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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Angelswatchingover said:
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
Click to expand...

So if JC didn't do it, it was either done illegally or MM was the initial only owner of the policy. For all we know, it could have been a life policy owned by MM on the life of JC written under discretionary trust for the children for example. If the owners of the policy was joint life, it would need the be changed by both parties. If the life assurance company was suspicious about the alteration to the beneficiaries, they would not have paid out to the beneficiary. Any alteration to a policy so close to death would have raised red flags in any insurance company. The money AFAIK is being held in an account by solicitors of the estates for the moment until they decide would gets it. If there was anything illegal about the alteration I find it hard to believe that the prosecutions would not have brought it up. I agree, I cannot see JC doing it so it suggest to me that MM was the owner of the policy & also there really would have to have been another beneficiary on the policy for her to change as she would have been entitled to it otherwise by marriage. My initial thought when I heard all the insurance comments was that it was a Life of Another policy written in Trust.
 
Logic-lady said:
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...



The parallels with TM's testimony are uncanny IMO.
Click to expand...
going through this again. Well done you digging it out.

I was shocked at the comments on the photos of the bat cover we put up last night..
whereas she is going for full blown demure for the court, she was far from demure in those posts with the clothes and bat cover
 
Frizby said:
So if JC didn't do it, it was either done illegally or MM was the initial only owner of the policy. For all we know, it could have been a life policy owned by MM on the life of JC written under discretionary trust for the children for example. If the owners of the policy was joint life, it would need the be changed by both parties. If the life assurance company was suspicious about the alteration to the beneficiaries, they would not have paid out to the beneficiary. Any alteration to a policy so close to death would have raised red flags in any insurance company. The money AFAIK is being held in an account by solicitors of the estates for the moment until they decide would gets it. If there was anything illegal about the alteration I find it hard to believe that the prosecutions would not have brought it up. I agree, I cannot see JC doing it so it suggest to me that MM was the owner of the policy & also there really would have to have been another beneficiary on the policy for her to change as she would have been entitled to it otherwise by marriage. My initial thought when I heard all the insurance comments was that it was a Life of Another policy written in Trust.
Click to expand...

Lt. Wanda Thompson said there was a change to Jason's Life insurance policy, and Molly was now Sole beneficiary, to me that reads there was others to benefit with her before the change, IMO that would be the children. Taking the children's names off wouldn't have raised red flags. Remember she wasn't charged with anything untill January five months after Jason's death, it was her dad pleading guilty only to killing him...So she could have claimed it, I'm not sure if she did...The prosecution did try bring it up but defence objected it was argued without the jury in he room, defence said they had no knowledge of this and hadn't time to investigate they only found out two days before hand..They wanted the judge to stop her testifying full stop, she was allowed to testify once prosecution didn't bring up the change to policy. IMO I think it will be brought into arguments again..your not automatically entitled to life insurance by marriage, your entitled to a share and the other shares go to your children, unless you have stated otherwise in your will. I have first hand knowledge of this....
 
Angelswatchingover said:
Lt. Wanda Thompson said there was a change to Jason's Life insurance policy, and Molly was now Sole beneficiary, to me that reads there was others to benefit with her before the change, IMO that would be the children. Taking the children's names off wouldn't have raised red flags. Remember she wasn't charged with anything untill January five months after Jason's death, it was her dad pleading guilty only to killing him...So she could have claimed it, I'm not sure if she did...The prosecution did try bring it up but defence objected it was argued without the jury in he room, defence said they had no knowledge of this and hadn't time to investigate they only found out two days before hand..They wanted the judge to stop her testifying full stop, she was allowed to testify once prosecution didn't bring up the change to policy. IMO I think it will be brought into arguments again..your not automatically entitled to life insurance by marriage, your entitled to a share and the other shares go to your children, unless you have stated otherwise in your will. I have first hand knowledge of this....
Click to expand...

Did you see this Angel and Frizby?

Page 2. No. 5 http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...-5cad-8e9b-ba7f55f4ccfc/56e1083eafd3c.pdf.pdf

jC was seriously committed to protection policies.

(I have no understanding of it myself- I dont have any at all)
 
https://services.unum.com/_fwComn/Help/Claims/!SSL!/WebHelp/beneficiary_information.htm

Claims for Simply Unum Life insurance, such as Whole Life or 10/10 Term Life, can be initiated by a beneficiary through the convenience of online filing.
What is a beneficiary? How will Unum know that I’m entitled to benefits?

A beneficiary is the person or legal entity who receives money from a life insurance policy after the death of the insured. Contact Unum after the death of loved one and we will verify the beneficiary information and answer any questions you may have. At any time, you may click on Contact Us at the top of the application to reach us by telephone or e-mail.
Click to expand...

Unum Group NYSE: UNM is a Chattanooga, Tennessee-based Fortune 500[SUP][2][/SUP] insurance company formerly known as UnumProvident.[SUP][3][/SUP] Unum Group was created by th
Click to expand...
Unum is headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee.[SUP][1][/SUP] The company has additional offices in Portland, Maine; Columbia, South Carolina; Worcester, Massachusetts; Glendale, California; New Delhi, India and at Milton Court, Dorking, Surrey, England.[SUP][1][/SUP] Thomas Watjen served as Unum president and chief executive from 2003 until his retirement in 2015.
Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unum


Think this is the one Molly is the sole beneficiary of seems it's easy to change online if you have the log in details
 
kittythehare said:
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
Click to expand...

For legal fees the Slayer Rule will prevent the JC interest accruing to the Ms and this will happen whatever the verdict. The rule is civil law and does not require criminal conviction of manslaughter or murder but that the beneficiaries were involved in the unlawful death; thus they can’t benefit. I saw a case in Ireland where there was joint tenancy with survivorship rights to the slayer who had an equitable to the property being denied all rights of benefit even their own equitable interest. I’m sure the C family would hotly contest any beneficiary rights emanating to the M in the civil courts of any part of JC estate falling into their hands.

For the M it could mean a pauperised retirement (if not getting free state accommodation with supplied clothing) with even a lean on their pension entitlement if these are not already forfeit along with their home. I understand the criminal trial has already cost a $40,000 bail bond loss. Report also state their trial lawyers are costing $800,000 for both of them and then they have to pay all the ancillary cost of a trial living away from home which I&#8217;m sure in total will be well over the $900,000 limits. The SC beach property equity that was sold in earlier in 2017 would appear was used to pay MM custody fray.<modsnip>

For the Ms&#8217; its lose lose and to why they risked all on this odyssey is beyond belief.


But then again terrible arrogance brings that contempt.
 
TDoc72 said:
I wonder if the nurse practitioner even knows her history.
Click to expand...

I would imagine it had being prescribed in the past as such drugs a tight reign is kept on prescribing them and the NP thought it more appropriate than a painkiller to her situation.
 
irishmartin said:
For legal fees the Slayer Rule will prevent the JC interest accruing to the Ms and this will happen whatever the verdict. The rule is civil law and does not require criminal conviction of manslaughter or murder but that the beneficiaries were involved in the unlawful death; thus they can&#8217;t benefit. I saw a case in Ireland where there was joint tenancy with survivorship rights to the slayer who had an equitable to the property being denied all rights of benefit even their own equitable interest. I&#8217;m sure the C family would hotly contest any beneficiary rights emanating to the M in the civil courts of any part of JC estate falling into their hands.

For the M it could mean a pauperised retirement (if not getting free state accommodation with supplied clothing) with even a lean on their pension entitlement if these are not already forfeit along with their home. I understand the criminal trial has already cost a $40,000 bail bond loss. Report also state their trial lawyers are costing $800,000 for both of them and then they have to pay all the ancillary cost of a trial living away from home which I&#8217;m sure in total will be well over the $900,000 limits. The SC beach property equity that was sold in earlier in 2017 would appear was used to pay MM custody fray. <modsnip>

For the Ms&#8217; its lose lose and to why they risked all on this odyssey is beyond belief.


But then again terrible arrogance brings that contempt.
Click to expand...

Slayer Statute will not apply if TM takes the rap.
 
irishmartin said:
For legal fees the Slayer Rule will prevent the JC interest accruing to the Ms and this will happen whatever the verdict. The rule is civil law and does not require criminal conviction of manslaughter or murder but that the beneficiaries were involved in the unlawful death; thus they can&#8217;t benefit. I saw a case in Ireland where there was joint tenancy with survivorship rights to the slayer who had an equitable to the property being denied all rights of benefit even their own equitable interest. I&#8217;m sure the C family would hotly contest any beneficiary rights emanating to the M in the civil courts of any part of JC estate falling into their hands.

For the M it could mean a pauperised retirement (if not getting free state accommodation with supplied clothing) with even a lean on their pension entitlement if these are not already forfeit along with their home. I understand the criminal trial has already cost a $40,000 bail bond loss. Report also state their trial lawyers are costing $800,000 for both of them and then they have to pay all the ancillary cost of a trial living away from home which I&#8217;m sure in total will be well over the $900,000 limits. The SC beach property equity that was sold in earlier in 2017 would appear was used to pay MM custody fray.<modsnip>

For the Ms&#8217; its lose lose and to why they risked all on this odyssey is beyond belief.


But then again terrible arrogance brings that contempt.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that their pension pots are not considered to be assets and therefore no 'lean' can be applied, which is why I imagine they started selling off tangible assets before the trial began (a la OJ) IMO.
 
She really has no morals, she has told lie after lie, take take take, if it was only the material things than fine, life would have gone on, but no, she wanted everything, his money his children and his life....She took the children's dad, parents son, a brother a best friend to others...Molly is a Monster, IMO...Signing out now, it actually is So upsetting thinking of the pain and hurt she caused to so many forever, Jason's parents last years on this earth destroyed, broken hearted and probably constant nightmares of how he died, his friends who now have seen first hand the photographs of his mutilated body, carry those images forever, his children who have lost heir only surviving parent, have to Live their life without a dad..

Thank God they are home, thank god for Tracey and David Lynch. Sleep peacefully Jason, your children are safe at the end of the day now that's all that really counts, Jason won't ever be coming back no matter what the outcome of this trial, but Jack and Sarah will be loved, looked after and protected and comforted to the best of anybody's ability forever
 
Angelswatchingover said:
Lt. Wanda Thompson said there was a change to Jason's Life insurance policy, and Molly was now Sole beneficiary, to me that reads there was others to benefit with her before the change, IMO that would be the children. Taking the children's names off wouldn't have raised red flags. Remember she wasn't charged with anything untill January five months after Jason's death, it was her dad pleading guilty only to killing him...So she could have claimed it, I'm not sure if she did...The prosecution did try bring it up but defence objected it was argued without the jury in he room, defence said they had no knowledge of this and hadn't time to investigate they only found out two days before hand..They wanted the judge to stop her testifying full stop, she was allowed to testify once prosecution didn't bring up the change to policy. IMO I think it will be brought into arguments again..your not automatically entitled to life insurance by marriage, your entitled to a share and the other shares go to your children, unless you have stated otherwise in your will. I have first hand knowledge of this....
Click to expand...

What I refer to as suspicious is the alteration, not the legal charges. It is not up to the insurance company to decide if someone is guilty of a crime apart from fraudulently making an alteration to said policy. Insurable interest is determined at the time policy is taken out. If the owner (Grantee) of a policy has an insurable interest in the life assured, the policy was legal. If they saw the alteration as fraudulent, they would not have paid out to the beneficiary. The ultimate decision as to who receives the monies is with the lawyers of the estate. Sole Beneficiary to me does not read that she along with other were initial beneficiaries, it only reads that she is now the sole beneficiary. There could have been any number of beneficiaries named, unless I saw it I would not know. And as you point out correctly, the will determines who gets what, as does the Successions Acts, but there is not reason, as I pointed out, to change the beneficiary to the spouse if she was entitled otherwise.
 
Frizby said:
What I refer to as suspicious is the alteration, not the legal charges. It is not up to the insurance company to decide if someone is guilty of a crime apart from fraudulently making an alteration to said policy. Insurable interest is determined at the time policy is taken out. If the owner (Grantee) of a policy has an insurable interest in the life assured, the policy was legal. If they saw the alteration as fraudulent, they would not have paid out to the beneficiary. The ultimate decision as to who receives the monies is with the lawyers of the estate. Sole Beneficiary to me does not read that she along with other were initial beneficiaries, it only reads that she is now the sole beneficiary. There could have been any number of beneficiaries named, unless I saw it I would not know. And as you point out correctly, the will determines who gets what, as does the Successions Acts, but there is not reason, as I pointed out, to change the beneficiary to the spouse if she was entitled otherwise.
Click to expand...

My understanding at the time was that the insurers paid out on this claim quite quickly (but then I have never known of anyone who has sent in their claim the same week as the person dies before either!) I was surprised given that the death cert says homicide that the insurers didn't investigate things a little further prior to processing the claim.

I wonder if Molly was named as Molly Corbett on the policy, and her father was the one under investigation whether they didn't connect the dots.
 
well it said it was changed to her....So change means she was not sole beneficiary before it was changed, we don't even know if she was a beneficiary. You are not automatically entitled as a spouse you are only entitled to a portion your siblings are entitled to the other portions..Unless You put it down in your will you want everything to go to your spouse, this was Jason's policy not one Molly took out on Jason..
 
I expect Monday will be a day of extreme allegations.

Based on all I have read, TM did not give a good account of himself yesterday.
He came across as mean-spirited, bigoted, rehearsed, vindictive, condescending and without empathy or sympathy.

I have no idea whether this was his intention or not.

If it was not his plan, the defence will have a helluva lot of work to do in order to bring the jury to their side.
Molly is unlikely to testify. If she does testify, and I believe she has the ability to carry off any role she wants to play without hitch, evidenced by her managing to conceal her mental illness and her medications from her employer and ultimately her lover when she worked as a nanny in Ireland. Thats a long long role.

I also believe that evidence presented on FBI best practice for immobilising an opponent shows that TM used none of them, not even one.
this leads me towards believing she carried out the entire killing. ( or he is a psychopath)

My question is what could they possibly present to the jury in order to justify self defense and defense of others
While taking MM statement into account?

(even though we dont have the slightest idea of what MM statement is)
 
Only saw that this had been updated now...http://www.journalnow.com/news/crim...cle_91ccf18f-0cb2-5ca6-ad3c-2a1726806c6a.html

At last...there is something put into the local media that may cause them to question what really happened that night!

[FONT=&amp]A new line of questioning revealed a theory of the case that prosecutors say points to malice, a key element of second-degree murder. Brown asked Martens if he knew that Jason Corbett had an insurance policy.[/FONT][FONT=&amp][FONT=&amp]Defense attorneys objected, and Brown asked a series of questions outside the presence of the jury that indicated that Jason Corbett had a $600,000 life insurance policy through his company and that Molly Corbett was the beneficiary.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp][FONT=&amp]&#8220;We have 600,000 pieces of reasons why motive is present,&#8221; Brown said.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp][FONT=&amp]Holton, Molly Corbett&#8217;s attorney, objected, arguing that prosecutors should have raised the insurance issue during their presentation of evidence. He also noted that Molly Corbett never made a claim on the insurance policy.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Judge David Lee allowed the line of questioning, and Martens said in front of the jury that he didn&#8217;t know about the policy until after Jason had died.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

** So why is it sitting in a court account waiting for the outcome of the trial then??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 154 more.
Total: 1,357 (members: 155, guests: 1,202)

Online statistics

Members online
155
Guests online
1,202
Total visitors
1,357
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,866
Messages
18,148,034
Members
231,560
Latest member
Marjulius
Back
Top