‘Do you know what malice sounds like?’

Tom Martens speaks

AS the thirteenth day of the trial dawned on Friday, August 4, those gathered in Courtroom C of the Davidson County courts complex quickly realised the pace of proceedings was accelerating and the hearing was now nearing its critical concluding phase. Incredible as it may seem, just days earlier those watching proceedings were concerned that the trial could spill into a fifth week.

Now, the conclusion of the prosecution case, the refusal of Judge Lee to entertain dismissal motions and the opening of the defence cases meant there was a realistic chance a verdict would be reached before the following Friday, August 11.

But most dramatic of all was the confirmation that Tom Martens would take the stand and offer sworn evidence in his own defence.

The morning proceedings were dominated by legal argument over whether a statement from Thomas Martens in relation to the death of Mr Corbett’s first wife, Margaret ‘Mags’ Fitzpatrick (30), would be allowed into evidence before the jury.

Judge Lee ruled as inadmissible a statement from Mr Martens about comments he claimed were made by the father of Mr Corbett’s late first wife.

Mr Martens said he was approached by Michael Fitzpatrick and told Jason was responsible for the tragic death of Margaret ‘Mags’ Fitzpatrick from an asthma attack in 2006.

“[Mr Martens was] approached by Michael Fitzpatrick [since deceased], the father of Jason Corbett’s first wife... he believed that Jason had caused the death of his daughter Margaret,” the statement read.

David Freedman, for Mr Martens, stressed they were not suggesting that this was what had actually occurred in 2006 but that it reflected on the state of mind Mr Martens was in in the early hours of August 2, 2015 when he confronted his son-in-law.

The former FBI agent consistently maintained he only struck Mr Corbett in selfdefence.

Mr Martens had described Mr Fitzpatrick as “uneducated” and claimed he also found him very hard to understand. But he was adamant about what the Irishman said to him – and acknowledged that he was shocked by the comment.

However, Ina Stanton, for the prosecution, objected to the statement being allowed on the basis it was both highly prejudicial and inflammatory. Ms Stanton also pointed out that Mr Fitzpatrick, before his death, had made a sworn statement to an Irish solicitor denying that he had ever made such a remark to Mr Martens.

Furthermore, Margaret Fitzpatrick’s mother, Marian Fitzpatrick, and her sister, Catherine, gave detailed interviews in which they attested to the “loving and caring relationship” between the late Ms Fitzpatrick and Mr Corbett.

Judge Lee refused to allow the jury to hear the statement on the basis that any evidential value it might have was outweighed by its potential to be both prejudicial and misleading. Minutes after Judge Lee’s ruling, Mr Martens took the stand. He did so after formally acknowledging to the court he understood his Constitutional right not to offer evidence.

Immaculately dressed in a dark suit, white shirt and tie, Mr Martens stood stiff-backed as he took the witness oath – and, staring directly at the jury members, swore to tell nothing but the truth.

A graduate of Emory University and a qualified lawyer, Mr Martens had three sons and one daughter.

He had served for 31 years with the FBI before being subjected to mandatory agerelated retirement.

He then went to work for the US Department of Energy at their Oak Ridge facility in Tennessee, not far from his home in Knoxville.

Mr Martens worked in a section dedicated to counter-intelligence aimed at protecting the US agency from overseas enemies. “It is basically spy versus spy,” he explained to the court. As part of his employment with the US Department of Energy, he had the highest possible security clearance.

Over the course of his testimony several fascinating facts emerged, including that Molly Martens-Corbett was the main beneficiary of a €500,000 ($600,000) life insurance policy payable on the death of her husband.

The murder trial heard that the money was being held in a trust fund as the secondary degree murder trial proceeded.

But Mr Martens’ evidence was dominated by two things: just how much he disliked his Irish son-in-law, and his minutely detailed account of the fatal confrontation with Mr Corbett on August 2.

Mr Martens broke down and wept in evidence as he said he repeatedly struck Mr Corbett with a metal baseball bat over the head because he feared for his life and the life of his adored daughter. “I hit him until I thought that he could not kill me,” Mr Martens said. “He said he was going to kill Molly. I actually felt he was going to kill me.” Mr Martens said he was visiting his daughter and son-in-law with his wife, Sharon, and had gone to bed around 11pm on August 1. He said his son-in-law had consumed both beers and a cocktail. The former FBI agent said that, when he arrived at Panther Creek Court, his son-in-law was, in his opinion, quite intoxicated. “Jason was obviously drunk at that time.” Mr Martens and his wife had brought fresh mint from their home at Knoxville in Tennessee and this was used to make fresh Mojitos for dinner.

The father-of-four only had a small glass of wine but the others had the Mojitos, including Mr Corbett who had about half a glass.

Mr Martens said he was tired after the four-hour drive and went to bed sometime

around 11pm only to be awoken by loud sounds coming from the master bedroom early on August 2. “I heard thumping like loud footfalls. I heard a scream and loud voices.” The retired FBI agent said he grabbed a baseball bat and went to the upstairs bedroom to investigate.

“In front of me, I would say seven to eight feet from me, Jason had his hands around Molly’s neck,” he said. “They were facing each other.

“I said: ‘Let her go’. He said: ‘I am going to kill her.’ I told him again, several times, to let her go. He was really angry and I was really scared.”

Mr Martens said he struck Mr Corbett with the baseball bat he had brought to the house as a gift for Mr Corbett’s son, Jack, but which had not been given to the child the previous evening. He claimed Mr Corbett attempted to back into the bathroom with his daughter held by the throat to evade him.

“I was concerned he would get to the bathroom and close the door and that would be the end of that. I would not be able to save her.”

At this point, Mr Martens broke down for the only time in his testimony as he related his fears for his daughter’s safety.

Mr Martens said he repeatedly struck Mr Corbett with the baseball bat but, at one point, Mr Corbett violently shoved him away and managed to grab the bat from him.

The 67-year-old said he was sent sprawling across the bedroom floor, bumping his knees along the carpet. However, in cross-examination later, he would admit that his knees did not show bruises, cuts or abrasions when he was later photographed by police. Mr Martens said he jumped back up off the floor and rushed Mr Corbett. Somehow, he said he managed to regain control of the bat from the younger, heavier man. “I did not want to hit Molly. His head was taller than hers.” Mr Martens claimed his son-in-law had his daughter in a choke-hold and he was afraid when he saw the young woman stop trying to wiggle.

“I don’t know how many times I hit him in the head. I was scared. That’s what I remember. I am shook up. “Molly was screaming [at Jason]; ‘Don’t hit my Dad.’ Things looked pretty bleak.” Mr Martens said he was convinced that if he fled the bedroom his daughter would have been killed.

“If I get out of the bedroom he is going to kill Molly. He is bigger, stronger and younger than me. “I felt both our lives were in danger. I just did the best I could.” Eventually, he said his son-in-law fell to the ground after repeated blows to the head. “I hit him until he goes down. I hit him until I thought that he could not kill me. I felt that both our lives were in danger.”

Mr Martens told the trial he stopped striking his son-in-law when he believed the threat was over.

“He goes down – I started thinking a little more clearly. Molly is in bad shape. I told her to find a phone. I said we had to call 911.”

Critically, Mr Martens stressed in cross-examination that he had no recollection of his son-in-law being struck by the concrete paving brick.

This was despite the fact his daughter had told police in her statement that she believed she had tried to strike Mr Corbett with the brick.

Furthermore, Mr Martens said his wife, Sharon, never left the basement bedroom throughout the entire incident in the upstairs master bedroom.

He did not call her for help, did not shout for her to call 911 and did not ask her to help console his shocked daughter. A key element of his testimony was the level of dislike he had for his Irish son-in-law. “He was not my favourite person,” he said. “I did not like him. I am sure I said disparaging things about him.” “I am sure I called him rude or disrespectful [things].” He acknowledged he did not consider his daughter to be in “a good marriage” and had encouraged her to consult a lawyer and consider a divorce.

“I love my daughter. He did not match up to what I thought my daughter’s standards should be. “I didn’t like the way he treated my daughter.” Mr Martens said he also thought Mr Corbett to be “controlling” of his daughter, telling her what she should wear and checking both her phone and her computer.

He also said “an issue of contention” arose because Mr Corbett did not allow his daughter to formally adopt his two children, born to his late first wife, Margaret ‘Mags’ Fitzpatrick, who died of an asthma attack.

“Jason represented to me that he was going to have Molly adopt the children. It became an issue when he did not follow through on that.”

However, he acknowledged that Mr Corbett provided all the funds for their luxury €350,000 ($390,000) Panther Creek home which was mortgage-free and that the Irish businessman had also paid him €45,000 ($49,000) towards their 2011 wedding costs.

Mr Corbett had also given his second wife €75,000 ($82,000) to furnish their new North Carolina home. His daughter had only an intermittent employment history and had no major assets. Her only jobs had been as a nanny, working in a restaurant and beauty parlour and as a volunteer swim coach.

Mr Martens said, during one pre-wedding party in his house, he disliked the drinking, rowdiness, smoking and bad language of some of Mr Corbett’s friends.

“We were superficially friendly – I am sure he knew I had some feelings about him,” Mr Martens said. “I made nice with Jason.” He also declined to go on a joint family holiday to Washington because Mr Corbett was there. However, he said he could not recall telling work colleague Jonathan Underwood: “If I was going on vacation, why would I want to go on vacation with that asshole.” He also told another colleague: “I made nice with Jason.” But he denied ever using the word “hate” in connection with his son-in-law as testified by another of his work colleagues, Joanne Lowry.

The father-of-four acknowledged that he had never seen or been told about any incident of domestic violence between Mr Corbett and his daughter in their four-year marriage.

In cross-examination Mr Martens said that, during his time in the FBI, he did receive training in the use of lethal and non-lethal force. He also confirmed he had been based in Miami with the FBI at a time when it was extremely violent because of the activities of Cuban drug gangs.

Mr Martens admitted he told Davidson County detectives it was “a great time to be young in Miami” and said doors would be kicked in as part of criminal raids. “I liked all my work with the FBI,” he said. Mr Martens acknowledged that he also told police that, during his time with the FBI, he grabbed a young agent during an operation and told him: “Make sure I don’t do anything stupid.” He denied that he had any problems maintaining control. The retired agent also dismissed suggestions he had tried to “take control” of a police interview by interrupting the detectives and wanting to talk about his state of mind on August 2 – a key legal component of defending a second degree murder charge.

In cross-examination with Greg Brown, Mr Martens denied that, with his daughter, he murdered an unnamed, naked man lying face-down and blood-covered on the floor of his own bedroom. “That is not the truth,” Mr Martens said. “I am trying to take responsibility for what I did. I am trying to tell you as truthfully as I can what I did.”

Mr Martens insisted he had no knowledge or recollection of Mr Corbett being struck over the head with a stone garden paving brick by his daughter.

He also denied that he had bludgeoned the Limerick father-of-two while he lay senseless and helpless on the bedroom floor. He further denied trying to take the blame to protect his daughter.

Mr Martens confirmed that at no time did his wife, Sharon Martens, who was in a downstairs bedroom, ever come upstairs to see what the disturbance was about.

The retired FBI agent said he never shouted to his wife to call 911 or to come upstairs to help them.

Similarly, he said he had no recollection of his daughter, Molly, ever shouting to her mother for help.

He acknowledged that, while both himself and his daughter had knowledge of cardiac pulmonary resuscitation, neither performed it on the prone body of Mr Corbett until instructed to do so by a 911 operator.

Mr Martens insisted that the 911 call was made within minutes of Mr Corbett “going down”. “I hit him until he went down – that is all I know. “All I can tell you is what I can tell you.” When pressed once again about the blood-soaked concrete paving brick found in the master bedroom, Mr Martens was adamant.

“I had no knowledge of the brick.”

Mr Martens concluded his evidence with a stark denial that, with his daughter, he had murdered Mr Corbett in the bedroom that night. “That is not the truth,” he insisted. Those in Courtroom C were then astonished to discover that, with the conclusion of Mr Martens’ evidence, there was to be just one more defence witness.

Contrary to early indications in the trial, none of Mr Martens’ sons would be offering evidence. The second and final defence witness was William ‘Bill’ Cole. Mr Cole had worked in the FBI with Mr Martens and had then gone on to work with the US Department of Homeland Security. He told the trial he had known Mr Martens since 1994. “I think he is an honourable person,” Mr Cole said. “He is a person of integrity, truthful and reliable. Tom is a calm and deliberate person. I have never seen him get angry or do anything impulsive.”

Mr Cole, a former member of the US Marine Corps, said he considered Mr Martens one of the most honourable men he had ever worked with.

The trial had one further major development before the prosecution and defence teams would begin their closing argument.

Judge Lee ruled that 2015 statements made by Mr Corbett’s children, Jack and Sarah, were inadmissible for the murder trial.

The statements made by the two children in August 2015, just days after their father’s killing, had been sought to be introduced as evidence by the two defence teams of the father and daughter.

They were made to the DragonFly House, a support and social services agency in North Carolina.

The children were brought to the centre after the death of their father and the questioning of their step-mother following the fatal incident on August 2, 2015. Both had referred to Ms Martens-Corbett as “mom” in the statements. The children were interviewed after a custody battle erupted between the US-based family of Ms Martens-Corbett and the Limerick-based family of her husband.

However, the prosecution pointed out that the children have both since effectively retracted what was said in those 2015 statements in terms of new statements and their writings and diary entries.

Judge Lee said that, having considered the matter carefully and studied relevant case law, he was ruling that the statements would not be allowed in the trial. “There was some evidence of recanting by both children,” Judge Lee said. The defence had wanted the statements introduced to highlight aspects of the relationship between Mr Corbett and his second wife.

On Monday and Tuesday, August 7 and 8, the jury would hear a total of four closing arguments – one each from David Freedman and Walter Holton and two from the Assistant District Attorney team. These were delivered by Greg Brown and Alan Martin. The statements would prove amongst the most dramatic and gripping elements of the

entire four-week proceedings. Jurors visibly winced as Assistant District Attorney Alan Martin repeatedly struck a table with the metal baseball bat used to kill Mr Corbett to underline the sheer force required to crush the father-of-two’s skull.

Mr Martin also recreated in the courtroom, with Assistant District Attorney Greg Brown, how Mr Corbett may have lain prone on his bedroom floor while blows rained down on his head. “They literally beat the skin off of his skull with that bat and that brick,” he said. “They, acting in concert, her and him, literally crushed his skull. They turned his skull into something that resembled a bad Humpty Dumpty cartoon. “They beat him after the threat was over – after he went down.” Mr Martin said there are indications Mr Corbett was struck repeatedly while helpless on the floor. “They hit him at least four times after he was dead – maybe more. It takes a lot of force to crush a skull.” Mr Martin repeatedly struck a table with the metal baseball bat to underline his point. “They didn’t just split his skull or rip the flesh off the bone. They crushed his skull. It takes ‘I hate you’ force.”

Mr Martin pointed out that such was the catastrophic damage to Mr Corbett’s skull that a pathologist thought the injuries were akin to someone involved in a bad car crash or a fall from a height.

To illustrate the point, Mr Martin showed the nine women and three men of the jury the brick and the baseball bat used to kill Mr Corbett – and then showed them photographs of the Limerick father before the attack and after the attack. “This is what they did to Jason,” he said as he held up a post-mortem photograph. “This is what Jason did to them – nothing,” Mr Martin said as he held up scene photographs which showed the father and daughter totally uninjured.

Mr Martin urged jurors to consider the crime scene and forensic evidence as well as the testimony of police officers and paramedics at the scene.

He said that the distinction between second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter turns on malice. “You know what malice sounds like?” he asked jurors. “I want to divorce him – but I want his kids. He is beneath me and I am above him. He is not good enough for my daughter. I don’t like him and his rowdy Irish friends who cuss too much, drink and smoke outside my house. He is less than and I am greater than. I hate him. That’s what malice sounds like.” “Murder, to cover up an assault by either one of these two people, is malice.” Mr Martin said the evidence supports the suggestion that the retired FBI agent is doing everything possible to protect his daughter. “He is going to make sure every word out of his mouth protects or preserves Molly.” Mr Martin said that Molly had to be protected at all costs by the former FBI agent and counter-intelligence operative.

“The enemy [here] is not the Russians, the Chinese or the North Koreans. If you smash someone’s skull and you are trying to get away with it, the enemy is justice.”

The assistant district attorney queried how credible it was for Mr Martens to say he has

no recollection of the blood-stained brick being used as a weapon in the bedroom. His daughter told police she had tried to hit her husband with the brick.

“How is that possible? Tom’s testimony has a void in it – and it is that Molly didn’t do anything.”

Similarly, he asked how it was possible for Mr Martens’ wife, Sharon, to remain in a downstairs bedroom totally oblivious to the fatal incident unfolding overhead. “It is like she [Sharon] vanished from the face of the Earth in Tom Martens’ testimony.” “Why? Because three people keeping the story straight is darn near impossible. It is not consistent [with the evidence]. It is simply not credible.”

Mr Martin said it was incredible that Sharon Martens should remain in the downstairs bedroom, not come upstairs to see what the noise was about or not even be asked to call 911 by her husband or daughter.

Assistant District Attorney Greg Brown told the jury the forensic evidence indicated that both defendants acted to support their self-defence story -– and that they engaged in a “fake” CPR effort after critically delaying the 911 call.

“All the evidence conclusively shows that excessive force was used [to cause] the heinous, atrocious and cruel death of Jason Corbett. [They were also] staging for their story,” he said.

Mr Brown contended that Ms Martens-Corbett had a motive – the fact she would get the marital home, its contents, an insurance policy payout and, most important to her, Mr Corbett’s two children.

The district attorney pointed out that Mr Corbett had repeatedly refused to sign adoption papers for his second wife, giving her equal rights to his children. He also had plans to return to Ireland with his children. Mr Brown said paramedics also found dry flaky blood and congealed blood of Mr Corbett at the scene – indicating the 911 call had not been made immediately as claimed by the father and daughter.

“He was bludgeoned to death by Thomas Martens and Molly Martens-Corbett with a metal baseball bat and a concrete brick,” he said.

“The State would suggest to you that Mr Martens was calm and not even out of breath after a battle for his life and that of his daughter.”

Mr Brown said that paramedics and police who attended the scene within minutes of the 911 call being made found no blood on Mr Martens’ hands – despite the fact he claimed he had just performed 400 chest pumps on the blood-soaked body of his son-inlaw. No blood was found on the hands of Ms Martens-Corbett. The Irishman’s body was also found to be “cool”. Mr Brown said the State contended the duo engaged in “fake CPR” and had further delayed calling 911.

He said the State argued the evidence also supported the contention they had acted to support their self-defence story.

“Jason was left to die before 911 was ever called so as to allow the FBI agent and lawyer [Mr Martens] to develop the story he was going to tell and match wits with you and

determine the outcome of this criminal prosecution,” he said. “Where was Jason’s body when he was being beaten with a bat and a brick given the blood stains in the bedroom and the bathroom.

“The saturation of the brick – blood on the front, the back, the bottom, the right side and the left side. Not only did it have blood – it also had hair and tissue.

“There was not one drop of blood on his [Mr Martens] hands. They said they called 911 ‘the minute he went down’. But that is not supported by the evidence. “It is not self-defence – this is second degree murder. “Why didn’t he stop when Jason was on the ground? Why did he continue to bludgeon him? Why didn’t they stop? Malice? Yes. Hatred? Yes.

“The evidence is that Jason was retreating... he was naked in his marital bedroom and unarmed. His children were asleep in the house.”

Mr Brown said that injuries to Mr Corbett’s hand and arm suggested he may have desperately tried to defend himself.

However, the two defence teams insisted all the prosecution evidence corroborated the account of the Martens that the incident was due to them acting entirely in self-defence.

David Freedman, lawyer for Mr Martens, said his client had no expectation of what unfolded that night.

“Tom Martens went to bed in a dream and awoke to a nightmare that night,” he said.“Mr Martens has been trained in every firearm known to mankind. If he went with any inclination [of violence] he would have brought something more than a little league baseball bat.

“What do we know about Tom and what he did for the previous 40 years? He spent the previous 40 years defending this country.

“I remember when being in law enforcement was a good thing. We have spent the last few days disparaging the FBI. He has served us, he has protected us – that is what Tom Martens knows how to do.

“So what do you think he was going to do, knowing his daughter and his grandchildren were up there? He was going to protect when he grabbed that baseball bat. All the evidence has shown that is all Tom Martens thinks about – raising a family, raising children and protecting.

“Tom Marten saw something he thought was not possible. He saw his daughter, having her throat surrounded by the hands of Jason Corbett. He didn’t know why. But he saw that.”

“He walked in there, he is there for protection and that is what he sees. He didn’t want to be in his daughter’s bedroom in his underwear.

“Mr Freedman said the only malice in the case was linked to Mr Martens not liking cigarette butts being left at his home from a pre-wedding party by Mr Corbett’s family and his son-in-law’s drinking.

“That is absurd. It makes no sense,” he said, querying how it could ever be suggested that such a trivial wedding incident could have generated malice such like that claimed by the prosecution.

“Who is more likely to have snapped that night – a 65-year-old grandfather who has

protected us in his life from terrorists and drug dealers or a man, from his own mouth, feeling dizziness when not taking their medication.

“We know he (Mr Corbett) has had depression issues, we know he had sleep issues – we know that three weeks before he had his hands around Molly’s throat he had anger issues. Don’t listen to me – listen to him [Mr Corbett]. From his own mouth.

“We know he [Jason] had seven or eight drinks – [is] that the best way to deal with anger and dizziness?”

Mr Freedman pointed out that Mr Corbett was drinking to excess while his children played around him. “We do know he consumed a lot of alcohol. “Tom Martens has been in this nightmare since August 2, 2015 when all he wanted to do was see his grandchildren and play golf. “But Tom Martens did [that night] what he has spent his life doing – protecting. “Jason never stopped being the aggressor. At any time Jason could have ended the situation and just let Molly go.

“Tom was in a fight for his life. His survival instincts kicked in. All he wanted to do was live. Tom had no choice – it was Tom or Jason.

“We are not saying that Jason was bad or deserved to die. But if he let her [Molly] go, it is all over.”

Defence lawyer Walter Holton insisted that Ms Martens-Corbett (33) had nothing to gain from her husband’s death.

“She was not in the will. It was not about the children. They are gone home – they are in Ireland. She now lives with her parents. She has no assets,” he said.

Clockwise from top left: Molly Martens; Tracey Lynch with members of the Corbett family after Molly Martens-Corbett and her father Thomas Martens were found guilty of murder. PIC: DONNIE ROBERTS; Molly Martens-Corbett being led from court after being found guilty of the murder of Jason Corbett. PIC:

DONNIE ROBERTS; Thomas Martens is escorted from the courthouse to the county jail on January 5, 2016; Tracey Lynch, sister of Jason Corbett, arriving at Davidson County Courthouse. PIC: MARK CONDREN; Molly walks with a member of her legal team as they arrive at the Davidson County Courthouse on January 5, 2016.