I think much of what has been reported in the media so far isn't a fair and accurate portrayal of what transpired in the Corbett household, be it in Ireland or North Carolina. I'm hoping the trial brings some of the truth to light.
It's my understanding that the interviews conducted at Dragonfly were on behalf of the children themselves as victims of DV in protection of their rights. They contain information not just helpful to Molly's defense, but potentially exculpatory. That's a big deal in terms of the right to a fair trial. Precautions were taken to ensure that the truth was being told by the same detective who then declared the children were coached when he didn't hear what he wanted to hear. Easy to say they were coached but then not act on it. A detective trying to make a case instead of investigating a crime. A detective whose colleague was abusing system privileges to embezzle money (previously linked). It's tainted. IMO It's extremely disappointing that law enforcement would further victimize anyone.
Preparing a child for testimonial interviews is not the same as coaching them about what to say. I hope these children eventually get over the idea that their life in NC was all about murder. I mean, Molly stepped forward to be their Mother when no one else did. (Not that anyone else wouldn't, just didn't). And, she was obviously loved by Jack and Sarah, so to convince them now that wasn't real is not morally right and not credible IMO. I don't think the Jury will buy it. It appears Molly devoted her life to giving those children a happy, healthy family life in North Carolina until the domestic violence crept in. IMO She assumed a rather pitiful thankless role in life. Molly had no power over Jason as in money or children, so it's hard to see her as the primary abuser when she had nothing to hold over his head with which to emotionally extort him (except maybe sex). But, all Jason needed to do to win the fight was intimidate her with his size. Not such a fair fight really. IMO. I see her as more vulnerable than he was. And it surprises me that people that love him want to paint him as the only victim of domestic violence in this situation, as if any man would really appreciate being portrayed to his children and the world by his own family. Sorry if anyone is offended by what I'm saying but I don't think anyone has a right to not be offended.
Trial By Social Media wherein justice is weighed by click-bait is fake news. IMO... It has no evidentiary value and I'm doubtful it will be introduced at the trial. It's so hard to know what to believe in the news anymore. Everyone seems to have their own agenda and wants you to believe what they say rather than letting you decide for yourself. I mean, constantly trying to convince you of something being true instead of telling you something because it's the truth and backing it up with facts. It's never ending. Fake news goes on forever. And it will surely be here to read when Jack and Sarah grow up. It's a shame. IMO
I think all of us, despite our differing opinions, have over the last few weeks made a concerted effort not to return this thread to opinion filled posts based on conjecture. Whenever we find something new or are re-covering past items which have struck a chord with us we have referenced where possible a MSM article, or a reference article to get across our point.
It is clear from reading past posts, and recent posts that you are now obviously privy to 'inside information' from Molly's side (which is fair enough, as I said we have managed to maintain a respectful debate here in the most part despite our differences). None of us know what those interviews actually contain. We are all trying to read through supposition and misreporting to better understand the contents. So facts of statement about them containing exculpatory evidence is impossible, it is not an evidentiary statement. Again, how do we know what precautions were taken? Why are we assuming that law enforcement didn't do their job correctly - I would imagine that when investigating an FBI agent the local force would go out of their way to dot their i's and cross their t's incase TM pulled in a favour and had their work checked over.
Again my understanding is that when the detectives realised the children were being coached, that is when they went to the judge with their concerns and the children were removed from Molly. I would agree that a trained officer would know the difference between preparing a child for testimonial interview and coaching them.
As for your point about the family's portrayal of Jason, I think it is very simple, you have presented the exact reason
why the family are being so open with this message. If Jason had not been embarrassed/shamed/and guilted into staying with Molly despite everything that was going on in the home, he would still be alive. If Jason had felt he could walk away and leave without everything blowing up, the kids would still have their Dad. You have just proven the point, Jason was surrounded by so much stigma, by society telling him that his size was enough to keep his wife in line, that his 'meek' wife could never be a threat to him, that a 'real man' would be able to deal with this, how could he leave? If you had lost someone you loved in similar circumstances, I am sure you would do all you could to change how society views male-DV, to try to prevent someone else going through what you are having to now.
Jack & Sarah know what went on in that house, they know the truth. It is a fact that children from a home where DV occurs are far more likely to make poor partner choices in later life. If they were my charges, there is no doubt I would be telling them (over and over again) that what happened to their father is not right, it is not normal. To show them that there is no shame in asking for help, in understanding the warning signs and walking away.
Again any and all information you can provide to back up your theories will be looked at respectfully and with interest.
All IMO.
