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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?

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.

She told the police she hit him, in self defense. So what makes you consider that perhaps she didn't hit him? The police and the DA would also have to have darn good evidence in order to charge both of them for the same crime. So it does look as if you're trying to either downgrade Molly's part in this brutal murder, or mitigate her participation, and I for one don't see what makes you think that. Do you not think a woman is capable of such brutality? Do you think Molly is different to other murderers?
 
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?

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?

Sharon has led a pretty stable life, other than having to rescue Molly. She's a mathematician professor at local community college, and her other three children appear to live normal lives, so personally I can't see her getting up in middle of night and bashing a man to death. But I can see she and Tom doing anything and everything they can to save Molly from prison, including destroying evidence, concocting story to justify the killing of Jason. What I find utterly reprehensible of Sharon Martens is that she endangered Jason and his children from the day Molly went to work for them, and then even after her daughter and husband killed Jason, coached those children to speak lies against their dead father, and still tried to steal those children away from Corbetts so Molly could have them - there is no forgiveness or understanding for her, I have no sympathy for her whatsoever. There's a coldness in the Martens and Earnest families that speaks to true dysfunction. In contrast, the Corbett and Fitzpatrick families have been not just utter class acts, they have been loving, caring, close, supportive family. They clearly are beloved and well respected in their community. Perhaps Jason having no experience with cold-hearted highly dysfunctional people like the Martens is what allowed him to go ahead and marry Molly and stay with her despite some misgivings till her abusive behaviours were affecting his children.
 
No what I understand Civil cases can use what has being used in Criminal Trial. But it certainly could give pointers to a criminal investigation evidence used in the civil to begin and to investigate the civil courts case allegations if they were strong and had supporting facts.
If the DA had something to charge SM with, she would have been charged by now, no doubt about that. If SM were to confess to the crime on the witness stand I think the DA would prosecute her but that is doubtful. This is one of those cases in which I believe a lawyer would not let SM testify to anything incriminating. IMO

The lawsuit to me appears to be filed in order to protect the Corbett's rights under the statute of limitations. Can't say what the Corbett's think SM did that led to the death of Jason, but if appears there may be date restrictions on filing a lawsuit against TM and MM, and their feelings about SM were enough to file a lawsuit against her, whether or not they have anything to back it up. IMO
 
If the DA had something to charge SM with, she would have been charged by now, no doubt about that. If SM were to confess to the crime on the witness stand I think the DA would prosecute her but that is doubtful. This is one of those cases in which I believe a lawyer would not let SM testify to anything incriminating. IMO

The lawsuit to me appears to be filed in order to protect the Corbett's rights under the statute of limitations. Can't say what the Corbett's think SM did that led to the death of Jason, but if appears there may be date restrictions on filing a lawsuit against TM and MM, and their feelings about SM were enough to file a lawsuit against her, whether or not they have anything to back it up. IMO

If you read the website and biography of the civil lawyer, he is extremely experienced in the practice of civil law. There is no way he would add Sharon's name in this suit just to please the Lynch/Corbett family. Her name is there because he has more information at this point than any of us on this website and he made a judgement based on his years of experience, to include Sharon.
 
If you read the website and biography of the civil lawyer, he is extremely experienced in the practice of civil law. There is no way he would add Sharon's name in this suit just to please the Lynch/Corbett family. Her name is there because he has more information at this point than any of us on this website and he made a judgement based on his years of experience, to include Sharon.
While also not letting the statute of limitations expire. IMO
 
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?

Sorry if I transgressed the rules I thought I did it sufficient circuitously and obliquely dealing with what is I believe a pivotal time in the saga and supporting this I now find SM as a defendant in the civil suit. But those directly involved in the killing they have no excuses, everyone is directly responsible for their own actions. While I was not writing a forensic linked story I was giving flesh to what is in the public domain. I want to make it clear I have no association with the Corbett family or the online campaign Justice for Jason (RIP). I stated their local TD (parliamentary representative) took up the cudgels for them and that Irish Foreign Affairs were involved. This I got from local knowledge from a source in Limerick because at the time as I was astonished how a non-legal family got so organized with legal teams in the US and were in the US courts so quickly. There is a link to this and the TD is Willie O Dea who was a former Irish Government Minister and lawyer and when it comes to heavy hitting in such a humanitarian situation he is the best. This was with an unstoppable local support.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/cri...s-of-irish-siblings-td-willie-o-dea-1.2314062

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...rt-for-family-of-slain-irishman-31445737.html

http://www.ilovelimerick.ie/2015/ho...son-corbett-will-return-to-ireland-this-week/

And for Shannon Airport involvement again this was word of mouth but we can see this input on the marathon flight home, Shannon Airport was coordinating this from a far as bad weather cause a missed flight but alternative plans were quickly put in place and I’m sure the transit US airports and airways were on notice to receive their weary travellers and deal with them appropriately.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...t-childrens-39hour-journey-home-31470951.html



I have being reading some of the post on the advocates of a DV angle to the night of JC death and none of it has a shred of logic to and is full of holes and I can’t but wonder has it an alternative motive. Police reports make this clear that TM and MM had no injuries. The facts are JC was found naked in the floor of his own bedroom and one can presume from that he was in bed. I don’t believe for one second the JC was walking around the house in the nude while his in-laws were visiting. It’s more than likely he slept in the nude as so many do and it would appear this was a ground floor bedroom. I would also think he was in a deep sleep as this is the effect of the drug found in his body and if this was his first time in his system the effects would be even bigger. So if MM felt that abused why she didn’t she sleep in another bedroom and from the available information she had her clothes in the first floor bedroom so why didn’t she just go to sleep there and bolt the door. And why should MM feel so entrapped in a DV situation after all she was in a readymade family having no genetic links to, living in a property she had no financial input to and living an extravagant lifestyle she did not support. If she wanted a way out of the situation she had had no kinsfolk linkages or pecuniary all she had to do is call the removal truck and go right back to moms and pops and start all over again. It would have JC blessing. For the blood in the bathroom and hallway that would be easily explained as being transferred by those in the bloodbath. There also appears to be a discussion taking place in the background of the 911 call, wonder who it was.

JC had found a way out of the situation with his kids and he was exercising that option by returning back to Ireland. Unfortunately for the Ms this option was not to their liking especially the taking of his kids back to Ireland. It would not be of JC strategic interest to start any dramatics that night and that would be his professional way of doing things. It appears he was sick of the situation and he was moving on and had made the plans to so do. And for the Ms’ family their ungratefulness in attacking JC, the greatest period of stability for MM since the onset of her psychiatric illness was with JC. But what immediately came to my mind after JC death until explained here was what was a 22/23 yrs old from a US middle-class family, extremely attractive, family having all the right connections holding positions in federal administration coming to Ireland to babysit. It just didn’t make sense; one of that age would expect would be starting a career and looking to establish her own family. It now seems that she couldn’t, she was looking for a readymade family, one that financially supported her.



I still find this difficult to comprehend, suppose the Ms’ got custody of the kids and this is not farfetched as MM did get an initial custody order despite she being the prime suspect in the killing of the kids father and she only stepmother. Two scenarios arise, the first, there was no criminal prosecution and MM continues as primary care giver and the second there was and those directly responsible for JC death imprisoned for it. How this would be explained to Jack and Sarah down the line. Kids are not jewellery accessories or puppy dogs and no matter how much lies, Jack was going to pry to the truth to his dad’s death in the next 2yrs and have the ability to Google it and be able to read his father’s horrific autopsy report. And if he didn’t he would have one of his peers tell him this. What was he then expected to do then, he and his sister living with a mommy and a grand-pops or them in prison if convicted with mama-bear as their primary caregiver and she taking them on prison visits to visit their dads killer who brutally pulverised him to death. And this mama-bear was present in the house the night of his father’s death and did nothing to save him. No amount of mollycoddling could pass this off, it bears incomprehension the effect it would have on them. One thing I know of my own experience where there has being a family trauma such for me as a house fire of the past and kids come to the age of getting knowledge of it is how they forensically go through it till they are satisfied they have built a full picture of it. At least now Jack has the full knowledge he had a loving caring family back in Ireland that immediately rode into to battle fearlessly to his rescue and save him and his little sister. I can’t imagine how he is now coping even knowing the love of his Limerick family. He is now of the age of establishing his adolescence masculinity. He has no father, gone is the figure of his life that he shared his thoughts with and hung out with and that is irreplaceable. And we do know that Jack had an over reliance of his father as the primary caregiver and was well aware that MM was not his mother and there was constant friction with her, he refusing to call her what she demanded, mommy. We do know Jack is asking his now caregivers why are not the killers of his dad in prison and I would imagine find it incomprehensible. At his age waiting two yrs is a lifetime.



It could be worse and more complicated just imagine the complications if MM had offspring with JC and trying to solve this and all the complications it would bring and these siblings of little Jack and Sarah. At least in this situation for Jack and Sarah there's an option of a clean break.

Looking at MM claim to her mommy status especially the letter she states was from Jack and Sarah one thing is quite clear its seems its written with the same hand and for clear evidence is the lower case ”you” both said to be from both Jack and Sarah are the same, the “m” are the same and another example the “g” in August at top of letter is the same as what’s used for Jack. There is no doubt this is a forgery and for the circumstance around it so farfetched that’s its inexplicable. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10208839096481358&set=pcb.10208839098561410&type=3&theater


I would think the prosecution have a case full of holes on the night of the JC death. While TM and MM cooperated with police and it would seem made statements and recordings. Telling a convincing lie and two people getting it straight all the time immediately after the incident is an impossible. But no doubt JM believed his past in law enforcement would allay this and these provincial police would not have the experience to deal with it and he would wrap the whole thing immediately. I know from my own angle if I was being questioned as a suspect about a serious crime and I totally innocent of I would be deferring all answers “that my lawyer would deal with it”. There is a well know saying "A man who is his own lawyer - has a fool for a client.".



A “donnybrook” referred in TM 911 call is an Irish term and refers to the old Irish cattle fairs affrays. One of such was held in Donnybrook in Dublin. Often at these events extended families engaged other families with stick and stones often the cause being land issues as Ireland was then under British rule and Irish native landholding was that of tenant farmers at the pleasure of the Anglo-Irish landlord. Evictions were often and the replacement tenant was often the focus of the dispossessed wrath.



As for the Irish views of the US criminal justice system, we are only fully aware of its un-forgivingness to wrongdoers but we have still memories of the circus of the OJ trial. For this trial what we expect the case being played out of the saga of the damsel in distress like the race distraction of the OJ trial. And pops of long unblemished experience in law enforcement having to come to the rescue to save her. And no doubt the villainy of JC and total disregards for little Jack and Sarah. I have no doubt the Ms’ initial statements to Police are full of holes and there is a clear distinct motive of the Corbett kids. There is no doubt we are among a terrible evil and a warped evil and this is for the extended M family. Mona Earnest FB page is a taunting of the C family is an evil sick taunting using little kids.
https://www.facebook.com/mona.earnest1?pnref=friends.search
and mama-bear self-righteousness is very twisted mind-set and the audaciousness in its sheer brazeness
https://www.facebook.com/sharon.martens.16


As for this an Irish v US, it’s anything as such. The Ms’ FB support some are identifiable Irish people living in Ireland. I can only presume some of these are blind to the truth or are too stupid to acquire the full story. There is also the fact that evil attract the same and that even the serial killer Ted Bundy had an extended fan base.

Was hoping to build a fuller picture if the Ms of what is known of the family how long have they being in the US and what are their ethnic background. I associate this area are to be of the “bible belt” and having association of being heavily settled by the Scots-Irish and to a lesser by Anglo-Saxon settlers in the 18 & 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century. But SM FB states she is from Tallahassee, Florida and went to high-school there don’t know if TM is from there.



The prosecution will open its case tomorrow let’s see justice served and the wicket punished.

I do remember reading that several members of the Irish Consulate, local and from Washington DC attended the earlier custody hearings, helping the Corbetts as much as they could, to bring two Irish citizens who were minor orphans home to Ireland to live with their family. The American consulate would have done nothing different to aide American citizens abroad. I believe Molly was granted custody initially because the Corbett children had no relative here, and Molly had acted so quickly after Jason's murder. She was backed in court by her family, all of whom were at first glance steady, stable upstanding members of the community and you can be certain that justice wasn't told of the circumstances of Jason's murder.

Molly's assertions of DV are unfounded, with no medical or police reports/history, just her accusations after he was killed. She is further undermined by her own actions of seeking advice from divorce lawyer, and also custody lawyer in 2014. She was advised that only way she could take the children from Jason was if (1) she was able to adopt them; and (2) he was abusive to her and the children. http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...vorce-and-custody-two-years-ago-31464552.html

I followed this case from the beginning, and from the start, reading Molly's social media campaigns and posts, I was struck that it was all about her. RIghtly or wrongly, I see her as someone who's narcissistic, highly manipulative. She seemed to be trying out different scenarios to see what would fly. She joined social media sites for domestic violence victims, and parents who's children have been taken and/or alienated, seeking sympathy for having "her" children taken away. She had erased all evidence of Jason, his parents, his siblings, etc. , she acted as if she were the only one who raised those children, lying that she raised them for 8 years (she was au pair for half that time, with the children spending every day in the creche mother founded). That their only family was her and her parents as if poor Jason Corbett never existed. It was pretty evil and nasty. I don't know the Corbett's either, but there is something about this story that touches you, you can't help but hurt for those poor children, for those parents, and Jason's twin brother, his sisters and brothers. He was so close to returning home safe and sound, almost.

I believe that Martens defense teams will portray Molly as the all-American girl, her father as a great American patriot who has spent his life in service of his country. I believe the DA will be able to counter that with the true picture of who the Martens are, and the horrible brutal murderers they are. That behind closed doors they are much different than the All-American family, that Molly's issues and instability have been enabled by her parents, and she in turn has destroyed her family.
 
While also not letting the statute of limitations expire. IMO

Where you and I disagree is your declarative statement that there is no evidence against Sharon or she would be charged. My opinion is that there may not be enough evidence to charge her in a criminal proceeding, but this civil lawyer must feel he has evidence enough to include her in the civil complaint.

He would not just add her name if there was nothing there.
 
I do remember reading that several members of the Irish Consulate, local and from Washington DC attended the earlier custody hearings, helping the Corbetts as much as they could, to bring two Irish citizens who were minor orphans home to Ireland to live with their family. The American consulate would have done nothing different to aide American citizens abroad. I believe Molly was granted custody initially because the Corbett children had no relative here, and Molly had acted so quickly after Jason's murder. She was backed in court by her family, all of whom were at first glance steady, stable upstanding members of the community and you can be certain that justice wasn't told of the circumstances of Jason's murder.

Molly's assertions of DV are unfounded, with no medical or police reports/history, just her accusations after he was killed. She is further undermined by her own actions of seeking advice from divorce lawyer, and also custody lawyer in 2014. She was advised that only way she could take the children from Jason was if (1) she was able to adopt them; and (2) he was abusive to her and the children. http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...vorce-and-custody-two-years-ago-31464552.html

I followed this case from the beginning, and from the start, reading Molly's social media campaigns and posts, I was struck that it was all about her. RIghtly or wrongly, I see her as someone who's narcissistic, highly manipulative. She seemed to be trying out different scenarios to see what would fly. She joined social media sites for domestic violence victims, and parents who's children have been taken and/or alienated, seeking sympathy for having "her" children taken away. She had erased all evidence of Jason, his parents, his siblings, etc. , she acted as if she were the only one who raised those children, lying that she raised them for 8 years (she was au pair for half that time, with the children spending every day in the creche mother founded). That their only family was her and her parents as if poor Jason Corbett never existed. It was pretty evil and nasty. I don't know the Corbett's either, but there is something about this story that touches you, you can't help but hurt for those poor children, for those parents, and Jason's twin brother, his sisters and brothers. He was so close to returning home safe and sound, almost.

I believe that Martens defense teams will portray Molly as the all-American girl, her father as a great American patriot who has spent his life in service of his country. I believe the DA will be able to counter that with the true picture of who the Martens are, and the horrible brutal murderers they are. That behind closed doors they are much different than the All-American family, that Molly's issues and instability have been enabled by her parents, and she in turn has destroyed her family.

Bravo! Terrific post! I agree completely.
 
Last try!
If there any lawyers on ws, I dont expect you to read the thread, relevant legal documents, warrants and media coverage are all on media links thread.
Case is homicide acca to autopsy. A father and daughter have been indicted and trial starts tomorrow. NC.
A third adult is known to have been present in house on the night of the murder. Her relationship to victim is mother-in-law.
Her relationship to the accused is mother and wife.
She has not been criminally charged and there is no public source or record of police interviews with her on the night of the homicide or afterwards.
The police did obtain a search warrant for her phone records to her daughter's number.
Today, we are informed that she is one of 3 named in a civil suit filed by the family of the homicide victim.
1- To this end, is she likely to be called as witness for either the defence or the prosecution in the forthcoming criminal trial?

2-She will not be on trial herself, but is it possible that she could incur criminal charges as a result of whatever she presents as facts in the course of her testimony?

3-Are the allegations of the civil trial, not yet commenced, (interference with evidence) likely to affect the outcome of the criminal trial ?

4,- Is there any precedence for a witness for the defence being charged with a crime, other than perjury, as a result of actions they took on the night of the crime which become apparent in the course of the criminal trial?
5,- I will do the searching if you can advise me what I am to search for, please?

I practice in NC. I am relatively familiar with the facts of the case.

1. I find it unlikely that the prosecution would call her as a witness. Her testimony, if anything, is going to favor the defense side. I don't think the DA gets anything by calling her. One caveat would be if she spoke to an officer and her story contradicts some key point that TM or MM told police that evening. As someone else already pointed out, any conversation she had with TM is privileged under the marital privilege rule.

The defense could call her but without being privy to their strategy and investigative reports in this case there is no way to know. The defense lawyers would also strongly consider how she presents herself and whether she could stand up to cross exam from the DA. If she gets up there and her testimony falls apart it could lead to a conviction because outside of TM and MM she is the only other living eyewitness to the crime.

2. She could incriminate herself on the stand. That's why witnesses will sometimes plead the fifth if they run the risk of revealing their participation in a crime with their testimony. She undoubtedly has her own counsel who has advised her of any potential issues with her testimony.

3. Probably not. I think there is actually a specific statute which bars the use of a civil verdict as evidence in an associated criminal case. Even if there wasn't, the civil case has not even gotten off the ground with depostions discovery, etc, and and so there really is nothing that can be used.

4. See answer to 2 above.
 
I practice in NC. I am relatively familiar with the facts of the case.

1. I find it unlikely that the prosecution would call her as a witness. Her testimony, if anything, is going to favor the defense side. I don't think the DA gets anything by calling her. One caveat would be if she spoke to an officer and her story contradicts some key point that TM or MM told police that evening. As someone else already pointed out, any conversation she had with TM is privileged under the marital privilege rule.

The defense could call her but without being privy to their strategy and investigative reports in this case there is no way to know. The defense lawyers would also strongly consider how she presents herself and whether she could stand up to cross exam from the DA. If she gets up there and her testimony falls apart it could lead to a conviction because outside of TM and MM she is the only other living eyewitness to the crime.

2. She could incriminate herself on the stand. That's why witnesses will sometimes plead the fifth if they run the risk of revealing their participation in a crime with their testimony. She undoubtedly has her own counsel who has advised her of any potential issues with her testimony.

3. Probably not. I think there is actually a specific statute which bars the use of a civil verdict as evidence in an associated criminal case. Even if there wasn't, the civil case has not even gotten off the ground with depostions discovery, etc, and and so there really is nothing that can be used.

4. See answer to 2 above.
Thank you so very much.
I deeply appreciate it.
Respect.
 
There is such a thing in the law as "fraudulent conveyance."

https://www.assetprotectionplanners.com/articles/truth/fraudulent-conveyance/

I'm not a lawyer but I think in simple terms, the Civil Court would look suspiciously on any trust set up or transference of funds after Jason was killed...because the Martens would have had a reasonable expectation of a civil suit.

Now if they did it, before he died, that would not look suspicious.

What I understand of Trust Law hiding assets to avoid a liability or in fear or in anticipation of such would be unconscionable and breach Trust Law and be regarded as a fraudulent transfer. SM would be entitled to her own share of the joint property with her husband if she was not party to the dispute.
[FONT=&quot]Trust Law is explicit trust shall not be used as a vehicle for fraud.[/FONT]
 
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?

If she is found guilty in the civil case could she be found guilty as an accessory after the fact I wonder?
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-7.pdf

If evidence were to come out of the civil case to show Sharon was accessory after the fact, helped destroy evidence in murder case, then yes, she could be indicted, arrested and prosecuted.
 
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?

Her Father, Thomas? I'm going with his story for now or at least what I know about it because that's that is what the prosecution has to disprove. If they used gloves wouldn't that be evidence of pre-meditation? I don't think 10 to 12 days is enough time to assume Mollys bruises, if they are bruises, didn't happen on the night of the crime. But at that point in the courtroom they might could be covered up with make-up. IMO I really can't tell. But I do believe that Molly's level of involvement in the beating will most likely be taken into consideration by the jury. IMO


1. Molly has always asserted she doesn't bruise, and that's why she had no bruises around her neck. You seem to be ignoring that she had no bruises on her neck even though she and her father assert Jason was choking her, yet, for no reason at all, you see a shadow on her hand and assume that's a bruise from the night of Jason's murder, a bruise that Molly was covering up? Sorry, that's illogical to me. 2. Molly is the one with motive to kill Jason, and the one with history of violence, abuse and erratic behaviours, not the father. Why are you making him the main perpetrator when he had no motive to go in to Jason's bedroom and attack the naked man while he was asleep?
 
Where you and I disagree is your declarative statement that there is no evidence against Sharon or she would be charged. My opinion is that there may not be enough evidence to charge her in a criminal proceeding, but this civil lawyer must feel he has evidence enough to include her in the civil complaint.

He would not just add her name if there was nothing there.

It would indeed be very irresponsible if the lawyer had included Sharon Martens in the civil law suit without good cause and reason, and given his standing in the legal community I think it's completely logical to assume he wouldn't put his reputation on the line.
 
Last try!
If there any lawyers on ws, I dont expect you to read the thread, relevant legal documents, warrants and media coverage are all on media links thread.
Case is homicide acca to autopsy. A father and daughter have been indicted and trial starts tomorrow. NC.
A third adult is known to have been present in house on the night of the murder. Her relationship to victim is mother-in-law.
Her relationship to the accused is mother and wife.
She has not been criminally charged and there is no public source or record of police interviews with her on the night of the homicide or afterwards.
The police did obtain a search warrant for her phone records to her daughter's number.
Today, we are informed that she is one of 3 named in a civil suit filed by the family of the homicide victim.
1- To this end, is she likely to be called as witness for either the defence or the prosecution in the forthcoming criminal trial?

2-She will not be on trial herself, but is it possible that she could incur criminal charges as a result of whatever she presents as facts in the course of her testimony?

3-Are the allegations of the civil trial, not yet commenced, (interference with evidence) likely to affect the outcome of the criminal trial ?

4,- Is there any precedence for a witness for the defence being charged with a crime, other than perjury, as a result of actions they took on the night of the crime which become apparent in the course of the criminal trial?
5,- I will do the searching if you can advise me what I am to search for, please?

Hi not sure if your question has been fully answered yet.

1) she can be subpoenaed by the state or the defense to testify. If she was present it is likely she will be. However, she can invoke the spousal testimonial privilege and not testify against her husband but will be compelled to testify against her daughter

2) unless she has some form of immunity, anything she says during testimony can be used to bring criminal charges against her

3) evidence of a pending civil lawsuit cannot be introduced in a criminal trial. However, if she is found civilly liable, such evidence, subject to limitation, could be admitted against her if she is subsequently charged

4) I don't have case names off hand (I'm from out of state) but anything she says under oath on the witness stand can be used to bring charges so long as she doesn't have immunity. However, if her actions were criminal it is likely she will invoke the 5th amendment right against self incrimination thereby refusing to answer questions which may incriminate her

Hope this helps!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
1. Molly has always asserted she doesn't bruise, and that's why she had no bruises around her neck. You seem to be ignoring that she had no bruises on her neck even though she and her father assert Jason was choking her, yet, for no reason at all, you see a shadow on her hand and assume that's a bruise from the night of Jason's murder, a bruise that Molly was covering up? Sorry, that's illogical to me. 2. Molly is the one with motive to kill Jason, and the one with history of violence, abuse and erratic behaviours, not the father. Why are you making him the main perpetrator when he had no motive to go in to Jason's bedroom and attack the naked man while he was asleep?
No, I'm exploring the possibility of it being a bruise or not. Thomas Martins himself said he was the main perpetrator acting in defense of another. That's what there is to disprove.

If you can show that TM "attacked the naked man in his sleep" then you solved the crime. Hopefully you have evidence to Prove he was killed in his sleep. Should that not be the case, it's unlikely the jury will hear that theory because the prosecution is bound to stick to disproving self defense.

I don't believe that extraneous theories can be introduced "on the fly". Same thing with additional charges for the jury to consider at the time of instructions. Perhaps the NC lawyer would be willing to clarify?
 
Hi not sure if your question has been fully answered yet.

1) she can be subpoenaed by the state or the defense to testify. If she was present it is likely she will be. However, she can invoke the spousal testimonial privilege and not testify against her husband but will be compelled to testify against her daughter

2) unless she has some form of immunity, anything she says during testimony can be used to bring criminal charges against her

3) evidence of a pending civil lawsuit cannot be introduced in a criminal trial. However, if she is found civilly liable, such evidence, subject to limitation, could be admitted against her if she is subsequently charged

4) I don't have case names off hand (I'm from out of state) but anything she says under oath on the witness stand can be used to bring charges so long as she doesn't have immunity. However, if her actions were criminal it is likely she will invoke the 5th amendment right against self incrimination thereby refusing to answer questions which may incriminate her

Hope this helps!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thank you so much for taking the time to respond.
I had received a response from another NC lawyer and bot serve to completely untangle my mind. Its a huge weight lifted. I am deeply grateful.
 
No, I'm exploring the possibility of it being a bruise or not. Thomas Martins himself said he was the main perpetrator acting in defense of another. That's what there is to disprove.

If you can show that TM "attacked the naked man in his sleep" then you solved the crime. Hopefully you have evidence to Prove he was killed in his sleep. Should that not be the case, it's unlikely the jury will hear that theory because the prosecution is bound to stick to disproving self defense.

I don't believe that extraneous theories can be introduced "on the fly". Same thing with additional charges for the jury to consider at the time of instructions. Perhaps the NC lawyer would be willing to clarify?

We haven't heard the theories about how and when he was killed from the autopsy experts yet. We haven't heard testimony about the drug in his system...when, how, and in what manner, might it have been ingested. The prosecutions theory is second degree murder. They might well suggest he was drugged and asleep.

If that is what they are trying to prove, they will present that proof in their case. And they will present their theories. Whatever they may be. They don't have to "stick" to just answering self defense.

You seem to be implying that the Defense sets some boundaries here. They don't. Maybe I just don't follow yiur logic, hard as I try. "Solve the case." The prosecution believes they have solved the case. They believe it was murder. They do not believe TM and MM nor do they think the evidence supports their explanations.

It's the defense that is trying to argue self defense. But the prosecution is not tied up only RESPONDING to their theory. The Prosecution presents their case in chief...and only then does the Defense reply to them.

And the Prosecution gets rebuttal.
 
Sharon has led a pretty stable life, other than having to rescue Molly. She's a mathematician professor at local community college, and her other three children appear to live normal lives, so personally I can't see her getting up in middle of night and bashing a man to death. But I can see she and Tom doing anything and everything they can to save Molly from prison, including destroying evidence, concocting story to justify the killing of Jason. What I find utterly reprehensible of Sharon Martens is that she endangered Jason and his children from the day Molly went to work for them, and then even after her daughter and husband killed Jason, coached those children to speak lies against their dead father, and still tried to steal those children away from Corbetts so Molly could have them - there is no forgiveness or understanding for her, I have no sympathy for her whatsoever. There's a coldness in the Martens and Earnest families that speaks to true dysfunction. In contrast, the Corbett and Fitzpatrick families have been not just utter class acts, they have been loving, caring, close, supportive family. They clearly are beloved and well respected in their community. Perhaps Jason having no experience with cold-hearted highly dysfunctional people like the Martens is what allowed him to go ahead and marry Molly and stay with her despite some misgivings till her abusive behaviours were affecting his children.

TM spend all his life in law enforcement so what made him kill his sleeping drugged son-in-law in what is a savage killing that has no defense in the use of reasonable force for self-defense. I would regard TM probably having a legal education and the legal advisor of the M family and the one least likely to instigate in illegality. For MM her instability I would consider her not having the weight to carry sufficient to trigger a murder rage for her father to participate in. Doesn’t that destroy SM credibility of stability the case you make of her allowing her unstable daughter to move in with a family of small kids in Ireland? I think it’s a case of SM being on MM side come hell or high water and she believing she could manipulate this, a narcissistic manipulator. Her insistent twisted FB ravings all tie in with this. As for SM saving the family from prison this is totally beyond her control at this stage. I’d be looking who in the family had the influence to instigate this odyssey into savagery. As I posted earlier I think TM was influence to believe that a few belts and JC would be dead and the immediate problem with him solved. But instead we have a guy that doesn’t die easily and once the attack begun it had to be seen through till JC stopped moving. And the savagery of his beating is the frustration of his attackers he was still moving. As I posted earlier no doubt all three was aware JC was drugged and more than likely sound asleep but what was the trigger to get TM to move into sheer savagery. I would regard MM being totally tripped-over with distraught of her losing the kids and was up for anything to stop it. What convinces me of TM participation and he was not covering up for another outside of his admittance is that the force used had to have a male involvement.
 
We haven't heard the theories about how and when he was killed from the autopsy experts yet. We haven't heard testimony about the drug in his system...when, how, and in what manner, might it have been ingested. The prosecutions theory is second degree murder. They might well suggest he was drugged and asleep.

If that is what they are trying to prove, they will present that proof in their case. And they will present their theories. Whatever they may be. They don't have to "stick" to just answering self defense.

You seem to be implying that the Defense sets some boundaries here. They don't. Maybe I just don't follow yiur logic, hard as I try. "Solve the case." The prosecution believes they have solved the case. They believe it was murder. They do not believe TM and MM nor do they think the evidence supports their explanations.

It's the defense that is trying to argue self defense. But the prosecution is not tied up only RESPONDING to their theory. The Prosecution presents their case in chief...and only then does the Defense reply to them.

And the Prosecution gets rebuttal.

Well, here's the thing. How can they suggest he was drugged and killed in his sleep if they don't have evidence to substantiate it? And I'm sure they can provide an alternate theory of the crime, but not five or six. He had trazodone in his system, but unless they can connect the dots to a prescription in the family, (means and method) I don't think they can state in court that "Molly must have drugged him". IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
180
Guests online
1,763
Total visitors
1,943

Forum statistics

Threads
606,532
Messages
18,205,434
Members
233,874
Latest member
RETI20
Back
Top