GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #4

[Logic-lady]

So I have been thinking about the night in question. If TM was sleeping and awoke to a disturbance upstairs (which from memory he described as a thump I think), how did he instinctively know it was Molly and Jason arguing? It would make more sense to assume it was a burglary would it not? Hence grabbing a bat to protect your family makes sense, however, not waking your wife to dial 911 does not.

To automatically assume that Jason & Molly were in a physical altercation (we have to assume this since Molly would not have been speaking as she was being 'choked') means that surely there would have been some indication of this tension earlier in the evening? If your daughter had phoned you suddenly to change plans because of problems at home, and you arrived to find an atmosphere so tense that you sensed you needed a bat to intervene, why would you have gone to bed in the first place? Why would your daughter have chosen to sleep in the same room as someone who was that aggressive when there was a spare bedroom available? Why was your wife not aware of this tension that even when you left the room carrying a bat she didn't wake up? There are alot of unanswered questions in terms of how that night unfolded. IMO

 

[stephanddoody]

So so how did she get the chance to strike him ? Mike Earnest said

He told Newstalk’s Breakfast show: “There are no finer people you would care to meet.
“The actions of self-defence that Tom and Molly took the morning of August 2 were completely necessary and justified. While the family is extremely disappointed in the grand jury’s action, we have complete faith in the justice system.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/...-charges-of-killing-jason-corbett-714139.html

 

[stmarysmead]

I think Molly's defense is going to be more like she was being choked to death and couldn't breath. IMO

Under the law, she could stop him. She could save herself. BUT...that horrific autopsy does not support the scenario of a woman, half-choked, simply saving herself.

Have you thought about what beating a man to death entails? I mean, it's not like shooting a gun a few times and then you see the result. I hope the prosecutor will have the jury read the autopsy and consider how many times that bat and that brick had to come down into Jason's brain and flesh. I hope he will remind them that a murderer who beats her victim to death, watches the result of every blow. Watches her victims pain. Each time the bat came down, Molly saw Jason's pain. That's just the reality of a beating death.

And what did she do? She ran out and got a brick...and watched him suffer some more.

Think about that. The bat beating wasn't enough. What she saw of his agony wasn't enough.

This is the story the jury must hear.

 

[Logic-lady]

So if we are running on the basis that Molly had looked into divorcing Jason but wanted to retain custody of the children, one avenue open to her in achieving this would have been to request spousal support from Jason on the basis that the 'life that she was accustomed to' warranted her remaining at home with the children (rather than forcing her to get a different job in order to support herself) http://www.samslegal.com/financial-issues.html

The fly in this ointment however would be the rekindled romance. If Jason could show that she had had an 'illicit affair' prior to their separation then Molly would fall foul of the 'marital fault' clause in NC law and Jason would not have to pay her anything.

 

[Logic-lady]

Truthalways, I hope you won't leave. You have done some excellent sleuthing and frankly, all hands are needed on deck.

We need to realize that their are two "fronts" in this quest for justice. One, as Logic lady correctly points out, is fact-finding to rebut the Defense case. But any follower of American court cases will see that the prosecution needs to be prepared with an "emotional" response to MM's emotional pose as the victim-lamb. Juries these days seem to let emotion trump the law. "Well, they killed him, but he deserved it. Not guilty." I believe that this is exactly where the defense is headed.

They have painted Jason in the area press as a man who may have murdered his first wife. He then marries this sweet little American girl, abuses her, frightens his children, runs over her foot with an automobile, and tries to choke poor Molly to death. Only an intervention by honorable FBI Dad saved her life. Then the children she loved were stripped from her and she has been suffering (just read her FB page) ever since.

That's the Defense in a nutshell. They admit the defendants killed Jason. Their arguments are all EMOTIONAL. I pray the prosecution will eloquently knock down every word of this fantasy.

This case needs to be fought with facts.But the fake narrative of "suffering Molly" needs to be aggressively attacked as well. Too many Prosecutors do not put enough effort into fighting these emotional fairy tales. Then they are astounded when their fact filled slam dunk cases are rejected by the jury.

Molly is emotionally competing to be the victim. She's trying to make us forget Jason. We need facts. But an emotional counter attack is also necessary.

I agree with you to a point stmarysmead. Molly is indeed emotionally competing to be the victim (very well put), she is preying on her supporters kindness, faith, and preordained perceptions of DV in order to win her case. My only assertion would be that an emotional counter attack plays right into her hands. An aggressive, emotional attack only strengthens her case. She is a master manipulator, she has been doing it for years, and now all she is having to do is plant a few simple seeds and then letting everybody else do the dirty work for her.

The facts speak for themselves, the dignity of the Lynches speaks volumes, IMO once the world starts to hear the details of this case, having believed for so long the single side of the story they have been fed by local media, the crashing realization that they were so wrong on so many levels will be far more beneficial for the prosecution. All MOO and said with respect.

 

[Hotchips]

I think what will be of particular interest in the lead up to the events that occurred is who phoned the martens and why they were called that they felt the need to travel to NC. Phone records will reveal this at trial. So far there has been scant information on this point in that all we have heard is that the martens came unplanned that weekend. It was one of four people who called or texted them....Molly concerned about Jason's behaviour, Jason concerned about mollys behaviour or else one of the children made the call. Things appear to have spiralled from this point on that day imo so the phone contact of the martens is of great importance imo

 

[emmalpage81]

just a quick thing, just looking back on the Jodi Arias trial. Another young, pretty woman who killed a man much bigger and powerful than she and who also claimed self defence. During a telephone call with an interviewing officer (not sure what date it is on but can be listed to in this portion of the trial at the 31 minute mark - [video=youtube;z3lUuagWhAc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3lUuagWhAc[/video]) Jodi makes mention of it must have been two people that killed Travis; because he worked out, he was strong and healthy and that there was no way that one person could overpower him. The officer remarked at him being a 'pretty good sized guy' but then said something i found interesting he said 'i have tried with other officers, working and stuff, to take down a woman of 135lbs who was out of control and it is difficult to control someone like that'.

If MM lost control that night, as I believe she did, I do not think that JC stood a chance.

All IMO

 

[emmalpage81]

I think what will be of particular interest in the lead up to the events that occurred is who phoned the martens and why they were called that they felt the need to travel to NC. Phone records will reveal this at trial. So far there has been scant information on this point in that all we have heard is that the martens came unplanned that weekend. It was one of four people who called or texted them....Molly concerned about Jason's behaviour, Jason concerned about mollys behaviour or else one of the children made the call. Things appear to have spiralled from this point on that day imo so the phone contact of the martens is of great importance imo

Agreed. If we knew who made the phone call it might shed some light. I think it will be of great importance at trial. We know the Martens had only been visiting the previous week when JC's brother was in town. They had their own plans that weekend. What made them come to NC. If it was MM who called as she was scared, why would they not have called RM who lived closer and would be able to get there long before they could (Tennessee to North Carolina would be a very long drive according to google); why did they not take her to RM's house if JC was angry and they 'believed' that JC was a violent monster who killed his first wife?, if they were THAT scared why did they not call the police who could be there in minutes as opposed to hours?

The phone call and was precipitated it will be very important IMO

All IMO

 

[stmarysmead]

Agreed. If we knew who made the phone call it might shed some light. I think it will be of great importance at trial. We know the Martens had only been visiting the previous week when JC's brother was in town. They had their own plans that weekend. What made them come to NC. If it was MM who called as she was scared, why would they not have called RM who lived closer and would be able to get there long before they could (Tennessee to North Carolina would be a very long drive according to google); why did they not take her to RM's house if JC was angry and they 'believed' that JC was a violent monster who killed his first wife?, if they were THAT scared why did they not call the police who could be there in minutes as opposed to hours?

The phone call and was precipitated it will be very important IMO

All IMO

There's one problem here: we will probably only have the Martens word for who made the call. Was there a landline phone in the house? Could have been anyone on a landline.

Even if it came from Jason's cell...MM could claim she saw it on a counter and used it.

A better tactic would be to ask the jury...of your daughter was living 4 hours away...with a man that you believed murdered his first wife...and he was abusing her regularly ....what advice would you give your daughter if she called saying he was out-of-control?

I certainly wouldn't say...just stay there with him while it takes us 4 hours to drive down.

I'd say...tell him you are taking the kids to the grocery store..or dropping them at friends ( which WAS done) and all of you drive here to us...or to a hotel.

Would you tell your daughter and the children to stay with someone you expected of spousal murder while you ambled on down the Interstate?

 

[stmarysmead]

I agree with you to a point stmarysmead. Molly is indeed emotionally competing to be the victim (very well put), she is preying on her supporters kindness, faith, and preordained perceptions of DV in order to win her case. My only assertion would be that an emotional counter attack plays right into her hands. An aggressive, emotional attack only strengthens her case. She is a master manipulator, she has been doing it for years, and now all she is having to do is plant a few simple seeds and then letting everybody else do the dirty work for her.

The facts speak for themselves, the dignity of the Lynches speaks volumes, IMO once the world starts to hear the details of this case, having believed for so long the single side of the story they have been fed by local media, the crashing realization that they were so wrong on so many levels will be far more beneficial for the prosecution. All MOO and said with respect.

We will have to respectfully disagree. Allowing her to own the Victim mantle in court...must be challenged. And challenged by creating an emotional connection to Jason...and by emphasizing her capability to not only inflict....but observe and enjoy...his s.ow and horrific beating death.

A beating death...is not...a few gunshots and then..."Oh what have I done!" Not when you have to watch every blow land, watch every bit of agony...and then run to grab a paving stone to inflict even more horror. This us not a 300 lb Sumo wrestler landing these blows: it's a slight woman and an old man. Think how many times they must have struck him to have his brain matter stuck to the walls.

 

[emmalpage81]

There's one problem here: we will probably only have the Martens word for who made the call. Was there a landline phone in the house? Could have been anyone on a landline.

Even if it came from Jason's cell...MM could claim she saw it on a counter and used it.

A better tactic would be to ask the jury...of your daughter was living 4 hours away...with a man that you believed murdered his first wife...and he was abusing her regularly ....what advice would you give your daughter if she called saying he was out-of-control?

I certainly wouldn't say...just stay there with him while it takes us 4 hours to drive down.

I'd say...tell him you are taking the kids to the grocery store..or dropping them at friends ( which WAS done) and all of you drive here to us...or to a hotel.

Would you tell your daughter and the children to stay with someone you expected of spousal murder while you ambled on down the Interstate?

Very good point. I would think the timing of the call would be of import though. We know that MM and JC were part of a small gathering during the course of the afternoon / early evening. We know that the Martens had evening plans which they cancelled (which was very unlike them). So what time did this telephone call happen? It must have happened early enough for them to cancel their evening plans or they would have already been out and, if that were the case, then the testimony of those they were with would be interesting.

The actions they took make it clear to me that they did not feel that MM was in any danger that evening. As you say, why would you make the 4+ hour drive without knowing your child was safe. Your son could have been there in less than 2 hours, the police could have been there in minutes. Heck call one of her friends to call around unannounced! All of these things could have been done, but weren't.

Further, if you believed that JC was angry and could be violent, you would not go and collect the children from a sleepover and bring them home. That sounds more like someone being told the relationship was over and wanting to keep the children close to her.

All IMO

 

[emmalpage81]

We will have to respectfully disagree. Allowing her to own the Victim mantle in court...must be challenged. And challenged by creating an emotional connection to Jason...and by emphasizing her capability to not only inflict....but observe and enjoy...his s.ow and horrific beating death.

A beating death...is not...a few gunshots and then..."Oh what have I done!" Not when you have to watch every blow land, watch every bit of agony...and then run to grab a paving stone to inflict even more horror. This us not a 300 lb Sumo wrestler landing these blows: it's a slight woman and an old man. Think how many times they must have struck him to have his brain matter stuck to the walls.

I think the testimony of the medical examiner is going to be very relevant in the trial. Given the injuries that we know of, i am sure it is going to be a harrowing thing for JC's family to hear.

I wonder if time of death is going to play a part in this trial. I know the ME report mentions it but that was more when they pronounced death, rather than when death actually occurred. I just had a look of the autopsy which makes no mention of time of death. Is this normal?

All IMO

 

[Electric Sheep]

The excuse bring made for MM seems to be that she was "saving her own life." "She had no their choice."

Let's look at that emotional argument that will no doubt be pushed on the jury.

It's true...some DV victims, real ones, have no choice. They have no support system, no resources. They are ignornant of the help that exists for them in the community where they live. They are ignorant of their rights under the law.

Does MM fit into these categories?

MM had an AMAZING support system. She had parents of comfortable means who would drop everything to run to her assistance. Her parents had two homes that might have sheltered her. They could afford to hire her the best lawyers. They could have provided a home for her OUT-of-STATE...where a legal fight could keep the children with her...and away from Jason...until it was decided. (and we all know how slowly our courts move.)

MM had finanial resources. Jason provided her with a credit card that apparently no FEAR of him kept her from lavishly spending on herself. Strange for the fearful victim, no?

MM was a volunteer in DV circles. She knew all the right people to help her. She knew all the options available in her community. She knew that safe houses exist.

And finally, MM consulted a lawyer on exactly her rights to the children. She would know if she was abused, she could be given custodial rights of those children! She had a friend whose practice specialized in DV cases. She had a father who was an FBI agent.

There never was a woman claiming to be a DV victim who had more options available to her than murder...than Molly Martens!

So even for those who buy her fantasies...there can be no excuses for a intelligent woman with every other option in the world...not taking those options.

Unless murder offered the one thing she could not get with her options.

She could get the children.

But not the lifestyle.

It will be interesting to see if at the trial the prosecution takes the position that Jason was the victim of ongoing domestic abuse. If he does, the jury will wonder exactly the same things that you mention above, but about Jason. They will ask "why didn't he leave"?

He held the financial power - he was the one with the job and the money in the bank.
He held the physical power - he was much stronger and larger than Molly.
He held the ultimate power - the kids were his, he could leave with them at any time and return to Ireland.
He had the power of family support, family who would be willing to do whatever was needed to help the kids settle back.

We know that Jason's family claim that he WAS going to leave, and we know that the most danger to the victim of domestic abuse is when they try to leave. But I don't think that a jury will be swayed by hearsay evidence of this from Jason's family. So if the prosecution takes this tack, they will almost certainly have evidence that Jason was planning to leave. One way plane tickets, emails to family, arrangements made at his employment for a transfer back to Ireland, consultation with a divorce lawyer. With that, they have a very compelling case against Molly as far as motive is concerned. Without that, the jury may say exactly what you are saying about Molly, but about Jason.

 

[Logic-lady]

just a quick thing, just looking back on the Jodi Arias trial. Another young, pretty woman who killed a man much bigger and powerful than she and who also claimed self defence. During a telephone call with an interviewing officer (not sure what date it is on but can be listed to in this portion of the trial at the 31 minute mark - [video=youtube;z3lUuagWhAc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3lUuagWhAc[/video]) Jodi makes mention of it must have been two people that killed Travis; because he worked out, he was strong and healthy and that there was no way that one person could overpower him. The officer remarked at him being a 'pretty good sized guy' but then said something i found interesting he said 'i have tried with other officers, working and stuff, to take down a woman of 135lbs who was out of control and it is difficult to control someone like that'.

If MM lost control that night, as I believe she did, I do not think that JC stood a chance.

All IMO

Molly is a member of this group on FB - http://www.highpointkarate.com/high-point-nc-fitness-kickboxing/index.php

(initially I had dismissed it as I had seen that Jack did martial arts and so presumed the group was something to do with him, but on closer inspection these are two distinct groups within the centre)

So it brings me to my point, at what point will Jason's size be mitigated by Molly's physical fitness in her capacity to defend herself - swimming, in particular using the backstroke, kickboxing - surely her upper body strength would be significant? It would definitely be significant enough to cause the catastrophic injuries to Jason's skull.

 

[Electric Sheep]

There's one problem here: we will probably only have the Martens word for who made the call. Was there a landline phone in the house? Could have been anyone on a landline.

Even if it came from Jason's cell...MM could claim she saw it on a counter and used it.

If the call was made from the landline, my gut feeling would be that one of the children made the call, as they probably did not have cell phones of their own. If not, then cell phone records will show who made the call and when.

As for whether it was received on a landline, I wonder if phone bills still list out of state calls. It's been a long time since I had a landline or a bill for one!

 

[Logic-lady]

I think what will be of particular interest in the lead up to the events that occurred is who phoned the martens and why they were called that they felt the need to travel to NC. Phone records will reveal this at trial. So far there has been scant information on this point in that all we have heard is that the martens came unplanned that weekend. It was one of four people who called or texted them....Molly concerned about Jason's behaviour, Jason concerned about mollys behaviour or else one of the children made the call. Things appear to have spiralled from this point on that day imo so the phone contact of the martens is of great importance imo

I wonder if this is how the detectives found out about the kids secret phone number for the grandparents.

 

[Hotchips]

Very good point. I would think the timing of the call would be of import though. We know that MM and JC were part of a small gathering during the course of the afternoon / early evening. We know that the Martens had evening plans which they cancelled (which was very unlike them). So what time did this telephone call happen? It must have happened early enough for them to cancel their evening plans or they would have already been out and, if that were the case, then the testimony of those they were with would be interesting.

The actions they took make it clear to me that they did not feel that MM was in any danger that evening. As you say, why would you make the 4+ hour drive without knowing your child was safe. Your son could have been there in less than 2 hours, the police could have been there in minutes. Heck call one of her friends to call around unannounced! All of these things could have been done, but weren't.

Further, if you believed that JC was angry and could be violent, you would not go and collect the children from a sleepover and bring them home. That sounds more like someone being told the relationship was over and wanting to keep the children close to her.

All IMO

Agreed, the when, why and who of the phone call will be extremely important. As mentioned above its very possible we will only have the martens word for who they spoke or recieved a message from, perhaps it was a text, we wont know until the trial. I forget what the source was that the Martens had plans that weekend in Tennessee but cancelled them, was this said by a friend of the Martens or info offered by the Martens themselves to the police? the circumstances surrounding their trip to NC that weekend will be of great interest. Did someone from the household actually call them or if not, they could say they took it upon themselves to travel claiming they had concerns about what was going on in the home or was the call made to the secret phone number the children were supposedly given. The business of the secret phone number was mentioned by the police, perhaps the children were asked about making phone calls and this is how this info came to light.

 

[Logic-lady]

Agreed, the when, why and who of the phone call will be extremely important. As mentioned above its very possible we will only have the martens word for who they spoke or recieved a message from, perhaps it was a text, we wont know until the trial. I forget what the source was that the Martens had plans that weekend in Tennessee but cancelled them, was this said by a friend of the Martens or info offered by the Martens themselves to the police? the circumstances surrounding their trip to NC that weekend will be of great interest. Did someone from the household actually call them or if not, they could say they took it upon themselves to travel claiming they had concerns about what was going on in the home or was the call made to the secret phone number the children were supposedly given. The business of the secret phone number was mentioned by the police, perhaps the children were asked about making phone calls and this is how this info came to light.

I think it was the basis for some of the warrants - that the Martens had cancelled plans at the last minute and travelled to NC which would be considered very unusual behaviour. I think it was when they were requested access to the Facebook conversations between Molly and Sharon Martens.

 

[emmalpage81]

Agreed, the when, why and who of the phone call will be extremely important. As mentioned above its very possible we will only have the martens word for who they spoke or recieved a message from, perhaps it was a text, we wont know until the trial. I forget what the source was that the Martens had plans that weekend in Tennessee but cancelled them, was this said by a friend of the Martens or info offered by the Martens themselves to the police? the circumstances surrounding their trip to NC that weekend will be of great interest. Did someone from the household actually call them or if not, they could say they took it upon themselves to travel claiming they had concerns about what was going on in the home or was the call made to the secret phone number the children were supposedly given. The business of the secret phone number was mentioned by the police, perhaps the children were asked about making phone calls and this is how this info came to light.

Other than what is said in the search warrants I have seen no further info in respect of what the plans were for the Saturday. Just that they changed plans and that 'according to information received this behavior would be considered unusual for Mr Martens'.

Just out of curiosity I had a look for the search warrant in respect of the phones; they looked for records of mobile phones only.

All IMO

 

[stmarysmead]

It will be interesting to see if at the trial the prosecution takes the position that Jason was the victim of ongoing domestic abuse. If he does, the jury will wonder exactly the same things that you mention above, but about Jason. They will ask "why didn't he leave"?

He held the financial power - he was the one with the job and the money in the bank.
He held the physical power - he was much stronger and larger than Molly.
He held the ultimate power - the kids were his, he could leave with them at any time and return to Ireland.
He had the power of family support, family who would be willing to do whatever was needed to help the kids settle back.

We know that Jason's family claim that he WAS going to leave, and we know that the most danger to the victim of domestic abuse is when they try to leave. But I don't think that a jury will be swayed by hearsay evidence of this from Jason's family. So if the prosecution takes this tack, they will almost certainly have evidence that Jason was planning to leave. One way plane tickets, emails to family, arrangements made at his employment for a transfer back to Ireland, consultation with a divorce lawyer. With that, they have a very compelling case against Molly as far as motive is concerned. Without that, the jury may say exactly what you are saying about Molly, but about Jason.

I disagree. These questions only apply because ONLY Molly is equating her situation in that home to a dangerous one.

Therefore there is one glaring difference: it is MM who is claiming frequent ongoing physical abuse. That is supposed to be her excuse for her state of mind. Those questions go to her ability and knowledge of the resources available to her. They go to all the ma y alternatives to murder if her story of abuse was true.

It is also MM's father who claimed his mental state was due in part to believing that Jason may have murdered his first wife. That means there should have been a real...urgency ...to Mollys actions if physical danger was lurking in that house to such an extent that her only option was to beat her husband to death. There is no evidence of urgency. The questions prove that.

The questions however do not apply to Jason because the Lynch family has indicated he was making careful, methodical plans to leave MM. He had visited Ireland without her....but with the children. He had moved a large sum of money. He was going home, with the children, but without her. He was emotionally exhausted as Keith Maginn was...but he never claimed he felt he was in physical danger.

He wasn't looking for domestic abuse shelters.

Though, sadly, he might be alive today if he had.