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

[kittythehare]

Having read all the posts about it taking two people to make a bad marriage etc etc....I just want to put my two cents in. There is no doubt that the marriage was disintegrating, BUT IMO that does not automatically imply that DV had become an element of the relationship. Arguments (even loud ones) will never cross the line into physicality for many people. It is a line most will not cross, particularly when they maintain good, healthy familial relationships with their mother,sisters and daughters. I agree with Emma on this one, I am yet to see any evidence from anywhere that this WAS an element of the Corbett's relationship.

Children lie, for a variety of reasons....their statements are not 'trustworthy' because the judge can see, as most of us can, that those children were traumatised, are traumatised, and will continue to be traumatised for a long time to come. They should not be relied upon to prove this case. A prolonged history of DV should be prove-able without their testimony.

There were not two people in the relationship there were three...MM, JC, and TM. I believe the two most telling elements of the scene were the passport on the bedside locker, and SM in the basement.

I believe the marriage was disintegrating, I believe that the argument at dinner the night before was the catalyst for TM & SM hastily making their way to NC that day. I think TM believed he could talk JC around, convince him not to leave, not to take the kids. I think JC stood up to TM and I don't think TM liked it. He thought JC was an '*******', not good enough for his daughter, beneath them...who is he to stand up to the likes of TM?! Who is he to disregard his daughter? Who is he to think he can simply walk away from them?!

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...sifting-through-bloody-evidence-36004030.html



MM & TM had tried to beat the system, she had visited divorce lawyers to understand her claim to the children. I'm not convinced that the provision in NC regarding step-parent custody in the event of DV would be applicable in the case of Irish children living in the country on the basis of their biological parents work visa. So they were out of options, if the marriage failed, without JC agreeing to the adoption, she would lose the kids.



I believe a parents 'love' for their child can make a parent do the most horrific of things...this was a rage killing. Father and daughter together, passionately beating a man to death. The question is why? IMO the biggest hurdle the defense have to overcome is why SM didn't move a muscle from that room downstairs. If her husband and daughter were in mortal danger, if her step-grandkids were in danger, why did she do nothing. Is it because she herself was afraid....or is it because she had more to gain by being a silent witness?

sm is not on trial.
The only issues are second degree murder,

Trial is now so streamlined and tight that we are merely wasting our time with anything that does not directly concern the crime itself.
Prosecution with forensics expert have already proven it I think

I think they have proven the malice constituent as well, but I am stuck on the point of law regarding Castle interpretation which proves they could have retreated after the first blow but chose to continue..
My question is whether the continuation of beating an already disabled if not unconscious man after the first blow constitutes malice as well?

If it does, the case is won.
If it does not the case is won as well because there are other proofs of malice.

In other words, is malice a legal constituent in overkill, killing when there was no ability of the victim remaining to defend himself let alone attack anybody else.

 

[stephanddoody]

<modsnip>

Molly can be as crazy as a loon, but still has a right to defend herself. IMO

Well that is very true if that was the case I would think Molly would have more injuries . I mean the size difference has been brought up
multiple times but it goes for and against . He could have caught her and thrown her out the window had he been in a position to. if Jason gets a slap in the head from a brick he is not the aggressor then, he wouldn't have initiated the fight and would also be entitled to defend himself. It is his home he has the right to be there .Personally with the lack of injuries to both and the extremity of Jason's injuries I don't believe this is the case . I just want to add I have the upmost respect for survivors of domestic violence. It's not something I have been through myself but I have witnessed it . I have seen both male and female survivors . Molly with her strong personality is not IMO a victim .

 

[Annela]

Molly can be as crazy as a loon, but still has a right to defend herself. IMO

You are absolutely correct
It all comes down to who did the defending and who did the attacking
That's what the jury have to decide

All JMO

 

[kittythehare]

The repeated blows to the head are very problematic to both TM and MM. You don't have to be a trained FBI agent to know you cannot repeated slam a baseball bat into someone's head without causing unconsciousness and death.

Over, over,and over...layer on layer...that's what the evidence says.
At some point, MM is watching this. No matter what story you believe...at some point she is free and able to make choices,

Do I press the alarm panic button and summon police?
Do I grab the red phone visible on the bedside table and call 911?
Or do I get a brick and make sure Jason cannot possibly survive?

The jury will understand what she chose.

and whether her or TM failings and continuation constitute malice?

 

[MzOpinion8d]

I've only been occasionally reading this thread since the trial started. Can someone tell me what the amendment to the insurance policy was?

 

[Logic-lady]

I also thought Molly was getting off pretty lightly in terms of her involvement that night but on reflection, when you think of what the prosecution have managed to get in the jury have actually heard alot about Molly...

1. Molly's statement was given to the jury where she admitted that she 'tried' to use the paving brick but failed. The prosecution have shown that the brick was in fact used multiple times, and they got TM to say that he never wielded the brick, and no mention of Jason using it either, therefore Molly must have been successful in hitting Jason with the brick.

2. Blood and tissue spatter would reinforce that Molly did in fact wield the brick and was standing in close proximity while Jason was being beaten on the floor (not standing meekly by the nightstand as her father claimed)

3. A drug prescribed for and filled by Molly two days before the murder was found in JC's system. While not necessarily significant to the 'altercation' as a juror I would have questions...

4. By putting TL on the stand and Molly breaking down at the mention of the kids, and by getting TM to state that her not being allowed to adopt the kids was putting a 'strain' on the relationship, it gives the jurors an insight into a possible motive for such a passionate overkill.

5. They mentioned the $600,000 insurance policy payable to Molly. Again potential motive.

6. TM mentioned multiple times during cross that he loved his daughter, prosecution specifically asked him of he was taking the fall for his daughter, all of this goes towards convincing the jury that Molly had an important role in what happened that night.

I think sometimes we are blinded by knowledge on this site, we have so much information from the custody case right up to social media posts etc. The jury have none of this to hinder their opinions, the are simply presented with a severely beaten man, and a father and daughter claiming self defense. I don't see that the defense have necessarily done enough thus far to convince a jury that their actions were justified that night IMO.

 

[kittythehare]

I've only been occasionally reading this thread since the trial started. Can someone tell me what the amendment to the insurance policy was?

not really, sorry.
It was amended to make MM the sole beneficiary but I dont know what original policy stated

 

[Logic-lady]

sm is not on trial.
The only issues are second degree murder,

Trial is now so streamlined and tight that we are merely wasting our time with anything that does not directly concern the crime itself.
Prosecution with forensics expert have already proven it I think

I think they have proven the malice constituent as well, but I am stuck on the point of law regarding Castle interpretation which proves they could have retreated after the first blow but chose to continue..
My question is whether the continuation of beating an already disabled if not unconscious man after the first blow constitutes malice as well?

If it does, the case is won.
If it does not the case is won as well because there are other proofs of malice.

In other words, is malice a legal constituent in overkill, killing when there was no ability of the victim remaining to defend himself let alone attack anybody else.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-overview.html

Impulsive killings with malice aforethought...

an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"

These sorts of killings occur in the heat of the moment, and don't involve any premeditation on the part of the killer. At the moment the murder occurs, the killer definitely intends to kill the victim, but up to that moment, the killer had no intent or plan to commit murder.

A second category of acts that constitute second degree murder are acts where the perpetrator intends to cause serious bodily harm with the full knowledge that death is a possible result of the act. The killer might not necessarily intend to kill the victim, but knows that death is a likely outcome.

For example, in the situation above, instead of shooting Bill, Adam grabs a shovel and hits Bill on the head with all his strength. Adam didn't explicitly intend to kill Bill when he hit him, but he did intend to hit him with the shovel, and he knew that such a blow to the head carried with it a distinct possibility of death. Adams killing of Bill in this instance also constitutes second degree murder.

 

[stmarysmead]

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-overview.html

"

For example, in the situation above, instead of shooting Bill, Adam grabs a shovel and hits Bill on the head with all his strength. Adam didn't explicitly intend to kill Bill when he hit him, but he did intend to hit him with the shovel, and he knew that such a blow to the head carried with it a distinct possibility of death. Adams killing of Bill in this instance also constitutes second degree murder,"

TM did this over and over. And at some point, MM, watching this had the same callous disregard and joined in with another weapon.

 

[kittythehare]

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-overview.html

Impulsive killings with malice aforethought...

These sorts of killings occur in the heat of the moment, and don't involve any premeditation on the part of the killer. At the moment the murder occurs, the killer definitely intends to kill the victim, but up to that moment, the killer had no intent or plan to commit murder.

Brilliant. Thanks for finding that.
It iS inherent.

Does everybody agree?
Has prosecution proven their case?

(We will hear defence tomorrow)

 

[Logic-lady]

"[QUOTEFor example, in the situation above, instead of shooting Bill, Adam grabs a shovel and hits Bill on the head with all his strength. Adam didn't explicitly intend to kill Bill when he hit him, but he did intend to hit him with the shovel, and he knew that such a blow to the head carried with it a distinct possibility of death. Adams killing of Bill in this instance also constitutes second degree murder.]"

TM did this over and over. And at some point, MM, watching this had the same callous disregard and joined in with another weapon.

I agree, I also believe that this clause regarding the self defense claim is why they are not putting Molly on the stand -

Second, the general rule is that the person claiming self-defense must not have provoked the slain party in any way. If the situation arose because of the actions of the eventual killer, the killer cannot argue that the slaying occurred in self-defense. It might lessen the severity of the charge, but provocation by the defendant negates the possibility of an acquittal because of self-defense.

What caused the 'altercation' that night (as the defendants put it?) Could TM's statement to the Department of Energy scupper their defense? If Molly and Jason were arguing that night, the jury has no way of knowing who provoked who....

Furthermore, a person can only justify self-defense if the situation requires immediate action in order to prevent bodily harm or loss of life. Once the situation has ceased to threaten bodily harm or loss of life, the self-defense justification is no longer available.

The overkill is an issue here...'I kept swinging until i felt like we were no longer in danger' will the jury buy it? I don't know.

 

[stmarysmead]

I agree, I also believe that this clause regarding the self defense claim is why they are not putting Molly on the stand -

What caused the 'altercation' that night (as the defendants put it?) Could TM's statement to the Department of Energy scupper their defense? If Molly and Jason were arguing that night, the jury has no way of knowing who provoked who....



The overkill is an issue here...'I kept swinging until i felt like we were no longer in danger' will the jury buy it? I don't know.

It's the repeatedly battering him on the head with the bat. Imagine a good hard swing with a bat to the head of your spouse.

Okay...

Now imagine you crack him again...hard,

Then you hit the same spot..boom! Hard with that bat.

On and on.

No way JC was a threat all that time.

 

[kittythehare]

I agree, I also believe that this clause regarding the self defense claim is why they are not putting Molly on the stand -

What caused the 'altercation' that night (as the defendants put it?) Could TM's statement to the Department of Energy scupper their defense? If Molly and Jason were arguing that night, the jury has no way of knowing who provoked who....



The overkill is an issue here...'I kept swinging until i felt like we were no longer in danger' will the jury buy it? I don't know.

The forensics guy has stated that any one of the blows to the head that Jason received would lead to loss of consciousness.
The first blow would have rendered him unconscious.

 

[Logic-lady]

The forensics guy has stated that any one of the blows to the head that Jason received would lead to loss of consciousness.
The first blow would have rendered him unconscious.

Potentially but unlikely given how far Jason had moved from the bed if this was the initial point of contact. However, I do believe the repeated blows while he was sliding down the wall, and particularly the blow that they can prove came after death indicate that even after the threat had been mitigated they kept up the assault.

 

[kittythehare]

Potentially but unlikely given how far Jason had moved from the bed if this was the initial point of contact. However, I do believe the repeated blows while he was sliding down the wall, and particularly the blow that they can prove came after death indicate that even after the threat had been mitigated they kept up the assault.

Yeah but recall his other injuries.. his broken nose etc.. where did they occur and were they preceded by the head blows?
He didnt specify if broken nose was also a blood source in that room that night..

 

[Logic-lady]

Yeah but recall his other injuries.. his broken nose etc.. where did they occur and were they preceded by the head blows?
He didnt specify if broken nose was also a blood source in that room that night..

I would presume it wasn't based on the 911 call, they had to get a washcloth to to to clean away all the blood from around Jason's mouth. Most of the other catastrophic injuries were to the back of his head so presumably the broken nose came early on in the altercation while Jason was still alive. IMO

 

[kittythehare]

I would presume it wasn't based on the 911 call, they had to get a washcloth to to to clean away all the blood from around Jason's mouth. Most of the other catastrophic injuries were to the back of his head so presumably the broken nose came early on in the altercation while Jason was still alive. IMO

but prosecution has not yet mentioned it, have they?
I remember a member posting on very first thread on the broken nose theme. He felt it had to have been delivered by a man.
But was it? Was it broken with a fist or an implement?

 

[Logic-lady]

Yeah but recall his other injuries.. his broken nose etc.. where did they occur and were they preceded by the head blows?
He didnt specify if broken nose was also a blood source in that room that night..

I do think though that the jury will question the two weapons in this regard however, two defendants, two weapons vs drastic overkill. This negates the self defense IMO.

For example, if a person acting in self-defense fires a shot that knocks their assailant unconscious and the shooter has enough time to perceive that the threat has ceased, the shooter could not justify firing another shot as self-defense.

 

[Logic-lady]

but prosecution has not yet mentioned it, have they?
I remember a member posting on very first thread on the broken nose theme. He felt it had to have been delivered by a man.
But was it? Was it broken with a fist or an implement?

I'm not sure we will ever know...a fist, a bat, a brick, an uppercut....there were many potentials to the injuries inflicted that night. I've never punched someone but would there have been bruising to knuckles if they had used their hands?

Personally, it is the injuries inflicted close to or after death that are the most relevant in this instance, the ones inflicted once the threat had abated.

 

[searchinGirl]

sm is not on trial.
The only issues are second degree murder,

Trial is now so streamlined and tight that we are merely wasting our time with anything that does not directly concern the crime itself.
Prosecution with forensics expert have already proven it I think

I think they have proven the malice constituent as well, but I am stuck on the point of law regarding Castle interpretation which proves they could have retreated after the first blow but chose to continue..
My question is whether the continuation of beating an already disabled if not unconscious man after the first blow constitutes malice as well?

If it does, the case is won.
If it does not the case is won as well because there are other proofs of malice.

In other words, is malice a legal constituent in overkill, killing when there was no ability of the victim remaining to defend himself let alone attack anybody else.

You might want to explore if the Castle Doctrine applies to cases involving DV. I think what is involved is the determination of the "right to be there" for the duty to retreat. I believe DV is defined as crimes committed within established family relationships. For legal purposes, it's difficult to determine who has the right to be there more than the other. IMO <modsnip>

There are many elements of malice in this situation; I just don't know what elements have been proven and what the jury will be instructed to consider. IMO