GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #5

[searchinGirl]

Plenty back along in the thread if you care to look . ��

You know I have read every thread and have read no proof of Molly lies, other than the notion that everything she says is a lie. On the other hand, the one thing that maybe you could do to prove her a liar is to get to the bottom of whether or not she was lying in the custody hearing about not being bipolar or not having any meds for it over the course of so many years. I'm just sayin'.

 

[stmarysmead]

Speaking of Jasons size...Yesterday, we were puzzling over a possible bruise etc...but in a fight this vicious, is it really possible that a big man like Jason, in a rage...couldn't land one significant blow on anybody?

Not one? Not bang up Tom a bit...or since he alledgedly had her by the neck..bring his knee up to her stomach. We are to believe her was just a big marshmallow man with marshmallow hands and he could not inflict a few good blows on an old man or a slender woman on this fight for his life?

 

[searchinGirl]

Ok, this is not a statute. This seems to be an extract from a law book that expands on a number of circumstances that may be considered in making a decision regarding the charge of 2nd degree murder? I have looked at the statues outlined at the top of the page and I may have missed it but I cannot see where the actual statues themselves say that size matters in the commission of an event that is defined as 2nd degree murder. Please, please correct me if I have missed it?

Jury instructions aren't part of the law?

 

[stmarysmead]

You know I have read every thread and have read no proof of Molly lies, other than the notion that everything she says is a lie. On the other hand, the one thing that maybe you could do to prove her a liar is to get to the bottom of whether or not she was lying in the custody hearing about not being bipolar or not having any meds for it over the course of so many years. I'm just sayin'.

There has been proof. Proof from the Lynches. Proof from Ann, Mags business partner. Proof that was significant and accepted as testimony under oath in an American court of law. It is your decision not to believe this proof, which is your right.

There has also been the recent big whopper about the "Wedding warning" which was refuted by the Mother of the alleged first "victim." Its hard to imagine why a Mother would lie about her daughter's death, but it is your right to take that position,

In Maginn's book, he writes of her lying to the doctors and being infuriated that he won't lie in order to get her some drugs she wanted. He has great concern about her lies.But it is your right, certainly, to reject this as well.

 

[searchinGirl]

Speaking of Jasons size...Yesterday, we were puzzling over a possible bruise etc...but in a fight this vicious, is it really possible that a big man like Jason, in a rage...couldn't land one significant blow on anybody?

Not one? Not bang up Tom a bit...or since he alledgedly had her by the neck..bring his knee up to her stomach. We are to believe her was just a big marshmallow man with marshmallow hands and he could not inflict a few good blows on an old man or a slender woman on this fight for his life?

Do we actually know how the fight went down? And what if Molly didn't use deadly force? Her lack of injuries might mean that, but we just don't know and that is my point. In a quest for the truth you have to go where the evidence takes you. IMO

 

[stmarysmead]

Jury instructions aren't part of the law?

They are instructions...guidance. The definition of "instructions" is not "law." But even if it were, that "instruction" is counterbalanced by the caution about "excessive force."

 

[emmalpage81]

Ok here you go
https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/pji-master/criminal/206.30.pdf

it's on the second page.

"In making this determination, you should consider the circumstances as you find them to have existed from the evidence, (including the size, age and strength of the defendant as compared to the victim), (the fierceness of the assault, if any, upon the defendant), (whether or not the victim had a weapon in the victim’s possession), (and the reputation, if any, of the victim for danger and violence) (describe other circumstances, as appropriate from the evidence)."

That is not the statute, that is the jury instruction and, as I said before, relates to an instruction when self defence is claimed.

"The defendant would be excused of second degree murder on the ground of self-defense if:

First, it appeared to the defendant and the defendant believed it to be necessary to kill the victim in order to save the defendant from death or great bodily harm.


And Second, the circumstances as they appeared to the defendant at the time were sufficient to create such a belief in the mind of a person of ordinary firmness. It is for you the jury to determine the reasonableness of the defendant's belief from the circumstances as they appeared to the defendant at the time.


In making this determination, you should consider the circumstances as you find them to have existed from the evidence, (including the size, age and strength of the defendant as compared to the victim), (the fierceness of the assault, if any, upon the defendant), (whether or not the victim had a weapon in the victim’s possession), (and the reputation, if any, of the victim for danger and violence) (describe other circumstances, as appropriate from the evidence).





In fact if you refer to page 3 and continuing on page 4 of the link you provided it is stated:

"A defendant does not have the right to use excessive force. A defendant uses excessive force if the defendant uses more force than reasonably appeared to the defendant to be necessary at the time of the killing. It is for you the jury to determine the reasonableness of the force used by the defendant under all of the circumstances as they appeared to the defendant at that time."

All IMO

 

[stmarysmead]

Do we actually know how the fight went down? And what if Molly didn't use deadly force? Her lack of injuries might mean that, but we just don't know and that is my point. In a quest for the truth you have to go where the evidence takes you. IMO

The lack of injuries on both of them is evidence. I'm trying to envision how this fight could occur without raging Jason getting in his share...because if he wasn't...why did the beat down continue? I think the defense will have to deal with that. I think they will have to tell us step by step how they stayed pretty and pink and Jason's brains and scalp were on the walls. "How it went down" will be a BIG burden.

 

[Logic-lady]

Of course it is. I was more interested in the fact that people attending had observations on the temperature of the body. I alway found it odd that the autopsy report did not mention any estimate of time of death. Would this not be the norm? The medical examiner noted the time death was called (i.e. the time the paramedics got there and saw he was deceased).

If people were commenting and / or making observations at the scene on the temperature of his body and the fact that there was wet and dry blood visible. This would suggest - to me - that JC had been deceased for some time before the paramedics / police etc arrived on the scene and would not be compatible with the assertion of the defence that they called emergency services immediately after the altercation.

All IMO

I agree completely Emma, sorry just realised how snippy my point sounded! I'm just unsure how the defense intend to build a case on hearsay when they are objecting to what they consider hearsay from the prosecution...even though these people are trained members of law enforcement.

This would certainly tie in with one of the earliest statements from the police that the scene 'was not consistent' with the description of events as described by the accused.

 

[searchinGirl]

There has been proof. Proof from the Lynches. Proof from Ann, Mags business partner. Proof that was significant and accepted as testimony under oath in an American court of law. It is your decision not to believe this proof, which is your right.

There has also been the recent big whopper about the "Wedding warning" which was refuted by the Mother of the alleged first "victim." Its hard to imagine why a Mother would lie about her daughter's death, but it is your right to take that position,

In Maginn's book, he writes of her lying to the doctors and being infuriated that he won't lie in order to get her some drugs she wanted. He has great concern about her lies.But it is your right, certainly, to reject this as well.

What proof? These are stories, not proof. Things said by Tracey in the custody hearing are her version of events as they transpired. Did she offer proof? I don't believe the children were sent back to Ireland for any other reason than it was what JC wanted, and that they are Irish citizens. It was not a value judgement about Molly. I don't know what to say about the Wedding warning, but there is obviously more to that story. And about Keith Maginn, can you say the boyfriend from hell? IMO

 

[Logic-lady]

My understanding of time of death in situations like this is that there are so many factors at play that only a time range can really be estimated…

Body temperature is only indicative dependent on the ambient temperature, so was the air conditioning on or off? Was he lying on carpet or tiles? Were the doors to the house open or closed?

Food in the stomach – under normal conditions – takes about 6 hours to clear the stomach. However stress can slow digestion right down. Was JC stressed that night? We assume so but how can we quantify the effect?

The medical examiner report does not indicate rigor mortis but does indicate livor mortis – correct me if I am wrong but I think signs of both of these begin to appear within 2 hours of death? So that doesn’t really help.

Wet/dry blood again would depend on volume, temperature and surface?

I’m not sure we will ever know at what time JC actually died, just the Medical Examiners best estimate: between X a.m. and 3:24 a.m. (when TOD was actually called I think). Again, please correct me if I have stated something incorrectly. These are just my thoughts.

Excellent post! :great:

 

[emmalpage81]

I agree completely Emma, sorry just realised how snippy my point sounded! I'm just unsure how the defense intend to build a case on hearsay when they are objecting to what they consider hearsay from the prosecution...even though these people are trained members of law enforcement.

This would certainly tie in with one of the earliest statements from the police that the scene 'was not consistent' with the description of events as described by the accused.

Oh i didn't take it as you being snippy at all!!! Just thought I hadn't explained my point as fully as I could have (was on the train!). IMO it is the job of the defence to try to object to everything that is detrimental to the defence of their client. It does not mean it is going to be granted by the Court.

Also, a law enforcement officer commenting on what he saw at the scene would not be hearsay. Hearsay would be something stated by someone other than the person giving evidence. So, an officer could not say I was told by XYZ that he saw this - that is hearsay. An officer saying I witnessed or I saw is not hearsay.

Their argument appears to be they should not be able to say this because there could be evidence to contradict it.

All IMO

 

[searchinGirl]

That is not the statute, that is the jury instruction and, as I said before, relates to an instruction when self defence is claimed.

Aren't the defendants claiming self defense?

 

[stmarysmead]

Aren't the defendants claiming self defense?

And isn't the prosecution claiming overkill?

 

[stmarysmead]

What proof? These are stories, not proof. Things said by Tracey in the custody hearing are her version of events as they transpired. Did she offer proof? I don't believe the children were sent back to Ireland for any other reason than it was what JC wanted, and that they are Irish citizens. It was not a value judgement about Molly. I don't know what to say about the Wedding warning, but there is obviously more to that story. And about Keith Maginn, can you say the boyfriend from hell? IMO

Thank you for clarifying your views. But by your standard, MM can't "prove" she was a DV victim unless she has video. Even a friend testifying for her, could be dismissed as you dismiss Maginn.What "proof" by your standard does TM have of the "wedding warning?"

If that is not a lie, than why is Mags mother lying to protect her murderer?

 

[emmalpage81]

Aren't the defendants claiming self defense?

I believe they are, but that doesn't mean what you have stated is correct. You have stated that the Statute (the Law) for second degree murder included wording as to the size of the parties involved. It does not.

The only time that the size of the parties involved is mentioned is in respect of the instructions that the Judge will give to the jury to try to explain, in layman's terms, what things they can and should consider when reaching a verdict (i.e. the size of the parties, whether weapons were used, in this case the number of assailants etc). That is an instruction, not a law.

All IMO

 

[searchinGirl]

Thank you for clarifying your views. But by your standard, MM can't "prove" she was a DV victim unless she has video. Even a friend testifying for her, could be dismissed as you dismiss Maginn.What "proof" by your standard does TM have of the "wedding warning?"

If that is not a lie, than why is Mags mother lying to protect her murderer?

I never called Mags mother a liar. My my my, how you twist things.

 

[searchinGirl]

I believe they are, but that doesn't mean what you have stated is correct. You have stated that the Statute (the Law) for second degree murder included wording as to the size of the parties involved. It does not.

The only time that the size of the parties involved is mentioned is in respect of the instructions that the Judge will give to the jury to try to explain, in layman's terms, what things they can and should consider when reaching a verdict (i.e. the size of the parties, whether weapons were used, in this case the number of assailants etc). That is an instruction, not a law.

All IMO

I think what I said was that it was written into the law. I don't believe I misspoke.

 

[stmarysmead]

I never called Mags mother a liar. My my my, how you twist things.

I didn't say you did. You asked for lies. I answered.

You said you did not know "what to make of the wedding warning."

My point was that there are only two options. Either Tom is lying or Mags Mother is lying.

 

[stmarysmead]

I think what I said was that it was written into the law. I don't believe I misspoke.

But it is not a "law." That's what we are trying to say. It's jury instructions. No juror is going to be charged with disobeying "the law" for not following to the letter jury instructions.
These are helpful guidelines.