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

[wildebeest]

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.

I do believe there was some premeditation. It explains how Sharon didn't call 911 as soon as the first blow was struck.

IMHO

 

[stmarysmead]

It is the State of NC that has put TM and MM on trial for second degree murder. The State will pay all trial costs and costs for expert witnesses. The Lynches pay only their personal travel expenses.

In civil suits, it is common for the civil attorney to work for a percentage of the award/damages...if there is one. So if the Lynches win the suit, he gets a predetermined cut. If they get nothing, neither does he. So again, not much risk to the Lynches. But civil attorneys don't waste their time accepting cases that are losers. Their attorney must think their case is solid enough for him to invest his time.

The attorneys in the custody and estate cases would have to be paid by the Lynches, win or lose.

The Martens however must pay for ALL of the above.

 

[kittythehare]

It is the State of NC that has put TM and MM on trial for second degree murder. The State will pay all trial costs and costs for expert witnesses. The Lynches pay only their personal travel expenses.

In civil suits, it is common for the civil attorney to work for a percentage of the award/damages...if there is one. So if the Lynches win the suit, he gets a predetermined cut. If they get nothing, neither does he. So again, not much risk to the Lynches. But civil attorneys don't waste their time accepting cases that are losers. Their attorney must think their case is solid enough for him to invest his time.

The attorneys in the custody and estate cases would have to be paid by the Lynches, win or lose.

The Martens however must pay for ALL of the above.

thank you.
i have often felt that the m's deliberately provoked additional costs for the c's with the constant violations against the terms

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...-5cad-8e9b-ba7f55f4ccfc/56e1083eafd3c.pdf.pdf

the custody case costs probably should have been granted to c's too because it was the m's that challenged the terms as part of their grab..?

 

[stmarysmead]

The Martens family have shown an utter disregard for our legal system. TM is a disgrace to our legal profession and to our FBI. It's arrogance and wanton entitlement like his...that make people lose faith in our government....that make Americans believe our laws are only imposed on certain people and totally ignored by others.

 

[kittythehare]

First of Sunday rags

The Irish Sun on Sunday has also learned Martens’ two sons may testify on behalf of the defendants.
And the Irish Sun on Sunday has learned it remains an open question whether she will take the stand
https://t.co/I9ZdWzGN1Z

 

[Harmony 2]

mod note:

Sleuthing the Corbett family by discussing their finances is a big no no. :tos:

I laid it out on 'posting guidelines for the trial' on the opening posts of the thread...

*Witnesses and family in the trial or courtroom are OFF LIMITS to sleuthing. If they appear in mainstream media for an interview then a link should be provided.

 

[kittythehare]

[FONT=&amp] [video=twitter;893955273991233536]https://twitter.com/IrishMailSunday/status/893955273991233536[/video]

this is the angle The Mail on Sunday has chosen, just a pic
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]https://twitter.com/IrishMailSunday/status/893955273991233536[/FONT]

 

[TDoc72]

I do believe there was some premeditation. It explains how Sharon didn't call 911 as soon as the first blow was struck.

IMHO

I wish she would testify, although I know she can't be compelled to testify against her husband (and she'd probably lie for Molly). But I really want to know what she was doing the entire time (TM estimated 30 mins) and why she didn't call 911. According to him, he was just going to tell them to 'knock it off.' That should've been rather quick. But didn't she worry when he didn't come back? Wouldn't it have gotten louder with now 3 people yelling/fighting? So I wonder 1--what did she know, 2--what did she hear, and 3--what was she doing besides NOT calling 911? But we'll probably never know unless she is deposed or testifies in the civil suit.

 

[irishmartin]

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

In general the Common Law, common to both countries but there are recent amendments to it in Irish insolvency law to temper the harshness of the CL and older insolvency laws but in general both jurisdictions are very similar even to where the law has being codified as I have found to my surprise here with other areas of law. The CL favours the creditor over the debtor and will do what it can to resolute this.

 

[kittythehare]

In general the Common Law, common to both countries but there are recent amendments to it in Irish insolvency law to temper the harshness of the CL and older insolvency laws but in general both jurisdictions are very similar even to where the law has being codified as I have found to my surprise here with other areas of law. The CL favours the creditor over the debtor and will do what it can to resolute this.

Thanks for that, but because the insurance discussion is about whether NC law was violated by the change in the policy happening so close to his death, I am pondering the specific NC violations that may have occurred simply because it makes no sense at all for him to have changed it himself.

The prosecution is pursuing financial motivation for the crime..?

 

[irishmartin]

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.

My reading of testacy law is governed by the wishes of the last valid will of the deceased which can be challenged by statue to the interest of the deceased husband or wife and if there is not provision for the issue of the deceased. Where there is a Life Assurance policy that does not fall part of the estate then that is to be distributed to the wishes of the grantee. There is a possibility of the estate challenging a life policy taken out by another for their benefit and paid by the deceased as amounting to a resultant trust and becoming part of the estate.

 

[irishmartin]

[nnnnnnnn

 

[irishmartin]

Thanks for that, but because the insurance discussion is about whether NC law was violated by the change in the policy happening so close to his death, I am pondering the specific NC violations that may have occurred simply because it makes no sense at all for him to have changed it himself.

The prosecution is pursuing financial motivation for the crime..?

All we can do is speculate and your speculation is as valid as mine. Until we know the facts it’s all just star gazing.

 

[irishmartin]

thank you.
i have often felt that the m's deliberately provoked additional costs for the c's with the constant violations against the terms

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...-5cad-8e9b-ba7f55f4ccfc/56e1083eafd3c.pdf.pdf

the custody case costs probably should have been granted to c's too because it was the m's that challenged the terms as part of their grab..?

It’s a general disregard for the C. And this contempt was demonstrated to TM and his son arriving with 4 wheel drives with trailers to clean out his home shortly after his death. The horrified neighbours immediately contacted the C who got court injunctions to reverse it and to his car taking.
Custody cases its usual for those involved to cover their own legal costs.

 

[kittythehare]

It’s a general disregard for the C. And this contempt was demonstrated to TM and his son arriving with 4 wheel drives with trailers to clean out his home shortly after his death. The horrified neighbours immediately contacted the C who got court injunctions to reverse it and to his car taking.
Custody cases its usual for those involved to cover their own legal costs.

Martin, where did you see that tM and his son arrived?

 

[sshhh!]

There are 3 main issues of conflict that are central to this case for me.

1. MM's infatuation with the kids and JC's refusal to allow adoption.
We know for example that JC made a specific point of keeping the kids passports in his office at work.

2. The trip to Ireland for JC's dad's upcoming birthday party.
We know that TL testified that JC had intended to travel to the birthday in Ireland with the kids only. She also testified that MM contacted her separately to enquire about the date and to suggest she would be travelling too. Which TL found very odd.

3. The bigger picture of JC's desire to return to Ireland.
We know from earlier reports and media articles that JC had told a co-worker that he intended on returning to Ireland permanently without MM. We know TL testified that he was homesick and lonely.

These three issues tell me that there was a long running battle going on between JC and MM. MM probably had a sense of some of JC's plans, this would explain why she called TL fishing for information on the party date. It also shows that JC was not communicating his plans or the finer details to MM. This is something that would obviously cause a lot of tension. TL also testified that JC never actually booked any flights to Ireland, despite making several attempts to do so. So he was clearly in regular contact with his sister with updates about this trip. We know that money was no object so the question is, what was he waiting for? The opportune moment to book everything without MM finding out? Or was he intending to leave it as late as possible to book so that himself and the kids could just up and go in a flash?

Then we have TM's 'hatred' of JC. We also have TM & SM making a sudden decision to drive to North Carolina on Aug 1st instead of attending a pre-planned dinner party. TM conveniently brings a baseball bat with him (which we now know was an old second hand bat belonging to his son when he was a kid). We also know that MM repeatedly called her parents during their journey. I'd be inclined to suggest that MM was regularly on the phone to her parents, venting about JC and feeding them information. I'd also suggest that this is one of the main reasons why TM 'hated' JC - MM was painting a bad picture of both JC and the marriage to her family on a regular basis. Remember also that the Irish media printed claims that the kids told law enforcement in the US that they witnessed JC and MM have a number of physical and verbal altercations.

So here's what I think happened. I think MM & JC had been having tensions and issues for months. JC had his own plans but MM was aware that something was in the offing. JC's brother had been over visiting only the week before so it's highly implausible that there wasn't at least some talk of the upcoming trip to Ireland. I think JC and MM had some sort of major disagreement or argument possibly around 31st July/August 1st whereby things came to a head, and MM challenged JC about his plans to go to Ireland with the kids but without her. It is possible, and it's my belief, that in the heat of this argument JC let it be known that he intended to return to Ireland with the kids permanently, and that they may not even return from their upcoming trip. This would have enraged MM, and most certainly would have had her contacting her parents in a state of panic. So her parents, being appalled by this, cancelled their plans and headed for North Carolina.

Remember both MM & JC had been drinking for most of the evening. It's possible that another argument or exchange of some sorts took place between MM & JC in the evening, or simply tensions were high, prompting JC to have an early night. It's possible TM & SM involved themselves in any exchange too - they didn't drive all the way to say nothing. JC goes to bed, MM stays downstairs with her parents. The events of the evening then lead a worked up and emotional MM to the bedroom, where she ransacks the room, opening all the drawers looking for the kids passports. JC tells her she's wasting her time because he keeps the passports in his office. This antagonises MM even more, so she goes downstairs, picks up a paving brick, returns to the room and attacks JC multiple times with the brick as he lies in bed. This would explain the blood on the bed and duvet. JC then starts defending himself by struggling to his feet and out of the bed. It's probably a chaotic scene. At this point TM enters the fray, possibly at the behest of MM. TM then proceeds to beat JC with the bat until he is down and not moving. This would be consistent with the evidence of the blood spatter expert who testified that JC was beaten down from a standing position. The forcefulness of the overkill is explained by all that has gone on in the lead up to the event. After they realise the JC is dead, TM stages the scene, they compose themselves and get their stories straight and then they ring 911.

In the following days they waste no time emptying bank accounts and attempting to access JC's office to get their hands on the kids passports. It's also very possible that the life insurance amendment made days prior to JC's death is also connected and not a coincidence.

I don't believe TM's story from start to finish because it simply doesn't add up. He's protecting his daughter, he's prepared to lie and he's hoping that his unblemished FBI record will stand to him. He only has to convince one juror and he's home and hosed. His denial of any knowledge of domestic violence is simply to avoid an accusation of a pre-meditated attack.

This is what happened, or something similar, in my opinion. JC was murdered in a frenzied attack by an alcohol fueled woman infatuated with his children and by a father in law who had an open and long standing dislike for him. I hope they both get sent down for a very long time.

 

[irishmartin]

Martin, where did you see that tM and his son arrived?

I have a link to it that resulted in the C injunction against the M in for its return and getting a judgment against them with costs. The courts have frozen all JC estate. A trailer can be seen in the picture.

http://evoke.ie/news/irish-news/mollys-martens-court-battle-jason-belongings

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/court-orders-stay-return-jason-7744175

 

[kittythehare]

I have a link to it that resulted in the C injunction against the M in for its return and getting a judgment against them with costs. The courts have frozen all JC estate. A trailer can be seen in the picture.

http://evoke.ie/news/irish-news/mollys-martens-court-battle-jason-belongings

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/court-orders-stay-return-jason-7744175

It was taken, but not by TM and his sons. It happened in January '16

 

[irishmartin]

Martin, where did you see that tM and his son arrived?

I have a link to it that resulted in the C injunction against the M in for its return and getting a judgment against them with costs. The courts have frozen all JC estate. A trailer can be seen in the picture.

http://evoke.ie/news/irish-news/mollys-martens-court-battle-jason-belongings

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/court-orders-stay-return-jason-7744175

 

[irishmartin]

It was taken, but not by TM and his sons. It happened in January '16

I saw a newspaper report to that effect