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

[Jennifer17]

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

We don't know if the prosecution is going to suggest that, and even if they did. we also don't know that they don't have proof. I would say that lack of defence injuries may be important. I don't know if there were or were not those injuries. If it has been stated otherwise, I apologise.

 

[kittythehare]

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.

A further excellent unravelling.. many thanks.

 

[courtney2662]

Do you not think that if that were indeed a bruise instead of a shadow that the media, the lawyers, the DA, Molly's family and friends wouldn't have pointed it out? You have no reason to believe its a bruise, it's illogical that a bruise on her hand would last 12-13 days but she has no bruises around her neck. The Autopsy report shows a man beaten to death while drugged by a antidepressant which wasn't prescribed to him. Many of us believe the investigation will show that it was prescribed to Martens. Jason Corbett has heart condition, so would not have willingly taken a non-prescribed medication that could harm him. Tom Martens had no motive to attack or kill Jason Corbett unless you know of a motive the rest of us don't know? Molly Martens is the one with the motive, the only one with a motive. Tom Martens is once more protecting his daughter, cleaning up her mess - this will be the last time he can do that for her, he won't be able to help her from prison. Sharon Martens will spend the rest of her life visiting Molly on visiting day. Our prisons are filled with manipulative narcissists like Molly - they always believe they're smarter than everyone else, that they can outsmart the law. The Corbetts deserve this justice, Jason Corbett deserve this justice.

 

[searchinGirl]

Do you not think that if that were indeed a bruise instead of a shadow that the media, the lawyers, the DA, Molly's family and friends wouldn't have pointed it out? You have no reason to believe its a bruise, it's illogical that a bruise on her hand would last 12-13 days but she has no bruises around her neck. The Autopsy report shows a man beaten to death while drugged by a antidepressant which wasn't prescribed to him. Many of us believe the investigation will show that it was prescribed to Martens. Jason Corbett has heart condition, so would not have willingly taken a non-prescribed medication that could harm him. Tom Martens had no motive to attack or kill Jason Corbett unless you know of a motive the rest of us don't know? Molly Martens is the one with the motive, the only one with a motive. Tom Martens is once more protecting his daughter, cleaning up her mess - this will be the last time he can do that for her, he won't be able to help her from prison. Sharon Martens will spend the rest of her life visiting Molly on visiting day. Our prisons are filled with manipulative narcissists like Molly - they always believe they're smarter than everyone else, that they can outsmart the law. The Corbetts deserve this justice, Jason Corbett deserve this justice.

I don't know of any father who loves his daughter who would not defend her right to live. IMO

 

[courtney2662]

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.

Molly would have pretty good upper body strength, she was a regular swimmer, jogger, and also was coached swim team so she definitely would have had the ability to smash paving stone in to Jason Corbett's head if he were drugged asleep and therefore defenseless to at least the first blows. http://amghoanet.com/Portals/9/2014_Meadowlands_Swim_Team.pdf The Autopsy report shows JC had cuts, etc to his left hand/arm, supposition being that at some point he tried to shield himself from continued attack by raising his left hand/arm to his head. I believe that by the time TM became aware of the situation, he and SM recognized that JC couldn't be allowed to survive, for he'd have pressed charges against MM, so TM "finished" MM attack on JC and then they waited for him to die, but perhaps he took too long. TM would have known they couldn't wait too long, as an autopsy would show that he had been attacked earlier than they were saying. SM, TM and Mike Earnest probably thought they could pull their story off, save them all, and also get the kids, pull the wool over a small County Sheriff and his dept. They had already planned his cremation and service within 2 days of the murder, obtained custody of the kids, firmly believing they had carried it off. They were wrong, the scene and their stories never added up to the police, I have no doubt that TM will try to take all the blame, say it was him, only him, sticking to the story he had to save Molly but I believe the Autopsy report will be their undoing.

 

[courtney2662]

I don't know of any father who loves his daughter who would not defend her right to live. IMO

I agree, even one who is a murderer. I believe TM is willing to sacrifice his freedom to save Molly from prison, and his wife Sharon will let him. There's no history of Jason Corbett committing domestic violence or abuse, but there is testimony that Molly was an abuser of both Jason and Jack. So still don't understand why you believe the notion that she was being strangled, with no prior history of it, and of course, no bruises or cuts on her neck or anywhere on her body. We shall have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[kittythehare]

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.

Theres just a few points that dont appear accurate here, to my eyes.

Have you read the earlier threads at all? If you do, you will find we did some considerable research on Trazadone and its half life.. which means the speed at which the body metabolises the drug.
He had miniscule qty of the drug in his system on autopsy. we studied that. Based on our studies and research from peer reviewed and cited sources, we concluded that the drug qty was so minimal it is unlikely to have affected Jason at all

Our concerns arose because only a few drugs are screened in tox tests routinely.
It is possible jason was deeply unconscious when attacked and that the drug that produced that effect upon him had never been investigated at all because it was not on the routine test list. Therein lies the problem.
Regarding TM input, recall he was a trained FBI agent. He would also be trained to kill. Whereas I agree it took some strength to cause the damage that was described in the autopsy, another theory is that the force could have been achieved from a height, whether that was standing on a chair over a prone man or from a higher place remains to be seen.
It is possible that somebody else was present as well.

We know very little.
We do not have access to psych evaluations on either TM or MM or SM ..
I think TM should have been capable of micromanaging a different type of murder and a different technique of murder..

You rightly describe it as savagery.. its very complex.. many delusions.. many games..

I'm feeling immensely grateful to the two lawyers who kindly cast sanity last night.

I'm feeling better about it.. A whole lot better, a whole lot more sane and with far more trust in the judicial process that will begin in a few hours.

I think we put a lot of work in, its new territory for me..a hugely learning experience..
I learnt a lot about my own limits and I gained a massive respect for websleuths and the work here and I sincerely apologise for all the times we went AWOL. they were extraordinarily patient with us.

Its been a space to grow and to learn.
Next time, I would have a lot more understanding of and respect for the TOS.. I read them and I re-read them a million times but I could not grasp their deeper meaning.
Now, I begin to understand what victim friendly really means on every level.
(I had always intended to try to escape the 'legal stuff'.. now I realise it brings not only sanity but also catharsis and cohesion....

I hope the Corbett family are safe and protected and that justice really will be served, whatever the outcome of the trial.
Thanks everybody.

 

[Be true]

Theres just a few points that dont appear accurate here, to my eyes.

Have you read the earlier threads at all? If you do, you will find we did some considerable research on Trazadone and its half life.. which means the speed at which the body metabolises the drug.
He had miniscule qty of the drug in his system on autopsy. we studied that. Based on our studies and research from peer reviewed and cited sources, we concluded that the drug qty was so minimal it is unlikely to have affected Jason at all

Our concerns arose because only a few drugs are screened in tox tests routinely.
It is possible jason was deeply unconscious when attacked and that the drug that produced that effect upon him had never been investigated at all because it was not on the routine test list. Therein lies the problem.
Regarding TM input, recall he was a trained FBI agent. He would also be trained to kill. Whereas I agree it took some strength to cause the damage that was described in the autopsy, another theory is that the force could have been achieved from a height, whether that was standing on a chair over a prone man or from a higher place remains to be seen.
It is possible that somebody else was present as well.

We know very little.
We do not have access to psych evaluations on either TM or MM or SM ..
I think TM should have been capable of micromanaging a different type of murder and a different technique of murder..

You rightly describe it as savagery.. its very complex.. many delusions.. many games..

I'm feeling immensely grateful to the two lawyers who kindly cast sanity last night.

I'm feeling better about it.. A whole lot better, a whole lot more sane and with far more trust in the judicial process that will begin in a few hours.

I think we put a lot of work in, its new territory for me..a hugely learning experience..
I learnt a lot about my own limits and I gained a massive respect for websleuths and the work here and I sincerely apologise for all the times we went AWOL. they were extraordinarily patient with us.

Its been a space to grow and to learn.
Next time, I would have a lot more understanding of and respect for the TOS.. I read them and I re-read them a million times but I could not grasp their deeper meaning.
Now, I begin to understand what victim friendly really means on every level.
(I had always intended to try to escape the 'legal stuff'.. now I realise it brings not only sanity but also catharsis and cohesion....

I hope the Corbett family are safe and protected and that justice really will be served, whatever the outcome of the trial.
Thanks everybody.

[emoji172] saw last night's posts from lawyers[emoji122][emoji122]

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[Be true]

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

Great to have a little clarity on the questions raised, we will bear this in mind as we move along, thanks kitty, drelaw!

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[Be true]

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.

Thanks for the nc law perspective it calms the noise a little, will bear this in mind, thanks again kitty for your questions and jd08 for reply.

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[Logic-lady]

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

I've been wondering if this is where Sharon comes in?

 

[Fairness71]

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.

It seems like you are right concerning SM testifying. Thank you. Today's Irish Daily Mail

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Logic-lady]

Theres just a few points that dont appear accurate here, to my eyes.

Have you read the earlier threads at all? If you do, you will find we did some considerable research on Trazadone and its half life.. which means the speed at which the body metabolises the drug.
He had miniscule qty of the drug in his system on autopsy. we studied that. Based on our studies and research from peer reviewed and cited sources, we concluded that the drug qty was so minimal it is unlikely to have affected Jason at all

Our concerns arose because only a few drugs are screened in tox tests routinely.
It is possible jason was deeply unconscious when attacked and that the drug that produced that effect upon him had never been investigated at all because it was not on the routine test list. Therein lies the problem.
Regarding TM input, recall he was a trained FBI agent. He would also be trained to kill. Whereas I agree it took some strength to cause the damage that was described in the autopsy, another theory is that the force could have been achieved from a height, whether that was standing on a chair over a prone man or from a higher place remains to be seen.
It is possible that somebody else was present as well.

We know very little.
We do not have access to psych evaluations on either TM or MM or SM ..
I think TM should have been capable of micromanaging a different type of murder and a different technique of murder..

You rightly describe it as savagery.. its very complex.. many delusions.. many games..

I'm feeling immensely grateful to the two lawyers who kindly cast sanity last night.

I'm feeling better about it.. A whole lot better, a whole lot more sane and with far more trust in the judicial process that will begin in a few hours.

I think we put a lot of work in, its new territory for me..a hugely learning experience..
I learnt a lot about my own limits and I gained a massive respect for websleuths and the work here and I sincerely apologise for all the times we went AWOL. they were extraordinarily patient with us.

Its been a space to grow and to learn.
Next time, I would have a lot more understanding of and respect for the TOS.. I read them and I re-read them a million times but I could not grasp their deeper meaning.
Now, I begin to understand what victim friendly really means on every level.
(I had always intended to try to escape the 'legal stuff'.. now I realise it brings not only sanity but also catharsis and cohesion....

I hope the Corbett family are safe and protected and that justice really will be served, whatever the outcome of the trial.
Thanks everybody.

Well said Kitty!

 

[Fairness71]

I don't know of any father who loves his daughter who would not defend her right to live. IMO

And Sara what about Jason Corbett's right to live? What about his daughter & son's right for their father to live? What about Jason Corbett's right to protect his children from the Martens?

 

[kittythehare]

Well said Kitty!

Its the first time in my life I can say the law saved my sanity.!
Oil on highly troubled waters ,
I'm very grateful..

 

[stephanddoody]

It seems like you are right concerning SM testifying. Thank you. Today's Irish Daily Mail



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess we have to wait till the civil suit to learn more about Sharon's role. That's disappointing. I'm not sure it would look too good given Sharon was in the house and that the defence claim self defence and defence of others . It would look to me as if Sharon has something to hide .

 

[stmarysmead]

I guess we have to wait till the civil suit to learn more about Sharon's role. That's disappointing. I'm not sure it would look too good given Sharon was in the house and that the defence claim self defence and defence of others . It would look to me as if Sharon has something to hide .

Exactly my thoughts. It's very sketchy. Trying to make herself invisible that night and now in the courtroom.

 

[stmarysmead]

I don't know of any father who loves his daughter who would not defend her right to live. IMO

I'm still puzzled how she could be screaming loud enough to be heard downstairs in the guest room...and also being choked almost to death at the same time.

 

[Columbo16]

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...r-wedding-jason-corbetts-sister-34345782.html

At the time of the water faucet incident, I hadn't realised that JC was there. According to the report above it says he was, and ran into the Kichen to try and stop it. MC pushes him back and everyone is shouting for her to stop. For a women claiming to be a victim of DV, it seems very odd that she does physically push him away. I would think that the majority of DV victims would not dare do this to their abuser. She must also have great strength to push him back like that. IMO

 

[Jennifer17]

I'm still puzzled how she could be screaming loud enough to be heard downstairs in the guest room...and also being choked almost to death at the same time.

I think that Molly was screaming at Jason and hitting him and dad heard and ran upstairs to find Jason injured and dad thought the best way to protect Molly, from prosecution was to kill him and say that he was defending his daughter's life and there could be the bonus of Jason's money.