GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #8

[stephanddoody]

I really feel after reading today's coverage of the testimony from TM that the jury have been left with more questions than answers. What I can't decide is whether the defense have played a very clever game. By purposefully not putting Molly on the stand they have avoided referencing a motive for the fight, just ensured that the jury heard from TM that he needed to finish it. By excluding the information regarding the insurance policy and the statements from JC's colleagues about the strained relationship and possible move home, the jury are left with horrific overkill but no motive behind the fight...

I really hope the prosecution can convince the jury that when the testimony they have heard doesn't add up, they should consider this to be grounds enough for a conviction.

The jury do know about the insurance policy as Tom was asked if he knew Molly was the sole beneficiary

Mr Martens said Jason had told him he intended to make Molly the ‘adoptive mother’ of his children, Jack and Sarah. But this never happened, he said, and it was a source of strain. He said he was aware of the fact his daughter was the beneficiary of Mr Corbett’s insurance policy, worth $600,000......


https://www.facebook.com/TheIrishMai...41723026085239

 

[Logic-lady]

Defence has not rested yet, they are only half way through was my impression?

Thanks Kitty, perhaps I'm jumping the gun!

 

[Logic-lady]

The jury do know about the insurance policy as Tom was asked if he knew Molly was the sole beneficiary

I didn't think that was allowed in front of the jury Stephan? Maybe I got that wrong, I'l go have a read again x

 

[Angelswatchingover]

Thanks Angel,
Can police now get somebody else from the company interviewed and investigated?

This is really odd , that the agency would even discuss it with the defence is strange particularly as the policy has been through the courts in the past via Shipwash..

Policy should have been flagged bigtime with a murder investigation ongoing!

In fact from the outset the LE should have been given automatic rights to freeze and collect any and all policies..
This is very strange indeed, thanks for clarifying it, I always had assumed the change referred to one of his very many other policies, that this was safe.

I hope LE keep exploring..

dont know to link kitty, but go back over Fridays daily mail it is in that

 

[stephanddoody]

I didn't think that was allowed in front of the jury Stephan? Maybe I got that wrong, I'l go have a read again x

Wanda Thompson didn't speak about it in her testimony when the defence originally wanted it dismissed . Judge ruled it was to be included prosecution brought it up in cross of tom as far as I can see

 

[Frizby]

You would have to have a password to go online into your account and make changes to your policies, I know in my house my husband would not know any off the passwords to any of our policies, life insurance, house insurance, car insurance, I manage it all, a lot of wives do!!!!insurance company than would send out a hard copy of updated policy, whoever is at home gets the post!!!

I have never know of any amendment to the owner of a life assurance policy to be made by way of on-line. Different for home, car insurance but not for life assurance, in particular any alterations to the beneficiaries. There are two ways in general that the beneficiaries can be changed on a life policy, these are by way of trust or assignment. An assignment is usually the way a bank take charge over a policy, this means that they only get what is owed to them, any balance goes back to the policy owner, which incidentailly does not necessarilary mean the life assured. The owner of a life policy is called the Grantee. The Grantee can stipulate who the beneficiaries when effecting the contract but only the Grantee can change there.

There are many types of trust, the most common are discretionary trust or absolute trust. Discretionary trust would be the most common as this give the grantee the right to change it, i.e. replace it with another discretionary trust at any time. Absolute trust means that the owner of the policy is changed forever. I have never seen any of these done without the signature of the grantee plus in general it has to be witnessed & I would be surprised if it was different in the US.

Another type of policy this could be would be a Death in Service attached to JC employment, not sure what the rules are regarding these in the USA but typically they cover four times your salary. As they would be linked to you employment, they would typically be written under trust and a declaration would be required signed by the employee and the employer to alter the beneficiaries.

 

[kittythehare]

dont know to link kitty, but go back over Fridays daily mail it is in that

It also gives another reason why TM would like to take responsibility for murder from Molly, he would imagine that if he does end up serving time his 'stellar' career as fed would prevent him being jailed with gang members and 'people like that'..
I wonder?

Will also pay their legal fees

 

[irishmartin]

Statements made by Jason Corbetts children were not admissible as evidence Judge David lee ruled
There were allegations the children were coach prior to the interviews taking place

At one interview at the Dragonfly house Jack was asked why he was there .He replied saying his dad had died. He added my aunt and Uncle from my dads side came to try and take me away. That's why I'm here my mom wants custody.

He was asked if he knew of his mother was afraid of his father, he said he knew this because his mom told him

Both children had been told their father died by their mother . In Sc case her step grandmother also told her

Judge lee concluded that the statements did not meet the trustworthiness requirements and also noted both children had recanted their statements. He ruled that their statements were admissible for any purpose



Im sorry but this is a horrible way to treat children she totally manipulated them .

These animals had no limits and the C kids were to be pawns in it. The indoctrination of kids to portray their own flesh and blood as predators is sickening esp from ones that had no genetic bond to them and responsible for their father’s death. From what I seen previously, SM phoned JC brother in Limerick to tell him his brother was dead and the cause of this was MM accidentally pushed him and he hit his head of a table (then hung up) and I’m sure this accident type happening was conveyed to the C kids. As the trial has proceeded I can’t but feel this is a conspiracy that begun long before the day of JC killing. And how fast they got up in running after JC killing securing document etc one can’t but conclude otherwise. I even wonder now did in fact TM discuss this within the extended family to take soundings to its cogency. And the brazenness and audacity of this family since the killing inc TM on the stand it appears to be the case. It appears to their eyes JC was a nobody having 2 desirable kids and who had assets with a valuable life assurance policy and he alone was standing in the way of them relishing this. The extended M social media and other media campaign to get back the C kids is indicative of this and indicates a disbelief this is going wrong and the sheer wrongdoing of all including the state to allow it.

 

[Angelswatchingover]

That it was changed wasn't allowed be brought up but her been the sole beneficiary was...

 

[Be true]

The jury do know about the insurance policy as Tom was asked if he knew Molly was the sole beneficiary

Another contradicting statement, why would it be a strain that adoption wasn't moving along if he was advising mm to see legal advice about the marriage,
If he hated j as his colleague pointed out, he didn't like him as he pointed out, he didn't like his family, and his in law was uneducated why the heck would he want adoption slowing down divorce ??

Oh wait......he was possibly thinking about the love of his and mm life (money)

Jmo

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[kittythehare]

Another contradicting statement, why would it be a strain that adoption wasn't moving along if he was advising mm to see legal advice about the marriage,
If he hated j as his colleague pointed out, he didn't like him as he pointed out, he didn't like his family, and his in law was uneducated why the heck would he want adoption slowing down divorce ??

Oh wait......he was possibly thinking about the love of his and mm life (money)

Jmo

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

He did not. It was a hypothethical question asked by prosecution regarding what action he would be likely to take supposing he knew his daughter was a victim of battery,
He stated he would advise her to dissolve marriage but would only intervene physically if he witnessed it first hand.

Heres rte link and context. but i did see dailymail article as well, thinking could be mixed up in editing
If informed Mr Corbett was abusing his daughter, Mr Martens said he would encourage her to take measures to protect herself, including possibly dissolving her marriage. If she was being physically abused in front of him, Mr Martens said he would intervene.
Mr Martens said he had no definitive information of any violent encounters in which Mr Corbett inflicted injury to Ms Martens-Corbett in Ireland.
He added that he did not witness any physical violence between Mr Corbett and his daughter prior to 2 August 2015.
Defendant does not remember if he washed his hands afterwards
When asked if he made the decision to kill Mr Corbett, Mr Martens replied no. He said he made the decision to hit him in the back of the head with a baseball bat to subdue the threat to his daughter.
"Are you trying to take the blame for your daughter?" Mr Brown asked.
"No. I'm trying to take responsibility for what I did, and I'm trying to tell you truthfully what I did," Mr Martens replied.
The prosecutor asked if Mr Martens lost control and how long it took to call 911.
"It took a couple of minutes to gather myself, take a deep breath," Mr Martens said.
He estimated it took two minutes to collect himself, before then asking his daughter to find a phone and call 911.
Mr Martens said he does not remember if either he or his daughter washed their hands before using the phone to call for emergency help. Prior to the 911 call, neither Mr Martens or his daughter started CPR on Mr Corbett, he testified.
When asked whether he moved the vacuum cleaner, he said he did not think so, but allowed it was conceivable that in the hectic time of trying to administer CPR while on the phone with the 911 operator, he could have moved it.
He also said he did not remember washing his hands at any point prior to being interviewed at the sheriff's office.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0804/895294-corbett/

[FONT=&amp]MORE ON

[/FONT]

 

[Grouchymom]

FBI was established by Edgar Hoover to be an organization of non-rookie cops that was to be left for the local police forces but of elite professional’s law graduates, a super law enforcement body. I’m sure it was a prerequisite to be a law graduate when TM was recruited. I think it’s more common to now find law, criminology and all other graduates to computer science. That’s why it the leading agency in pursuing international computer crime offenses not only in the US but all over the world where the US has extradition agreements. Examples of that making the news is their closing of notorious web sites as “silk road” and “freedom hosting” the latter site being linked to an FBI extradition request presently taking place in Ireland and more recently that of Marcus Hutchin the UK hacker arrested on US visit this week.

http://www.fbiagentedu.org/fbi-requirements/

The job of an FBI Special Agent is exacting, demanding, and challenging, yet also highly rewarding. Because of the specialized nature of FBI Special Agent jobs, the FBI has very strict entry requirements in place. To qualify for a position as an FBI Special Agent:

• Candidates must be at least 23 years old, but younger than 37 at the time of appointment. Veterans, however, may be granted an age waiver if they are older than 37.
• Candidates must be a United States citizen or a citizen of the Northern Mariana Islands.
• Candidates must hold a four-year degree from a college or university accredited by one of the institutional associations recognized by the United States Secretary of Education.
• Candidates must possess a valid, U.S. driver’s license.
• Candidates must have completed at least three years of professional work experience.

All FBI Special Agents must qualify for at least one of the five FBI Special Agent Entry Programs to be eligible for employment:

• Language
• Law
• Accounting
• Computer Science/Information Technology
• Diversified

 

[TDoc72]

IMO It does not seem like a good choice by the nurse practitioner to prescribe this drug for MM with her history, and I highly doubt that JC, a young man already sent to a cardiologist, would take any drug not prescribed for him. I hope the prosecution brought up his known heart condition.

I wonder if the nurse practitioner even knows her history.

 

[Logic-lady]

Wanda Thompson didn't speak about it in her testimony when the defence originally wanted it dismissed . Judge ruled it was to be included prosecution brought it up in cross of tom as far as I can see

Excellent thanks! That makes me feel a bit better

 

[Angelswatchingover]

Jason had no mortgage, he paid for the house in cash, so it was not linked to a bank, it wasn't his death in service policy, that is another separate policy...
The facts are as stated by Lt Thompson the policy was changed few weeks beforehand to Molly been the sole beneficiary, can't see Jason excluding his children, he didn't expect to die while they were still so young, he was only 39, his marriage was over he was planning to move home, his father said yesterday the marriage wasn't good, so no way in the world would he change it to her, his marriage didn't turn sour in two weeks, she went and got advice about a divorce two years previously, I don't know how it was changed or who but IMO Jason didn't do it, he never changed his original will he made back in Ireland to make her guardians to the children, so if anything happened to him, he was going to give her all his money to look after herself!!!! but the children to his sister ..The Da wouldn't be bringing it up either if they believed Jason changed it. IMO

 

[TDoc72]

Someone needs to write a book about this case. I feel like I'm missing so much much between the barely there American coverage, spotty tweets, and Irish reporting that I can only read 10%. This really is a fascinating case.

 

[kittythehare]

Jason had no mortgage, he paid for the house in cash, so it was not linked to a bank, it wasn't his death in service policy, that is another separate policy...
The facts are as stated by Lt Thompson the policy was changed few weeks beforehand to Molly been the sole beneficiary, can't see Jason excluding his children, he didn't expect to die while they were still so young, he was only 39, his marriage was over he was planning to move home, his father said yesterday the marriage wasn't good, so no way in the world would he change it to her, his marriage didn't turn sour in two weeks, she went and got advice about a divorce two years previously, I don't know how it was changed or who but IMO Jason didn't do it, he never changed his original will he made back in Ireland to make her guardians to the children, so if anything happened to him, he was going to give her all his money to look after herself!!!! but the children to his sister ..The Da wouldn't be bringing it up either if they believed Jason changed it. IMO

What a terrible shame the change was not brought before that jury!

what a terrible awful shame!

 

[Logic-lady]

I was just re-reading some of the media only links trying to find more info on the insurance policy when I came across this - http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...-5cad-8e9b-ba7f55f4ccfc/56e1083eafd3c.pdf.pdf

It's the court order from when Molly removed practically all of the property from the house after agreeing that she would work with the estate solicitors prior to organise what she could remove while the case was being investigated. I had forgotten that it really did give us our first insight into Molly...

Respondent failed to work in good faith with Petitioner's counsel through what the court deems a perverse determination of ownership and manipulation of intent by Respondent removing the majority of the tangible personal property described in the Consent Order

The parallels with TM's testimony are uncanny IMO.

 

[stephanddoody]

Someone needs to write a book about this case. I feel like I'm missing so much much between the barely there American coverage, spotty tweets, and Irish reporting that I can only read 10%. This really is a fascinating case.

I really hope not not that I wouldn't love to read it but for the children's sake

 

[kittythehare]

I really hope not not that I wouldn't love to read it but for the children's sake

Theres already several volumes in all the threads here.. happy reading everyone.