GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #3

[Frizby]

What if she had gotten the kids?...then he would have had good reason to speak out in my opinion...but what if she did make a clean break and hasn't taken bipolar drugs for 8 years?...then what?...if she can prove that she hasn't, does that acquit her of the murder?

Personally I don't see your points of having any relevance. She did not get the kids, what she can prove regarding her intake of medication may prove crucial in the case or it may not. He was speaking up regarding his experience with her, an experience that he lived with just before she left for Ireland, he was not witnessing this on the sidelines, he lived it. It is also not just a story he is telling now, it is linked to a written account that was published years ago. He is speaking up as he disputes what she said in the custody trial based on what was he was living with at the time, where she is claiming that she has not taken or prescribed any medication for over 8 years. He is aware of her mental state at the time, that is the premise of his comments.

If she can prove that she has not taken any medication or having any medication prescribed then that will be another story but that does not take away from his reasoning for doing the interview. Maybe she was advised to take another type of medication and choose not to. She was on up to 26 medication every day and then suddenly she is on none? But he did not state that he was doing this for the benefit of the children as you said in your post. It is a shame that the article and also the segmented pieces are not up on line but what I typed is word for word what is stated in the article.

One of the other segmented pieces in the article details is what was stated in the custody hearing, the following is exact copy of what that section says.

Molly Martens claims she has not been prescribed drugs for bipolar or depression in 'over eight years' according to court documents.

In a transcript of her testimony during a guardianship hearing on August 14th last year, the 32-year old told the court that she was diagnosed as bipolar at the age of 15.

Her testimony was given in response to evidence from her sister-in-law Tracey Lynch, who claimed that Ms Martens had left 'her lithium out on a shelf' in the bathroom while staying in Ms Lynch's home. The claims were made in court while both parties battled for custody of Mr Corbett's two young children.

While being examined under oath, Molly's attorney Kelley Gondring asked her what happened after she was diagnosed as bipolar. In reply she said "I underwent therapy and a psychiatrist for medications".

Mr Gondring then asked: "and today, what, if any, medications do you take for being bipolar?"

Ms Martens replied: "I don't"

Q - When is the last time you saw anyone about being bipolar?

A - The last time I saw anyone for bipolar depression was around age 17. And probably the last time I say anyone for depression was eight or nine years ago.

Q - Why haven't you seen anybody for bipolar since you were 17?

A - I feel that I probably wasn't bipolar. I was given anti-depressants and they reacted physiologically with my body. So later on the diagnosis changed to depression.

Q - Okay, when have you been prescribed lithium?

A - Not for over..... It's been over eight years since I have been prescribed anything.

Q - When, if ever, would you have had a box of lithium?

A - I have never had a box of lithium

 

[searchinGirl]

Personally I don't see your points of having any relevance. She did not get the kids, what she can prove regarding her intake of medication may prove crucial in the case or it may not. He was speaking up regarding his experience with her, an experience that he lived with just before she left for Ireland, he was not witnessing this on the sidelines. It is also not just a story he is telling now, it is linked to a written account that was published years ago. He is speaking up as he disputes what she said in the custody trial based on what was he was living with at the time, where she is claiming that she has not taken or prescribed any medication for over 8 years. He is aware of her mental state at the time, that is the premise of his comments.

If she can prove that she has not taken any medication or having any medication prescribed then that will be another story but that does not take away from his reasoning for doing the interview. Maybe she was advised to take another type of medication and choose not to. She was on up to 26 medication every day and then suddenly she is on none? But he did not state that he was doing this for the benefit of the children as you said in your post. It is a shame that the article and also the segmented pieces are not up on line but what I typed is word for word what is stated in the article.

One of the segmented pieces in the article details what was stated in the custody hearing, the following is exact copy of what that section says.

I guess I am confused then...isn't that something KM said "what if she had gotten the kids" and then went on to elaborate on the reasons he was speaking out?... What I'm having trouble with is the relevance of his story to Molly's trial...help me out here...how does he know she took medications since leaving the psych clinic?...he said himself he hasn't seen her since..I agree it seems unlikely that someone with that diagnosis would give up her meds and function well but it could be true ...and, even though he is quite believable his story is very prejudicial to Molly...plus his stated intention in the book was to protect her identity... If she wasn't lying about he meds in the custody trial and she can prove it, KM could have just blown the whole trial...iMO

 

[Frizby]

I guess I am confused then...isn't that something KM said "what if she had gotten the kids" and then went on to elaborate on the reasons he was speaking out?... What I'm having trouble with is the relevance of his story to Molly's trial...help me out here...how does he know she took medications since leaving the psych clinic?...he said himself he hasn't seen her since..I agree it seems unlikely that someone with that diagnosis would give up her meds and function well but it could be true ...and, even though he is quite believable his story is very prejudicial to Molly...plus his stated intention in the book was to protect her identity... If she wasn't lying about he meds in the custody trial and she can prove it, KM could have just blown the whole trial...iMO

He never said that he knew that she took meds, he was only commenting on his experience with her prior to her leaving. His comment about "what if she had gotten the kids" was only just in the conversation he had when explaining why he was speaking out, it was a thought mid conversation rather that a reasoning, his conversation was much longer that just that one comment, it was not his reasoning for speaking out.

 

[searchinGirl]

He never said that he knew that she took meds, he was only commenting on his experience with her prior to her leaving. His comment about "what if she had gotten the kids" was only just in the conversation he had when explaining why he was speaking out, it was a thought mid conversation rather that a reasoning, his conversation was much longer that just that one comment, it was not his reasoning for speaking out.

Seems like he said he found her unbelievable...I personally would rather see Molly convicted after receiving a fair trial...I'm starting to doubt she will be able to get one...

 

[pet friend]

<modsnip> why should he be disbarred?...he's good...maybe good enough to get her off...

I have to admit I am wondering if there is recollection/awareness of websleuths stance as supporter of crime victims in this case the murder/slaughter of Jason Corbett. Everything in this case will come down to the evidence. The judge in the case will have to make rulings for both the prosecution & defense as to what information is allowed to come in. I understand that each person here is entitled to their opinion however @ the end of the day a trial is a search for the truth. Imho

 

[Truthalways]

Haven't seen his fb book, must go have a look now. Wasn't me btw leaving comments in case you think it was which I am inferring from your post directed at me. I'm not offended, I am not personally involved or known to any party in this case nor do I join in the fb arguments, they are completely unproductive and serve no purpose whatsoever. I am interested in what drives a person to commit such a violent heinous crime, the autopsy report while proves overkill , does not answer those questions for me.

It was actually one of mm supporters Hotchips that left an abusive comment she has since deleted it. It did stand out to everyone that it was possible that it was the hand work off mm in there as it was a personal attack and it has already been noted this lady was never heavily involved with either Jason or mm before the crime. It does however give a sense of the people she surrounds herself with.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Frizby]

Seems like he said he found her unbelievable...I personally would rather see Molly convicted after receiving a fair trial...I'm starting to doubt she will be able to get one...

Seems like he said that when he was with her he did not know what to believe, he is not just saying this now, it is documented in an account that was written years ago. He also seems to say that what she said at the custody hearing does not make sense to him as he lived with her weeks before she left for Ireland, not month or years, it was weeks. If he had only just written this now, well then I would say it would be a problem but it was published over five years ago. Are MM actions deeming it an unfair trial? Would her denial of all this deem it an unfair trial? Only those who have the full picture can determine this. I want her to have a fair trial also, a trial which consists of all the evidence and not just the evidence that is of her or her lawyers choosing. The trial might be moved to another area but the evidence will remain the same.

 

[Truthalways]

Personally I don't see your points of having any relevance. She did not get the kids, what she can prove regarding her intake of medication may prove crucial in the case or it may not. He was speaking up regarding his experience with her, an experience that he lived with just before she left for Ireland, he was not witnessing this on the sidelines, he lived it. It is also not just a story he is telling now, it is linked to a written account that was published years ago. He is speaking up as he disputes what she said in the custody trial based on what was he was living with at the time, where she is claiming that she has not taken or prescribed any medication for over 8 years. He is aware of her mental state at the time, that is the premise of his comments.

If she can prove that she has not taken any medication or having any medication prescribed then that will be another story but that does not take away from his reasoning for doing the interview. Maybe she was advised to take another type of medication and choose not to. She was on up to 26 medication every day and then suddenly she is on none? But he did not state that he was doing this for the benefit of the children as you said in your post. It is a shame that the article and also the segmented pieces are not up on line but what I typed is word for word what is stated in the article.

One of the other segmented pieces in the article details is what was stated in the custody hearing, the following is exact copy of what that section says.

I agree Frisby it may or may not have relevance when trial starts. What i do see in her testimony is a self diagnosis and an almost slip up when answering about the Lithium. What we do know is that she didnt get a cure on the flight to Ireland and she also didnt tell her future husbsnd Jason thst her meds for depression had interacted and made her unstable for a time. Instead we have a co worker of Jasons who has stated thst before Jason left for NC with mm in 2011 he had spoken to him about mm having BIPOLAR. Mm had obviously recently disclosed this to Jason and he had concerns.This would suggest that mm had admitted to Jason only 4years before his murder that she still had bipolar. Not to mention that at a later date Jason's sister has testified that mm has also told her.
http://m.independent.ie/irish-news

I'm wondering if the prosecution go down the road of mm having had an episode on Aug 2 due to her continued unstable BIPOLAR. Perhaps Jason called her parents down to help as he may well have done before. Is this why they rushed and changed plans?? Did a conversation take place that night where Jason might have broke the news he couldn't take anymore and didn't want the kids to be near her while she was this erratic. They had seen this before. They were after all her enablers. Did they try calm her down and thinking they succeeded, went to bed. Was she furious Jason called them and waited for him to sleep before she attacked him in rage. We have Keith maginn telling us when she was unstable she satayed up all night and was furious with him if they had an arguement and he went to sleep.If we listen to the 911 call she is the only person in the room that sounds like she is coming down off something exhaustion perhaps from her all day manic episode and rage killing.
And as for the drug in Jason's system mentioned in other comments as being a poor man's viagra. Mm was desperate for kids that's very obvious. What lengths was she going to to have one ?? Maybe Jason was taking this drug without ever knowing he was being spiked. Maybe that was the only way she could try to gain his interest. All just my thoughts.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[searchinGirl]

Seems like he said that when he was with her he did not know what to believe, he is not just saying this now, it is documented in an account that was written years ago. He also seems to say that what she said at the custody hearing does not make sense to him as he lived with her weeks before she left for Ireland, not month or years, it was weeks. If he had only just written this now, well then I would say it would be a problem but it was published over five years ago. Are MM actions deeming it an unfair trial? Would her denial of all this deem it an unfair trial? Only those who have the full picture can determine this. I want her to have a fair trial also, a trial which consists of all the evidence and not just the evidence that is of her or her lawyers choosing. The trial might be moved to another area but the evidence will remain the same.

I think the prosecution is more in charge of the evidence that gets presented ... They lay out their theory of the crime and the defense has to dispute it or create reasonable doubt about it...but the prosecution can't introduce evidence that doesn't fit into their theory of the crime ... Or evidence that doesn't help them prove their case... for example, the Sheriffs office sought evidence per search warrants that would prove 1st degree murder...but they are prosecuting Molly for 2nd degree murder...in my mind that means that the prosecution won't be submitting evidence of premeditation and deliberation because they won't be allowed to as that's not what they are trying to prove...

 

[Truthalways]

And maybe he took the trazodone so he and Molly could have "enhanced sex" but she changed her mind and he got angry and pushed her and she retaliated with intense overkill...did it ever occur to you that the jury might look at the autopsy report and want to know what he did to get beaten like that?

In my opinion only I very much doubt Jason or mm were looking for enhanced sex with her parents in a room downstairs. Another scenario may have been that She may have had to give Jason the drug in an attempt to gain his interest in being intimate with her. Wasn't it only the days previous she had fat shamed him in public in front of witnesses, which apparently wasn't the first time. I personally would tend to believe that this man having been insulted by her would perhaps be repulsed by her behaviour as I'm sure were the many witnesses to her verbal insults.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Logic-lady]

Sorry, only catching up on the latest comments now and I have a few observations...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it is very obvious that what happened to Jason was done in the heat of rage - the post mortem results indicate a man who was beaten over and over and over. The prosecution are claiming Murder 2 for this reason, this was not a calm, carefully planned and executed crime. However, this would not preclude the prosecution from proving that Molly as a person has a history of mental illness that made her prone to fits of rage, that her parents have a history of enabling her and covering for her. This IMO would be integral to any prosecution argument, as while they are not claiming conscious premeditation, it shows a pattern of character that would fit with the rage and overkill displayed on the night and therefore proves their Murder 2 charge. I don't see how the defense could get this evidence thrown out?

As regards the marital rape, I am sure that the defense will use any tactic they can to prove that Jason took the Trazadone of his own free will...however, I am fairly certain that we read here previously that Molly was clothed at the time of the attack as the police took both her clothes and TM clothes for forensic examination. I will try to find the link and attach. IMO it is more of interest that the drug can be used as a sedative, given that Jason was unable to inflict any wounds on the aggressors, even defensive ones.

IMO the very possible problem of jury tainting in this case comes from Molly's own lawyers. They have continuously and systematically given media interview after media interview, stating that Jason was a 'brutal' 'wife-beating' man who deserved the beating he received last night. This is all on local and national news outlets in the US. I don't see any of the Irish stories being picked up by the mainstream or even local news outlets as of yet. The only local interest seems to be when there are court appearances. It is always possible that the Corbett's would be quite happy for a venue change, as in my opinion, the evidence is certainly starting to stack against Molly and if she has a 'fair trial' in a neutral venue there is less chance of her being given leave for appeal.

As for Keith Maginn, I would doubt that the prosecution would call him as a witness, as an ex-boyfriend/fiance he would be too easy to discredit by the defense. It would always be his word against the Martens. However, I do believe that his statements will be of significant interest to the prosecution as they build their case. (As a sidenote, if it can be proved that Molly lied under oath during the custody hearing, there would surely be a case for filing perjury charges against her?) Additionally, if they can subpeona medical records based on his probable cause they would have a true insight into how deeply Molly was affected by depression and/bipolar. Also, we have no idea what other insights of her character/past he was able to provide detectives, save what he choose to publish in his book/state during the Daily Mail interview. Perhaps he was able to point them in direction of further ex boyfriends etc?

Finally, it would appear from what we know of Molly that she lives much of her life online (possibly due to the insomnia?) - the yahoo forums, internet dating websites, she found the nannying position with Jason online...perhaps this is something we could sleuth on some more?

Sorry for the multiple topics...I obviously missed a lot last night!

 

[emmalpage81]

IMO I doubt that the trazodone was ingested for sexual reasons. I believe that JC was leaving MM. I believe that she found this out and called her parents to talk him out of it. I think that once she realised that she wasn't going to be able to talk him out of his decision MM saw to it that the drug was ingested. I am not entirely convinced that she did it with the plan to kill him. I think she may have intended to take the children that night - hence her collecting them from a friends house at 11pm - that JC woke up but was quite disorientated. He may have made it clear the she would not be taking his children anywhere and then she attacked him. I think the fact that there were no blows to either MM or TM is consistent with someone who was unable to fight back. It is our basic nature to fight to survive I feel if the trazodone in his system made him incapable of doing this. I know others with disagree!

I also find it worrying that when giving evidence at the custody case MM stated that she felt she was misdiagnosed with bipolar. Not that a certified medical physician was of this view, just that she felt the diagnosis was wrong. I did a little bit of googling on teen onset bipolar and noted that one of the symptoms is paranoid rage http://teens.webmd.com/bipolar-disorder-and-teens. The autopsy report clearly shows that there was a lot of rage involved in this crime.

Slightly off topic could anyone give insight into the protection of HIPAA in a criminal case? I would assume that once she was charged the prosecution could request copies of his medical records - especially considering that ME has stated that JC did not hold a prescription for trazodone, a drug commonly prescribed to bipolar sufferers to assist with sleeping.

 

[Logic-lady]

IMO I doubt that the trazodone was ingested for sexual reasons. I believe that JC was leaving MM. I believe that she found this out and called her parents to talk him out of it. I think that once she realised that she wasn't going to be able to talk him out of his decision MM saw to it that the drug was ingested. I am not entirely convinced that she did it with the plan to kill him. I think she may have intended to take the children that night - hence her collecting them from a friends house at 11pm - that JC woke up but was quite disorientated. He may have made it clear the she would not be taking his children anywhere and then she attacked him. I think the fact that there were no blows to either MM or TM is consistent with someone who was unable to fight back. It is our basic nature to fight to survive I feel if the trazodone in his system made him incapable of doing this. I know others with disagree!

I also find it worrying that when giving evidence at the custody case MM stated that she felt she was misdiagnosed with bipolar. Not that a certified medical physician was of this view, just that she felt the diagnosis was wrong. I did a little bit of googling on teen onset bipolar and noted that one of the symptoms is paranoid rage http://teens.webmd.com/bipolar-disorder-and-teens. The autopsy report clearly shows that there was a lot of rage involved in this crime.

Slightly off topic could anyone give insight into the protection of HIPAA in a criminal case? I would assume that once she was charged the prosecution could request copies of his medical records - especially considering that ME has stated that JC did not hold a prescription for trazodone, a drug commonly prescribed to bipolar sufferers to assist with sleeping.

Great post!

The article about bipolar is eye opening...I think Molly fits the brief for many of the characteristics -

• With bipolar I, the teenager alternates between extreme states of depression and intense mania. With the mania, the teen might be abnormally happy, energetic, and very talkative, with no need for sleep for days. He or she might also have hallucinations, psychosis, grandiose delusions, and/or paranoid rage, all of which might require hospitalization and medications. Once bipolar I begins, it typically persists throughout the person's life.
• With bipolar II, the teen has depression but a lesser form of elation called "hypomania." While someone with either mania or hypomania may have grandiose mood and reduced need for sleep, hypomania is a period of incredible energy, charm, and productivity. It's often associated with high achievers.

I also wonder at the point that bipolar in particular is genetic...could this be why Sharon is so conspicuously absent from proceedings? Could she herself be experiencing a depressive phase? This could also be why she is so determined to protect Molly, if she feels a level of guilt and understanding for her condition. Obviously my own opinion!

 

[emmalpage81]

Great post!

The article about bipolar is eye opening...I think Molly fits the brief for many of the characteristics -

• With bipolar I, the teenager alternates between extreme states of depression and intense mania. With the mania, the teen might be abnormally happy, energetic, and very talkative, with no need for sleep for days. He or she might also have hallucinations, psychosis, grandiose delusions, and/or paranoid rage, all of which might require hospitalization and medications. Once bipolar I begins, it typically persists throughout the person's life.
• With bipolar II, the teen has depression but a lesser form of elation called "hypomania." While someone with either mania or hypomania may have grandiose mood and reduced need for sleep, hypomania is a period of incredible energy, charm, and productivity. It's often associated with high achievers.

I also wonder at the point that bipolar in particular is genetic...could this be why Sharon is so conspicuously absent from proceedings? Could she herself be experiencing a depressive phase? This could also be why she is so determined to protect Molly, if she feels a level of guilt and understanding for her condition. Obviously my own opinion!

Absolutely as well as:

- reckless behavior, like excessive spending, making rash decisions, and erratic driving;
- excessive irritability, aggressive behavior, and impatience; and
- inflated sense of self-importance (all listed on page 2 of the article).

I also remember reading an article before by a bipolar sufferer which dealt with the issue of lying. I will try to find the link again (linked below). If i recall correctly she said although not an 'official' symptom of the disorder it was something that she felt was linked.

http://www.bipolar-lives.com/bipolar-and-lying.html

All comments are my own opinion unless stated otherwise.

 

[Logic-lady]

Slightly off topic could anyone give insight into the protection of HIPAA in a criminal case? I would assume that once she was charged the prosecution could request copies of his medical records - especially considering that ME has stated that JC did not hold a prescription for trazodone, a drug commonly prescribed to bipolar sufferers to assist with sleeping.

I found the following information which would imply that her medical records will be available to the courts... https://www.aclu.org/faq-government-access-medical-records

Q: Can the police get my medical information without a warrant?

A: Yes. The HIPAA rules provide a wide variety of circumstances under which medical information can be disclosed for law enforcement-related purposes without explicitly requiring a warrant.[iii] These circumstances include (1) law enforcement requests for information to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, witness, or missing person (2) instances where there has been a crime committed on the premises of the covered entity, and (3) in a medical emergency in connection with a crime.[iv]
In other words, law enforcement is entitled to your records simply by asserting that you are a suspect or the victim of a crime.

 

[stmarysmead]

I think the prosecution is more in charge of the evidence that gets presented ... They lay out their theory of the crime and the defense has to dispute it or create reasonable doubt about it...but the prosecution can't introduce evidence that doesn't fit into their theory of the crime ... Or evidence that doesn't help them prove their case... for example, the Sheriffs office sought evidence per search warrants that would prove 1st degree murder...but they are prosecuting Molly for 2nd degree murder...in my mind that means that the prosecution won't be submitting evidence of premeditation and deliberation because they won't be allowed to as that's not what they are trying to prove...

I see this differently. It's an advantage to the Prosecution, not handcuffs. They will lay out all the evidence, but in essence tell the jury, we are not going to try to burden you with whether there was premeditation....we are making it easy for you. They even gave them a lesser charge. Much easier to get them convicted and sent away.

 

[stmarysmead]

I found the following information which would imply that her medical records will be available to the courts... https://www.aclu.org/faq-government-access-medical-records

Q: Can the police get my medical information without a warrant?

A: Yes. The HIPAA rules provide a wide variety of circumstances under which medical information can be disclosed for law enforcement-related purposes without explicitly requiring a warrant.[iii] These circumstances include (1) law enforcement requests for information to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, witness, or missing person (2) instances where there has been a crime committed on the premises of the covered entity, and (3) in a medical emergency in connection with a crime.[iv]
In other words, law enforcement is entitled to your records simply by asserting that you are a suspect or the victim of a crime.

This is my opinion from other cases. The argument over trazodone "opens the door." She has claimed through her attorney that she has not taken medication in years. Her attorney has also stated that the combination of that drug and alcohol sent JC into a rage, resulting in a justifiable homicide. Therefore, the Defense is introducing the medication as Jason's.

At that point, the Prosecution gets to enter her medical records, I believe, for proof that her psychiatric illness made it more like
to be hers.

Let me add, her medical records may come in many other ways. But, I'm thinking this is one way.

 

[Logic-lady]

This is my opinion from other cases. The argument over trazodone "opens the door." She has claimed through her attorney that she has not taken medication in years. Her attorney has also stated that the combination of that drug and alcohol sent JC into a rage, resulting in a justifiable homicide. Therefore, the Defense is introducing the medication as Jason's.

At that point, the Prosecution gets to enter her medical records, I believe, for proof that her psychiatric illness made it more like
to be hers.

Let me add, her medical records may come in many other ways. But, I'm thinking this is one way.

Very well put!

 

[stmarysmead]

It was actually one of mm supporters Hotchips that left an abusive comment she has since deleted it. It did stand out to everyone that it was possible that it was the hand work off mm in there as it was a personal attack and it has already been noted this lady was never heavily involved with either Jason or mm before the crime. It does however give a sense of the people she surrounds herself with.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

The comment was so intimate that the details were obviously only from MM. Unfortunately, MM's surrogate only re-enforced the image of MM as someone with no filter or boundary in her use of vicious ridicule. It brought to mind the references to her fat-shaming Jason in front of other people. Hardly the model of the meek abused wife. I wonder if screenshots of the comment will surface in some fashion at trial?

 

[emmalpage81]

This is my opinion from other cases. The argument over trazodone "opens the door." She has claimed through her attorney that she has not taken medication in years. Her attorney has also stated that the combination of that drug and alcohol sent JC into a rage, resulting in a justifiable homicide. Therefore, the Defense is introducing the medication as Jason's.

At that point, the Prosecution gets to enter her medical records, I believe, for proof that her psychiatric illness made it more like
to be hers.

Let me add, her medical records may come in many other ways. But, I'm thinking this is one way.

Very well put!

I agree. Clearly there was some prescription medication in the house and in JC's system. Her uncle has stated it wasn't prescribed to JC which will make people assume it was prescribed to MM. I am going to assume that MM will not be taking the stand in her own defence. She is her biggest liability. So how do the defence play it; he mixed alcohol with trazadone and hulked out viciously attacking MM - but doesn't manage to leave a single mark. The evidence doesn't fit this argument.

IMO their defence opens the door to discussion on Trazadone and thereafter both her and JC's medical records become relevant. One to confirm it was not prescribed to JC and MM's to ascertain if she is the reason it was in the home. Do they really want this? I know that the statement that she made about not being prescribed any drugs for her bipolar / depression in 8 years was in separate proceedings but it could come back to bite her.

All my own opinions unless stated to the contrary.