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

[stmarysmead]

I wondered...if social services there were asked to interview the children for the murder investigation (because that's where they were living) and Defense wanted to know what they said? Just guessing here....

 

[stmarysmead]

Tom seems willing to take all the blame in the 911 call; Sharon seems willing to give her daughter all the blame. Interesting family dynamic.

 

[Truthalways]

I wondered...if social services there were asked to interview the children for the murder investigation (because that's where they were living) and Defense wanted to know what they said? Just guessing here....

Good point, sounds about right if they were staying there.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[kittythehare]

I wondered...if social services there were asked to interview the children for the murder investigation (because that's where they were living) and Defense wanted to know what they said? Just guessing here....

I had assumed they were assessing their safety. Does anybody know why the 2 children were not immediately placed in state care?
Is it normal practice to place children in the care of murder suspects when the victim was their own father? And in full knowledge that crime scene was not consistent with the perps cover story.

How did that happen?
How can something like that possibly happen?

 

[emmalpage81]

I wondered...if social services there were asked to interview the children for the murder investigation (because that's where they were living) and Defense wanted to know what they said? Just guessing here....

Interesting thought. I had assumed that the social services case file resolved solely around custody; that the reasoning for MM's lawyers requiring it was to show that she was a good person and a good mum, in much the same way that TM's lawyers wanted his FBI records to show that he was a good person who had never been disciplined etc.

Would SS have had the authority to interview the children about an ongoing criminal investigation? I would have thought that a trained police officer would have been tasked with such a job. If SS had been asked I would have thought that a police officer would sit in.

Now i'm going to be thinking about this until lunch!

 

[emmalpage81]

I had assumed they were assessing their safety. Does anybody know why the 2 children were not immediately placed in state care?
Is it normal practice to place children in the care of murder suspects when the victim was their own father? And in full knowledge that crime scene was not consistent with the perps cover story.

How did that happen?
How can something like that possibly happen?

It is questionable and quite frankly absurd. Because it was such a crazy situation I tried to look at it from the outside. At the time SS were involved MM and TM were merely persons of interest; they were not charged with any crime until months after the children were taken from her care. They were accommodated in a home with people who said that they wished to care for them. I would have thought that SS would have preferred that to state care.

It is a crazy situation regardless.

Just whilst we are all back thinking about the SS situation. I wonder if having these turned over to both the prosecution and defence is in any way beneficial to MM. Could it be entirely counter-productive? SS agreeing that the children could remain in her care temporarily whilst the custody case was ongoing does not mean that SS did not have concerns. There could very well be comments and notes in that file that hinder not help her.

 

[kittythehare]

It is questionable and quite frankly absurd. Because it was such a crazy situation I tried to look at it from the outside. At the time SS were involved MM and TM were merely persons of interest; they were not charged with any crime until months after the children were taken from her care. They were accommodated in a home with people who said that they wished to care for them. I would have thought that SS would have preferred that to state care.

It is a crazy situation regardless.

Just whilst we are all back thinking about the SS situation. I wonder if having these turned over to both the prosecution and defence is in any way beneficial to MM. Could it be entirely counter-productive? SS agreeing that the children could remain in her care temporarily whilst the custody case was ongoing does not mean that SS did not have concerns. There could very well be comments and notes in that file that hinder not help her.

Agree.. they would have interviewed children separately and with molly and they would be trained to notice certain things.. its likely they made a damning report I imagine..

 

[emmalpage81]

Tom seems willing to take all the blame in the 911 call; Sharon seems willing to give her daughter all the blame. Interesting family dynamic.

Very true. Yet since that phonecall she has also fought MM's side completely.

I wonder if what she told the Corbett family in that 90 second phonecall was what she had originally heard from MM? Could MM have gone downstairs woken her parents and said "we had an argument and I pushed him, he hit his head and I think he's dead". SM stays in the bedroom or goes directly to the children's room (in case they wake and stumble upon the scene) and TM goes to the master suite to assess the damage. It is clear upon entering the bedroom that JC did not 'hit his head' and so the cover up begins.

Once the police arrive there is no time to sit down and get stories straight. MM and TM are taken to the police station. SM (I assume) is left with the two children. The house is now a crime scene and they must leave. Grab some clothes, call her brother, pack the children into the car and head to Charlotte.

Now we get to lunchtime. Someone needs to inform the family. This is left to SM. Could it be that MM and TM are not yet at the house and so SM simply conveys the story she heard. That he hit his head. She ends the call quickly as she knows she cannot answer any questions.

I do recall someone making a comment on one of MM's public posts (not sure if it was FB or instagram) about her mother's call to the Corbett's. She did not deny it happened just said something along the lines how would I know what she said.

All in all I think that SM will be a very interesting witness when the trial comes about.

All my own ramblings and opinions.

 

[kittythehare]

Very true. Yet since that phonecall she has also fought MM's side completely.

I wonder if what she told the Corbett family in that 90 second phonecall was what she had originally heard from MM? Could MM have gone downstairs woken her parents and said "we had an argument and I pushed him, he hit his head and I think he's dead". SM stays in the bedroom or goes directly to the children's room (in case they wake and stumble upon the scene) and TM goes to the master suite to assess the damage. It is clear upon entering the bedroom that JC did not 'hit his head' and so the cover up begins.

Once the police arrive there is no time to sit down and get stories straight. MM and TM are taken to the police station. SM (I assume) is left with the two children. The house is now a crime scene and they must leave. Grab some clothes, call her brother, pack the children into the car and head to Charlotte.

Now we get to lunchtime. Someone needs to inform the family. This is left to SM. Could it be that MM and TM are not yet at the house and so SM simply conveys the story she heard. That he hit his head. She ends the call quickly as she knows she cannot answer any questions.

I do recall someone making a comment on one of MM's public posts (not sure if it was FB or instagram) about her mother's call to the Corbett's. She did not deny it happened just said something along the lines how would I know what she said.

All in all I think that SM will be a very interesting witness when the trial comes about.

All my own ramblings and opinions.

Yes.. very strange case indeed.
She supported her daughter's facebook campaign 100% and she shared every post molly made.
They had both decided this would be a good campaign , complete with prayers..
However, Sharon closed her facebook a/c after the ruling on no contact.
Will she even testify/
Is there a 'medical' reason for Sharon to stay out of the limelight?
Is there a 'political' reason?
What is the reason?

The campaign was ill advised from get go, foolish campaign..transparent in its malice..
Addressed to children that are way too young to have facebook accounts. What was she at, really?

 

[emmalpage81]

Yes.. very strange case indeed.
She supported her daughter's facebook campaign 100% and she shared every post molly made.
They had both decided this would be a good campaign , complete with prayers..
However, Sharon closed her facebook a/c after the ruling on no contact.
Will she even testify/
Is there a 'medical' reason for Sharon to stay out of the limelight?
Is there a 'political' reason?
What is the reason?

The campaign was ill advised from get go, foolish campaign..transparent in its malice..
Addressed to children that are way too young to have facebook accounts. What was she at, really?

She was completely on board with the FB campaign. It was easy then, they were arguing for contact with the children, she was a heartbroken nanny who missed children she had known for many years (And I agree she was probably all of these things). Once they were charged, once reports and details started coming out, then it wasn't easy anymore. Now she was someone who was complicit in her daughter's actions that day and each day since.

I do not see why the prosecution would not call her. She cannot be forced to take the stand against TM but there is nothing to stop them calling her as relates to MM. She was in the house at the time that a man was viciously murdered.

As for her being out of the limelight. I wonder if that is to stop any other slip-ups for the defence.

IMO the campaign may have originally been envisaged as a way for her to contact the children. She may have thought they may have set one up (I know many children under 13 who have FB accounts). It became clear very quickly from the Corbett family that the children did not have access to FB. However, IMO, something else happened once she started making those posts. She started to get attention. Many people who she could sing her woes to. From that moment it stopped being about contacting the children and more about people feeling sorry for Molly. Then it was all attention for Molly.

 

[kittythehare]

She was completely on board with the FB campaign. It was easy then, they were arguing for contact with the children, she was a heartbroken nanny who missed children she had known for many years (And I agree she was probably all of these things). Once they were charged, once reports and details started coming out, then it wasn't easy anymore. Now she was someone who was complicit in her daughter's actions that day and each day since.

I do not see why the prosecution would not call her. She cannot be forced to take the stand against TM but there is nothing to stop them calling her as relates to MM. She was in the house at the time that a man was viciously murdered.

As for her being out of the limelight. I wonder if that is to stop any other slip-ups for the defence.

IMO the campaign may have originally been envisaged as a way for her to contact the children. She may have thought they may have set one up (I know many children under 13 who have FB accounts). It became clear very quickly from the Corbett family that the children did not have access to FB. However, IMO, something else happened once she started making those posts. She started to get attention. Many people who she could sing her woes to. From that moment it stopped being about contacting the children and more about people feeling sorry for Molly. Then it was all attention for Molly.

Slip ups indeed!
I have been searching unsuccessfully for state procedures in NC when children are present and possibly witness to a murder.. not sure I am adequately wording my query because all I am finding is lots of NC murder cases..
Should be something under police procedures.. correct procedures in cases like this.
I suspect the normal procedure was waived in some way. If I find it I'll post it..
But if its a case that preferential treatment was meted to Martens, it is worrying.
Surely Sharon should also have been brought for questioning and a kindly police officer placed to care for the children?

 

[DaleTray]

http://m.journalnow.com/news/crime

Davidson county and union county south of Charlotte

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Please direct me to the connecting article. I just read and re-read the criminal news in that link and didn't see anything pertaining to MM brother. Did a "Marten" search and found several articles but nothing about the brother. Thank you in advance.

 

[stephanddoody]

Please direct me to the connecting article. I just read and re-read the criminal news in that link and didn't see anything pertaining to MM brother. Did a "Marten" search and found several articles but nothing about the brother. Thank you in advance.

I cant find the online link to the story . It was on the daily mail paper on August 16th if you scroll down you will see the front headline but the article is not available for reading. Catherine is covering the story very well here in Irieland but I think Frizby said that they don't do an online version
https://mobile.twitter.com/kittyf21
http://mugshots.com/US-Counties/Nor...ounty-NC/Robert-Earnest-Martens.87387004.html

 

[pet friend]

I must be missing something. I clicked on the link provided for journal now & didn't see a dwi report on MM's brother. Can someone point me in the right direction? Tia

 

[Truthalways]

Sorry the link didn't work and I went back to find it and it's gone.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[DaleTray]

The Marten DWI is small potatoes since he has 2 relatives in the FBI. Make a call and "POOF" Judge mysteriously drops the charges. But it's starting to appear there isn't a "POOF" button for murder charges.
And thank you for the download of the confirming news. I think the news is trying for some sensationalism. The headlines make me think it is a current charge, when, in fact, charges were in 2014. None the less, sort of speaks to morals and principals and decision making the elder Marten's have bestowed upon their offspring....driving drunk with child in car.

 

[Truthalways]

The Marten DWI is small potatoes since he has 2 relatives in the FBI. Make a call and "POOF" Judge mysteriously drops the charges. But it's starting to appear there isn't a "POOF" button for murder charges.
And thank you for the download of the confirming news. I think the news is trying for some sensationalism. The headlines make me think it is a current charge, when, in fact, charges were in 2014. None the less, sort of speaks to morals and principals and decision making the elder Marten's have bestowed upon their offspring....driving drunk with child in car.

I have spent an hour now trying to find any article re Robert Martens arrest. I read that article this morning all traces seem to have disappeared. There was another member of the Martens clan also arrested a few years back for fraud. All the arrests in the family suggest they are no such a "fine" family as they would lead us to believe.

I think your right about the FBI link. I would have expected mm and tm to be in custody either soon after the murder or at least after they were charged. This is something I just don't understand. Is this different than other cases or is this the norm?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[pet friend]

These supposedly "Law abiding", citizens are living in fantasy land. The cruelty with which Jason's family was treated is public knowledge. The offending parties must think they have pulled the wool over people's eyes. How disgraceful. The family that have government jobs apparently feel they are above the law. From a drunken brother of Molly who was charged w/child neglect & dwi, to a father who worked for the fbi & employment @ oak ridge tennessee, charged w/second degree murder, to a brother of SM, Mike Earnest trying to bamboozle his way into Jason's office @ work by falsely using his credentials & say lying to him was on a different scale because he is an agent, who thankfully is being investigated by his employers. Karma is coming because how we treat others is a reflection of who we are.

 

[stephanddoody]

These supposedly "Law abiding", citizens are living in fantasy land. The cruelty with which Jason's family was treated is public knowledge. The offending parties must think they have pulled the wool over people's eyes. How disgraceful. The family that have government jobs apparently feel they are above the law. From a drunken brother of Molly who was charged w/child neglect & dwi, to a father who worked for the fbi & employment @ oak ridge tennessee, charged w/second degree murder, to a brother of SM, Mike Earnest trying to bamboozle his way into Jason's office @ work by falsely using his credentials & say lying to him was on a different scale because he is an agent, who thankfully is being investigated by his employers. Karma is coming because how we treat others is a reflection of who we are.

I agree . I think this fine family line that the Martens have taken will not work well for them . Yes we are all appreciative of law enforcement and are thankful for the work that they do but everyone is also fully aware that not all law enforcement are law abiding citizens themselves . That doesn't sit well with the generally public . People don't like to be duped . People don't respect law enforcement that don't abide by the law especially when they think they are superior to the average citizen (not my words) . IMO

 

[emmalpage81]

A little more info about the financial investigation in today's Mail. Apologies it's upside down but that is how my husband sent it to me and cannot turn it around on my phone.