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

[Be true]

TM acted in self defence in his opinion.

Martens said he remembers three times that he successfully hit Jason in the back of the head with the baseball bat, though he said he tried a number of other times as they were moving down the hallway toward the master bathroom, in an effort to “end the threat.” He testified that he hit Mr. Corbett until he went down and then stepped away. "I hit him until I thought he could not kill me....he said he was going to kill Molly, I certainly felt like he would kill me."

http://www.wxii12.com/article/defendant-thomas-martens-takes-the-stand-in-murder-trial/11557306

I didnt hear anything from the prosecution to punch holes in his statement.

Their clothes, blood pattern on the Perps and blood spatter expert says different.



Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[kittythehare]

You do realise that excessive force negates self defence? You can only use reasonable force?

His own training would tell him to strike in the kidneys, not the head......

All IMO

Yep[FONT=&quot]Police said Kerrick had been charged with voluntary manslaughter, which under North Carolina law involves killing without malice using "excessive force" in exercising "imperfect self-defense".
[/FONT] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/15/north-carolina-police-fatal-shooting

 

[searchinGirl]

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...sifting-through-bloody-evidence-36004030.html

As was mentioned in this article, and also in this opinion piece, http://www.journalnow.com/news/colu...cle_41780f72-4e95-5235-88e0-511b64a48a11.html, JC told a nurse practitioner that he was finding himself angry for no reason while being evaluated for yet another health concern, his thyroid. So far we have heard about issues with his gallbladder, heart, and diet. And the NP evidently noted the unexplained anger as a sign of depression. I'm wondering if there were any incidents that led up to this doctor visit that the brothers might shed some light on? The defense is going to point to this as evidence of JC being the agressor. IMO The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense.

 

[Be true]

As was mentioned in this article, and also in this opinion piece, http://www.journalnow.com/news/colu...cle_41780f72-4e95-5235-88e0-511b64a48a11.html, JC told a nurse practitioner that he was finding himself angry for no reason while being evaluated for yet another health concern, his thyroid. So far we have heard about issues with his gallbladder, heart, and diet. And the NP evidently noted the unexplained anger as a sign of depression. I'm wondering if there were any incidents that led up to this doctor visit that the brothers might shed some light on? The defense is going to point to this as evidence of JC being the agressor. IMO The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense.

I'm familiar with gallbladder, heart and diet issues, they can cause depression but mainly in debilitating situations. Jason was not dibilitated. I've never seen any of these health issues cause choking.

Imo the prosecution have done a good job to date to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was not caused by gallbladder, heart or diet issues and that it was not self defence but we will know soon I guess.

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[kittythehare]

As was mentioned in this article, and also in this opinion piece, http://www.journalnow.com/news/colu...cle_41780f72-4e95-5235-88e0-511b64a48a11.html, JC told a nurse practitioner that he was finding himself angry for no reason while being evaluated for yet another health concern, his thyroid. So far we have heard about issues with his gallbladder, heart, and diet. And the NP evidently noted the unexplained anger as a sign of depression. I'm wondering if there were any incidents that led up to this doctor visit that the brothers might shed some light on? The defense is going to point to this as evidence of JC being the agressor. IMO The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense.

I dont know what anybody is going to do, I have no idea whether the NP will be classed as a qualified diagnostician.

I think its as likely he was suffering the effects of poisoning by his wife, but there is no evidence to that effect either.
Right now I am trying to work out the legal ramifications of excessive force vs second degree murder as it is likely that one or the other will be the verdict.

Emma is making good points in this regard.
Do you have any ideas how it may play out under NC law?

 

[emmalpage81]

As was mentioned in this article, and also in this opinion piece, http://www.journalnow.com/news/colu...cle_41780f72-4e95-5235-88e0-511b64a48a11.html, JC told a nurse practitioner that he was finding himself angry for no reason while being evaluated for yet another health concern, his thyroid. So far we have heard about issues with his gallbladder, heart, and diet. And the NP evidently noted the unexplained anger as a sign of depression. I'm wondering if there were any incidents that led up to this doctor visit that the brothers might shed some light on? The defense is going to point to this as evidence of JC being the agressor. IMO The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense.

You say he was being evaluated for 'another' health concern by a nurse practioner. Do you have any evidence that the NP ever diagnosed him with any ailment?


By his own statement he was stressed and losing his temper for no reason. What was he prescribed? Oh, that's right, nothing. They did not even give him the standard assessment for depression!

The defence will put forward something to negate the overkill shown by the prosecution. IMO they haven't. If they had, it is on the prosecution to counter this in rebuttal.

All IMO

 

[stmarysmead]

TM acted in self defence in his opinion.

Martens said he remembers three times that he successfully hit Jason in the back of the head with the baseball bat, though he said he tried a number of other times as they were moving down the hallway toward the master bathroom, in an effort to “end the threat.” He testified that he hit Mr. Corbett until he went down and then stepped away. "I hit him until I thought he could not kill me....he said he was going to kill Molly, I certainly felt like he would kill me."

http://www.wxii12.com/article/defendant-thomas-martens-takes-the-stand-in-murder-trial/11557306

I didnt hear anything from the prosecution to punch holes in his statement.

His statement does not match the blood spatter evidence. We have only read snippets of what was presented. There is some reason that all the first responders, to include the 911 operator, did not believe Martens story or MM's.

The Prosecution took months to investigate before charging them. The State dies not like to spend the monies required for a trial if it's a simple case of self defense.

A man who hated his son-in-law and refused to join his wife visiting them just days before, suddenly changes his plans, drives 41/2 hours...receiving multiple phone calls from his daughter. That night in a small bedroom, filled with furniture, the much bigger, stronger, younger son-in-law is beaten savagely with two weapons by an old man who has training in how to subdue with a baton.

But he does not subdue...he savages.

His daughter, seeing the.beatdown, does not call 911, instead picks up a brick and joins in the violence. She may have to have run downstairs and outside and upstairs again...to get her weapon.

Neither of them, though both are trained in CPR, attempt any lifesaving measures until told to by the 911 operator.

Neither of them have any injuries. The big man, the threat, was such a marshmallow in this fight, he never made a bruise on either of them.

We shall see if the jury says that this is the way we Americans can "defend" ourselves legally in NC. We shall see if they find all this credible...from a man who testifies he "can't remember" to many pertinent questions...including what jobs his only daughter ever held.

And why his ultra laid back wife had 4 cell phones and never called 911....so sure she was of the old man's safety.

Edited to add: at what point, would a reasonable person understand that he had battered a man in the HEAD so many times that he was now "unable to kill him."

 

[kittythehare]

This is civil law but it is worth taking the time to read it
http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=clr

 

[stmarysmead]

Remember, TM is aiming for JC's head. Over and over...those layered fractures. Then as JC slides down the wall, it's the head he is bashing again and again.

How many times would a trained FBI agent believe he had to hit someone in the HEAD in order to no longer be in danger?

 

[kittythehare]

Remember, TM is aiming for JC's head. Over and over...those layered fractures. Then as JC slides down the wall, it's the head he is bashing again and again.

How many times would a trained FBI agent believe he had to hit someone in the HEAD in order to no longer be in danger?

G.S. § 15A-401(d)(2) adopts the Model Penal Code standardfor the justified use of deadly force by law enforcement officers.40However, the General Assembly of North Carolina added a paragraphto the language of the Model Penal Code,41 the interpretationof which will affect the scope of the privilege conferred on lawenforcement officers in the use of deadly force." G.S. § 15A-401(d)(2) reads in part: "Nothing in the subdivision constitutesjustification for willful, malicious or criminally negligent conductby any person which injures or endangers any person or propertynor shall it be construed to justify the use of unreasonable or excessiveforce." 3 Professor Leon Corbett has written that the draftersof the North Carolina statute referred to New York Penal Law§ 35.3044 as a basis for G.S. § 15A-401(d)(2)."
http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=clr

 

[kittythehare]

I think they can also be charged with gross negligence and the contributory negligence may be imposed upon SM, MM and TM.. I wonder whether malice can be determined from this as well?
Negligence under the Tort Claims Act is defined by common lawprinciples, 1 and essentially is a failure to use due care or to act asa reasonable and prudent person would act under like circumstances.'2Gross negligence, on the other hand, is conduct in whichthe actor is cognizant of the probable consequences of his actionsbut nevertheless acts in disregard of these consequences. 93 Contributorynegligence is no defense to a claim of gross negligence." Ithas been held that because contributory negligence is a bar to recoveryunder the Tort Claims Act, it follows that there is no recoveryunder the Act for gross negligence.95 For example, the TortClaims Act has been invoked to hold the State liable for the negligentdischarge of a firearm by a highway patrolman," but recoveryunder the Act has been denied for the intentional discharge of afirearm by a highway patrolman."G.S. § 15A-401(d)(2) authorizes http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=clr (pg15/20 from my new toy, most of context referes to police but includes all and TM was FBI)

 

[searchinGirl]

I dont know what anybody is going to do, I have no idea whether the NP will be classed as a qualified diagnostician.

I think its as likely he was suffering the effects of poisoning by his wife, but there is no evidence to that effect either.
Right now I am trying to work out the legal ramifications of excessive force vs second degree murder as it is likely that one or the other will be the verdict.

Emma is making good points in this regard.
Do you have any ideas how it may play out under NC law?

My understanding as I read the jury instructions pertaining to 2nd degree murder 206.30, is that if the jury finds the prosecution failed to prove that it was not self defense but that unreasonable force was used, then they may find the defendants guilty of voluntary manslaughter. I don't think the judge can instruct the jury on aiding and abetting if that charge wasn't introduced prior; seems like I've read that can't be done and there might be case law to back that up.

I get the impression the defense doesn't think the State has adequately shown that TM did not act in self defense and they have modified their strategy. I don't have a clue at this point how deeply they will delve into DV. And, The late introduction of the insurance information might be grounds for appeal. I just can't understand what the Sherriffs office is doing here? What took so long to get this info to the DA and have him use it as some sort of smoking gun? And to have obtained it by lying? SMH

For those that think MM could have changed beneficiary, I don't think so. I had one of those UNUM policies when working for a major corporation. It was dirt cheap for the amount of potential benefit. As I recall it was for two or three times my salary and was all handled through my paycheck and Human Resources handled the beneficiary forms. My hubby couldn't have touched it. Not sure, but it could have paid double for an accidental death, which they may have considered JCs. IDK

 

[kittythehare]

https://rowanfreepress.com/2014/03/...home-vehicles-and-work-place-castle-doctrine/

Just to look at another possible scenario here as it does apply to the testimony given by TM


Jason had every right to tell TM to get out of his bedroom that night, he had every right to use force to do so.
And if MM was actually in the midst of one of her interminable rants as described by mcginn, he probably had every right to peace and quiet in his own home that night. Not a single bit of evidence has shown that they still shared a bedroom.

 

[kittythehare]

My understanding as I read the jury instructions pertaining to 2nd degree murder 206.30, is that if the jury finds the prosecution failed to prove that it was not self defense but that unreasonable force was used, then they may find the defendants guilty of voluntary manslaughter. I don't think the judge can instruct the jury on aiding and abetting if that charge wasn't introduced prior; seems like I've read that can't be done and there might be case law to back that up.

I get the impression the defense doesn't think the State has adequately shown that TM did not act in self defense and they have modified their strategy. I don't have a clue at this point how deeply they will delve into DV. And, The late introduction of the insurance information might be grounds for appeal. I just can't understand what the Sherriffs office is doing here? What took so long to get this info to the DA and have him use it as some sort of smoking gun? And to have obtained it by lying? SMH

For those that think MM could have changed beneficiary, I don't think so. I had one of those UNUM policies when working for a major corporation. It was dirt cheap for the amount of potential benefit. As I recall it was for two or three times my salary and was all handled through my paycheck and Human Resources handled the beneficiary forms. My hubby couldn't have touched it. Not sure, but it could have paid double for an accidental death, which they may have considered JCs. IDK

The insurance information was not introduced late, they had that from the beginning, the methodology allegedly, and I stress allegedly, used to obtain the information is what is in doubt here.

I think its nit-picking in any case.. Insurance agencies are obliged to hand over any and all information in a murder case..
The police officer had no reason to lie in order to obtain it.

Odd , isn't it?

The entire case is now so streamlined that all that appears to be allowed for discussion is strictly in relation to the charges and no ancillary information/witnesses allowed,

Its strict legal principles from my reading . Nothing else matters.

 

[kittythehare]

If the prosecution can prove with the assistance of the forensics expert that JC was mortally or significantly injured when one of the perps continued to beat him mercilessly
they are quite simply screwed immaculate!
Look!
t says a person can use deadly force without first retreating if the person reasonably believes it’s necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another person or under circumstances permitted under the state’s revised Castle Doctrine.
• It says a person using non-deadly or deadly force in accordance with the new law is protected from civil or criminal liability unless he used it against a law enforcement officer lawfully performing his duties and the officer identified himself as required or the person using force knew or should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer lawfully performing his duties.

• The Castle Doctrine states a person provoking the use of force against himself is justified in using defensive force if he believes he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and has no reasonable way to escape. It says this person is also justified in using defensive force if he clearly indicates he wants to withdraw from physical contact and the other person continues use of force.

I believe they have already proved that JC was immobilised, injured and dead when these blows were inflicted!

https://rowanfreepress.com/2014/03/30/n-c-law-for-defending-your-home-vehicles-and-work-place-castle-doctrine/


Follow Us via Email

Enter your email address to follow us and receive notifications of new articles by email.




Rece

"This Week in Politics" features our editor Steve Mensing, Atty. Jeff Morris, NC Rep. Carl Ford, Rev. Anthony Smith, and other local luminaries on 1140 FM and 1460 AM radio: Saturdays at ll a.m.​

Help us stay online.

Rowan Live Scanner: Police, Sheriff, Fire, EMS, Public Safety​

Associated Press



Archives

Archives Select Month August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 July 2012 June 2012 April 2012 March 2012
Any personal views expressed on The Rowan Free Press are the writers’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Rowan Free Press or other contributors.

Steve at Emoclear Self-Helpapedia

 

[Be true]

If the prosecution can prove with the assistance of the forensics expert that JC was mortally or significantly injured when one of the perps continued to beat him mercilessly
they are quite simply screwed immaculate!
Look!
t says a person can use deadly force without first retreating if the person reasonably believes it’s necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another person or under circumstances permitted under the state’s revised Castle Doctrine.
• It says a person using non-deadly or deadly force in accordance with the new law is protected from civil or criminal liability unless he used it against a law enforcement officer lawfully performing his duties and the officer identified himself as required or the person using force knew or should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer lawfully performing his duties.

• The Castle Doctrine states a person provoking the use of force against himself is justified in using defensive force if he believes he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and has no reasonable way to escape. It says this person is also justified in using defensive force if he clearly indicates he wants to withdraw from physical contact and the other person continues use of force.

I believe they have already proved that JC was immobilised, injured and dead when these blows were inflicted!

https://rowanfreepress.com/2014/03/30/n-c-law-for-defending-your-home-vehicles-and-work-place-castle-doctrine/


Follow Us via Email

Enter your email address to follow us and receive notifications of new articles by email.




Rece

"This Week in Politics" features our editor Steve Mensing, Atty. Jeff Morris, NC Rep. Carl Ford, Rev. Anthony Smith, and other local luminaries on 1140 FM and 1460 AM radio: Saturdays at ll a.m.​

Help us stay online.

Rowan Live Scanner: Police, Sheriff, Fire, EMS, Public Safety​

Associated Press



Archives

Archives Select Month August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 July 2012 June 2012 April 2012 March 2012
Any personal views expressed on The Rowan Free Press are the writers’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Rowan Free Press or other contributors.

Steve at Emoclear Self-Helpapedia

This is easy even for me to understand. Great info !!

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[kittythehare]

This is easy even for me to understand. Great info !!

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

So all we gotta do is to prove malice as well.
Motive is $ and custody, she proved the 2nd motive already by contesting custody and tM proved it too by testifying that jC had allegedly informed him that he intended to make molly a guardian..
By dollars I mean all the possessions including money and policies and property.

She has violated at least 2/3 and the 3rd.. the insurance may have its own story to tell
Actually, I am pretty happy now..

The forensics will prove he was immobilised if not half dead after the very first blow.. the expert has already testified that any one of the blows inflicted upon JC would have caused loss of consciousness.

Of course tomorrow will tell a different story and its possible defence will produce another forensics expert stating the opposite to be true.

 

[stmarysmead]

Kitty, you are a treasure! Thank you for all your informative posts and your fearless devotion to the truth.

 

[kittythehare]

Kitty, you are a treasure! Thank you for all your informative posts and your fearless devotion to the truth.

I was just lucky to get a good run for a few minutes..
thinking streamline now and looking at nothing except the facts and the evidence 'cos that seems to be how this will play out..

no side stories are being permitted, defense has objected to everything to the death already.

 

[searchinGirl]

The insurance information was not introduced late, they had that from the beginning, the methodology allegedly, and I stress allegedly, used to obtain the information is what is in doubt here.

I think its nit-picking in any case.. Insurance agencies are obliged to hand over any and all information in a murder case..
The police officer had no reason to lie in order to obtain it.

Odd , isn't it?

The entire case is now so streamlined that all that appears to be allowed for discussion is strictly in relation to the charges and no ancillary information/witnesses allowed,

Its strict legal principles from my reading . Nothing else matters.

This case is very odd. And I'm of the mind now that we will never know the whole truth about what happened that morning. I tend to think the defense is going to limit who they call at this point. As I see it they have two strategies. One is to introduce JC health record to point to an unexplained, unexpected anger; and perhaps a complete lifestyle change spurred by a sudden gall bladder attack and surgery, a congenital heart condition, and body weight to lose in order to go on living. Something like a major mid life crisis gong on. IMO

The other tack is the DV they have already told the jury to expect. TM has only alluded to it and maybe that's enough. But the defense seems to want to portray the marriage as still together, so it's hard to say if they want to describe JC acting out on MM as a one time thing or something that happened more frequently. They have done their best to limit testimony to events pertaining to that night. The less said about extraneous matters, the better. IMO