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

[Electric Sheep]

Latest article on Twitter on Irish independent...sorry I'm unable to copy link from Twitter says 9 women and 3 men were selected by prosecution. I expect some of the women to be objected to by defence. IMO male jurors may be more sympathetic towards them as they would identify with a man trying to protect their daughter and stepping in in a potentially dangerous situation whereas women will be less sympathetic I feel. Judging by the commentary on social media the last two years, vast majority of women have not been sympathetic towards MM in particular. Us women have a catty streak and will not go along with the good-looking blonde stay at home wife having a beautiful home and nice lifestyle without a sinister reasoning behind it, like it was all done for money , lies, etc and of course there's the jealousy even of someone unknown to us personally. Women can't help it unfortunately even if we don't want to admit to it!!! I feel this jury so far made up of mostly women suits the prosecution case whereas the defence would gear towards evening up the number with more men! I believe the defence are now questioning the jury. Hopefully it will be decided on by tomorrow and the trial can get off the ground!

Sadly, this is very true. So much for the sisterhood - women are very quick to make negative judgements against other women, particularly attractive young women.

 

[stmarysmead]

Sadly, this is very true. So much for the sisterhood - women are very quick to make negative judgements against other women, particularly attractive young women.

I disagree with that generalization. We all bring our own histories, memories, and heartaches into everything we "judge." A man who has had a shrew of a wife or a father-in-law he can't stand might sympathize with the Corbett family. Certainly some women...who may feel women are a mistreated minority in this country... will feel drawn to MM.

The prosecutor might seem nasty to some jurors ; the defense attorneys might seem shifty. Those assessments might be drawn from people the lawyers remind them of. "Ugh. That attorney sounds just like my obnoxious cousin."

Every juror tries to be impartial...I hope. But our own personal histories make that a bit challenging.

Beyond the autopsy, and the Maginn book, my issues with the credibility of this case is in part due to the fact that...we had a daughter in an abusive relationship. I'm not buying Mr FBI and his wife's story for one minute...because we have been there.

Our daughter lived out West, not a four hour drive but a five hour plane ride. Like the Martens, we knew what resources were available and we had the means to use those resources. I also know the terrible fear to have a daughter you adore in that uncertain situation. It eats at you. You worry might and day. You cannot ignore it.

I know what we did.

And what we did not do. We weren't going on cruises with him. And we certainly weren't leaving our daughter and grandchild at his mercy. Much less, MUCH Less...if we had EVER been told by his first inlaw that he had murdered HIS daughter.

Are you kidding me?

Not buying it for a minute.

Like I say, we bring our own histories.

 

[Logic-lady]

http://www.journalnow.com/news/crim...cle_2e4ab752-85c1-5e76-9f4b-ae5065b3a58e.html

 

[Be true]

Sadly, this is very true. So much for the sisterhood - women are very quick to make negative judgements against other women, particularly attractive young women.

Have to respectfully disagree, it has been largely women who have publicly supported MM in the last 2 years and also have publicly supported her DV claims. As I said before a situation such as this can be toxic as we have seen many times on social media and other platforms when her supporters have participated in directing negativity towards a victim, his children and his family.

It works both ways, imo

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[stephanddoody]

[video=twitter;887762567292178434]https://twitter.com/mallorylanewxii/status/887762567292178434[/video]

 

[Be true]

"Davidson County prosecutors will try to prove that the killing was intentional and possibly had a financial motive."

http://www.journalnow.com/news/crim...cle_2e4ab752-85c1-5e76-9f4b-ae5065b3a58e.html

From day 1 of this case detectives and prosecutors have always brought up the financial motive. They must have strong evidence that is leading in this direction imo.

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[Electric Sheep]

I disagree with that generalization. We all bring our own histories, memories, and heartaches into everything we "judge." A man who has had a shrew of a wife or a father-in-law he can't stand might sympathize with the Corbett family. Certainly some women...who may feel women are a mistreated minority in this country... will feel drawn to MM.

The prosecutor might seem nasty to some jurors ; the defense attorneys might seem shifty. Those assessments might be drawn from people the lawyers remind them of. "Ugh. That attorney sounds just like my obnoxious cousin."

Every juror tries to be impartial...I hope. But our own personal histories make that a bit challenging.

Beyond the autopsy, and the Maginn book, my issues with the credibility of this case is in part due to the fact that...we had a daughter in an abusive relationship. I'm not buying Mr FBI and his wife's story for one minute...because we have been there.

Our daughter lived out West, not a four hour drive but a five hour plane ride. Like the Martens, we knew what resources were available and we had the means to use those resources. I also know the terrible fear to have a daughter you adore in that uncertain situation. It eats at you. You worry might and day. You cannot ignore it.

I know what we did.

And what we did not do. We weren't going on cruises with him. And we certainly weren't leaving our daughter and grandchild at his mercy. Much less, MUCH Less...if we had EVER been told by his first inlaw that he had murdered HIS daughter.

Are you kidding me?

Not buying it for a minute.

Like I say, we bring our own histories.

Why do you think the prosecution chose mostly women for the jury?

 

[Be true]

Irish sleuthers, off topic but if you follow cases piers Morgan has a series running on tv3 at the moment it's on now. Different case every week.

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[Electric Sheep]

Have to respectfully disagree, it has been largely women who have publicly supported MM in the last 2 years and also have publicly supported her DV claims. As I said before a situation such as this can be toxic as we have seen many times on social media and other platforms when her supporters have participated in directing negativity towards a victim, his children and his family.

It works both ways, imo

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

Online vitriol seems to have come mostly from women on both sides of this case, from what I have seen.

 

[stephanddoody]

[video=twitter;887768606582460416]https://twitter.com/mallorylanewxii/status/887768606582460416[/video]

[video=twitter;887768908001837056]https://twitter.com/lexdispatch/status/887768908001837056[/video]

https://twitter.com/mallorylanewxii/status/887769363956326402

 

[Be true]

Online vitriol seems to have come mostly from women on both sides of this case, from what I have seen.

At the end of the day. 1 victim 2 assailants, doesn't matter whether they have blonde, black or blue hair or what mm wears to court,

She is still on a murder 2 charge so it's what's beneath the clothes hair and make-up that's on trial imo

Hopefully jurors will look beyond falsities and convict on the truths.

Imo

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[emmalpage81]

Online vitriol seems to have come mostly from women on both sides of this case, from what I have seen.

I think you are right. It has been mainly women who have supported MM and the vast majority against her are also women. I think the jury will be mostly women; they will make of it what they will.

All IMO

 

[stmarysmead]

Online vitriol seems to have come mostly from women on both sides of this case, from what I have seen.

I actually think more women are on websites like this and following crime stories online. Most men are commenting on sports and political sites.

 

[stephanddoody]

[video=twitter;887769943693029379]https://twitter.com/lexdispatch/status/887769943693029379[/video]


So is it 7 more jurors required? 5 to sit and two substitutes

 

[stmarysmead]

Why do you think the prosecution chose mostly women for the jury?

There were seven women, five men on the Casey Anthony jury. She got off.

 

[Be true]

I actually think more women are on websites like this and following crime stories online. Most men are commenting on sports and political sites.

Stmarysmeade, picking your brains again but do you know are the witnesses put through the same hoops there before they are allowed to testify?

Say for instance a witness for defence publicly has contradicted statements, called names, slandered etc, can they still testify even though this can be proven? Or is it just a case that they are allowed testify and prosecution can question their character with the evidence of such doings?

Sorry but The law in the US + ME = brainfreeze !

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[bernie millar]

[video=twitter;887769943693029379]https://twitter.com/lexdispatch/status/887769943693029379[/video]


So is it 7 more jurors required? 5 to sit and two substitutes

seems to be,i wonder does the prosecution have to question the jurors that the defence chose ?

 

[stmarysmead]

Stmarysmeade, picking your brains again but do you know are the witnesses put through the same hoops there before they are allowed to testify?

Say for instance a witness for defence publicly has contradicted statements, called names, slandered etc, can they still testify even though this can be proven? Or is it just a case that they are allowed testify and prosecution can question their character with the evidence of such doings?

Sorry but The law in the US + ME = brainfreeze !

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

I'm not an attorney but my experience from watching these trials is that both sides just love it when the other side puts on someone whose testimony they can "impeach" or tear apart in front of the jury.

In this case, where credibility is key, I assume the defense must be very, very careful. It's one thing if the testimony of an expert witness can be challenged, because each side will have its experts. But, for example, when Scott Peterson, the grieving widower, was shown to have called his girlfriend from the prayer vigil for his missing wife...well, hard to have the jury forget that.

 

[stmarysmead]

seems to be,i wonder does the prosecution have to question the jurors that the defence chose ?

They need 12 plus two alternates.

 

[stephanddoody]

seems to be,i wonder does the prosecution have to question the jurors that the defence chose ?

I think the process goes the prosecution pick who they want and the defence can decide if they agree with their choice . They can choose to dismiss them or agree with the prosecutions choice . Again I'm new to this so may be wrong . Probably takes an hour max to pick a jury here