GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #7

[TDoc72]

And I will say this, Imo jason was feeling down because if he realised or knew his true worth or how much he meant to those who knew him, he would have ran as far away as he could from this family again classic sign of DV. But like many men, maybe put down, made to feel inadequate, belittled he stayed probably in the hopes things would get better, she will get better,

Because imo his nature never knew this kind of deceit nor hatred.

Just my opinions.

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

I agree. I also think his children had a lot to do with his staying. Most likely, he was worried about ripping a mother-like figure away from them.

 

[stephanddoody]

[video=twitter;892470355276820481]https://twitter.com/lexdispatchbc/status/892470355276820481[/video]

 

[stephanddoody]

[video=twitter;892471128735838208]https://twitter.com/lexdispatchbc/status/892471128735838208[/video]

[video=twitter;892471498073669632]https://twitter.com/lexdispatchbc/status/892471498073669632[/video]

[video=twitter;892471537516908544]https://twitter.com/lexdispatchbc/status/892471537516908544[/video]

 

[stephanddoody]

[video=twitter;892471791700123650]https://twitter.com/lexdispatchbc/status/892471791700123650[/video]

[video=twitter;892472268529561600]https://twitter.com/lexdispatchbc/status/892472268529561600[/video]

 

[stephanddoody]

[video=twitter;892472893044600832]https://twitter.com/lexdispatchbc/status/892472893044600832[/video]

 

[kittythehare]

[video=twitter;892471791700123650]https://twitter.com/lexdispatchbc/status/892471791700123650[/video]

[video=twitter;892472268529561600]https://twitter.com/lexdispatchbc/status/892472268529561600[/video]

thats mega, 2nd tweet re multiple times.. great news, they layered the reading. this is excellent
heres The IT explanation of why only first hand info was permitted from previous witness
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/cri...law-told-colleague-he-hated-corbett-1.3173963

 

[TDoc72]

[video=twitter;892471791700123650]https://twitter.com/lexdispatchbc/status/892471791700123650[/video]

[video=twitter;892472268529561600]https://twitter.com/lexdispatchbc/status/892472268529561600[/video]

Trial by tweet is hard, especially in this case. But the 2nd quote above is a doozy! I hope the blood spatter expert holds up on cross. Multiple hits with the paver!

 

[stmarysmead]

Does the spatter on his shorts mean that as Jason slid down to the floor he knelt to hit him again?

 

[SandyQLS]

[video=twitter;892472893044600832]https://twitter.com/lexdispatchbc/status/892472893044600832[/video]

For non-Twitterers: Ben Coley/LexDispatchBC reporting: "Analyst also noted transfer stains on Martens' shirt, and several impact spatters on his boxers"

 

[kittythehare]

Does the spatter on his shorts mean that as Jason slid down to the floor he knelt to hit him again?

not sure without a pattern analysis..

 

[SandyQLS]

[video=twitter;892463708022210560]https://twitter.com/tvtdaniel/status/892463708022210560[/video]

For non-Twitterers: Daniel Kennedy on tvdaniel: "Our first objection by the defense comes as bloodstain expert, Stuart James, goes through his PowerPoint presentation of evidence."

That is good news that he has a PowerPoint presentation. IMO jurors like those, find them easier to follow than just testimony.

 

[stephanddoody]

It’s actually overwhelming all the support we have had from the whole of Limerick, both tonight and from other fundraising efforts they have done. The whole of Limerick has been very supportive and we thank them very much as a family,” added Wayne who enjoyed a two-week holiday with his twin brother just days before his death.

just adding link to back up Wayne was there just days before Jason was murdered


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.iri...o-limerick-people-at-vigil-1.2321334?mode=amp

 

[kittythehare]

Technical question regarding trial procedures.
When prosecution returns following defence presentations, are they allowed to introduce any new evidence or witnesses at that time?
I expect not.. just wondering whether theres precedence?

 

[stephanddoody]

[video=twitter;892478076734631937]https://twitter.com/lexdispatchbc/status/892478076734631937[/video]

[video=twitter;892478234230697989]https://twitter.com/lexdispatchbc/status/892478234230697989[/video]

 

[Electric Sheep]

just adding link to back up Wayne was there just days before Jason was murdered


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.iri...o-limerick-people-at-vigil-1.2321334?mode=amp

The article says Wayne was in the US to visit Jason and Molly, but it makes no mention of Tom Martens and his wife.

It should be easy enough to prove one way or the other.

 

[kittythehare]

[video=twitter;892478076734631937]https://twitter.com/lexdispatchbc/status/892478076734631937[/video]

[video=twitter;892478234230697989]https://twitter.com/lexdispatchbc/status/892478234230697989[/video]

Does not prove who wielded the weapon or her exact location when wound was inflicted

 

[stephanddoody]

[video=twitter;892480711776665605]https://twitter.com/lexdispatchbc/status/892480711776665605[/video]

 

[stmarysmead]

Technical question regarding trial procedures.
When prosecution returns following defence presentations, are they allowed to introduce any new evidence or witnesses at that time?
I expect not.. just wondering whether theres precedence?

This is the prosecutions case in chief. The Defense gets to cross examine their witnesses. Next the Defense puts on their case. The Prosecution now tries to undermine their witnesses.
There is something called "opening the door." My uneducated understanding is if the Defense argues in their case something about Molly's wonderful previous relationships before Jason , it can "open the door" for the Prosecution to call Maginn in the rebuttal case. Perhaps an attorney can give a better explanation.

So they can bring in new witnesses to rebut any of the case in chief of the Defense and anything where the Defense "opened the door."

Remember I have never been to law school..Just saying.

 

[SandyQLS]

Technical question regarding trial procedures.
When prosecution returns following defence presentations, are they allowed to introduce any new evidence or witnesses at that time?
I expect not.. just wondering whether theres precedence?

The Prosecution presents their case. Then they say "The Prosecution rests."

Then the Defense presents their case. Then they say "The Defense rests."

The Prosecution is then given the opportunity to offer direct rebuttal of the Defense case. The Prosecution is not to attempt to enter entirely new evidence. However, states, jurisdictions and the judges themselves make interpretation of what that means.

For example, if TM takes the stand forthe Defense case and claims Mr Fitzpatrick told him anything at the wedding, then during the rebuttal the Prosecution can call the best man or enter a deposition from the widow Mrs Fitzpatrick testifying that Mr Fitzpatrick did not attend the wedding at all - a direct rebuttal of TM's (imaginary) testimony. So a witness or evidence might be "new" but it must be in the form of rebuttal because they already had their chance at presenting their case.

Then each side gives a closing argument to recap their case, and usually there is quite a bit of leeway given for what the lawyers can get away with saying, but again they should not be introducing more of their case. If important new, previously unknown facts are discovered during the trial, the lawyers would make motions and the judge would rule on admissibility, sometimes even declaring a mistrial and dimissing a jury. HTH

 

[kittythehare]

This is the prosecutions case in chief. The Defense gets to cross examine their witnesses. Next the Defense puts on their case. The Prosecution now tries to undermine their witnesses.
There is something called "opening the door." My uneducated understanding is if the Defense argues in their case something about Molly's wonderful previous relationships before Jason , it can "open the door" for the Prosecution to call Maginn in the rebuttal case. Perhaps an attorney can give a better explanation.

So they can bring in new witnesses to rebut any of the case in chief of the Defense and anything where the Defense "opened the door."

Remember I have never been to law school..Just saying.

Thank you.