PDA

View Full Version : Upcoming Trial - 2012


Pages : [1] 2

Kimster
02-01-2012, 03:30 PM
This is a continuation of this thread that is now closed: Trial Delayed until at least January - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


Please read these forum guidelines and THANK THE POST so I know you've read them. Yes, I can tell who has visited this thread and so need to know who stopped long enough to read this post.

There will be zero tolerance to anyone posting negatively about another member on Websleuths. You will lose your posting privileges for the time deemed fit by the moderators. This has been requested time and time again in every nice way possible and yet, the issue continues.

If there is another poster who just drives you nuts, run to this link and read about what you can do about the problem: Best Practices Dealing with your fellow posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


We have many members who use the Ignore Feature and the feedback has been wonderful! :rocker: Try it and if you don't like it, you can always put your settings right back where they were in the first place.

:tyou: and don't forget to thank the post!

Madeleine74
02-01-2012, 03:40 PM
Continuing from the prior thread...

My Belle: What the jurors did hear was descriptions of him as a good, caring father. No evidence he inflicted child abuse or that he wanted his child dead.He didn't hate his child, and he didn't want his child dead. If he did, he would have killed her. Had CY been older and more verbal, given the same circumstances of the crime, she may well have been murdered too (a la Jeffrey MacDonald).

What the jurors did hear were descriptions of him as a selfish, cheating, jackarse husband, son in law, friend, fiance, etc.

As a father he was an arse. He kept his daughter from seeing her maternal aunt and grandmother --people she dearly loved. He didn't bother to do anything to retain custody of his daughter. He testified he couldn't afford the fight the WDS and that's why he never responded to the subpoena. But we know that's not true as his mom very easily and quickly came up with $900K to get him out of jail, so like all things with him and his family, it came down to priorities. It was more important for him to keep quiet and not ever be questioned until he had to, than to fight for his daughter. And why did he lie about the money being the reason he couldn't respond to the WDS? It wasn't the reason at all.

As for his attack on GC, a 'spat' doesn't leave a woman with bruises. A 'spat' is not a man attacking a woman or hurting her. That is an insult to what CG experienced. JY was abusive and that's in evidence. Whether CG was immature or mature is not relevent. JY physically attacked CG. That is in evidence and does demonstrate some of what JY is capable of.

jerseygirl48
02-01-2012, 06:05 PM
I thought his mom came up with property deeds to secure the bond. Pledging property, because you believe the accused will show up for trial, is very different from coming up with cash to defend a civil suit (with the probability of a criminal trial just behind it).

If I were in trouble, I wouldn't feel bad asking my loved ones to put up property for my bond - i know I would never make a run for it so they'd never be at risk of losing their property. But, I would never ask them to liquidate the only assets they have to pay for my defense - money they'd likely never see again.

Please know I'm not taking a stand on his failure to try to defend himself in the civil suit, but I've seen comments about the bond "money" a couple of times. If I'm wrong, and mom had the cash for the bond, then I apologize in advance! But, if it was property/deeds, it seems as if it's being mischaracterized.

Just the Fax
02-01-2012, 06:33 PM
I thought his mom came up with property deeds to secure the bond. Pledging property, because you believe the accused will show up for trial, is very different from coming up with cash to defend a civil suit (with the probability of a criminal trial just behind it).

If I were in trouble, I wouldn't feel bad asking my loved ones to put up property for my bond - i know I would never make a run for it so they'd never be at risk of losing their property. But, I would never ask them to liquidate the only assets they have to pay for my defense - money they'd likely never see again.

Please know I'm not taking a stand on his failure to try to defend himself in the civil suit, but I've seen comments about the bond "money" a couple of times. If I'm wrong, and mom had the cash for the bond, then I apologize in advance! But, if it was property/deeds, it seems as if it's being mischaracterized.

I think you misunderstood.
The bond was $900,000.

We are talking about paying a domestic lawyer to respond to a custody case. The Fisher's never asked for full custody, only visitation. What did he do, he just signed her over. It was not about money...the lawyer would have cost $5000. It was about giving a deposition to answer the complaint.

As for the WD suit, the cost to answer and show up in civil court was not going to break the bank. He traded not being deposed about the murder for a $15,500,000 civil judgement and being tagged for life, the slayer.

Tell me, would you have done that?

Madeleine74
02-01-2012, 06:59 PM
If I were innocent, nothing would stop me from showing up and telling my story, which would be the truth and you're right--it costs very little to show up and take a deposition. He absolutely had enough money.

However....if I were guilty of brutally murdering my spouse and I was trying to CYA any which way I could think of, I would have done the same thing to try and prevent an arrest and would keep my mouth shut and allow a suit to default.

He had (and has) no intention of paying one cent towards it anyway, so that fact that he gets a slayer label and is $15.5M in the hole is of no real consequence to him because he cares about neither.

And let's be clear about something else. He also never attempted to collect on that $1M life insurance policy. And that would have cost him $0 to file. Maybe it would be $.40, the cost of a stamp at that time. What innocent spouse does not bother to file for their rightful, legal insurance claim? All it would take would be him giving a deposition for the insurance company.... oh... whooops. No, can't do that! A deposition would legally expose him and he couldn't take that chance.

Just the Fax
02-01-2012, 07:41 PM
Jury selection complete in Jason Young retrial

eight women and four men

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10676540/

NCEast
02-01-2012, 07:57 PM
Jury selection complete in Jason Young retrial

eight women and four men

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/m...tory/10676540/


I could not get the link to work, will try again in a moment.
Do you recall the gender make-up of the last jury, male vs female?

Just the Fax
02-01-2012, 08:47 PM
I could not get the link to work, will try again in a moment.
Do you recall the gender make-up of the last jury, male vs female?

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10676540/


7 women / 5 men last time

jerseygirl48
02-01-2012, 08:53 PM
I think you misunderstood.
The bond was $900,000.

We are talking about paying a domestic lawyer to respond to a custody case. The Fisher's never asked for full custody, only visitation. What did he do, he just signed her over. It was not about money...the lawyer would have cost $5000. It was about giving a deposition to answer the complaint.

As for the WD suit, the cost to answer and show up in civil court was not going to break the bank. He traded not being deposed about the murder for a $15,500,000 civil judgement and being tagged for life, the slayer.

Tell me, would you have done that?

I don't think I misunderstood, but I do think my post was misunderstood!

I completely agree that his motivations for not participating in the civil trial were pretty transparent ... Same for not filing the insurance claim.

Im just trying to say that it's not really fair to assume his parents had the money to foot an expensive defense just because he made bond. You can get 5 (or 100) people to pledge property to secure a bond - it doesn't cost them a penny if the defendant shows up as required. That's very different from coming up with cash .... As many people who have tried to sell property in the last few years have learned.

Just the Fax
02-01-2012, 08:58 PM
I don't think I misunderstood, but I do think my post was misunderstood!

I completely agree that his motivations for not participating in the civil trial were pretty transparent ... Same for not filing the insurance claim.

Im just trying to say that it's not really fair to assume his parents had the money to foot an expensive defense just because he made bond. You can get 5 (or 100) people to pledge property to secure a bond - it doesn't cost them a penny if the defendant shows up as required. That's very different from coming up with cash .... As many people who have tried to sell property in the last few years have learned.

Jay had more than enough money to hire a lawyer to keep his daughter and avoid a $15.5MM judgement.
He had at least $40,000 in a 401-k.

What would you do?
Pay the penalty and tax, or just ignore - give away your only daughter and owe $15,500,000:waitasec:

NCEast
02-01-2012, 09:09 PM
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10676540/


7 women / 5 men last time

Thank you. Pretty much the same as last time. Again, my memory is failing me but wasn't the jury foreperson a male in the first trial?

Just the Fax
02-01-2012, 09:13 PM
Thank you. Pretty much the same as last time. Again, my memory is failing me but wasn't the jury foreperson a male in the first trial?

Yes, the foreman was male - George DeMartz (name published in news)

http://www.premiere-inc.com/our-staff/

tarheel8600
02-01-2012, 11:02 PM
Jay had more than enough money to hire a lawyer to keep his daughter and avoid a $15.5MM judgement.
He had at least $40,000 in a 401-k.

What would you do?
Pay the penalty and tax, or just ignore - give away your only daughter and owe $15,500,000:waitasec:

When JY moved back to Brevard after the murder, there was plenty enough money for his mom, CY, and him to take several expensive trips.
When JY lost his jobs and was expelled from nursing school, who do you think supported him when he had no money coming in? The man was completely unhirable.

I'm still appalled at the fact the JY's family defended him from day one, and they were very vocal about his innocence. However, when it came time to pay a lawyer, his family didn't put their money where their mouths were because they let the NC taxpayers foot that bill, and we still are.

JY's mother owned over 1MM dollars worth of land outright, but she couldn't find it in her greedy heart to pay for son's defense. It makes me sick to think my tax money could be going towards his defense.

gracielee
02-01-2012, 11:24 PM
His mother wouldn't have had to sell any property, merely take out a loan on a portion of it's value. That being said, JLY wasn't a pauper himself. He certainly could have footed the retainer for a custody lawyer.

otto
02-02-2012, 01:47 PM
Continuing from the prior thread...

He didn't hate his child, and he didn't want his child dead. If he did, he would have killed her. Had CY been older and more verbal, given the same circumstances of the crime, she may well have been murdered too (a la Jeffrey MacDonald).

What the jurors did hear were descriptions of him as a selfish, cheating, jackarse husband, son in law, friend, fiance, etc.

As a father he was an arse. He kept his daughter from seeing her maternal aunt and grandmother --people she dearly loved. He didn't bother to do anything to retain custody of his daughter. He testified he couldn't afford the fight the WDS and that's why he never responded to the subpoena. But we know that's not true as his mom very easily and quickly came up with $900K to get him out of jail, so like all things with him and his family, it came down to priorities. It was more important for him to keep quiet and not ever be questioned until he had to, than to fight for his daughter. And why did he lie about the money being the reason he couldn't respond to the WDS? It wasn't the reason at all.

As for his attack on GC, a 'spat' doesn't leave a woman with bruises. A 'spat' is not a man attacking a woman or hurting her. That is an insult to what CG experienced. JY was abusive and that's in evidence. Whether CG was immature or mature is not relevent. JY physically attacked CG. That is in evidence and does demonstrate some of what JY is capable of.

I have to disagree regarding Jason's financial situation. His grandmother passed away after his wife was murdered and that may have altered his mother's financial assets. We don't know if that was before or after the custody hearing. Also, it seems to me that various properties were used for bail. I don't believe that it is reasonable to expect a suspect's mother and stepfather to liquidate their assets because of a child. In fact, it is recommended that parents do not hand money over to children in financial difficulties as it doesn't solve the problem.

otto
02-02-2012, 01:53 PM
I think you misunderstood.
The bond was $900,000.

We are talking about paying a domestic lawyer to respond to a custody case. The Fisher's never asked for full custody, only visitation. What did he do, he just signed her over. It was not about money...the lawyer would have cost $5000. It was about giving a deposition to answer the complaint.

As for the WD suit, the cost to answer and show up in civil court was not going to break the bank. He traded not being deposed about the murder for a $15,500,000 civil judgement and being tagged for life, the slayer.

Tell me, would you have done that?

The cost of a lawyer for custody or courtroom appearance may start at $5000, but that is not what it costs in the long run.

I'm curious ... why do you think that parents should pay the bills for their 30+ year old children and where does it stop? Should they cover all legal bills, only some, should they put a cap on it even though they know once they start, the costs will only continue? Should parents give children money for cars, houses, household bills ... where does it start and end?

otto
02-02-2012, 01:57 PM
When JY moved back to Brevard after the murder, there was plenty enough money for his mom, CY, and him to take several expensive trips.
When JY lost his jobs and was expelled from nursing school, who do you think supported him when he had no money coming in? The man was completely unhirable.

I'm still appalled at the fact the JY's family defended him from day one, and they were very vocal about his innocence. However, when it came time to pay a lawyer, his family didn't put their money where their mouths were because they let the NC taxpayers foot that bill, and we still are.

JY's mother owned over 1MM dollars worth of land outright, but she couldn't find it in her greedy heart to pay for son's defense. It makes me sick to think my tax money could be going towards his defense.

It seems to be a popular idea that parents should liquidate their assets to pay their adult children's legal bills. That surprises me, as conventional wisdom is to not do this.

Cammy
02-02-2012, 04:11 PM
:seeya:

New to the board but ready for the trial!!

Just the Fax
02-02-2012, 04:21 PM
The cost of a lawyer for custody or courtroom appearance may start at $5000, but that is not what it costs in the long run.

I'm curious ... why do you think that parents should pay the bills for their 30+ year old children and where does it stop? Should they cover all legal bills, only some, should they put a cap on it even though they know once they start, the costs will only continue? Should parents give children money for cars, houses, household bills ... where does it start and end?

You realize the Fisher's only asked for visitation, right?
Why would he fight that request?
Actually, that could have been done for far less than $5000.

Yep, as a total shock to the Fisher's, Jay offered up primary custody to Meredith.

Why?

Nothing to do with money, as he said on the stand.
It was because he could not open his mouth in a deposition and incriminate himself.
The easy way for all that to go away was to give up his daughter.

Lynx
02-02-2012, 04:23 PM
:seeya:

New to the board but ready for the trial!!

Hello Cammy I am kind of new here, but I am here for this trial too! I really can't wait! :seeya:

Cammy
02-02-2012, 04:26 PM
Hello Cammy I am kind of new here, but I am here for this trial too! I really can't wait! :seeya:

:seeya: Lynx

Been reading here most of the afternoon + catching up at WRAL.
I just don't know what to think, several things just bother me.

Lynx
02-02-2012, 04:31 PM
:seeya: Lynx

Been reading here most of the afternoon + catching up at WRAL.
I just don't know what to think, several things just bother me.

Gosh Camy, I know what you mean. I just logged in and am still playing catch-up as I have been out of reading at WRAL for a couple of days. Imagine my surprise.

How many backstrikes did the defense use if you know.

BTW/ How did you get your name red? I want mine Royal Purple..lol

Cammy
02-02-2012, 04:37 PM
I have been reading some of the search warrants... very interesting case.
I am puzzled as to how the last Jury could not reach a verdict, but I do see
some areas that could have caused problems, like the lady at the gas station,
for instance.

IMO

NCEast
02-02-2012, 04:42 PM
:seeya:

New to the board but ready for the trial!!

Welcome! Hope you won't be shy.

NCEast
02-02-2012, 04:42 PM
Hello Cammy I am kind of new here, but I am here for this trial too! I really can't wait! :seeya:

Glad to have both you and Cammy join us!

Just the Fax
02-02-2012, 04:43 PM
I remember a banned poster from another board that had a problem with the lady at the gas station :laugh:

Personally, I think Gracie was extremely credible.:D

Cammy
02-02-2012, 04:47 PM
Glad to have both you and Cammy join us!

Long way to go to catch up with you guys, but we will try !!

Thank you for the welcome.....:)

Lynx
02-02-2012, 04:48 PM
I have been reading some of the search warrants... very interesting case.
I am puzzled as to how the last Jury could not reach a verdict, but I do see
some areas that could have caused problems, like the lady at the gas station,
for instance.

IMO

The clerk seemed somewhat confused. IIRC, some of those purchases made by other customers around the same time that Jason Young allegedly purchased his gas. Some of these if my memory servers me correctly were purchased with bank/credit cards, why were these witnesses never sought out? Or were they?

otto
02-02-2012, 04:49 PM
You realize the Fisher's only asked for visitation, right?
Why would he fight that request?
Actually, that could have been done for far less than $5000.

Yep, as a total shock to the Fisher's, Jay offered up primary custody to Meredith.

Why?

Nothing to do with money, as he said on the stand.
It was because he could not open his mouth in a deposition and incriminate himself.
The easy way for all that to go away was to give up his daughter.

I don't think we'll ever know what was discussed behind closed doors regarding the custody of the child. If it was only straight forward visitation, the affidavits would not have needed to specify all of Jason's bad behavior at drunken parties. The paperwork should have been a straight forward application for visitation based on it being in the best interests of the child to maintain a relationship with her mother's relatives. The affidavits seemed aimed at painting Jason as an unfit parent. Regardless of what actually happened during those closed door legal discussions, Jason made a decision to have his daughter raised by her mother's sister. It is also possible that Jason actually thought this may be best for his daughter. It seems to me that Jason's comments regarding his sister in law were always positive.

Regarding legal costs ... lawyers are about $500/hr. After 10 hours, $5000 is gone. I have never heard of a contested child custody dispute being solved for $5000, but maybe that's how it works in NC.

Cammy
02-02-2012, 04:50 PM
The clerk seemed somewhat confused. IIRC, some of those purchases made by other customers around the same time that Jason Young allegedly purchased his gas. Some of these if my memory servers me correctly were purchased with bank/credit cards, why were these witnesses never sought out? Or were they?

Good question..
Yes, she seemed very confused but having to testify is not the easiest thing in the world.
I am willing to see how she does this time around and if the state can do a better job with her.
IMO

otto
02-02-2012, 04:51 PM
I remember a banned poster from another board that had a problem with the lady at the gas station :laugh:

Personally, I think Gracie was extremely credible.:D

There are an awful lot of people that have problems with the gas attendant testifying that the person she thought was Jason was only 5' tall.

borndem
02-02-2012, 04:52 PM
You realize the Fisher's only asked for visitation, right?
Why would he fight that request?
Actually, that could have been done for far less than $5000.

Yep, as a total shock to the Fisher's, Jay offered up primary custody to Meredith.

Why?

Nothing to do with money, as he said on the stand.
It was because he could not open his mouth in a deposition and incriminate himself.
The easy way for all that to go away was to give up his daughter.


Yep, JTF, pure & simple.

Further, re giving the deposition, IIMN, the deponent is sworn to tell the truth and is not allowed to refuse to answer a question or plead the 5th :nevermind:amendment. Tuff place to be :hot: if you don't want to, or simply cannot, tell the truth. :liar: It's all there on the record -:bricks:- signed, sworn and can be used as evidence in a courtroom. :gasp: Again, a tight spot for someone whose pants are already on fire. :eek: In this case, the truth will make him a not-so-free man.:behindbar


:justice:

otto
02-02-2012, 04:52 PM
I would like to know if any testimony from the first trial can be re-entered in the second trial. For example, can Jason's testimony be entered? If the gas attendant were to change her testimony, can her testimony from the first trial be entered into evidence?

Cammy
02-02-2012, 04:53 PM
There are an awful lot of people that have problems with the gas attendant testifying that the person she thought was Jason was only 5' tall.


That IS quite a discrepancy , Otto.
IMO

Lynx
02-02-2012, 04:56 PM
Good question..
Yes, she seemed very confused but having to testify is not the easiest thing in the world.
I am willing to see how she does this time around and if the state can do a better job with her.
IMO

I am willing to listen with a open mind. But that still puts a problem in the timeline IMO.

I do hope she got to view some of the video footage that the SBI videotaped.

Cammy
02-02-2012, 04:57 PM
I would like to know if any testimony from the first trial can be re-entered in the second trial. For example, can Jason's testimony be entered? If the gas attendant were to change her testimony, can her testimony from the first trial be entered into evidence?


I think it would be exactly the same if they differ from their original statements to LE.
IMO

otto
02-02-2012, 05:00 PM
That IS quite a discrepancy , Otto.
IMO

Apparently investigators stopped at gas stations along the supposed route and asked if anyone recognized Jason. One woman with some questionable background claimed she recognized him. When asked to describe him, she said that he was the same height as she. She is 5' tall. Many people watching the trial feed assumed that she must have been standing on something to make that statement, but she was standing on the same floor that Jason was standing on. She should have been able to state that he was head and shoulders taller. What she recalled was that she had an altercation with someone and that he then tipped her $5. It couldn't have been Jason if that person was 5' tall ... simply impossible.

For police to try to slide that one by the jury is like them trying to slide the 3 allele DNA match by the jury. They're presenting information, but it isn't evidence of guilt.

Now that they've said the trial will last 5-6 weeks instead of 11 days, we can only imagine what other information they're hoping to slide by the jury.

Just the Fax
02-02-2012, 05:01 PM
I don't think we'll ever know what was discussed behind closed doors regarding the custody of the child. If it was only straight forward visitation, the affidavits would not have needed to specify all of Jason's bad behavior at drunken parties. The paperwork should have been a straight forward application for visitation based on it being in the best interests of the child to maintain a relationship with her mother's relatives. The affidavits seemed aimed at painting Jason as an unfit parent. Regardless of what actually happened during those closed door legal discussions, Jason made a decision to have his daughter raised by her mother's sister. It is also possible that Jason actually thought this may be best for his daughter. It seems to me that Jason's comments regarding his sister in law were always positive.

Regarding legal costs ... lawyers are about $500/hr. After 10 hours, $5000 is gone. I have never heard of a contested child custody dispute being solved for $5000, but maybe that's how it works in NC.

Missed the sworn testimony?
The Fishers said they only asked for visitaion.
Jay shocked them with primary custody.

BTW, domestic lawyers at $500/hr is, well :floorlaugh:

You know how much Klinkosum is making? $85/hr.

Lynx
02-02-2012, 05:01 PM
I would like to know if any testimony from the first trial can be re-entered in the second trial. For example, can Jason's testimony be entered? If the gas attendant were to change her testimony, can her testimony from the first trial be entered into evidence?

The way that I understand and could be totally wrong is:

If a witness who testified in the first trial testifies to something completely different in the second trial testimony from first trial can be read into evidence and the witness can be impeached. Where upon may raise issues to the witnesses credibility. JMO

Just the Fax
02-02-2012, 05:04 PM
Apparently investigators stopped at gas stations along the supposed route and asked if anyone recognized Jason. One woman with some questionable background claimed she recognized him. When asked to describe him, she said that he was the same height as she. She is 5' tall. Many people watching the trial feed assumed that she must have been standing on something to make that statement, but she was standing on the same floor that Jason was standing on. She should have been able to state that he was head and shoulders taller. What she recalled was that she had an altercation with someone and that he then tipped her $5. It couldn't have been Jason if that person was 5' tall ... simply impossible.

For police to try to slide that one by the jury is like them trying to slide the 3 allele DNA match by the jury. They're presenting information, but it isn't evidence of guilt.

Otto....the facts are.

4 years earlier, Gracie told Spivey she positively recognized JY and his white SUV. At that time, she told him he was tall, had blondish hair and wore bluejeans.

She pointed him out in court 4 years later

Just the Fax
02-02-2012, 05:06 PM
The way that I understand and could be totally wrong is:

If a witness who testified in the first trial testifies to something completely different in the second trial testimony from first trial can be read into evidence and the witness can be impeached. Where upon may raise issues to the witnesses credibility. JMO

She can be reminded of what she told Spivey when it was fresh on her mind.
The jury can decide if her recent memory is more credible than a mistake she made 4 years later

Cammy
02-02-2012, 05:07 PM
Apparently investigators stopped at gas stations along the supposed route and asked if anyone recognized Jason. One woman with some questionable background claimed she recognized him. When asked to describe him, she said that he was the same height as she. She is 5' tall. Many people watching the trial feed assumed that she must have been standing on something to make that statement, but she was standing on the same floor that Jason was standing on. She should have been able to state that he was head and shoulders taller. What she recalled was that she had an altercation with someone and that he then tipped her $5. It couldn't have been Jason if that person was 5' tall ... simply impossible.

For police to try to slide that one by the jury is like them trying to slide the 3 allele DNA match by the jury. They're presenting information, but it isn't evidence of guilt.

Now that they've said the trial will last 5-6 weeks instead of 11 days, we can only imagine what other information they're hoping to slide by the jury.

Yes, I watched the DNA re: the rock testimony..not very convincing.
The trip was close to 340 miles, but , Otto, what I found really
compelling, was the gas argument the defense lawyers used
at the end of their case.IMO

otto
02-02-2012, 05:07 PM
Missed the sworn testimony?
The Fishers said they only asked for visitaion.
Jay shocked them with primary custody.

BTW, domestic lawyers at $500/hr is, well :floorlaugh:

You know how much Klinkosum is making? $85/hr.

I don't know who Klinkosum is, but I do know what a good lawyer costs.

It doesn't really matter what was said publicly as we know that the discussions regarding custody were negotiated behind closed doors and that information has never been made public.

otto
02-02-2012, 05:08 PM
The way that I understand and could be totally wrong is:

If a witness who testified in the first trial testifies to something completely different in the second trial testimony from first trial can be read into evidence and the witness can be impeached. Where upon may raise issues to the witnesses credibility. JMO

Thank you! What interests me more is whether Jason's testimony could be entered.

Just the Fax
02-02-2012, 05:11 PM
I don't know who Klinkosum is, but I do know what a good lawyer costs.

It doesn't really matter what was said publicly as we know that the discussions regarding custody were negotiated behind closed doors and that information has never been made public.

Klinkosum is Jay's lawyer.
He's good, right? Works for the top criminal firm in Raleigh.
I thought you followed this case:waitasec:

Just the Fax
02-02-2012, 05:13 PM
Thank you! What interests me more is whether Jason's testimony could be entered.

Anything Jay said can and will be used against him in the next trial.

Cammy
02-02-2012, 05:14 PM
Thank you! What interests me more is whether Jason's testimony could be entered.

I think we are all interested in that.
Was it a big shock when he took the stand?
IMO

gracielee
02-02-2012, 05:15 PM
Otto....the facts are.

4 years earlier, Gracie told Spivey she positively recognized JY and his white SUV. At that time, she told him he was tall, had blondish hair and wore bluejeans.

She pointed him out in court 4 years later

Exactly! Her statements at the time of the incident need to be pointed out as far more credible than her recollection of something like *height* 4 years later. :great:

Lynx
02-02-2012, 05:16 PM
Thank you! What interests me more is whether Jason's testimony could be entered.

I don't think so unless he decides to testify again...could be wrong. JMO

otto
02-02-2012, 05:16 PM
Otto....the facts are.

4 years earlier, Gracie told Spivey she positively recognized JY and his white SUV. At that time, she told him he was tall, had blondish hair and wore bluejeans.

She pointed him out in court 4 years later

Today we know that when the witness used the word "tall", she meant the same height as she: five feet tall. It's unfortunate that investigators didn't clarify what "tall" meant four years ago, as that question could have eliminated the witness altogether.

otto
02-02-2012, 05:17 PM
Klinkosum is Jay's lawyer.
He's good, right? Works for the top criminal firm in Raleigh.
I thought you followed this case:waitasec:

I have followed the case, but I don't have any reason to know the names of various lawyers in the case. I'm more interested in the facts and evidence.

otto
02-02-2012, 05:19 PM
I think we are all interested in that.
Was it a big shock when he took the stand?
IMO

It's certainly extremely rare for a guilty person to that the stand and leave themselves open to answering all the questions that the investigators claimed he was unavailable to answer. There he was, sworn to tell the truth and prepared to answer every question that anyone had ... and still a jury could not find him guilty.

Just the Fax
02-02-2012, 05:21 PM
Today we know that when the witness used the word "tall", she meant the same height as she: five feet tall. It's unfortunate that investigators didn't clarify what "tall" meant four years ago, as that question could have eliminated the witness altogether.

Like I said... the jury will be told what she told Spivey vs what she said 4 years later.
They can decide where to put the weight.
Add that to the circumstances....cursed her, paid $20 , pumped $15 and did not go back for his $5 change. Lets not forget the white SUV she remembered and confirmed when she saw a pic of his Explorer.

Finally, the hotel camera was tampered with (again) an hour later.....hmmm.The hotel happened to be about an hour away,

borndem
02-02-2012, 05:21 PM
:seeya:

New to the board but ready for the trial!!


:wagon: to the :websleuther:gang, Cammy! :greetings: Glad you're here!!

Lynx
02-02-2012, 05:22 PM
I think we are all interested in that.
Was it a big shock when he took the stand?
IMO

I sure was.

I do not think he will do it again...yet on second thought what information did he actually give the prosecution? The twig and cigar...he pretty much admitted to all the other stuff.

Strange case indeed.

Just the Fax
02-02-2012, 05:24 PM
I have followed the case, but I don't have any reason to know the names of various lawyers in the case. I'm more interested in the facts and evidence.

Knowing the names of the lawyers was just basic info for most people that followed the case.
I paid attention to those details, as well as the evidence.

Cammy
02-02-2012, 05:25 PM
It's certainly extremely rare for a guilty person to that the stand and leave themselves open to answering all the questions that the investigators claimed he was unavailable to answer. There he was, sworn to tell the truth and prepared to answer every question that anyone had ... and still a jury could not find him guilty.

I see.
Thank you, Otto, looks like Mon morning we will start to see what is different in this trial than the last.
Nice "meeting" you finally.
I have read here forever and have found you to be a very informed poster.
:)

Cammy
02-02-2012, 05:26 PM
:wagon: to the :websleuther:gang, Cammy! :greetings: Glad you're here!!

That is so sweet, thank you.:great:

borndem
02-02-2012, 05:27 PM
Hello Cammy I am kind of new here, but I am here for this trial too! I really can't wait! :seeya:

Greetings, Lynx, and :welcome: !!!!




We're glad to have another member to bea part of this trial forum. It's gonna be tuff, I think, but we'll just have to see where it goes.

Glad you're here!

Cammy
02-02-2012, 05:32 PM
I sure was.

I do not think he will do it again...yet on second thought what information did he actually give the prosecution? The twig and cigar...he pretty much admitted to all the other stuff.

Strange case indeed.

The last Jury may have wanted some kind of confirmation from the witness that could not be found that was at the gas station that morning as well.
Now , what is this with a twig and cigar?
I am not there yet.
IMO

Cammy
02-02-2012, 05:34 PM
Greetings, Lynx, and :welcome: !!!!




We're glad to have another member to bea part of this trial forum. It's gonna be tuff, I think, but we'll just have to see where it goes.

Glad you're here!

I think I am going to like you, you sure are friendly.

:)

NCEast
02-02-2012, 05:34 PM
It's certainly extremely rare for a guilty person to that the stand and leave themselves open to answering all the questions that the investigators claimed he was unavailable to answer. There he was, sworn to tell the truth and prepared to answer every question that anyone had ... and still a jury could not find him guilty.

That was due in part to the prosecutor's inability to ask the right questions and/or to pursue various responses by JY in depth. She was in over her head with JY's cross and that's exactly where most of the breakdown in the trial occurred in my opinion. Had she pursued some of her own questions and especially many of his responses he would have opened the door to a more elaborate cross examination.

Lynx
02-02-2012, 05:36 PM
The last Jury may have wanted some kind of confirmation from the witness that could not be found that was at the gas station that morning as well.
Now , what is this with a twig and cigar?
I am not there yet.
IMO

Cammy,

I was speaking of Jason Young's testimony in the first trial.

He pretty much admitted he was a bad husband, admitted to the affairs/trysts and most everything that Holt threw at him. His story differed rock vrs. twig....and he smoked a cigar. What else did the prosecution find out?

Just the Fax
02-02-2012, 05:37 PM
Cammy...I thought you said you "read here forever" :waitasec:

Lynx
02-02-2012, 05:40 PM
Greetings, Lynx, and :welcome: !!!!




We're glad to have another member to bea part of this trial forum. It's gonna be tuff, I think, but we'll just have to see where it goes.

Glad you're here!

I am so glad to be here!:seeya:

Thanks for the warm Welcome.

Cammy
02-02-2012, 05:40 PM
Cammy,

I was speaking of Jason Young's testimony in the first trial.

He pretty much admitted he was a bad husband, admitted to the affairs/trysts and most everything that Holt threw at him. His story differed rock vrs. twig....and he smoked a cigar. What else did the prosecution find out?

Got it and if I don't, I will get there by Mon morning.!

otto
02-02-2012, 06:01 PM
That was due in part to the prosecutor's inability to ask the right questions and/or to pursue various responses by JY in depth. She was in over her head with JY's cross and that's exactly where most of the breakdown in the trial occurred in my opinion. Had she pursued some of her own questions and especially many of his responses he would have opened the door to a more elaborate cross examination.

I see two possibilities: that there simply was nothing specific that investigators wanted to know, or she didn't have enough information to ask the right questions. Either way, the argument that Jason was unwilling to answer questions certainly can't be used again. It seems he was more than willing to answer any questions investigators had as long as it was in a courtroom.

borndem
02-02-2012, 06:02 PM
I remember a banned poster from another board that had a problem with the lady at the gas station :laugh:

Personally, I think Gracie was extremely credible.:D

I agree -- her testimony was crushing, but she was intimidated by the DT and got very nervous. With proper rehabilitation on the stand, she would have been strong as a lion. Roar! Killer. Alas....

I hope she's armed for bear this time!

Just the Fax
02-02-2012, 06:06 PM
I see two possibilities: that there simply was nothing specific that investigators wanted to know, or she didn't have enough information to ask the right questions. Either way, the argument that Jason was unwilling to answer questions certainly can't be used again. It seems he was more than willing to answer any questions investigators had as long as it was in a courtroom.

I don't recall the investigators asking him questions in the courtroom:waitasec:
Too bad, cause i'm sure there would have been a far different outcome.

otto
02-02-2012, 06:08 PM
I agree -- her testimony was crushing, but she was intimidated by the DT and got very nervous. With proper rehabilitation on the stand, she would have been strong as a lion. Roar! Killer. Alas....

I hope she's armed for bear this time!

I don't really see any way to rehabilitate testimony stating that the man she dealt with at the gas station was 5 feet tall. If she suddenly changes that fact,she's got a problem ... furthermore, prosecutors can't counsel her to change that testimony. I think the prosecution is stuck with witness testimony that a 5 foot guy was buying gas.

Just the Fax
02-02-2012, 06:11 PM
I don't really see any way to rehabilitate testimony stating that the man she dealt with at the gas station was 5 feet tall. If she suddenly changes that fact,she's got a problem ... furthermore, prosecutors can't counsel her to change that testimony. I think the prosecution is stuck with witness testimony that a 5 foot guy was buying gas.

Guess you forgot her statement to LE 4 years earlier?
That otto, is rehabilitation.

otto
02-02-2012, 06:11 PM
I don't recall the investigators asking him questions in the courtroom:waitasec:
Too bad, cause i'm sure there would have been a far different outcome.

The complaint was that Jason wouldn't answer questions. Presumably, investigators had many questions. Presumably all of that information was provided to the prosecution's office. Those questions could have been asked and answered when Jason was on the stand. The fact that only some questions were asked could mean that investigators did not have many questions after all. Alternatively, maybe they only wanted to ask those questions under their terms.

otto
02-02-2012, 06:16 PM
Guess you forgot her statement to LE 4 years earlier?
That otto, is rehabilitation.

I think we've established that the witness stated that the man she dealt with was tall. When asked to explain what "tall" meant, she indicated that he was 5 feet tall; the same as she.

No amount of "rehabilitating" a witness can change that fact. Police should have obtained more specific facts such as: how tall was he? It seems that they were so eager to have a witness for the gas purchase that they neglected to use a photo line-up and neglected to understand what the witness meant when she said "tall".

Lynx
02-02-2012, 06:23 PM
I think we've established that the witness stated that the man she dealt with was tall. When asked to explain what "tall" meant, she indicated that he was 5 feet tall; the same as she.

No amount of "rehabilitating" a witness can change that fact. Police should have obtained more specific facts such as: how tall was he? It seems that they were so eager to have a witness for the gas purchase that they neglected to use a photo line-up and neglected to understand what the witness meant when she said "tall".

I completely agree with this post otto.

My question is does she still remain the states star witness?

Cammy
02-02-2012, 06:23 PM
I don't really see any way to rehabilitate testimony stating that the man she dealt with at the gas station was 5 feet tall. If she suddenly changes that fact,she's got a problem ... furthermore, prosecutors can't counsel her to change that testimony. I think the prosecution is stuck with witness testimony that a 5 foot guy was buying gas.

Agree, that was one of the things that most concerned me and possibly the Jurors, past and recently seated.
And, one of the things that have made me reconsider if Mr. Young did this.
And, as for blue jeans, unless there were a lot of business men in suits pumping gas that morning at the station, that is what most men wear.
I don't see that as an out of the ordinary detail.
Agree again, that the state is stuck , but what can they do now, unless they decide not to call her?
IMO

Just the Fax
02-02-2012, 06:24 PM
I think we've established that the witness stated that the man she dealt with was tall. When asked to explain what "tall" meant, she indicated that he was 5 feet tall; the same as she.

No amount of "rehabilitating" a witness can change that fact. Police should have obtained more specific facts such as: how tall was he? It seems that they were so eager to have a witness for the gas purchase that they neglected to use a photo line-up and neglected to understand what the witness meant when she said "tall".

That question was never asked, otto.

It is up to the jury to decide if her statement 4 years earlier was more credible than her faded memory in 2011.

Case in point....I see many poster's memory has faded recalling all the facts from 2006/2007.

otto
02-02-2012, 06:25 PM
Agree, that was one of the first things that caused some real concern for me that Mr. Young did this.
All the Jurors have to do is look at him and the witness and see the difference in height.
And, as for him wearing jeans, unless there were a lot business men going to work at the same time there pumping gas, pretty much most guys wear jeans.
I don't find that an out of the ordinary detail at all.
Also, agree the Prosecution is stuck with her, what can they do now?
Great points, Otto.

Wearing jeans or having blond hair seems completely meaningless to me. Jason owned jeans and he had blond hair, just like millions of others. The detail, for me, is in his height. If she had said brown hair, jeans and 6 feet tall that would have worked for me, but not blond hair, jeans and 5 feet tall. It's impossible to believe that she didn't notice that she had to look way up to talk to him.

Grammy Jean
02-02-2012, 06:26 PM
I went to the courtroom several times for the BC trial and found it so interesting. Honestly, I only paid surface attention to this case due to my obsession to the CA trial. I am ready to give this trial a lot of attention. I was wondering if anyone could tell me which court room this trial will be held.

Just the Fax
02-02-2012, 06:28 PM
Wearing jeans or having blond hair seems completely meaningless to me. Jason owned jeans and he had blond hair, just like millions of others. The detail, for me, is in his height. If she had said brown hair, jeans and 6 feet tall that would have worked for me, but not blond hair, jeans and 5 feet tall. It's impossible to believe that she didn't notice that she had to look way up to talk to him.

The more you post your opinion on this, the weaker your argument gets.
MOO

Just the Fax
02-02-2012, 06:29 PM
I went to the courtroom several times for the BC trial and found it so interesting. Honestly, I only paid surface attention to this case due to my obsession to the CA trial. I am ready to give this trial a lot of attention. I was wondering if anyone could tell me which court room this trial will be held.

Same courtroom, 3-B.

Cammy
02-02-2012, 06:30 PM
Wearing jeans or having blond hair seems completely meaningless to me. Jason owned jeans and he had blond hair, just like millions of others. The detail, for me, is in his height. If she had said brown hair, jeans and 6 feet tall that would have worked for me, but not blond hair, jeans and 5 feet tall. It's impossible to believe that she didn't notice that she had to look way up to talk to him.

I thought my original post got stuck in cyberspace, lol, but I see it made it through.
Exactly, the difference in height can not be explained, especially if they were on the same level, which I just read that they were.
Was there any testimony if she related this incident to her boss that day, such as in a written report, perhaps?
That would be great confirmation, since the witness could not be found.
Excellent, well thought out observation, Otto.
:)
IMO

Just the Fax
02-02-2012, 06:33 PM
I thought my original post got stuck in cyberspace, lol, but I see it made it through.
Exactly, the difference in height can not be explained, especially if they were on the same level, which I just read that they were.
Was there any testimony if she related this incident to her boss that day, such as in a written report, perhaps?
That would be great confirmation, since the witness could not be found.
Excellent, well thought out post, Otto.
:)
IMO

Where did you "read" this, "Cammy"?
Have a link?

otto
02-02-2012, 06:37 PM
That question was never asked, otto.

It is up to the jury to decide if her statement 4 years earlier was more credible than her faded memory in 2011.

Case in point....I see many poster's memory has faded recalling all the facts from 2006/2007.

Of course people's memories fade. If it is written repeatedly that a white car was seen at the house at 4 in the morning, some people re-write their memories and believe it was a white car. The fact is that it wasn't. It was a light colored car - which could mean many things. Some people may forget that there was a search warrant specifically for measuring the bathroom tiles because investigators made mistakes and neglected to put measurement markers in their photos. These things happen.

The witness was asked in court about the height of the man she dealt with at the gas station. I understand that this fact presents a problem in terms of arguing that her testimony is valid, but that's how it is.

"Though Dahms, a woman with a history of drug abuse, pointed to Young in court today as the man she had encountered in November 2006, she told Judge Stephens [minutes] before that she had difficulty describing the man she had seen in the store.

Dahms, 5-feet-3, said she remembered the customer as a white man, slightly taller than she is, who looked to be in his 30s.

But when asked whether she saw him in the courtroom today, she pointed at Jason Young without hesitation.

She said she remembered him because few people cussed her out as he did."

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/05/20/1212378/judge-allows-store-clerks-testimony.html#storylink=cpy


She was most likely only able to identify Jason because she was only shown his picture (not a photo lineup) and because he was sitting at the defendant's table. Given her drug history, one has to question whether she was somewhat motivated to do something good and help police.

Cammy
02-02-2012, 06:39 PM
i completely agree with this post otto.

My question is does she still remain the states star witness?

g m t a !!

otto
02-02-2012, 06:39 PM
The more you post your opinion on this, the weaker your argument gets.
MOO

Could you please be more specific.

I don't believe that stating the facts makes them weaker.

Madeleine74
02-02-2012, 06:40 PM
Wondering if JY will be playing "rock paper scissors" to try and explain why he propped the door open?

Gracie Lee seems to have a limited vocabulary. She described JY as little taller than her. She described his hair as little. Confusion continues when the state doesn't clarify what she actually means and remind her of her exact words at the time that it mattered, a few days after the murder. It's up to them to bring out the testimony and then make sure it can be understood.

Wish the state would bring in an exact copy of the 11/2/06 USA Today and show the size of the sports scores print. Can those easily be read in the near dark?

gracielee
02-02-2012, 06:40 PM
Hopefully, since this is a brand new trial, Gracie will be properly prepped for her testimony, and her earlier statement will be introduced as to 'closeness in time to the actual event.'

Just the Fax
02-02-2012, 06:42 PM
That was a pre-trial hearing, otto.
Thanks, but the N&O account was not needed, as I was there.

The same hearing revealed her more credible statement....very close to the murder date.

Tell ya what, lets see how Gracie plays out next trial.
Betcha it's an entirely different scenario for the jury.

Cammy
02-02-2012, 06:42 PM
Of course people's memories fade. If it is written repeatedly that a white car was seen at the house at 4 in the morning, some people re-write their memories and believe it was a white car. The fact is that it wasn't. It was a light colored car - which could mean many things. Some people may forget that there was a search warrant specifically for measuring the bathroom tiles because investigators made mistakes and neglected to put measurement markers in their photos. These things happen.

The witness was asked in court about the height of the man she dealt with at the gas station. I understand that this fact presents a problem in terms of arguing that her testimony is valid, but that's how it is.

"Though Dahms, a woman with a history of drug abuse, pointed to Young in court today as the man she had encountered in November 2006, she told Judge Stephens [minutes] before that she had difficulty describing the man she had seen in the store.

Dahms, 5-feet-3, said she remembered the customer as a white man, slightly taller than she is, who looked to be in his 30s.

But when asked whether she saw him in the courtroom today, she pointed at Jason Young without hesitation.

She said she remembered him because few people cussed her out as he did."

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/05/20/1212378/judge-allows-store-clerks-testimony.html#storylink=cpy


She was most likely only able to identify Jason because she was only shown his picture (not a photo lineup) and because he was sitting at the defendant's table. Given her drug history, one has to question whether she was somewhat motivated to do something good and help police.

Oh my gosh, I did not know all this, this is not good.:(
Thank you for posting.
Now, I understand more of the problem.
I could not get past the fact that they had a witness, and yet could not reach a verdict.
This makes sense.
IMO

otto
02-02-2012, 06:42 PM
Where did you "read" this, "Cammy"?
Have a link?

Let's assume that the floor was at one elevaton throughout the gas station. Is there a link indicating that the gas attendant was standing on a step ladder or something else when she encountered the short customer?

otto
02-02-2012, 06:45 PM
I completely agree with this post otto.

My question is does she still remain the states star witness?

Probably yes ... if they had any other witnesses, they should have been called during the first trial.

gracielee
02-02-2012, 06:47 PM
I think we've established that the witness stated that the man she dealt with was tall. When asked to explain what "tall" meant, she indicated that he was 5 feet tall; the same as she.

No amount of "rehabilitating" a witness can change that fact. Police should have obtained more specific facts such as: how tall was he? It seems that they were so eager to have a witness for the gas purchase that they neglected to use a photo line-up and neglected to understand what the witness meant when she said "tall".

I don't recall that to be what she said. I thought she said 'a little taller than herself'. Not that he was 5 ft. tall, same as herself. IIRC, we went over that at the time. To me, unless someone is like a basketball player, I have zero ability to judge height on someone. I can tell if they are taller than me, but how much taller, not so much. I've often thought to myself, I'd be a lousy judge of height as a witness, because unless someone is standing next to someone that I know the height of, I'm at a loss in the guessing dept.

ymmv

borndem
02-02-2012, 06:48 PM
Anything Jay said can and will be used against him in the next trial.


Let's hope!! http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/icons/icon6.gif

Cammy
02-02-2012, 06:48 PM
Let's assume that the floor was at one elevaton throughout the gas station. Is there a link indicating that the gas attendant was standing on a step ladder or something else when she encountered the short customer?

It was in the cross exam by the defense that it came out they were on the same level of flooring.
This is worse than I thought.
Perhaps, Lynx is right, maybe they will distance themselves from her this time around. IMO
:confused:

Just the Fax
02-02-2012, 06:49 PM
Let's assume that the floor was at one elevaton throughout the gas station. Is there a link indicating that the gas attendant was standing on a step ladder or something else when she encountered the short customer?

Lets not 'assume' anything.
I prefer facts.
"Cammy" posted she "read" something and posted it as fact.

Cammy
02-02-2012, 06:51 PM
I don't recall that to be what she said. I thought she said 'a little taller than herself'. Not that he was 5 ft. tall, same as herself. IIRC, we went over that at the time. To me, unless someone is like a basketball player, I have zero ability to judge height on someone. I can tell if they are taller than me, but how much taller, not so much. I've often thought to myself, I'd be a lousy judge of height as a witness, because unless someone is standing next to someone that I know the height of, I'm at a loss in the guessing dept.

ymmv

H Gracie, I don't know.
I am 5'6 and everyone is still taller than me.
:floorlaugh:

gracielee
02-02-2012, 06:53 PM
Wondering if JY will be playing "rock paper scissors" to try and explain why he propped the door open?

Gracie Lee seems to have a limited vocabulary. She described JY as little taller than her. She described his hair as little. Confusion continues when the state doesn't clarify what she actually means and remind her of her exact words at the time that it mattered, a few days after the murder. It's up to them to bring out the testimony and then make sure it can be understood.

Wish the state would bring in an exact copy of the 11/2/06 USA Today and show the size of the sports scores print. Can those easily be read in the near dark?

LOL, I thought you were saying *I* had a limited vocabulary! :floorlaugh:

Oh wait, maybe you were.......:waitasec:

In that case......:furious:

Just the Fax
02-02-2012, 06:56 PM
:seeya:

ya'll have fun, ya hear!

citygirl
02-02-2012, 06:57 PM
Oh please. IMO she nailed him.


Of course people's memories fade. If it is written repeatedly that a white car was seen at the house at 4 in the morning, some people re-write their memories and believe it was a white car. The fact is that it wasn't. It was a light colored car - which could mean many things. Some people may forget that there was a search warrant specifically for measuring the bathroom tiles because investigators made mistakes and neglected to put measurement markers in their photos. These things happen.

The witness was asked in court about the height of the man she dealt with at the gas station. I understand that this fact presents a problem in terms of arguing that her testimony is valid, but that's how it is.

"Though Dahms, a woman with a history of drug abuse, pointed to Young in court today as the man she had encountered in November 2006, she told Judge Stephens [minutes] before that she had difficulty describing the man she had seen in the store.

Dahms, 5-feet-3, said she remembered the customer as a white man, slightly taller than she is, who looked to be in his 30s.

But when asked whether she saw him in the courtroom today, she pointed at Jason Young without hesitation.

She said she remembered him because few people cussed her out as he did."

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/05/20/1212378/judge-allows-store-clerks-testimony.html#storylink=cpy


She was most likely only able to identify Jason because she was only shown his picture (not a photo lineup) and because he was sitting at the defendant's table. Given her drug history, one has to question whether she was somewhat motivated to do something good and help police.

citygirl
02-02-2012, 07:01 PM
Oh my gosh, I did not know all this, this is not good.:(
Thank you for posting.
Now, I understand more of the problem.
I could not get past the fact that they had a witness, and yet could not reach a verdict.
This makes sense.
IMO
Really? You didn't know this about Gracie Dahms Bailey?

gracielee
02-02-2012, 07:02 PM
H Gracie, I don't know.
I am 5'6 and everyone is still taller than me.
:floorlaugh:

I used to be 5'5", but I'm getting old, so who know's, I am probably shorter than that now. We have a male friend who is slight of build, and I always assumed him to be much shorter than he actually was. It wasn't until I saw him standing right next to my husband, who is 6 ft. tall, that I realized they were exactly the same height. I'd always thought the other man was 'just a bit taller than myself.' Certainly nowhere near six ft. I realized I was right, I'm a horrible judge of height.

Cammy
02-02-2012, 07:05 PM
I used to be 5'5", but I'm getting old, so who know's, I am probably shorter than that now. We have a male friend who is slight of build, and I always assumed him to be much shorter than he actually was. It wasn't until I saw him standing right next to my husband, who is 6 ft. tall, that I realized they were exactly the same height. I'd always thought the other man was 'just a bit taller than myself.' Certainly nowhere near six ft. I realized I was right, I'm a horrible judge of height.

Lol, cute.

Cammy
02-02-2012, 07:14 PM
Going back to reading some search warrants and finding so many things wrong.....:(
So many inconsistencies that could come out at trial, jurors do not like to be fooled
when witnesses take the stand and testify differently.
This could be a problem, but I am sure the state is ready !!
IMO

gracielee
02-02-2012, 07:16 PM
Of course people's memories fade. If it is written repeatedly that a white car was seen at the house at 4 in the morning, some people re-write their memories and believe it was a white car. The fact is that it wasn't. It was a light colored car - which could mean many things. Some people may forget that there was a search warrant specifically for measuring the bathroom tiles because investigators made mistakes and neglected to put measurement markers in their photos. These things happen.

The witness was asked in court about the height of the man she dealt with at the gas station. I understand that this fact presents a problem in terms of arguing that her testimony is valid, but that's how it is.

"Though Dahms, a woman with a history of drug abuse, pointed to Young in court today as the man she had encountered in November 2006, she told Judge Stephens [minutes] before that she had difficulty describing the man she had seen in the store.

Dahms, 5-feet-3, said she remembered the customer as a white man, slightly taller than she is, who looked to be in his 30s.

But when asked whether she saw him in the courtroom today, she pointed at Jason Young without hesitation.

She said she remembered him because few people cussed her out as he did."

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/05/20/1212378/judge-allows-store-clerks-testimony.html#storylink=cpy


She was most likely only able to identify Jason because she was only shown his picture (not a photo lineup) and because he was sitting at the defendant's table. Given her drug history, one has to question whether she was somewhat motivated to do something good and help police.

I'm sorry, but this seems like a gratuituous attempt at smearing a witness who is only attempting to tell her story. She didn't seek out attention or go to the cops. She is merely doing her duty as a citizen and witness to what she saw and heard that night.

Cammy
02-02-2012, 07:18 PM
I'm sorry, but this seems like a gratuituous attempt at smearing a witness who is only attempting to tell her story. She didn't seek out attention or go to the cops. She is merely doing her duty as a citizen and witness to what she saw and heard that night.

It was in the morning, around 5:30 am....

gracielee
02-02-2012, 07:27 PM
I certainly hope these threads aren't going to continue to degenerate into sniping once again. It's my understanding that both victims and witnesses are supposed to be treated respectfully on this site. IIRC, wasn't this thread started by a moderator?

borndem
02-02-2012, 07:37 PM
I don't really see any way to rehabilitate testimony stating that the man she dealt with at the gas station was 5 feet tall. If she suddenly changes that fact,she's got a problem ... furthermore, prosecutors can't counsel her to change that testimony. I think the prosecution is stuck with witness testimony that a 5 foot guy was buying gas.

I could be wrong, otto, but it seems to me that Holt could have reminded her of the conversation she had had with the investigators four years prior when her memory had been quite fresh and helped he remember what she told them. Then holt could have simply asked, before the DT might have, which is your better recollection, Gracie? And that would have made her feel better and more sure, and it would have been far less confusing to the jury.

But it wasn't....http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/icons/icon9.gifJMO.

Cammy
02-02-2012, 07:44 PM
I could be wrong, otto, but it seems to me that Holt could have reminded her of the conversation she had had with the investigators four years prior when her memory had been quite fresh and helped he remember what she told them. Then holt could have simply asked, before the DT might have, which is your better recollection, Gracie? And that would have made her feel better and more sure, and it would have been far less confusing to the jury.

But it wasn't....http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/icons/icon9.gifJMO.

I think all that really matters is what is going to happen this time around.
I feel for Gracie and /or any witness that was unwillingly dragged into this case.
Justice for Michelle, finally just may be within reach.
IMO
:seeya:
Thanks for all the nice welcomes !!

tarheel8600
02-02-2012, 07:57 PM
Cammy,

I was speaking of Jason Young's testimony in the first trial.

He pretty much admitted he was a bad husband, admitted to the affairs/trysts and most everything that Holt threw at him. His story differed rock vrs. twig....and he smoked a cigar. What else did the prosecution find out?

I'm just catching up with the posts so I apologize if someone has already answered this.

One thing the PT found out through JY's testimony is that JY was out of his room around 11:20 pm (supposedly to get his computer charger) at the same time the security camera was unplugged. There was no way to prove he was out of his room at that time until JY testified to it.

Another thing the PT learned is that JY picked up the newspaper at the front desk to check sports scores that were 24 hours old. He could have said that there was an article in there that he wanted to read; that would have been a little more believable.

He also said that he wasn't a good husband to Michelle (that has to be the understatement of the century), but that he was working on his marriage. That was a bald-faced lie. Why BH didn't ask him to list the ways he was working on his marriage is beyond me.

They also found out that his explanation for his party antics and his uncaring attitude towards Michelle was because he was immature. He still doesn't see his behavior as sick and mean. Being immature is a far cry from being sick and mean.

One last thing they (and the rest of us watching) found out when he testified was that he is one thirsty bastard. :needdrink:

tarheel8600
02-02-2012, 08:14 PM
I see two possibilities: that there simply was nothing specific that investigators wanted to know, or she didn't have enough information to ask the right questions. Either way, the argument that Jason was unwilling to answer questions certainly can't be used again. It seems he was more than willing to answer any questions investigators had as long as it was in a courtroom.

JY was only willing to answer questions AFTER he knew what the prosecution had against him.
He was only willing to answer questions AFTER he was able to tailor his answers to the evidence.
That in no way makes JY a hero for stepping up to the plate and opening himself up to scrutiny.

If he had talked to LE after repeated requests during the hours, days, weeks, or months after his wife's murder, I might feel differently.
If he had done this during the WDS, I might feel differently.
If he had done this instead of voluntarily giving up his daughter, I might feel differently.
But he didn't, so I don't.

Grammy Jean
02-02-2012, 08:20 PM
I'm just catching up with the posts so I apologize if someone has already answered this.

One thing the PT found out through JY's testimony is that JY was out of his room around 11:20 pm (supposedly to get his computer charger) at the same time the security camera was unplugged. There was no way to prove he was out of his room at that time until JY testified to it.

Another thing the PT learned is that JY picked up the newspaper at the front desk to check sports scores that were 24 hours old. He could have said that there was an article in there that he wanted to read; that would have been a little more believable.

He also said that he wasn't a good husband to Michelle (that has to be the understatement of the century), but that he was working on his marriage. That was a bald-faced lie. Why BH didn't ask him to list the ways he was working on his marriage is beyond me.

They also found out that his explanation for his party antics and his uncaring attitude towards Michelle was because he was immature. He still doesn't see his behavior as sick and mean. Being immature is a far cry from being sick and mean.

One last thing they (and the rest of us watching) found out when he testified was that he is one thirsty bastard. :needdrink:

Like many of you, I too feel BH could have done so much better, and I hope she can this time around. I did feel the one time she was strong was in the part of her cross examining JY when she prefaced many questions with "Were you working on your marriage when" she had a whole series of these and that I thought was effective.

tarheel8600
02-02-2012, 08:36 PM
Agree, that was one of the things that most concerned me and possibly the Jurors, past and recently seated.
And, one of the things that have made me reconsider if Mr. Young did this.
And, as for blue jeans, unless there were a lot of business men in suits pumping gas that morning at the station, that is what most men wear.
I don't see that as an out of the ordinary detail.
Agree again, that the state is stuck , but what can they do now, unless they decide not to call her?
IMO

BBM and UBM

Are you presuming to know what the recently seated jurors are already concerned about? How would you know what is concerning them? The actual trial where evidence is introduced hasn't even started yet. :waitasec:

borndem
02-02-2012, 08:44 PM
Same courtroom, 3-B.

Yeah, Fax, the "Camera Courtroom"! The small, cold one.... I'll probably see you there, one day or another....http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/icons/icon6.gif

Allusonz
02-02-2012, 09:03 PM
The cost of a lawyer for custody or courtroom appearance may start at $5000, but that is not what it costs in the long run.

I'm curious ... why do you think that parents should pay the bills for their 30+ year old children and where does it stop? Should they cover all legal bills, only some, should they put a cap on it even though they know once they start, the costs will only continue? Should parents give children money for cars, houses, household bills ... where does it start and end?

BBM

You are very correct Otto. Most lawyers in these situations ask for a retainer up front usually in the hundreds of thousand dollars.

One case that currently comes to mind is the Horman case.

A $40,000 dollar 401k would not even cover the Examination for Discovery and disbursements

borndem
02-02-2012, 09:07 PM
JY was only willing to answer questions AFTER he knew what the prosecution had against him.
He was only willing to answer questions AFTER he was able to tailor his answers to the evidence.
That in no way makes JY a hero for stepping up to the plate and opening himself up to scrutiny.

If he had talked to LE after repeated requests during the hours, days, weeks, or months after his wife's murder, I might feel differently.
If he had done this during the WDS, I might feel differently.
If he had done this instead of voluntarily giving up his daughter, I might feel differently.
But he didn't, so I don't.

Very eloquent, very succinct and very true, tarheel. I heartily and completely agree with all of it. Your posting is really about all that needs to be said. Thank you! ..http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

Madeleine74
02-02-2012, 09:11 PM
Investigators can't question witnesses sitting in the jury box. It's up to the the ADAs to elicit testimony during cross, based on what was brought up during direct. They can't just conduct an investigation up there and ask anything they want regardless.

While BH's questions "Were you working on your marriage when you..." were good and pounded home well, the reality is that nowadays people don't care about affairs and bad boorish jerkwad behavior. They don't see a correlation between someone who acts that way and a murdered spouse. And while it's not "proof," there is inference that can be drawn about the character of the person, but some people don't understand one thing may connect to another and they don't understand if someone is lying about what they stated as their intentions in their marriage, the lying calls everything else they say into question as well.

And some people want (nee...require) a CSI-level forensic match of all evidence in a case before they'll even concede a person may have been involved. What they really want is an HD video of the murder being committed, the perp then looking right into the lens of the camera, while twirling a handlebar mustache, along with all the other CSI-level forensic evidence that should magically come back in 42 min, delivered by Marg Helgenberger.

Any other evidence, including circumstantial evidence is not "real" evidence to them.


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e121/OSOKILL/Smileys/confused-smiley-013.gif

otto
02-02-2012, 09:14 PM
I'm sorry, but this seems like a gratuituous attempt at smearing a witness who is only attempting to tell her story. She didn't seek out attention or go to the cops. She is merely doing her duty as a citizen and witness to what she saw and heard that night.

I suppose you could contact the newspaper and let them know what you think about the information they included about the witness.

Allusonz
02-02-2012, 09:18 PM
She can be reminded of what she told Spivey when it was fresh on her mind.
The jury can decide if her recent memory is more credible than a mistake she made 4 years later

She as well gave a different description during a hearing.

This will present problems for the prosecution as it is considered to be testimony under oath.

What surprised me is that in all the times she met with detectives she was asked if they ever asked her for a description of the individual and she repeatedly answered no.

She was not shown a photo line-up.

When asked to describe the individual during the hearing she gave a totally different description. I am certain that she means well but issues arise when you have testimony that is vastly different.

otto
02-02-2012, 09:19 PM
I certainly hope these threads aren't going to continue to degenerate into sniping once again. It's my understanding that both victims and witnesses are supposed to be treated respectfully on this site. IIRC, wasn't this thread started by a moderator?

There's very little we can do about what has been published about a witness in the news and a history of drug abuse is a factor in court testimony.

Here's another link with the same info: http://admin.ongo.com/v/983202/-1/8811585723B4D149/clerks-id-allowed-in-young-trial

Allusonz
02-02-2012, 09:30 PM
The more you post your opinion on this, the weaker your argument gets.
MOO

I am uncertain how this becomes weaker since it is based on testimony that was presented in a Court of Law as evidence.

Allusonz
02-02-2012, 09:44 PM
Wondering if JY will be playing "rock paper scissors" to try and explain why he propped the door open?

Gracie Lee seems to have a limited vocabulary. She described JY as little taller than her. She described his hair as little. Confusion continues when the state doesn't clarify what she actually means and remind her of her exact words at the time that it mattered, a few days after the murder. It's up to them to bring out the testimony and then make sure it can be understood.

Wish the state would bring in an exact copy of the 11/2/06 USA Today and show the size of the sports scores print. Can those easily be read in the near dark?

I tavel frequently for my business and have found the hotels to be very well lit outside. Usually there are benches to sit upon etc. I am not quite understanding why it would be difficult to read a newspaper outside as I know i do it frequently even though I have a laptop at my disposal.

gracielee
02-02-2012, 09:45 PM
I suppose you could contact the newspaper and let them know what you think about the information they included about the witness.

This forum is not a newspaper. When I joined this forum it was with the understanding that certain things would NOT be allowed. One of those things, IIRC, was the gratuitous smearing of witnesses. This witness is NOT on trial, nor is her previous life. She is simply a witness to a possible portion of a crime. ymmv I was put on a time-out last year for referring to scott peterson as snotty. And he's a convicted double murderer.

Madeleine74
02-02-2012, 09:47 PM
I tavel frequently for my business and have found the hotels to be very well lit outside. Usually there are benches to sit upon etc. I am not quite understanding why it would be difficult to read a newspaper outside as I know i do it frequently even though I have a laptop at my disposal.

Do you stay at Hampton Inns? Do you go out the back or side door towards the parking lot? Do you use a day old newspaper to get your 'updated' sports scores or would you expect to either get them on ESPN or on the web?

Pictures have been posted of this particular Hampton Inn and the door that JY specifically used. There is no bench. There is nothing to sit on other than the ground. As for lighting, I have no idea what exists there. There were no video cameras covering that outside area.

JY didn't say he went and sat on a bench somewhere. He said he went outside to smoke a cigar and read sports scores. He went out a specific door in which he appears on videotape moving towards. He had a newspaper that did not have current scores. He had no cigar cutter and no lighter. He was a known anti-smoker who was vocal about not smoking (except on this night of course).

It was 32 degrees outside, 15mph winds. He said he used a 'twig' to prop open the heavy metal door at midnight. A rock was found propping the door open at 5:50am. That door led to the parking lot where he parked his SUV. It was on the side of the hotel, not near the front.

The dark sweater he was wearing, as seen in the video, was never found. The shoes he was wearing were never found. The leather gloves he was carrying were also never found. It was a November trip. His luggage was found with nothing but shorts and Tshirts. No underwear.

otto
02-02-2012, 09:49 PM
This forum is not a newspaper. When I joined this forum it was with the understanding that certain things would NOT be allowed. One of those things, IIRC, was the gratuitous smearing of witnesses. This witness is NOT on trial, nor is her previous life. She is simply a witness to a possible portion of a crime. ymmv I was put on a time-out last year for referring to scott peterson as snotty. And he's a convicted double murderer.

It seems to me that when discussing the validity of a witness in a trial, it's important to recognize all factors that may compromise the integrity of the testimony. In the case of the gas attendant, there are relevant factors that were raised in court during trial. They are still relevant today.

otto
02-02-2012, 09:57 PM
I tavel frequently for my business and have found the hotels to be very well lit outside. Usually there are benches to sit upon etc. I am not quite understanding why it would be difficult to read a newspaper outside as I know i do it frequently even though I have a laptop at my disposal.

The below photo, without the people and measurements, has been presented by Just the Facts as the actual photo of the exit that Jason used. There is a light above the door, out of the wind, and there must be adequate lighting in the parking area and outside the hotel for safety reasons. It is perfect for reading the paper.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/sidedooryoung.jpg

Allusonz
02-02-2012, 10:02 PM
Do you stay at Hampton Inns? Do you go out the back or side door towards the parking lot? Do you use a day old newspaper to get your 'updated' sports scores or would you expect to either get them on ESPN or on the web?

Pictures have been posted of this particular Hampton Inn and the door that JY specifically used. There is no bench. There is nothing to sit on other than the ground. As for lighting, I have no idea what exists there. There were no video cameras covering that outside area.

JY didn't say he went and sat on a bench somewhere. He said he went outside to smoke a cigar and read sports scores. He went out a specific door in which he appears on videotape moving towards. He had a newspaper that did not have current scores. He had no cigar cutter and no lighter. He was a known anti-smoker who was vocal about not smoking (except on this night of course).

It was 32 degrees outside, 15mph winds. He said he used a 'twig' to prop open the heavy metal door at midnight. A rock was found propping the door open at 5:50am. That door led to the parking lot where he parked his SUV. It was on the side of the hotel, not near the front.

The dark sweater he was wearing, as seen in the video, was never found. The shoes he was wearing were never found. The leather gloves he was carrying were also never found.

Actually I have stayed at them though they are not normally my first choice.

More often than not the papers are not up-to-date. It does give me a breather from my laptop as well as the local news etc.

I have seen the so called rocks which I will refer to as landscaping pebbles which would normally not even hold doors of that weight open as they must adhere to fire standards. I know I have tried.

It though becomes mute considering he was seen later closer to midnight at the front desk

otto
02-02-2012, 10:07 PM
Do you stay at Hampton Inns? Do you go out the back or side door towards the parking lot? Do you use a day old newspaper to get your 'updated' sports scores or would you expect to either get them on ESPN or on the web?

Pictures have been posted of this particular Hampton Inn and the door that JY specifically used. There is no bench. There is nothing to sit on other than the ground. As for lighting, I have no idea what exists there. There were no video cameras covering that outside area.

JY didn't say he went and sat on a bench somewhere. He said he went outside to smoke a cigar and read sports scores. He went out a specific door in which he appears on videotape moving towards. He had a newspaper that did not have current scores. He had no cigar cutter and no lighter. He was a known anti-smoker who was vocal about not smoking (except on this night of course).

It was 32 degrees outside, 15mph winds. He said he used a 'twig' to prop open the heavy metal door at midnight. A rock was found propping the door open at 5:50am. That door led to the parking lot where he parked his SUV. It was on the side of the hotel, not near the front.

The dark sweater he was wearing, as seen in the video, was never found. The shoes he was wearing were never found. The leather gloves he was carrying were also never found. It was a November trip. His luggage was found with nothing but shorts and Tshirts. No underwear.

It's hard to say whether there is a bench near that exit or not.

I still find nothing unusual with someone checking the newspaper at midnight ... even if they own a computer, a radio and a television.

Was he vocal about not smoking or are you basing the belief that he was a "known anti-smoker" on the fact that he stipulated that he did not want the victim's sister smoking around his daughter?

I think the door was found propped open either between 3:30 and 4 or 4 and 5, depending on which part of the night clerk's testimony you go with. The rock was kicked away at a different time than when the camera was plugged in.

He may have changed clothes when he first arrived at his parent's home. When did police finally get a warrant to search for Jason's clothes at his parent's home?

gracielee
02-02-2012, 10:07 PM
It seems to me that when discussing the validity of a witness in a trial, it's important to recognize all factors that may compromise the integrity of the testimony. In the case of the gas attendant, there are relevant factors that were raised in court during trial. They are still relevant today.

Like I said, check your TOS when it comes to witnesse in a trial. I don't recall any testimony as to this witnesses history.

Allusonz
02-02-2012, 10:12 PM
The below photo, without the people and measurements, has been presented by Just the Facts as the actual photo of the exit that Jason used. There is a light above the door, out of the wind, and there must be adequate lighting in the parking area and outside the hotel for safety reasons. It is perfect for reading the paper.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/sidedooryoung.jpg

Thanks Otto.

This appears to be a fairly accurate representation of the distance the door would swing open.

It would not require a contortionist and a stick/twig would be more apt to hold those heavy doors open than a random landscaping pebble.

otto
02-02-2012, 10:15 PM
Like I said, check your TOS when it comes to witnesse in a trial. I don't recall any testimony as to this witnesses history.

Just the Facts discusses the aspects of this witness that you object to here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-139667.html

otto
02-02-2012, 10:23 PM
Thanks Otto.

This appears to be a fairly accurate representation of the distance the door would swing open.

It would not require a contortionist and a stick/twig would be more apt to hold those heavy doors open than a random landscaping pebble.

Absolutely ... it makes more sense to open the door, grab a stick, put it in the door, do whatever and then go back in. I also agree that a small, red, decorative, porous rock would not be my first choice.

Madeleine74
02-02-2012, 10:33 PM
A landscaping 'pebble' as you call it, is exactly what was found propping the door open, so not only was and is it possible, that's what in fact was used to keep that particular door open.

Again, do you use a day old newspaper to look at updated sports scores? JY wasn't just "reading the newspaper," he specifically said he took it outside to "look at sports scores." It's in testimony!

That paper never made it back to his room...it was found in the back trunk of his SUV, intact, not wrinkled, no sections separated. The newest USA Today paper...the one distributed to hotel guests around 4am was not found in his vehicle. He kept the older newspaper, but not the newest edition. Strange, that.

Madeleine74
02-02-2012, 10:40 PM
Thanks Otto.

This appears to be a fairly accurate representation of the distance the door would swing open.

It would not require a contortionist and a stick/twig would be more apt to hold those heavy doors open than a random landscaping pebble.

1. 3 ft is otto's guess at the width of that door.
2. The angle of the door opening is also otto's guess.
3. The measurement between the door opening and the nearest shrub is also a guess.

tarheel8600
02-02-2012, 10:42 PM
Very eloquent, very succinct and very true, tarheel. I heartily and completely agree with all of it. Your posting is really about all that needs to be said. Thank you! ..http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

Thank you, Borndem. I appreciate that.

This case seems so staight forward to me. I cannot see JY as anything but guilty.

It is true that not all adulterers commit murder; however, most men who murder their wives have also committed adultery.

It has been said that the security camera didn't show JY unplugging it or shoving it up; however, the security camera didn't show anyone unplugging it or shoving it up. That leaves the question, who was staying in the HI on Nov. 2, 2006 who needed the security camera unplugged at 11:20 pm and shoved up towards the ceiling at 6:35am the next morning?

Why was JY's shirt that he was seen wearing on the security camera at the front desk at midnight not in his luggage or in his vehicle the next evening? Clothing does not just disappear without a reason, and I cannot think of a logical reason for the shirt to be missing other than he threw it away.

How did a pair of Hush Puppy shoes with a unique sole just happen to be found in blood at the crime scene? A pair of HP with a unique sole that JY just happened to have owned.

Why would a man staying at the HI on the 4th floor leave his valuables unsecured twice to go downstairs because he worried about disturbing his neighbors by shutting his room door?

Why would a man go downstairs twice and prop open an exit door because that was more convenient than carrying his keycard with him?

Why was there no forced entry into the home?

Why was a pregnant woman beaten 30 times to her and her unborn son's death, yet her 2 1/2 year old daughter was cleaned up, cared for, and left alive?

Why was Michelle's purse that was sitting out in the open not stolen, but a wallet with $500 in it that was hidden in JY's closet was stolen?

Why was JY's closet gone through, but Michelle's was left untouched?

Why was the house not ransacked?

Why didn't the dog that stayed in the house go after the "stranger" who murdered Michelle?

Why does the timeline of JY stopping at Four Brothers in King fit perfectly?

Why did no cameras record JY going towards the breakfast area on Friday morning?

Why was the last person JY talked to before the murder and the first person he talked to after the murder MM?

Why did JY print off the MapQuest directions and the Coach purse from Ebay at around the same time and remembered to get one but forgot the other?

Why was JY so persistent about getting MF over to his house to pick up the Coach purse printout? He called twice and left messages, and he had his mom call once and leave a message.

Why didn't JY answer his MIL's 4 phone calls within the space of an hour when cell phone records show that he retrieved the two messages she left him? Why didn't he return those calls?

When JY arrived at his mother's home and his stepfather gave him the news about Michelle's death, why did JY fall "plumb to his knees?" No surprise, no denial, no insisting that they must have gotten the news wrong. Just immediate acceptance.

Why didn't JY help LE at all even with his lawyer present?

Why didn't JY take a polygraph exam to clear himself with LE? MF did.

Why didn't JY show up for the WDS?

Why didn't JY keep custody of his daughter and allow MF and LF visitation?

Why didn't JY ever offer an award leading to the arrest of conviction of Michelle's killer(s)? Her place of employment did 9 months later; I guess they figured JY wasn't ever going to.

This is an open and shut case for me. JY has done everything in his power to make himself look guilty.

otto
02-02-2012, 10:44 PM
I`m just listening to the gas attendant`s testimony again: http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9714910/#/vid9714910

She said that the white vehicle was there at about 5 ... 5:30. It`s been mentioned a few times that it`s an hour drive from the gas station to the hotel. If the white vehicle was there at 5 AM, and the camera was tilted at 6:35, that no longer works with the timeline.

otto
02-02-2012, 10:48 PM
1. 3 ft is otto's guess at the width of that door.
2. The angle of the door opening is also otto's guess.
3. The measurement between the door opening and the nearest shrub is also a guess.

3 feet is not a guess. That is the minimum standard width for a fire exit.

As I posted earlier, the swing of the door will be a minimum of 90 degrees, most likely wider for a commercial building fire exit ... but it depends on the local building code.

The width of the door can be used to determine the distance from the door to the the small bush.

otto
02-02-2012, 10:56 PM
At about 12 minutes into the video, the gas attendant demonstrates that she was face to face, close enough to touch him, when she was talking to the customer that swore at her.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9714910/#/vid9714910

She also states that there were video cameras at the gas station, but they weren`t hooked up. Jason couldn`t have known that.

tarheel8600
02-02-2012, 10:56 PM
I`m just listening to the gas attendant`s testimony again: http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9714910/#/vid9714910

She said that the white vehicle was there at about 5 ... 5:30. It`s been mentioned a few times that it`s an hour drive from the gas station to the hotel. If the white vehicle was there at 5 AM, and the camera was tilted at 6:35, that no longer works with the timeline.

It does if JY arrived back at the hotel and saw that the door wasn't propped open anymore. He could have just sat there in his vehicle and thought, "What the hell am I going to do now?"

Actually though, I think the receipt from the store shows Gracie ringing JY up around 5:27am.

tarheel8600
02-02-2012, 11:00 PM
It's hard to say whether there is a bench near that exit or not.

I still find nothing unusual with someone checking the newspaper at midnight ... even if they own a computer, a radio and a television.

Was he vocal about not smoking or are you basing the belief that he was a "known anti-smoker" on the fact that he stipulated that he did not want the victim's sister smoking around his daughter?

I think the door was found propped open either between 3:30 and 4 or 4 and 5, depending on which part of the night clerk's testimony you go with. The rock was kicked away at a different time than when the camera was plugged in.

He may have changed clothes when he first arrived at his parent's home. When did police finally get a warrant to search for Jason's clothes at his parent's home?

BBM

When PY was interviewed by LE, she said that JY did not take anything out of his vehicle or change clothes there. Her husband backed her up on this.

otto
02-02-2012, 11:29 PM
When police first spoke to the witness, she was not asked to describe who she saw, police only asked what happened. On May 30, 2007, she gave a brief description: she said that she saw a white male, mid-20s to early 30s, wearing a shirt, no coat, and unsure about blue jeans. On April 8, 2009 she again met with officers. That was when she was asked to describe the customer. At that time, she didn`t remember what he was wearing. In October 2009 she didn`t provide a description of the customer. On May 4, 2010, she met again with officers and again didn`t provide a description.

During the hearing, shortly before the trial, she was asked do describe the customer. What she recalled was that he had a little bit of hair (not bald and not a full head of hair), she couldn`t recall the hair color, height, weight and couldn`t remember anything except tha he was just a little bit taller than 5`3``.

I guess what that means is that the customer had a bit of hair and was short.

The gas attendant also confirms that she was not standing at a higher elevation than the customer ... the floor was at the same height throughout the store.

MyBelle
02-02-2012, 11:39 PM
Thank you! What interests me more is whether Jason's testimony could be entered.

No. Jason's testimony from the first trial can not be used in the second trial unless he again testifies and it is inconsistent with his testimony in the first trial.

JMO

MyBelle
02-02-2012, 11:45 PM
It seems to me that when discussing the validity of a witness in a trial, it's important to recognize all factors that may compromise the integrity of the testimony. In the case of the gas attendant, there are relevant factors that were raised in court during trial. They are still relevant today.

ITA. I do wonder if she'll testify again. I didn't find her credible.

JMO

MyBelle
02-02-2012, 11:47 PM
At about 12 minutes into the video, the gas attendant demonstrates that she was face to face, close enough to touch him, when she was talking to the customer that swore at her.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9714910/#/vid9714910

She also states that there were video cameras at the gas station, but they weren`t hooked up. Jason couldn`t have known that.

At one point she testified she also did not know the cameras were not working.

JMO

otto
02-02-2012, 11:57 PM
ITA. I do wonder if she'll testify again. I didn't find her credible.

JMO

I just listened to her testimony again and I don`t see how the prosecution can have her say something different than what she already said. My understanding is that she saw a 5`3 something guy with a little bit of hair that wasn`t wearing a coat. Other than that, she seems unsure about how to describe the customer she saw that morning.

otto
02-03-2012, 12:00 AM
At one point she testified she also did not know the cameras were not working.

JMO

I find that detail interesting. Ě had thought that Jason lucked upon a gas station without video surveillance, but there were cameras there ... just not working cameras. If Jason was sneaking from the hotel, home and back to the hotel, how did he expect to not be identified at a gas station with video surveillance.

MyBelle
02-03-2012, 12:02 AM
I just listened to her testimony again and I don`t see how the prosecution can have her say something different than what she already said. My understanding is that she saw a 5`3 something guy with a little bit of hair that wasn`t wearing a coat. Other than that, she seems unsure about how to describe the customer she saw that morning.

If she even tries to change her testimony from what she previously stated, the defense can use it to impeach her. To avoid this, usually a witness will have their memory refreshed and then will say the previous testimony is their best recollection.

Gracie's many interviews with the cops are useless at this point because she wasn't under oath. Her many differing comments don't help the prosecution.

JMO

MyBelle
02-03-2012, 12:04 AM
I find that detail interesting. Ě had thought that Jason lucked upon a gas station without video surveillance, but there were cameras there ... just not working cameras. If Jason was sneaking from the hotel, home and back to the hotel, how did he expect to not be identified at a gas station with video surveillance.

Exactly. He didn't avoid the cameras in the hotel, either. There is no way Jason or anybody could know if cameras, door looks or other things they could not control were in working order or not.

JMO

otto
02-03-2012, 12:23 AM
Exactly. He didn't avoid the cameras in the hotel, either. There is no way Jason or anybody could know if cameras, door looks or other things they could not control were in working order or not.

JMO

It quite something that police allege that Jason was at a gas station where cameras were not working, that they allege he entered a hotel door that was normally locked but on that particular day that lock was broken so ... the door was left unlocked all night, or it wasn`t ... investigators would prefer people to believe that it was locked all night but someone unlocked it at 6 AM. It sure helps the police with their theory when they have broken locks and broken cameras to make their theory fit. If the cameras were working and the lock wasn`t broken, I wonder how the prosecution`s theory would change. It starting to sound like the 3 allele DNA match.

Elisaa444
02-03-2012, 12:49 AM
Thank you, Borndem. I appreciate that.

This case seems so staight forward to me. I cannot see JY as anything but guilty.

It is true that not all adulterers commit murder; however, most men who murder their wives have also committed adultery.

It has been said that the security camera didn't show JY unplugging it or shoving it up; however, the security camera didn't show anyone unplugging it or shoving it up. That leaves the question, who was staying in the HI on Nov. 2, 2006 who needed the security camera unplugged at 11:20 pm and shoved up towards the ceiling at 6:35am the next morning?

Why was JY's shirt that he was seen wearing on the security camera at the front desk at midnight not in his luggage or in his vehicle the next evening? Clothing does not just disappear without a reason, and I cannot think of a logical reason for the shirt to be missing other than he threw it away.

How did a pair of Hush Puppy shoes with a unique sole just happen to be found in blood at the crime scene? A pair of HP with a unique sole that JY just happened to have owned.

Why would a man staying at the HI on the 4th floor leave his valuables unsecured twice to go downstairs because he worried about disturbing his neighbors by shutting his room door?

Why would a man go downstairs twice and prop open an exit door because that was more convenient than carrying his keycard with him?

Why was there no forced entry into the home?

Why was a pregnant woman beaten 30 times to her and her unborn son's death, yet her 2 1/2 year old daughter was cleaned up, cared for, and left alive?

Why was Michelle's purse that was sitting out in the open not stolen, but a wallet with $500 in it that was hidden in JY's closet was stolen?

Why was JY's closet gone through, but Michelle's was left untouched?

Why was the house not ransacked?

Why didn't the dog that stayed in the house go after the "stranger" who murdered Michelle?

Why does the timeline of JY stopping at Four Brothers in King fit perfectly?

Why did no cameras record JY going towards the breakfast area on Friday morning?

Why was the last person JY talked to before the murder and the first person he talked to after the murder MM?

Why did JY print off the MapQuest directions and the Coach purse from Ebay at around the same time and remembered to get one but forgot the other?

Why was JY so persistent about getting MF over to his house to pick up the Coach purse printout? He called twice and left messages, and he had his mom call once and leave a message.

Why didn't JY answer his MIL's 4 phone calls within the space of an hour when cell phone records show that he retrieved the two messages she left him? Why didn't he return those calls?

When JY arrived at his mother's home and his stepfather gave him the news about Michelle's death, why did JY fall "plumb to his knees?" No surprise, no denial, no insisting that they must have gotten the news wrong. Just immediate acceptance.

Why didn't JY help LE at all even with his lawyer present?

Why didn't JY take a polygraph exam to clear himself with LE? MF did.

Why didn't JY show up for the WDS?

Why didn't JY keep custody of his daughter and allow MF and LF visitation?

Why didn't JY ever offer an award leading to the arrest of conviction of Michelle's killer(s)? Her place of employment did 9 months later; I guess they figured JY wasn't ever going to.

This is an open and shut case for me. JY has done everything in his power to make himself look guilty.

Thank you for this post! Ill consider changing my mind on jy's guilt when these questions are answered. MOO

Just the Fax
02-03-2012, 08:49 AM
JY was only willing to answer questions AFTER he knew what the prosecution had against him.
He was only willing to answer questions AFTER he was able to tailor his answers to the evidence.
That in no way makes JY a hero for stepping up to the plate and opening himself up to scrutiny.

If he had talked to LE after repeated requests during the hours, days, weeks, or months after his wife's murder, I might feel differently.
If he had done this during the WDS, I might feel differently.
If he had done this instead of voluntarily giving up his daughter, I might feel differently.
But he didn't, so I don't.

I did like this from Holt in closing:

For “1,693 days,” she said, “he didn’t tell anybody he was at the hotel sleeping. He didn’t tell his family. He didn’t tell his friends. But now he expects you to believe that.”

On the 1,694th day, he took the stand and insisted he is innocent.

It is up to the jury now to decide if he is telling the truth."

Just the Fax
02-03-2012, 08:52 AM
BBM

You are very correct Otto. Most lawyers in these situations ask for a retainer up front usually in the hundreds of thousand dollars.

One case that currently comes to mind is the Horman case.

A $40,000 dollar 401k would not even cover the Examination for Discovery and disbursements

Hundreds of thousands retainer for a simple child custody case?
:laughcry:

Just the Fax
02-03-2012, 08:56 AM
I`m just listening to the gas attendant`s testimony again: http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9714910/#/vid9714910

She said that the white vehicle was there at about 5 ... 5:30. It`s been mentioned a few times that it`s an hour drive from the gas station to the hotel. If the white vehicle was there at 5 AM, and the camera was tilted at 6:35, that no longer works with the timeline.

Watch some more, otto, before you jump to this conclusion.
LE verified his cash purchase with register records...5:27AM

Just the Fax
02-03-2012, 09:08 AM
Just the Facts discusses the aspects of this witness that you object to here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-139667.html

What is the point of this link?
I was commenting on the testimony live and did not disparage the witness, as you did earlier.
BH had the opportunity to redirect her to the more credible ID 4 years earlier. Unfortunately she was asleep at the wheel and allowed Gracie to crash and burn. Betcha that does not happen next time.;)

gracielee
02-03-2012, 10:06 AM
Hundreds of thousands retainer for a simple child custody case?
:laughcry:

I know, I about split a gut last night. :floorlaugh:

gracielee
02-03-2012, 10:09 AM
What is the point of this link?
I was commenting on the testimony live and did not disparage the witness, as you did earlier.
BH had the opportunity to redirect her to the more credible ID 4 years earlier. Unfortunately she was asleep at the wheel and allowed Gracie to crash and burn. Betcha that does not happen next time.;)

Yeah, I didn't see anything of value there either. But for some reason I began humming 'one eyed one horned flying purple people eater'......:great:

Bottle Cap
02-03-2012, 10:30 AM
A quick google search has child custody retainers at between $2,000 and $5,000. There are all sorts of family advocacy groups out there that can assist with costs and/or finding less expensive representation...after all, non-wealthy people have to deal with these issues all the time...it's certainly not a hardship specific to JY. If one were desperate to keep and raise their only child, one might certainly pursue those options.

gracielee
02-03-2012, 10:55 AM
A quick google search has child custody retainers at between $2,000 and $5,000. There are all sorts of family advocacy groups out there that can assist with costs and/or finding less expensive representation...after all, non-wealthy people have to deal with these issues all the time...it's certainly not a hardship specific to JY. If one were desperate to keep and raise their only child, one might certainly pursue those options.

And as JTF stated, all that was originally wanted was visitation for the Fisher family. :crazy:

Madeleine74
02-03-2012, 10:57 AM
Hi BottleCap! So nice to see you again (or read you, as it were). Always appreciate your commonsense approach.

JY didn't even have to fight for custody. The Fishers only requested regular visitation. It doesn't get cheaper than that. But he handed little CY over altogether. It's gotta make you wonder why.

MyBelle
02-03-2012, 11:09 AM
Hi BottleCap! So nice to see you again (or read you, as it were). Always appreciate your commonsense approach.

JY didn't even have to fight for custody. The Fishers only requested regular visitation. It doesn't get cheaper than that. But he handed little CY over altogether. It's gotta make you wonder why.

WRONG. The Fishers asked for custody and also requested the court order a psych evaluation of Jason Young.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/12/19/4172400/Fisher_custody_complaint_against_Jason_Young.pdf

Madeleine74
02-03-2012, 11:14 AM
WRONG. The Fishers asked for custody and also requested the court order a psych evaluation of Jason Young.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/12/19/4172400/Fisher_custody_complaint_against_Jason_Young.pdf


Had JY allowed the Fishers to have regular and normal contact with CY it likely never would have come to that. He and his family cut them out of CY's life, not even giving her presents from them. And that was revenge for not publicly making statements to support JY.

WHO DOES THAT? What innocent spouse thinks a child no longer needs any contact with people who so clearly love and adore her? They made it allll about Jason, and not about CY's needs. Scum.

A murder case is owned by the state, not the decedent's family. While a family has a vested interest, they do not control the state, the DA, the police, or 'the people' the state represents. Doesn't matter what the Fishers think or feel...it's not their case...it belongs to NC.

Bottomline: JY's actions and his family's actions caused unnecessary hurt to CY and also to the Fisher family. There was no reason to keep CY from her maternal relatives.

MyBelle
02-03-2012, 11:30 AM
Had JY allowed the Fishers to have regular and normal contact with CY it likely never would have come to that. He and his family cut them out of CY's life, not even giving her presents from them. And that was revenge for not publicly making statements to support JY.

WHO DOES THAT? What innocent spouse thinks a child no longer needs any contact with people who so clearly love and adore her? They made it allll about Jason, and not about CY's needs. Scum.

A murder case is owned by the state, not the decedent's family. While a family has a vested interest, they do not control the state, the DA, the police, or 'the people' the state represents. Doesn't matter what the Fishers think or feel...it's not their case...it belongs to NC.

Bottomline: JY's actions and his family's actions caused unnecessary hurt to CY and also to the Fisher family. There was no reason to keep CY from her maternal relatives.

JY's family are not on trial. They are victims. Referring to them as scum contributes nothing to the discussion.

The lawsuit was filed and speaks for itself. The Fishers clearly wanted a battle and attacked Young's mental status. There is no need for you to misrepresent the facts here.

JMO

MyBelle
02-03-2012, 11:32 AM
A quick google search has child custody retainers at between $2,000 and $5,000. There are all sorts of family advocacy groups out there that can assist with costs and/or finding less expensive representation...after all, non-wealthy people have to deal with these issues all the time...it's certainly not a hardship specific to JY. If one were desperate to keep and raise their only child, one might certainly pursue those options.

Please cite even one "family advocacy group" that provides financial or legal resources in private custody battles for parents not on public assistance. Thanks.

Bottle Cap
02-03-2012, 11:39 AM
I suppose the "public assistance" part is the trick to this challenge. I thought the whole idea was that JY was too financially destitute to fight for his child. If he wasn't too destitute to fight for his child, then its all moot anyway.

Bottle Cap
02-03-2012, 11:51 AM
Hi back Madeleine! Thanks for remembering me!

MyBelle
02-03-2012, 12:01 PM
I suppose the "public assistance" part is the trick to this challenge. I thought the whole idea was that JY was too financially destitute to fight for his child. If he wasn't too destitute to fight for his child, then its all moot anyway.

No trick to my question. You made a statement of fact that Young had all kinds of options to help him fight for custody and I merely asked you to provide more information.


Originally Posted by Bottle Cap
A quick google search has child custody retainers at between $2,000 and $5,000. There are all sorts of family advocacy groups out there that can assist with costs and/or finding less expensive representation...after all, non-wealthy people have to deal with these issues all the time...it's certainly not a hardship specific to JY. If one were desperate to keep and raise their only child, one might certainly pursue those options.

Bottle Cap
02-03-2012, 12:20 PM
I do know legal assistance is available via family advocacy groups for those who find themselves without means and have custody issues. If JY didn't qualify for public assistance, then I don't suppose he would in a position to avail himself of legal aid. You're quite correct there.

I know nothing about the man's finances myself. I drew a conclusion from posts I read here that stated that he was financially unable to obtain legal representation for a custody case that would set him back 2K - 5K in the form of a retainer. To me that says no income, no assets to liquidate, no collateral against which to borrow, no credit card.. basically destitute. If he is not, was not, economically challenged, then it's of course legal aid for a custody issue isn't an option, you're entirely correct.

However, in the case that he was not entirely economically challenged enough to qualify for assistance, the argument that he didn't involve himself in custody issues to to lack of funds becomes a bit odd. That's my personal opinion however, just speaking as a parent.

Madeleine74
02-03-2012, 12:59 PM
Bottomline is JY did have enough money to have legal representation. His family also had money and could certainly help. Money was not the reason he didn't even try.

He wasn't about to expose himself to any questioning no matter what the cost and he certainly wasn't going to agree to being evaluated by a psychologist. I believe even if legal representation had been offered to him for free he still would have ignored the custody deposition/psychoanalysis.

No, this was about him maintaining his silence and not saying anything about his wife's murder. There's only one reason to refuse to discuss or cooperate with anyone at any time in many years.... the inference is impossible to ignore.

Just the Fax
02-03-2012, 12:59 PM
WRONG. The Fishers asked for custody and also requested the court order a psych evaluation of Jason Young.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/12/19/4172400/Fisher_custody_complaint_against_Jason_Young.pdf
They asked for regular visitation numerous times over a period of 2 years.
Each time, he denied their request.

They were left with no choice but to file for custody.
Yep, that finally woke him up.
LF said in court they were willing to negotiate and settle for court ordered visitation (w/ psych evaluation) but Jay just decided to sign her over and be done.
Not at all about $$, it was all about having to talk.

MyBelle
02-03-2012, 01:25 PM
They asked for regular visitation numerous times over a period of 2 years.
Each time, he denied their request.

They were left with no choice but to file for custody.
Yep, that finally woke him up.
LF said in court they were willing to negotiate and settle for court ordered visitation (w/ psych evaluation) but Jay just decided to sign her over and be done.
Not at all about $$, it was all about having to talk.

The only legal filing I found was the one from Linda Fisher and Meredith Fisher asking for full custody plus a court-ordered psych evaluation.

LF didn't get either, Young only settled with Meredith Fisher as far as sharing custody, so I'm not sure why Linda Fisher said anything at all in court about it. I do believe in court she made it abundantly clear she hated the guy.

JMO

MyBelle
02-03-2012, 01:30 PM
Bottomline is JY did have enough money to have legal representation. His family also had money and could certainly help. Money was not the reason he didn't even try.

He wasn't about to expose himself to any questioning no matter what the cost and he certainly wasn't going to agree to being evaluated by a psychologist. I believe even if legal representation had been offered to him for free he still would have ignored the custody deposition/psychoanalysis.

No, this was about him maintaining his silence and not saying anything about his wife's murder. There's only one reason to refuse to discuss or cooperate with anyone at any time in many years.... the inference is impossible to ignore.

BBM. That's your opinion. I have no idea how much money such a battle would cost but I'm betting it is very expensive.

I have a great deal of respect for our Constitution and the right to remain silent. If his lawyer advised Young to remain silent rather than sit for a deposition, I respect Young's decision to take his advice.

JMO

Madeleine74
02-03-2012, 01:31 PM
Their testimony in court is part of the evidence.

Both MF and LF testified to what led them to the custody path. Both talked in depth about how they were kept from seeing and communicating with CY.

Spin it any which way, but there was no reason to keep CY away from her mother's side of the family -- an aunt and grandmother who clearly love and adore her.

Guesses about what it costs to sit for a custody hearing are based on ??? Without getting a quote from a lawyer, you cannot know. It can be as simple as a couple meetings, crafting a letter offering visitation, suggest a visitation schedule and do a couple edits back and forth to get to an agreement. Done every day in this country and people are not going broke from it. That excuse doesn't wash.

Handing over a child, refusing to speak, refusing to cooperate are signs that point to a guilty conscience. The jury can infer the meaning of someone who does that.

MyBelle
02-03-2012, 01:34 PM
Their testimony in court is part of the evidence.

Both MF and LF testified to what led them to the custody path. Both talked in depth about how they were kept from seeing and communicating with CY.

Spin it any which way, but there was no reason to keep CY away from her mother's side of the family -- an aunt and grandmother who clearly love and adore her.

The jury will decide credibility of witnesses just as the last jury who voted in favor of the defendant 8-4.

JMO

Cammy
02-03-2012, 02:11 PM
When police first spoke to the witness, she was not asked to describe who she saw, police only asked what happened. On May 30, 2007, she gave a brief description: she said that she saw a white male, mid-20s to early 30s, wearing a shirt, no coat, and unsure about blue jeans. On April 8, 2009 she again met with officers. That was when she was asked to describe the customer. At that time, she didn`t remember what he was wearing. In October 2009 she didn`t provide a description of the customer. On May 4, 2010, she met again with officers and again didn`t provide a description.

During the hearing, shortly before the trial, she was asked do describe the customer. What she recalled was that he had a little bit of hair (not bald and not a full head of hair), she couldn`t recall the hair color, height, weight and couldn`t remember anything except tha he was just a little bit taller than 5`3``.

I guess what that means is that the customer had a bit of hair and was short.

The gas attendant also confirms that she was not standing at a higher elevation than the customer ... the floor was at the same height throughout the store.

Thanks for finding this, Otto..........:)
I see her as being a big problem to overcome.
IMO

Cammy
02-03-2012, 02:12 PM
The jury will decide credibility of witnesses just as the last jury who voted in favor of the defendant 8-4.

JMO

My Belle!! :seeya:

Been reading you for awhile and have been so impressed with your knowledge.

:)

Cammy
02-03-2012, 02:27 PM
I'm just catching up with the posts so I apologize if someone has already answered this.

One thing the PT found out through JY's testimony is that JY was out of his room around 11:20 pm (supposedly to get his computer charger) at the same time the security camera was unplugged. There was no way to prove he was out of his room at that time until JY testified to it.

Another thing the PT learned is that JY picked up the newspaper at the front desk to check sports scores that were 24 hours old. He could have said that there was an article in there that he wanted to read; that would have been a little more believable.

He also said that he wasn't a good husband to Michelle (that has to be the understatement of the century), but that he was working on his marriage. That was a bald-faced lie. Why BH didn't ask him to list the ways he was working on his marriage is beyond me.

They also found out that his explanation for his party antics and his uncaring attitude towards Michelle was because he was immature. He still doesn't see his behavior as sick and mean. Being immature is a far cry from being sick and mean.

One last thing they (and the rest of us watching) found out when he testified was that he is one thirsty bastard. :needdrink:

I know Jason said he left the room twice, but I never heard the other time
was 11:20 pm, I am pretty caught up now, did I miss that?
And, of course, he was seen on camera close to midnight.

Cammy
02-03-2012, 02:31 PM
No. Jason's testimony from the first trial can not be used in the second trial unless he again testifies and it is inconsistent with his testimony in the first trial.

JMO

Do you think he will testify again?

Cammy
02-03-2012, 02:37 PM
I find that detail interesting. Ě had thought that Jason lucked upon a gas station without video surveillance, but there were cameras there ... just not working cameras. If Jason was sneaking from the hotel, home and back to the hotel, how did he expect to not be identified at a gas station with video surveillance.

Sounds like he didn't.
Besides, a good arguement could be made for the fact that either way Jason was going to have to pay cash for his gas purchase.
He certainly wasn't going to be able to make a credit card transaction to bust his alibi.
So, go in and pay first, or pump and then go in, why would he get angry to begin with?
Seems like the last thing he would want to do is to make anyone "remember" him.
IMO

otto
02-03-2012, 03:12 PM
WRONG. The Fishers asked for custody and also requested the court order a psych evaluation of Jason Young.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/12/19/4172400/Fisher_custody_complaint_against_Jason_Young.pdf

Thank you so much for keeping the facts straight. It is very much appreciated.

It`s almost time for a rumor thread to be set up in order to separate the beliefs from the facts.

otto
02-03-2012, 03:19 PM
Sounds like he didn't.
Besides, a good arguement could be made for the fact that either way Jason was going to have to pay cash for his gas purchase.
He certainly wasn't going to be able to make a credit card transaction to bust his alibi.
So, go in and pay first, or pump and then go in, why would he get angry to begin with?
Seems like the last thing he would want to do is to make anyone "remember" him.
IMO

Exactly. He`s supposedly sneaking around trying not to be seen or remembered anywhere, and suddenly we have a gas attendant describing him as having some hair, wearing a shirt but no coat, being a little over 5`3 and fighting with her about a gas purchase. At the same time, he`s being so sneaky that he`s wearing two different pairs of shoes while committng murder.

This just doesn`t add up.

otto
02-03-2012, 03:22 PM
I did like this from Holt in closing:

For “1,693 days,” she said, “he didn’t tell anybody he was at the hotel sleeping. He didn’t tell his family. He didn’t tell his friends. But now he expects you to believe that.”

On the 1,694th day, he took the stand and insisted he is innocent.

It is up to the jury now to decide if he is telling the truth."

It`s too bad it isn`t true. Jason immediately provided investigators with his hotel receipt as proof of where he was when his wife was murdered. His friends and family also knew perfectly well where he was that night. Investigators didn`t want to believe him, but that doesn`t mean they weren`t informed of where he was.

The prosecutor is again trying to pull the wool over the juror`s eyes.

Cammy
02-03-2012, 03:25 PM
Exactly. He`s supposedly sneaking around trying not to be seen or remembered anywhere, and suddenly we have a gas attendant describing him as having some hair, wearing a shirt but no coat, being a little over 5`3 and fighting with her about a gas purchase. At the same time, he`s being so sneaky that he`s wearing two different pairs of shoes while committng murder.

This just doesn`t add up.

Otto, another thing, we saw Jason's hair in the video the night at the hotel, so that would be the most accurate photo to go by.
I am giving her the benefit of the doubt in case his hair seems longer at the funeral, or from his NTO photos.
All one has to do is look at the hotel photos, that is not a little hair.
IMO

otto
02-03-2012, 03:28 PM
Had JY allowed the Fishers to have regular and normal contact with CY it likely never would have come to that. He and his family cut them out of CY's life, not even giving her presents from them. And that was revenge for not publicly making statements to support JY.

WHO DOES THAT? What innocent spouse thinks a child no longer needs any contact with people who so clearly love and adore her? They made it allll about Jason, and not about CY's needs. Scum.

A murder case is owned by the state, not the decedent's family. While a family has a vested interest, they do not control the state, the DA, the police, or 'the people' the state represents. Doesn't matter what the Fishers think or feel...it's not their case...it belongs to NC.

Bottomline: JY's actions and his family's actions caused unnecessary hurt to CY and also to the Fisher family. There was no reason to keep CY from her maternal relatives.

I think we could view the custody situation from the flip side and ask whether someone that wants to remove a child from her father`s care, after the child has already lost her mother, has the child`s best interests in mind. Is it really better for a child to lose both parents because the extended family is dissatisfied with their visitation arrangements.

otto
02-03-2012, 03:34 PM
Otto, another thing, we saw Jason's hair in the video the night at the hotel, so that would be the most accurate photo to go by.
I am giving her the benefit of the doubt in case his hair seems longer at the funeral, or from his NTO photos.
All one has to do is look at the hotel photos, that is not a little hair.
IMO

Here he is, 3 days after the murder. That cannot be described as a little hair. She was asked if he was bald or had a full head of hair. She responded that she believed he had a little bit of hair. I don`t know who she saw, but I don`t think it was Jason. Also, the person that supposedly shouted out to Jason - the regular customer - to tell him to come in to pay, this person also doesn`t seem to exist.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/JasonYoung3days_after_murder.jpg

Cammy
02-03-2012, 03:36 PM
It`s too bad it isn`t true. Jason immediately provided investigators with his hotel receipt as proof of where he was when his wife was murdered. His friends and family also knew perfectly well where he was that night. Investigators didn`t want to believe him, but that doesn`t mean they weren`t informed of where he was.

The prosecutor is again trying to pull the wool over the juror`s eyes.


The defense summed it up best when they reminded the court that there was nothing specific that happened when they finally arrested Jason.

And, how do you explain to Jurors that you had your eye witness from
the first few days or week, but did not feel confident to go forward with an arrest then?

That alone, shows they were not sure that her statement or testimony would hold up.

And, imo, it didn't.
IMO

Cammy
02-03-2012, 03:38 PM
Here he is, 3 days after the murder. That cannot be described as a little hair. She was asked if he was bald or had a full head of hair. She responded that she believed he had a little bit of hair. I don`t know who she saw, but I don`t think it was Jason. Also, the person that supposedly shouted out to Jason - the regular customer - to tell him to come in to pay, this person also doesn`t seem to exist.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/JasonYoung3days_after_murder.jpg

Yep, they needed that witness, and attempts of making video surveillance tapes and fliers to find him were futile.
Although, for some reason, I don't think they showed her the tapes.
Why?
IMO

MyBelle
02-03-2012, 03:42 PM
It`s too bad it isn`t true. Jason immediately provided investigators with his hotel receipt as proof of where he was when his wife was murdered. His friends and family also knew perfectly well where he was that night. Investigators didn`t want to believe him, but that doesn`t mean they weren`t informed of where he was.

The prosecutor is again trying to pull the wool over the juror`s eyes.

I agree. I think it is even worse than that and might rise to prosecutorial misconduct. Jason didn't provide his alibi, the receipt was in his seized vehicle plus his friends knew where he was. But to test a random rock for DNA and then try to persuade a jury it is actually evidence crosses over the line.

JMO

MyBelle
02-03-2012, 03:44 PM
Yep, they needed that witness, and attempts of making video surveillance tapes and flyers to find him were futile.
Although, for some reason, I don't think they showed her the tapes.
Why?
IMO

Hard to believe this case is happening in the 21st Century, isn't it?

otto
02-03-2012, 03:46 PM
The defense summed it up best when they reminded the court that there was nothing specific that happened when they finally arrested Jason.

And, how do you explain to Jurors that you had your eye witness from
the first few days or week, but did not feel confident to go forward with an arrest then?

That alone, shows they were not sure that her statement or testimony would hold up.

And, imo, it didn't.
IMO

I was a bit amused at all the attention that was given to the gas attendant`s testimony during trial. She was presented pretty much as a star witness ... being asked to step down, stand next to the prosecutor and go to great lengths to explain how the vehicle (which officers told her was white) pulled into, and out of, the gas station. It all seemed so dramatic and unnecessary since her verbal description did not leave any questions.

And ... as you point out ... this star witness was available to them within days of the murder ... yet there was no arrest. Years of searching for more evidence produced nothing to corroborate her testimony ... although it would be helpful if the short guy with a little bit of hair would contact the defense team.

RaleighNC
02-03-2012, 03:46 PM
I suspect JY was watching the BC situation and it appears he did everything 180 degrees from BC. So far, this strategy appears to be working for him.

No talking to the cops
No deposition as part of a custody issue so you can't be part of a fishing expedition or have it used against you
In fact, don't even attempt to hire a family law attorney
Move out of the area
Take the witness stand

I am sure that there are others - but the contrast here is interesting.

fhc
02-03-2012, 03:47 PM
jmo, he is guilty as sin.

MyBelle
02-03-2012, 03:49 PM
I think we could view the custody situation from the flip side and ask whether someone that wants to remove a child from her father`s care, after the child has already lost her mother, has the child`s best interests in mind. Is it really better for a child to lose both parents because the extended family is dissatisfied with their visitation arrangements.

My take from all this is that the child's maternal grandmother was so bitter and angry, her focus was to punish Jason whether he is innocent or not. The Judge had to ask her to dial herself back in the last trial. I really think when someone is that vindictive, they are incapable of undertanding who else may be hurt. There was testimony that Michelle was very emotionally hurt by her parents' divorce. The cycle is repeating. A very unfortunate situation all around for the little girl.

JMO

MyBelle
02-03-2012, 03:51 PM
I suspect JY was watching the BC situation and it appears he did everything 180 degrees from BC. So far, this strategy appears to be working for him.

No talking to the cops
No deposition as part of a custody issue so you can't be part of a fishing expedition or have it used against you
In fact, don't even attempt to hire a family law attorney
Move out of the area
Take the witness stand

I am sure that there are others - but the contrast here is interesting.

Considering his law firm represented Nancy Cooper's family in that child custody dispute, I think it is a given that Jason would follow their legal advice.

otto
02-03-2012, 03:53 PM
I agree. I think it is even worse than that and might rise to prosecutorial misconduct. Jason didn't provide his alibi, the receipt was in his seized vehicle plus his friends knew where he was. But to test a random rock for DNA and then try to persuade a jury it is actually evidence crosses over the line.

JMO

Mallicious prosecution is certainly a possibility. In my opinion, police made up their minds before Jason arrived at the crime scene and they proceeded to build a case against him. It`s interesting that the one gas station where he was supposedly seen did not have working cameras, that the door he supposedly entered was conveniently broken, the rock he supposedly touched had 3 alleles in common with Jason - and many others - and that was presented as a DNA match, that it is suggested that he did not provide an alibi ... it seems like no matter what happened, investigators interpretted it in the most guilty way possible ... to the extent that they misrepresented the truth.

otto
02-03-2012, 03:55 PM
I suspect JY was watching the BC situation and it appears he did everything 180 degrees from BC. So far, this strategy appears to be working for him.

No talking to the cops
No deposition as part of a custody issue so you can't be part of a fishing expedition or have it used against you
In fact, don't even attempt to hire a family law attorney
Move out of the area
Take the witness stand

I am sure that there are others - but the contrast here is interesting.

Could it be the difference between a guilty man and an innocent man? The guilty man is confident that he can outsmart the police and the innocent man is terrified that a murder will be pinned on him?

Cammy
02-03-2012, 04:41 PM
Hard to believe this case is happening in the 21st Century, isn't it?

Yep, sure it, My Belle.!

And, if you think Gracie in credible , one would have to say if that were the case, Jason Young would have been arrested within days.

In a town he should not be in, at a time he should not be there , and in a direction he should not going , when he was supposed to be
sleeping at the hotel could and should have warranted an immediate arrest.

But, it didn't.
And, so you have to ask yourself why.

IMO

Cammy
02-03-2012, 04:43 PM
I was a bit amused at all the attention that was given to the gas attendant`s testimony during trial. She was presented pretty much as a star witness ... being asked to step down, stand next to the prosecutor and go to great lengths to explain how the vehicle (which officers told her was white) pulled into, and out of, the gas station. It all seemed so dramatic and unnecessary since her verbal description did not leave any questions.

And ... as you point out ... this star witness was available to them within days of the murder ... yet there was no arrest. Years of searching for more evidence produced nothing to corroborate her testimony ... although it would be helpful if the short guy with a little bit of hair would contact the defense team.

Oops, should have read this first.
I agree 100%..........

Grammy Jean
02-03-2012, 05:25 PM
I suspect JY was watching the BC situation and it appears he did everything 180 degrees from BC. So far, this strategy appears to be working for him.

No talking to the cops
No deposition as part of a custody issue so you can't be part of a fishing expedition or have it used against you
In fact, don't even attempt to hire a family law attorney
Move out of the area
Take the witness stand

I am sure that there are others - but the contrast here is interesting.

Interesting thought yet remember NC was murdered in July of 2008. MY was murdered in November of 2006. Jason was already not talking to cops etc. before Brad even murdered Nancy.

kantoo
02-03-2012, 07:22 PM
No. Jason's testimony from the first trial can not be used in the second trial unless he again testifies and it is inconsistent with his testimony in the first trial.

JMO

Today, Beth Karas said the prosecution will use JY's testimony from the first trial in their CIC, then use the evidence they have to try to refute what he testified to. She also said they do not have to say the testimony is from the first trial, just that he said it.

so :confused:

Cammy
02-03-2012, 07:34 PM
Room for Reasonable Doubt:
1)MF testified to the Young's always leaving the inside garage door leading to the kitchen opened, and the garage door opener was broken..........
That could explain signs of no forced entry.

2)Jason could not collect on the insurance money since his wife was murdered and there was an ongoing investigation.
Think the insurance company is just going to hand over a million dollars, nope.

3)Jason testified that he did not contest the custody suit because he thought he might be arrested.

4)Jason DID speak to LE briefly when he got back to Raleigh........he saw where they headed and stopped..........
Also, he came back in the same SUV that he supposedly drove after the murder, a SUV that came back perfectly clean.

5) Jason's NTO came back clean as well.........not a mark, scratch, bruise to show he had been involved in a struggle....
Many times while describing the crime scene, it was mentioned a struggle had occurred.

6) The 2 sets of different size shoes at Birchleaf. Size 10 and Size 12.

7) The timeline was so worrisome, L E checked local the airport and flight plans!!

8) Detectives following Jason's route to his meeting also became lost which explains
why he was 30 minutes late to his meeting.

9)There were no 28 calls to his Mother.....listen to testimony...which is about to begin again, so , just wait !!

10) Theories that Jason and Michelle's daughter was drugged after the murder, was just that a theory. L E also offered another theory that she was taken from the home due to the clean condition she was found in, and a warrant was issued for Michelle's Lexus, as well.

11) The camera in the hotel Jason stayed in, was also unplugged or messed with it prior to that nite/am.
Jennifer Marshall(GM @ the Hampton Inn) remembered on the stand that someone having a party , had tilted the same camera, same stairwell, same hotel, to sneak guests in at an earlier date.

12)Unknown DNA found in home.

13)Unknown fingerprint found on the medicine dropper/cap that was supposedly given to Jason and Michelle's daughter.

14)Cars at Birchleaf at 3:30 am, and 5:30 am and a stipulation from an elderly neighbor another car sighting at 7:30 am.

15)Cindy Beaver, the 5:30 am witness, lived on the Young's street for 21 years and drove by their house every day on her way to work at the job she held at the post office for 28 years.

16)Therapist notes which were supposed to be very damning and damaging never made it into the trial. ( I doubt they will in this one, either)
JMO

17)Jason called home early that am, knowing that Cassidy was asleep and the phone, near the top of the bed, where she slept could wake her up.
Why call the house to disturb her, if you drugged her?

18) Jason did not print out the directions to his meeting until minutes before he left.
Some plan.

19) Jason did not stage a burglary or make it look a break-in.

20) Jason did not purchase gas gans and fill them up to avoid a gas stop.

21) Jason told both Michelle and Shelly S. he was going to Cracker Barrel on his way to the hotel.

22) Jason did exactly what he said he was going to do before he left home, drive half way to his meeting, and drive the other half in the am.
IMO

To be con't........

Cammy
02-03-2012, 08:13 PM
23)Jason's Dna found in sheetrock, SBI agent testifed there was no way to tell how long it had been there.....

24)The dna on the rock showed the odds of being 1-79 markers.

25)Karen Morrow (shoe expert) testifed without the shoes she could not make an exact match.

26)Shelly Schaad, Michelle's friend who was visting, felt that they were being watched, and was scared enough to have Michelle walk her outside to her car.

27)Michelle and Jason's daughter was not afraid to see Jason when he returned that nite, did not scream out in fright or was scared of him.

28)Jason's friend called him while he was driving, and later talked to him when he was in his room.
Said Jason seemed fine, nothing out of the ordinary.

29) Jason seen on video at the hotel, never looking nervous or angry.

30) During the nite/am the clerk slipped a hotel receipt under his door
and hung a weekend edition of the USA today on his doorknob, and did
not notice the door being ajar or unlocked.
Also, Jason did not request any special room or floor.

31)Jason has never tried to flee.

Cammy
02-03-2012, 08:19 PM
Today, Beth Karas said the prosecution will use JY's testimony from the first trial in their CIC, then use the evidence they have to try to refute what he testified to. She also said they do not have to say the testimony is from the first trial, just that he said it.

so :confused:

But, ,really what is there to refute?

Rock vs. Twig? :confused:

tarheel8600
02-03-2012, 11:46 PM
But, ,really what is there to refute?

Rock vs. Twig? :confused:

A rock was found propping open the exit door by the night clerk. A rock was tested and was found to have had 3 of JY's DNA markers on it. He knew this before he took the witness stand due to the rules of discovery so he came up with the story of propping the door open with a twig to totally remove himself from the rock. Evidently, JY thought that a rock with 3 of his DNA markers on it could be perceived as damning to a jury.

The more important and logical question is:
Why would a man leave his 4th floor room and leave his hotel room door unlatched twice, which left his valuables unsecured, and then he went downstairs and propped open the exit door twice when all he had to do is take his keycard with him and A) avoid the chance of his computer and other valuables being stolen and B) avoid having to find something to prop open the exit door with?

Remember, this was the same man who hid $500 in a wallet in his closet in his home. Does it seem logical that a man who would go to such great lengths to hide money in his own home would leave his laptop and other valuables unsecured twice in a hotel full of strangers?

I know that people who stay in hotels will sometimes leave their doors propped open to run down the hallway to get ice or a soda. I do not know of people who leave their rooms propped open or unlocked to go down 4 floors. It makes no sense whatsoever. A keycard can easily be tucked into a pocket, a shoe, a sock, or where ever. It would take a lot more effort and time to find something to prop open an exit door with than it would take to stick a keycard into a slot and open the door. Furthermore, a person would be taking a chance that late at night that someone would come along and remove the object propping open the door, therefore, leaving that person locked out.

Imagine this: the very night that JY propped open an exit door twice with a twig, a night clerk found the very same exit door propped open with a rock AND the security camera near this exit door had been unplugged. After the camera was plugged back in around 5:00am, it was then pushed up to the ceiling at 6:35 am. All of this on the very night that JY's wife is murdered.

I believe you posted that a security camera had been tampered with before at this same hotel. While you are correct in stating that, it is misleading because you left out the part that it had happened only once before 9 years earlier. A couple was having a party that night and tampered with the camera so that the night clerk wouldn't see all of the people coming and going to and from their hotel room, and the camera was only tampered with once that night. Other than that instance, a security camera had never been tampered with in the 9 years that followed that incident.

I believe that it is important to tell the whole story so that people can understand that the tampering of a security camera was not a common occurrence at the Hillsville HI. And having the same camera tampered with twice within a 7 hour period was unheard of until JY "stayed" there on the night his wife was brutally murdered.

MyBelle
02-03-2012, 11:49 PM
Today, Beth Karas said the prosecution will use JY's testimony from the first trial in their CIC, then use the evidence they have to try to refute what he testified to. She also said they do not have to say the testimony is from the first trial, just that he said it.

so :confused:

She must not have followed the case very carefully or is referring to their opening statement, which isn't evidence.

JMO

MyBelle
02-03-2012, 11:52 PM
But, ,really what is there to refute?

Rock vs. Twig? :confused:

you mean, the RANDOM rock, they tried to misrepresent as evidence?

otto
02-04-2012, 12:13 AM
A rock was found propping open the exit door by the night clerk. A rock was tested and was found to have had 3 of JY's DNA markers on it. He knew this before he took the witness stand due to the rules of discovery so he came up with the story of propping the door open with a twig to totally remove himself from the rock. Evidently, JY thought that a rock with 3 of his DNA markers on it could be perceived as damning to a jury.

The more important and logical question is:
Why would a man leave his 4th floor room and leave his hotel room door unlatched twice, which left his valuables unsecured, and then he went downstairs and propped open the exit door twice when all he had to do is take his keycard with him and A) avoid the chance of his computer and other valuables being stolen and B) avoid having to find something to prop open the exit door with?

Remember, this was the same man who hid $500 in a wallet in his closet in his home. Does it seem logical that a man who would go to such great lengths to hide money in his own home would leave his laptop and other valuables unsecured twice in a hotel full of strangers?

I know that people who stay in hotels will sometimes leave their doors propped open to run down the hallway to get ice or a soda. I do not know of people who leave their rooms propped open or unlocked to go down 4 floors. It makes no sense whatsoever. A keycard can easily be tucked into a pocket, a shoe, a sock, or where ever. It would take a lot more effort and time to find something to prop open an exit door with than it would take to stick a keycard into a slot and open the door. Furthermore, a person would be taking a chance that late at night that someone would come along and remove the object propping open the door, therefore, leaving that person locked out.

Imagine this: the very night that JY propped open an exit door twice with a twig, a night clerk found the very same exit door propped open with a rock AND the security camera near this exit door had been unplugged. After the camera was plugged back in around 5:00am, it was then pushed up to the ceiling at 6:35 am. All of this on the very night that JY's wife is murdered.

I believe you posted that a security camera had been tampered with before at this same hotel. While you are correct in stating that, it is misleading because you left out the part that it had happened only once before 9 years earlier. A couple was having a party that night and tampered with the camera so that the night clerk wouldn't see all of the people coming and going to and from their hotel room, and the camera was only tampered with once that night. Other than that instance, a security camera had never been tampered with in the 9 years that followed that incident.

I believe that it is important to tell the whole story so that people can understand that the tampering of a security camera was not a common occurrence at the Hillsville HI. And having the same camera tampered with twice within a 7 hour period was unheard of until JY "stayed" there on the night his wife was brutally murdered.

That still doesn`t explain why the camera was tampered with around midnight when the suspect would only have been trying to avoid being seen in the morning. Tipping the camera up once was sufficient ... what`s the explanation for the camera being unplugged 7 hours before he supposedly needed to enter through a locked door.

otto
02-04-2012, 12:15 AM
She must not have followed the case very carefully or is referring to their opening statement, which isn't evidence.

JMO

For some strange reason this case has suddenly received some attention from CNN ... with Ms Nancy Grace claiming that the child was hiding under the bed, the victim was pregnant with a 5 year old, and all sorts of strange information. I doubt anything reported about the case on CNN is based in fact.

GRACE: And also, a 29-year-old pregnant North Carolina mother, a championship cheerleader, found murdered inside her Raleigh home, her 2- year-old little girl found hiding under the bed unharmed. Tonight, we want justice!

Nancy, this was a brutal crime of Michelle young who was a business executive, the mother of a 2-year-old, pregnant with a 5-year-old,

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1201/20/ng.01.html

otto
02-04-2012, 12:19 AM
you mean, the RANDOM rock, they tried to misrepresent as evidence?

Maybe they`ve completed DNA analysis on random sticks now too and plan to present that as evidence as well.

tarheel8600
02-04-2012, 12:37 AM
That still doesn`t explain why the camera was tampered with around midnight when the suspect would only have been trying to avoid being seen in the morning. Tipping the camera up once was sufficient ... what`s the explanation for the camera being unplugged 7 hours before he supposedly needed to enter through a locked door.

He didn't want to be seen leaving at midnight and not returning shortly thereafter. If he hadn't unplugged the camera, he would have been seen leaving but not re-entering within 15-20 minutes.

tarheel8600
02-04-2012, 12:47 AM
For some strange reason this case has suddenly received some attention from CNN ... with Ms Nancy Grace claiming that the child was hiding under the bed, the victim was pregnant with a 5 year old, and all sorts of strange information. I doubt anything reported about the case on CNN is based in fact.

GRACE: And also, a 29-year-old pregnant North Carolina mother, a championship cheerleader, found murdered inside her Raleigh home, her 2- year-old little girl found hiding under the bed unharmed. Tonight, we want justice!

Nancy, this was a brutal crime of Michelle young who was a business executive, the mother of a 2-year-old, pregnant with a 5-year-old,

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1201/20/ng.01.html

Finally, we can agree on something Otto. I watched the NG episode you are speaking of last Friday night. Whoever does her background fact-checking needs to be fired ASAP. They had the facts all wrong.

I noticed when she said that Michelle was pregnant with a 5-year-old and that CY was found hiding under the bed. NG is an idiot.

The guy from Chapel Hill who had been following the case and "knew the case inside and out" acted like he knew nothing about the crime whatsoever.

It does make me stop and wonder how much of what we hear on these journalistic talk shows is the truth and how much of it is mistaken information or just plain old lies.

otto
02-04-2012, 12:55 AM
Finally, we can agree on something Otto. I watched the NG episode you are speaking of last Friday night. Whoever does her background fact-checking needs to be fired ASAP. They had the facts all wrong.

I noticed when she said that Michelle was pregnant with a 5-year-old and that CY was found hiding under the bed. NG is an idiot.

The guy from Chapel Hill who had been following the case and "knew the case inside and out" acted like he knew nothing about the crime whatsoever.

It does make me stop and wonder how much of what we hear on these journalistic talk shows is the truth and how much of it is mistaken information or just plain old lies.

It does leave me a little skeptical regarding comments made about the upcoming trial. In theory, it`s probably true that during any second trial, where the suspect testified during the first trial, the prosecution will attempt to contradict that testimony. That`s pretty much common sense. Specifically, regarding this trial, I don`t think the suspect`s testimony left him open to contradiction - but that remains to be seen. I wonder if his testimony will be misrepresented ... like suggestions during the last trial that he didn`t provide an alibi.

tarheel8600
02-04-2012, 12:59 AM
you mean, the RANDOM rock, they tried to misrepresent as evidence?

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/image_gallery/9726260/

Use this link and look at pictures 28 and 29.

How "random" does that rock look to you?

tarheel8600
02-04-2012, 01:46 AM
It does leave me a little skeptical regarding comments made about the upcoming trial. In theory, it`s probably true that during any second trial, where the suspect testified during the first trial, the prosecution will attempt to contradict that testimony. That`s pretty much common sense. Specifically, regarding this trial, I don`t think the suspect`s testimony left him open to contradiction - but that remains to be seen. I wonder if his testimony will be misrepresented ... like suggestions during the last trial that he didn`t provide an alibi.

I was speaking of the NG episode that we agreed on.

Obviously, we do not agree on the facts of Michelle Young's murder, the subsequent investigation, or the results of the first trial.

I do not see how JY's testimony could be misrepresented. JY is not a person who is low-functioning or a person who has a low I.Q. He completely understands what he said on the witness stand in the first trial, and he is bright and verbal enough to defend himself against misrepresentation, which I do not believe the PT would attempt to do. He also has a cunning lawyer; the NC taxpayers are providing JY with one of the top performing lawyers there is.

Otto, I respect your right to have your own opinion, and I respect your right to voice that opinion. Believe it or not, I am usually very skeptical of an accused person's guilt. I try to find a reasonable "out" for the accused because convicting an innocent person is a tragedy. I guess that is the "innocent until proven guilty" coming out in me that I so believe in.

I served on a murder trial about 13 years ago in a county that neighbors Wake. It lasted 3 weeks and was a DP case. The DA had nothing on the guy. No confession, no fingerprints, no one to put him at the crime scene, no known relationship between him and the victim, no evidence that he even knew the victim, they did no forensic testing, there was no unaccounted time in his alibi, and they did not have one piece of circumstantial evidence against him.

I fought hard for him in the jury room. He was Hispanic, and unfortunately, I think that swayed some of the other jurors. In the end, we found him NG.

I'm telling you this so that you will know that I am not a person who thinks that just because someone is accused of a crime or arrested for a crime that it means he/she is automatically guilty.

Having said that, I have studied this case for a long time, and I cannot see that anyone other than JY committed this murder. My reasoning skills cause me to believe without a doubt that he killed his wife and unborn son. I wish it weren't true because it is a horrifying thought that someone as intelligent and caring as Michelle would fall in love and marry someone who was capable of rendering a beating upon her that was so vicious that it made seasoned LE sick at the scene of the crime.

I pray my girls choose wisely when they pick a mate for life. I do not know how the Fishers have survived this. I wouldn't wish this on anyone, ever.

kantoo
02-04-2012, 03:18 AM
She must not have followed the case very carefully or is referring to their opening statement, which isn't evidence.

JMO

Cases in Chief: After the opening statements, the plaintiff, who has the burden of proving his allegations, begins his case in chief, in which he attempts to prove each element of each legal claim alleged in the complaint (civil) or indictment (criminal). After the plaintiff has concluded his case in chief (and assuming the judge does not dismiss the plaintiff's claim for lack of proof), the defendant presents his case in chief. The defendant presents evidence to refute the plaintiff's proof and establish any affirmative defenses. The defendant may also present evidence to support claims he has against the plaintiff (counterclaims) or third parties (cross-claims).

During the case in chief, a party may offer evidence of any type in any order it wishes. Before the evidence may be presented to the jury, however, it must be admitted into evidence by the judge
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/trial

otto
02-04-2012, 09:45 AM
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/image_gallery/9726260/

Use this link and look at pictures 28 and 29.

How "random" does that rock look to you?

It`s not the size and appearance of the rock, it`s the fact that a 3 allele match is meaningless. If you read about the Amanda Knox trial, you will find that a much stronger match was rejected by the courts because it was not valid. If a 3 allele match had been used in Italy to argue that Knox was guilty, everyone would have laughed at it. I don`t see this as any different ... a 3 allele match should never be used to implicate someone in a crime ... ever.

otto
02-04-2012, 09:57 AM
I was speaking of the NG episode that we agreed on.

Obviously, we do not agree on the facts of Michelle Young's murder, the subsequent investigation, or the results of the first trial.

I do not see how JY's testimony could be misrepresented. JY is not a person who is low-functioning or a person who has a low I.Q. He completely understands what he said on the witness stand in the first trial, and he is bright and verbal enough to defend himself against misrepresentation, which I do not believe the PT would attempt to do. He also has a cunning lawyer; the NC taxpayers are providing JY with one of the top performing lawyers there is.

Otto, I respect your right to have your own opinion, and I respect your right to voice that opinion. Believe it or not, I am usually very skeptical of an accused person's guilt. I try to find a reasonable "out" for the accused because convicting an innocent person is a tragedy. I guess that is the "innocent until proven guilty" coming out in me that I so believe in.

I served on a murder trial about 13 years ago in a county that neighbors Wake. It lasted 3 weeks and was a DP case. The DA had nothing on the guy. No confession, no fingerprints, no one to put him at the crime scene, no known relationship between him and the victim, no evidence that he even knew the victim, they did no forensic testing, there was no unaccounted time in his alibi, and they did not have one piece of circumstantial evidence against him.

I fought hard for him in the jury room. He was Hispanic, and unfortunately, I think that swayed some of the other jurors. In the end, we found him NG.

I'm telling you this so that you will know that I am not a person who thinks that just because someone is accused of a crime or arrested for a crime that it means he/she is automatically guilty.

Having said that, I have studied this case for a long time, and I cannot see that anyone other than JY committed this murder. My reasoning skills cause me to believe without a doubt that he killed his wife and unborn son. I wish it weren't true because it is a horrifying thought that someone as intelligent and caring as Michelle would fall in love and marry someone who was capable of rendering a beating upon her that was so vicious that it made seasoned LE sick at the scene of the crime.

I pray my girls choose wisely when they pick a mate for life. I do not know how the Fishers have survived this. I wouldn't wish this on anyone, ever.

I think the difference is between not being able to imagine anyone else doing this and proof that the suspect is guilty. It`s not up to a jury to determine if Jason is the most likely suspect given that no other suspects have been identified, but rather to determine whether the evidence conclusively proves that Jason is guilty.

As soon as we accept evidence like a 3 allele DNA match, we`ve crossed into that territory of no longer questioning whether what is presented as evidence is actually evidence. Since the prosecution`s theory is based on information that is not evidence, I`m skeptical of their motive: whether it`s to solve the crime or pin it on the husband.

Additionally, in order to believe that Jason is guilty, we have to ignore evidence, such as the unknown DNA on the medicine cap and the jewelry box. Those items are included in the prosecution`s theory, yet they point in a different direction. The prosecution simply asks us to ignore that evidence ... for no reason other than it doesn`t ft their theory. We have the two sets of footprints which cannot be said to be similar to Jason`s shoes without Jason`s shoes. Again, statistically, like the 3 allele DNA match, it`s not conclusive of anything. It seems like the prosecution`s argument is based on hand waving and imagine if ... imagine if Jason drugged his daughter, but ignore the unknown DNA on he medicine cap, imagine if Jason touched this rock, but ignore the fact that a 3 allele match is never considered to be evidence. It goes on and on like that.

Just the Fax
02-04-2012, 10:55 AM
No otto, just because there could be some evidence of an unknown person(s) in the home, none of that trumps or excludes the strong, compelling evidence that Jason Young was the killer. The fact is, he is no less guilty of 1st degree murder, no matter how many accompliceses the defense may suggest were in the home with him.

Carry on.

Just the Fax
02-04-2012, 11:08 AM
you mean, the RANDOM rock, they tried to misrepresent as evidence?
Rocks this size don't jump 3 1/2 feet from the quiet landscape to the middle of the sidewalk on their own.
This is the rock kicked out of the door jamb by hotel staff.
Not only is it the one that was propping the fire door open, it had JLY's DNA.

http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/specialreports/michelleyoung/2011/06/14/9726465/187101-hotel_4-28-640x426.jpg

Cammy
02-04-2012, 12:28 PM
A rock was found propping open the exit door by the night clerk. A rock was tested and was found to have had 3 of JY's DNA markers on it. He knew this before he took the witness stand due to the rules of discovery so he came up with the story of propping the door open with a twig to totally remove himself from the rock. Evidently, JY thought that a rock with 3 of his DNA markers on it could be perceived as damning to a jury.

The more important and logical question is:
Why would a man leave his 4th floor room and leave his hotel room door unlatched twice, which left his valuables unsecured, and then he went downstairs and propped open the exit door twice when all he had to do is take his keycard with him and A) avoid the chance of his computer and other valuables being stolen and B) avoid having to find something to prop open the exit door with?

Remember, this was the same man who hid $500 in a wallet in his closet in his home. Does it seem logical that a man who would go to such great lengths to hide money in his own home would leave his laptop and other valuables unsecured twice in a hotel full of strangers?

I know that people who stay in hotels will sometimes leave their doors propped open to run down the hallway to get ice or a soda. I do not know of people who leave their rooms propped open or unlocked to go down 4 floors. It makes no sense whatsoever. A keycard can easily be tucked into a pocket, a shoe, a sock, or where ever. It would take a lot more effort and time to find something to prop open an exit door with than it would take to stick a keycard into a slot and open the door. Furthermore, a person would be taking a chance that late at night that someone would come along and remove the object propping open the door, therefore, leaving that person locked out.

Imagine this: the very night that JY propped open an exit door twice with a twig, a night clerk found the very same exit door propped open with a rock AND the security camera near this exit door had been unplugged. After the camera was plugged back in around 5:00am, it was then pushed up to the ceiling at 6:35 am. All of this on the very night that JY's wife is murdered.

I believe you posted that a security camera had been tampered with before at this same hotel. While you are correct in stating that, it is misleading because you left out the part that it had happened only once before 9 years earlier. A couple was having a party that night and tampered with the camera so that the night clerk wouldn't see all of the people coming and going to and from their hotel room, and the camera was only tampered with once that night. Other than that instance, a security camera had never been tampered with in the 9 years that followed that incident.

I believe that it is important to tell the whole story so that people can understand that the tampering of a security camera was not a common occurrence at the Hillsville HI. And having the same camera tampered with twice within a 7 hour period was unheard of until JY "stayed" there on the night his wife was brutally murdered.

Okay, so Jason is being careless with his stuff in the room and his security by leaving the door open for the two instances that he left.

But, then what about the fact, he supposedly left it open all the way from midnight to 6am?

That is taking way more of a chance of not only being robbed but being found out you were no longer in your room.

Also, those room doors do look pretty heavy and probably do make a loud sound when being pulled shut.

Jason checked into the hotel at 11PM, I doubt maybe people were wandering the halls or he had anything to worry about from a robber.

It doesn't matter what the prior incident concerning a camera being messed with was about, only that it was !!
Same camera, same stairwell, same hotel.

I also can not find anything anywhere that says Jason left his room at 11:20 PM.....??

Do you know where I can look?

But, talking of possible missing things.......

32) Michelle's rings are missing, and according to testimony from MF she never ever took them off.

IMO

Cammy
02-04-2012, 12:30 PM
you mean, the RANDOM rock, they tried to misrepresent as evidence?

Yep,that one.
:)

Cammy
02-04-2012, 12:41 PM
It`s not the size and appearance of the rock, it`s the fact that a 3 allele match is meaningless. If you read about the Amanda Knox trial, you will find that a much stronger match was rejected by the courts because it was not valid. If a 3 allele match had been used in Italy to argue that Knox was guilty, everyone would have laughed at it. I don`t see this as any different ... a 3 allele match should never be used to implicate someone in a crime ... ever.


Testimony from state expert witness. Shawn Weiss on the rock:

"Tests found that a dna sample which potentially belongs to 1-79 caucasian males and that indicated to him it was "NOWHERE NEAR A MATCH" to being a match to Jason's DNA"


Source:
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/9732796/

Cammy
02-04-2012, 12:45 PM
He didn't want to be seen leaving at midnight and not returning shortly thereafter. If he hadn't unplugged the camera, he would have been seen leaving but not re-entering within 15-20 minutes.

Then , Jason also somewhere in the morning should have been on video as well, somewhere in that hotel.

Whether it was in the hall, the lobby, or the stairwell...
he didn't just go out a window.

otto
02-04-2012, 02:42 PM
No otto, just because there could be some evidence of an unknown person(s) in the home, none of that trumps or excludes the strong, compelling evidence that Jason Young was the killer. The fact is, he is no less guilty of 1st degree murder, no matter how many accompliceses the defense may suggest were in the home with him.

Carry on.

What evidence is there ... certainly not a 3 allele DNA comparison, not the medicine, not the jewelry box, not the unknown shoeprints, not the gas attendant ... an unplugged camera 7 hours before someone supposedly doesn`t want to be seen entering a door that was locked? If we eliminate all the smoke and mirrors, there`s not much left.

otto
02-04-2012, 02:48 PM
Rocks this size don't jump 3 1/2 feet from the quiet landscape to the middle of the sidewalk on their own.
This is the rock kicked out of the door jamb by hotel staff.
Not only is it the one that was propping the fire door open, it had JLY's DNA.

http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/specialreports/michelleyoung/2011/06/14/9726465/187101-hotel_4-28-640x426.jpg

The rock was kicked out of the door, hopefully back with the other rocks. If the rock was not collected from the door, it is not evidence - chain of custody and all that stuff. It`s like saying here`s a knife that was found in a drawer similar to a knife that someone found at point A and moved to point B. it looks like all the other knives in the drawer, numerous unknown people had access to the knife ... but it`s a 3 allele match to the suspect, therefore it`s the murder weapon and since the suspect walked past the knife drawer, me must be guilty. It doesn`t work ... or at least it shouldn`t. I sure wouldn`t want to be subjected to that sort of funny evidence collection.

Do you have a link demonstrating that a 3 allele match is considered valid in a courtroom?

Just the Fax
02-04-2012, 02:50 PM
What evidence is there ... certainly not a 3 allele DNA comparison, not the medicine, not the jewelry box, not the unknown shoeprints, not the gas attendant ... an unplugged camera 7 hours before someone supposedly doesn`t want to be seen entering a door that was locked? If we eliminate all the smoke and mirrors, there`s not much left.

Sorry otto, i'm not going to waste my time recapping - for you - the laundry list of CE showing JLY is guilty. :rolleyes:

Just the Fax
02-04-2012, 02:53 PM
I like a good argument, but it is not even 1/2 a challenge here.

Back to bball!


:seeya:

Cammy
02-04-2012, 03:51 PM
What evidence is there ... certainly not a 3 allele DNA comparison, not the medicine, not the jewelry box, not the unknown shoeprints, not the gas attendant ... an unplugged camera 7 hours before someone supposedly doesn`t want to be seen entering a door that was locked? If we eliminate all the smoke and mirrors, there`s not much left.

That about sums it up, Otto.

You know this case very well and you are very smart to pick up on all the things that the last Jury must have had concerns with.

8-4 NG.

tarheel8600
02-04-2012, 05:59 PM
Then , Jason also somewhere in the morning should have been on video as well, somewhere in that hotel.

Whether it was in the hall, the lobby, or the stairwell...
he didn't just go out a window.

JY was never seen on camera leaving the HI the next morning for his business trip. According to that argument, then he must still be in the HI right now.

Just the Fax
02-04-2012, 06:16 PM
JY was never seen on camera leaving the HI the next morning for his business trip. According to that argument, then he must still be in the HI right now.

:laughcry:

Cammy
02-04-2012, 06:17 PM
JY was never seen on camera leaving the HI the next morning for his business trip. According to that argument, then he must still be in the HI right now.

There were many who thought Jason did not go back to the hotel afterwards, if you think he killed Michelle.

But, we know from obtaining the receipt that he did..or, as I think, he never left at all.

I am still trying to find testimony that he said he left his room at 11:20 as was posted here.

I can not wait for Monday!!

Some really interesting things should happen at the end of the trial as well!!

Stay tuned !!

IMO

otto
02-04-2012, 07:47 PM
Okay, so Jason is being careless with his stuff in the room and his security by leaving the door open for the two instances that he left.

But, then what about the fact, he supposedly left it open all the way from midnight to 6am?

That is taking way more of a chance of not only being robbed but being found out you were no longer in your room.

Also, those room doors do look pretty heavy and probably do make a loud sound when being pulled shut.

Jason checked into the hotel at 11PM, I doubt maybe people were wandering the halls or he had anything to worry about from a robber.

It doesn't matter what the prior incident concerning a camera being messed with was about, only that it was !!
Same camera, same stairwell, same hotel.

I also can not find anything anywhere that says Jason left his room at 11:20 PM.....??

Do you know where I can look?

But, talking of possible missing things.......

32) Michelle's rings are missing, and according to testimony from MF she never ever took them off.

IMO

I have read here that Jason testified that he left his room twice: once to get his computer charger and once to smoke a cigar ... but I `don`t remember what he said. Maybe listen to his testimony again, as that would be the only source.

otto
02-04-2012, 07:54 PM
Testimony from state expert witness. Shawn Weiss on the rock:

"Tests found that a dna sample which potentially belongs to 1-79 caucasian males and that indicated to him it was "NOWHERE NEAR A MATCH" to being a match to Jason's DNA"


Source:
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/9732796/

That`s the funny thing about the rock. It was such a production in the courtroom, with cutting open the package, etc., but it`s meaningless. It shouldn`t have been introduced as evidence as it does little more than demonstrate the weakness of the prosecution`s case. Unless the courts in NC are going to start prosecuting everyone based on a 3 allele match (which I hope would raise some serious concerns amongst the residents), the prosecutors are way out of line trying to draw conclusions based on a 3 allele match. It`s quite likely that the 3 alleles were from a mixed DNA sample - which further weakens the so-called evidence.

otto
02-04-2012, 07:56 PM
Sorry otto, i'm not going to waste my time recapping - for you - the laundry list of CE showing JLY is guilty. :rolleyes:

I wouldn`t expect you to, but when you mention all the evidence, while I see so little, I do wonder what in particular you`re referring to. Is there any one piece of evidence that you see as tipping the scale towards guilt?

tarheel8600
02-04-2012, 08:12 PM
Testimony from state expert witness. Shawn Weiss on the rock:

"Tests found that a dna sample which potentially belongs to 1-79 caucasian males and that indicated to him it was "NOWHERE NEAR A MATCH" to being a match to Jason's DNA"


Source:
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/9732796/

I had thought 3 DNA markers on the rock placed the odds at about 1 in 42 Caucasian males.

Knowing that it is 1 in 79 Caucasian males makes it even more unlikely that the donor was anyone but JY. Someone picked up a rock from the landscaping around the shrubbery that night and propped open the exit door with it.

The Hillsville HI website says that they have 86 rooms, and we know from testimony that there were a little less than half of the rooms occupied that night. So we can say that about 40 rooms were occupied.

Let's assume for argument's sake that all of the occupants that night were Caucasian males. If 2 males stayed in each of those occupied rooms, that would calculate to 80 males. We know only one male stayed in JY's room so we can say that 79 males stayed there that night.

According to the 1 in 79 odds that the 3 DNA markers came from a donor other than JY, I think that it's pretty easy to figure out who the 1 in 79 was.

Cammy
02-04-2012, 08:13 PM
I have read here that Jason testified that he left his room twice: once to get his computer charger and once to smoke a cigar ... but I `don`t remember what he said. Maybe listen to his testimony again, as that would be the only source.

Thanks, Otto.
I did and nowhere does he give specific times for leaving his room, other than the one we see him on the video at close to midnite.

Something else ,one of his friends, Demetrius Barrett, called him after he arrived at the hotel to tell him about a home warranty plan for the Young's upstair heat pump, which had gone out.

I want to know what time he called him.. it was unclear at trial.

The day before in Raleigh it was 77 degrees, but the nights were dropping low in the 30's, which I don't understand how anyone
could think the hose was a method of cleaning up after the crime........

IMO

otto
02-04-2012, 08:18 PM
Re-listening to testimony from the suspect:

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9764909/#/vid9764909

What he`s doing reminds me of how interviews go, where you`re asked a specific question ... except the big difference is that there`s a 1-3 minute time limit for answering interview questions. Jason starts off strong, makes good eye contact when he denies murder. He`s trying to connect with the jury ... to get them to identify with him. He`s used to being a story-teller. Sometimes he seems to have all those extra words in his answers.

He`s telling a pretty weird story about bouffle apple and this meant `beautiful apple`or attractive - the first time he told her he loved her. His lawyer is making sure that Jason`s comfortable answering questions ... kind of setting Jason`s tone.

When he first testified, there was so much talk about his fluttering eyes or water sips ... don`t remember exactly what he said.

otto
02-04-2012, 08:25 PM
I had thought 3 DNA markers on the rock placed the odds at about 1 in 42 Caucasian males.

Knowing that it is 1 in 79 Caucasian males makes it even more unlikely that the donor was anyone but JY. Someone picked up a rock from the landscaping around the shrubbery that night and propped open the exit door with it.

The Hillsville HI website says that they have 86 rooms, and we know from testimony that there were a little less than half of the rooms occupied that night. So we can say that about 40 rooms were occupied.

Let's assume for argument's sake that all of the occupants that night were Caucasian males. If 2 males stayed in each of those occupied rooms, that would calculate to 80 males. We know only one male stayed in JY's room so we can say that 79 males stayed there that night.

According to the 1 in 79 odds that the 3 DNA markers came from a donor other than JY, I think that it's pretty easy to figure out who the 1 in 79 was.

One in 42 is worse than one in 79, one in a few million is good in terms of identifying one single person. One in 42 or 79 doesn`t really mean much when you have to go to the milions to isolate the DNA. If there`s one chance in a few millions that it`s anyone else ... okay, I`ll buy it. If there`s one chance in 42 that it`s anyone else, I don`t accept that as meaning anything in terms of identifying one single person.

It could mean that there are 42 men in the room that share the same 3 alleles - that might be true of a place in the mountains.

There is no chain of custody between the rock in the door and the rock in court.

Cammy
02-04-2012, 08:28 PM
That`s the funny thing about the rock. It was such a production in the courtroom, with cutting open the package, etc., but it`s meaningless. It shouldn`t have been introduced as evidence as it does little more than demonstrate the weakness of the prosecution`s case. Unless the courts in NC are going to start prosecuting everyone based on a 3 allele match (which I hope would raise some serious concerns amongst the residents), the prosecutors are way out of line trying to draw conclusions based on a 3 allele match. It`s quite likely that the 3 alleles were from a mixed DNA sample - which further weakens the so-called evidence.

That was from the state expert witness.

So, if you take all the physical evidence it goes like this:

1) Karen Morrow, expert shoe witness, could not make a match without the exact shoes. When asked by the defense, if she was saying the shoes were a match, she said No.

2) David Freeman, SBI agent, testified that Jason's DNA was on the sheetrock, but no way to tell how long it had been there.

3)Shawn Weiss, the DNA on rock, 1-79 Caucasians, when asked by the defense it he was saying it was a match, he said it was NOWHERE near a match....

4)David Freeman also testified an unidentified fingerprint was lifted from the medicine cap/top/dropper/
State's theory is that Jason and Michelle's daughter was drugged.

Jurors want physical evidence and that is what the last Jury said as well.

We are going to hear that Jason was unfaithful, and that he swallowed a ring and drew a magic marker face on a woman.

Both of those happened on hit sitcoms, (Friends and According to Jim)
and does not excuse Jason for all his immature selfish behavior.

Also, does not make him a murderer..

IMO

Cammy
02-04-2012, 08:32 PM
One in 42 is worse than one in 79, one in a few million is good in terms of identifying one single person. One in 42 or 79 doesn`t really mean much when you have to go to the milions to isolate the DNA. If there`s one chance in a few millions that it`s anyone else ... okay, I`ll buy it. If there`s one chance in 42 that it`s anyone else, I don`t accept that as meaning anything in terms of identifying one single person.

It could mean that there are 42 men in the room that share the same 3 alleles - that might be true of a place in the mountains.

There is no chain of custody between the rock in the door and the rock in court.

1 in 42, instead of 1-79 could make it a LOT worse though.
The number given was 1-79.

Cammy
02-04-2012, 08:38 PM
Re-listening to testimony from the suspect:

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9764909/#/vid9764909

What he`s doing reminds me of how interviews go, where you`re asked a specific question ... except the big difference is that there`s a 1-3 minute time limit for answering interview questions. Jason starts off strong, makes good eye contact when he denies murder. He`s trying to connect with the jury ... to get them to identify with him. He`s used to being a story-teller. Sometimes he seems to have all those extra words in his answers.

He`s telling a pretty weird story about bouffle apple and this meant `beautiful apple`or attractive - the first time he told her he loved her. His lawyer is making sure that Jason`s comfortable answering questions ... kind of setting Jason`s tone.

When he first testified, there was so much talk about his fluttering eyes or water sips ... don`t remember exactly what he said.

I went over his testimony a few times, other than some little discrepancies, or if the twig experiment doesn't work, he is good to go.

Jason can't be expected to remember things from 5+years ago since he never talked.
He can't be asked to compare his statements that he gave police back then, like other witnesses.

But, they can use what he testified to in the next trial, which is set to begin in less than 48 hours.

I don't know which I am more excited about , the Superbowl or the 2nd trial of Jason Young....

I guess since my Eagles will be on the couch with 30 other losing teams, I'll make it.

PS, I was told that Becky Holt has been given second chair, and that Howard Cummings will take over the lead
this time around. I hope I am right.

Madeleine74
02-04-2012, 08:39 PM
DNA matching is all about odds and statistics. The results can include or exclude a person from being a contributor.

3 alliels matched JY. That is not a scientific match to exclude all others, but it does narrow a potential pool of donors down. JY cannot be excluded from a potential pool of contributors.

Tarheel's numbers are very interesting. What are the odds that someone else with 3 alliels that match JY propped open that door on the same night that JY admitted he propped open that door...and did so with a landscaping pebble/rock after JY did?

What are the odds that the very camera covering that door had been unplugged on the same night that JY's wife is brutally murdered about 3 hrs later after JY is seen in a different pullover top heading toward that very exit at midnight?

And what are the odds that after that camera was plugged back in and reset at 5:50am that 45 min later a camera would be pushed up to the ceiling, again removing possible video coverage of that doorway/staircase, all on the same day JY's wife was brutally murdered, and an hour after a tall man with light hair angrily cusses out a gas station attendant, throws down a $20, pumps only $15 and hurredly gets back on the road...which is coincidentally 1 hr away from the Hillsville H.I.?

A whole lot of coincidences in a short amount of time that when looked at together don't appear to be just random occurrences.

Just the Fax
02-04-2012, 08:49 PM
Yea, what are the odds another male from the hotel would follow Jay's lead and prop open the same fire door in the wee hours?

To even consider such a notion is stupid.
Of course BH never drove many key points home, so the jury just dismissed.

Cammy
02-04-2012, 08:53 PM
DNA matching is all about odds and statistics. The results can include or exclude a person from being a contributor.

3 alliels matched JY. That is not a scientific match to exclude all others, but it does narrow a potential pool of donors down. JY cannot be excluded from a potential pool of contributors.

Tarheel's numbers are very interesting. What are the odds that someone else with 3 alliels that match JY propped open that door on the same night that JY admitted he propped open that door...and did so with a landscaping pebble/rock after JY did?

What are the odds that the very camera covering that door had been unplugged on the same night that JY's wife is brutally murdered about 3 hrs later after JY is seen in a different pullover top heading toward that very exit at midnight?

And what are the odds that after that camera was plugged back in and reset at 5:50am that 45 min later a camera would be pushed up to the ceiling, again removing possible video coverage of that doorway/staircase, all on the same day JY's wife was brutally murdered, and an hour after a tall man with light hair angrily cusses out a gas station attendant, throws down a $20, pumps only $15 and hurredly gets back on the road...which is coincidentally 1 hr away from the Hillsville H.I.?

A whole lot of coincidences in a short amount of time that when looked at together don't appear to be just random occurrences.

If you are counting on Gracie to get a conviction, you may need to count again.

Gracie's description of Jason changed many times over the years.
Gracie's regular customer who witnessed Jason's outburst has never been found.
Gracie did not tell her boss a customer yelled or cursed at her.
Gracie did not fill out an incident report.
Gracie did not tell the next clerk coming on duty what happened.
Gracie had customers at:
5:26 am
5:27 am (supposedly Jason)
5:28 am'
5:31 am
One of them had to see the angry customer or brush shoulders with him.
Sounds like there was a lot of people in line that early in the am waiting to be waited on.
Makes no sense Jason would cause a scene with that many people around and a regular customer standing in the store.
Besides, pay for gas first, or after, either way he had to pay.
Gracie, then added, at another date, there was a newspaper man there as well.
That man has since died.
Gracie said Jason had on jeans, I would imagine just about everyone there that am had on jeans.
Gracie never ID'ed Jason's SUV by herself , it was only after she was asked , she never said it first or volunteered it on her own.
Gracie, imo, is very confused.

otto
02-04-2012, 09:04 PM
Thanks, Otto.
I did and nowhere does he give specific times for leaving his room, other than the one we see him on the video at close to midnite.

Something else ,one of his friends, Demetrius Barrett, called him after he arrived at the hotel to tell him about a home warranty plan for the Young's upstair heat pump, which had gone out.

I want to know what time he called him.. it was unclear at trial.

The day before in Raleigh it was 77 degrees, but the nights were dropping low in the 30's, which I don't understand how anyone
could think the hose was a method of cleaning up after the crime........

IMO

The theory about the hose is pretty wild. He had two bathrooms, anything found in his own trap would be evidence of nothing more than: he lived there. There was absolutely no reason for him to shower in the garden in the middle of the night in November.

I`m wondering if the woman that was so distraught about her infidelities will testify and how she`ll be feeling now, after having revealed the truth to her spouse. I don`t think there`s any reason to post her name, unless she testifies again ... assuming everyone knows who I mean.

Madeleine74
02-04-2012, 09:06 PM
Had the investigators done more in-depth work at that particular HI, I would have expected to see testimony as to not only how many rooms were occupied, but which rooms had people entering/exiting between 11pm and 6:30am the next morning. Those people would have used key cards which is how their movements in/out of their rooms would be known, as well as anyone else who went outside and then came back in (assuming they had and used their key card to do so). If they had their card with them to get back in their room, then they would have used it to get back into the hotel IF they walked out.

So, of the 40-something rooms occupied that fateful night, I wonder what was the pattern. Who was up late leaving their room after midnight? Anyone? I mean, anyone else other than JY? Did the HI video cameras capture anyone up and about that night between midnight and 6am? Anyone else use a staircase that night?

Just the Fax
02-04-2012, 09:07 PM
I have read here that Jason testified that he left his room twice: once to get his computer charger and once to smoke a cigar ... but I `don`t remember what he said. Maybe listen to his testimony again, as that would be the only source.

Yes, the only source and we now know the details were untruthful.
He stated he went down to get the computer charger when he hung up his call with MM at 11:45PM.
(Demietrius called at 10:58 PM)

Well, we now know he lied because he was on the computer at 11:38 -11:53PM. So, he was on the computer the entire time he was chatting up his girl.

Yep, he went down around 11:20PM to unplug the camera.

Just the Fax
02-04-2012, 09:10 PM
The theory about the hose is pretty wild. He had two bathrooms, anything found in his own trap would be evidence of nothing more than: he lived there. There was absolutely no reason for him to shower in the garden in the middle of the night in November.

I`m wondering if the woman that was so distraught about her infidelities will testify and how she`ll be feeling now, after having revealed the truth to her spouse. I don`t think there`s any reason to post her name, unless she testifies again ... assuming everyone knows who I mean.


A hose, unwound and left trickling on a walkway in November?
Yea I agree, that is wild.

Madeleine74
02-04-2012, 09:11 PM
He was on a computer, connected to the Internet at the HI, yet he didn't bother to check sports scores right then? One click to ESPN would have given him every sports score he could possibly want.

He had to grab a USA Today newspaper from the front desk, with older sports scores, to take outside to read in the dark?

Does that sound reasonable? It does not to me.

otto
02-04-2012, 09:11 PM
That was from the state expert witness.

So, if you take all the physical evidence it goes like this:

1) Karen Morrow, expert shoe witness, could not make a match without the exact shoes. When asked by the defense, if she was saying the shoes were a match, she said No.

2) David Freeman, SBI agent, testified that Jason's DNA was on the sheetrock, but no way to tell how long it had been there.

3)Shawn Weiss, the DNA on rock, 1-79 Caucasians, when asked by the defense it he was saying it was a match, he said it was NOWHERE near a match....

4)David Freeman also testified an unidentified fingerprint was lifted from the medicine cap/top/dropper/
State's theory is that Jason and Michelle's daughter was drugged.

Jurors want physical evidence and that is what the last Jury said as well.

We are going to hear that Jason was unfaithful, and that he swallowed a ring and drew a magic marker face on a woman.

Both of those happened on hit sitcoms, (Friends and According to Jim)
and does not excuse Jason for all his immature selfish behavior.

Also, does not make him a murderer..

IMO

Shoes don't have to be a match.

If the expert could say that the shoe prints at the scene are consistent with or are similar to shoes that Jason had at one time owned, that's enough to add to other, more substantial evidence; not enough on its own. Shoes are never a match, but wear patterns are relevant. If the wear pattern on the print also match Jason's wear pattern, that makes a stronger argument. If wear pattern wasn't even mentioned, then the prosecution couldn't get a wear pattern from the print. Certainly the old shoe, the size 10, would have a wear pattern.

tarheel8600
02-04-2012, 09:12 PM
One in 42 is worse than one in 79, one in a few million is good in terms of identifying one single person. One in 42 or 79 doesn`t really mean much when you have to go to the milions to isolate the DNA. If there`s one chance in a few millions that it`s anyone else ... okay, I`ll buy it. If there`s one chance in 42 that it`s anyone else, I don`t accept that as meaning anything in terms of identifying one single person.

It could mean that there are 42 men in the room that share the same 3 alleles - that might be true of a place in the mountains.

There is no chain of custody between the rock in the door and the rock in court.

I'm not understanding this post. How is 1 in 42 worse than 1 in 79?

Using a pool of 500 Caucasian males:
1 in 42 would mean that 11.9 men could be potential donors of the 3 DNA markers on the rock.
1 in 79 would mean that 6.3 men could be potential donors of the 3 DNA markers on the rock.

I also do not understand the comment that there could be 42 men in the room that share the same 3 alleles and that could be true in the mountains. That has nothing at all to do with 1 in 79 Caucasian males sharing the same 3 DNA markers that were found on the rock.

How do you know that there is not a chain of custody of the rock that LE found right outside the propped open exit door and the rock that was tested?

ohiogirl
02-04-2012, 09:14 PM
This is going to be very interesting to see what happens this time. My vote is with the prosecution. I wonder if JY will take the stand this time.