GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #10

[courtney2662]

But how did the defence team have access to the alternate juror? Have they interviewed the whole jury panel I wonder or did he go to them???

It's also important to remember that the Defense attorneys would have posed their questions to Alternate juror in a way to shore up their contentions, but if it comes down to a hearing, even in chambers, the Prosecution and Judge will pose their questions differently. The Alternate didn't state any outright legality but that's only my opinion. The Judge could decide in favor of Defense on mere technicality, which can happen, has happened in other cases. It that happens, I think the Defense would easily win a trial out of Davidson county, BUT no matter where they go, they still can't get around the Science which is what convicted the two of them.

 

[Hotchips]

do you mind if i ask where does it state mm was not entitled to a visa ? how could she gain entry without a visa ?

I have mentioned this numerous times in earlier threads, I cannot figure out what visa she could have had for her time in ireland. Au pair visas for someone living outside the EU are for a maximum of one year. A nanny/au pair/childcare worker does not qualify for a work visa to come to Ireland. It is not an occupation that's the govt give out visas for to come to Ireland. It has always puzzled me. If she did manage to get some type of work visa, JC as her employer would have been obliged to pay her costs including flights and provide evidence that he could not find a suitable employee who was Irish/EU citizen and even then it would have most likely been refused. This would not have happened within a couple of weeks of her leaving a hospital. Work visas take months to process. Either she managed to get some type of visa or else she was travelling in and out of Ireland every 3 months in the visa waiver. When they got engaged, she would have got a fiancee visa.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Frizby]

Copy of the defence motion filed complete with affidavits & jury foreman comments.

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.tow...-5a11-8fa2-893501f32150/59a0e3bd49daf.pdf.pdf

 

[wildebeest]

While we are discussing au pairs this evening, I will put in my two cents. We found it necessary to hire an au pair for our young son some years ago, as I was traveling for my job. We went through a reputable agency, who had a local woman as our contact. The first young woman we chose, came to our home, and lasted about a week. She didn't seem to know the details of her position, and we felt she really wasn't qualified. We notified the local woman, to say the au pair wasn't doing her job and it wasn't working out. The woman came and moved the au pair to her home. We chose another au pair who was a little bit older and she did a much better job wth our son. She lasted about three months, when I discovered pictures of her with our first au pair in my closet, dressing up in my clothes. We sent her away immediately and I changed jobs. I know many people have wonderful experiences with au pairs, but this was ours.

 

[Okapi]

ES, it's simply this. I based my assumption on the fact that JC's first wife was a professional childminder who owned and operated a creche with LS, who remains close to JC'S family. With this background, I think it safe to assume JC sought an au pair with considerable diligence via legitimate channels. Whether or not MMC's screening and references stack up remains to be seen, as does the truth of her visa situation. But as other posters have alluded, JC was a loving father and I'm pretty certain he wouldn't knowingly have taken any risks in securing their care.

 

[emmalpage81]

Frizby, many thanks for the link to the replying motion.

I really do not see how this adds anything to the defences motion. We have Ms Blue who states, in her own words, 'it appeared that they were having an animated discussion'. (BBM) They have provided no evidence that the discussion which took place had anything to do with the case. The fact remains she does not know what the conversation was about it could have been one of a multitide of subjects.

I would also point out that I find it strange that an individual who had been attending to the trial so much that she could name the jurors watched two people in a car for 10-15 minutes but did not think to go and tell a court official about what she had seen until a verdict had been handed down the following day.

With regards to Mr Graham's evidence, again, I am not overly convinced by what he has to say. He mentions other jurors discussing evidence and, when reminded of the courts instructions, they stopped. He states he did not think it was his duty to tell the court until after the verdicts were handed down.

The last time I checked the Judge mentions at the start of every sitting whether the jurors have been following the Court's instructions. Mr Graham must have indicated yes at all of these times. He had a multitude of opportunities to bring this to the Court's attention, he did not. Mr Graham was also not privvy to the jury deliberations so cannot say what things the jurors took into consideration when reaching a verdict.

I still find their arguments in respect of Ms Perez nonsensical. She has never stated that her becoming pysically sick was soley due to either the content of photos or not eating breakfast. The Court record indicates that she states her becoming sick was due to '.... a combination of'.

Even with this amended motion, I do not think it reaches the bar to render a jury's verdict unsafe.

All comments are in response to the newly filed motion as linked by Frizby at post #823

All IMO

 

[Hotchips]

Frizby, many thanks for the link to the replying motion.

I really do not see how this adds anything to the defences motion. We have Ms Blue who states, in her own words, 'it appeared that they were having an animated discussion'. (BBM) They have provided no evidence that the discussion which took place had anything to do with the case. The fact remains she does not know what the conversation was about it could have been one of a multitide of subjects.

I would also point out that I find it strange that an individual who had been attending to the trial so much that she could name the jurors watched two people in a car for 10-15 minutes but did not think to go and tell a court official about what she had seen until a verdict had been handed down the following day.

With regards to Mr Graham's evidence, again, I am not overly convinced by what he has to say. He mentions other jurors discussing evidence and, when reminded of the courts instructions, they stopped. He states he did not think it was his duty to tell the court until after the verdicts were handed down.

The last time I checked the Judge mentions at the start of every sitting whether the jurors have been following the Court's instructions. Mr Graham must have indicated yes at all of these times. He had a multitude of opportunities to bring this to the Court's attention, he did not. Mr Graham was also not privvy to the jury deliberations so cannot say what things the jurors took into consideration when reaching a verdict.

I still find their arguments in respect of Ms Perez nonsensical. She has never stated that her becoming pysically sick was soley due to either the content of photos or not eating breakfast. The Court record indicates that she states her becoming sick was due to '.... a combination of'.

Even with this amended motion, I do not think it reaches the bar to render a jury's verdict unsafe.

All comments are in response to the newly filed motion as linked by Frizby at post #823

All IMO

I agree with a lot you say however that what has the possibility to give this legs is

(a) those two jurors should not have been in a car together at all under any circumstances in their role as jurors. Whether they were discussing the weather, they should not have been in eachothers company outside the courthouse.

(b) despite warnings by the court, it was still discussed between them when it should not have been until the deliberations. The whole point of it is that they each come to an individual decision on the evidence presented, not allow a "well what do you think" rhetoric come into play after evidence is presented.

(C) I am concerned about one jurors comments in the motion about everything being a lie that comes out of Molly's mouth...alarm bells ring out here for me. How does she know she's a liar, she never spoke at the trial. We know she has lied about things but that lady coming to the conclusion that she's a liar from just observing her is just utter foolishness.

The martens are desperate people who will use someone else foolishness to their advantage <modsnip> Taxpayers in NC will pay the bill for prosecution to defend it. Sad sad situation.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

 

[Frizby]

I agree with a lot you say however that what has the possibility to give this legs is

(a) those two jurors should not have been in a car together at all under any circumstances in their role as jurors. Whether they were discussing the weather, they should not have been in eachothers company outside the courthouse.

(b) despite warnings by the court, it was still discussed between them when it should not have been until the deliberations. The whole point of it is that they each come to an individual decision on the evidence presented, not allow a "well what do you think" rhetoric come into play after evidence is presented.

(C) I am concerned about one jurors comments in the motion about everything being a lie that comes out of Molly's mouth...alarm bells ring out here for me. How does she know she's a liar, she never spoke at the trial. We know she has lied about things but that lady coming to the conclusion that she's a liar from just observing her is just utter foolishness.

The martens are desperate people who will use someone else foolishness to their advantage <modsnip> Taxpayers in NC will pay the bill for prosecution to defend it. Sad sad situation.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

My comment only relates to part (c) of your above post. There is no indication as to when she posted these comments on FB within the motion submitted. Unless she made those comments on FB before she spoke to anyone after the trial and did not have time to do any of her own research, these could be dismissed as ascertaining this view after the fact.

 

[kittythehare]

My comment only relates to part (c) of your above post. There is no indication as to when she posted these comments on FB within the motion submitted. Unless she made those comments on FB before she spoke to anyone after the trial and did not have time to do any of her own research, these could be dismissed as ascertaining this view after the fact.

There is nothing to suggest that they were in the car as part of their jury role. They were in a car. That is all. There are several good links to Jury behaviour and what is and is not permitted earlier in this thread. I know because I put them there.
Ms Perez's comments were posted on foot of the 20/20 farce, several days after she had been discharged as a juror and having had plenty of time, as well as the 20/20 to read up on Molly.

 

[Harmony 2]

mod note: Posts have been removed.

We do not post the name of a private individual or sleuth individuals who have not been named by LE as suspects/POI's. Therefore, sleuthing witnesses, jurors or alternate jurors is strictly prohibited. Posting their personal information and background data -- even if it is public -- is not allowed. If mainstream media runs an article about them as related to this case or if they are interviewed you may discuss the content of that information but no further sleuthing is permitted to be posted here. Comments found on facebook cannot be discussed here unless it is part of an MSM article, court document, motion or proceeding.

 

[emmalpage81]

I agree with a lot you say however that what has the possibility to give this legs is

(a) those two jurors should not have been in a car together at all under any circumstances in their role as jurors. Whether they were discussing the weather, they should not have been in eachothers company outside the courthouse.

(b) despite warnings by the court, it was still discussed between them when it should not have been until the deliberations. The whole point of it is that they each come to an individual decision on the evidence presented, not allow a "well what do you think" rhetoric come into play after evidence is presented.

(C) I am concerned about one jurors comments in the motion about everything being a lie that comes out of Molly's mouth...alarm bells ring out here for me. How does she know she's a liar, she never spoke at the trial. We know she has lied about things but that lady coming to the conclusion that she's a liar from just observing her is just utter foolishness.

The martens are desperate people who will use someone else foolishness to their advantage <modsnip> Taxpayers in NC will pay the bill for prosecution to defend it. Sad sad situation.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

Slightly disagree;

A) the only person who has stated that they were in a car having a discussion is Ms Blue. Even if they were in a car together, which we only have Ms Blue's word for at this time with no corroborating evidence, there is no law forbidding this. The only thing they cannot do is talk about the case. Ms Blue's affidavit at no point states that she heard them discussing anything to do with the case. My understanding is that the onus is on the defendants to prove that these two jurors committed misconduct; the affidavit as filed does not give any indication that she heard anything being discussed and therefore I do not see how it can reach the bar to prove this.

B) I found Mr Graham's description of these discussions as rather vague. We have no context to consider what was said by anyone. Mr Graham says that he overheard others making comments about the evidence or asking questions about the evidence and that at least on one occasion a 2-3 minute discussion occurred about evidence before someone said they couldn't discuss it. This is all we have to go on. Mr Graham would have been in Court at the start of each sitting whereby the Judge would ask if anyone had discussed the case or heard anyone else discussing the case; Mr Graham must have indicated no each of these times. This was when he should have brought anything he considered misconduct to the attention of the Court.

Again I would state that Mr Graham was not in the deliberation room and therefore cannot provide any evidence of what was or was not taken into consideration by the jury when reaching a verdict.

(c) My issue with this is the comments were made after the end of the trial when the juror had every right to google the case and find out more information that was not touched upon during the trial; we also know that a group of jurors met up with JC's family following the trial and it may well be the juror heard stories about MM from them.

As it stands there has been no evidence to suggest that the juror showed any bias during the trial or deliberations.

I would think that filing a motion for relief is a common occurrence and not in any way unique in this case.

All IMO

 

[Francesca]

Has it been confirmed by any other source that the two jurors WERE sitting in a car together? To me, this seems like a very strange thing for two people to do in these circumstances. You sit in a car together if one person is giving the other person a lift somewhere, and with so many restrictions on how the jurors were supposed to interact, it seems unlikely that they would carpool. The impression that they were "sitting" there, implies that one juror only sat in the car for a short time to chat with the driver/ other juror, which also seems unusual behavior for two people who knew their conversations were restricted. They were also clearly doing this in full view of the courthouse, knowing that they could be seen breaking the rules, yet taking the precaution of not being overheard.

 

[Frizby]

They have taken to leaflet dropping. I don't somehow think that fellow Americans are as outraged as they seem to think. https://www.thesun.ie/news/1456236/...aim-fellow-americans-outraged-by-convictions/

 

[stmarysmead]

They have taken to leaflet dropping. I don't somehow think that fellow Americans are as outraged as they seem to think. https://www.thesun.ie/news/1456236/...aim-fellow-americans-outraged-by-convictions/

I live in a neighboring state, just a few hours from Davidson County. As you know, I have taken a great interest in this case since the beginning. Every now and then, I've brought it up with different neighbors over the years and no one has ever heard of the case. No one is up in arms, "outraged", ready to storm the prisons to free MM and TM.

If they are up in DC passing out leaflets, looking as bizarre as they have, I can only say that I would say ANYTHING to get away from them. I bet they aren't passing out the autopsy photos with those leaflets.

 

[Logic-lady]

They have taken to leaflet dropping. I don't somehow think that fellow Americans are as outraged as they seem to think. https://www.thesun.ie/news/1456236/...aim-fellow-americans-outraged-by-convictions/

I don't really understand the outrage...they were given the chance to vindicate themselves and they presented NO defense. They didn't give the jury a choice but to convict. They have no-one to blame but themselves.

 

[Frizby]

I don't really understand the outrage...they were given the chance to vindicate themselves and they presented NO defense. They didn't give the jury a choice but to convict. They have no-one to blame but themselves.

They are playing on the back of the ABC 20/20 show. One story to the public over national TV while a whole different story in a court of law. If they had a defence, they would have presented it, if I were a victim of DV, no lawyer on this earth would have prevented me from testifying. While some were taken in by that show, there were many on both Twitter & FB to tell some truths. Most Americans are not fools just like most Irish are not fools, the only thing that separates us is an ocean. They seem to under estimate the intelligence of most people.

 

[stmarysmead]

I don't really understand the outrage...they were given the chance to vindicate themselves and they presented NO defense. They didn't give the jury a choice but to convict. They have no-one to blame but themselves.

I don't think they are "outraged." I think this was always PlanB. They have been relying a great deal on PR campaigns..FB and Instagram...since they first got wind they might be charged.

Friendly media put out that story about Mr. FItzP on the day jury selection was beginning. More PR. They always knew they could not put on MM...way too unstable...and if they "opened" too many doors...KM might walk in.

So they planned for afterward. Trying to set up...a situation...
to overturn this trial, get them out and try again. More PR needed. It's just Plan B.

 

[stmarysmead]

The hyperbole over at that fundraising site...leads me to believe that the chief instigator is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Except for a trickle from family friends, the Great American "outrage" is not manifesting itself in donations. Uhhhh...we can see that, ya know.

 

[wildebeest]

They have taken to leaflet dropping. I don't somehow think that fellow Americans are as outraged as they seem to think. https://www.thesun.ie/news/1456236/...aim-fellow-americans-outraged-by-convictions/

You are right, Frizby, most people have never heard about this case, therefore, they are not outraged.

So, carry on with your leaflet distribution, you better order more paper and ink. You have a large task ahead of you.

:boohoo:

IMHO

 

[Frizby]

You are right, Frizby, most people have never heard about this case, therefore, they are not outraged.

So, carry on with your leaflet distribution, you better order more paper and ink. You have a large task ahead of you.

:boohoo:

IMHO

Unlike nearly all of Ireland have heard about it but then again Ireland has less then half the population of the entire state of NC.