GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #1

[stmarysmead]

I can't fault any family member or close friend for defending the character and memory of their murdered loved one. It's almost as if the Martens family is killing him twice. My opinion only, as always.

A larger problem is jury tampering. If the Martens supporters are slandering Jason in the American press...particularly local press...that is the potential jury pool they are polluting. However at this point, Corbett supporters should just link to the autopsy and remind readers that the two killers hadn't a mark on either one of them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[kittythehare]

I can't fault any family member or close friend for defending the character and memory of their murdered loved one. It's almost as if the Martens family is killing him twice. My opinion only, as always.

A larger problem is jury tampering. If the Martens supporters are slandering Jason in the American press...particularly local press...that is the potential jury pool they are polluting. However at this point, Corbett supporters should just link to the autopsy and remind readers that the two killers hadn't a mark on either one of them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Gosh , saw a reference to anti Jason comments being made on US local media.. that does actually endanger the case. The DA should be notified immediately?

 

[stmarysmead]

The D.A.cant do anything about it. Most media allows comments. I was just saying that defending Jason has a valuable purpose because potential jurors might read just the negative comments otherwise.

I should have said "influencing" potential jury, not "tampering." Too strong a word.

 

[sshhh!]

You could say that, but why would you say that?
The inheritance is legitimate as it may be linked to motive.
There is a time limit for the civil case and slightly different parameters apply and its possible the family may need that information sooner rather than later, think its just 2 years, a very short time, considering the criminal case is likely to drag out interminably.
There is a campaign but this is not the campaign forum and posts in relation to the campaign are generally a distraction from sleuthing though some may contain new info which will help us sleuthing.
What would you suggest instead?

The inheritance is legitimate as a motive only, but that's about it. Digging in to the technicalities of it as to whether Irish law applies, or US law applies or who has jurisdiction over what, or what happens in the aftermath is irrelevant. Whether MM actually ends up inheriting anything is also irrelevant. All that's relevant is what happened before, during and immediately after the murder. The rest is just the consequence of the crime and what the court will decide.

The civil case has nothing to do with sleuthing. It's completely separate to the criminal case and is basically all about suing for money. The family may need that information? Why, is there someone here passing on info to the Corbetts?

Not having a go at you Kitty by the way, just pointing out that there's lots being discussed here that's not really relevant to solving the crime. The focus on this thread has noticeably shifted from relevant sleuthing such as the lead up to the crime/the night of the crime, to irrelevant stuff such as 'what happens if she's found not guilty?' or 'who gets what of the estate?'.

I agree that the facebook campaigns don't belong here, however the nuggets of information that you can get from reading them do.

I can't fault any family member or close friend for defending the character and memory of their murdered loved one. It's almost as if the Martens family is killing him twice. My opinion only, as always.

Agree. I'm not going to repeat what I read but it was pretty disgusting and completely understandable that they'd react to it.

 

[stmarysmead]

Websleuths has a very wide audience. Have you seen the expression "verified insider?" In some cases, individuals very close to the case "verify" their identity with the Moderators and have participated in the forums. When that happens, it can make for very interesting discussions.

Personally, I do hope the Corbetts have been provided the information about the 2 year limit on filing a wrongful death case. With the autopsy report such as it is, in my opinion, it would be a slam dunk.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[sshhh!]

Personally, I do hope the Corbetts have been provided the information about the 2 year limit on filing a wrongful death case. With the autopsy report such as it is, in my opinion, it would be a slam dunk.

I'd worry about the quality of their legal team if they haven't been!

 

[wildebeest]

Oh my, was a bit concerned yesterday, that things were so quiet here. What a difference a day makes!

All I can say about the Corbetts is what I have heard from a long time family friend. I haven't heard anything negative. We do know they have lost a beloved son, and Jason's brother has lost his twin (extremely difficult). They have not lost their loved one due to accident or illness, which would be sad enough, but by the hand of his wife (accused) and father-in-law (accused).

stmarysmead said it best: The autopsy tells it all :notgood::notgood::notgood:

IMHO

 

[Francesca]

I copied one of the public statements a few pages back - it was put on Molly's aunts page, after she ignored all requests to remove the photo of the children, even though it was illegal to display their photos on FB without permission from their guardians.

ETA - Sorry, this was a response to a query a few pages back, asking about what the Corbetts had posted on pages. There was a legal post on Mona Earnest's page, asking people to report any illegal use of the photos. Most of the negative comments on that page were regarding the use of the photo under the circumstances, and the commenters were not necessarily from the Corbett family or officially representing the family. Maybe the Earnest/ Martens family was fishing for malicious comments, but it would backfire if they had to break the law [again] to get them. The use of the children's photos is a separate legal issue.

 

[stmarysmead]

I'd worry about the quality of their legal team if they haven't been!

I am relieved that they have a legal "team." I always fear for people thrown into a maelstrom like this, that they may not have the best help they need. There is so much specialization in law, much like medicine....you wouldn't go to your child's pediatrician if you needed cardiac surgery.

The Corbetts have had a lot of legal issues thrown at them at the same time...custody issues, estate issues, and if they file, the wrongful death case. They do need a team of "specialists"....different attorneys who really concentrate on a specific area of law and have experience in winning in that area.

On another note, I read somewhere that Molly's Mother told the Corbetts that Molly had pushed Jason and he "fell over" and accidentally died. Molly writes on Instagram that this is a "crime that didn't happen." To me, this is what makes this family frightening in regard to child custody. They don't seem to have boundaries, but they seem to have endless excuses.

Either they have no control over their rages or they deliberately pounded the life out of this man. It's one or the other. You don't "accidentally" overkill a man this much!

If Jason had both hands on Molly when he was struck with the bat, he would have had to let go of her to have defensive wounds on his hands. The fact that the Father and daughter had not a mark on them, says, in my opinion, that this much bigger, much younger man tried to defend himself..but did not fight back.

If he turned from Molly (if I accept their choking "story) as he was struck, I think he could have easily taken the bat from an old man. She would not have been "armed" with the brick yet. In the interval where she runs to get the brick, Jason could have subdued the Father.

But I don't think Jason did much other than try to fend off their furious blows.

So even using their story (which I believe is a crock) this is no "fight" is two killers perpetrating a heinous beat down.

My opinion only.






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Frizby]

I am relieved that they have a legal "team." I always fear for people thrown into a maelstrom like this, that they may not have the best help they need. There is so much specialization in law, much like medicine....you wouldn't go to your child's pediatrician if you needed cardiac surgery.

The Corbetts have had a lot of legal issues thrown at them at the same time...custody issues, estate issues, and if they file, the wrongful death case. They do need a team of "specialists"....different attorneys who really concentrate on a specific area of law and have experience in winning in that area.

On another note, I read somewhere that Molly's Mother told the Corbetts that Molly had pushed Jason and he "fell over" and accidentally died. Molly writes on Instagram that this is a "crime that didn't happen." To me, this is what makes this family frightening in regard to child custody. They don't seem to have boundaries, but they seem to have endless excuses.

Either they have no control over their rages or they deliberately pounded the life out of this man. It's one or the other. You don't "accidentally" overkill a man this much!

If Jason had both hands on Molly when he was struck with the bat, he would have had to let go of her to have defensive wounds on his hands. The fact that the Father and daughter had not a mark on them, says, in my opinion, that this much bigger, much younger man tried to defend himself..but did not fight back.

If he turned from Molly (if I accept their choking "story) as he was struck, I think he could have easily taken the bat from an old man. She would not have been "armed" with the brick yet. In the interval where she runs to get the brick, Jason could have subdued the Father.

But I don't think Jason did much other than try to fend off their furious blows.

So even using their story (which I believe is a crock) this is no "fight" is two killers perpetrating a heinous beat down.

My opinion only.






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

They definitely have a legal team, they are not going into this blind. They are pushing for the only outcome that could be accepted for this crime, a conviction. Seemingly Molly or someone else from her family did say that there was an argument and he fall & hit his head. There were also many other things that were said however most of these will be hearsay unless there are witnesses to the conversations. I am sure they will be brought up just like Molly & Tom's lawyers will be doing everything to discredit Jason.

The case will hinge on the Autopsy, the blood splatter experts, the scene in the room, the injuries or lack of them on the perpetrators, the events leading up to the night, etc. How a person is portrayed will also be a factor but not in the main, this will apply to both sides. Two weapons & a body beaten practically to a pulp will dominate this case imo.

[sub]On a lighter note & also sad one, Happy Birthday Jason, you should have been 40 today[/sub]

 

[kittythehare]

Please may I draw your attention to the post appearing today on the jfj page on facebook, from Tracey Lynch, Jason Corbett's sister. Its Jason's birthday today.
It will give you a good insight to his life
and it may also break your heart.
Happy birthday Jason, now in the realm of spirit. I pray we may help bring about spiritual catharsis and peace for you and your family.

 

[Deleted member 165489]

Please may I draw your attention to the post appearing today on the jfj page on facebook, from Tracey Lynch, Jason Corbett's sister. Its Jason's birthday today.
It will give you a good insight to his life
and it may also break your heart.
Happy birthday Jason, now in the realm of spirit. I pray we may help bring about spiritual catharsis and peace for you and your family.

That's a lovely acknowledgement of Jason's 40th birthday and yes I do believe his spirit could work with us to unearth useful information in this case. Bring it on!

 

[stmarysmead]

Please may I draw your attention to the post appearing today on the jfj page on facebook, from Tracey Lynch, Jason Corbett's sister. Its Jason's birthday today.
It will give you a good insight to his life
and it may also break your heart.
Happy birthday Jason, now in the realm of spirit. I pray we may help bring about spiritual catharsis and peace for you and your family.

Beautiful post. Thank you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Marshleon]

In relation to FB posts etc., I'm just wondering would MM's Instagram account also come under scrutiny (sp?) from the defense, IMO they appear to be a bit 'obsessive' and may demonstrate a personality trait of MM's that may be detrimental to her defense or am I way off the mark?

 

[Francesca]

In relation to FB posts etc., I'm just wondering would MM's Instagram account also come under scrutiny (sp?) from the defense, IMO they appear to be a bit 'obsessive' and may demonstrate a personality trait of MM's that may be detrimental to her defense or am I way off the mark?

I saw a newspaper article which said that the police were going through her entire Facebook account looking for evidence, so I would imagine they would check Instagram as well. I'm pretty sure they would go through the entire history, to see whether her current story tallies with what she's posted in the past. And no matter how she curates it, it's surely more useful to the prosecution than the defense. They will be able to bamboozle her with questions at the very least... Plus even the curated version of the Facebook page shows a prosperous lifestyle (demonstrating motive), and the photos of her with the kids are taken by someone who cares about them very much (undermining claims it was an unhappy marriage). Her bank records should also be evidence... does she have the option of not taking the stand? I think she would be a very bad defense witness, but hopefully she's narcissistic enough to insist on giving evidence.

 

[Electric Sheep]

I saw a newspaper article which said that the police were going through her entire Facebook account looking for evidence, so I would imagine they would check Instagram as well. I'm pretty sure they would go through the entire history, to see whether her current story tallies with what she's posted in the past. And no matter how she curates it, it's surely more useful to the prosecution than the defense. They will be able to bamboozle her with questions at the very least... Plus even the curated version of the Facebook page shows a prosperous lifestyle (demonstrating motive), and the photos of her with the kids are taken by someone who cares about them very much (undermining claims it was an unhappy marriage). Her bank records should also be evidence... does she have the option of not taking the stand? I think she would be a very bad defense witness, but hopefully she's narcissistic enough to insist on giving evidence.

I disagree with some of your points. A prosperous lifestyle is not a motive to kill the salary maker.
A happy marriage would not be a motive either, and if the marriage was happy why would Jason be planning to leave?

 

[Francesca]

Yes, I think I worded those two parentheses badly. My point is that Molly has clearly created a long complex narrative for the benefit of her supporters and she has probably made statements to the police about her marriage. She will find it very difficult to keep her story straight if/ when she is questioned about details in court. The more information/ misinformation that is out there, the more inconsistencies and contradictions are there too.
Ultimately however, it comes down to the autopsy report that directly contradicts her version of events. And it will be very difficult for her to provide a scenario that justifies two people repeatedly bashing an unconscious, dying man.

 

[Frizby]

I disagree with some of your points. A prosperous lifestyle is not a motive to kill the salary maker.
A happy marriage would not be a motive either, and if the marriage was happy why would Jason be planning to leave?

The narrative that the Martens family have taken would be he was not planning on leaving, in the limited statements they have made. The uncle has made a statement saying that Jason was in his house the week previously talking to his wife saying that he was applying for permanent residency. They took this stance at the beginning although he did also say, as did the lawyer, that there had been problems in the past. My reading of this is that they are saying that yes, the marriage was not rosy or was not always rosy but in their opinion he was definitely intending on staying in the US therefore no threat of Jason taking the children back to Ireland. Neither a prosperous lifestyle or happy marriage are not really motives but the motive of him taking the children to another country, or them knowing it, is being disputed by them.

Also, a point to Francesca, Molly, on one of her Instagram post, makes a point of saying that none of the pictures she posted were taken by Jason. Now if this matter came up, it could be argued that she was only referring to the pics on Instagram (have not compared them to FB myself) & may only refer to pics up to the time that she posted such a message. Thought it was an odd thing to say but maybe it was a reply to someone elses post, which of course she has deleted.

 

[Francesca]

The narrative that the Martens family have taken would be he was not planning on leaving, in the limited statements they have made. The uncle has made a statement saying that Jason was in his house the week previously talking to his wife saying that he was applying for permanent residency. They took this stance at the beginning although he did also say, as did the lawyer, that there had been problems in the past. My reading of this is that they are saying that yes, the marriage was not rosy or was not always rosy but in their opinion he was definitely intending on staying in the US therefore no threat of Jason taking the children back to Ireland. Neither a prosperous lifestyle or happy marriage are not really motives but the motive of him taking the children to another country, or them knowing it, is being disputed by them.

Also, a point to Francesca, Molly, on one of her Instagram post, makes a point of saying that none of the pictures she posted were taken by Jason. Now if this matter came up, it could be argued that she was only referring to the pics on Instagram (have not compared them to FB myself) & may only refer to pics up to the time that she posted such a message. Thought it was an odd thing to say but maybe it was a reply to someone elses post, which of course she has deleted.

Thank you for pointing that out Frizby - it is interesting that she made that claim. Maybe because people (including myself) have looked through the photos and assumed that he must have been taking at least some of them, even though she eliminates him from the current narrative. There is one photo in particular where she says they were in Morocco and she and the little girl were photographed asleep after a long day of sight-seeing and shopping. It is quite an intimate photo, because they are both asleep, so I assumed he took it. Either way, she is clearly working very hard to select photos that present a particular story. I just think that kind of careful curating must backfire to some extent when police are going through all the photos and posts.

 

[Frizby]

Thank you for pointing that out Frizby - it is interesting that she made that claim. Maybe because people (including myself) have looked through the photos and assumed that he must have been taking at least some of them, even though she eliminates him from the current narrative. There is one photo in particular where she says they were in Morocco and she and the little girl were photographed asleep after a long day of sight-seeing and shopping. It is quite an intimate photo, because they are both asleep, so I assumed he took it. Either way, she is clearly working very hard to select photos that present a particular story. I just think that kind of careful curating must backfire to some extent when police are going through all the photos and posts.

That photo you are refering to is on FB which is why I said her claims might or could be argued to be only referring to Instagram. End of the day, we are only seeing what she has chosen for us to see, the police have a warrant for FB at least to provide them with all history. Don't remember seeing one for Instagram tho but I suspect that they will at the very least be looking at it. She makes very little comment on her FB page, well apart from the narrative she puts up when posting a pic, she seems to let her supporter do all the talking for her there. You could almost be forgiven if you had only seen her FB page and really believed her, to having sympathy, well that is until the time that the newspapers reports & autopsy, warrants, etc were released.