GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #4

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
stephanddoody said:
The only pictures I saw of her without a member of her immediate family or the children in it was the volunteer photo and the ones of her hen party on the support Molly page. There was maybe 5 people I could see including Molly in the picture very conservative low key . Since she confided in Lynn about divorce and another family friend about reconnecting with an old boyfriend I would say either she doesn't have close friends to discuss this with or she was trying to get the word go back to Jason intentionally. That is cruel beyond words IMO How humiliating that must have been when they told him . Intentionally malicious IMO
Click to expand...

Malice.
 
That is malicious. Also shows a serious lack of control and forethought.

I noticed on her FB page that her "friends" have doubled this year. I find that interesting. I would assume that she has not been out working the room at large parties to widen her social contacts. It does make me curious as to why the influx of "friends." Why would people who hardly know the woman, and therefore cannot vouch for her truthfulness or integrity or sanity..or her innocence in the brutal, merciless killing of Jason Corbett....why would they insert themselves as "friends" and, in a few cases, the most intense advocates of a woman they were not REAL friends with in the past?

Oh, that woman who killed her husband gets her hair cut at my sisters hair salon, let me "friend. her. Oh, my child knows someone whose stepmother beat her Dad to death...let me jump in... That sort of thing?

We need a psychiatrist to advise us on this thread.... in more than one way.
 
stmarysmead said:
That is malicious. Also shows a serious lack of control and forethought.

I noticed on her FB page that her "friends" have doubled this year. I find that interesting. I would assume that she has not been out working the room at large parties to widen her social contacts. It does make me curious as to why the influx of "friends." Why would people who hardly know the woman, and therefore cannot vouch for her truthfulness or integrity or sanity..or her innocence in the brutal, merciless killing of Jason Corbett....why would they insert themselves as "friends" and, in a few cases, the most intense advocates of a woman they were not REAL friends with in the past?

Oh, that woman who killed her husband gets her hair cut at my sisters hair salon, let me "friend. her.Oh, my child's knows someone whose stepmother beat her Dad to death...let me jump in... That sort of thing?

We need a psychiatrist to advise us on this thread.... in more than one way.
Click to expand...

There is nothing funny about this situation or the murder of Jason Corbett. But that is just totally on point . They know because Molly told them so ... IMO
 
You are right. It's isn't funny. There is a family in Ireland bearing the most heart-rending grief. There are two elderly parents who must spend their last years without their loving son, taken from them so senselessly. There are two children orphaned in the most sudden, cruel and devastating way... betrayed by someone who mouths the word "love" but who is exposed by her handiwork with that bat and brick. Did they hear her say she "loved" their murdered Father? How frightening to hear her mouth "love" to them now.

There is a tragedy compounded by greed, arrogance, entitlement and soon to come, slander.

It's hard enough to endure the murder of a loved one...but to endure the murder of his reputation as a strategy
to save his killers is unbearable.

I hope all of us will examine our own conscience...are we here to try to sleuth this situation to uncover the truth and help justice be served? What is our purpose?
 
Electric Sheep said:
Well, apparently Jason golfed with Tom Martens. I would guess that someone who moves to live at a golf course would be an avid golfer. I wonder if Molly played too.
Click to expand...

IDK I doubt Molly left the children unattended to play golf... I'm thinking she stuck to the pool and the swim team...maybe tennis because she could do that pretty easily with the kids and the courts and the pool are usually close together...and after all, she started out as the nanny...when and how did her roles in this relationship change? (rhetorically speaking of course)... Molly is a story unto herself... IMO

but I do think Tom and Jason playing golf when they could makes sense to me that they liked each other and even respected each other...perhaps, that is why Molly called them to Wallburg that night...?...so he might listen to her father?... however, unlike some I look at Tom Martens and see a broken man...one who can't reconcile having done this to his friend...at first I thought he was covering for Molly but now I think he looks like a man going through the motions of life instead of living life...a victim himself... IMO... I would be so disturbed if my sister had done this to my father...

I am curious to know the truth of the matter in this case... I wonder if we will ever know for sure because I see some complications ahead for the judicial process...<modsnip>
 
ADMIN NOTE

Since the trial is just around the corner the thread is open for posting again.

Please post responsibly and provide links when stating fact.

If WS Rules Etiquette & Information can't be adhered to then the thread will close again.
 
emmalpage81 said:
It is indeed interesting, it seems hiding phone numbers with children is something the Martens family are quite comfortable with. Was it not stated that both JC and SC reported to TL when they were released into her care that they had phone number hidden in their shoes?

It seems logical,in my opinion,that the statements made by the children to social services came first. IMO even the wording used by the children when interviewed by Dragonfly House appears coached;my son is close in age to SC and, at the time, if he was talking to someone he would not refer to things as 'ridiculous'. Silly, stupid, crazy maybe but ridiculous in that context seems more adult than minor. I would assume that SM wanted to JC to be interviewed first as he was the person most likely to rebel against their wishes. I cannot fathom what was going through their heads at this distressing time in their lives. As always, all IMO.
Click to expand...

I thought the same when they used the term 'cuss', it's a very localised vernacular and I can't imagine the children having picked up that level of local vocabulary so quickly.

Also, I've just seen on the J4J page that Catherine Fagan has written an article for The Irish Mail on Sunday. You can only read parts of it which is frustrating! but it gives a bit more detail of what went on in court Thursday and Friday.
 
Logic-lady said:
I thought the same when they used the term 'cuss', it's a very localised vernacular and I can't imagine the children having picked up that level of local vocabulary so quickly.

Also, I've just seen on the J4J page that Catherine Fagan has written an article for The Irish Mail on Sunday. You can only read parts of it which is frustrating! but it gives a bit more detail of what went on in court Thursday and Friday.
Click to expand...

I saw, the J4J page has put up pictures of the article which is easier to follow. Other than the description of MMC's aversion to TL calling her by her maiden name I do not think there is much new information. I did notice it pointed out that MMC has been going by her maiden name for swim meets, college etc since the murder, but she did not like being referred to by her maiden name in court.

I am unsure why a 'battered wife' would want to keep her abusers name? I would have thought that this would be first thing she would have wanted to rid herself off (especially as she has now dropped her wedding ring).

All IMO
 
emmalpage81 said:
I saw, the J4J page has put up pictures of the article which is easier to follow. Other than the description of MMC's aversion to TL calling her by her maiden name I do not think there is much new information. I did notice it pointed out that MMC has been going by her maiden name for swim meets, college etc since the murder, but she did not like being referred to by her maiden name in court.

I am unsure why a 'battered wife' would want to keep her abusers name? I would have thought that this would be first thing she would have wanted to rid herself off (especially as she has now dropped her wedding ring).

All IMO
Click to expand...

I was just about to make the same point regarding Molly's use of the name Corbett! Unless it has something to do with making her appear closer to the kids, ie if the jury thinks she wants to keep the same name as 'her' children will that make them believe in the relationship more.

She does seem to have been investing very much in the single 'Molly Marten' life since moving to Knoxville, perhaps, 'Molly Martens Corbett' evokes more sympathy and puts her back into the image she built of the doting wife and mother while living in Davidson County?
 
It will also be interesting to see what correspondence the kids had with her upon their return to Ireland. By all accounts on her FB at the time she was denied all contact with the kids so if it turns out that she did in fact have some contact it could be our first clear indicator of how willing she was to manipulate the social media masses for sympathy.
 
My best guess as to why MMC wants only her married name used in court is because she is Not the Nanny. I believe what the children said in their interviews around the time of the murder hold some truth because they were close to the situation and we're abused by it, as the counselor said. It's clear to me that Molly and Jason had a toxic relationship. They were "love bullies" who got their way with each other by getting angry and pushing each other's buttons. It's been said that Molly fat-shamed Jason in public and that's humiliating; the children both said in their interviews they witnessed their Dad run over Molly's foot with the car, and another time stomp on her foot in anger. Hot Buttons. Does anyone recall in Keith McGinns book (that he admits he wrote about Molly) that she had a golf ball-sized tumor on her foot that had caused her many years of pain and suffering? Hot Buttons to push? I can't understand the kids making that up even if they were coached.

People in a domestic rage say and do things to each other they otherwise wouldn't do and say if their Buttons hadn't been pushed in the first place. There is no doubt that both Jason and Molly created this situation as a family and their children were made to suffer. I feel for the children. They deserve the money.
 
searchinGirl said:
My best guess as to why MMC wants only her married name used in court is because she is Not the Nanny. I believe what the children said in their interviews around the time of the murder hold some truth because they were close to the situation and we're abused by it, as the counselor said. It's clear to me that Molly and Jason had a toxic relationship. They were "love bullies" who got their way with each other by getting angry and pushing each other's buttons. It's been said that Molly fat-shamed Jason in public and that's humiliating; the children both said in their interviews they witnessed their Dad run over Molly's foot with the car, and another time stomp on her foot in anger. Hot Buttons. Does anyone recall in Keith McGinns book (that he admits he wrote about Molly) that she had a golf ball-sized tumor on her foot that had caused her many years of pain and suffering? Hot Buttons to push? I can't understand the kids making that up even if they were coached.

People in a domestic rage say and do things to each other they otherwise wouldn't do and say if their Buttons hadn't been pushed in the first place. There is no doubt that both Jason and Molly created this situation as a family and their children were made to suffer. I feel for the children. They deserve the money.
Click to expand...

I think you are right about Molly not wanting to come across as just the nanny. I also agree that all was not perfect within the relationship, I think the custody hearing gave a clear insight into that when TL testified as to Molly holding Jack under the water, I think many people obviously had concerns about the situation for a long time prior to the murder.

I haven't read Keith MacGinn's book (mostly because I don't want it to cloud my judgement of Molly with regards to this case) and while I remember the statement about Jason rolling over Molly's foot in the car, I don't remember the bit about him stomping on it, don't suppose you have a link to that to save me traipsing through the MSM articles?

We are both in total agreement, the kids have suffered too much, I hope this trial brings them some closure.
 
Here is a link for you...
http://www.irishexaminer.com/irelan...betts-children-must-release-notes-425441.html

"Sarah reported that: Her dad started fights with her mom for ridiculous reasons; he would hurt her mom... she saw her dad step on her mom’s foot, pull her mom’s hair, roll over her mom’s foot with the car, hit her mom in the face,” the documents filed by Ms Martens’ attorney read.

Jack reported that: His dad would physically and verbally abuse his mom; he would punch, hit and push her... he would scream, get mad and cuss more, he was getting angrier; his mom would try to get him to stop but his dad was strong,” the documents claimed."

This is such a sad situation all around. These initial interviews with the children establish the DV relationship within the family. I can't see how they won't be considered by the jury.
 
searchinGirl said:
Here is a link for you...
http://www.irishexaminer.com/irelan...betts-children-must-release-notes-425441.html

"Sarah reported that: Her dad started fights with her mom for ridiculous reasons; he would hurt her mom... she saw her dad step on her mom’s foot, pull her mom’s hair, roll over her mom’s foot with the car, hit her mom in the face,” the documents filed by Ms Martens’ attorney read.

Jack reported that: His dad would physically and verbally abuse his mom; he would punch, hit and push her... he would scream, get mad and cuss more, he was getting angrier; his mom would try to get him to stop but his dad was strong,” the documents claimed."

This is such a sad situation all around. These initial interviews with the children establish the DV relationship within the family. I can't see how they won't be considered by the jury.
Click to expand...

There has been an article over the weekend suggesting for several different reasons that the prosecution suspect cohersion on the part of the Martens, SM and MM in particular in relation to JC statements.

It was JC himself who has admitted to lying in the dragon fly centre and was extremely upset and wanted to contact authorities in NC after his return to Ireland. There was an interview done with JC and prosecution on Skype regarding the same.


I can post a photo of the article in the Irish daily mail but they don't have an online version of the paper that I can link on here.

This casts a shadow indeed on the defence and this particular evidence.

Il see if I can find a working link
 
searchinGirl said:
Here is a link for you...
http://www.irishexaminer.com/irelan...betts-children-must-release-notes-425441.html

"Sarah reported that: Her dad started fights with her mom for ridiculous reasons; he would hurt her mom... she saw her dad step on her mom&#8217;s foot, pull her mom&#8217;s hair, roll over her mom&#8217;s foot with the car, hit her mom in the face,&#8221; the documents filed by Ms Martens&#8217; attorney read.

Jack reported that: His dad would physically and verbally abuse his mom; he would punch, hit and push her... he would scream, get mad and cuss more, he was getting angrier; his mom would try to get him to stop but his dad was strong,&#8221; the documents claimed."

This is such a sad situation all around. These initial interviews with the children establish the DV relationship within the family. I can't see how they won't be considered by the jury.
Click to expand...

This was the second interview given by the children following the death of JC. In the first SC stated she had not witnessed any abuse and JC spoke of negative feelings towards MMC. There is a huge difference between these statements which, in my view, makes it hard to determine the truth. We know the defence want the Dragonfly House interviews included; we have what they say are snippets of the statements made by the children. We also need to remember that the doctor who interviewed them said she did not know who was abusive in the house.

If we add in Dragonfly House we should add in the original interviews and also JC's recantation. I cannot put much weight on the interviews of the children unless we have all included. It sits ill with me that there is no abuse and, after approximately a week with the Martens family, there is a catalogue of abuse.

All IMO
 
bernie millar said:
is there any link to the full statements the children made ?
Click to expand...

Not that I have seen. We only know what the defence have stated in their motion which was reported on last year (see post #133).

Although, upon reading that article again, the lawyers seems to be stating what the children told Dragonfly House before they (Dragonfly House) handed over the documents? Am I reading it wrong? How would the defence know what the children said until they received disclosure from Dragonfly House?

All IMO
 
thank you thats why i though there was a full statement as i wondered how defence knew what was said in a report they were motioning for, sounds strange to me imo would be interested to hear more about this
 
searchinGirl said:
Here is a link for you...
http://www.irishexaminer.com/irelan...betts-children-must-release-notes-425441.html

"Sarah reported that: Her dad started fights with her mom for ridiculous reasons; he would hurt her mom... she saw her dad step on her mom’s foot, pull her mom’s hair, roll over her mom’s foot with the car, hit her mom in the face,” the documents filed by Ms Martens’ attorney read.

Jack reported that: His dad would physically and verbally abuse his mom; he would punch, hit and push her... he would scream, get mad and cuss more, he was getting angrier; his mom would try to get him to stop but his dad was strong,” the documents claimed."

This is such a sad situation all around. These initial interviews with the children establish the DV relationship within the family. I can't see how they won't be considered by the jury.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, I appreciate it! Definitely inflammatory, I wonder why the detectives thought these statements were coached.

I don't know how a judge could make these statements admissible but not the ones where Jack retracts his statements though. I really hope if that's the case they just deny submission of all the interviews because the last thing that boy needs is to be called to clarify which of the statements is correct.

Certainly on social media at the time, there were a long list of adults willing to state that they had seen/heard of the on-going abuse in the home, surely MM would be able to mount a defense of DV with other witnesses who could testify on her behalf. While it is true that alot of DV goes on behind closed doors, secret phone numbers etc would imply that more people were aware of the situation than just the immediate family so why the need to drag the kids into it any further. IMO

PS - I still have an issue with the word cuss, even more-so in the context it reads here.
 
Logic-lady said:
Thanks for the link, I appreciate it! Definitely inflammatory, I wonder why the detectives thought these statements were coached.

I don't know how a judge could make these statements admissible but not the ones where Jack retracts his statements though. I really hope if that's the case they just deny submission of all the interviews because the last thing that boy needs is to be called to clarify which of the statements is correct.

Certainly on social media at the time, there were a long list of adults willing to state that they had seen/heard of the on-going abuse in the home, surely MM would be able to mount a defense of DV with other witnesses who could testify on her behalf. While it is true that alot of DV goes on behind closed doors, secret phone numbers etc would imply that more people were aware of the situation than just the immediate family so why the need to drag the kids into it any further. IMO

PS - I still have an issue with the word cuss, even more-so in the context it reads here.
Click to expand...


I agree, it should be all or none.

Would MMC not have medical evidence to back up her claim that she was a victim of DV? I would assume that if someone drove over her foot, she would have received medical attention for this. Also, general question as I am not sure on the admittance of medical evidence in US trials, if the defence admit certain medical evidence relating to MMC does that make her complete medical history fair game for the prosecution?

All IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 230 more.
Total: 3,403 (members: 231, guests: 3,172)

Online statistics

Members online
231
Guests online
3,172
Total visitors
3,403
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
595,630
Messages
18,028,674
Members
229,705
Latest member
CelionYerkash
Back
Top