GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #7

[SandyQLS]

"I would contend there is no evidence to show malice - and no criminal offence," Mr Freedman said.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...-murder-charges-against-martens-35998786.html

Ah so this is where the no evidence of malice comes from. Glad the judge didn't agree

Judge Lee ruled that, having carefully considered the matter and the legal arguments involved, said there was "substantial" grounds to deny the motions from both defendants.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...-murder-charges-against-martens-35998786.html

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

RBBM. To me, that is a strong statement from the judge since he could have simply said "motions denied" without any qualification or other words. He heard the arguments and made the ruling while the jury was out of the courtroom, too, so his words do not influence them.

Quotes from page 52

Originally Posted by kittythehare True but IMO they have failed to show motive and I believe that to be really very significant here.

I believe second degree murder is about malice, not motive. IMO

Yes. The defendants have given their motive as self defense alone, but their side has not presented the case for self defense which is an affirmative defense in this case.

The Prosecution case was to show 2nd degree murder and they cannot rebut self defense until after the Defense makes it's claim of self defense officially in the court proceeding (I think that might be what is happening, JMO).

 

[Logic-lady]

RBBM. To me, that is a strong statement from the judge since he could have simply said "motions denied" without any qualification or other words. He heard the arguments and made the ruling while the jury was out of the courtroom, too, so his words do not influence them.

Quotes from page 52





Yes. The defendants have given their motive as self defense alone, but their side has not presented the case for self defense which is an affirmative defense in this case.

The Prosecution case was to show 2nd degree murder and they cannot rebut self defense until after the Defense makes it's claim of self defense officially in the court proceeding (I think that might be what is happening, JMO).

:goodpost:

 

[jd08]

RBBM. To me, that is a strong statement from the judge since he could have simply said "motions denied" without any qualification or other words. He heard the arguments and made the ruling while the jury was out of the courtroom, too, so his words do not influence them.

Quotes from page 52





Yes. The defendants have given their motive as self defense alone, but their side has not presented the case for self defense which is an affirmative defense in this case.

The Prosecution case was to show 2nd degree murder and they cannot rebut self defense until after the Defense makes it's claim of self defense officially in the court proceeding (I think that might be what is happening, JMO).

In a self defense case the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. However, I agree that at this stage they have definitely presented enough to show the jury that possibly self defense is not what was going on here.

 

[Logic-lady]

IMO Fitzpatrick comments will be kept out due to being too unreliable and children's statements allowed in.

Do you think they will allow all of the statements or just the ones the defense have requested?

 

[jd08]

Do you think they will allow all of the statements or just the ones the defense have requested?

If they are allowed in then all will probably come in for reasons of completeness.

 

[searchinGirl]

Unless they were sleeping with the door open, it is unlikely that TM could have seen JC lying on top of a fully clothed Molly in bed trying to rape her, and even if he did, why would he refer to it as 'inside the bedroom door'....also given that only one side of the bed appeared to have been slept in and the blood had soaked through to the mattress and box spring wouldn't this imply that Molly was on top rather than underneath JC?

They have NOT used this as a defense. There is nothing to suggest this happened. Domestic Violence does not automatically correlate to sexual violence.

You are right. Domestic Violence doesn't always correlate to sexual violence. But sex for most human beings is passionate and that could most certainly lead to a fight. Didn't TM say he responded to hearing a scream? I don't know what he could have seen through the bedroom door, but whatever it was, it triggered a deadly rage. IMO I think he will testify.

 

[Logic-lady]

If they are allowed in then all will probably come in for reasons of completeness.

Thanks, it will be interesting to see how the defense plays this one...

 

[A350]

I am just raging that this lie about what Mr. Fitzpatrick is alleged to have said, hasn't been put to bed. Mrs. Fitzpatrick has been very clear that this never happened - it should not even be discussed. Could she testify by video link if necessary?

Hello all,

This is very upsetting for the family but the problem is that Mrs. Fitzpatrick cannot state with certainty whether or not her husband made a particular comment. She was not with her husband 100% of the time he was alive. She does not know every word her husband ever spoke. So, unfortunately, she is not in a position to state that she is certain that her husband did or did not say something. She might genuinely believe he did not but she cannot be certain.

The prosecution need to attack this one with facts. Ask TM where exactly he had the alleged conversation with Mr. Fitzpatrick and then prove factually that the conversation did not happen, e.g. prove that TM was not there.

The defence are not idiots. All they have to do is prove that a conversation between TM and Mr. Fitzpatrick took place at some point and then it is a matter of whether the jury believe TM's assertion regarding what Mr. Fitzpatrick said.

Again, unfortunately what Mrs. Fitzpatrick thinks or believes will have little bearing on a fact driven court case.

My 2 cents.

 

[Logic-lady]

You are right. Domestic Violence doesn't always correlate to sexual violence. But sex for most human beings is passionate and that could most certainly lead to a fight. Didn't TM say he responded to hearing a scream? I don't know what he could have seen through the bedroom door, but whatever it was, it triggered a deadly rage. IMO I think he will testify.

And what he claims to have seen is a psychotic Jason choking his daughter, someone he tried to reason with...IMO if my father found my husband trying to rape me, reasoning with him would be the last thing he would do.

They are claiming drug-fuelled psychosis....fear of death.....I could decide that Jason walked in on Molly in bed with her father and they had to beat him to a pulp to keep their illicit secret, but none of the evidence presented thus far supports that in any way, so what's the point?

 

[kittythehare]

You are right. Domestic Violence doesn't always correlate to sexual violence. But sex for most human beings is passionate and that could most certainly lead to a fight. Didn't TM say he responded to hearing a scream? I don't know what he could have seen through the bedroom door, but whatever it was, it triggered a deadly rage. IMO I think he will testify.

not too many arguments end in sex, most end in freeze or resolution, IMO.
TM actual words must be taken into account, not his possible thoughts, imaginings fears or jealousy.. we actually have nothing to support any of these things.
Maybe he is habitually in low key deadly rage mode? recall the witness who testified re his demeanor changing when he discussed Jason. A perceptible shift occurred.
Its possible he planned it, waited for his chance and felt he needed to do it for his own reasons..

A nasty divorce case might have destroyed him more than the aftermath of a massacre which he fully expects will go unchallenged.
Its no more a sexual attack than it was a burglary, because there is no evidence to that effect.
Jason was most likely in be asleep when attacked first.
The forensics suggest that.
But TM states he was behind the door choking his daughter and dragged her here and there? He could not have done that from the bed unless it was motor propelled and moved fast..

 

[jd08]

The defense is taking a risk IMO by trying to even have Fitzpatrick's alleged statements admitted. If they happen to be admitted that opens the door for the prosecution to bring in a parade of character witnesses to testify to JC's "peacefulness." This in turn could trigger an emotional reaction from the jury which is what a defense lawyer would not want. If it were me I would probably move forward without trying to get those statements in.

 

[fido]

]

Hello all,

This is very upsetting for the family but the problem is that Mrs. Fitzpatrick cannot state with certainty whether or not her husband made a particular comment. She was not with her husband 100% of the time he was alive. She does not know every word her husband ever spoke. So, unfortunately, she is not in a position to state that she is certain that her husband did or did not say something. She might genuinely believe he did not but she cannot be certain.

The prosecution need to attack this one with facts. Ask TM where exactly he had the alleged conversation with Mr. Fitzpatrick and then prove factually that the conversation did not happen, e.g. prove that TM was not there.

The defence are not idiots. All they have to do is prove that a conversation between TM and Mr. Fitzpatrick took place at some point and then it is a matter of whether the jury believe TM's assertion regarding what Mr. Fitzpatrick said.

Again, unfortunately what Mrs. Fitzpatrick thinks or believes will have little bearing on a fact driven court case.

My 2 cents.

I understand your point but IMO mrs f would know if her husband blamed Jason whether she was present for alleged conversation or not. Why would mr f confide this to a virtual stranger and not to his wife of 40 odd years? Or to anyone in his own family? That's not the type of thing you can keep to yourself. It's yet another unconscionable falsehood by the defendant which allegation incidentally did not come up until after mr f passed away.

 

[stephanddoody]

Sometimes people speak from the grave that's my opinion .

 

[kittythehare]

Hello all,

This is very upsetting for the family but the problem is that Mrs. Fitzpatrick cannot state with certainty whether or not her husband made a particular comment. She was not with her husband 100% of the time he was alive. She does not know every word her husband ever spoke. So, unfortunately, she is not in a position to state that she is certain that her husband did or did not say something. She might genuinely believe he did not but she cannot be certain.

The prosecution need to attack this one with facts. Ask TM where exactly he had the alleged conversation with Mr. Fitzpatrick and then prove factually that the conversation did not happen, e.g. prove that TM was not there.

The defence are not idiots. All they have to do is prove that a conversation between TM and Mr. Fitzpatrick took place at some point and then it is a matter of whether the jury believe TM's assertion regarding what Mr. Fitzpatrick said.

Again, unfortunately what Mrs. Fitzpatrick thinks or believes will have little bearing on a fact driven court case.

My 2 cents.

i disagree respectfully.

Margaret Corbett died from an asthmatic attack en route to hospital. The law in Ireland states that sudden deaths require autopsies.
the autopsy is a legal document.
Undisputable.
the Fitzpatricks only met the Martens when they were visiting Jason for a holiday,

Do you really think they would accept a holiday from a man they believed murdered their beloved mags?

Irish people are not like that.
We're not stupid either.

 

[Logic-lady]

The defense is taking a risk IMO by trying to even have Fitzpatrick's alleged statements admitted. If they happen to be admitted that opens the door for the prosecution to bring in a parade of character witnesses to testify to JC's "peacefulness." This in turn could trigger an emotional reaction from the jury which is what a defense lawyer would not want. If it were me I would probably move forward without trying to get those statements in.

How do you think people would perceive Molly not taking the stand...initially I had assumed that it played up to her role as victim, with TM being the protector even now by speaking for them both. But with the ferocity of the crime scene, I'm inclined to think the jury will want more answers, that it will look like she's hiding something by not testifying?

 

[stephanddoody]

I genuinely despair on how low these people will go . This IMO Is horrific. They make it out as if in 2012 ( originally 2011but that's a admin mistake )mr fitz wrote out on FBI letterhead paper that somehow Jason was responsible for Mags passing . Honestly it's despicable and was said by her supporters from the start ,there are really are no words of how disgusting it is . Will not impress the jurors either IMO

 

[kittythehare]

I genuinely despair on how low these people will go . This IMO Is horrific. They make it out as if in 2012 ( originally 2011but that's a admin mistake )mr fitz wrote out on FBI letterhead paper that somehow Jason was responsible for Mags passing . Honestly it's despicable and was said by her supporters from the start ,there are really are no words of how disgusting it is . Will not impress the jurors either IMO

her parents would have received a copy of her autopsy as would her husband.

 

[jd08]

How do you think people would perceive Molly not taking the stand...initially I had assumed that it played up to her role as victim, with TM being the protector even now by speaking for them both. But with the ferocity of the crime scene, I'm inclined to think the jury will want more answers, that it will look like she's hiding something by not testifying?

I don't think its favorable because to me its clear there were two assailants and the jury probably wants to hear from both. OTOH from what we think we know of her, it would be a big risk to put her up.

 

[Logic-lady]

I don't think its favorable because to me its clear there were two assailants and the jury probably wants to hear from both. OTOH from what we think we know of her, it would be a big risk to put her up.

Thanks, I agree.

 

[A350]

i disagree respectfully.

Margaret Corbett died from an asthmatic attack en route to hospital. The law in Ireland states that sudden deaths require autopsies.
the autopsy is a legal document.
Undisputable.
the Fitzpatricks only met the Martens when they were visiting Jason for a holiday,

Do you really think they would accept a holiday from a man they believed murdered their beloved mags?

Irish people are not like that.
We're not stupid either.

Hello all,

Im not for a moment implying that anyone is stupid. I have very much enjoyed following all of the posts here and i respect everyones input and opinion.

It is interesting that the defence keep bringing it up though.

The dynamic within families can be strange.

The Fitzpatricks naturally wanted to maintain as close as possible a relationship with their grandchildren after the death of Margaret.

Claiming that Jason was somehow to blame for her death would not help the relationship between the Fitzpatricks and Jason.

In a way the Fitzpatricks had to accept Jasons hospitality if they wanted to see their grandchildren.

Mrs Fitzpatrick no doubt still wants a relationship with her grandchildren. She needs to support the Corbetts in everyway she can.

If they asked her for a statement that leans in a particular direction she is almost obliged to provide it or she faces a fracturing of her relationship with the Corbetts and by extension with her children.

If Mr. Fitzpatrick and TM met, unless there is a transcript or recording of 100% of the conversation between them it is very difficult to prove that something was or was not said.

No offence meant to anyone. Merely my thoughts on the subject.