‘20/20’ Pre-trial interviews with former FBI agent Tom Martens and Molly Corbett

[TDoc72]

Correct me if I am wrong but once DA mentioned the brick "that happened to be on her nightstand" were the defence not entitled to then put forward the story of why it was allegedly there? And I don't recollect reports mentioning a motion to allow brick story which was denied? We heard about all the other Motions so why is this?

The defense shouldn't say that they couldn't present the brick evidence, if they could have but didn't.* Big difference! While they didn't legally have to explain, they didn't, therefore letting the prosecutions statements stand and leaving the jury to wonder about it.
*I don't remember hearing about any motion to include or suppress the brick info. It could've slipped by me though.

 

[EmmieA]

OMG I can't believe I made it through that. To say the journalist was biased is an understatement. I wrote a note to 20/20 expressing my disgust and urging them to do a follow-up with actual facts from the trial (I know they won't but I thought they should know how gross the piece was!) Having a few of the jurors speak was good but it doesn't erase the lies they told earlier in the program.

And thank God for JC's family that the prosecution team was so invested in this case & fought so diligently for justice. Seeing the prosecutor tear up made me realize how hard their job can be sometimes. Just following along here & recently seeing the crime scene photos ONCE has made an impression on me -- I can't imagine having to look at the scene & analyze & piece it all together for the past year or so.

 

[kittythehare]

OMG I can't believe I made it through that. To say the journalist was biased is an understatement. I wrote a note to 20/20 expressing my disgust and urging them to do a follow-up with actual facts from the trial (I know they won't but I thought they should know how gross the piece was!) Having a few of the jurors speak was good but it doesn't erase the lies they told earlier in the program.

And thank God for JC's family that the prosecution team was so invested in this case & fought so diligently for justice. Seeing the prosecutor tear up made me realize how hard their job can be sometimes. Just following along here & recently seeing the crime scene photos ONCE has made an impression on me -- I can't imagine having to look at the scene & analyze & piece it all together for the past year or so.

They did the most amazing job I have ever seen (heard whispers of).

The world needs to be hearing that story, all the odds in the world were stacked against them pulling it off. It was no mean feat and can only imagine what powers were brought to bear against it ever happening. The CT expert who testified was an absolute godsend. She also indicated that there were quite a few others equally qualified who could do likely.
What an accomplishment!

That alone gave me hope.. they are not all the same and many of them felt sufficiently strongly about it that they would possibly have testified too.
TM was not only capable of hatred, he also saw no reason to hide it.
The police did an amazing job as well.

This is the story that should be making the headlines rather than abc fairy princess and fam.

I would be very very surprised if the real story showed huge pressures brought to bear to stop or hinder the investigation, from what we have witnessed in pre and post verdict public comments.

I wonder how they did it?

 

[Electric Sheep]

Perhaps I shouldn't judge, I don't have a bipolar child that I have tried to deal with for over 30 years, but the thing that stands out to me-if your child has these problems, why would you let them fly overseas & watch someone else's children? Right after being discharged from a psychiatric unit, to being responsible for infants.

I guess it's easier than dealing with them at home, but that is totally irresponsible & harmful & (thinking that you are better than other people & that your family deserves passes).

Molly wasn't a child though, she was an adult. I am not sure that her family could have prevented her from moving to Ireland.

 

[courtney2662]

The defense shouldn't say that they couldn't present the brick evidence, if they could have but didn't.* Big difference! While they didn't legally have to explain, they didn't, therefore letting the prosecutions statements stand and leaving the jury to wonder about it.
*I don't remember hearing about any motion to include or suppress the brick info. It could've slipped by me though.

Molly and her defenders (many of the most ardent whom are mothers, local to Winston Salem, their children in same class as Jack and Sarah) have always backed Molly's claim that paver was there for school project. Then the indictments came, then the trial - and the problem with that false claim became clear: If school project, school being out for summer never addressed by Molly. So trotted out, school summer project. If school summer project not only unusual for two different grades to have that same school summer project, but also could NOT be confirmed by the school or the teachers of either grade. IF it had been a school summer project they wouldn't need Sarah to back it up - they'd be able to produce teachers, other students parents, school officials to testify and official school hand-out outlining the School Summer Project. They didn't because it was never a school summer project, so ME is now trying to sell it as school summer project (has to given MM already asserted that) or 'some summer art craft project' hoping to ignore Molly's original untrue assertion.

 

[Francesca]

Molly and her defenders (many of the most ardent whom are mothers, local to Winston Salem, their children in same class as Jack and Sarah) have always backed Molly's claim that paver was there for school project. Then the indictments came, then the trial - and the problem with that false claim became clear: If school project, school being out for summer never addressed by Molly. So trotted out, school summer project. If school summer project not only unusual for two different grades to have that same school summer project, but also could NOT be confirmed by the school or the teachers of either grade. IF it had been a school summer project they wouldn't need Sarah to back it up - they'd be able to produce teachers, other students parents, school officials to testify and official school hand-out outlining the School Summer Project. They didn't because it was never a school summer project, so ME is now trying to sell it as school summer project (has to given MM already asserted that) or 'some summer art craft project' hoping to ignore Molly's original untrue assertion.

Pure speculation here, based on the above quote: What if the kids had previously done that type of school project, so a lot of local families had these painted stones on display (I know the type of stones used for this, as I've done similar things with my kids). So when Molly first tells her friends: "It was the display stone on my nightstand," they are visualizing a genuine school project, easily identifiable as a school project, and logically belonging in the bedroom within easy reach. That story has a visual resonance and her friends could relate to it - this is something that could happen to them!
Roll forward to the trial, and it's not a good idea to bring any of these supporters onto the stand, because the project they are describing would not match the paving stone in question. There's also the fact that the project has not been done yet, which calls into question why it was in the bedroom, rather than somewhere more logical for an impending craft project.

 

[SeattleSleuth]

Ugh, listening to 20/20...the "smoking gun" audio recording. Seriously? Presumably this snippet is "the best example" MM/defense can present of JC's "verbal abuse." Good lord, it sounds like JC attempting basic conversation with his wife re: plans- he is explaining/asking permission to go out someplace with person x. He doesn't even finish before she starts with the passive-aggressive punishment nonsense. She ignores, actually speaking over him as if he isn't there. Only talks to the kids. Like he doesn't exist. It is so unnecessarily rude. The treatment is demeaning & frustrating. Cruel. I would be yelling and cursing significantly more than JC. He raises his voice in annoyance seeking the courtesy of a response. Um, really? This is THE best example of how she was verbally abused? This is helpful to her cause? Lol.

 

[Logic-lady]

I've been reading some of the Twitter comments over the last few days so I'm going to post this here and on the 20/20 thread just for clarity...

There are a couple of points that keep reverberating around the Twitter-sphere regarding this case so just incase anyone has decided to pop on here I thought I should point out -

1. The prosecution did not 'pick' the jurors, there was a full voir dire process pre-trial where both the prosecution and the defense had an opportunity to assess and dismiss jurors as they saw fit. The jury 'of the defendants peers' was chosen by BOTH the defense and the prosecution. This was not a set up.

2. On the point of the jury, TM & MM were tried in an American court, by American jurors. The investigation was carried out by American detectives and prosecuted by American attorney's, if anyone faced potential bias in this case it was JC who was the immigrant Irishman already stereotyped as a rowdy drunk. (in Bible belt America, where alcohol is prohibited in many States)

3. It was the prosecutions job to put together a case which constituted second degree murder. They succeeded in doing so. The jury believed that the prosecution were able to portray beyond a reasonable doubt that the scenario presented to them in court, and backed up by over 300 pieces of evidence, was plausible and warranted a conviction.

4. It was up to the jury to cast reasonable doubt on the theory presented by the prosecution. It was the defenses job to bring up self defense as a plausible reason the jury should not believe the prosecution. They presented...no defense. Why? Why could they show no evidence of JC being anything other than a 'peaceful' man. Why did a 30 min clip on a television channel show more of a defense than they provided in court?

5. The sole argument the defense did provide, was not self defense, it was to cast doubt on the integrity of every other professional involved in the case. Detectives, judges, experts, paramedics, prosecutors BUT they expected TM's integrity as a former member of the FBI to be sacrosanct....WHY? Why should the jury not believe the catalogue of people lined up to testify for the prosecution on the word of one man? Why could they not provide other professionals who agreed with their assessment of a botched investigation?

6. MFC died of an asthma attack.

I don't understand how people can be so blind, but the answers are there for those interested enough to find them.

 

[courtney2662]

I've been reading some of the Twitter comments over the last few days so I'm going to post this here and on the 20/20 thread just for clarity...

There are a couple of points that keep reverberating around the Twitter-sphere regarding this case so just incase anyone has decided to pop on here I thought I should point out -

1. The prosecution did not 'pick' the jurors, there was a full voir dire process pre-trial where both the prosecution and the defense had an opportunity to assess and dismiss jurors as they saw fit. The jury 'of the defendants peers' was chosen by BOTH the defense and the prosecution. This was not a set up.

2. On the point of the jury, TM & MM were tried in an American court, by American jurors. The investigation was carried out by American detectives and prosecuted by American attorney's, if anyone faced potential bias in this case it was JC who was the immigrant Irishman already stereotyped as a rowdy drunk. (in Bible belt America, where alcohol is prohibited in many States)

3. It was the prosecutions job to put together a case which constituted second degree murder. They succeeded in doing so. The jury believed that the prosecution were able to portray beyond a reasonable doubt that the scenario presented to them in court, and backed up by over 300 pieces of evidence, was plausible and warranted a conviction.

4. It was up to the jury to cast reasonable doubt on the theory presented by the prosecution. It was the defenses job to bring up self defense as a plausible reason the jury should not believe the prosecution. They presented...no defense. Why? Why could they show no evidence of JC being anything other than a 'peaceful' man. Why did a 30 min clip on a television channel show more of a defense than they provided in court?

5. The sole argument the defense did provide, was not self defense, it was to cast doubt on the integrity of every other professional involved in the case. Detectives, judges, experts, paramedics, prosecutors BUT they expected TM's integrity as a former member of the FBI to be sacrosanct....WHY? Why should the jury not believe the catalogue of people lined up to testify for the prosecution on the word of one man? Why could they not provide other professionals who agreed with their assessment of a botched investigation?

6. MFC died of an asthma attack.

I don't understand how people can be so blind, but the answers are there for those interested enough to find them.

I haven't watched one of 20/20 Investigative shows prior to this, so this one was my first. I have seen the comments on their FB website, which are worse than the ones on Twitter, so many are backing MM and TM based solely on 20/20 aired show. There's no understanding that the show's rush to air left more unanswered questions if it were your first time hearing of the murder/trial. It's interesting to see how many came to judgment based on so little, many absolutely convinced MM was "abused by brute of husband" based solely on Martens assertion. (No follow-up question why she didn't report, seek help, no police calls to house over fights, no medical reports, no question why she didn't have recorder in bedroom given that is where MM asserted much of abuse took place - or did she and didn't tape fight the night of murder) I'm hoping that one of the other shows (Dateline, etc.) will address these issues more in-depth, more fully. Personally, I now believe that 20/20 only intended to cover the Martens "side" and last minute requests made including both sides a necessity. They hadn't gotten even a comment or statement from Jason Corbett's family, they only included the DA and ADA briefly and after the trial, the juror were included but their interviews with news outside the courthouse were better than what 20/20 showed. So how much of interviews with DA/ADA and Jurors ended up on cutting floor? In comparison, the Martens appeared to have been interviewed more fully, even had clip of Molly happily running in forest, daddy there with her (yes, that felt creepy). 20/20 appeared to do little to no research given little knowledge of the victim and already known history with Molly, or were they prevented from asking questions of the Martens? What reporter wouldn't have wanted to follow up on the horrendous claim insinuated by Molly that 1st wife Mags also died at 3.00am? How could reporter not have known about Margaret Corbett autopsy results and asked follow up question after MM's horrendous claim? It would also be interesting to know if Martens were paid for these interviews given their fundraising efforts, especially in light of their mean condemnation of Corbett friends trying to raise funds to help them bring Jason home for burial, lawyers for custody case, etc. Should be noted that Mona Earnest had included the horrendous claims made on 20/20 by MM in her fundraising efforts for appeal, but multitude of complaints on false assertions to the funding website were made, and site forced her to remove them from her funding page. So the Corbett's must apparently remain on their guard against any and all media attacks Martens/Earnest family even after the trial. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/cri...moved-from-website-after-complaints-1.3183645

 

[Be true]

http://www.journalnow.com/news/crim...cle_f2c5d737-a38d-5732-998c-8f899c170ed0.html


Sleuthers please clarify if you can has this any legs to stand as it has me both angry and a little worried.

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[Be true]

According to court papers, Molly Corbett has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. But that was never presented to the jury, the motion says.

http://www.journalnow.com/news...8d-5732-998c-8f899c170ed0.html

For all the discussions we had here about mm having bipolar this seems to confirm it even though it has always been denied.

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[Be true]

According to court papers, Molly Corbett has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. But that was never presented to the jury, the motion says.


url]http://www.journalnow.com/news...8d-5732-998c-8f899c170ed0.html[/url]

So I think it's fair to say to anyone who has ever questioned our bipolar discussions here this confirms yes she has bipolar.

Does this also mean going forward with the appeal circus we are to get the chance to discuss more her alledged alcohol overconsumption, alledged abusive tendencies towards the children, lithium consumption? Erratic behaviour?

If anyone is on here wondering will the minors testify in any further proceedings, perhaps they will, is it not a possibility with the stringent laws in the US that a case for abuse could be made solely on what it is alledged she has done to minors in her care and continues to do? There is 2 years of examples of imo instances through her own words and doings and also the martens families words and doings that make me question further investigation of emotional or physical child abuse?

And if mm showed signs of this and continues to with the children imo it makes stronger case that she also behaved like this with JC. And I see a friend recently coming out and speaking up too ( can't link so won't post what was said) so yes #madmarygameon

[


Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[Francesca]

http://www.journalnow.com/news/crim...cle_f2c5d737-a38d-5732-998c-8f899c170ed0.html


Sleuthers please clarify if you can has this any legs to stand as it has me both angry and a little worried.

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

The DA says no legs, no legs at all.

There is a Twitter video of his statement on Alex Rose's account. Tried to post the link but it didn't seem to work. [video=twitter;898220189170446336]https://twitter.com/alexrosenews/status/898220189170446336[/video]