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

[bernie millar]

hi only came across this forum in recent days this is my first post and i have some questions to add why did sm give two different versions of events when contact with the family was made one been molly pushed jason and he fell and hit his head the other been molly hit jason over the head? ,why was tm involvement never mentioned?

 

[MsArk]

I really wish this thread would get some traction without the back and forth long winded commentary.

No offense intended to to anyone.

Justice for Jason and hope we see a trial in 2017!

 

[MsArk]

hi only came across this forum in recent days this is my first post and i have some questions to add why did sm give two different versions of events when contact with the family was made one been molly pushed jason and he fell and hit his head the other been molly hit jason over the head? ,why was tm involvement never mentioned?

Hi Bernie! And welcome to WS!

Apologies no one has jumped in to answer your question, or attempt to do so, anyway.

Our wonderful mods had to close the thread for some time (for our own good, actually) so it has been some time since active posting.

I'm a little rusty on the details but will do my best to read back through the threads soon. Hopefully we can get the JC thread active again with thoughtful and productive contributions this time around.

This is such a sad case for the children and JC's family.

Praying for Justice in 2017!

 

[MsArk]

Last one for now... just looking through MM's SM account, FB particularly. It looks as though she still has a few, though the numbers have dwindled considerably, supporters commenting sympathetically on her personal page.

A quick glance shows many (most?) of her "friends" are in Raleigh Durham/Greensboro area.

She still has many "friends", whether real or in SM terms only.

Here is my point. I wonder what the real sentiment is amount her "friends" from where I assume the jury pool will be drawn.

I simply cannot imagine her histrionics have garnered enough real "sympathy" to hold much weight. The evidence speaks for itself, IMO, about what happened on the night of JC's murder.

Even she alleges prior DA, I firmly believe the autopsy speaks for itself. Curious to see if there is evidence to back it up, sans hearsay. Any prior LE reports, etc.

I really need to go back and familiarize myself with the background, especially MSM reports and subsequent filings. Quote possibly much of my late night/early morning musings will be answered once I dig back in.

Nothing like catching up on WS during a bout of insomnia!

And as always, this is simply MOO!

 

[Logic-lady]

Last one for now... just looking through MM's SM account, FB particularly. It looks as though she still has a few, though the numbers have dwindled considerably, supporters commenting sympathetically on her personal page.

A quick glance shows many (most?) of her "friends" are in Raleigh Durham/Greensboro area.

She still has many "friends", whether real or in SM terms only.

Here is my point. I wonder what the real sentiment is amount her "friends" from where I assume the jury pool will be drawn.

I simply cannot imagine her histrionics have garnered enough real "sympathy" to hold much weight. The evidence speaks for itself, IMO, about what happened on the night of JC's murder.

Even she alleges prior DA, I firmly believe the autopsy speaks for itself. Curious to see if there is evidence to back it up, sans hearsay. Any prior LE reports, etc.

I really need to go back and familiarize myself with the background, especially MSM reports and subsequent filings. Quote possibly much of my late night/early morning musings will be answered once I dig back in.

Nothing like catching up on WS during a bout of insomnia!

And as always, this is simply MOO!

Great observations MsArk! I too am quite cynical of the SM postings, particularly since the post directly after the announcement of the trial date was conveniently left open to posters and once again people rallied to defend Molly against 'abusive' posters. Given that she has maintained her privacy settings for many months now this seems an unlikely unintentional lapse on her part.

It is an interesting point regarding the jury pool as I am sure it was her legal counsel who suggested a potential move to Greensboro if memory serves me correctly.

Thus far, I can find no substantiated evidence of previous DA other than some very heated hearsay accounts by friends of MM. It will be very interesting to see what evidence they will bring forth at trial in this regard.

Nice to have a rational discussion with someone on this case!

 

[lisette]

LEXINGTON — A trial date has been set in the 2015 death of an Irish businessman.

Molly Martens Corbett and her father, retired FBI agent Thomas Michael Martens, will go to trial on July 17, Judge David Lee of Davidson Superior Court said Friday morning.

Corbett and Martens are charged with second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter in the death of Corbett’s husband, Jason Corbett. Jason Corbett was found bludgeoned to death in the couple’s home in The Meadowlands, a golf-course community in Davidson County, on Aug. 2, 2015....

http://www.journalnow.com/news/crim...cle_0a66878f-e9f2-5c85-b814-189b3d4b5458.html

 

[Logic-lady]

http://www.journalnow.com/news/loca...cle_3a84b369-6e32-5091-91d2-f9c3230ac4ff.html

Reading the above news story made me re-look at the autopsy report again to see if it would be consistent with Jason being hit from behind and then 'moving towards' the person wielding the bat before being hit again. He does have injuries to both sides of his head, but I struggle to picture how he would have ultimately ended up lying on his front, with the majority of injuries to his face if these injuries were inflicted last. Surely a defining blow from behind would render him unconscious and cause him to slump forwards?

There is the suggestion that he was choking Molly on the bed so perhaps that is more consistent with the injuries being so localized but then how did he end up on the floor on his front...was he trying to crawl away?

It is a shame there is no way to evaluate whether any of Molly's DNA was found under Jason's fingernails, that would have offered some clarity into the events of the night. Sorry for all the musings...with the trial fast approaching, I feel the time for rational assessment of the information available is dwindling!

 

[Logic-lady]

Last one for now... just looking through MM's SM account, FB particularly. It looks as though she still has a few, though the numbers have dwindled considerably, supporters commenting sympathetically on her personal page.

A quick glance shows many (most?) of her "friends" are in Raleigh Durham/Greensboro area.

She still has many "friends", whether real or in SM terms only.

Here is my point. I wonder what the real sentiment is amount her "friends" from where I assume the jury pool will be drawn.

I simply cannot imagine her histrionics have garnered enough real "sympathy" to hold much weight. The evidence speaks for itself, IMO, about what happened on the night of JC's murder.

Even she alleges prior DA, I firmly believe the autopsy speaks for itself. Curious to see if there is evidence to back it up, sans hearsay. Any prior LE reports, etc.

I really need to go back and familiarize myself with the background, especially MSM reports and subsequent filings. Quote possibly much of my late night/early morning musings will be answered once I dig back in.

Nothing like catching up on WS during a bout of insomnia!

And as always, this is simply MOO!

http://www.journalnow.com/news/loca...cle_3a84b369-6e32-5091-91d2-f9c3230ac4ff.html

Reading the above news story made me re-look at the autopsy report again to see if it would be consistent with Jason being hit from behind and then 'moving towards' the person wielding the bat before being hit again. He does have injuries to both sides of his head, but I struggle to picture how he would have ultimately ended up lying on his front, with the majority of injuries to his face if these injuries were inflicted last. Surely a defining blow from behind would render him unconscious and cause him to slump forwards?

There is the suggestion that he was choking Molly on the bed so perhaps that is more consistent with the injuries being so localized but then how did he end up on the floor on his front...was he trying to crawl away?

It is a shame there is no way to evaluate whether any of Molly's DNA was found under Jason's fingernails, that would have offered some clarity into the events of the night. Sorry for all the musings...with the trial fast approaching, I feel the time for rational assessment of the information available is dwindling!

 

[Logic-lady]

http://www.journalnow.com/news/crim...l&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share

So at last we have a glimpse of how Thomas Martens intends to defend himself in proceedings...and I have to say I am quite disturbed!!

Firstly, my thoughts are that in all honestly Mr Fitzpatrick may indeed have blamed Jason for his daughters death, in so much as when a daughter gets married, that father hands over the protection of their child to their husband. That father expects that this new husband will keep their precious daughter safe, protect them from any harm. Jason could not save Mags....despite all of his efforts...he had let Mags down, he had let the children down, he had let Mr Fitzpatrick down. I am sure no-one felt that more acutely than Jason. It is a natural part of the grief process!

It is possible that Mr Martens and Mr Fitzpatrick had a conversation at some point where this feeling of blame was discussed, but to my mind to try to turn it into an abject accusation of brutality on the part of Jason is setting off alarm bells. Innocent people do not need to fabricate conversations with dead men in order to validate their actions.

Why have the defense waited until after Mr Fitzpatrick has passed away to bring this to the courts attention. My understanding is that Mr Fitzpatrick fought a long battle and so, the defense would have known the urgency in getting Mr Fitzpatrick's written testimony to validate their claims long ago.

Secondly, if my daughter were going to a foreign country to au pair for a family and at any point I had a conversation with the father of her employer's dead first wife and he raised even the slightest inclination that he had suspicions about her death there is NO WAY ON EARTH she would still be working for him, let alone marrying him.

And finally, there is the basics of Irish forensics - if Mags had had any signs of physical trauma on her when the ambulance crew arrived then Jason would have been arrested at the time. If her sister (who was in the house with them during the asthma attack) had any suspicions as to what had triggered the attack, Jason would have been arrested and questioned. The inquest into her death would have recorded any suspicions that any single person had regarding Jason's involvement in Mags' death but it didn't. Mag's suffered a tragic death as a result of a chronic life-long disease. Her husband was devastated by her loss, her family were devastated by her loss but ultimately they all agreed, it was a TRAGIC loss. To try to turn it into something more sinister really is grasping at straws IMO.

It will be interesting to see if any of the Fitzpatrick family are called to testify as to their father's actual feelings regarding Jason, or whether the whole thing will be dismissed as hearsay. Either way the Martens are playing a very dirty game from the outset!

 

[emmalpage81]

http://www.journalnow.com/news/crim...l&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share

So at last we have a glimpse of how Thomas Martens intends to defend himself in proceedings...and I have to say I am quite disturbed!!

Firstly, my thoughts are that in all honestly Mr Fitzpatrick may indeed have blamed Jason for his daughters death, in so much as when a daughter gets married, that father hands over the protection of their child to their husband. That father expects that this new husband will keep their precious daughter safe, protect them from any harm. Jason could not save Mags....despite all of his efforts...he had let Mags down, he had let the children down, he had let Mr Fitzpatrick down. I am sure no-one felt that more acutely than Jason. It is a natural part of the grief process!

It is possible that Mr Martens and Mr Fitzpatrick had a conversation at some point where this feeling of blame was discussed, but to my mind to try to turn it into an abject accusation of brutality on the part of Jason is setting off alarm bells. Innocent people do not need to fabricate conversations with dead men in order to validate their actions.

Why have the defense waited until after Mr Fitzpatrick has passed away to bring this to the courts attention. My understanding is that Mr Fitzpatrick fought a long battle and so, the defense would have known the urgency in getting Mr Fitzpatrick's written testimony to validate their claims long ago.

Secondly, if my daughter were going to a foreign country to au pair for a family and at any point I had a conversation with the father of her employer's dead first wife and he raised even the slightest inclination that he had suspicions about her death there is NO WAY ON EARTH she would still be working for him, let alone marrying him.

And finally, there is the basics of Irish forensics - if Mags had had any signs of physical trauma on her when the ambulance crew arrived then Jason would have been arrested at the time. If her sister (who was in the house with them during the asthma attack) had any suspicions as to what had triggered the attack, Jason would have been arrested and questioned. The inquest into her death would have recorded any suspicions that any single person had regarding Jason's involvement in Mags' death but it didn't. Mag's suffered a tragic death as a result of a chronic life-long disease. Her husband was devastated by her loss, her family were devastated by her loss but ultimately they all agreed, it was a TRAGIC loss. To try to turn it into something more sinister really is grasping at straws IMO.

It will be interesting to see if any of the Fitzpatrick family are called to testify as to their father's actual feelings regarding Jason, or whether the whole thing will be dismissed as hearsay. Either way the Martens are playing a very dirty game from the outset!

A very dirty game indeed. According to an article in the Daily Mail today (I only have a photo sent by my husband so no link) TM is claiming that MF told him this information at the wedding. This being the only time the two men had ever met or conversed. So TM was told in 2011 that MF believed that JC had killed his daughter and TM did nothing in the 4 year time period between that day and JC's killing? It seems completely illogical. It is, in my opinion, being released to try to taint the jury pool as I cannot see this being admitted. It is clearly hearsay.

It will be interesting to see what else comes to light at the motion hearings over the next two days.

 

[Logic-lady]

A very dirty game indeed. According to an article in the Daily Mail today (I only have a photo sent by my husband so no link) TM is claiming that MF told him this information at the wedding. This being the only time the two men had ever met or conversed. So TM was told in 2011 that MF believed that JC had killed his daughter and TM did nothing in the 4 year time period between that day and JC's killing? It seems completely illogical. It is, in my opinion, being released to try to taint the jury pool as I cannot see this being admitted. It is clearly hearsay.

It will be interesting to see what else comes to light at the motion hearings over the next two days.

Interesting, I don't have access to the Daily Mail so it would be good if others following the thread could share some pictures of the article. I guess I find this whole scenario strange on so many levels. Why would Mr Fitzpatrick bring up such an emotive topic on such an occasion? How would a conversation like that come about between too men who were in other respects strangers to one another? If Mr Fitzpatrick truly felt that strongly that he felt compelled to tell TM this information, surely he would have done it before Molly & Jason moved his grandchildren to another continent. It does not add up - at all! You are right, it can only be viewed as an attempt to taint the jury pool, I would be overwhelmingly surprised if they have an actual written statement to back it up!

Funny, when they stuck to the simple story, they potentially had a chance that the jury would believe there was no intent on their part, however, the more they try to embellish their story the more fragile their defense is becoming IMO.

 

[Electric Sheep]

Why would Mr. Fitzpatrick travel to the US to attend the wedding of a man he believed caused his daughter's death?

 

[Logic-lady]

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...nd-fatherinlaw-of-jason-corbett-35805799.html

http://www.independent.ie/world-new...sed-the-death-of-his-first-wife-35803451.html

 

[emmalpage81]

Article in the Daily Mail today https://www.facebook.com/TheIrishMa...495363941342/1909940709263471/?type=3&theater (this link is to the facebook page; it is hard to read but manageable). Things i have taken from the article:

1. JC told a therapist that he had 'some negative feelings' for MMC. I have googled the therapist and she is in Winston-Salem so cannot be the therapist that JC disclosed information to in Ireland. JC also told the therapist that MMC was his step-mom. JC stated he had witnessed abuse (it is not said against who);

2. SC said she had not witnessed any abuse.

3. JC and SC are both interviewed at Dragonfly House by a paediatrician. She diagnoses them as being victims of child abuse by witnessing domestic violence. In evidence she states she made no determination on who caused the abuse as 'that's not my job';

4. JC and SC stated they had a secret phone number to call TM and SM in Tennessee in case of emergency;

5. A friend of MMC who told the police that she did not believe her says that her statement was taken down incorrectly; and

6. The Judge has said he is failing to see any prejudice towards TM and MMC if the trial stays in Davidson County.

TL is set to give evidence today on statements made by both JC and SC upon their return to Ireland.

I am mostly interested in the conflicting reports of those who interviewed the children in North Carolina after the murder. The therapist states that SC told her that she witnessed no abuse but we know that TM and MMC want the Dragonfly House interviews admitted; I am assuming this is the one where SC told about abuse she had witnessed. I would be interested to find out which of the interviews happened first. Unfortunately no specific dates are given.

 

[Logic-lady]

Article in the Daily Mail todayhttps://www.facebook.com/TheIrishMa...495363941342/1909940709263471/?type=3&theater (this link is to the facebook page; it is hard to read but manageable). Things i have taken from the article:

1. JC told a therapist that he had 'some negative feelings' for MMC. I have googled the therapist and she is in Winston-Salem so cannot be the therapist that JC disclosed information to in Ireland. JC also told the therapist that MMC was his step-mom. JC stated he had witnessed abuse (it is not said against who);

2. SC said she had not witnessed any abuse.

3. JC and SC are both interviewed at Dragonfly House by a paediatrician. She diagnoses them as being victims of child abuse by witnessing domestic violence. In evidence she states she made no determination on who caused the abuse as 'that's not my job';

4. JC and SC stated they had a secret phone number to call TM and SM in Tennessee in case of emergency;

5. A friend of MMC who told the police that she did not believe her says that her statement was taken down incorrectly; and

6. The Judge has said he is failing to see any prejudice towards TM and MMC if the trial stays in Davidson County.

TL is set to give evidence today on statements made by both JC and SC upon their return to Ireland.

I am mostly interested in the conflicting reports of those who interviewed the children in North Carolina after the murder. The therapist states that SC told her that she witnessed no abuse but we know that TM and MMC want the Dragonfly House interviews admitted; I am assuming this is the one where SC told about abuse she had witnessed. I would be interested to find out which of the interviews happened first. Unfortunately no specific dates are given.

Thanks for the link, it's great! It seems that maybe the kids had seen a counsellor prior to their Dad's death? If so that would be interesting to find out who had organised that session, was Jason having concerns about how the kids were doing? Or were there on-going issues in the house? It is so sad that he obviously carried such a burden at such a young age 'I don't want to hurt my step-mom'

Presumably the paediatrician would have made that assertion based on how the children came to be referred and so the diagnosis that the children were 'witnesses of domestic violence' could be based purely on the events that they witnessed on the night their father died. It was a referral to get them the help that they needed IMO.

Shannon Grubb I find interesting. She refrained from becoming involved in the social media circus that surrounded this case, even at times pulling back from comments on FB which Molly had tagged her in. She also seems to genuinely care for Sarah. I wonder what part of her statement was misinterpreted by the Sheriffs.

Do we know what the reports from Dragonfly House actually say? It has been so long I'm going to have to go back and find where they are referred to...was it not just MM's attorney's statement about what those reports contained that was released? It will be interesting to see at trial if they are admitted whether what they actually contain what was inferred or whether this has been another jury pool tainting exercise on behalf of the defense!

 

[emmalpage81]

Thanks for the link, it's great! It seems that maybe the kids had seen a counsellor prior to their Dad's death? If so that would be interesting to find out who had organised that session, was Jason having concerns about how the kids were doing? Or were there on-going issues in the house? It is so sad that he obviously carried such a burden at such a young age 'I don't want to hurt my step-mom'

Presumably the paediatrician would have made that assertion based on how the children came to be referred and so the diagnosis that the children were 'witnesses of domestic violence' could be based purely on the events that they witnessed on the night their father died. It was a referral to get them the help that they needed IMO.

Shannon Grubb I find interesting. She refrained from becoming involved in the social media circus that surrounded this case, even at times pulling back from comments on FB which Molly had tagged her in. She also seems to genuinely care for Sarah. I wonder what part of her statement was misinterpreted by the Sheriffs.

Do we know what the reports from Dragonfly House actually say? It has been so long I'm going to have to go back and find where they are referred to...was it not just MM's attorney's statement about what those reports contained that was released? It will be interesting to see at trial if they are admitted whether what they actually contain what was inferred or whether this has been another jury pool tainting exercise on behalf of the defense!

According to the evidence given both appointments happened after the murder.

No official comment before today on what might be included in the reports all we have is the information disseminated by the defence. I find it strange that we have had information released that JC was violent etc but the doctor says she doesn't know who was abusive.

 

[courtney2662]

According to the evidence given both appointments happened after the murder.

No official comment before today on what might be included in the reports all we have is the information disseminated by the defence. I find it strange that we have had information released that JC was violent etc but the doctor says she doesn't know who was abusive.

The only "information" released that JC was violent was from MMC, after JC was murdered in his bedroom. That was followed up on social media by friends of MMC trying to assert that MMC was a battered wife, and some took it much further asserting that JC had also abused his children. Scurrilous untruths, with not single shred of evidence, never a report filed, never a hospital or doctor care - just desperate lie to try and justify murder.

Curious thing tho, you're Tom and Sharon Martens, you get desperate call from MMC, so worrying that you immediately change long-held travel plans and race up to MMC and JC home, couple hours drive away. You stop on the way to buy a baseball bat for your wife's step-son, but you didn't give it to him when you arrived, and you didn't give it to him that evening. You attend a community BBQ with the family. You go to bed. You say you are awoken by yelling. You say you grab the baseball bat and race up to defend your daughter. Why is the baseball bat next to the bed? How did you know you needed to defend your daughter? Could just have been a fight between a couple? TM had clearly prepared himself for an unstable situation hadn't he?

 

[Logic-lady]

According to the evidence given both appointments happened after the murder.

No official comment before today on what might be included in the reports all we have is the information disseminated by the defence. I find it strange that we have had information released that JC was violent etc but the doctor says she doesn't know who was abusive.

Thanks for clarifying with regards to the appointments. I think it reads more clearly in this article - http://www.journalnow.com/news/crim...cle_7d72728f-53f6-5082-ba93-34c5edfc3d72.html

Logically, it makes no sense to allow the reports to be admissible, particularly when there are now conflicting professional reports, surely this will just cloud the issue for the jury. If there was on-going abuse, if Molly was being choked on the night, then surely the defense can form enough of a case based on what happened on the night in question between the adults in the house. The children were in some aspects irrelevant, they were not in danger, there was no threat to their safety, so their statements as to prior events has limited impact on this particular case.

My concern if the reports are withheld however, is that if convicted both defendants will use it as grounds for appeal.

 

[emmalpage81]

The only "information" released that JC was violent was from MMC, after JC was murdered in his bedroom. That was followed up on social media by friends of MMC trying to assert that MMC was a battered wife, and some took it much further asserting that JC had also abused his children. Scurrilous untruths, with not single shred of evidence, never a report filed, never a hospital or doctor care - just desperate lie to try and justify murder.

Curious thing tho, you're Tom and Sharon Martens, you get desperate call from MMC, so worrying that you immediately change long-held travel plans and race up to MMC and JC home, couple hours drive away. You stop on the way to buy a baseball bat for your wife's step-son, but you didn't give it to him when you arrived, and you didn't give it to him that evening. You attend a community BBQ with the family. You go to bed. You say you are awoken by yelling. You say you grab the baseball bat and race up to defend your daughter. Why is the baseball bat next to the bed? How did you know you needed to defend your daughter? Could just have been a fight between a couple? TM had clearly prepared himself for an unstable situation hadn't he?

With all due respect I am unsure what I have said wrong. The fact of the matter is that, at the motion hearings which have taken place over the last two days, there has been somewhat conflicting evidence put before the court as to abuse. We have a therapist who states that JC commented that he had witnessed abuse and that he had negative feelings towards MMC. SC commented that she had not witnessed abuse. Following this we have the children being interviewed at Dragonfly House where both give detailed instances of abuse; this information has been dissemitted by the defence but is not the evidence of the defence.

 

[emmalpage81]

Thanks for clarifying with regards to the appointments. I think it reads more clearly in this article - http://www.journalnow.com/news/crim...cle_7d72728f-53f6-5082-ba93-34c5edfc3d72.html

Logically, it makes no sense to allow the reports to be admissible, particularly when there are now conflicting professional reports, surely this will just cloud the issue for the jury. If there was on-going abuse, if Molly was being choked on the night, then surely the defense can form enough of a case based on what happened on the night in question between the adults in the house. The children were in some aspects irrelevant, they were not in danger, there was no threat to their safety, so their statements as to prior events has limited impact on this particular case.

My concern if the reports are withheld however, is that if convicted both defendants will use it as grounds for appeal.

Completely agree with two completely varying reports they should not be admitted. Especially given the information coming out in day two of the motions; basically that JC said that he lied to the police and wanted to rectify it. The fact that SM seemed adamant that JC be interviewed first is interesting to me; could it be that he was the one less attached to MMC? As always IMO