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

[Deleted member 165489]

Has there been any discussion of why there were no fingerprints on the paving stone or bat? We know TM handled the bat and MM the paver, so why are there no fingerprints? What does that imply?

 

[sshhh!]

Great post.

Thank you.

How do you think the jury will see it sshhh! Will either or both of the martens be found guilty, in your opinion?

thank our.

I think TM will go down for sure, he hasn't a leg to stand on really. I'd be amazed with any other outcome. But I'm afraid I think MM may get off. That's based on what I've seen of the prosecution case so far. Unless there is a major focus on MM and her role over the next day or two, I just don't feel they've done enough. And who knows what the two brothers (and possibly other witnesses) are going to come out with tomorrow - they could very well testify that they were privy to the alleged DV issues in her relationship and god knows what they may say. I find it very difficult to think that there won't be a strong final sympathy crusade made for MM in the final days - the outing of all these 'truths' the Martens camp have been promising all along.

I do believe that there were DV incidents during the relationship - it's public record that the kids provided statements to that effect (links below) and IMO kids don't lie. We also know that MM had sought legal advice on divorce & custody up to two years before JC's death (link below). For what it's worth, I also think TM's claim that JC was threatening to kill MM that night is perfectly plausible. If you look at the lead in of two years of strife, tensions, mistrust and altercations, the fact divorce was very much on the agenda (from both sides), the fact he had to constantly fend off adoption requests, that there were major tensions that came to a head that weekend - and that he had just been attacked in bed with a brick - it is plausible for anybody to snap or be beyond rage in those circumstances.

https://media.buzz.ie/uploads/2016/07/sun-july-13-page-001.jpg
https://media.buzz.ie/uploads/2016/07/mirror-july-131-page-001.jpg
http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/PAge-11.jpg

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that a unanimous verdict is required here? And that would be my main worry with MM. I think there may be some degree of sympathy towards her and thus far, what happened between the Marten's arrival at 8.30pm and the moment TM entered the bedroom has not really been focused on at all. It's almost been an irrelevance. For example, was TM even asked if he ever found out why JC was so angry and allegedly choking his daughter in the first place? What was the reason? Why hasn't the prosecution focused more intently on the initial attack on JC in bed with the paving brick - is it because they have no way of proving it? Lack of prints, DNA etc? MM has gotten off pretty lightly so far in this trial and unfortunately we do not know what is in her statement that was shown to the jury. Does anyone know what are the exact charges each defendant is facing?

I would completely agree with sshhh! that something very similar to this happened. I would add the following:

(a) it is possible that MM made the mojito for JC and dropped the prescription tablets into it earlier in the evening. There was also a reference somewhere to MM bringing out two large beers to JC and his neighbour that evening (where they didn't finish the second) so it was possible she was getting him as intoxicated as possible;

TBH, I don't think the drug means much really. They only found a trace of it so it's unlikely he consumed it that night. He most likely consumed it the night before or previously. If not it was a botched attempt at spiking his drink.

I agree with you though that the prosecutions case against MM so far hasn't been forceful enough. They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and if I'm putting myself in an objective juror's shoes they have not done that so far for me. There are too many questions left hanging over the when, where and how's of MM's exact involvement. Perhaps in their closing arguments they will create a clearer and more forceful narrative of what they believed happened? While the kill was made by TM, there so much of this case involving MM that hasn't even been touched on.

The only thing we know about Mollys statement is that she said she tried to hit Jason with the paver but was unsuccessful I think the state has proven he was hit with the paver multiple times.

The key thing here is when did she claim she attempted to hit him with it? In the bedroom pre-TM or during the altercation between TM and JC? Because TM has been clear in that he saw no brick or knew of no brick.

This is exactly what I've thought all along, I posted something similar after they were arrested on one of the earlier forums. I've always thought it was about the children. MM reminds me of the type of woman so desperate to be a Mother, that they would steal a baby from a hospital nursery.

*my opinion only

MM is completely infatuated with the kids. The entire incident is about the kids and because of the kids. I've often wondered is it because she cannot have kids herself? During the trial she became a quivering and sobbing wreck at the mere mention of the kids and their biological mother MF. The mere mention of MF's name seems to have a psychological effect on her. In any case, a disturbing reaction. I also think the photo linked below is quite poignant - this was taken after MM lost her final court battle to gain custody of the kids. Surrounded by family & friends the picture paints it's own story. It was always about the kids.

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.tow...dfc8f/55d646dbe20f3.image.jpg?resize=1200,695

 

[stephanddoody]

We don't know when she hit Jason . We only know she said she didn't . We only know what Tom is claiming. He said when he came into the room Jason was heading toward the bathroom that doesn't mean that's the truth that's atoms version of events . Tom lies. The wedding lie a perfect example . Blood spatter expert says first bloodshed near the bed .. The prosecution asked Tom are you covering for your daughter I think they will expand on this theory in the rebuttal. Regarding the children's statements they made 2 one of which they said they lied in the first one . The detective thought they were coached . The judge ruled them inadmissible because they didn't meet the trustworthiness requirements. None of us have seen those statements or were present for the interviews but I'd be inclined to believe a detective and Judges opinion

 

[kittythehare]

That's very helpful so she has actually made a statement to that effect which the jury know about.

I agree with BeTrue though, there seems to have been surprisingly little focus on her otherwise given that she is the prime suspect and the trial is now starting to wind up.

I just wonder whether under NC law two people can be found guilty of the murder of the same person (my understanding is that in general they can't, subject to some exceptions).

TM will definitely take the fall if they can prove it was not self-defence as he testified to hitting him until he was down and so possibly giving him the fatal blow.

I suppose if she doesn't take the stand and both can't go down for murder, they should at a minimum be able to get her as an accessory/aiding & abetting which might carry the same sentence and get around it that way.

If anyone knows what the actual position is, you might post.

Here you go https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/involuntary-manslaughter-a-recent-case-and-a-quick-review/ alice required for second-degree murder includes commission of an inherently dangerous act in such a reckless and wanton manner as to manifest a mind utterly without regard for human life and social duty and deliberately bent on mischief.
https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury_i...ed-homicide-offenses-and-self-defense-felony/


https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/change-in-punishment-for-second-degree-murder/

I agree with your theory regarding staged administration of Trazadone, possibly other drugs too that simply were not tested.

trazadone has a half life of .just 7 hrs.. so no traces would remain prior to that time, while stupor from ingestion would be apparent. Its a possibility, not proven.

We have had only 1 day of defence testimony.
Tomorrow is the second day.

But, the way things are going, it could be Wednesday by the time we figure it all out. If then. The reportage is abysmal, we are missing 9/10 of testimony, media are merely picking up the bits they hand-pick. It is really disappointing and very frustrating

 

[sshhh!]

the drug Trazadone hasonly a half life of 7 hrs so its not possible it was consumed earlier.

The trace amount found in his blood was not significant enough to have any effect, so it's a moot point.

The judge has already indicated childrens' statements may have been co-erced.

'May' being the key word here. That's just the judges opinion. He's being cautious because they are kids and because of the timeline and way the statements were procured. I don't believe they pulled those incidents out of thin air either though.

The prosecution has stated that the motive is financial ' $600,000 reasons'

If that's their case it's a weak one because they've not been able to back it up or prove anything in that regard. All it is is a loose motive with nothing to back it up.

From your earlier post- tL did not actually testify that Jason was homesick, that testimony was disallowed 'at this time'

The judge heard her testimony with the jury out-of-court. That he disallowed it before the jury is a separate matter. She still made the statement and thus WE know this information.

Also , again from your earlier post, the forensics expert stated the first blow is likely to have occurred when victim was ' in or near the bed.'

I agree.

No evidence to date has shown MM to be a victim of dV. and even if she was, it does not justify a home execution.

No evidence in court. Yet. But there have been media reports and claims from the Martens camp. There are also the kids reported statements. Who said it justified a home execution?

The only victim of dV is JC, He is dead, of a battering that occurred in his own home at the hands of those he supported and cared for , for so many years.

True but it's not as simple as that is it? There's a background to the case, there's a build up to the incident. It takes two people to create a bad relationship, <modsnip> While I believe MM and TM should be sent down for as long a sentence as is possible, at the same time I don't believe JC was an angel in all of this either. It just isn't all bad MM and poor JC. That's not even realistic on any level.

<modsnip>

 

[emmalpage81]

Has there been any discussion of why there were no fingerprints on the paving stone or bat? We know TM handled the bat and MM the paver, so why are there no fingerprints? What does that imply?

My understanding us that there were ridges but they could not definitively identify them. So there were parts of fingerprints but not enough to say who left them

All IMO

 

[kittythehare]

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

 

[A350]

sshhh!

Your posts are excellent. I like the way you look at it from both sides.

You are particularly correct in my opinion in outlining that it takes 2 parties to create a bad relationship.

Thank you.

No evidence in court. Yet. But there have been media reports and claims from the Martens camp. There are also the kids reported statements. Who said it justified a home execution?


True but it's not as simple as that is it? There's a background to the case, there's a build up to the incident. It takes two people to create a bad relationship, <modsnip> While I believe MM and TM should be sent down for as long a sentence as is possible, at the same time I don't believe JC was an angel in all of this either. It just isn't all bad MM and poor JC. That's not even realistic on any level.

<modsnip>

 

[emmalpage81]

True but it's not as simple as that is it? There's a background to the case, there's a build up to the incident. It takes two people to create a bad relationship, <modsnip> While I believe MM and TM should be sent down for as long a sentence as is possible, at the same time I don't believe JC was an angel in all of this either. It just isn't all bad MM and poor JC. That's not even realistic on any level.

<modsnip>

The problem I have is that we have no evidence of a bad relationship; it would be on the defence to show this. We seem to have suggestions that the relationship was breaking down. This happens in many relationships, every day. But we do not have an individual beaten to death.

We also have nothing to suggest that JC was no angel. We have had no testimony to suggest he has done anything wrong (other than not allowing MM to adopt his children). We have TM suggesting he looked down on JC as not being good enough for his daughter but nothing to substantiate this. TM has never witnessed abuse; has never even heard of any abuse.

I feel, IMO, the defence have an uphill battle.

All IMO

 

[Be true]

I think TM will go down for sure, he hasn't a leg to stand on really. I'd be amazed with any other outcome. But I'm afraid I think MM may get off. That's based on what I've seen of the prosecution case so far. Unless there is a major focus on MM and her role over the next day or two, I just don't feel they've done enough. And who knows what the two brothers (and possibly other witnesses) are going to come out with tomorrow - they could very well testify that they were privy to the alleged DV issues in her relationship and god knows what they may say. I find it very difficult to think that there won't be a strong final sympathy crusade made for MM in the final days - the outing of all these 'truths' the Martens camp have been promising all along.

I do believe that there were DV incidents during the relationship - it's public record that the kids provided statements to that effect (links below) and IMO kids don't lie. We also know that MM had sought legal advice on divorce & custody up to two years before JC's death (link below). For what it's worth, I also think TM's claim that JC was threatening to kill MM that night is perfectly plausible. If you look at the lead in of two years of strife, tensions, mistrust and altercations, the fact divorce was very much on the agenda (from both sides), the fact he had to constantly fend off adoption requests, that there were major tensions that came to a head that weekend - and that he had just been attacked in bed with a brick - it is plausible for anybody to snap or be beyond rage in those circumstances.

https://media.buzz.ie/uploads/2016/07/sun-july-13-page-001.jpg
https://media.buzz.ie/uploads/2016/07/mirror-july-131-page-001.jpg
http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/PAge-11.jpg

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that a unanimous verdict is required here? And that would be my main worry with MM. I think there may be some degree of sympathy towards her and thus far, what happened between the Marten's arrival at 8.30pm and the moment TM entered the bedroom has not really been focused on at all. It's almost been an irrelevance. For example, was TM even asked if he ever found out why JC was so angry and allegedly choking his daughter in the first place? What was the reason? Why hasn't the prosecution focused more intently on the initial attack on JC in bed with the paving brick - is it because they have no way of proving it? Lack of prints, DNA etc? MM has gotten off pretty lightly so far in this trial and unfortunately we do not know what is in her statement that was shown to the jury. Does anyone know what are the exact charges each defendant is facing?




TBH, I don't think the drug means much really. They only found a trace of it so it's unlikely he consumed it that night. He most likely consumed it the night before or previously. If not it was a botched attempt at spiking his drink.

I agree with you though that the prosecutions case against MM so far hasn't been forceful enough. They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and if I'm putting myself in an objective juror's shoes they have not done that so far for me. There are too many questions left hanging over the when, where and how's of MM's exact involvement. Perhaps in their closing arguments they will create a clearer and more forceful narrative of what they believed happened? While the kill was made by TM, there so much of this case involving MM that hasn't even been touched on.




The key thing here is when did she claim she attempted to hit him with it? In the bedroom pre-TM or during the altercation between TM and JC? Because TM has been clear in that he saw no brick or knew of no brick.




MM is completely infatuated with the kids. The entire incident is about the kids and because of the kids. I've often wondered is it because she cannot have kids herself? During the trial she became a quivering and sobbing wreck at the mere mention of the kids and their biological mother MF. The mere mention of MF's name seems to have a psychological effect on her. In any case, a disturbing reaction. I also think the photo linked below is quite poignant - this was taken after MM lost her final court battle to gain custody of the kids. Surrounded by family & friends the picture paints it's own story. It was always about the kids.

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.tow...dfc8f/55d646dbe20f3.image.jpg?resize=1200,695

I think the victim should be given the same presumption of innocence as the perpetrator.

We have absolutely no evidence of mm ever being a victim of abuse. All we have is slanderous and inflammatory statements made by her, her family and her friends which means nothing imo except to highlight how these people roll and it isn't very pretty imo. Listen to tm comments on the stand? I mean he said jc never measured up to his daughter, but imo I certainly wouldn't like to measure up to his family, it's a pretty low place to be.

Two brothers to testify tomorrow maybe, maybe friends who knows but it will Mean nothing to some who have seen several instances where she has been proven to be a liar. Her own father has contradicted her only this week!

JC has no history of violence, he seems to have loved those who he was close to and was loved in return, no run ins with police, no debt, his kids were provided for and adored, mm was on gorgeous holidays, loved to play dressup imo, parties, cars, hair, nails, make-up, classes, you name it she has posted it and publically too!

So how are we to believe JC was an abuser and did choke her ? No evidence of that EVEN at trial. We have undeniable evidence he was beaten to a pulp he's dead, she's not.

Jmo



Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[A350]

There was a man beaten to death by some combination of his wife and father in law.

This screams bad relationship on all sides to me.

The Martens were not happy with the relationship. TL also testified that JC was unhappy. The kids made statements outlining that the relationship was "unhealthy" - albeit these statements may have been "coerced", then again as others have said they may not have been.

I would further point to the alcohol and pharmaceutical usage in the house that there were some very unhealthy behaviours being engaged in.

There were 4 adults in the house. There was at least 7 beers consumed, along with an unspecified amount of wine & rum. Additionally some of the adults were taking trazadone. Do we know if there were other pharmaceuticals consumed? No wonder no one has a clear recollection of what happened.

I think the Martens and their defence team have been very shrewd. Personally I would accept TM's assertion that he was acting in self defence. I certainly would not think that "beyond reasonable doubt" he was not acting in self defence.

MM is a different story but i dont understand the legal finesse here with regards to them being tried together.

The problem I have is that we have no evidence of a bad relationship; it would be on the defence to show this. We seem to have suggestions that the relationship was breaking down. This happens in many relationships, every day. But we do not have an individual beaten to death.

We also have nothing to suggest that JC was no angel. We have had no testimony to suggest he has done anything wrong (other than not allowing MM to adopt his children). We have TM suggesting he looked down on JC as not being good enough for his daughter but nothing to substantiate this. TM has never witnessed abuse; has never even heard of any abuse.

I feel, IMO, the defence have an uphill battle.

All IMO

 

[emmalpage81]

Do the aiding and abetting law not exist in NC? That one is charged with the primary crime if they have participated, known or stood by and watched a crime being carried out?

All IMO

 

[kittythehare]

Do the aiding and abetting law not exist in NC? That one is charged with the primary crime if they have participated, known or stood by and watched a crime being carried out?

All IMO

Here you go
https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/aiding-and-abetting/

 

[stmarysmead]

There was a man beaten to death by some combination of his wife and father in law.

This screams bad relationship on all sides to me.

The Martens were not happy with the relationship. TL also testified that JC was unhappy. The kids made statements outlining that the relationship was "unhealthy" - albeit these statements may have been "coerced", then again as others have said they may not have been.

I would further point to the alcohol and pharmaceutical usage in the house that there were some very unhealthy behaviours being engaged in.

There were 4 adults in the house. There was at least 7 beers consumed, along with an unspecified amount of wine & rum. Additionally some of the adults were taking trazadone. Do we know if there were other pharmaceuticals consumed? No wonder no one has a clear recollection of what happened.

I think the Martens and their defence team have been very shrewd. Personally I would accept TM's assertion that he was acting in self defence. I certainly would not think that "beyond reasonable doubt" he was not acting in self defence.

MM is a different story but i dont understand the legal finesse here with regards to them being tried together.

"Proportional Response"

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html

The use of self-defense must also match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail."

Once JC was sliding down the wall, a victim of layered skull fractures, any ONE of which expert testimony stated would cause unconsciousness, TM has long crossed the legal line to self defense.

 

[kittythehare]

"Proportional Response

The use of self-defense must also match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail."

Defence are going for excessive force , not second degree murder,, i have been researching, this is all I found so far, will keep at it
https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/use-of-force-experts/

 

[A350]

TM acted in self defence in his opinion.

Martens said he remembers three times that he successfully hit Jason in the back of the head with the baseball bat, though he said he tried a number of other times as they were moving down the hallway toward the master bathroom, in an effort to &#8220;end the threat.&#8221; He testified that he hit Mr. Corbett until he went down and then stepped away. "I hit him until I thought he could not kill me....he said he was going to kill Molly, I certainly felt like he would kill me."

http://www.wxii12.com/article/defendant-thomas-martens-takes-the-stand-in-murder-trial/11557306

I didnt hear anything from the prosecution to punch holes in his statement.

"Proportional Response"

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html

The use of self-defense must also match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail."

Once JC was sliding down the wall, a victim of layered skull fractures, any ONE of which expert testimony stated would cause unconsciousness, TM has long crossed the legal line to self defense.

 

[fido]

I'm sorry but I don't find that photo of MM very poignant. I have to say I find the photo of Jason's kids following his hearse out of the church much more poignant and though i once had sympathy on a human level for MM when she had to say goodbye to the kids, the image that the corbetts had to see last week of Jason, slaughtered, bloodied and battered on a gurney, which reduced his grown childhood friends to tears, has wiped away any sympathy or pity I ever felt for her.

 

[Be true]

One thing I will give mm is she is a master manipulator in my opinion, not one single bitty piece of hard evidence in 8 years right up to today that has ever supported anything she has claimed about JC or what family and friends have said, yet she has garnered support from DV organisations, lawyers, New friends who never knew her name before JC murder, neighbours, all willing to publically denounce JC as a wife beating monster. [emoji122]

Incredible, I have sympathy for the victims of crime and manipulation.

Psychological manipulation can be defined as the exercise of undue influence through mental distortion and emotional exploitation, with the intention to seize power, control, benefits and/or privileges at the victim’s expense.

It is important to distinguish healthy social influence from psychological manipulation. Healthy social influence occurs between most people, and is part of the give and take of constructive relationships. In psychological manipulation, one person is used for the benefit of another. The manipulator deliberately creates an imbalance of power, and exploits the victim to serve his or her agenda.

Manipulation of Facts

Examples:*Lying. Excuse making. Two faced. Blaming the victim for causing their own victimization. Deformation of the truth. Strategic disclosure or withholding of key information. Exaggeration. Understatement. One-sided*bias*of issue.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...igns-psychological-and-emotional-manipulation









Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[emmalpage81]

There was a man beaten to death by some combination of his wife and father in law.

This screams bad relationship on all sides to me.

The Martens were not happy with the relationship. TL also testified that JC was unhappy. The kids made statements outlining that the relationship was "unhealthy" - albeit these statements may have been "coerced", then again as others have said they may not have been.

I would further point to the alcohol and pharmaceutical usage in the house that there were some very unhealthy behaviours being engaged in.

There were 4 adults in the house. There was at least 7 beers consumed, along with an unspecified amount of wine & rum. Additionally some of the adults were taking trazadone. Do we know if there were other pharmaceuticals consumed? No wonder no one has a clear recollection of what happened.

I think the Martens and their defence team have been very shrewd. Personally I would accept TM's assertion that he was acting in self defence. I certainly would not think that "beyond reasonable doubt" he was not acting in self defence.

MM is a different story but i dont understand the legal finesse here with regards to them being tried together.

But the only people suggesting a bad relationship are those on trial.

I heard that experts would give evidence on the mixture of alcohol and trazadone. But, yet, nothing has been put forth.

TL suggested that JC was unhappy living in North Carolina and wanted to move home to Ireland prior to Jack reacting secondary school age.

You are correct there were four adults in the house yet nobody called 911 until JC's brain matter was on the walls.

What is the self defence angle? Where is any indication that JC was either violent or could have been the aggressor? As we have it there were three people in a room, two had weapons and one was beaten to death....

The reason they were tried together is simple, if they were tried separately, they would point the blame at each other to cause doubt.

All IMO

 

[emmalpage81]

TM acted in self defence in his opinion.

Martens said he remembers three times that he successfully hit Jason in the back of the head with the baseball bat, though he said he tried a number of other times as they were moving down the hallway toward the master bathroom, in an effort to &#8220;end the threat.&#8221; He testified that he hit Mr. Corbett until he went down and then stepped away. "I hit him until I thought he could not kill me....he said he was going to kill Molly, I certainly felt like he would kill me."

http://www.wxii12.com/article/defendant-thomas-martens-takes-the-stand-in-murder-trial/11557306

I didnt hear anything from the prosecution to punch holes in his statement.

You do realise that excessive force negates self defence? You can only use reasonable force?

His own training would tell him to strike in the kidneys, not the head......

All IMO