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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree. Don't throw rocks at me but I feel that Molly will walk or get a light sentence. Not sure if Molly not testifying will make a difference. I have not followed this case as closely as most of you. Daddy dearest will probably go down.

If this were a drug case or anything besides self defense I would say her not testifying doesn't carry as much weight. It has been my experience that juries in self-defense cases want to hear from thr defendant to understand why they did what they did. Molly had a role in this by, at a minimum, hitting Jason with the brick several times. There was no explanation given or offered for why the brick was there or why it was used. I think her lack of testimony turns this case against both of them.

I think both get the same verdict (whatever it is) and, if applicable, the same sentence.
 
I'm going with guilty...of something. Maybe its manslaughter as a lesser included or maybe its 2nd degree. There's too much unexplained, the brick paver is still a mystery. Molly did not testify. Of course that isn't required but in a case like this it's important. The jury has to wonder why she didn't get up there and say she was choked
I think the paver has baffled most of us. If TM/MM planned this attack (which I sort of think they may have) they had to discuss weapon(s) of choice. I have no idea if retired FBI agents continue to conceal carry into their retirement. TM could have easily planned to take a gift (youth bat) that would be conveniently placed at the ready. If TM/MM needed/wanted a 2nd weapon they couldn't select a fireplace poker w no fireplace. If MM/JC didn't keep a firearm in their home MM couldn't incorporate one into the game plan. I would have thought maybe a knife would have been a possibility. I must admit, I really don't see how they came up with a paver. Maybe MM had been planning to find a way to get a weapon into the bedroom days/weeks ahead of time and maybe guided a school project w paver. i feel confident paver baffled LE as well and that homework project story was checked out and confirmed. I think the prosecutor has given up why paver was where it was, but rather investigated how the paver was excessively used.
I am sort of thinking the paver was the first item that struck JC. I forget exact wording (and too lazy to go in search of words) but testimony said something along the lines of ..saturated deeply with JC blood. I understand pavers are porous and could become easily saturated. But if JC was horizontal and asleep and a paver came crashing down w force I am not understanding the saturation. Another angle i have considered is JC somehow ending up horizontal on his stomach or back at some time and maybe someone sitting straddle of JC and lifting JC head and driving head into the paver. This might leave JC head resting atop paver to point of saturation. Could the bat have been used post-attack as just a cover up minutes after the fact?
 
I wasn't expecting to get this today......nothing from the defense for MM. Wow! It didn't even cross my mind that this would happen. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that MM refused to take the stand or to engage in the trial after the judge ruled against the kids interviews . :waitasec:
 
Nice body language here - she won't even walk in step with her father/ parents when he's on trial for "saving" her? Doesn't say much for a united family front.

Reminds me of how some little kids act when they don't get their way. Spoiled brat, stomping away and trying to get sympathy from daddy. (Barf)
 
I think the paver has baffled most of us. If TM/MM planned this attack (which I sort of think they may have) they had to discuss weapon(s) of choice. I have no idea if retired FBI agents continue to conceal carry into their retirement. TM could have easily planned to take a gift (youth bat) that would be conveniently placed at the ready. If TM/MM needed/wanted a 2nd weapon they couldn's select a fireplace poker w no fireplace. If MM/JC didn't keep a firearm in their home MM couldn't incorporate one into the game plan. I would have thought maybe a knife would have been a possibility. I must admit, I really don't see how they came up with a paver. Maybe MM had been planning to find a way to get a weapon ito the bedroom days/weeks ahead of time and maybe guided a school project w paver. i feel confident paver baffled LE as well and that homework project story was checked out and confirmed. I think the prosecutor has given up why paver was where it was, but rather investigated how the paver was excessively used.

A question I have had throughout this trial is why the prosecutor charged second degree murder. All of their evidence and their closing arguments suggested that their theory of the case was that this an intentional, pre-meditated murder. It doesn't make sense to me why firsr degree wasn't pursued given what they seem to think happened. I can only speculate that physical evidence such as cell phones didnt provide enough in the way of pre-planning to support the charge, even though technically under NC law permeditation can happen in an instant.
 
I don't agree - a blonde hair in Jason's hand doesn't indicate any violence or threat on his part. There was no evidence that Molly was suffering from having a huge chunk of hair yanked out of her head. The blonde hair could have fallen onto his open hand as she leaned over him to see if he was dead. Or it could have been naturally shed and on the floor where he fell. In contrast, you have the paving stone covered in Jason's hair and blood.

If the defense presented an independent witness to state that Jason was in the habit of getting angry for no reason, then I missed it and didn't see it mentioned here. Having your wife/ estranged wife and FIL in your room at 3am when you are naked would be a good enough reason to get angry at them and tell them to leave, IMO. There were three people with two weapons between them - neither of those weapons belonged naturally in the bedroom - and only one person was injured. Fatally injured.

I think the defence did the best they could with very little material to work with - all they can do is suggest reasonable doubt, but I didn't see they presented any factors that would conclude reasonable doubt.
They couldn't risk putting Molly on the stand, because it would be too difficult for her to stay consistent with TM's story, which already clashed with forensic evidence. And if she's so emotional about the mention of the children's natural mother, when she's just sitting in court, then she'd be really vulnerable to exposing her motives if she was on the stand - she'd want to insist that she was the children's true mother and that she was entitled to the lifestyle JC could offer without the annoying detail of JC's presence.


Excellent post :yeahthat::goodpost:
 
A question I have had throughout this trial is why the prosecutor charged second degree murder. All of their evidence and their closing arguments suggested that their theory of the case was that this an intentional, pre-meditated murder. It doesn't make sense to me why firsr degree wasn't pursued given what they seem to think happened. I can only speculate that physical evidence such as cell phones didnt provide enough in the way of pre-planning to support the charge, even though technically under NC law permeditation can happen in an instant.

Others have stated juries are more likely to convict on 2nd degree murder and voluntary manslaughter than 1st degree murder.
 
JMO that is the most unbiased article they have published.

"...He told the jurors that they don’t know what kind of fear Molly Corbett and Martens had that morning because they weren’t there. ..."

MM's defense attorney's remarks in his closing attempting to create reasonable doubt are all things that the defense could have and should have answered IMO. MM was the only one who could take the stand and explain this "fear" she felt. And MM declined medical care, and besides the onus was on her to seek medical care and have it recorded, not on police. And judge's instructions or not, every juror has in the back of their mind, "Why didn't MM take the stand and explain herself?" There is a definite arrogance from TM that his FBI background makes him unassailable and above question, and MM seems to have inherited the arrogance because she has never been forced to be responsible for anything in her life, JMO.
 
A question I have had throughout this trial is why the prosecutor charged second degree murder. All of their evidence and their closing arguments suggested that their theory of the case was that this an intentional, pre-meditated murder. It doesn't make sense to me why firsr degree wasn't pursued given what they seem to think happened. I can only speculate that physical evidence such as cell phones didnt provide enough in the way of pre-planning to support the charge, even though technically under NC law permeditation can happen in an instant.
I am speculating the state hoped for a 1st degree charge initially but thought maybe the jury could see a form of self defense, so if state under charged a little and hoped for a conviction on overkill being supported by the evidence they would be happy with a conviction of 2nd degree. To continue that possible train of thought, state even continued late in the game w accepting a lessor of manslaughter. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
 
JMO that is the most unbiased article they have published.

"...He told the jurors that they don’t know what kind of fear Molly Corbett and Martens had that morning because they weren’t there. ..."

MM's defense attorney's remarks in his closing attempting to create reasonable doubt are all things that the defense could have and should have answered IMO. MM was the only one who could take the stand and explain this "fear" she felt. And MM declined medical care, and besides the onus was on her to seek medical care and have it recorded, not on police. And judge's instructions or not, every juror has in the back of their mind, "Why didn't MM take the stand and explain herself?" There is a definite arrogance from TM that his FBI background makes him unassailable and above question, and MM seems to have inherited the arrogance because she has never been forced to be responsible for anything in her life, JMO.

BBM - She has never been forced to be responsible for anything in her life. I think prison is going to be very hard on both TM and MM.
 
Of course they will base their verdict on the evidence; everything you said and more. But, the jury might not see things the same as you. Particularly the way you view Molly. And, the way she is covered in the Irish Press is just not who she is. I don't think so. The soccer mom vs the vixen Nanny? Well that'll probably get cut. But, Sorry to tell you it's offensive that attitude. Rash, rude & rigid. IMO

But I'm not looking for an argument either. I also imagine that folks down that way are offended by the media onslaught that has descended onto their town and basically disrupted their lives. I mean, most of them probably have to get back to work. And, I know it's their civic duty and all, but I wonder if everyone has found enough places to park everyday? And get coffee? I doubt their facilities were built to handle anything like this and everyone is stressed out as can be. JMO Life needs to return to normal.

I want to tell you this for to think about a different venue. But I went to college just 20 miles down the road in Salisbury. I met a detective with the Rowan County Sherriff at a reunion party last fall who had not heard of this case at all, a full fifteen months after JC died. He should have known about it. He said so, but he didn't know anything. Strange IMO

What media onslaught there are about 5 people down there reporting . We have been complaining the whole time about it . I'm pretty sure Davison county can handle that and still manage to get a coffee . All the jury know about Molly is she bashed Jason's head in with a rock claiming self defence but won't get up there and tell them why she did actually lying in her original statement to police .They don't know if she is a vixen or a soccer mom . They just know she killed or was part of killing her husband .
 
If Molly is found guilty she has a good case for appealing ineffective assistance on counsel. It was an appellate issue raised for Scott Peterson and Michael Skakel (Kennedy cousin).

http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/uniontrib/20041228/news_1m28appeal.html

https://jonathanturley.org/2013/10/24/michael-shakel-granted-new-trial-due-to-ineffective-counsel/

If defence appeal is the onus on them then to prove self defence? Also can the judge deny an appeal?

Moo
 
Sounds like the Corbetts have done an exemplary job of keeping the children safe from the media and the Martens. It must be so strange for the children, as far as they know, bad people go to jail, but even getting to trial is such a lengthly process these days. Plus there's the fact MM is a blonde white female American. Genetic lottery + home country advantage = institutionalised favouritism. Children don't know and shouldn't have to take all this into account. I can't imagine how to explain all this to a child, wouldn't even know where to start.

I've lurked on and off since I first heard of this case. I'm Irish but don't live there and what got me interested in the first place was, as has frequently came up in the threads, is the Martens sheer arrogance.

In Ireland, cremation is still rare, especially for Irish Catholics. I've been to enough Irish wakes and funerals to know they're typically a huge family gathering. But what did the Martens do in the aftermath? Try to arrange for a cremation, without JC's family there, seemingly informing them of it as a mere afterthought. Leave no trace of him, take the kids, assimilate them further into their family unit. What Molly wants, Molly gets. Accomodating her needs have became so normalised, contemplating the consequences has became alien, imo.

In their arrogance, they never counted on the organisational skills of the Corbetts. Tracey Lynch was on holiday at the time and cancelled it, to immediately organise getting JC and the children home. They seem to be good people. Just a quick glance at their facebooks reveal a history of interest in charitable causes. Meanwhile, the Martens send them the ambulance bill.

I remember this because reading about it got me interested in my home country for the first time in well over a decade.

My sister has a few things in common with MM. Both the only girl in a family with lots of brothers, spoilt rotten as a result, daddy's little princess, used to getting their own way, has disorders. There's an 18 year age gap between my sister and I and fortunately for us both, I was the trigger that got her the help she needed. She hated having a baby sister and tried to use me as an ashtray. These days she's kept on her meds, her kids are all university grads and we're not close but that is fine.

Molly had this ready-made family she could insert herself into, we already know through previous articles/threads she tried to pass off the youngest child as her own. Yet JC balked at the idea of letting her formally adopt the children. I can understand why - from a legal pov, that would forever destroy the ties between his children and their mother's family. That is adoption - new birth certs issued, officially their mother would've been just the birth mother and their mother's family irrelevant to them from that legal standpoint. He couldn't do that to his children and their extended family.

But for MM, his refusal ruined her illusion of a happy family unit. Used to getting her own way, this definately would've frayed the relationship. She had already made gains in isolating them from their bio family, assimilating them into her US family, encouraging the use of Grandpa and Seecu, her family replacing their own as cousins, uncles, etc. Even the clothing, such as the daughter wearing a t-shirt saying USA, the son taking up typical US sports. Throughout all this, she's kept up and reinforced that discard and replace attitude in regards to their Irish family through her facebook posts, project the idea that her family are the real victims, even other members of her family have got in on maintaining that act, with one family member referring to the children as her grand-niece & nephew. On the surface, it sounded nice that the Americans were treating them just like any other member of the family, but it seems a little sinister considering what we know now.

Yet I recall an article where the son told the Corbetts/Lynches the telephone numbers she'd tried to hide in their belongings and now he's asking why they're not in jail? Seems like even before JC was murdered, Molly's perfect narrative was going off script.

Regardless of what the verdict is or if there is an appeal, she can never bring the children back into that narrative. She will have to re-invent herself once more and come up with a new script.
 
Just wondering about this comment from the defence lawyers. They cite a video that was taken of MM a few hours after the murder and the fact that the prosecution did not show it. "That alone would have been a show stopper". If the defence thought this video was a show stopper, why did they not present it? Why highlight something as evidence for their case that the prosecution did not do when they could have done it themselves? Surely the defence would have had access to this video.

[FONT=&amp]“She shows you a little piece of paper,” he said. “They (prosecutors) have the burden. Do they show you Molly’s interview? That alone would be a show stopper. ‘Hold on. Something is not right. You talk to this woman at 6 or 7 in the morning for an hour and you’re not going to let us see what she has to say.’”[/FONT]

http://www.journalnow.com/news/crim...al&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share
 
Just wondering about this comment from the defence lawyers. They cite a video that was taken of MM a few hours after the murder and the fact that the prosecution did not show it. "That alone would have been a show stopper". If the defence thought this video was a show stopper, why did they not present it? Why highlight something as evidence for their case that the prosecution did not do when they could have done it themselves? Surely the defence would have had access to this video.



http://www.journalnow.com/news/crim...al&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share

Again just trying to put doubt in the jury's mind. If there was anything in the interview that would help their defence they would be looking for it.
 
I am speculating the state hoped for a 1st degree charge initially but thought maybe the jury could see a form of self defense, so if state under charged a little and hoped for a conviction on overkill being supported by the evidence they would be happy with a conviction of 2nd degree. To continue that possible train of thought, state even continued late in the game w accepting a lessor of manslaughter. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

I found it interesting because its opposite of normal prosecutor behavior. Normally its overcharge and secure a lesser conviction.
 
The daily mail
We will never know if Jason cried out,if he begged for his life , or if he thought of his children during this henious crime
During his closing statement Greg Brown swung the baseball bat taken from the crime scene
He pointed out that Jason a father of two naked and unarmed had two children sleeping in the room above him
He said defensive wounds on his hand trying to protect his head from repeated blows
Furthermore added Mr Brown she had a desire to end up with Jason's children
The defence argued it was a tragedy and Molly had nothing to gain
You will have read in Ms Martens statement to police in it she said I tried to hit with a brick on my bedstand I do not remember clearly after that
Evidence showsMs Martens hit Jason with brick more than once with excessive force
He argues Tom didn't call 911when he says he did
The state suggests the evidence of Cpr would indicate staging of the story
The story was empty barren and cold[. He argued Mr Martens faked giving CPR
Evidence also has shown dried flaky blood on Mr Corbetts face when EMT arrived
the story is Molly was pushing Jason's chest as she attempted Cpr Mr Brown told the jury there was absolutely no blood on her
The story was made up while Jason's body was cooling and his blood congealing . He asked the Jurors to look at the pictures to decide whether they bothered to call 911
Jason Corbett was left to die to allow the FBI agent and attorney to delevop a story to match wits of you the jury


For the first time during the trial members of the Corbett were not present for the defence closing arguments. The group left court after the prosecution closing arguments

https://www.facebook.com/TheIrishMail/posts/1943135549277320
 
The daily mail

















For the first time during the trial members of the Corbett were not present for the defence closing arguments. The group left court after the prosecution closing arguments

There was a line at the end of that news piece that Jason didn't take his medication. That's the first I've heard about Jason being on medication. Any ideas what's that about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
89
Guests online
3,167
Total visitors
3,256

Forum statistics

Threads
592,289
Messages
17,966,739
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top