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

[Be true]

[FONT=&amp]On Tuesday, the analyst said impact spatter was found on the bed, defense then asked him if he knew if the bed spread was moved
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]The analyst said he doesn't know if the bed spread was moved
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Defense asks analyst if he usually gets reports from EMTs to get a sense of the blood stains on the scene. He does, but not in this case
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Also, blood wasn't tested underneath the boxers or on the bottom of Molly's pajamas
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]The analyst said he identified those untested spotters by association with spatters that were tested
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]But he can't say with a scientific certainty that those untested areas were blood
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Analyst says yes, but he never saw Martens wearing the boxers
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]So basically, defense was asking questions about the analysts methods
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]And of course, the analyst knows that the vacuum was moved, but he doesn't know who moved it[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]


[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]https://twitter.com/LexDispatchBC[FONT=&amp]

[/FONT]

Sounds to me like defence is trying to prove there was EVEN LESS blood on the martens which is head scratching because it would only further support they changed as the scene was like an ABBATOIR !

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[jd08]

The defense spent considerable time trying to show where the analyst may not have followed the principles and methods set out in a book that he wrote.

 

[jd08]

A key point made by analyst on cross was the expirated blood on the wall. He said it could only have come if JC was facing the wall.

 

[stephanddoody]

Sounds to me like defence is trying to prove there was EVEN LESS blood on the martens which is head scratching because it would only further support they changed as the scene was like an ABBATOIR !

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

IMO if I was a juror Id feel like they were insulting my intelligence

 

[Logic-lady]

The defense spent considerable time trying to show where the analyst may not have followed the principles and methods set out in a book that he wrote.

Amazing to have your insight! I would imagine the jury would see through this as an attempt to once again show that trained, experienced people did not follow procedure 'correctly' rather than rebutting the actual evidence presented. I'm not sure they are doing enough to provide reasonable doubt IMO, but would be interested to hear if you agree?

 

[jd08]

Amazing to have your insight! I would imagine the jury would see through this as an attempt to once again show that trained, experienced people did not follow procedure 'correctly' rather than rebutting the actual evidence presented. I'm not sure they are doing enough to provide reasonable doubt IMO, but would be interested to hear if you agree?

My take, through the lens of a layperson and not a lawyer, is that no crime scene is perfect. This was a massive trauma site, EMTs were trying to save his life, there's evidence that they may have waited before calling 911, there's evidence that some things were moved or tampered. Things aren't going to flow in textbook fashion. I just heard a littke bit, the defense made some points but I'm not sure it was earth shattering.

 

[stephanddoody]

My take, through the lens of a layperson and not a lawyer, is that no crime scene is perfect. This was a massive trauma site, EMTs were trying to save his life, there's evidence that they may have waited before calling 911, there's evidence that some things were moved or tampered. Things aren't going to flow in textbook fashion. I just heard a littke bit, the defense made some points but I'm not sure it was earth shattering.

Thanks for your insight

 

[Estelle]

There are currently 65 users browsing this thread. (17 members and 48 guests)

 

[Logic-lady]

[video=twitter;893131332087422976]https://twitter.com/LexDispatchBC/status/893131332087422976[/video]

Given that his testimony pertained to blood spatter and transfer I'm not sure that the layout of the property is relevant?

Although it does still bug me that such a simple thing was overlooked!

 

[Estelle]

Ben Coley‏ @LexDispatchBC

And of course, the analyst knows that the vacuum was moved, but he doesn't know who moved it

Also, the analyst said he never visited the house, was only given a "not to scale" layout of the home

https://twitter.com/LexDispatchBC

 

[Tippy Lynn]

My take, through the lens of a layperson and not a lawyer, is that no crime scene is perfect. This was a massive trauma site, EMTs were trying to save his life, there's evidence that they may have waited before calling 911, there's evidence that some things were moved or tampered. Things aren't going to flow in textbook fashion. I just heard a littke bit, the defense made some points but I'm not sure it was earth shattering.

I agree. Up to this point there hasn't been anything earth shattering for the defense and IMO there won't be anything. Without being in the shoes of one of the jurors it's hard to say for sure, but from my perspective I don't see how the defense is going to achieve reasonable doubt. MOO

 

[jd08]

Based on some of the questions I do wonder if the defense will present their own blood spatter expert.

 

[stephanddoody]

[FONT=&amp]Defense asks if analyst was given complete and accurate information to compete his report
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Spatter analyst said he felt he was given sufficient data to draw his conclusions
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Spatter analyst is off the stand

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]https://twitter.com/LexDispatchBC

 

[Logic-lady]

Based on some of the questions I do wonder if the defense will present their own blood spatter expert.

That would certainly be interesting! But surely the main spatter etc would stay the same irrespective of the witness? The importance of the vacuum cleaner being moved only becomes relevant when its taken into account along with the coolness of JC's body, and the testimony from the first responder that they weren't performing CPR. If everything else at the scene fit, it wouldn't really matter if they had moved a vacuum cleaner or not, IMO of course.

 

[jd08]

That would certainly be interesting! But surely the main spatter etc would stay the same irrespective of the witness? The importance of the vacuum cleaner being moved only becomes relevant when its taken into account along with the coolness of JC's body, and the testimony from the first responder that they weren't performing CPR. If everything else at the scene fit, it wouldn't really matter if they had moved a vacuum cleaner or not, IMO of course.

From what i gathered there was really no challenge to the vacuum cleaner being placed upright. They were trying to insinuate that it was located in the area where JC fell and that anyone could have moved it, such as an EMT trying to get to him

 

[Estelle]

Who is the next witness?

Is it lunch time now?

If so, I am going to bed as I am in a different timezone.

 

[irishmartin]

Excellent find.

I was considering the concept of "duty to retreat" at law in NC because it varies greatly from state to state. This link is useful and gives a simple explanation:
https://www.robertslawteam.com/Crim...orth-Carolina-Can-You-Stand-Your-Ground.shtml

"...North Carolina Stand Your Ground law ( N.C.G.S. §14‑51.3)
[A] person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:
a) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.
b) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14‑51.2, generally that you are in your home, workplace or car and are in fear for yours or another's life [Castle Doctrine]

There are exceptions to the use of deadly force in self defense against the following people:

• Police officers or law enforcement
• Bailbondsmen
• A landlord or other person who also has a legal right to be in the place where you are

In addition, if the person has retreated or has stopped the threatening behavior, the use of deadly force may no longer be justified because the threat is no longer considered imminent. ...
...Self defense is an affirmative defense, meaning you admit that you attacked or caused harm to another person, but that you were justified in causing that harm to protect yourself or another. To succeed on a self defense claim,you must NOT:

• Have been the aggressor
• Have used unreasonable force
• Have continued to pursue the other person after he or she retreated
• Have had an intent to kill, but only to defend yourself or another ..."

IMO this testimony that they struck blows while JC was in the bed, that they struck blows while JC was falling down against the wall, that JC was struck while on the floor with the spatter going up both MM's pajama pants and the inside hem of TM's boxer shorts, and that they continued to strike JC after he was dead - ALL of this is indicative of unreasonable force and continued pursuit after JC was no threat to them, eg, failure of the affirmative defense of self-defense. I also do not believe that JC was the aggressor in the physical fight and I see no evidence of that. I wonder if they called for legal advice immediately to know they must claim JC was the aggressor, only claiming to defend self and another.

Amazed at the Common Law linkages British Law and Irish Law still has in the US. The old Common Law rules was for the defence of Self-defence there had to withdrawal at first. But it caused such confusion that with breaking and entry to own home it is now modified. It was only in the last 10yrs in Ireland the modification took place. Was amazed we have similar property holding law Tenants in Common and Joint Tenancy.

 

[fido]

[FONT=&amp]Defense asks if analyst was given complete and accurate information to compete his report
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Spatter analyst said he felt he was given sufficient data to draw his conclusions
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Spatter analyst is off the stand

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]https://twitter.com/LexDispatchBC

I suspect the defence will have their own blood spatter expert if not to rebute fully then to cast doubt on the quality of the investigation. If so I wonder did their expert visit the scene.. . I also suspect they are thinking ahead to a possible Appeal. I can't see either of these two agreeing to a plea bargain. I think at this stage they believe their own lies. But I wish the lab had tested the blood inside the garments as this point is so crucial to the overkill and the argument of why they did not stop.

 

[Logic-lady]

From what i gathered there was really no challenge to the vacuum cleaner being placed upright. They were trying to insinuate that it was located in the area where JC fell and that anyone could have moved it, such as an EMT trying to get to him

Sorry I wasn't very clear, that's what I was trying to say earlier, that if the vacuum cleaner had been moved by someone and that single thing being moved was the only thing that was inconsistent at the scene then it wouldn't really be a big deal who moved it. It is only because there are numerous things that do not add up with the statements by the defendants that it suddenly has relevance. Hope that makes more sense!

 

[Frizby]

One of the areas I believe the defence is going to focus is the affect of the mixture of the medication in JC blood with alcohol. The very same could be argued for MM as she was also drinking. Suppose she could always say that she did not take the medication, not sure if they took blood from MM but suspect they did not.