GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #1

[Electric Sheep]

I was surprised to learn that there are very many deaths per annum by baseball bat.. these stats are a tad dated, but interesting that it is a common weapon of choice..http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp
I dont think there is baseball in Ireland, not sure, so its not a weapon of choice in blunt force murders here.
My difficulty in obtaining up to date research is due to the NRA debate comparing guns to other weapons in homicide.

I would say it is a matter of availability, yet I have never heard of anyone beaten to death with a hurley.

 

[kittythehare]

On page 13 of the Search Warrant it states (under description of evidence to be seized) "All related information concerning any Internet Address and any internet connections, sites, or any Internet Account Service Provider, Account Numbers, Electronic Messages, Printed Polices and Payment Information and any documents showing the ownership of such page". Would this include MM's Instagram Account or is it strictly related to FB?

Also having read the 4 page Medical Examiners Preliminary Summary; it states the bedroom had a large amount of blood on the floor, splatter on the walls and furniture and pieces of tissue and scalp was visible on the floor. This (imo) is not indicative of 'self-defence' but an all out attack and made for upsetting and chilling reading.

The Irish Times is one of the few reputable, mostly, media sources. They ran a good article on this http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crim...ife-and-father-in-law-performed-cpr-1.2490102

 

[KateB]

REFERENCING OUTSIDE SOURCES - "LINKS"

Quoting an outside source is allowed when the content is intended to substantiate a post. An example would be a snipped portion of a mainstream media (MSM) news article. While Websleuths does not prohibit quotes from sources outside of WS, we reserve the right to remove the quote and link if the source is deemed inappropriate.

NOTE: When quoting an outside source, a link to the source must be included in the post. The same rule applies to posting images.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?65798-Etiquette-amp-Information

Remember to provide source links to your photos. Photos without source links have been and will continue to be removed.
Thanks.

 

[KateB]

I've created a reference, no discussion thread for all the documents and articles in Jason's case. I did not post every single article as many have the same info. But please post any that I may have missed that have important details. It will be easier for new readers to catch up quickly and also easier for us to refer back to link to our sources in our discussions.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...2015-Media-Links-Documents-Only-No-Discussion

Please add any others and new ones as they are published.

 

[stephanddoody]

On page 13 of the Search Warrant it states (under description of evidence to be seized) "All related information concerning any Internet Address and any internet connections, sites, or any Internet Account Service Provider, Account Numbers, Electronic Messages, Printed Polices and Payment Information and any documents showing the ownership of such page". Would this include MM's Instagram Account or is it strictly related to FB?

Also having read the 4 page Medical Examiners Preliminary Summary; it states the bedroom had a large amount of blood on the floor, splatter on the walls and furniture and pieces of tissue and scalp was visible on the floor. This (imo) is not indicative of 'self-defence' but an all out attack and made for upsetting and chilling reading.

Facebook and Instagram are owned by the same company. They also got access to the email address which I assume they would have access to all social media that used the email address. The autopsy is very very chilling. It references to blood under Jason's fingernails and toenails. Was he trying to protect his head ? Was he stumbling around in his own blood trying to get away We know Molly and Tom had no marks on them so it must have been his own blood . Very disturbing

 

[peregrino]

I am from Ireland and this is my 1st post. I was drawn to the case initially because Jason was Irish, and because of the initial press coverage in Ireland, but I became more drawn to it because of the apparent dismissive attitude of the perpetrators, to the victim, and to his family – which I find both shocking and offensive.
I have been following the story from the beginning, but not on FB – I just think a lot of the FB stuff has the ability to fudge the case, so I have tended to avoid it.
IMHO however, there are two central planks to the defence, which the prosecution really needs to address in order to ensure justice is done.
The first ‘plank’ is proving a history of DV – as it explains TM bringing a bat into the bedroom. If there is a history of DV, and your daughter and son in law are arguing loudly and violently enough for you to intervene, you might bring a weapon. However, I believe you would also get someone to call 911 IMMEDIATELY, before heading upstairs to their bedroom.
If there is no history of DV, then you would go and investigate without a weapon, and if you could not get the situation under control, you would then call 911. The burden therefore, is on the defence to prove DV, in my opinion, as it explains TM bringing a weapon to the room. However, they still need to explain why, if TM believed there to be a prior history or likelihood of DV, he would not have asked Sharon to call 911, as he ‘went to the rescue’ armed with a bat. That, in my opinion, would suggest someone intending to ‘sort things out on his own’.
The second ‘plank’ is proving Jason’s plans to either stay permanently in the US, or leave pretty much imminently. In this regard, the burden I believe is on the prosecution to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that Jason intended to leave imminently, as the defence merely has to argue that, without evidence to the contrary, Jason can be assumed to have planned to stay, and that would indicate there was no clear motive for a ‘rage’, or even premeditated, killing.
For both of these ‘planks', the defence will need actual hard evidence to prove DV, and hearsay will not be enough; while the prosecution will need actual hard evidence to prove Jason was planning to leave with the kids, and again hearsay will not be enough.
I believe the defence will try to indicate prior DV – hence the gathering of social services records – and then try to refute claims that Jason was planning to leave, thereby removing a motive for his murder, thus leaving the door open to a claim of self defence against a physically strong, violent abuser, who was content to stay in a marriage with a woman he could control. Of course, they still have the much harder task of trying to make a self defence claim fit with the autopsy and the crime scene forensic evidence – including the use of 2 weapons, but the prosecution will have to work hard to ensure (a) any DV claim is disproved, and (b) that Jason was planning to flee back to Ireland with the children. If the prosecution can do that, then the autopsy and the forensic evidence will do the rest, and justice will be done. I sincerely hope they do.
All the above is just my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 165489]

Wow! Kate, you have made a big difference since joining this forum. Thanks for all the helpful interventions and for tidying up all the information.

I've created a reference, no discussion thread for all the documents and articles in Jason's case. I did not post every single article as many have the same info. But please post any that I may have missed that have important details. It will be easier for new readers to catch up quickly and also easier for us to refer back to link to our sources in our discussions.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...2015-Media-Links-Documents-Only-No-Discussion

Please add any others and new ones as they are published.

 

[stmarysmead]

I am from Ireland and this is my 1st post. I was drawn to the case initially because Jason was Irish, and because of the initial press coverage in Ireland, but I became more drawn to it because of the apparent dismissive attitude of the perpetrators, to the victim, and to his family – which I find both shocking and offensive.
I have been following the story from the beginning, but not on FB – I just think a lot of the FB stuff has the ability to fudge the case, so I have tended to avoid it.
IMHO however, there are two central planks to the defence, which the prosecution really needs to address in order to ensure justice is done.
The first ‘plank’ is proving a history of DV – as it explains TM bringing a bat into the bedroom. If there is a history of DV, and your daughter and son in law are arguing loudly and violently enough for you to intervene, you might bring a weapon. However, I believe you would also get someone to call 911 IMMEDIATELY, before heading upstairs to their bedroom.
If there is no history of DV, then you would go and investigate without a weapon, and if you could not get the situation under control, you would then call 911. The burden therefore, is on the defence to prove DV, in my opinion, as it explains TM bringing a weapon to the room. However, they still need to explain why, if TM believed there to be a prior history or likelihood of DV, he would not have asked Sharon to call 911, as he ‘went to the rescue’ armed with a bat. That, in my opinion, would suggest someone intending to ‘sort things out on his own’.
The second ‘plank’ is proving Jason’s plans to either stay permanently in the US, or leave pretty much imminently. In this regard, the burden I believe is on the prosecution to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that Jason intended to leave imminently, as the defence merely has to argue that, without evidence to the contrary, Jason can be assumed to have planned to stay, and that would indicate there was no clear motive for a ‘rage’, or even premeditated, killing.
For both of these ‘planks', the defence will need actual hard evidence to prove DV, and hearsay will not be enough; while the prosecution will need actual hard evidence to prove Jason was planning to leave with the kids, and again hearsay will not be enough.
I believe the defence will try to indicate prior DV – hence the gathering of social services records – and then try to refute claims that Jason was planning to leave, thereby removing a motive for his murder, thus leaving the door open to a claim of self defence against a physically strong, violent abuser, who was content to stay in a marriage with a woman he could control. Of course, they still have the much harder task of trying to make a self defence claim fit with the autopsy and the crime scene forensic evidence – including the use of 2 weapons, but the prosecution will have to work hard to ensure (a) any DV claim is disproved, and (b) that Jason was planning to flee back to Ireland with the children. If the prosecution can do that, then the autopsy and the forensic evidence will do the rest, and justice will be done. I sincerely hope they do.
All the above is just my opinion.

Welcome to WS! Terrific first post.

Here is my rebuttal to the DV charge as an excuse:

First, Molly's family is a family of law enforcement, FBI to be exact. DV is against the law. Anyone can google the support that NC offers DV victims to see the large range of options Molly would have had. Her family, more than any family unversed in the law, would have known how to use law enforcement to protect Molly and punish Jason.

Why didn't Molly press charges in previous incidents? His employer could have been notified. With DV charges on his record, Molly would have had a stronger case for custody of the children. All one has to do is Google "help for DV victims in NC" to see that Molly would have had a plethora of options and protections.

Her family had the knowledge and resources to get her the best help possible. But they did nothing. And then they slaughtered a man. That does not make sense.

Why were they all in the house with a violent man? If you need a weapon to defend yourself against a big violent man, why even be in his presence? Why not have your daughter come to your home?

And the children are no excuse. Because that day provided a perfect opportunity for Molly to leave with the kids. They were at a neighbors house till late at night.

Why did Molly bring the children back to the house, bringing them into a (alleged) violent situation? Who does that, Miss Perfect Mommy? Why didn't she call her parents, say she was coming there...instead of them coming to her...and then pick up the kids, get to her parents house and file charges?

The daughter and niece of FBI agents doesn't know how to use the law to protect herself? Not CREDIBLE!

This is a lying heinous coverup. As heinous as their murder.

As far as whether Jason was leaving her, I don't think that matters one way or another. He was Catholic and may have felt saddled with her. But she may have been so frustrated that he started looking for jobs there and transferring money, that she decided to kill him so she and the children could stay in the States and Molly have her way, as always.

 

[peregrino]

Thanks stmarysmead. I dont believe there was prior DV, but the defence need to prove it to explainTM bringing a bat to the room. I dont think they will be able to prove it. However I do think the prosecution need to be able to convince a jury that Jason was going to leave as this provides a motive. I wouldnt put too much on the Catholicism angle - I think he would leave for his own and his kids sake and sort out the formalities later.
One thing that intrigues me though. Jason was naked when killed and the police took clothing from T and M as evidence. What I am curious about is whether this was day wear or night wear. If day wear why were T and/or M fully clothed at circa. 3 a.m.? That could suggest premeditation to carry out an assault. It would be interesting to know the type of clothing taken as forensic evidence - night wear or day wear?

All the above is my opinion only, of course.

 

[stmarysmead]

Great point about the clothes.

I believe that Jason's employers have indicated that he talked to them about moving back either to Ireland or England. He also transferred $60,000 just before he was murdered.

I think, if true, that these two acts alone could have enraged Molly. I think it shows he was moving back, with or without her. That is a complete loss of control for a control freak. "The kids and the money are moving with me. Take it or leave it."

That may have precipitated the call to her parents. Come and talk him out of this. The grandchildren will be too far away, etc etc. He's forcing me. Blah, blah.

I think her parents considered this abuse.

In my imaginary scenario, the parents arrive...all three badger him all day. Jason let's the kids go to the neighbors to get them out of the situation. Finally, Jason tells them the matter is settled (he was an exceutive used to handling controversy) and he goes to bed.

I think the parents, who may have been tired after a long unexpected drive to NC, go to bed as well. But Molly stays up and her rage builds. Her first act of defiance and asserting control is to bring the kids home. How dare he decide where the kids spend the night.

I bet she will be found to be wearing whatever she had on during the day. She walked through the house, in my opinion, rage overwhelming her and then she got her weapons.

She began striking Jason with the bat, stunning him, and when he fell to the floor, she changed weapons. I'm not sure her Father heard anything. I think when her murderous rage reached its intended conclusion, she ran to Daddy and Mommy for help.

I don't believe her Father struck one blow. But as law enforcement agent, he concocted the best story to save his daughter and keep the money and the kids for her. So far, it's not working out too well.

That's my opinion at the moment.

I also read that extended family took vacations with Jason and family. Very chummy, weren't they, with the brute that was abusing Molly?

 

[kittythehare]

Thanks stmarysmead. I dont believe there was prior DV, but the defence need to prove it to explainTM bringing a bat to the room. I dont think they will be able to prove it. However I do think the prosecution need to be able to convince a jury that Jason was going to leave as this provides a motive. I wouldnt put too much on the Catholicism angle - I think he would leave for his own and his kids sake and sort out the formalities later.
One thing that intrigues me though. Jason was naked when killed and the police took clothing from T and M as evidence. What I am curious about is whether this was day wear or night wear. If day wear why were T and/or M fully clothed at circa. 3 a.m.? That could suggest premeditation to carry out an assault. It would be interesting to know the type of clothing taken as forensic evidence - night wear or day wear?

All the above is my opinion only, of course.

Do you know they are not being charged with first degree (pre-meditated) murder?

Jason's plans to return to ireland- remember he was returning first for his parents' birthday surprse on August 21st? It was not meant to be the permanent move.
He was considering a permanent move to either Ireland or UK at a later date , however, again this is not necessarily motive, either. He had not booked a ticket for Molly to attend his parents' birthday celebration. His work colleagues confirmed he anted to leave USA and was enquiring about a transfer to another country.
I never saw reference to police having taken Molly's, Tom's or/and Sharon's clothes as evidence. I would hope they had done so. We dont need to prove pre-meditation here because they are being charged with second degree murder which is not pre-meditated. If they had pre meditated the murder, they could quite easily have staged a break-in and removed the children before the event.

 

[kittythehare]

I've created a reference, no discussion thread for all the documents and articles in Jason's case. I did not post every single article as many have the same info. But please post any that I may have missed that have important details. It will be easier for new readers to catch up quickly and also easier for us to refer back to link to our sources in our discussions.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...2015-Media-Links-Documents-Only-No-Discussion

Please add any others and new ones as they are published.

What a mammoth task you have undertaken. Thank you so very much, its been like a maze of confusion. I am so sorry for all the hours you had to spend doing this. Will try to be much neater in future. Sincere thanks, again

 

[peregrino]

Great point about the clothes.

I believe that Jason's employers have indicated that he talked to them about moving back either to Ireland or England. He also transferred $60,000 just before he was murdered.

I think, if true, that these two acts alone could have enraged Molly. I think it shows he was moving back, with or without her. That is a complete loss of control for a control freak. "The kids and the money are moving with me. Take it or leave it."

That may have precipitated the call to her parents. Come and talk him out of this. The grandchildren will be too far away, etc etc. He's forcing me. Blah, blah.

I think her parents considered this abuse.

In my imaginary scenario, the parents arrive...all three badger him all day. Jason let's the kids go to the neighbors to get them out of the situation. Finally, Jason tells them the matter is settled (he was an exceutive used to handling controversy) and he goes to bed.

I think the parents, who may have been tired after a long unexpected drive to NC, go to bed as well. But Molly stays up and her rage builds. Her first act of defiance and asserting control is to bring the kids home. How dare he decide where the kids spend the night.

I bet she will be found to be wearing whatever she had on during the day. She walked through the house, in my opinion, rage overwhelming her and then she got her weapons.

She began striking Jason with the bat, stunning him, and when he fell to the floor, she changed weapons. I'm not sure her Father heard anything. I think when her murderous rage reached its intended conclusion, she ran to Daddy and Mommy for help.

I don't believe her Father struck one blow. But as law enforcement agent, he concocted the best story to save his daughter and keep the money and the kids for her. So far, it's not working out too well.

That's my opinion at the moment.

I also read that extended family took vacations with Jason and family. Very chummy, weren't they, with the brute that was abusing Molly?

I believe what you have outlined is the most likely scenario. All of the available information would appear to support it in my opinion. Maybe a few slight variations here and there, but pretty much spot on IMO.

 

[KateB]

Can anyone tell me if posts can be privatised for members only viewing on this forum or is it all public?

I didn't see a response to this but FYI, Websleuths is a public forum and all posts are public. At the bottom of each thread, members can see the names of members and the number of guests who are reading the thread. The guests are the non-members or members not logged in that are currently in the thread.

Websleuths does have a members only section, fondly nicknamed "the basement" here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?22-Private-Forums

Members must be logged in to read in the Private Forum and threads there generally are not case specific and are located there for various different reasons.

HTH.

 

[peregrino]

Do you know they are not being charged with first degree (pre-meditated) murder?

Jason's plans to return to ireland- remember he was returning first for his parents' birthday surprse on August 21st? It was not meant to be the permanent move.
He was considering a permanent move to either Ireland or UK at a later date , however, again this is not necessarily motive, either. He had not booked a ticket for Molly to attend his parents' birthday celebration. His work colleagues confirmed he anted to leave USA and was enquiring about a transfer to another country.
I never saw reference to police having taken Molly's, Tom's or/and Sharon's clothes as evidence. I would hope they had done so. We dont need to prove pre-meditation here because they are being charged with second degree murder which is not pre-meditated. If they had pre meditated the murder, they could quite easily have staged a break-in and removed the children before the event.

Thanks kitty. Yes, I am aware of the second degree murder and not needing to prove premeditation. I think there may have been premeditation, but the prosecution - rightly in my opinion - went for murder 2 as it is much harder to prove murder 1.

 

[wildebeest]

Welcome peregrino! Excellent posts!

I had never considered the type of clothing Tom and Molly were wearing. I think that LE knows and has it documented. In other cases I have read about, clothing of the accused is very valuable with the prosecution, the blood spatter, in particular. Comparing this pattern to the story of the accused is quite telling. In other words, the blood spatter tells what really happened.

Really good points about the claims of DV in the house. None of the Martens actions add up to these claims. Also, the fact that Jason was an Irish citizen would have made it easier for Molly to have brought charges against him, and possibly have him deported back to Ireland. But, she didn't do this? She had many opportunities to file charges, leave the house with the children, etc. etc. However, she did nothing, but decide to take justice into her own hands that fateful evening.

IMHO

 

[stmarysmead]

Lets talk about TM's story.

He goes up to the bedroom and sees JC choking his daughter and strikes him with a baseball bat.

First question, why does he arm himself with a bat?

Because he hears fighting and JC has abused her before.

Well, then why didn't you advise your daughter to file charges during the past abuse? Why didn't you get her help? You can't protect her from a state away? However could you just leave your daughter in this ongoing dangerous situation...and sit hours away with peace of mind? Huh?

How long since TM last visited? Days, weeks, months? How does that fit with the dangerous monster of a husband vs protective Daddy?

So this "history" that justifies a weapon is shown untruthful by leaving their daughter alone for periods of time in this supposed situation.

 

[Mom2catieandtwins]

This is my first post as well. I think the theories are correct. In my opinion TM is protecting his daughter, with no regards to the Corbett family.

Two issues I have always had with MM is her complete disregard for Mags Corbett. She is the children's mother. Death did not take that title from her. I believe a loving step-mother would want to keep the birth mothers memories alive. It also sickens me that Jason's memory is quickly forgotten too. All Molly cares about is Molly. JC and SC were never her children.

 

[Frizby]

I think the Baseball Bat will be one of the key pieces of evidence when this all comes to trial. TM said he brought this with him as a gift for the little boy but did not have a chance to give it to him yet.

This bat, as one of the weapons, is described in the evidence as being black & red with black grips however this is identical to the description of the bat given by JC during grief counselling, a bat that was given to him the previous summer by TM. If JC did not have such a bat he could not have described it and if there was a second bat, then why did they not find this during the search of the property. In addition, they did not even find the black sports bag that it was kept in, even though the warrant specified they were looking for the bag as one of the items.

It is also a bit coincidental that MM posted up pictures of the children's clothes and carefully placed a baseball bat cover over the clothes. This confirms that he had a bat, in general you would expect that said cover should be on such a bat.

The search warrant was issued on 4th December 2015 and was executed less than an hour & a half later. The search of the entire house & the garage was carried out at 14.30pm on 4th December. I am sure she got a proper old shock when she got home to find that the house had been searched.

The items on the search warrant which they wanted to seize or were looking for are as follows....
1) A black cloth sports equipment bag & its contents
2) Aluminium baseball bat(s)
3) Any actual photographs related to Jack Corbett's baseball equipment
4) Any computer, computer devices, digital files or storage devices utilised for the storage of digital files where images of Jack Corbett's baseball equipment might be located

However, what was actually seized during the search was
1) 2 Photographs
2) 2 Digital SD cards
3) 1 Digital Photoframe

So they seized photographs showing baseball equipment but did not get any bag or bat. So where are they, where is the bag? MM seems to have kept the cover of a bat. Why would she even put a picture of this up on the internet? She posted that picture up on 18th December.

Now, the father, given all his previous experience in law enforcement, why would he put up such a story that he brought this bat with him as a gift and this is why it was so close to hand. Surely he would know that this could and would be easily disproved. I am sure that the bat has been dusted for finger prints and even one print from the child will disprove his story not to mention all the other evidence that has been gathered.

And then you have the landscaping stone, passing it off once in the papers as being in the bedroom because of a school project is so far-fetched.

My own gut feeling on this is that she attacked JC with the baseball bat, realising that she could not fully subdue him went back downstairs to get a heavier weapon, one that she might have spotted earlier when she was out on the lawn socialising with the neighbours. I don't think the father did any of it, none of his story fits. And where was SM during all this, she has been kept well out of it so far.

The fact that TM story has so many holes I suspect that he came on the event after most of the actions had been carried out. He knew that there was no choice but to report the matter, he however did not have enough time to consider all the holes. The time of travel will be also be key.




In case anyone is looking for any links about this entire story, KateB has set up an excellent non-discussion thread with links to autopsy, warrants, articles, etc. Fair play to you KateB, that was some work http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...2015-Media-Links-Documents-Only-No-Discussion

 

[stmarysmead]

I think they have the bat that was used in the murder.

TM admitted using a bat. The only issue in contention is...was there a second bat? The only way TM and the child could both be telling the truth is if there were two bats. One bat, kept in the garage that the child has in his hands in the photos. Another bat, that TM had in the guest room as a "gift" and then carried upstairs and used as the weapon.

There is no reason to remove the murder weapon when you have already admitted using it. The police were , in my opinion, looking for a second bat to rule out that excuse.

There was none.

I'm sure the murder weapon was taken and checked for fingerprints. I wonder if they even found TM's fingerprints on it. Or where they found his fingerprints on it. Were his fingerprints at the base where they would be when it is used as a weapon? Or further up the bat...where someone might pick it up to move it? Or not there at all?