday whose sister is divorcing her husband and has aprotective order because of DV.

She said her brother in law was choking her sister while she held their baby. Older kids were in another room. Her sister said she thought he would stop if the other children came in the bedroom...but she was unable to scream because of the choking. She could not scream or utter a loud noise.

At this point, she was becoming dazed and dropped the baby, who screamed at the top of his lungs and the kids came running. She got away and tried to call the police but her voice was raspy, hard to understand on 911 call.

She then vomited, which police said is common.

This certainly is different from Molly.

 

[Logic-lady]

I'm not at all trying to downgrade Molly's role in this, but it would be good to get to the truth of the matter. I mean if she didn't strike him except for with the lamp or something less deadly, how could she be held responsible for the overkill? I can't say for sure what would happen then, but Molly might be adjudicated separately from her father. IMO different verdicts for each, it's possible.

Different verdicts for both is a possibility, but why would TM feel the need to use two weapons? He was apparently wielding the bat quite successfully, why put that down and move from the doorway (where he alleged Jason was choking Molly) passed Jason into the bedroom to pick up a brick that was on the bedside locker? It makes more sense that if there were two weapons, there were two perpetrators IMO.