Talk:Killing of Jason Corbett

careful when editing ...

Do not post rumors or speculation. Please only add details that are verified by a ref link to a newspaper article, thanks WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Court case

Editors keep removing evidence and quotations from the court case. This is extremely relevant and reliable information; can someone advise how to keep this information included aside from an edit war? 192.249.3.176 (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

spin off into a separate article "trial of Molly & Tom Martens" and add link, too much irrelevant info for current article, which was reviewed some time ago by independent reviewer WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This article has been maintained with many citations to tabloid sources that exclusively push the stories told by the Corbett family. It would be helpful to remove rumor and opinion and rely on the factual evidence; there has been ample information presented in court or by reliable news sources. 192.249.3.176 (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

no tabloids were used as sources, as Wikipedia blocks editing if they are used in ref. Irish Independent is a respected world renowned newspaper, not a tabloid, and quoted what was said in court / reported by US news without bias. Members of Corbett family were interviewed extensively, however every assertion from them starts with "alleged" to make clear it is not a stated fact WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that three paragraphs of accusations from the Corbett family that have never been substantiated in court, despite ample opportunity -- that is major bias. Removing those paragraphs are the best way to keep this page relatively neutral. 324jhafdsoubr233 (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

if you actually read it it says what accusations were in an affidavit (offical legal document incase u were wondering ...) submitted to a US court, which was never rebutted by the Martens. Also, read the ref links, other claims are drom a book written by Jasons sister that was checked by lawyers before publication and again was never rebutted WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

"Wikipedia blocks editing if they are used in ref" – This isn't accurate. Even WP:DEPRECATED sources can still be edited in, they may rapidly invite scrutiny but there is no technical restriction. I am not saying anything about the quality of the Irish Independent, only that this statement is not strictly true. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

wrong, try add a ref with a URL from the UK Daily Mail or the Irish Sun newspapers and Wikipedia throws an error and doesn't allow you to use it, try it yourself WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The only technical restriction is for domains on the spam blacklist. Every tabloid on the entirety of the internet is not on the spam blacklist. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

pretty sure the Irish / UK / US ones are, dont think anyone would use articles from non English speaking countries...

WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I will be more clear.

The Sun "is a British tabloid newspaper, published by the News Group Newspapers division of News UK". It is one of the most widely recognized tabloid publications. It is depreciated, see WP:THESUN.

Here it is in a newly created article, and here it is being edited into articles as a reference, all within the past 30 days, most within May. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

yup well i didn't use any tabloids, only Internationaly respeced newspapers WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed...and even assuming the sources are reliable, the vast majority of this article relies on only two sources (the Irish Independent and the Irish Times). Relying exclusively on one or two sources, especially with widely publicized stories with many sources, can provide unreliable or biased information. Publications often have their own editorial perspective on what they report and how. This article has a pretty obvious slant in favor of the Corbetts, in terms of what information is included and prioritized. 198.182.163.120 (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

publications*, not sources Formaldehydefree (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

arguably the truth slants in favour of the Corbetts, as demonstrated by the reams of evidence used in an open court of law to convict the Martens of murder ? regarding information not being included, "experts" shilling that Jason probably killed his first wife has no basis in reality, as demonstrated by her father specifically authoring an affidavit to deny that accusation, and would not be included by any serious editor. Seeing as Wikipedians with decades of experience agree with the way the article is currently composed i think you are in the minority 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC) WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no disputing the fact that Jason's first wife did not die of an asthmas attack. The autopsy report clearly shows this was not the case and that this alleged fabrication that she did die of the asthmas attack, was and continues to be in contrary to the facts. It is also beyond belief that his first wife's death was never investigated and in itself was a not done according to the law. An investigation must be done in any case where the dispute of death is noted on the autopsy. 142.115.24.21 (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

to be precise, her cause of death was listed on the autopsy as "a cardio-respiratory attack with a bronco-spasm in a known asthmatic". The Fitzpatrick family, that is Mag's siblings & parents, have publicly stated that she "suffered with asthma all her life", plus her own sister Catherine was in Jason & Mag's house on the night in question and said Mags woke her up in the middle of the night desperately seeking help as she couldn't breath properly, hence the "bronco-spasm". After she & Jason caried her to the car and Jason drove off to hospital at sped she then had a "cardio-respiratory attack" as a result of her sever asthma. There was no "dispute" as to the cause of death listed in the autopsy, and the Fitzpatrick family themselves have vehemently denied the accusation Jason had anything to do with her death. If you take the time to actually research the facts you will find that Dr George Nichols, who was appearing as a witness for the defence during their sentencing hearing after accepting a plea bargain to plead guilty, said that "in my opinion" the Irish pathologist's report is wrong & that while it was was possible Mag's death was the result of a homicide "it is nowhere close to probable" WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Completely agree. This story looks as though it was written by the Corbett family. While every "story" they told is reported as fact, most evidence relevant to the defense (ie, Jason Corbett telling his doctor he suffered episodes of uncontrollable anger, the recorded tapes, and the testimony of defense witnesses) are all ignored. My guess is the Corbett family heavily edits this page. The fact that the original child interviews were done one on one, by a licensed child psychologist, versus the second "recant" interviews being a zoom call, with the Corbett family sitting next to the children, conducted by a harried DA is incredibly relevant. Any even slightly qualified child therapist could point out how problematic this is, and which one is more likely to be coached. Bad article. 149.154.1.12 (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I can confirm I am not a member of the Corbett family, check my contributions over the past few years over many diverse articles ;) Regarding your allegations ... the only "testimony of defense witnesses" during the 2017 murder trial was Tom Martens himself, i think you are getting confused with the plea bargain hearings where they paid people to shill on their behalf ? Also, if the 2015 recant interviews with the children were coached, how come both Jack & Sarah have stuck to the same story for the following 10 years, including when the both gave detailed impact statements at both trials and during a recent 2 hour documentary ? WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

> how come both Jack & Sarah have stuck to the same story for the following 10 years

They've been with Jason Corbett's family during that time. Their statements made one and four days after the incident have a lot more credibility than whatever they claimed years later. 68.234.69.24 (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

what they said as frightened children os more credible than as adults ? dont think so WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Problems with this article

1) It's too long. Does this event even merit this much text? 2) It's absurdly biased. You'd think Jason Corbett was a saint who was ambushed in his sleep if this was the only information you had. 3) It relies on too few sources, primarily a few Irish newspapers, which do not even seem like impartial sources. The bias towards an Irish vs American citizen is obvious. 4) It is a character assasination piece against Mollie, including several sections which are borderline irrelevant, in an article which is supposed to be about the murder. 68.234.69.24 (talk) 09:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, I don't even care - someone delete this. :) 68.234.69.24 (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

1) long enough to explain and give context 2) every sentence is backed up by news article, therefore the truth is biased in favour of Jason 3) American news wasnt interested in the case with very little coverage as opposed to Irish constant coverage therefore logic dictates there will be majority Irish reference articles 4) please refer to answer 2, plus none of the Corbett assertions about her were ever refuted WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2025 (UTC)