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

[kittythehare]

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.

Mrs fitzpatrick is not on trial here.
I do take offense actually.

 

[searchinGirl]

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..

Not that many arguments end in sex but they could begin that way. IMO And even though you believe JC was attacked in his sleep, the prosecution hasn't proven that; have they said that? They suggest the first blow was inflicted on or around the bed but JC ended up on the floor, leaving blood spatter almost everywhere; and, they have failed as you say to adequately reconstruct the sequence of the blows.

It sounds to me like both sides have acknowledged an altercation took place that led to JCs death. TM state of mind is important to this proceeding and in my opinion the jury will want to know how the altercation started. IMO

 

[Triona]

The Fitzpatricks and Corbetts are two very closely knit families. And Jason is buried with Mags.

The Fitzpatricks are not on trial. The Martens are.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

 

[kittythehare]

Not that many arguments end in sex but they could begin that way. IMO And even though you believe JC was attacked in his sleep, the prosecution hasn't proven that; have they said that? They suggest the first blow was inflicted on or around the bed but JC ended up on the floor, leaving blood spatter almost everywhere; and, they have failed as you say to adequately reconstruct the sequence of the blows.

It sounds to me like both sides have acknowledged an altercation took place that led to JCs death. TM state of mind is important to this proceeding and in my opinion the jury will want to know how the altercation started. IMO

theres a problem with how you have laid out this post.
Comments you made are attributable to me on it. I did not say that. ( possibly went into reply too quick/)
There was neither evidence of a sexual attack submitted or ascribed to the slaughter of Jason Corbett.

We do not have the full conclusions of the forensic people and I have stated that in most of my posts today.

We DO have evidence that TM is dishonest, however.

 

[searchinGirl]

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?

My father might have tried to reason with my ex; he would have been scared to death of him and wouldn't have wanted to start a fight that he most likely would lose. But, if my ex had failed to retreat, he would have gone through with it to save my life. IMO

One thing I'm not buying is the trace amount of trazodone found in JC system causing him to psychotically break from reality. Some people here have said it makes them feel "dark", but the only darkness I've felt is that of descending into sleep. IMO

 

[DaleTray]

Now this is the type of in depth analysis, so well explained, that I appreciate from WS. Thank you.

 

[A350]

<p>
From the Irish examiner, see link. TL did &quot;[FONT=&amp;]acknowledge on cross-examination that Mr Corbett had not made any plane reservations or made any other arrangements to go back to Ireland on a permanent basis.&quot; [/FONT] http://www.irishexaminer.com/irelan...tt-wanted-to-move-back-to-ireland-456371.html I was a bit surprised at the prosecution - what was presented and how it was presented. Its hard to tell what exactly the jury absorbed but i would think that thedefence are fairy happy with where they stand at this point. The prosecution did not string together a powerful narrative. The defence approach will be interesting to see.</p>

 

[irishmartin]

United States of America
Criminal Matters The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees the right of the accused &#8220;to be confronted with the witnesses against him&#8221;
The Supreme Court of the U.S.A. has decided that this means that there is a right to physical presence at all critical stages of the trial.
In limited circumstances an accused need not be present during trial e.g. voluntary absence once trial has begun, trial of a corporation, trial of an offence attracting a sentence of one year or less (where the accused has consented in writing) and during legal argument.

Don&#8217;t know the limits or ceiling of this ruling.

 

[SandyQLS]

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

"The State case closed on the 12th day of the trial and after hearing from 21 witnesses. A jury of nine women and three men have been hearing the case for which jury selection began on July 17."

I had no idea there had been 21 witnesses. It did not seem like that many.

 

[kittythehare]

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

"The State case closed on the 12th day of the trial and after hearing from 21 witnesses. A jury of nine women and three men have been hearing the case for which jury selection began on July 17."

I had no idea there had been 21 witnesses. It did not seem like that many.

I started my reply with an attempt to count them, but i quickly gave up.

Its appalling how little info we actually have on the proceedings.
We receive more information on what is disallowed than what was presented.

I had hoped we would hav received the entire conclusions of James by now.. (In a report earlier today, I saw something like 15 different sites in the master bedroom were analysed by James)
May have been Irish Times, using a US reporter.. I will try finding it again..

 

[Harmony 2]

<p>
From the Irish examiner, see link. TL did "[FONT=&]acknowledge on cross-examination that Mr Corbett had not made any plane reservations or made any other arrangements to go back to Ireland on a permanent basis." [/FONT] http://www.irishexaminer.com/irelan...tt-wanted-to-move-back-to-ireland-456371.html I was a bit surprised at the prosecution - what was presented and how it was presented. Its hard to tell what exactly the jury absorbed but i would think that thedefence are fairy happy with where they stand at this point. The prosecution did not string together a powerful narrative. The defence approach will be interesting to see.</p>

The article you linked has a lot of information about testimony today.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/irelan...tt-wanted-to-move-back-to-ireland-456371.html

I think you were trying to quote this:

However, David Freedman, attorney for Mr Martens, got her to acknowledge on cross-examination that Mr Corbett had not made any plane reservations or made any other arrangements to go back to Ireland on a permanent basis.

 

[kittythehare]

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...k-to-ireland-sister-tells-trial-35999307.html

Mrs Lynch said she was surprised when Ms Martens-Corbett messaged her in 2015 to ask her about the date for the 80th birthday of Mr Corbett's father.

It suggests a troubled relationship.
It was a special birthday, his 80th. She had known him for quite a few years by then.

It may be that she was stalking Jason.. attempting to pre-empt, maybe get herself an invitation .. he may have already, that long ago, denied her access to his ageing father.. pure speculation on my part..

I found some more info on this
Mrs. Lynch said that Molly Corbett had messaged her about buying tickets for herself, Jason and the kids, and said she was surprised that Molly had reached out to her instead of talking to Jason about it. She said Jason had not previously mentioned to her that Molly would be making the trip, too.
Source

http://www.wxii12.com/article/state-rests-its-case-in-jason-corbett-murder-trial/11381357

 

[kittythehare]

Same article, different point regarding admission of hearsay grasping-at-any-straw-possible- Martens


Ms Stanton also pointed out that Mr Fitzpatrick, before his death, made a sworn statement to a solicitor denying that he had ever made such a remark.



That was a legal document. Michael Fitzpatrick died in October '16.
He made that sworn statement some time before then.

This proves that not only did the defence have access to the sworn statement, and the autopsy , but they persisted in the lie regardless after Mr Fitzpatrick's death, before even a year had passed.

They knew . They did it anyway.


However, Ina Stanton, for the prosecution, objected to the statement being allowed on the basis it was both highly prejudicial and inflammatory.

That does not appear to bother them in the least.

How much more cruelty will be inflicted on the innocent grieving families before the American Bar intervenes and moves to strike them from ever practicing law again?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...k-to-ireland-sister-tells-trial-35999307.html

 

[A350]

Same article, different point regarding admission of hearsay grasping-at-any-straw-possible- Martens


Ms Stanton also pointed out that Mr Fitzpatrick, before his death, made a sworn statement to a solicitor denying that he had ever made such a remark.



That was a legal document. Michael Fitzpatrick died in October '16.
He made that sworn statement some time before then.

This proves that not only did the defence have access to the sworn statement, and the autopsy , but they persisted in the lie regardless after Mr Fitzpatrick's death, before even a year had passed.

They knew . They did it anyway.


However, Ina Stanton, for the prosecution, objected to the statement being allowed on the basis it was both highly prejudicial and inflammatory.

That does not appear to bother them in the least.

How much more cruelty will be inflicted on the innocent grieving families before the American Bar intervenes and moves to strike them from ever practicing law again?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...k-to-ireland-sister-tells-trial-35999307.html

This could be interpreted as Mr.Fitzpatrick made the statement at the request of the corbetts.

When did the martens indicate they were going to drag Mr.Fitzpatrick into it?

It would be very odd for MrFitzpatrick to go to the trouble to issue a retraction of something that he never said and that no else had mentioned.

My 2 cents.

 

[kittythehare]

This could be interpreted as Mr.Fitzpatrick made the statement at the request of the corbetts.

When did the martens indicate they were going to drag Mr.Fitzpatrick into it?

It would be very odd for MrFitzpatrick to go to the trouble to issue a retraction of something that he never said and that no else had mentioned.

My 2 cents.

The point is that it obviously was mentioned, actually and clarity sought and provided.

It is also most likely that the sworn statement was at the behest of the prosecution.


I have NEVER seen or read a suggestion anywhere that either Jason or the Corbetts or the Lynches were blackmailing the Fitzpatricks and threatening to deprive them of access to Jason and Margaret's children.
But if you have a notion that this is the case, I would certainly review it carefully.

The State is prosecuting.
The Corbett-Lynches are witnesses.
The victim is Jason Corbett and all who mourn his loss.Including The fitzpatricks.
To suggest the Corbetts are manipulating or prosecuting this case or engaging in blackmail , bullying or coercion has no basis in fact or evidence.

 

[A350]

Hello all,

I am simply trying to wade through the mud of the "facts" of this case.

It would be interesting to know who requested that Mr.Fitzpatrick make a sworn statement, and when that request was made.

That in no was casts any aspersions on anyone but if we knew that it would further illuminate our understanding of the case.

In the absence of a recording of all conversations between TM and Mr.Fitzpatrick TM can state his recollection of the conversation. It may or may not be true but he can state what he believes Mr. Fitzpatrick stated to him at that time.

If the request for the statement did not come from the prosecution than where did it come from? Like i say people dont typically make sworn statements unless something triggered it.

Thanks to all for the comradery and the conversation.

 

[kittythehare]

Hello all,

I am simply trying to wade through the mud of the "facts" of this case.

It would be interesting to know who requested that Mr.Fitzpatrick make a sworn statement, and when that request was made.

That in no was casts any aspersions on anyone but if we knew that it would further illuminate our understanding of the case.

In the absence of a recording of all conversations between TM and Mr.Fitzpatrick TM can state his recollection of the conversation. It may or may not be true but he can state what he believes Mr. Fitzpatrick stated to him at that time.

If the request for the statement did not come from the prosecution than where did it come from? Like i say people dont typically make sworn statements unless something triggered it.

Thanks to all for the comradery and the conversation.

I just told you the answer and I showed you the link stating the prosecution had presented his statement. Stanton is prosecution.

The autopsy, mE reports, Search warrants are all in the files attached to this case.
We do not have a coherent synopsis of the blood spatter expert testimony as yet. But that is where you will find the facts. Those are the only facts.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

This could be interpreted as Mr.Fitzpatrick made the statement at the request of the corbetts.

When did the martens indicate they were going to drag Mr.Fitzpatrick into it?

It would be very odd for MrFitzpatrick to go to the trouble to issue a retraction of something that he never said and that no else had mentioned.

My 2 cents.

According to this there was a motion filed before the trial started.

http://www.independent.ie/world-new...sed-the-death-of-his-first-wife-35803451.html

Now, the former FBI agent is claiming in a motion filed to the court ahead of the trial that he was "approached by Michael Fitzpatrick (since deceased), the father of Jason Corbett's late first wife Margaret Corbett" at his daughter and Jason's wedding in 2011.
It reads; "On that occasion, Mr Fitzpatrick told Mr Martens that he believed that Jason Corbett had caused the death of his daughter Margaret."

 

[kittythehare]

According to this there was a motion filed before the trial started.

http://www.independent.ie/world-new...sed-the-death-of-his-first-wife-35803451.html

Now, the former FBI agent is claiming in a motion filed to the court ahead of the trial that he was "approached by Michael Fitzpatrick (since deceased), the father of Jason Corbett's late first wife Margaret Corbett" at his daughter and Jason's wedding in 2011.
It reads; "On that occasion, Mr Fitzpatrick told Mr Martens that he believed that Jason Corbett had caused the death of his daughter Margaret."

It was filed then.
Michael Fitzpatrick had died in October 16.
his statement was sent to prosecution some time before that.
And he never attended Jason's wedding to molly,
The likliehood is that Martens made this statement after the murder to the police. He lawyered up pretty quickly.
What is despicable is that though the lawyers would have been aware of both the real circumstances of Mag's death and Marten's foolish statement from the outset, they did nothing until Fitzpatrick was dead.
There are older posts here describing other examples of mistruths by the defence ,that is what makes it a despicable act.

 

[Irishlassabroad]

I think it is perhaps what TM might have been thinking about what he saw going on in the bedroom that night. I mean, something enraged him to beat JC so badly. I can only conclude he had to believe that JC really was trying to harm MM. IMO

The blood spatter analyst said it began on or near the bed. TM said he saw JC choking MM. I can't visualize that they were both standing with JCs hands around her neck or MM would have kneed him in the groin. What I can see is this altercation beginning in bed with MM laying on her back and JC on top of her. Makes it easier for TM to hit him from behind initially, stunning JC and freeing MM but not to the point he let go of her completely. IMO

TMs state of mind is in play here. Did he think JC was raping his daughter? Or, did he decide in that moment to kill JC because, as the witness testified, "he hated the son in law" and seized the opportunity to do away with him? Criminal intent is key. IMO

But there is nothing anywhere about sexual assault so I don't understand where you are even getting such an idea from. How do you explain the fact that Molly had nothing to show for any type of attack, particularly no neck injuries.