GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #8

[Angelswatchingover]

No but you can ring and ask for specific changes ask them to post out the form, and you'll sign it and send it back in, happens all the time, they never ask you to come in and let them witness your signature, I dont think my husband has ever signed a policy form in his life, anybody can sign two signatures,,anyway I really don't want to discuss it anymore, I really believe with all my heart she planned all this...I dont want to argue with anybody else about it, I have thought about it so much the last two years and watched the Martens Facebook campaign, lack of sympathy for the Corbett family and their arrogance, their lack of respect for the dead for anyone in authority...they are Murders nothing less. IMO

 

[Annela]

A couple of things struck me in the last few days of testimony. The co-worker who testified that TM said:
"(He said) That son-in-law - I hate him."
http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ated-soninlaw-jason-court-hears-35989680.html

 

[stephanddoody]

http://pensacolastate.edu/docs/faculty-staff/open-enrollment/life-insurance-beneficiary-form.pdf

Sorry this is the form it has to be filled in and signed. I would still doubt Jason filled this form himself to change the beneficiary solely to Molly given the fact he named Tracy and David as guardians of the children

 

[Frizby]

My understanding at the time was that the insurers paid out on this claim quite quickly (but then I have never known of anyone who has sent in their claim the same week as the person dies before either!) I was surprised given that the death cert says homicide that the insurers didn't investigate things a little further prior to processing the claim.

I wonder if Molly was named as Molly Corbett on the policy, and her father was the one under investigation whether they didn't connect the dots.

For one, the insurers would not pay out unless they had a death cert. Regardless, the manner of death is of no concern to them really unless it conflicted with the health, lifestyle, pursuits questions, etc., on the initial application form. If it did conflict they would investigate further, all life assurance companies will do their level best to paying out if they can find any way to get out of it. The distributions after they pay out is up to the lawyers of the estate. The life assurance company insures the life, if the life assured dies and there was no conflict on the application, it is their responsibility to pay out. Incidentally, I have seen plenty of claims put in days after death, the problem which usually holds it up it getting the death cert and insurance companies will always want an original or a certified true copy.

 

[Frizby]

No but you can ring and ask for specific changes ask them to post out the form, and you'll sign it and send it back in, happens all the time, they never ask you to come in and let them witness your signature, I dont think my husband has ever signed a policy form in his life, anybody can sign two signatures,,anyway I really don't want to discuss it anymore, I really believe with all my heart she planned all this...I dont want to argue with anybody else about it, I have thought about it so much the last two years and watched the Martens Facebook campaign, lack of sympathy for the Corbett family and their arrogance, their lack of respect for the dead for anyone in authority...they are Murders nothing less. IMO

I do believe that there was some planning. Regarding witnesses to forms, it does not mean that you have to go it for them to witness it, forms that require witnesses can be witnessed by anyone, just like if you do a home will, you get a couple of your friends to witness it. Said witnesses maybe required in the future to confirm that they did actually sign it. And I can guarantee you, if you take out life assurance on your life or that of another, you are required to sign the form as is the life assured. There is no way around it, it is a legal document.

 

[stephanddoody]

No but you can ring and ask for specific changes ask them to post out the form, and you'll sign it and send it back in, happens all the time, they never ask you to come in and let them witness your signature, I dont think my husband has ever signed a policy form in his life, anybody can sign two signatures,,anyway I really don't want to discuss it anymore, I really believe with all my heart she planned all this...I dont want to argue with anybody else about it, I have thought about it so much the last two years and watched the Martens Facebook campaign, lack of sympathy for the Corbett family and their arrogance, their lack of respect for the dead for anyone in authority...they are Murders nothing less. IMO

Just regarding this . I have my signature saved on my iPad lots of people do may not be the case here but it is possible. Form is downloadable you don't have to get it right the first time . No evidence this is the case here but it may well be . TBH I would rule nothing out

 

[Annela]

Oops - sorry! I was a bit previous with that last post...
What I meant to say was that a man with the haughty attitude of TM would have 80,000 + 45,000 + (possibly) 500,000 reasons - plus seeing JC buy his house with cash, while he has a mortgage to 2028 if I recall the docs correctly. How would that add up to someone with TMs superior mindset... Being beholden to someone you consider your inferior (ie. 'He didn't measure up to my daughter', his comments about Mr. Fitzpatrick, etc.). It must have been eating away at him. A good reason to bring a bat to an argument? With someone he considered an a*****e? Hmm JMO
http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ated-soninlaw-jason-court-hears-35989680.html

Two other odd things, from the following transcript from CNN
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1603/09/ng.01.html
1. The 911 call
"UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. What`s going on there?
MARTENS: My daughter`s husband, my son-in-law, got in a fight with my daughter. I intervened and I think -- he`s in bad shape. We need help."
Anyone think that the wording 'got in a fight' is odd? Would you not say 'attacked' - if it went down the way he subsequently described it. Wasn't much of a fight til he got there... if you believe his version. On the other hand, if it actually was a fight before he got there - that's a whole other story...

2. "FREEDMAN: And there`s nothing unusual about Thomas and Sharon coming to visit them. They were seeing their grandchildren. They had seen their grandchildren the prior weekend. It was a pretty regular event. They were very close with Molly and with their children."
So was he actually there the weekend before? And yet he wakes up and decides, ah yes, lets cancel our dinner invitation and instead drive 4 hours to see 'the a*****e' again, what a good idea!

All JMO

 

[Frizby]

well it said it was changed to her....So change means she was not sole beneficiary before it was changed, we don't even know if she was a beneficiary. You are not automatically entitled as a spouse you are only entitled to a portion your siblings are entitled to the other portions..Unless You put it down in your will you want everything to go to your spouse, this was Jason's policy not one Molly took out on Jason..

I don't know what law you are referring to but it is not Irish Law. Siblings are not entitled to anything from a deceased if there is a spouse or dependants. Spouse & dependants trump siblings in Inheritance Tax Law. The Will can distribute but there is no entitlement for siblings unless they are next of kin which if there was a spouse they would not be.

 

[kittythehare]

I don't know what law you are referring to but it is not Irish Law. Siblings are not entitled to anything from a deceased if there is a spouse or dependants. Spouse & dependants trump siblings in Inheritance Tax Law. The Will can distribute but there is no entitlement for siblings unless they are next of kin which if there was a spouse they would not be.

I think Angel meant offspring and i think she is correct here.
The policies were almost all US policies and possibly there are state specific legislations regarding laws applicable to each one.
Irish law does not apply.

 

[stephanddoody]

Oops - sorry! I was a bit previous with that last post...
What I meant to say was that a man with the haughty attitude of TM would have 80,000 + 45,000 + (possibly) 500,000 reasons - plus seeing JC buy his house with cash, while he has a mortgage to 2028 if I recall the docs correctly. How would that add up to someone with TMs superior mindset... Being beholden to someone you consider your inferior (ie. 'He didn't measure up to my daughter', his comments about Mr. Fitzpatrick, etc.). It must have been eating away at him. A good reason to bring a bat to an argument? With someone he considered an a*****e? Hmm JMO
http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ated-soninlaw-jason-court-hears-35989680.html

Two other odd things, from the following transcript from CNN
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1603/09/ng.01.html
1. The 911 call
"UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. What`s going on there?
MARTENS: My daughter`s husband, my son-in-law, got in a fight with my daughter. I intervened and I think -- he`s in bad shape. We need help."
Anyone think that the wording 'got in a fight' is odd? Would you not say 'attacked' - if it went down the way he subsequently described it. Wasn't much of a fight til he got there... if you believe his version. On the other hand, if it actually was a fight before he got there - that's a whole other story...

2. "FREEDMAN: And there`s nothing unusual about Thomas and Sharon coming to visit them. They were seeing their grandchildren. They had seen their grandchildren the prior weekend. It was a pretty regular event. They were very close with Molly and with their children."
So was he actually there the weekend before? And yet he wakes up and decides, ah yes, lets cancel our dinner invitation and instead drive 4 hours to see 'the a*****e' again, what a good idea!

All JMO

Great find although we all knew they had just visited the prior week it's great to get the link so it can be discussed thank you

 

[Frizby]

I think Angel meant offspring and i think she is correct here.
The policies were almost all US policies and possibly there are state specific legislations regarding laws applicable to each one.
Irish law does not apply.

If Angel meant offsprings well let her clarify that, siblings to me are sisters or brothers. Personally I would not refer to offsprings as siblings. It was stated as siblings, my understanding sisters or brothers and as I stated there is not entitlement under Irish Law. If there is a cross border issue let Angel clarify that. I am expressing my opinion, as I stated, under Irish Law.

 

[kittythehare]

Great find although we all knew they had just visited the prior week it's great to get the link so it can be discussed thank you

So thats twice they lied in their opening comments
- had not seen children for months
- quote allegedly from JC tht he was sorry and shouldn't be doing it

Given that we are merely receiving a millionth of the info that is there, what else are they saying?

 

[Angelswatchingover]

I think Angel meant offspring and i think she is correct here.
The policies were almost all US policies and possibly there are state specific legislations regarding laws applicable to each one.
Irish law does not apply.

Thank you Kitty i did

 

[irishmartin]

No but you can ring and ask for specific changes ask them to post out the form, and you'll sign it and send it back in, happens all the time, they never ask you to come in and let them witness your signature, I dont think my husband has ever signed a policy form in his life, anybody can sign two signatures,,anyway I really don't want to discuss it anymore, I really believe with all my heart she planned all this...I dont want to argue with anybody else about it, I have thought about it so much the last two years and watched the Martens Facebook campaign, lack of sympathy for the Corbett family and their arrogance, their lack of respect for the dead for anyone in authority...they are Murders nothing less. IMO

I agree with you at first I thought it was just a night of madness now it appears to be very much a night of pre-planned madness. The more I read into the more I'm convinced. The life assurance changes looks very suspect just wonder why the police have not resolved it an gone after them with additional charges to forgery etc.

 

[Annela]

So thats twice they lied in their opening comments
- had not seen children for months
- quote allegedly from JC tht he was sorry and shouldn't be doing it

Given that we are merely receiving a millionth of the info that is there, what else are they saying?

Ah, that's what I thought, but couldn't find the reference in the opening statement - thank you!

 

[irishmartin]

My understanding is that their pension pots are not considered to be assets and therefore no 'lean' can be applied, which is why I imagine they started selling off tangible assets before the trial began (a la OJ) IMO.

There are very limited off limits to the official assignee of the bankrupt such as to the interest accruing from such a pension assets and the pension pots themselves of accrued capitol. And there is no reason a creditor couldn’t go after such as an endowment pension pot. As you know there are so many types of pensions some are looked upon as actual capital in their own right. As a rule the law always favours the interest of the creditor and a bankrupt must come forward with all his interest when called to do so.

 

[kittythehare]

There are very limited off limits to the official assignee of the bankrupt such as to the interest accruing from such a pension assets and the pension pots themselves of accrued capitol. And there is no reason a creditor couldn’t go after such as an endowment pension pot. As you know there are so many types of pensions some are looked upon as actual capital in their own right. As a rule the law always favours the interest of the creditor and a bankrupt must come forward with all his interest when called to do so.

Just to clarify, are you working off NC law here Martin or Irish law?

 

[Frizby]

Thank you Kitty i did

So can I take it from this that your definition of siblings or what you meant to say was offspring/children? If it is, it is the first time I have ever heard offspring being referred to as siblings. A sibling to me, as I am sure it is to many, would be a sister or brother, I would never refer to my children, in either law or layman's terms as siblings.

 

[kittythehare]

If Angel meant offsprings well let her clarify that, siblings to me are sisters or brothers. Personally I would not refer to offsprings as siblings. It was stated as siblings, my understanding sisters or brothers and as I stated there is not entitlement under Irish Law. If there is a cross border issue let Angel clarify that. I am expressing my opinion, as I stated, under Irish Law.

She just did, clarify it.

 

[Frizby]

http://pensacolastate.edu/docs/faculty-staff/open-enrollment/life-insurance-beneficiary-form.pdf

Sorry this is the form it has to be filled in and signed. I would still doubt Jason filled this form himself to change the beneficiary solely to Molly given the fact he named Tracy and David as guardians of the children

Thanks for clarifying that. It is the point that I have tried to make, it needs a signature, it cannot be done on-line just like that. If any company took a digital signature for this it would be very remiss of them and personally I would have no sympathy for them if they did, It is their money till they decide to give it out, Their job to recover it if they made a massive error. As to how the beneficiaries were changed, I have not idea. As to what they were changed from, I also have no idea.