GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #10

[Frizby]

Does anyone know when we will have access to what motions were approved or denied in the trial? CM's assertion that the prosecution prevented them from producing evidence is really puzzling me!

AFAIK, the only two motions that he could be referring to were the original statement from the Children, which were denied on the basis that professionals involved believed that the children had been coached as when they were asked during those interviews as to how they knew about abuse, they replied "Mom told me". Also I would guess the language used by little JC was a factor, what 10 year old uses the terms he "physically & verbally abused her". And the children withdrew those original statements.

The other motions was TM statement for his reason as to why he brought the bat with him was because of the fear instilled in him following his discussion with MrF. This was denied on the basis that MrF made a sworn statement prior to his death that he never had such a conversation with TF and all the other family made statement that they did not believe it as JC was well liked by all the C's & the F's.

Some people, you can see on other forums like ABC & the like, seem to think that the abuse takes??!! were disallowed, afaik these were never even submitted & if the best she could do was the one aired on ABC, she would not have a leg to stand on. It was clearly an argument which was instigated by her to get him to shout. If they had any evidence of abuse, they would have submitted it.

 

[the jackal]

pathological liar ,,hit the nail on the head with that post ,,"as crazy as a coconut ":jail:

 

[Francesca]

Thank you Frizby, that post was really well summed up. It seems that the clan are really just focused on creating enough hot air that they can maintain the pose of being wronged maybe for the sake of a social veneer. None of this public posturing is of any benefit to Tom or Molly in prison, but it might show friends/ neighbors/ acquaintances that they should either support the Cause loudly or say nothing at all in order to keep the peace.

 

[Logic-lady]

AFAIK, the only two motions that he could be referring to were the original statement from the Children, which were denied on the basis that professionals involved believed that the children had been coached as when they were asked during those interviews as to how they knew about abuse, they replied "Mom told me". Also I would guess the language used by little JC was a factor, what 10 year old uses the terms he "physically & verbally abused her". And the children withdrew those original statements.

The other motions was TM statement for his reason as to why he brought the bat with him was because of the fear instilled in him following his discussion with MrF. This was denied on the basis that MrF made a sworn statement prior to his death that he never had such a conversation with TF and all the other family made statement that they did not believe it as JC was well liked by all the C's & the F's.

Some people, you can see on other forums like ABC & the like, seem to think that the abuse takes??!! were disallowed, afaik these were never even submitted & if the best she could do was the one aired on ABC, she would not have a leg to stand on. It was clearly an argument which was instigated by her to get him to shout. If they had any evidence of abuse, they would have submitted it.

Thanks Frizby, that's what I thought, I just wondered if we had missed something given how piecemeal the information came out around the trial.

I'm just still confused as to the defense strategy, I mean all they had to do was provide reasonable doubt. That's it, no defense, just poke enough holes in the prosecutions case that some of the jurors were inclined to disagree. It seems like some of the sleuthers on here could have done a better job for them than their own defense!

The prosecution presented a concise, factual account of what happened that night and asked all of the questions I as a juror would have had. Who wielded the brick? Why did SM sit in the basement and not call 911? Why so many blows even after JC went down? How was it possible for the perpetrators to have no blood on their hands if their timeline was correct?

TM witness testimony was not credible because it did not match the forensic evidence at the scene. So it didn't really matter how fearful he was, or what might have been running through his mind, or anything else really. His version of events did not tally with the independent forensic evidence at the scene. Why did he lie? He could remember blow by blow accounts of how he hit JC, but he couldn't remember what MM had said on the phone hours earlier? Just not credible IMO, certainly not credible enough to cast reasonable doubt on a well put together prosecution case.

The MF statement wouldn't have actually helped their case had it been admitted IMO. The forensic evidence highlights that the majority of the damage was done with the brick. TM claimed he never even saw the brick, so fearing his daughter was in the hands of a 'murderer' is irrelevant given he didn't manage to inflict the major damage, no?

Also, on a basic point of law, overkill trumps self defense anyway so in theory it wouldn't have mattered anyway, they would still have had to have been found guilty of something given the level of violence perpetrated.

The defense proposal that 'even in death JC was grasping onto MM' was a massive error IMO. Once the jurors saw the picture of said single hair lying ON TOP of JC's nail, I imagine it certainly made them question why the defense felt the need to exaggerate the evidence to support their client IMO. Caved in skull vs single strand of hair. I will give them a win on the nails not being scraped...but I would have applied that to JC and MM, and I would have also taken blood samples from all the adults present in the house that night, but hindsight is a great thing.

The motion to move the trial wouldn't have made a difference regarding the guilty verdict IMO as the prosecution case was so strong and the defense so weak.

And finally the kids statements. Legally they were unsound, but if the basis of them were true surely the defense could have produced a witness who knew enough to provide reasonable doubt? MM first lawyer MS is an expert in her field, she saw MM when she helped out at the gala for Piedmont House, surely she could have testified that MM portrayed signs that she was a victim of DV. She wouldn't have actually have had to have witnessed any abuse to recognise the signs. Stmarysmead has said countless times that she was aware her daughter was in an unsafe relationship and she lived across the country. SM would have known. She could have testified to noticing changes in MM behaviour. Anything, just enough to cast reasonable doubt.

But they didn't present anything. I guess that's why I was wondering about the motions, because on the basis of what we know, the conviction certainly IMO seems sound.

 

[Frizby]

Thank you Frizby, that post was really well summed up. It seems that the clan are really just focused on creating enough hot air that they can maintain the pose of being wronged maybe for the sake of a social veneer. None of this public posturing is of any benefit to Tom or Molly in prison, but it might show friends/ neighbors/ acquaintances that they should either support the Cause loudly or say nothing at all in order to keep the peace.

You see, what they have done, it appeal to the court of public perception while telling porkies all the way down the line. The public heard a little snippet of the children's tapes, they did not hear the councillor asking them how they knew, also some of the general public should have engaged a brain cell to realise that those are not the words of a 10 year old boy.

The public were also given a snippet of Jason getting angry and some made up their minds that JC was an abuser. They don't know the history of MM visiting lawyers for years to get custody and also did not actually listen to what was being said on that little snippet. The general public was also told the story not just by TM but also by MM about JC killing his first wife. This was what TM was using as his reason for carrying the bat to the room. The public did not on that ABC program find out that MrF refuted it as did the extended family. Also, they did not questions as to why if such a conversation happened between TM & MrF, then why was MM also claiming it. Suppose her excuse would be 'sure my dad told me'. What kind of dad would allow their daughter to set up home and play happy families if he was told this. But unfortunately, just like the M's do, they are playing to the public, they made a mockery of all those who actually suffered DV, pulling their sympathy on a bunch of lies was despicable.

The other think that I have seen them mentions, well the Uncle mention, was that the reason for the brick to be on the night-stand was because of it being a children's art project. If the defence wanted to enter that one and get laughed off the stage, they could easily have put MM on the stand. She was the only one who could testify to this.

They are clutching at straws, much of the public sympathy they will have attained will be disbursed as soon as the Ex does his "48 Hours" TV program which is due later this year. Any sympathy they have got has not manifested in the form of hard case as their funding appeal is dying a death. The latest CM intervention was laughable and an insult to the inelegance of the majority. I feel sorry for the eejits who have parted with their hard earner cash on this campaign, many are friends & family, some feel like they have to do it to hold their heads up but they is so misguided. Their last hope is on the Jury misconduct is very questionable and I suspect that what will be revealed about this will shock many and not in the favour of the M's.

Them games they play are very dangerous, some people outside the M's will be collateral damage. Some of the others who supported her will be horrified when they realise they have been pawns in their games.

 

[Frizby]

Thanks Frizby, that's what I thought, I just wondered if we had missed something given how piecemeal the information came out around the trial.

I'm just still confused as to the defense strategy, I mean all they had to do was provide reasonable doubt. That's it, no defense, just poke enough holes in the prosecutions case that some of the jurors were inclined to disagree. It seems like some of the sleuthers on here could have done a better job for them than their own defense!

The prosecution presented a concise, factual account of what happened that night and asked all of the questions I as a juror would have had. Who wielded the brick? Why did SM sit in the basement and not call 911? Why so many blows even after JC went down? How was it possible for the perpetrators to have no blood on their hands if their timeline was correct?

TM witness testimony was not credible because it did not match the forensic evidence at the scene. So it didn't really matter how fearful he was, or what might have been running through his mind, or anything else really. His version of events did not tally with the independent forensic evidence at the scene. Why did he lie? He could remember blow by blow accounts of how he hit JC, but he couldn't remember what MM had said on the phone hours earlier? Just not credible IMO, certainly not credible enough to cast reasonable doubt on a well put together prosecution case.

The MF statement wouldn't have actually helped their case had it been admitted IMO. The forensic evidence highlights that the majority of the damage was done with the brick. TM claimed he never even saw the brick, so fearing his daughter was in the hands of a 'murderer' is irrelevant given he didn't manage to inflict the major damage, no?

Also, on a basic point of law, overkill trumps self defense anyway so in theory it wouldn't have mattered anyway, they would still have had to have been found guilty of something given the level of violence perpetrated.

The defense proposal that 'even in death JC was grasping onto MM' was a massive error IMO. Once the jurors saw the picture of said single hair lying ON TOP of JC's nail, I imagine it certainly made them question why the defense felt the need to exaggerate the evidence to support their client IMO. Caved in skull vs single strand of hair. I will give them a win on the nails not being scraped...but I would have applied that to JC and MM, and I would have also taken blood samples from all the adults present in the house that night, but hindsight is a great thing.

The motion to move the trial wouldn't have made a difference regarding the guilty verdict IMO as the prosecution case was so strong and the defense so weak.

And finally the kids statements. Legally they were unsound, but if the basis of them were true surely the defense could have produced a witness who knew enough to provide reasonable doubt? MM first lawyer MS is an expert in her field, she saw MM when she helped out at the gala for Piedmont House, surely she could have testified that MM portrayed signs that she was a victim of DV. She wouldn't have actually have had to have witnessed any abuse to recognise the signs. Stmarysmead has said countless times that she was aware her daughter was in an unsafe relationship and she lived across the country. SM would have known. She could have testified to noticing changes in MM behaviour. Anything, just enough to cast reasonable doubt.

But they didn't present anything. I guess that's why I was wondering about the motions, because on the basis of what we know, the conviction certainly IMO seems sound.

I have always thought that one of MM key ambitions in this was to get those two kids on the stand. Thankfully the Judge did not allow it, it would have been dreadful to put those kids through that no mind having to get them to sit across from MM. If they got the kids on the stand, the question would have had to be raised about him owning the bat a year previous. The photos of him using it would probably have been presented. I feel that in the Civil Suit, this matter will be brought up as the evidence SM destroyed, not the bat itself, but the bag that it was in which police did not recover from the property when they did their search.

The defence were banking on the kids statements and the statement from TM about MrF for reasonable doubt. The judge kicked out their reasonable doubt possibility and the M's are now fuming. Tough, both were not sound and the Judge made the right call.

 

[Frizby]

TM witness testimony was not credible because it did not match the forensic evidence at the scene. So it didn't really matter how fearful he was, or what might have been running through his mind, or anything else really. His version of events did not tally with the independent forensic evidence at the scene. Why did he lie? He could remember blow by blow accounts of how he hit JC, but he couldn't remember what MM had said on the phone hours earlier? Just not credible IMO, certainly not credible enough to cast reasonable doubt on a well put together prosecution case.

I would like to compare what TM said on the ABC program to what his testified under oath. Because his story on the ABC program was that he hit JC in the bathroom (as he put it on that program "I hit him hard") but from I could gather going off the reporting of the trial, the blood spatter expert testified that there was no spatter in the bathroom, just blood transfer.

 

[Frizby]

I think Molly will do ok in prison once she gets over not having nice things around her. She will tone down her appearance and tell her tale of woe of an abusive husband and her children being taken away from her and no doubt meet other ladies in there who will emphasize. A lot of them will have children themselves. She will wise up soon enough. Whereas Tom is a different story imo. He is retired law enforcement. Inmates won't care that he was a pen pusher for majority of his career, or emphasize with his story of saving his daughter, they will just see another cop. He does not look well at all from his latest mugshot picture. Do we know if he has any medical conditions?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

TM has some medical condition, in court after the verdict before he was taken away, they had to get his medication. That being said, I know of very few 67 year olds that do not take some kind of medication, many are for very minor issues. Nothing has been said afaik about an condition he has, whether it is long term or just something brought on by the looming trial.

 

[kittythehare]

That ship sailed quite a while ago.

I was more referring to other sites that appear to run with our work and use it in horrible and irresponsible ways.. Most people here , particularly from the beginning, are aware and dont do it.

 

[Dumbfounded2]

no ideas apart from form filler somewhat mathemats. challenged, same as myself..

Appreciate you and your responses. Especially appreciate the reason for the edit.:goodpost::goodpost::goodpost:

 

[emmalpage81]

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.ind...s-in-molly-martens-murder-trial-36093246.html

All motions to be filed by Friday for the Court to consider. Applies to both sides.

 

[Morse]

First post here; my regular discussion forum shut their thread down because of idiots who were posting inappropriate things on it.

Have read a lot of the posts here over the last few months- a lot of really good comments and perspectives. Just to share a few of mine.

The Trial:
Smoke and Mirrors V's the prosecution hard facts.
A huge mistake for Molly not to testify- I do wonder what were the conversations like between Molly and her defence team- did they advise or did she refuse to testify? I think at the very least you would have got a hung jury and re-trial if she had testified. Instead, the defence stubbornly went the route of "prove it"- and of course, the prosecution did just that.

The Verdict:
One of the defence attorneys gave a brief press statement after the trial. He muttered about some grounds for appeal but even then didn't sound at all confident. I wonder did he truly believe that nothing but a not-guilty outcome was possible? He looked either shell-shocked or embarrassed- I can't decide which.

The Appeal:
It's really interesting- just like the defence campaign, the appeal is focusing on peripheral issues- certain minor pieces of evidence not taken into account; the jury's behaviour etc Absolutely no challenges around the extent of the injuries or any type of explanation (other than a bland self-defence argument ) that sheds light or explanation on the injuries incurred.

The Social Media Campaign- Before and After the trial:

Disgusting is probably the kindest thing i can say about it. You experienced Websleuths here, of course know what liars do- they talk around an issue or everything else other than the issue- but not the issue itself.

We saw this even on the 20/20 interview- all about JC's behaviour in the past (which I don't believe BTW)- but nothing around the night in question, except what they wanted us to believe.

So this appeal is all about truth, (a travesty of) justice and the American way - they should go into the Presidential Campaign business!!

If they could only sit down and walk us through, minute by minute, what MC did on the night her husband was so savagely taken from his family, that would be dignity. That would be justice. But unfortunately, MC "can't remember".
Oh well MC- then the facts as presented I'm afraid, will have to stand.

Appeal outcome?

I'm hopeful that the trial judge didn't "error in law" in some way around evidence permitted etc - or if he did, that it would be found not to have had an impact on the verdict- but of course you never know- but that's very much a legal argument piece that only appeal judges can decide.

What I'm more interested in, is the appeal around jury behaviour. Now most of what the jury have said since the trial, is pretty much inadmissible in an appeal, as they're now speaking after the verdict, and can read and say whatever they like- it doesn't matter now.

But what about the alleged behaviour throughout? i.e. speaking about the evidence etc.

Any track record of North Carolina appeals court overturning verdicts due to inappropriate jury behaviour? And how serious is this alleged behaviour- enough for a retrial?

Finally, RIP JC.

 

[stmarysmead]

Welcome, Morse. Excellent first post.

I remain riveted to the saga of this tragedy because once again, it demonstrates the unreliability and bias of the American media...who pick a side and shape their reporting to fit their agenda. The more you know of the truth, the more outrageous and undeniable the media propaganda becomes.

The M family is benefiting from a sympathetic and selective narrative...being pushed hard here in the US. It remains to be seen if the undeniable evidence of their brutality and overkill...can be trumped by the Media Fiction of the long suffering blonde Step-Mommy and her All American Dad.

They have only just begun...

 

[Morse]

Welcome, Morse. Excellent first post.

I remain riveted to the saga of this tragedy because once again, it demonstrates the unreliability and bias of the American media...who pick a side and shape their reporting to fit their agenda. The more you know of the truth, the more outrageous and undeniable the media propaganda becomes.

The M family is benefiting from a sympathetic and selective narrative...being pushed hard here in the US. It remains to be seen if the undeniable evidence of their brutality and overkill...can be trumped by the Media Fiction of the long suffering blonde Step-Mommy and her All American Dad.

They have only just begun...

Thanks stmarysmead

I've only seen a small bit of the American media coverage as I'm not US based- you could really see that the 20:20 documentary was trying to build a real "family wronged" story- they didn't have the decency to re-edit it though after the verdict and published the slant they wanted the American public to swallow.

One US headline I did see though was throughout the trial- it was throughout TM's testimony and it was something like "I did it in self-defence" or something like that- big bold headlines but I can't remember the newspaper now. The way that paper presented the headline,I really felt again that that paper wanted the American people to believe TM.

Do you have any other examples of American media bias on this case or is it just a general feeling around how the TV stations/papers are portraying it? Sometimes it's hard to put your finger on it, but you know you're being manipulated to think/feel a certain way. It's sometimes what they don't say, v's what they do say, that's significant.

BTW, since my post this morning I took a look at some appeals statistics from the North Carolina Courts and found these for 2016:

http://www.ncappellatestats.com/2017/05/what-was-north-carolina-court-of.html

If I"m reading it correctly, for Criminal Appeals: 65% of criminal appeals are affirmed, 18% reversed 14% mixed and 2% dismissed.

" (1) Affirmed – meaning the lower court’s ruling stands; (2) Reversed – meaning the lower court’s order is no longer valid; (3) Mixed – meaning part of the lower court’s order was affirmed and part was reversed; and (4) Dismissed – meaning the COA did not consider the merits of the appeal."


Slightly lower reversal figures for 2015 here (13%) for Criminal appeals:

http://www.ncappellatestats.com/2016/12/what-is-coas-reversal-rate.html

I think you'd have to wade through each appeal case to see what the grounds were- does anyone have information/statistics on Jury behaviour as a key ground for appeal?

 

[kittythehare]

Morse, Welcome.
Please read entire thread and previous threads and you will find answers to all your questions.

 

[Harmony 2]

:lurk:

 

[Harmony 2]

Thanks stmarysmead

I've only seen a small bit of the American media coverage as I'm not US based- you could really see that the 20:20 documentary was trying to build a real "family wronged" story- they didn't have the decency to re-edit it though after the verdict and published the slant they wanted the American public to swallow.

One US headline I did see though was throughout the trial- it was throughout TM's testimony and it was something like "I did it in self-defence" or something like that- big bold headlines but I can't remember the newspaper now. The way that paper presented the headline,I really felt again that that paper wanted the American people to believe TM.

Do you have any other examples of American media bias on this case or is it just a general feeling around how the TV stations/papers are portraying it? Sometimes it's hard to put your finger on it, but you know you're being manipulated to think/feel a certain way. It's sometimes what they don't say, v's what they do say, that's significant.

BTW, since my post this morning I took a look at some appeals statistics from the North Carolina Courts and found these for 2016:

http://www.ncappellatestats.com/2017/05/what-was-north-carolina-court-of.html

If I"m reading it correctly, for Criminal Appeals: 65% of criminal appeals are affirmed, 18% reversed 14% mixed and 2% dismissed.

" (1) Affirmed – meaning the lower court’s ruling stands; (2) Reversed – meaning the lower court’s order is no longer valid; (3) Mixed – meaning part of the lower court’s order was affirmed and part was reversed; and (4) Dismissed – meaning the COA did not consider the merits of the appeal."


Slightly lower reversal figures for 2015 here (13%) for Criminal appeals:

http://www.ncappellatestats.com/2016/12/what-is-coas-reversal-rate.html

I think you'd have to wade through each appeal case to see what the grounds were- does anyone have information/statistics on Jury behaviour as a key ground for appeal?

:Welcome1:
:greetings:

 

[Morse]

Awe, thanks Harmony2

 

[stephanddoody]

http://extra.ie/news/world-news/molly-martens-hair-was-not-dyed-in-prison
Prison bosses have debunked claims that husband-killer Molly Martens’ hair has been cut and dyed a different colour against her will.

And they have also revealed that any dramatic change to her appearance would first have to be formally approved by them because of the risk of the 34-year-old escaping from prison with a new identity.

According to prison bosses, Martens was transferred from the women’s section of the North Carolina Correctional Institute on Wednesday to the Southern Correctional Institute because of overcrowding

 

[Frizby]

http://extra.ie/news/world-news/molly-martens-hair-was-not-dyed-in-prison
Prison bosses have debunked claims that husband-killer Molly Martens’ hair has been cut and dyed a different colour against her will.

And they have also revealed that any dramatic change to her appearance would first have to be formally approved by them because of the risk of the 34-year-old escaping from prison with a new identity.

According to prison bosses, Martens was transferred from the women’s section of the North Carolina Correctional Institute on Wednesday to the Southern Correctional Institute because of overcrowding

The more porkies that ME or CM say, the more they are being exposed. Their pity plea on this one did not gain much traction as I think most people could read between the lines and see the truth. Let them continue, it will only do them harm.