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

[emmalpage81]

http://www.independent.ie/world-new...e-murder-trial-of-jason-corbett-35943858.html

Jurors quizzed extensively on any experience of domestic violence

Damn Stephan you beat me!

 

[kittythehare]

I have come late to this case and I find it very interesting. I have read all the pages of this thread but I was horrified to read this in the Irish Times published on July 17, 2017. I would like to know what you think about it.

In the days following their father’s death, both children were interviewed by Social Services officials, and specialists at a children’s advocacy centre called the Dragonfly House, with detectives observing the interviews behind a two-way mirrored glass wall.

The documents submitted by the defence said: “Sarah reported that: her dad started fights with her mom for ridiculous reasons; he would hurt her mom; he would scream at her mom every day and sometimes twice a day; he would call her mom names on a daily basis; he would call her mom a lot on the phone; she saw her dad step on her mom’s foot, pull her mom’s hair, roll over her mom’s foot with the car, hit her mom in the face and call her mom names like “worthless”.

It further claimed: “Jack reported that: his dad would physically and verbally abuse his mom; he would punch, hit and push her; he saw her [sic] dad push her [sic] mom down one time because he wanted to look through her phone; his dad would cuss and scream at her; his mom would cry and try to block her ears; his dad’s anger was worse over the past few months, he would scream, get mad and cuss more, he was getting angrier; his mom would try to get him to stop but his dad was strong; his mom would scream for him to stop but sometimes she would just ball up under the covers and block her ears.”

In the same documents, the defence claimed that the state subsequently procured the video interview with Jack Corbett which was conducted in Mrs Lynch’s Limerick home, “under coercive circumstances without any of the safeguards to ensure trustworthiness or reliability”.

A pre-trial hearing was held last month, at which the judge deferred his ruling on what, if any, statements made by the children will be admissible as evidence. Crucially, this hearing was told that Jack Corbett said he lied about witnessing any domestic abuse inflicted on Ms Martens by his father.

“He said he felt really bad about it. He said he wanted to tell the police he lied,” Ms Lynch told the hearing last month.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpo...lies-locked-in-battle-for-justice-454966.html

It disturbed me for many reasons too.
The police believed the interviews were co-erced.
it disturbed me because they took place su.ch a very short time after such a major trauma , the loss of their father.. I would have thought such interviews wouldd be deferred for many many months until the loss and their understanding had settled somewhat.
They were v young, immediately whisked out of their home having awoken to flashing lights, sirens and possibly blood.
It disturbed me even more because they were immediately placed with the family of the perpetrators and it was from there they left to complete these 'premature' interviews.
There is a reference to one of the carers attempting to send one child in before the other.
The other thing I read was that the interviews that happened much later in Ireland were conducted under the supervision of highly qualified child care practitioners.
MM could have obtained custody of the children had she filed a DV complaint in the state of NC. She never did.

Well done you reading all the threads, no mean achievement.. lots of decent research, lots of speculation and lots of other stuff which wasn't useful or helpful to anybody. So sorry you had to go through all of that too.
It was disturbing.

 

[emmalpage81]

I have come late to this case and I find it very interesting. I have read all the pages of this thread but I was horrified to read this in the Irish Times published on July 17, 2017. I would like to know what you think about it.

In the days following their father’s death, both children were interviewed by Social Services officials, and specialists at a children’s advocacy centre called the Dragonfly House, with detectives observing the interviews behind a two-way mirrored glass wall.

The documents submitted by the defence said: “Sarah reported that: her dad started fights with her mom for ridiculous reasons; he would hurt her mom; he would scream at her mom every day and sometimes twice a day; he would call her mom names on a daily basis; he would call her mom a lot on the phone; she saw her dad step on her mom’s foot, pull her mom’s hair, roll over her mom’s foot with the car, hit her mom in the face and call her mom names like “worthless”.

It further claimed: “Jack reported that: his dad would physically and verbally abuse his mom; he would punch, hit and push her; he saw her [sic] dad push her [sic] mom down one time because he wanted to look through her phone; his dad would cuss and scream at her; his mom would cry and try to block her ears; his dad’s anger was worse over the past few months, he would scream, get mad and cuss more, he was getting angrier; his mom would try to get him to stop but his dad was strong; his mom would scream for him to stop but sometimes she would just ball up under the covers and block her ears.”

In the same documents, the defence claimed that the state subsequently procured the video interview with Jack Corbett which was conducted in Mrs Lynch’s Limerick home, “under coercive circumstances without any of the safeguards to ensure trustworthiness or reliability”.

A pre-trial hearing was held last month, at which the judge deferred his ruling on what, if any, statements made by the children will be admissible as evidence. Crucially, this hearing was told that Jack Corbett said he lied about witnessing any domestic abuse inflicted on Ms Martens by his father.

“He said he felt really bad about it. He said he wanted to tell the police he lied,” Ms Lynch told the hearing last month.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpo...lies-locked-in-battle-for-justice-454966.html

Estelle, firstly welcome! the interviews that were carried out with JC and SC are hotly debated here. What the article does not tell you is that the children were first interviewed by a therapist at Family Services at Piedmont. During this attendance JC stated he had negative feelings towards his stepmom. SC stated she had never witnessed any type of domestic violence.

I belive a week later the children were interviewed at Dragonfly House and both children gave a list of abuse which they say they had witnessed. A police officer had, prior to the interviews taking place, explained he believed they had been coached. This was due to the actions of SM in being adamant that the children be interviewed in a particular order.

Following his return to Ireland JC informed both his counsellor and uncle that he had lied during the interview at Dragonfly House.

We are somewhat split here on whether any or all of the interviews will be admitted. I, personally, feel that if the Dragonfly House interview is admitted (as wanted by the defence) then both the original therapy session and subsequent retraction should be admitted.

All IMO

 

[stephanddoody]

Hi and welcome . IMO I feel the children were threatened to say those things . This is a very complex case with many twists and turns from FBI agents breaking into offices , prior boyfriends writing books about the traumatic time they had with molly before she left the physc ward at 24 to travel to mind 2 vulnerable children Molly defying court orders at lot of inconsistencies in statements made by the Martens Family and theirepresentatives . IMO and not my words they think they are not just the average citizen . They think they are above the law Also just to attach this the sheriffs department felt the children were coached

https://www.facebook.com/TheIrishMai...type=3&theater


https://www.facebook.com/TheIrishMai...type=3&theater

Molly Martens broke down in a court yesterday when a counsellor revealed her stepson said he had negative feelings toward her



During evidence given by counsellor Andrea Huckabee, it emerged Jack Corbett told her he had witnessed abuse taking place in the home.



Ms Huckabee had a 45 minute session therapeutic therapy session with Jack and Sarah Corbett. She said in that session Mr Corbetts only son made a point of telling her Ms Martens was his step mom and his first mom had passed away



During her session with Jack he said he had negative feelings towards his stepmother. She added he said I don't want to hurt my moms feelings



Ms Huckabee said Sarah had not disclosed witnessing abuse but that Jack had



Yesterdays hearing also heard from a paediatrician who examined Jack and Sarah after their fathers death - who revealed she diagnosed them as victims of child abuse



Paediatrician Dr Amy Suttel gave evidence yesterday at the hearing relating to the admission of evidence in the case - and said she gave a diagnosis that both of Mr Corbett's were victims of child abuse due to exposure to domestic violence



The defence for Ms Marten and her father argue interviews by both children at children's advocacy centre known as Dragonfly House should be put before a jury . Dr Suttel carried out a medical evaluation at the facility in the days after Mrs Corbett's death. She added that she did not make any determination on who was responsible for the abuse . Thats not my job she said. Dr Suttel reccommended that both children receive mental health treatment.



In later evidence Detective Nathan Briggs told the court he had made the appointment for the children to attend the Dragonfly house. He said that anothe rcollegeauge on the case had been told the children had a secret phone number to call their grandparents in Tennessee in case of emergency



The court also heard from Ms Martens closet friend who said in her statements to police were fabricated by detectives investigating Mr Corbetts death. Shannon Grubb who has only know Ms Martens since they became neighbours in 2011 claims she did not actually say what investigators recorded her as saying when she was interviewed . It (the statement )said I didn't believe her (Ms Martens) she told the curt yesterday it was not what I had said. She added I wept to the Da to correct my statement . I want the truth to be my words. Mrs Grubb said she was Ms Martens closet and best friend . She gave her evidence during a defence motion for a change of venue for the trial next month . Mrs Grubb claimed that the case had been subject to word of mouth publicly in the county and as such her friend could not get a fair trial

david Freeman representing Ms martens claimed the Sheriffs office [had disseminated information that was inflammatory and inadmissible at trial.. Responding prosecutor Alan Martin said that the defence had failed to show that the jury pool would be any diffenrent in this county to another Judge David Lee said he was having a hard time seeing the prejudice /QUOTE]


http://www.the-dispatch.com/news/201...avidson-county

The judge in a pretrial hearing for the murder case against Molly Martens Corbett and her father, Thomas Martens, denied a motion Friday to have the trial moved to Mocksville in neighboring Davie County.



Walter Holton and David Freedman, lawyers for Corbett and Martens, filed the motion to have the trial moved. They argued the amount of publicity the case has received in Davidson County has made it impossible to form an unbiased jury.


Find that kind of laughable since they are getting contacting the media at every chance

Davidson Superior Court Judge David Lee said he did not find any proof that the defendants could not receive a fair and impartial trial in Davidson County.
“The defense has failed to find existing community prejudice that they can’t receive a fair trial,” Lee said. “There is no showing of prejudice in the investigation or proceedings … to preclude selection of a jury.”



Also during the hearing, the judge deferred ruling on a motion to redact statements about witnessing domestic abuse that Jason Corbett’s children made when interviewed at a child advocacy center after the homicide.



Testifying Friday, Tracey Lynch stated that shortly after moving to Ireland, Jack told her he had lied about witnessing any domestic abuse and wanted to contact police in Davidson County.
“He said he felt really bad about it,” Lynch said. “He said he wanted to tell the police that he had lied.”



Lawyers for the defense claimed that when the children were interviewed by child advocacy experts at the Dragonfly House they were given detailed instructions about the importance of being truthful and told they could make corrections to any statement they felt were inaccurate.The defense attorneys added that staff at the child advocacy center had followed a national protocol to determine whether a child knows the difference between a truth and a lie through a series of questions not related to the case.
Judge Lee said he preferred the lawyers argue before the judge presiding over the case at trial whether specific statements should be heard by a jury.




https://www.facebook.com/TheIrishMai...type=3&theater


Jack Corbett asked if his stepmother and her father had been locked up yet during a visit to his fathers grave



In his testimony at pretrial David Lynch Mr Corbett's brother in law told the court that during an emotional out burst Jack now 12 said he had lied to detectives in the Us who had interviewed him about the case



Earlier Tracey Lynch told the court that both children had asked to keep diaries upon their return to Ireland and that these were sent to the authorities in the Us. They had been attending therapy sessions and the physiologist recommended they record their feelings



Also giving evidence yesterday was Detective Nathan Briggs who had arranged interviews for both children in August 2015 at a child advocacy centre in the US after their father had been found dead at his North Carolina home that month . He told the court he feared they had been coached prior to their questioning . Jack and Sarah Corbett were interviewed by trained professionals at the Dragonfly Centre in the days after their fathers death . They were brought there by Molly Martens mother Sharon . Detective Higgs was present in a nearby room when a staff member entered saying Sharon Martens was insisting Jack was interviewed first. We decided Sarah should go first . A lot of the time in investigations we see that the kids have been coached . He added if there was coaching then we would disturb it

 

[emmalpage81]

Molly's friend...what is her job if you don't mind saying? is she the one that testified in a previous hearing that The Sheriff's Office misquoted her?

Could be wrong if we are talking about SN who was pictured arriving with her at Court yesterday I believe she is a lecturer with a specialisation of domestic violence towards women.

While I agree her medical state couldn't disappear, there are plenty of other diagnoses that could account for her behavior in relationship with the former boyfriend/fiancé including addiction. I think bipolar usually has additional related conditions treated too, like ADHD, depression, personality disorders that could be violent. I know of one diagnosed bipolar that underwent shock treatments. None of this may be relevant to the proceedings IMO. We will see.

At first I thought dropping the manslaughter charge meant not including the lesser offences and that excessive force would not be an issue. But, I have read in the jury instructions that even if they find the defendant acted in self-defense but used excessive force, they can convict on manslaughter. Molly's role in the actual injuries inflicted is not at all clear. If her hands didn't reveal abrasions, bruising or swelling, I'm having doubt that she could have inflicted those injuries with the brick. I can only conclude that TM must be responsible for the majority of JC injuries. IMO

I have always heard about self defense that when confronted by deadly force, deadly force can be returned. Being a desktop law enforcement officer, duly trained in self defense might actually explain the overkill and not lead to more sinister questions. IMO

No i think they dropped the voluntary manslaughter charge as it was already encompassed in the murder 2 charge. There was no need to confuse the jury. The excessive force limitation still exists in defending against a murder 2 charge. As far as I am aware MM can be held liable under the aiding and abetting laws of North Carolina (https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/aiding-and-abetting/); which states:

Under the common law doctrine of aiding and abetting, a person is considered to be a principal to a crime when:
(1) a crime is committed by another,
(2) the person knowingly advises, instigates, encourages, procures, or helps the other person commit the crime, and
(3) his or her actions or statements caused or contributed to the commission of the crime by the other person.
State v. Goode, 350 N.C. 247 (1999). Aiding and abetting is not a separate crime; rather, it merely describes a person’s participation in a crime. As a general rule, aiding and abetting becomes an issue when it is not clear whether the defendant committed any part of the crime.

MM has already stated to the police that she also struck JC. Therefore, even if she hit him once to every ten hits from TM she is equally accountable.

All IMO

 

[searchinGirl]

I have come late to this case and I find it very interesting. I have read all the pages of this thread but I was horrified to read this in the Irish Times published on July 17, 2017. I would like to know what you think about it.

In the days following their father’s death, both children were interviewed by Social Services officials, and specialists at a children’s advocacy centre called the Dragonfly House, with detectives observing the interviews behind a two-way mirrored glass wall.

The documents submitted by the defence said: “Sarah reported that: her dad started fights with her mom for ridiculous reasons; he would hurt her mom; he would scream at her mom every day and sometimes twice a day; he would call her mom names on a daily basis; he would call her mom a lot on the phone; she saw her dad step on her mom’s foot, pull her mom’s hair, roll over her mom’s foot with the car, hit her mom in the face and call her mom names like “worthless”.

It further claimed: “Jack reported that: his dad would physically and verbally abuse his mom; he would punch, hit and push her; he saw her [sic] dad push her [sic] mom down one time because he wanted to look through her phone; his dad would cuss and scream at her; his mom would cry and try to block her ears; his dad’s anger was worse over the past few months, he would scream, get mad and cuss more, he was getting angrier; his mom would try to get him to stop but his dad was strong; his mom would scream for him to stop but sometimes she would just ball up under the covers and block her ears.”

In the same documents, the defence claimed that the state subsequently procured the video interview with Jack Corbett which was conducted in Mrs Lynch’s Limerick home, “under coercive circumstances without any of the safeguards to ensure trustworthiness or reliability”.

A pre-trial hearing was held last month, at which the judge deferred his ruling on what, if any, statements made by the children will be admissible as evidence. Crucially, this hearing was told that Jack Corbett said he lied about witnessing any domestic abuse inflicted on Ms Martens by his father.

“He said he felt really bad about it. He said he wanted to tell the police he lied,” Ms Lynch told the hearing last month.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpo...lies-locked-in-battle-for-justice-454966.html

Well, this will poke the discussion. Obviously a sensitive issue because involving the children in the court proceedings is heartbreaking for everyone. I don't think anybody wants them called to testify. However, the Dragonfly House interviews were conducted for diagnosing the children with Child Abuse from Witnessing Domestic Violence. I might be mistaken, but I think they would then qualify for certain social services IMO; maybe a Legal Guardian IDK. There is an exception to the Hearsay Rule for admitting these interviews to demonstrate the dynamics within the home; I mean, this is a domestic violence case so it's relevant for the jury to hear IMO. That Jack wants to recant his medical interview won't negate the probative value of the previous ones; but that is only my opinion. Although I don't know much about the details of the Skype interview from Ireland, if allowed it might succeed in showing Molly to be the ultimate victim ... a backfire IMO.

 

[stephanddoody]

Sorry for bombarding you Estelle . We all are protective of the children . Their lives have been ripped to shreds they have lost everything they loved and had to start again with help of Tracy and David and all Jason's family . Personally I would like none so they never have to have that weight on their shoulders . Like they are somehow responsible because they are not in any way they are Victims. True victims . No matter the findings of the court I am so happy they will always stay and be loved in Ireland . The Martens caused this . They broke their hearts and they never even extended apologies for it . Let's move along nothing to see here IMO

 

[emmalpage81]

Molly's friend...what is her job if you don't mind saying? is she the one that testified in a previous hearing that The Sheriff's Office misquoted her?

Well, this will poke the discussion. Obviously a sensitive issue because involving the children in the court proceedings is heartbreaking for everyone. I don't think anybody wants them called to testify. However, the Dragonfly House interviews were conducted for diagnosing the children with Child Abuse from Witnessing Domestic Violence. I might be mistaken, but I think they would then qualify for certain social services IMO; maybe a Legal Guardian IDK. There is an exception to the Hearsay Rule for admitting these interviews to demonstrate the dynamics within the home; I mean, this is a domestic violence case so it's relevant for the jury to hear IMO. That Jack wants to recant his medical interview won't negate the probative value of the previous ones; but that is only my opinion. Although I don't know much about the details of the Skype interview from Ireland, if allowed it might succeed in showing Molly to be the ultimate victim ... a backfire IMO.

No, i disagree, we have nothing to say the children were interviewed for this reason. The interview was set up by a police officer who was concerned about a secret phone number. If they had thought this why were the children interviwed by a paediatrician and not a forensic interviewer? And, even if you were correct and they were interviewed for this purpose, why did Ms Suttel not provide any answer as to whom caused the abuse to the children? Would that not have been the main question?

All IMO

 

[emmalpage81]

No, i disagree, we have nothing to say the children were interviewed for this reason. The interview was set up by a police officer who was concerned about a secret phone number. If they had thought this why were the children interviwed by a paediatrician and not a forensic interviewer? And, even if you were correct and they were interviewed for this purpose, why did Ms Suttel not provide any answer as to whom caused the abuse to the children? Would that not have been the main question?

I have already linked before as to the procedure for admittance of chidlren's testimony to include, and I quote 'whether it has since been withdrawn'. In this case it clearly has, JC has stated he lied, and the Judge must give great heed to this. IMO this is why he has not admitted the Dragonfly House interview.

All IMO

updated as made mistake

 

[searchinGirl]

Could be wrong if we are talking about SN who was pictured arriving with her at Court yesterday I believe she is a lecturer with a specialisation of domestic violence towards women.



No i think they dropped the voluntary manslaughter charge as it was already encompassed in the murder 2 charge. There was no need to confuse the jury. The excessive force limitation still exists in defending against a murder 2 charge. As far as I am aware MM can be held liable under the aiding and abetting laws of North Carolina (https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/aiding-and-abetting/); which states:

Under the common law doctrine of aiding and abetting, a person is considered to be a principal to a crime when:
(1) a crime is committed by another,
(2) the person knowingly advises, instigates, encourages, procures, or helps the other person commit the crime, and
(3) his or her actions or statements caused or contributed to the commission of the crime by the other person.
State v. Goode, 350 N.C. 247 (1999). Aiding and abetting is not a separate crime; rather, it merely describes a person’s participation in a crime. As a general rule, aiding and abetting becomes an issue when it is not clear whether the defendant committed any part of the crime.

MM has already stated to the police that she also struck JC. Therefore, even if she hit him once to every ten hits from TM she is equally accountable.

All IMO

What if Molly hit him with the lamp? I just can't get over her hands not being injured.

 

[emmalpage81]

What if Molly hit him with the lamp? I just can't get over her hands not being injured.

But then she hit him in the commission of an assault of which he died. She is equally culpable.

We have no evidence of her hands as of yet. We know photographs were taken (whether of the hands we do not yet know). We know the police say they had no obvious injuries of being in a violent fight.

All IMO

 

[stmarysmead]

And we can not say this is a "domestic violence" case. The only violence that has been proven and confessed to...was TM and MM inflicting violence on Jason. We can not say the children witnessed domestic violence either. The only "violence" may have been that night.

I do not find these interviews credible. The children were left alone, defenseless, denied contact with the Irish family, alone with the killers of their Dad! How often does THAT happen? Why weren't they put in custody of child services?

 

[lisette]

I hope and pray this trial is not going to turn out like I think it might...The hot button issue of domestic violence is being touted as if it were a fact, and I don't think JC abused MM at all. It's just seems that it is kinda accepted as being true. The Martens' legal team is very savvy at how to play the game, and they have twisted things around, entertwining with half-truths from the Martens' and associates, so that the truth has been obscured with smoke and mirrors. Praying that the jury will be able to see through it all and focus on the truth told by the autopsy. JMO

 

[stmarysmead]

What if Molly hit him with the lamp? I just can't get over her hands not being injured.

Perhaps there were garden gloves in the garage. I have a pair there. She picks up the bat in the garage...and some gardening gloves. Steps out and gets the paving stone.

Or golf gloves. Was there an extra set of clubs there? My husband keeps his clubs at our CC but we have extra clubs for guests in the garage. Gloves are in the pockets of both golf bags. They did go to Jason's locker at his Club, didn't they?

 

[emmalpage81]

I hope and pray this trial is not going to turn out like I think it might...The hot button issue of domestic violence is being touted as if it were a fact, and I don't think JC abused MM at all. It's just seems that it is kinda accepted as being true. The Martens' legal team is very savvy at how to play the game, and they have twisted things around, entertwining with half-truths from the Martens' and associates, so that the truth has been obscured with smoke and mirrors. Praying that the jury will be able to see through it all and focus on the truth told by the autopsy. JMO

I agree. I only hope the jury are aware of the excessive force rule to self defence. This was overkill, they cannot do that. That is down to the prosecution to prove and the Judge to uphold when giving jury direction.

All IMO

 

[searchinGirl]

No, i disagree, we have nothing to say the children were interviewed for this reason. The interview was set up by a police officer who was concerned about a secret phone number. If they had thought this why were the children interviwed by a paediatrician and not a forensic interviewer? And, even if you were correct and they were interviewed for this purpose, why did Ms Suttel not provide any answer as to whom caused the abuse to the children? Would that not have been the main question?

All IMO

No, the main question would have been... Are these children suffering from Child Abuse? Secondary to that would be... What can we recommend for them and do to help them?

I'm just looking at the legal reasons why one might be allowed and one not. IMO

 

[searchinGirl]

Perhaps there were garden gloves in the garage. I have a pair there. She picks up the bat in the garage...and some gardening gloves. Steps out and gets the paving stone.

Or golf gloves. Was there an extra set of clubs there? My husband keeps his clubs at our CC but we have extra clubs for guests in the garage. Gloves are in the pockets of both golf bags. They did go to Jason's locker at his Club, didn't they?

I don't know of too many golf gloves that would survive the abrasive brick. Besides, if she stopped to put on gloves in order to strike him, wouldn't that be First Degree Murder?

 

[emmalpage81]

No, the main question would have been... Are these children suffering from Child Abuse? Secondary to that would be... What can we recommend for them and do to help them?

I'm just looking at the legal reasons why one might be allowed and one not. IMO

Again, disagree, a paediatrician deals with general childhood illnesses. I have seen one many times for various tropical childhood illneses for my son. They are not specialists. If they believed, as you say, why were they not seen by a specialist or, alternatively, were they not referred to a specialist?

A therapist can give evidence in a trial. So there is no real argument for having the JC 'i have negative feelings for my step-mom' withheld. Any this is regardles to the Limerick interview.

All IMO

 

[stmarysmead]

I've often thought that Jason's son told the therapist that HE was abused by Molly. We have heard a very alarming story about MM practically water boarding the child because he splashed her.

 

[searchinGirl]

I hope and pray this trial is not going to turn out like I think it might...The hot button issue of domestic violence is being touted as if it were a fact, and I don't think JC abused MM at all. It's just seems that it is kinda accepted as being true. The Martens' legal team is very savvy at how to play the game, and they have twisted things around, entertwining with half-truths from the Martens' and associates, so that the truth has been obscured with smoke and mirrors. Praying that the jury will be able to see through it all and focus on the truth told by the autopsy. JMO

You can bet that if the Jury Questionnaire asks about domestic violence, then its about domestic violence, at least some of it. But also, I believe it's defined in the law as "all in the family" when a crime such as this occurs; or relationship between defendant and victim. IMO Not all of it is smoke and mirrors, some of it is the law.