PDA

View Full Version : State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-22-2012



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5

ohiogirl
02-22-2012, 02:29 PM
Of course, but do you believe the PT effectively got that point across to the jury? For some reason I don't, maybe because the delivery.

This is about the only point I feel was effective so far. jmo

gritguy
02-22-2012, 02:30 PM
Of course, but do you believe the PT effectively got that point across to the jury? For some reason I don't, maybe because the delivery.

I haven't seen any testimony the last few days.

Acting under his constituional rights, JY chose not to testify or give an account until his defense team and he believed it necessary at his first trial.

That is the obvious reason he did not contest custody.

The rest is just speculation. He couldn't afford it? He was shown to have money. Would go on forever? Any evidence of that - no. I'm pretty sure the courts get on with issuing orders in custody cases. They did in the BC case; that didn't go on forever.

The one clear reason. He didn't want to risk his freedom. That's his right. What it says about him each can judge for themselves, IMO.

NCEast
02-22-2012, 02:31 PM
Klink would be organized, articulate and crystal clear if he was doing this.
It's sad the state has such a weak team seeking justice for Michelle.

I really feel for LF and MF. If we are agonizing over this, I just cannot imagine how it's affecting them.

gritguy
02-22-2012, 02:34 PM
To me, it's clear that with this rehash of JY's testimony, the defense will have to put him back on the stand if they have any hope of clearing this up.

If that's correct, then this is far fromover. It would mean, IMO, the defense team would be concerned that the state's case coul result in conviction enough to overcome the risk of the defendant testifying, though it was a success last time.

It would give as you say the defense to reduce the state's case, but it gives the state another live crack at the witness.

I'm sure I'll be on travel when that happens....

happy2binNC
02-22-2012, 02:35 PM
For years we were told, it was because MY was not going to be able to work full time, after the baby came,
and that would hurt their income greatly.

Then her boss testifies that they were agreeing on a plan Michelle worked out, where she could still work 30 hours a week,
and be reached on her days off and receive full time benefits...It was ready to be submitted to see if it would be okay.

But, its that one BIG thing that has always been missing, and it still is.
Like a MOTIVE.

Why did Jason kill Michelle?

Doesn't look like money......

Freedom?

This guy was out of town 1-2 x a month.

Michelle Money?

Were they were going to kill MM's husband, Steve. too?

He hated MY so much.

For what?

Because they argued, and he didn't like her Mom ?

So?
And?

BBM

Being out of town 1-2 nights a month is quite different from the type of freedom he wanted IMO. He wanted no responsibilities, no strings. Basically, he wanted a promiscuous, college frat-boy lifestyle and you can't have that when you're married with a child and another on the way. He refused to grow up.

Again, this is all MOO.

Lori59
02-22-2012, 02:35 PM
To me, it's clear that with this rehash of JY's testimony, the defense will have to put him back on the stand if they have any hope of clearing this up.

I was thinking that was another point Cummings was making today...come on JY, I'm ready for you this time!! :please:

NCEast
02-22-2012, 02:40 PM
Wonder if Howard was serious when he said "sorry, I've got some short term memory loss"?

I think he was dead serious.

Me too. And I honestly think this case needs to be his 'last hurrah'...win or lose. He needs to retire.

fredwomble
02-22-2012, 02:43 PM
The idea that JY didn't fight custody because the battle would never be over is complete and utter speculation and is also not factual.

What is clear is that he wanted to remain silent, and fighting custody would not have allowed for that.

The motive is clear.

Is there nothing this man did wrong?? :waitasec:

I agree with you. But it's also likely that people like us know more about this case. Did Cummings ask Spivey if Jason Young would've been forced to answer questions at any custody hearing? Even if he did, his presentation is absolutely devoid of energy or seeming grasp of the case.

Most of these things are not that hard. And he is going over and over and over matters that do not impeach Jason Young clearly and damningly. How long did it take to establish that it was cold and windy that night? And yet really, does it prove Young lied about smoking a cigar (if you had zero knowledge of this case beforehand)?

I also get that he lied about the anniversary dinner and that was dumb. But as a juror, I might even give that a pass. Guy lied about talking on the phone with his mistress. I might ask why he felt the need to lie about a material fact he'd already confessed. But that he lied about talking to her on the phone doesn't prove he committed this crime. Repeating the "I've lost everything" but not "my wife?" Sorry, that is also meaningless as far as proving guilt (although I imagine there was a psychological, subconscious component to that answer). He said he lost his family and that includes Michelle and Rylan -- defense can, and likely will, easily rebut that as immaterial.

No one is more certain of Young's guilt than me. But if he is not convicted this time, Holt and Cummings should be fired. And Colon Willoughby should resign. As JTF already alluded, expect Klinkosum's cross to be far easier to follow, more focused and ergo, more effective.

I said yesterday at least three times that allowing Young to "testify" again better set the stage for something big today. It's lunchtime and I'm sorry but I don't see it (understanding, and appreciating, some of his lies have been shown). I hope I'll be proven wrong this afternoon.

Lori59
02-22-2012, 02:47 PM
OMG! Talking head on In Session, responding to how JY NEVER asked how his daughter was or anything about what happened and actually hung up on investigators....responds that well, JY probably thought if he were to ask questions then they would say that he was trying to find out about the investigation! This is the kind of crap that drives me nuts. ANY innocent person, upon finding out their wife and son was murdered would ask ..What Happened and is my daughter okay and RUSH home...not stop for dinner.

heidisams
02-22-2012, 02:52 PM
Oh Geesh! Really? I'm watching IS and Mike Brooks and CP are discussing the case, and MB just said (paraphrasing), " well, he put that fleece sweater on when he went back outside..." Point being, he was referring to the sweater from the bday party picture.... He thinks it's the same sweater. He either isn't paying attention, and didn't catch on, or the pros isn't making this very clear. I really hope it's the former. CP gets the facts wrong a lot, but MB is usually pretty sharp.....

Just the Fax
02-22-2012, 02:52 PM
I wonder if the biggest 'gotcha moment' will be details of that wreck he described in early June 2006. If it existed at all, I bet we hear about the real circumstances and the extent of the man's injury. I doubt we will hear he suffered a 'knock-out blow'.
Could be interesting......

gritguy
02-22-2012, 02:53 PM
Fred,

Yep I'm not seeing the videostream, but I would surmise from the posts that it is not the state's finest moment.

It's unfortunate, IMO, that in the determination of guilt or innocence the quality of presentation and tactics matter as much as they do given those are not facts and vary considerably in quality, but they do.

Mama-cita
02-22-2012, 02:56 PM
Fred,

Yep I'm not seeing the videostream, but I would surmise from the posts that it is not the state's finest moment.

It's unfortunate, IMO, that in the determination of guilt or innocence the quality of presentation and tactics matter as much as they do given those are not facts and vary considerably in quality, but they do.

Well if Casey Anthony's jury can be swayed by Jose Baez saying "good morning" to them, just goes to show, maybe we do need professional juries!!! Sad but true!

gracielee
02-22-2012, 02:59 PM
One, or was it both? Previous victims testified at the Runnion trial. I understand the jury from the previous trial, or at least some, apologized publicly to the girls for not believing their previous testimony. :(

With regard to this case, we need to remember or realize, CY was a complete innocent. We have to believe there's a LOT of truth as to what her statements were, especially just after her mom and brother's murder!

"Out of the mouths of babes,"

JMHO
fran

It's been so long, I did follow this case, little Samantha Runnion, at the time. IIRC, his prior trial involved two little girls, approx 5 or 6 yrs. old???? And although they both testifed as to what Sam's killer did to them, the jury found them to be not-believable. And so he was acquitted of the crimes against them. I want to say, the day the killer got Samantha, he was actually out looking for one of those little girls. They lived near, or in the same complex as, Samantha. He was unable to find the child, but did come upon Samantha and her little play-mate, and grabbed Sam. I heard that early on in the case, whether that was ever clarified, I'm unsure. I also want to say that was how he, the killer, was identified so quickly. The other child gave a description of him, Sam's play-mate, and the mother of one of his previous victims saw the drawing and identified him as the guy who had been acquitted of molesting her child. I could be all wrong here, as it's been so many years now and I follow a lot of these cases. :waitasec:

Lori59
02-22-2012, 03:03 PM
Well if Casey Anthony's jury can be swayed by Jose Baez saying "good morning" to them, just goes to show, maybe we do need professional juries!!! Sad but true!

Hahaha! That "Good Morning" annoyed the crap out of me!

parasol
02-22-2012, 03:05 PM
OMG, these talking heads on TruTV are talking about what a "credible, good witness" JY was. It's hard to believe seasoned legal professionals could be so credulous. I thought they would have good BS detectors by now. That said, I'm sure some of them know that they can get booked on a show for being reliably pro-defense, pro-prosecution, or what have you.

Boodles
02-22-2012, 03:06 PM
How long did it take to establish that it was cold and windy that night?

I think of the song from the Broadway play "Rent": Five Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand-Six Hundred Minutes

yeah, I know it was probably only about 15 minutes, but agree, that's far too long to establish weather conditions. I could have "named that weather in 2 notes!"

gritguy
02-22-2012, 03:07 PM
OMG, these talking heads on TruTV are talking about what a "credible, good witness" JY was. It's hard to believe seasoned legal professionals could be so credulous. I thought they would have good BS detectors by now. That said, I'm sure some of them know that they can get booked on a show for being reliably pro-defense, pro-prosecution, or what have you.

Perhaps evidence of evolution, perhaps intelligent deisgn, but there is an expert out there for every theory!

gracielee
02-22-2012, 03:07 PM
Hahaha! That "Good Morning" annoyed the crap out of me!

I'm amazed at the difference in juries. The jury that convicted scott peterson came out, discussed their verdict. They didn't hide and skulk away into oblivion. They were certain enough about their decision to talk openly about it. Say what evidence they believed, which witnesses they found to be honest and truthful, etc. It seems to me that juries confident of their opinions, juries who have actually *deliberated*, aren't afraid to speak out and say why they made the decision they did IMO.

happy2binNC
02-22-2012, 03:09 PM
Is anyone in the courtroom today? I want to know if the man in the front row of the jury (juror #5?) is dozing again.
:sleep:

gritguy
02-22-2012, 03:09 PM
I wonder if the biggest 'gotcha moment' will be details of that wreck he described in early June 2006. If it existed at all, I bet we hear about the real circumstances and the extent of the man's injury. I doubt we will hear he suffered a 'knock-out blow'.
Could be interesting......

On the way to winston-salem the other day there were many wrecks. one was very bad. i easily could have imagined myself comforting the victim, and there was an actual wreck, if i wanted to impress with the story. i won't believe a word he says - due to his documented habit of lying about everything - it would have to be shown by credible 1st responders that he was on the scene.

Or perhaps, much like Batman, he slipped away into the night as authorities pulled up.

I concede there can be times when JY says something that agrees with the truth, but those are only the results of chance and probabilities, and not any motive on his part to be factual with anyone.

Madeleine74
02-22-2012, 03:09 PM
IS gets case facts wrong. You cannot listen to the talking heads. They are worse than local media in terms of correctness. That way lies frustration.

gracielee
02-22-2012, 03:10 PM
Oh Geesh! Really? I'm watching IS and Mike Brooks and CP are discussing the case, and MB just said (paraphrasing), " well, he put that fleece sweater on when he went back outside..." Point being, he was referring to the sweater from the bday party picture.... He thinks it's the same sweater. He either isn't paying attention, and didn't catch on, or the pros isn't making this very clear. I really hope it's the former. CP gets the facts wrong a lot, but MB is usually pretty sharp.....

Really? I've found Mike Brooks to be just the opposite most of the time. JMO I've heard him misstate evidence, in fact he was the one, earlier on, who kept saying 'michelle had unidentified hair in her hand'.

fran
02-22-2012, 03:10 PM
It's been so long, I did follow this case, little Samantha Runnion, at the time. IIRC, his prior trial involved two little girls, approx 5 or 6 yrs. old???? And although they both testifed as to what Sam's killer did to them, the jury found them to be not-believable. And so he was acquitted of the crimes against them. I want to say, the day the killer got Samantha, he was actually out looking for one of those little girls. They lived near, or in the same complex as, Samantha. He was unable to find the child, but did come upon Samantha and her little play-mate, and grabbed Sam. I heard that early on in the case, whether that was ever clarified, I'm unsure. I also want to say that was how he, the killer, was identified so quickly. The other child gave a description of him, Sam's play-mate, and the mother of one of his previous victims saw the drawing and identified him as the guy who had been acquitted of molesting her child. I could be all wrong here, as it's been so many years now and I follow a lot of these cases. :waitasec:



No, you're right in everything you said about the other case.

Having said that, I also attended the day they had the pros and def closing statements. The pros goes through each phase, if you will, of what they were pointing out during the case. The closing is to explain where each item discussed, fits into the puzzle that points to the def being the culprit who committed the crime.

I have no doubt, this pros team is going to explain everything to the jury, in a neat little timeline, if you will. There won't be any doubt as to the motive for their madness in presenting their case in point.

I really believe the pros has proved their case. But I don't think they're done yet!

We'll see.

JMHO,
of course!
fran

Boodles
02-22-2012, 03:12 PM
OMG, these talking heads on TruTV are talking about what a "credible, good witness" JY was. It's hard to believe seasoned legal professionals could be so credulous. I thought they would have good BS detectors by now. That said, I'm sure some of them know that they can get booked on a show for being reliably pro-defense, pro-prosecution, or what have you.

I KNOW! I feel like I am hallucinating! "He's very believable." Really? His testimony (at least the direct part where he, on purpose, stuttered and repeated at the beginning of every response) was so obviously rehearsed. How difficult it must be to rehearse stuttering responses when you don't really speak that way!

He sounded like porky pig all through direct. Then on cross, where he is not reciting canned/rehearsed responses, he STOPS stuttering! What up with that?

Mike Brooks talks out of both sides of his mouth, and I discount everything he says. That Sunny woman is pro-defense and not balanced. But I like Vinnie

fran
02-22-2012, 03:13 PM
On the way to winston-salem the other day there were many wrecks. one was very bad. i easily could have imagined myself comforting the victim, and there was an actual wreck, if i wanted to impress with the story. i won't believe a word he says - due to his documented habit of lying about everything - it would have to be shown by credible 1st responders that he was on the scene.

Or perhaps, much like Batman, he slipped away into the night as authorities pulled up.

I concede there can be times when JY says something that agrees with the truth, but those are only the results of chance and probabilities, and not any motive on his part to be factual with anyone.


or, on the other hand, you can compare his emotional state at the time he discussed comforting this alleged accident victim, against when he described seeing photos of his murdered wife's body.

NO emotion! None! Zero! Like he was talking about taking a walk in the park.

That in itself says a LOT to me.

He didn't care about MY and his words are, just empty. Meaningless when he said he 'loved his wife.' :(

JMHO
fran

Lori59
02-22-2012, 03:14 PM
OMG, these talking heads on TruTV are talking about what a "credible, good witness" JY was. It's hard to believe seasoned legal professionals could be so credulous. I thought they would have good BS detectors by now. That said, I'm sure some of them know that they can get booked on a show for being reliably pro-defense, pro-prosecution, or what have you.

Credible being used in the same sentence with JY is laughable to me. Although I consider myself to have a good "read" on people...this morning I couldn't even continue to listen to his voice and turned down the volume. Even then, just watching his non verbal behavior, it is so contrived, staged, unauthentic and exaggerated.

Just the Fax
02-22-2012, 03:14 PM
Very surprised Spivey did not point out what he was carrying, in addition to the paper and water bottle?

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s216/alive695/hoteldark-1.jpg

pjcitizen
02-22-2012, 03:16 PM
Very surprised Spivey did not point out what he was carrying, in addition to the paper and water bottle?

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s216/alive695/hoteldark-1.jpg

That's what I thought he was getting at when discussing the video. What was he getting at by pointing out the item JLY walked up to the counter with? I have no clue.

Madeleine74
02-22-2012, 03:18 PM
Spivey cannot tell what JY is carrying on top of that newspaper. He's not going to speculate; he didn't in the first trial and he's not doing it here either. The detail is not clear enough.

Just the Fax
02-22-2012, 03:18 PM
IS gets case facts wrong. You cannot listen to the talking heads. They are worse than local media in terms of correctness. That way lies frustration.

I never realized it was that bad until I heard them speak of "facts" in this case.
Everyone, except that blonde attending court is clueless.
I will be very skeptical from now on when I hear these talking heads in the future.

Tipstaff
02-22-2012, 03:20 PM
Holy Mother of God it is simple why he didn't fight custody.

He wanted his daughter. He had the money. He DID NOT want to testify.

Whether guilty or innocent it is blindingly obvious his motivation. The money issue was another lie. His honest statement would have been, "I did not want to break my silence." But JY rarely does honest.

I needed that smack on the side of my head and after BC you'd think I would have gotten it! :what:

gracielee
02-22-2012, 03:20 PM
Spivey cannot tell what JY is carrying on top of that newspaper. He's not going to speculate; he didn't in the first trial and he's doing it here either. The detail is not clear enough.

I'm surprised they didn't get the FBI to attempt to *clear* that image more. Or perhaps they did and it still wasn't legible. :(

Just the Fax
02-22-2012, 03:20 PM
Spivey cannot tell what JY is carrying on top of that newspaper. He's not going to speculate; he didn't in the first trial and he's doing it here either. The detail is not clear enough.

He did indeed last trial...he speculated he had a pamplet in his hand
(before he knew it was USA Today)

He could show the picture, point out the item and let them draw their own conclusion....for me, a glove

Boodles
02-22-2012, 03:20 PM
Very surprised Spivey did not point out what he was carrying, in addition to the paper and water bottle?

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s216/alive695/hoteldark-1.jpg

Maybe HC forgot to ask him.





Sorry. I know this isn't funny.

Lori59
02-22-2012, 03:24 PM
Liars always go into great detail about the smallest thing, go on and on, how it was, what they were thinking, even recalling boyscout information......like how he says he closed the door just shown on In Session. Just sayin. He may not have talked to investigators but is an open book as far as personality traits. LIAR.

pjcitizen
02-22-2012, 03:24 PM
I'm surprised they didn't get the FBI to attempt to *clear* that image more. Or perhaps they did and it still wasn't legible. :(

Was hoping this was the case. There's always the hope of new evidence not presented in the first trial.

luckyme
02-22-2012, 03:33 PM
I really hope the smoking gun is coming because otherwise, it takes one juror!!!:innocent:

Grammy Jean
02-22-2012, 03:33 PM
That's what I thought he was getting at when discussing the video. What was he getting at by pointing out the item JLY walked up to the counter with? I have no clue.

What I thought he was indicating was looking at JY prior to going up to the counter and then seconds later going away from the counter he was inferring the exact same things were in JY's hands both times. To me that meant JY lied and did not get a USA Today at that counter. That is what I took from it.

Madeleine74
02-22-2012, 03:36 PM
Very true about the excruciating details used by liars.

Someone who remembers little things down to the butt lint level 5 yrs after a seemingly innocuous hotel visit but doesn't remember the major stuff is not credible.

PoppyMcTwist
02-22-2012, 03:36 PM
That's what I thought he was getting at when discussing the video. What was he getting at by pointing out the item JLY walked up to the counter with? I have no clue.

All I know is, my heart was pounding during that video testimony.

Madeleine74
02-22-2012, 03:37 PM
Just remember: every little thing they are showing and having Spivey comment on is a lie told by JY in his testimony in trial #1. Big lie, little lie, they are pointing out his lies, one by one by one.

There is no one big smoking gun! It's the totality of the evidence. It's the many, many lies. If you are waiting for the big Perry Mason moment followed by dramatic music...you will be disappointed. Circumstantial evidence cases are made up of many pieces. This is where having common sense is vital. The state will put it all together in context during closing arguments (hopefully). They can't do it now...they can only introduce evidence and have the witness testify to what each item means to them.

fran
02-22-2012, 03:37 PM
LE will tell you that perps, 'often give out information, before they're even asked.'

fran

gracielee
02-22-2012, 03:37 PM
Do I detect a bit of *worry* on our boys face???

fifteen89
02-22-2012, 03:38 PM
Not sure the money proves what he could afford. I agree with someone else here that legal fees could eat through this amount pretty quickly. He also had no way to produce new income, so he may have been considering that as well.

I also don't see how it really impacts motive. Depends on if the jury thinks $24,000 - $60,000 is a lot of money.

Not to mention that he could most likely see at least a teensy tiny bit of a likelihood that he might need a lawyer to represent him in the investigation into the murder of his wife and unborn child.

Yeah, still not seeing this as anything more than, well, nothing. Sure, his REASON for not fighting for custody might actually, technially be a lie, but I'll let the defense have this one. jmt

thumbtack
02-22-2012, 03:39 PM
If we have no idea what the pros are getting at, they (we) are in trouble. Gritguy, please cancel plans & go there & take over for the pros - before JY walks!

Cammy
02-22-2012, 03:39 PM
We are back !!

I am waiting for the gloves to come in.

Now, that is going to be BIG......:biggrin:

pjcitizen
02-22-2012, 03:40 PM
What I thought he was indicating was looking at JY prior to going up to the counter and then seconds later going away from the counter he was inferring the exact same things were in JY's hands both times. To me that meant JY lied and did not get a USA Today at that counter. That is what I took from it.

Thanks. I know it does show deception but as long as that took, I thought it would be a much something much more significant.

otto
02-22-2012, 03:40 PM
Are we going to hear that the power cord was packed with the computer bag?

pjcitizen
02-22-2012, 03:41 PM
All I know is, my heart was pounding during that video testimony.

Mine too!

octobermoon
02-22-2012, 03:41 PM
What was that sign Dave/David for? TIA

thumbtack
02-22-2012, 03:42 PM
Just remember: every little thing they are showing and having Spivey comment on is a lie told by JY in his testimony in trial #1. Big lie, little lie, they are pointing out his lies, one by one by one.

There is no one big smoking gun! It's the totality of the evidence. It's the many, many lies. If you are waiting for the big Perry Mason moment followed by dramatic music...you will be disappointed. Circumstantial evidence cases are made up of many pieces. This is where having common sense is vital. The state will put it all together in context during closing arguments (hopefully). They can't do it now...they can only introduce evidence and have the witness testify to what each item means to them.

Agree, but the pros delivery leaves much to be desired. Hope they aren't losing the jurors.

Cammy
02-22-2012, 03:43 PM
Are we going to hear that the power cord was packed with the computer bag?


They are going to allude to that, but there is no way of knowing where it was that nite......a little sneaky, lol.

Jason could have been charging it in the car while he was driving, for all we know..

cityslick
02-22-2012, 03:43 PM
Adventures in unzipping a laptop bag.....

NCEast
02-22-2012, 03:43 PM
After the video/audio of JY's first trial testimony ended this morning, could HC, before beginning with Spivey, turn to the jury and say something along these lines...'now I am going to dispute the many lies of JY in his testimony and we'll go one by one". Would that have been possible? Would it have made the jury more receptive?

Grammy Jean
02-22-2012, 03:44 PM
Why in the world would his lap top charger be in the car and not in the computer bag that night?!

cityslick
02-22-2012, 03:44 PM
After the video/audio of JY's first trial testimony ended this morning, could HC, before beginning with Spivey, turn to the jury and say something along these lines...'now I am going to dispute the many lies of JY in his testimony and we'll go one by one". Would that have been possible? Would it have made the jury more receptive?

I don't think he can do that (address the jury directly). That's only for opening and closing arguments.

otto
02-22-2012, 03:45 PM
Spivey testifying that his job is to collect evidence and make it available to defense either through evidence room or through prosecution.

gritguy
02-22-2012, 03:46 PM
To be clear on this thing about him giving up his daughter, I can agree the money was important to him though saving his butt by not testifying was obviously his pole star the last several years.

But money yes. I can see him thinking his daughter was not worth what it might cost. He's that kind of guy.

Lori59
02-22-2012, 03:46 PM
Very true about the excruciating details used by liars.

Someone who remembers little things down to the butt lint level 5 yrs after a seemingly innocuous hotel visit but doesn't remember the major stuff is not credible.

Yep, they use insignificant details and many words about NOTHING hoping one will see it as an answer...who cares what you were thinking as you close a door and how you touched the door and heard the door and thought about the door??? It is just a door you opened...not what we are concerned about!

luckyme
02-22-2012, 03:47 PM
Just remember: every little thing they are showing and having Spivey comment on is a lie told by JY in his testimony in trial #1. Big lie, little lie, they are pointing out his lies, one by one by one.

There is no one big smoking gun! It's the totality of the evidence. It's the many, many lies. If you are waiting for the big Perry Mason moment followed by dramatic music...you will be disappointed. Circumstantial evidence cases are made up of many pieces. This is where having common sense is vital. The state will put it all together in context during closing arguments (hopefully). They can't do it now...they can only introduce evidence and have the witness testify to what each item means to them.

Sorry im just getting frustrated! :waiting:

NCEast
02-22-2012, 03:47 PM
Originally Posted by NCEast View Post
After the video/audio of JY's first trial testimony ended this morning, could HC, before beginning with Spivey, turn to the jury and say something along these lines...'now I am going to dispute the many lies of JY in his testimony and we'll go one by one". Would that have been possible? Would it have made the jury more receptive?

I don't think he can do that (address the jury directly). That's only for opening and closing arguments.

Thank you CS. He could have said it to Spivey though perhaps? It would have gotten the jury's attention.

otto
02-22-2012, 03:48 PM
Why in the world would his lap top charger be in the car and not in the computer bag that night?!

Power cords and internet cables are always being left behind when people pack up their computers ... Jason may have packed up without the cord and thrown it in his car as an after thought.

gritguy
02-22-2012, 03:48 PM
After the video/audio of JY's first trial testimony ended this morning, could HC, before beginning with Spivey, turn to the jury and say something along these lines...'now I am going to dispute the many lies of JY in his testimony and we'll go one by one". Would that have been possible? Would it have made the jury more receptive?

He can't do that (make any sort of argument). He can only introduce evidence and query the witnesses. However, if you can't introduce a little argument through your questions, you should turn in your argyle socks. :rocker:

luckyme
02-22-2012, 03:49 PM
Power cords and internet cables are always being left behind when people pack up their computers ... Jason may have packed up with the cord and thrown it in his car as an after thought.

Im so famous for that!!!!:innocent:

cityslick
02-22-2012, 03:50 PM
Originally Posted by NCEast View Post
After the video/audio of JY's first trial testimony ended this morning, could HC, before beginning with Spivey, turn to the jury and say something along these lines...'now I am going to dispute the many lies of JY in his testimony and we'll go one by one". Would that have been possible? Would it have made the jury more receptive?


Thank you CS. He could have said it to Spivey though perhaps? It would have gotten the jury's attention.

Probably. I guess I assumed the questioning was going to be similar (and effective) to how Det. Daniels was questioned in the BC trial but this feels nothing like that. It's hard to explain.

Cammy
02-22-2012, 03:50 PM
Sorry im just getting frustrated! :waiting:

Me too, maybe they are saving something, do you think?

gritguy
02-22-2012, 03:50 PM
I don't think he can do that (address the jury directly). That's only for opening and closing arguments.

And to expand that, the opening is a statement (forecast of evidence only) and the closing is an argument (mostly anything goes).

Grammy Jean
02-22-2012, 03:51 PM
He did indeed last trial...he speculated he had a pamplet in his hand
(before he knew it was USA Today)

He could show the picture, point out the item and let them draw their own conclusion....for me, a glove

JTF I commented to another post this way but what do you think of my observations below about why they showed those photos of JY approaching the counter and then seconds later leaving the counter.

What I thought he was indicating was looking at JY prior to going up to the counter and then seconds later going away from the counter he was pointing out that the exact same things were in JY's hands both times. To me that meant JY lied and did not get a USA Today at that counter. That is what I took from it.
Edit/Delete Message

luckyme
02-22-2012, 03:52 PM
Me too, maybe they are saving something, do you think?

Beats me! I can only hope.:seeya:

Just the Fax
02-22-2012, 03:52 PM
They are going to allude to that, but there is no way of knowing where it was that nite......a little sneaky, lol.

Jason could have been charging it in the car while he was driving, for all we know..

Huh?

How do you use an AC charger he needed in the hotel, in the car?

Cammy
02-22-2012, 03:53 PM
Before Det. Spivey became involved in this case, I remember him saying that he was sent to the funeral home to observe behavior, so, he has been pretty much on this since Day 1.

fifteen89
02-22-2012, 03:54 PM
Power cords and internet cables are always being left behind when people pack up their computers ... Jason may have packed up with the cord and thrown it in his car as an after thought.

That's just it. Each and every piece of the puzzle might have a 'he could have just....' explanation that's somewhat believable, but there are soooooooo many of those pieces it just becomes nearly impossible to believe ALL of them happened....let alone that they ALL happened on THE VERY NIGHT his wife was brutally murdered. (i.e. the door propped open, the camera turned up - and that just HAPPENED to occur at the very hotel he says he stayed at, and again on that very night.......the missing shirt that he just HAPPENED to wear that very night........) jmt

gritguy
02-22-2012, 03:54 PM
Huh?

How do you use an AC charger he needed in the hotel, in the car?

I used to roll with an inverter to charge up stuff or run the laptop w/ an aircard during boring rides. let's you plug an ac device in to your dc system.

Madeleine74
02-22-2012, 03:55 PM
Testimony is often tedious and boring and not at all like they make it look on procedural crime shows or law type shows. Wait and then tune in during closing arguments if you are waiting for something that pulls it together.

fifteen89
02-22-2012, 03:55 PM
"Did you talk to Mark?"
"I left him a message."

LOL! Who's Mark?

Just the Fax
02-22-2012, 03:55 PM
JTF I commented to another post this way but what do you think of my observations below about why they showed those photos of JY approaching the counter and then seconds later leaving the counter.

What I thought he was indicating was looking at JY prior to going up to the counter and then seconds later going away from the counter he was pointing out that the exact same things were in JY's hands both times. To me that meant JY lied and did not get a USA Today at that counter. That is what I took from it.
Edit/Delete Message

he had something in his hand at the counter besides the water...he did key on that.
I have no idea what it was?

Boodles
02-22-2012, 03:56 PM
Unfortunately for the jury (and us), it appears the prosecutors did not have coffee (or Red Bull) for lunch. Yawn...

HC should be convicted of taking too long to phrase a freakin' question and inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on the jurors.

thumbtack
02-22-2012, 03:56 PM
Man, are they (pros) slow. Didn't they just try this case a year ago? They make Gracie seem like a genius. (sorry, i'm done complaining.......for now).

Cammy
02-22-2012, 03:56 PM
Beats me! I can only hope.:seeya:

Who knows?

I bet the defense is feeling a whole lot better..there was no big moment in Jason's testimony after all !!

:woohoo:

luckyme
02-22-2012, 03:57 PM
Jasons phone had to be dead all the time! as much as he talked on it! My friend is the same way! I bet all that talking drained his battery!!! He had to charge that sucker constantly!!!!! moo

mck16
02-22-2012, 03:57 PM
Man, are they (pros) slow. Didn't they just try this case a year ago? They make Gracie seem like a genius. (sorry, i'm done complaining.......for now).

What is going on right now?

cityslick
02-22-2012, 03:57 PM
Wow, that's it????

otto
02-22-2012, 03:57 PM
Cross ...

Grammy Jean
02-22-2012, 03:57 PM
That's IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cammy
02-22-2012, 03:58 PM
Man, are they (pros) slow. Didn't they just try this case a year ago? They make Gracie seem like a genius. (sorry, i'm done complaining.......for now).


There is no excuse for this.

All the whispering and being disorganized.

Here comes the defense!!

luckyme
02-22-2012, 03:59 PM
Wow, that's it????

unfortunately!!!! :razz:

pjcitizen
02-22-2012, 03:59 PM
That's just it. Each and every piece of the puzzle might have a 'he could have just....' explanation that's somewhat believable, but there are soooooooo many of those pieces it just becomes nearly impossible to believe ALL of them happened....let alone that they ALL happened on THE VERY NIGHT his wife was brutally murdered. (i.e. the door propped open, the camera turned up - and that just HAPPENED to occur at the very hotel he says he stayed at, and again on that very night.......the missing shirt that he just HAPPENED to wear that very night........) jmt

:goodpost:

cityslick
02-22-2012, 03:59 PM
I'm sorry guys, but that was weak. I think the guy is guilty, but you got to do a better job with the lead detective there.

NCEast
02-22-2012, 03:59 PM
Damn, I cannot believe this.

Cammy
02-22-2012, 04:00 PM
Cross ...

OMG, they are done with Spivey???

Huh??

:confused:

Where are the gloves ?

:eek:

Madeleine74
02-22-2012, 04:00 PM
WEAK ending right there w/Spivey.

otto
02-22-2012, 04:01 PM
OMG, they are done with Spivey???

Huh??

:confused:

Where are the gloves ?

:eek:

There aren't any.

gracielee
02-22-2012, 04:01 PM
I'm in my third book in the Girl With The Dragon Tattoo trilogy. Last night when I was reading, I came upon one of the investigators remarking to the effect of 'how many coincidences does it take before they become too numerous to concede they are not simply coincidences?' I sat up and took notice.

otto
02-22-2012, 04:02 PM
Approaching the witness ... talking about camera unplugged at 11:20 ..

Wolfpack
02-22-2012, 04:02 PM
Is Spivey still thought to be the last witness?

NCB
02-22-2012, 04:02 PM
Omgoodness--I dozed off--that was it?? I hoped I missed something really exciting, but fear I did not. I heard a lot of dead air space when I occasionally came to reply to the ever-annoying WRAL refresh thingy.

I'll eagerly review your after lunch posts for the Perry Mason moment.

luckyme
02-22-2012, 04:03 PM
I'm in my third book in the Girl With The Dragon Tattoo trilogy. Last night when I was reading, I came upon one of the investigators remarking to the effect of 'how many coincidences does it take before they become too numerous to concede they are not simply coincidences?' I sat up and took notice.

We can only hope gracie!!!

fifteen89
02-22-2012, 04:03 PM
Kinda ironic (very sad) that Spivey is the one being grilled about all of Jason's lies.....unless he takes the stand again.

cityslick
02-22-2012, 04:03 PM
Gee, I don't even know if they need him to take the stand again now.

otto
02-22-2012, 04:03 PM
Camera on first floor at west end of hotel ... that's the one that went black ... there are 7 different cameras on first floor ... one at front desk, one at elevators ... two at West end ... total of 10 cameras ... all on 14 second cycle ...

thumbtack
02-22-2012, 04:04 PM
Omgoodness--I dozed off--that was it?? I hoped I missed something really exciting, but fear I did not. I heard a lot of dead air space when I occasionally came to reply to the ever-annoying WRAL refresh thingy.

I'll eagerly review your after lunch posts for the Perry Mason moment.

you might as well go back to sleep

otto
02-22-2012, 04:05 PM
Suggesting that someone would have to know the cameras were on a 14 second cycle to know the times to avoid being seen ... yet Jason wouldn't have known that.

luckyme
02-22-2012, 04:05 PM
Gee, I don't even know if they need him to take the stand again now.

I hope he does! but i dont think he will!!!!!

otto
02-22-2012, 04:06 PM
Making the point that there are no other pictures of Jason wandering around the hotel or looking at the camera of the monitors behind the front desk. Jason's computers were searched and he didn't search the floor plan for the hotel, how security cameras operated ... etc.

Wolfpack
02-22-2012, 04:06 PM
Can someone please post updates for those of us who can't watch? Pretty please?

Now seeing Otto's posts. Thank you Otto!!

NCB
02-22-2012, 04:08 PM
So, you legal eagles out there--would you take the advantage of presenting the final argument and fore go putting on a case? I would think his attorneys are really tempted at this point.

otto
02-22-2012, 04:08 PM
Jason on the phone until 11:11, camera black at 11:20 ... 9 minute gap ... cameras on every floor ... no video of him going to West end ... but there wouldn't be because camera is pointed at elevator ... no video of him captured on any cameras ... no video of him walking up to camera to pull plug.

NCEast
02-22-2012, 04:09 PM
Can someone please post updates for those of us who can't watch? Pretty please?

Now seeing Otto's posts. Thank you Otto!!

The defense is now crossing Spivey. Spivey has held his own a few times. The defense style is so much better--articulate and well phrased questions without long pauses and eerrs, ahmmm, etc. Showing Spivey pictures of the hotel and asking about the layout and camera placement.

fran
02-22-2012, 04:11 PM
It's called staging, him standing in front of the camera.

just sayin'
fran

otto
02-22-2012, 04:11 PM
Theory is that Jason unplugged camera so he would not be seen re-entering hotel ... showing picture of Jason at front desk at 11:59:11. Making point that Jason is standing at desk, no hat, no disguise ... standing in plain view ... looks like he's trying to communicate with someone ... objection - speculative ... sustained ... Young testified he went to desk to get newspaper so he's not only standing in front of camera, but in front of camera ... objection ... sustained. Point being that if someone saw him there that person would be potential witness.

Several purchases - no gas - at same time. Suggests lots of activity in store when $15 entry made.

Lori59
02-22-2012, 04:11 PM
JY was seen at the counter of the hotel cuz he thought that would enhance his alibi being at the hotel...

cityslick
02-22-2012, 04:12 PM
He can't say didn't have good representation. This lawyer is a very good attorney.

Just the Fax
02-22-2012, 04:12 PM
I used to roll with an inverter to charge up stuff or run the laptop w/ an aircard during boring rides. let's you plug an ac device in to your dc system.

nope...there was not one in the car...cig plug only

otto
02-22-2012, 04:12 PM
Talking about time that rock was kicked out ... it is state's contention that Young stopped at gas station at 5:27 AM ...Spivey says 5:30.

luckyme
02-22-2012, 04:13 PM
It's called staging, him standing in front of the camera.

just sayin'
fran

Yes i believe so too! just like gas station and walked in front of car to clean windows!!! I just wanted this jury to have no doubt!!!! :(

Wolfpack
02-22-2012, 04:15 PM
So, you legal eagles out there--would you take the advantage of presenting the final argument and fore go putting on a case? I would think his attorneys are really tempted at this point.

Not at this point. In my opinion, they need to put on evidence, particularly the witness who saw the bushy haired woman.

otto
02-22-2012, 04:15 PM
Spivey says camera plugged in at 5:30. Hicks kicked rock out before Young returned to hotel. Says there are no photos of Young in the morning. No one can get in from West door after rock kicked out. No pictures of Jason in elevator or entering hotel after rock was kicked out ... not at any of the 7 cameras on main floor ... no witness testimony that he was running into hotel in early morning hours.

It seems that the west doors were indeed locked after the rock was kicked out ... even at 6:30 am.

luckyme
02-22-2012, 04:16 PM
Defense is so much better than pros!!!! moo :banghead:

janesdean
02-22-2012, 04:16 PM
these points Klink has made are weak imo, just filling the air with noise.

otto
02-22-2012, 04:18 PM
Travel route discussed ... took the trip a couple of times ... took trip from Raleigh to Clintwood ... where he had 10 AM apt. ... where Jason was 30 minutes late. Spivey used same mapquest map and found out where abouts Jason got lost ... objection ... sustained ... Spivey learned Jason got lost, he tried to recreate his trip, in following the mapquest map was that the directions near Clintwood ... there was an interchange that was under construction and it took time to figure out what to do. Spivey got lost, the someone that took the trip after the murder didn't get lost.

janesdean
02-22-2012, 04:18 PM
Yes i believe so too! just like gas station and walked in front of car to clean windows!!! I just wanted this jury to have no doubt!!!! :(

Yep, plenty of staging by the defendants team and the defendant himself, shady characters those Brevardians !!!

otto
02-22-2012, 04:18 PM
The prosecution is objecting a lot ... suggests to me that they don't want certain information to be presented to jury.

luckyme
02-22-2012, 04:18 PM
these points Klink has made are weak imo, just filling the air with noise.

Hes not leaving dead air! worries me! moo

janesdean
02-22-2012, 04:19 PM
Defense is so much better than pros!!!! moo :banghead:

I am not impressed at all by Klinks questioning of Spivey, imo, the defense has already lost this case. There is an over abundance of incriminating evidence against Jason Young, and the defense is not going to be able to overcome it.

cityslick
02-22-2012, 04:20 PM
these points Klink has made are weak imo, just filling the air with noise.

The flow of it is moving though, keeping the jury engaged. Unlike the PT.

janesdean
02-22-2012, 04:20 PM
Hes not leaving dead air! worries me! moo

I think he "sounds" like he's gonna make a good point, but they are fizzling in comparison to what has already been testified against JY>

cityslick
02-22-2012, 04:20 PM
I am not impressed at all by Klinks questioning of Spivey, imo, the defense has already lost this case. There is an over abundance of incriminating evidence against Jason Young, and the defense is not going to be able to overcome it.

Was this not the case during the first trial?

happy2binNC
02-22-2012, 04:21 PM
I'm so disappointed in the prosecution team right now. I had high hopes that JLY would take the stand again and they would pummel him with hard questions and expose his lies. After the awful direct on Spivey I hope JLY DOESN'T take the stand, because I think they'll completely blow their opportunity again. Are they really best we have in Wake County?

Cammy
02-22-2012, 04:21 PM
Wow, the Pros is objecting to everything.

Here comes stuff about Gracie.

Omg, look at how many times Spivey talked to her!!

6 visits.

otto
02-22-2012, 04:21 PM
Rephrase ... Jason's phone made call to mom at 7:46 AM off a tower west of Virginia or something ... Spivey doesn't recall ...

Spivey went to 4 Brothers and met with gas attendant ... he spoke with her on several occassions: May 30/07, April 8/09, Oct 29/09, Spivey needs help to remember dates ... May 4/11, Feb 3/12.

janesdean
02-22-2012, 04:22 PM
Was this not the case during the first trial?

Absolutely NOT ! The Pros brought in about 1/4 or less the amount of evidence they have in this one ! And, there was really no compelling testimony.

luckyme
02-22-2012, 04:22 PM
The flow of it is moving though, keeping the jury engaged. Unlike the PT.

Exactly!!!!! :waitasec:

Wolfpack
02-22-2012, 04:23 PM
Wow, the Pros is objecting to everything.

Here comes stuff about Gracie.

Omg, look at how many times Spivey talked to her!!

6 visits.

What is the basis of their objections?

Just the Fax
02-22-2012, 04:24 PM
glad I am out and can't watch this.
can't believe this PT is so weak. these are supposed to be the top 2...geez
He may walk because of their incompetence.

mck16
02-22-2012, 04:24 PM
I'm so disappointed in the prosecution team right now. I had high hopes that JLY would take the stand again and they would pummel him with hard questions and expose his lies. After the awful direct on Spivey I hope JLY DOESN'T take the stand, because I think they'll completely blow their opportunity again. Are they really best we have in Wake County?

Doesn't the defense have to put him on the stand? thanks.

otto
02-22-2012, 04:24 PM
May/07, she gave description of customer - shirt, no coat, blond hair, blue jeans. That was only time she provided description to Spivey. She never gave another description ... didn't describe height, weight, lots or little hair, eye color, facial features ... never further described clothing. She also mentioned another person in store when customer cursed at her ... claimed it was a regular customer ...she said that regular customer discussed the curser with her ...

janesdean
02-22-2012, 04:24 PM
The flow of it is moving though, keeping the jury engaged. Unlike the PT.

There is no way of knowing whether or not the jury is "engaged" as we can't see them ! LOL !

Wolfpack
02-22-2012, 04:25 PM
Doesn't the defense have to put him on the stand? thanks.

Yes, they do.

luckyme
02-22-2012, 04:27 PM
Yes, they do.

I wouldnt put him on the stand!!!! moo

CarolinaMoon
02-22-2012, 04:27 PM
Been watching and reading. I really understand what folks said about the PT today. Their "big" points needed a sharpener.

Turnadot
02-22-2012, 04:27 PM
Yes, they do.
Why?

I doubt they will. The PT was weak wrt JY's prior testimony. So far I don't see a reason to put him back on the stand.

IMO

NCEast
02-22-2012, 04:27 PM
glad I am out and can't watch this.
can't believe this PT is so weak. these are supposed to be the top 2...geez
He may walk because of their incompetence.

I have been thinking the very same thing. I hope both BH and HC retire after this case. They simply just don't have what it takes in my very humble opinion.

Cammy
02-22-2012, 04:27 PM
May/07, she gave description of customer - shirt, no coat, blond hair, blue jeans. That was only time she provided description to Spivey. She never gave another description ... didn't describe height, weight, lots or little hair, eye color, facial features ... never further described clothing. She also mentioned another person in store when customer cursed at her ... claimed it was a regular customer ...she said that regular customer discussed the curser with her ...

:eek:
Ut oh, here we go !!

Look at all the customers that were in there right near the same time!!

Wolfpack
02-22-2012, 04:28 PM
Why?

I doubt they will. The PT was weak wrt JY's prior testimony. So far I don't see a reason to put him back on the stand.

IMO

I was responding to the post asking if the defense team was the one to put them on the stand, not the prosecution. In other words, the prosecution can't put him on the stand, the defense has to.

He doesn't HAVE to take the stand by any means. But only one side can do it.

octobermoon
02-22-2012, 04:28 PM
I think he did it. But now think he will get another hung jury.

The pros is out lawyered.

JMO

johnfear
02-22-2012, 04:28 PM
glad I am out and can't watch this.
can't believe this PT is so weak. these are supposed to be the top 2...geez
He may walk because of their incompetence.

That's an extremely accurate assessment of why I am so mad on all of this.

It's become a "see who can poke bigger holes in the life raft of the others" type of mess.

dmaxphil
02-22-2012, 04:29 PM
This guy is good

Cammy
02-22-2012, 04:29 PM
I wouldnt put him on the stand!!!! moo



There is no reason for him to take the stand now.

The Jurors saw him , the Pros blew it.

otto
02-22-2012, 04:29 PM
... and the phone rings ... here

nursebeeme
02-22-2012, 04:30 PM
legal question and answer thread **no discussion** - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

reposting link to legal q and a thread (if anyone has a question they would like a verified atty to answer post it here... big thanks to gritguy who is a verified attorney!)

Turnadot
02-22-2012, 04:30 PM
I was responding to the post asking if the defense team was the one to put them on the stand, not the prosecution. In other words, the prosecution can't put him on the stand, the defense has to.

He doesn't HAVE to take the stand by any means. But only one side can do it.
Sorry, I misunderstood the question to mean: does the defense have to put Jason on the stand to muffle the damage.

NCEast
02-22-2012, 04:30 PM
There is no reason for him to take the stand now.

The Jurors saw him , the Pros blew it.

Yep, they blew it *****again*****.

happy2binNC
02-22-2012, 04:30 PM
Doesn't the defense have to put him on the stand? thanks.

That's what I mean. I originally hoped the defense would put him on the stand again but now I'm afraid if he does testify the PT will blow it. Again.

luckyme
02-22-2012, 04:31 PM
I think he did it. But now think he will get another hung jury.

The pros is out lawyered.

JMO

I so totally agree!!!!! :seeya:

Cammy
02-22-2012, 04:31 PM
Klinkosum talking about all the efforts that LE took to find the regular customer!!

Set up cameras for 60 days !!

They never showed the tapes to Gracie, so, why did they set up cameras?

Customer always came in between 5 and 5:30 am.

Cammy
02-22-2012, 04:32 PM
OMG, they have had all this time to show her the tapes.............and they still didn't do it, even since the first trial.

Turnadot
02-22-2012, 04:33 PM
I feel like I want to throw something.

luckyme
02-22-2012, 04:33 PM
We will see Mr young in the papers again one day! moo!!!!!:twocents:

Cammy
02-22-2012, 04:34 PM
Now, we are moving on to the Ebay papers.

Oops, no they aren't.

They are going back to Gracie :woohoo:

octobermoon
02-22-2012, 04:35 PM
Klinkosum has taken the focus off of JY and put all doubt on Gracie and LE procedures.

(he is very good) JMO

Cammy
02-22-2012, 04:35 PM
They are talking about what Gracie told them at the pre~trial hearing, and how she said he only had a little bit of hair.....

Just the Fax
02-22-2012, 04:35 PM
Dream team at taxpayers expense ....lovely

luckyme
02-22-2012, 04:36 PM
Klinkosum has taken the focus off of JY and put all doubt on Gracie and LE procedures.

(he is very good) JMO

sad!!!!!! :rollercoaster:

Tipstaff
02-22-2012, 04:36 PM
The only chance the PT team has is to wrap a guilty verdict up is in closing arguments with a nice big bow and hope the jury forgets this part of the trial.

The PT gave JY a free pass playing his previous testimony and after this debacle he does NOT have to testify again.

I believe that JY is guilty and feel the PT has not put the case together in a compelling way. JMO

NCEast
02-22-2012, 04:37 PM
Spivey is responding to the defense with a defeated tone in his voice.

nursebeeme
02-22-2012, 04:37 PM
the prosecution did not rest yet, correct? So maybe they still have something planned?

(yes, I am the glass half full type)

cityslick
02-22-2012, 04:37 PM
HC better have some serious ammo on redirect. This is horrible way to wrap up the states case if he's the last witness.

octobermoon
02-22-2012, 04:37 PM
If Klinkosum was the pros. JY would be sitting in jail right now.

Turnadot
02-22-2012, 04:38 PM
I'm loathe to say this, but this cross is so well done.

Boodles
02-22-2012, 04:38 PM
Are they trying to imply that the killer messed with the e-Bay papers?

Cammy
02-22-2012, 04:38 PM
Fingerprints on the Ebay papers.........
L E has all officers fingerprints on file......
No one has submitted any prints since the last trial.
The prints are still unidentifiable.

Spivey took over the case in April 07.

Det. Brent David was the original investigator.

Man, Klinkosum is racking up points !!

Now, they are talking about CY and how she was discovered!!

Grammy Jean
02-22-2012, 04:38 PM
So is this going to be Klink pointing finger about the truthfulness of MF?

Turnadot
02-22-2012, 04:39 PM
the prosecution did not rest yet, correct? So maybe they still have something planned?

(yes, I am the glass half full type)
Thanks for this post. I feel a little better, at least.

dmaxphil
02-22-2012, 04:39 PM
Are they trying to imply that the killer messed with the e-Bay papers?

Possibly. Unknown prints on eBay papers

luckyme
02-22-2012, 04:39 PM
the prosecution did not rest yet, correct? So maybe they still have something planned?

(yes, I am the glass half full type)

I am usually too!!!! :please:

Tipstaff
02-22-2012, 04:39 PM
If it were a stranger that killed MY it seems plausible that CY would have hidden and NOT come out and the family or police would have had to search for her because she would have been terrified of a stranger.

Just the Fax
02-22-2012, 04:39 PM
The only chance the PT team has is to wrap a guilty verdict up is in closing arguments with a nice big bow and hope the jury forgets this part of the trial.

The PT gave JY a free pass playing his previous testimony and after this debacle he does NOT have to testify again.

I believe that JY is guilty and feel the PT has not put the case together in a compelling way. JMO

no confidence in that, im afraid.
Boz convicted BC....HC had a terrible closing.
we know what To expect from BH.
I feel for the Fisher family. They deserved much more.

Boodles
02-22-2012, 04:40 PM
I'm loathe to say this, but this cross is so well done.

By contrast, it's fantastic. But that's b/c the pros was torture. Just having a normal flow is such a relief. I honestly cannot tell whether the content is significant yet.

Spivey needs to keep his spirits up and not look or act defeated. He has good evidence. I wish I could give him an attaboy - he seems to need it.

Can Becky re-direct instead of HC?

dmaxphil
02-22-2012, 04:41 PM
I don't know about this. If I was Klink I'm not sure I'd call in to question the honesty of MF. Jury may not like that.. We'll see

cityslick
02-22-2012, 04:42 PM
I hate to keep comparing the BC case, and I'm sure Spivey is a great detective, but this testimony compared to Det. Daniels in that case is so different in terms of effectiveness, it's not even fair.

Mama-cita
02-22-2012, 04:44 PM
Wow! There are a bunch of Debbie Downers in here! I am going to, for the moment, have faith, and give the jury who is hearing this case for the first time the benefit of the doubt that they will weigh all the EVIDENCE that is being presented. Not the umms, not the dragging out the questions, the evidence. Television has really skewed the way people see the world. People are waiting for the AHA moment because that's what happens in "Law and Order," everything so cut, dry and dramatic!! Even on these stupid medical drama shows, people get false hope because they see some pretend surgeons successfully resect a brain tumor that is fatal 99.9% of the time. But people think that's how it works in real life. It doesn't. At the end of the day these jurors will weigh the evidence. And they will have to decide whether to discount the myriad of LIES this defendant has told, the coincidences that either prove he is a murderer or that he is the unluckiest man in the history of men, and decide his fate because that is our system of law. I am hoping they are diligent about their task and have no choice but to assume they are. Much will depend on the foreperson they elect because the last dude was a staunch NG, and he argued people to vote his way (wasn't it initially 6-6 then they deliberated more and it ended at 8-4?); also the Anthony foreman (I use the word man very loosely there), was a staunch NG that was able to persuade the others.

nursebeeme
02-22-2012, 04:44 PM
also we have yet to hear this "new evidence" that was alluded to right after lunch, correct?

SailorMoon
02-22-2012, 04:44 PM
Oh man, clean up, aisle 2, clean up, aisle 2. I'm discouraged.......

ncsu95
02-22-2012, 04:45 PM
This is what I was afraid of with showing the previous testimony. He got to testify again without additional cross...and there were very few inconsistencies pointed out by Spivey. In my opinion, that was a horrible mistake. After watching the BC trial and this trial twice, I have no faith at all in the wake country district attorney office.

Cammy
02-22-2012, 04:45 PM
I'm loathe to say this, but this cross is so well done.

It is because they are prepared and studied the case.

They did not even come on board until Jason was arrested,

Becky Holt was not only involved in the case since the very beginning,
it was said that she was the reason the arrest was held up for years.

Cummings has been involved on a lesser basis, until this year.

The other Pros lead was David Saaks, he was good !!

nursebeeme
02-22-2012, 04:46 PM
Wow! There are a bunch of Debbie Downers in here! I am going to, for the moment, have faith, and give the jury who is hearing this case for the first time the benefit of the doubt that they will weigh all the EVIDENCE that is being presented. Not the umms, not the dragging out the questions, the evidence. Television has really skewed the way people see the world. People are waiting for the AHA moment because that's what happens in "Law and Order," everything so cut, dry and dramatic!! Even on these stupid medical drama shows, people get false hope because they see some pretend surgeons successfully resect a brain tumor that is fatal 99.9% of the time. But people think that's how it works in real life. It doesn't. At the end of the day these jurors will weigh the evidence. And they will have to decide whether to discount the myriad of LIES this defendant has told, the coincidences that either prove he is a murderer or that he is the unluckiest man in the history of men, and decide his fate because that is our system of law. I am hoping they are diligent about their task and have no choice but to assume they are. Much will depend on the foreperson they elect because the last dude was a staunch NG, and he argued people to vote his way (wasn't it initially 6-6 then they deliberated more and it ended at 8-4?); also the Anthony foreman (I use the word man very loosely there), was a staunch NG that was able to persuade the others.

amen mama-cita! :thanks: wasn't enough

Grammy Jean
02-22-2012, 04:47 PM
no confidence in that, im afraid.
Boz convicted BC....HC had a terrible closing.
we know what To expect from BH.
I feel for the Fisher family. They deserved much more.

I so remember HC's closing in BC case before his finger on the neck drama he was at the podium flipping through notes nothing in his thinking organized in no way did he paint the pic. or put anything together, like Boz did. I am very worried for this team's closing.

kljohnson0458
02-22-2012, 04:48 PM
I hate to keep comparing the BC case, and I'm sure Spivey is a great detective, but this testimony compared to Det. Daniels in that case is so different in terms of effectiveness, it's not even fair.

I watched the BC trial with almost all of you and I agree, he can't hold a candle to Daniels. O/T, but what was the hunky ones name?????????? He was too cute.

thumbtack
02-22-2012, 04:48 PM
i agree w/ Turnadot - i wanna throw something

Madeleine74
02-22-2012, 04:49 PM
I watched the BC trial with almost all of you and I agree, he can't hold a candle to Daniels. O/T, but what was the hunky ones name?????????? He was too cute.

Det. Jim Young

Cammy
02-22-2012, 04:49 PM
Do we know for sure Spivey is the last state's witness?

I am curious about the last search warrant that was issued last Nov.....looking into their financial issues.

What happened to that?

There has to be more.

luckyme
02-22-2012, 04:49 PM
I will never predict a jury!!!! lol Boy did i learn my lesson, but im really concerned here! Maybe i will be shocked!!!! :seeya:

happy2binNC
02-22-2012, 04:50 PM
Mama-cita, I hope you are correct!!!

Boodles
02-22-2012, 04:50 PM
PY is such an enabler. I bet their finances are interestingly intertwined.

Grammy Jean
02-22-2012, 04:50 PM
I watched the BC trial with almost all of you and I agree, he can't hold a candle to Daniels. O/T, but what was the hunky ones name?????????? He was too cute.

Jim Young

NCEast
02-22-2012, 04:51 PM
Wow! There are a bunch of Debbie Downers in here! I am going to, for the moment, have faith, and give the jury who is hearing this case for the first time the benefit of the doubt that they will weigh all the EVIDENCE that is being presented. Not the umms, not the dragging out the questions, the evidence. Television has really skewed the way people see the world. People are waiting for the AHA moment because that's what happens in "Law and Order," everything so cut, dry and dramatic!! Even on these stupid medical drama shows, people get false hope because they see some pretend surgeons successfully resect a brain tumor that is fatal 99.9% of the time. But people think that's how it works in real life. It doesn't. At the end of the day these jurors will weigh the evidence. And they will have to decide whether to discount the myriad of LIES this defendant has told, the coincidences that either prove he is a murderer or that he is the unluckiest man in the history of men, and decide his fate because that is our system of law. I am hoping they are diligent about their task and have no choice but to assume they are. Much will depend on the foreperson they elect because the last dude was a staunch NG, and he argued people to vote his way (wasn't it initially 6-6 then they deliberated more and it ended at 8-4?); also the Anthony foreman (I use the word man very loosely there), was a staunch NG that was able to persuade the others.

I truly appreciate your encouragement and wisdom.
I think those of us who watched the first trial were hoping for a better presentation by the prosecution and we didn't get it. Actually, it was worse than the first trial.
I am feeling so very sorry for M and L F right now, as I just can't imagine how they are feeling and what they are thinking. I hope their hope is still alive.

Cammy
02-22-2012, 04:51 PM
Here comes the medicine and dropper.

Unidentifed finger print on the medicine cap/dropper just like we talked about last nite!!

( I swear they read here, lol)

NCEast
02-22-2012, 04:51 PM
I watched the BC trial with almost all of you and I agree, he can't hold a candle to Daniels. O/T, but what was the hunky ones name?????????? He was too cute.

Detective McDreamy :)

luckyme
02-22-2012, 04:52 PM
PY is such an enabler. I bet their finances are interestingly intertwined.

I really think michelle had no idea!!!! No new heat pump!!! :innocent:

twirlygurl
02-22-2012, 04:52 PM
Just how do we explain the unidentified fingerprints....on the ebay printouts and the medicine cup?

fran
02-22-2012, 04:53 PM
hmmmm........ wonder how many pairs of levis JY had?

I know I have a closet full of them. I could throw one or two or a dozen pairs away and still have enough.

JMHO
fran

pjcitizen
02-22-2012, 04:53 PM
I want to say that yes! I am being a Debbie Downer! Not because I need an AHA! moment , but because after CA, I am worried that jurors do.

Madeleine74
02-22-2012, 04:54 PM
Amen on not knowing what a jury will do. They are quite unpredictable.

I thought there would be a hung jury in the BC case. I did not expect a conviction at all.

I expected a conviction of some kind in the CA case. Heck they didn't even charge her for littering!

And let's not even discuss the OJ case. That outcome was just painful.

PoppyMcTwist
02-22-2012, 04:54 PM
It seems this cross could actually be the defense case-in-chief.

IMO

luckyme
02-22-2012, 04:54 PM
Just how do we explain the unidentified fingerprints....on the ebay printouts and the medicine cup?

We cant!!! the state was out lawyered! shameful!!!! moo!!! :innocent:

Cammy
02-22-2012, 04:54 PM
Klinkosum is pointing out they found nothing in the SUV, and the luggage , nothing tested positive for blood.

Talking about unidentified prints found in home.

Pros is objecting again.

Defense rests.

Here comes Cummings, he looks awful.

imo

CarolinaMoon
02-22-2012, 04:54 PM
Were the prints unidentified or unidentifiable (not enough info)?

Can we hope for a sparkiling closing from the PT?

NCEast
02-22-2012, 04:54 PM
I am wondering how this judge will feel after presiding over the civil case in which JY was found guilty if this jury comes back with a not guilty or is hung again?

Turnadot
02-22-2012, 04:55 PM
Wow! There are a bunch of Debbie Downers in here! I am going to, for the moment, have faith, and give the jury who is hearing this case for the first time the benefit of the doubt that they will weigh all the EVIDENCE that is being presented. Not the umms, not the dragging out the questions, the evidence. Television has really skewed the way people see the world. People are waiting for the AHA moment because that's what happens in "Law and Order," everything so cut, dry and dramatic!! Even on these stupid medical drama shows, people get false hope because they see some pretend surgeons successfully resect a brain tumor that is fatal 99.9% of the time. But people think that's how it works in real life. It doesn't. At the end of the day these jurors will weigh the evidence. And they will have to decide whether to discount the myriad of LIES this defendant has told, the coincidences that either prove he is a murderer or that he is the unluckiest man in the history of men, and decide his fate because that is our system of law. I am hoping they are diligent about their task and have no choice but to assume they are. Much will depend on the foreperson they elect because the last dude was a staunch NG, and he argued people to vote his way (wasn't it initially 6-6 then they deliberated more and it ended at 8-4?); also the Anthony foreman (I use the word man very loosely there), was a staunch NG that was able to persuade the others.
With respect, this isn't true for me. Not in the least.

They're just not effective, IMO; it has nothing to do with drama, an AHA moment, etc. They're just plain terrible at presenting.

The jury is a wild card, and could convict, absolutely, but I don't see that happening. The lies may not be enough, the jury may not even care about them! Much like the jury did not in the Anthony case wrt whether or not she murdered her baby.

All JMHO, of course.

ohiogirl
02-22-2012, 04:57 PM
I am wondering how this judge will feel after presiding over the civil case in which JY was found guilty if this jury comes back with a not guilty or is hung again?

I don't think he had any choice as JY did not respond, appear, or testify.:seeya:

dmaxphil
02-22-2012, 04:57 PM
Quick question for you LE experts.. If JY is found guilty and sent to prison, what happens if the owner of the unidentified prints is arrested and fingerprinted. Are these (unidentified) prints in some type of electronic database and match automatically? <- I'm picturing CSI Miami stuff here.

Cammy
02-22-2012, 04:57 PM
Break in the courtroom..

otto
02-22-2012, 04:57 PM
Do we know for sure Spivey is the last state's witness?

I am curious about the last search warrant that was issued last Nov.....looking into their financial issues.

What happened to that?

There has to be more.

I think that was only to prove that Jason had access to retirement funds and lines of credit to pay a lawyer for custody dispute.

ohiogirl
02-22-2012, 04:58 PM
Ay, yi, yi! Gotta go. Carry on regardless!

ncsu95
02-22-2012, 04:59 PM
I truly appreciate your encouragement and wisdom.
I think those of us who watched the first trial were hoping for a better presentation by the prosecution and we didn't get it. Actually, it was worse than the first trial.
I am feeling so very sorry for M and L F right now, as I just can't imagine how they are feeling and what they are thinking. I hope their hope is still alive.

I don't agree that it was worse. Up until Spivey, I thought the prosecution was doing a much better job.

Mama-cita
02-22-2012, 04:59 PM
I truly appreciate your encouragement and wisdom.
I think those of us who watched the first trial were hoping for a better presentation by the prosecution and we didn't get it. Actually, it was worse than the first trial.
I am feeling so very sorry for M and L F right now, as I just can't imagine how they are feeling and what they are thinking. I hope their hope is still alive.

I understand NCEast, I also know you are a local and it makes it that much more real for you. I know many of the people that are disappointed and "defeated" at this point are local and you are right to be critical as this your own legal system; these are your elected officials! It's personal, this case, for many people here. Myself included even though I am not local. I have followed this case since the first day here on WS. I came back to this thread, month after month, hoping and praying there would be an arrest; so many months went by and I swear there were COBWEBS in Michelle's thread! But then he was arrested. I followed the trial (as much as I could because I was so consumed with Caylee's) and although I was disappointed in the hung jury I was hopeful that the second go around would be better. We are not looking at this case with fresh eyes. We are looking at this case with eyes that want to see a wife/baby killer get his booty nailed to the wall. We have POURED over evidence, debated about fax versus printout, blown up pictures of tiny bloody footprints. This jury is seeing this all for the first time. In the Caylee case, we saw nothing new because we had been reading all the documents all along! Everyone just take a deep breath, Michelle and her baby are looking down on this one, and I believe their voices will be heard this time.

mck16
02-22-2012, 04:59 PM
I am wondering how this judge will feel after presiding over the civil case in which JY was found guilty if this jury comes back with a not guilty or is hung again?

I really only know about this case by what I have seen here and watching the remote session so this question will be redundant to most of you. Has there been a civil trial and he was found guilty? If so, what was presented that was different? Also was the Explorer a rental or a family car? tia

fifteen89
02-22-2012, 04:59 PM
There is no reason for him to take the stand now.

The Jurors saw him , the Pros blew it.

Easy to say they 'blew it' after the fact. If they hadn't played the tape and Jason didn't testify this time....... then what? They'd have been screwed.

Cammy
02-22-2012, 04:59 PM
This is strange to me, important witnesses from the first trial did not take the stand, the courtroom is practically empty.

And, this time In Sessions is there broadcasting LIVE too.

Weird.

fran
02-22-2012, 05:01 PM
They said all these downer type things about the Scott Peterson prosecutor as well. He was up against a high-flying, media savvy opponent, who played to everyone. They just weren't prepared for the TRUTH to come in a very large, neat package, with no dramatics.

The jury saw through the facade and came back with a guilty verdict in that one.

I'm not saying they'll vote guilty on this case, but you can't read what the jurors are thinking. This is all new to them.

Let's hope whatever verdict they come to, it's the right one.

JMHO
fran

Skittles
02-22-2012, 05:01 PM
Det. Jim Young

Now why would you happen to remember that?? ;)

otto
02-22-2012, 05:01 PM
I don't agree that it was worse. Up until Spivey, I thought the prosecution was doing a much better job.

I thought the prosecution was doing a good job of presenting their circumstantial case, but they were not making solid enough connections between their evidence and Jason. At the same time, the defense is doing a good job of presenting reasonable doubt.

ncsu95
02-22-2012, 05:01 PM
Amen on not knowing what a jury will do. They are quite unpredictable.

I thought there would be a hung jury in the BC case. I did not expect a conviction at all.

I expected a conviction of some kind in the CA case. Heck they didn't even charge her for littering!

And let's not even discuss the OJ case. That outcome was just painful.

You speak the truth. From most sure to least sure of a conviction, I would have said Casey Anthony, Jason Young, then Brad Cooper. Yet in the end, it was the exact reverse order.

Cammy
02-22-2012, 05:01 PM
I think that was only to prove that Jason had access to retirement funds and lines of credit to pay a lawyer for custody dispute.

So, that was it!!!....Good thinking, Otto.

I remember theories it would show Jason paid an accomplice.

dgfred
02-22-2012, 05:02 PM
Now why would you happen to remember that?? ;)

Please DON'T get the ladies started! :what:

ohiogirl
02-22-2012, 05:03 PM
Last thing, I promise. Who wants to bet that if he is acquitted, he and his family will find the $$ to get that poor little girl back!

Mama-cita
02-22-2012, 05:03 PM
I want to say that yes! I am being a Debbie Downer! Not because I need an AHA! moment , but because after CA, I am worried that jurors do.

I know how you feel. When I hear the word Pinellas I get post-traumatic stress. I can still literally HEAR my heart DROP when Covergirl Karen read the verdicts. But this isn't that jury. Let's hope they aren't as inept as the infamous Pinellas 12!

gracielee
02-22-2012, 05:03 PM
Well I have to clean myself up, and head out to 'Spirit Night' for the grandson's school. :) Rah Rah Rah! Thank goodness those three little boys will definitely cheer up old granny. Cuz I can use some *cheering*. Hope I don't miss the 'new evidence'.

mck16
02-22-2012, 05:04 PM
I understand NCEast, I also know you are a local and it makes it that much more real for you. I know many of the people that are disappointed and "defeated" at this point are local and you are right to be critical as this your own legal system; these are your elected officials! It's personal, this case, for many people here. Myself included even though I am not local. I have followed this case since the first day here on WS. I came back to this thread, month after month, hoping and praying there would be an arrest; so many months went by and I swear their were COBWEBS in Michelle's thread! But then he was arrested. I followed the trial (as much as I could because I was so consumed with Caylee's) and although I was disappointed in the hung jury I was hopeful that the second go around would be better. We are not looking at this case with fresh eyes. We are looking at this case with eyes that want to see a wife/baby killer get his booty nailed to the wall. We have POURED over evidence, debated about fax versus printout, blown up pictures of tiny bloody footprints. This jury is seeing this all for the first time. In the Caylee case, we saw nothing new because we had been reading all the documents all along! Everyone just take a deep breath, Michelle and her baby are looking down on this one, and I believe their voices will be heard this time.


These were my thoughts exactly. I am looking at it with fresh eyes because I have not followed the case and I am not familiar at all with the first trial. In my judgement the pros did not do a bad job and I personally think the DT lawyer is pretty slick and comes off as slick and not in a good way.

Everything is slow for you guys that have been here from the first because you already know the answers. I am hoping this time the truth will be served and justice will come. jmo

borndem
02-22-2012, 05:04 PM
I feel like I want to throw something.

I feel like i want to throw up.

Turnadot
02-22-2012, 05:04 PM
I know how you feel. When I hear the word Pinellas I get post-traumatic stress. I can still literally HEAR my heart DROP when Covergirl Karen read the verdicts. But this isn't that jury. Let's hope they aren't as inept as the infamous Pinellas 12!
I'm right there with you, on both points. We shall see. It's not over until the jury votes.

Grammy Jean
02-22-2012, 05:05 PM
They said all these downer type things about the Scott Peterson prosecutor as well. He was up against a high-flying, media savvy opponent, who played to everyone. They just weren't prepared for the TRUTH to come in a very large, neat package, with no dramatics.

The jury saw through the facade and came back with a guilty verdict in that one.

I'm not saying they'll vote guilty on this case, but you can't read what the jurors are thinking. This is all new to them.

Let's hope whatever verdict they come to, it's the right one.

JMHO
fran

Fran, Your posts always draw me back into the real world. Thanks:)

fran
02-22-2012, 05:06 PM
Quick question for you LE experts.. If JY is found guilty and sent to prison, what happens if the owner of the unidentified prints is arrested and fingerprinted. Are these (unidentified) prints in some type of electronic database and match automatically? <- I'm picturing CSI Miami stuff here.

We have a verified lawyer contributing to this thread. Please go to the thread designated for legal questions. Gritguy will answer your question as soon as he's able.

hth
fran

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7623147&highlight=gritguy#post7623147

cityslick
02-22-2012, 05:07 PM
I know how you feel. When I hear the word Pinellas I get post-traumatic stress. I can still literally HEAR my heart DROP when Covergirl Karen read the verdicts. But this isn't that jury. Let's hope they aren't as inept as the infamous Pinellas 12!

I think you also have to keep in mind (note I did not watch the first trial) is that this is the 2nd go round and the first time he almost got off (8-4 NG). So there is already precedent in a way of the jury going the wrong way in this case.

Mama-cita
02-22-2012, 05:07 PM
They said all these downer type things about the Scott Peterson prosecutor as well. He was up against a high-flying, media savvy opponent, who played to everyone. They just weren't prepared for the TRUTH to come in a very large, neat package, with no dramatics.

The jury saw through the facade and came back with a guilty verdict in that one.

I'm not saying they'll vote guilty on this case, but you can't read what the jurors are thinking. This is all new to them.

Let's hope whatever verdict they come to, it's the right one.

JMHO
fran

Fran-

I was SO SURE Strawberry Shortcake (aka Richelle Nice) was going to be pro-Scott because the talking heads all kept talking about how she was so interested and focused on Geragos, smiling at him etc. She turned out to be so staunchly against Scott!

ETA: I also thought Scott was going to walk. But Laci and Connor's voices were heard.

gracielee
02-22-2012, 05:08 PM
I feel like i want to throw up.

And here I am, heading out to a Mexican Restaurant for Spirit Night! :floorlaugh:

fran
02-22-2012, 05:08 PM
Ooops! What's going on?

fran

Turnadot
02-22-2012, 05:09 PM
These were my thoughts exactly. I am looking at it with fresh eyes because I have not followed the case and I am not familiar at all with the first trial. In my judgement the pros did not do a bad job and I personally think the DT lawyer is pretty slick and comes off as slick and not in a good way.

Everything is slow for you guys that have been here from the first because you already know the answers. I am hoping this time the truth will be served and justice will come. jmo
I'm looking at it with fresh eyes too because it's my first JY trial, and the PT were doing all right, even though they seemed to lack a cohesiveness. But today, If this is all they have wrt showing the jury Jason's prior testimony, it was a huge mistake to show it.

IMO

Cammy
02-22-2012, 05:09 PM
I see no reason for anyone to give up.

Yesterday, the Pros had a good day, and we knew the defense would come back strong.

We still have closing arguments, and we still have the defense case yet to go.

Thousand bucks says we will never see Jason on the stand again.

Judge talking outside of the Jury now.

I just lost audio.

Grammy Jean
02-22-2012, 05:09 PM
Did I just hear the judge say a jurors name???????

octobermoon
02-22-2012, 05:09 PM
Juror has medical appt. for tomorrow am.

MrsWendy
02-22-2012, 05:09 PM
Video is back and the judge mentioned the name of one of the jurors... oops! Sound turned off right after that.

Skittles
02-22-2012, 05:09 PM
Judge says juror 6 has medical appt or procedure tomorrow. Need to bring her out to discuss. Her name got broadcasted.

Cammy
02-22-2012, 05:10 PM
Did anyone else lose live feed?

Madeleine74
02-22-2012, 05:10 PM
Now why would you happen to remember that?? ;)

Spring is almost here and I need some lawn work done! Still waiting... :waiting: :wink:

Wolfpack
02-22-2012, 05:10 PM
Video is back and the judge mentioned the name of one of the jurors... oops! Sound turned off right after that.

That's been a problem in a couple of recent trials. Usually it's the same camera man there. They need to work out a system where they warn the camera guy before they broadcast the name. Really shouldn't happen, imo.

borndem
02-22-2012, 05:10 PM
We will see Mr young in the papers again one day! moo!!!!!:twocents:


I am confident of it. If he is acquitted, he'll go back to the mountains -- or who knows where, he has about, what, 60G's? He'll meet some young dumb, dependent woman, get involved, she'll get pushy and/or demanding, he'll lose his temper and he will kill her.

Tipstaff
02-22-2012, 05:12 PM
He won't have any money left after this if it isn't gone or in someone else's name already.

ncsu95
02-22-2012, 05:12 PM
Easy to say they 'blew it' after the fact. If they hadn't played the tape and Jason didn't testify this time....... then what? They'd have been screwed.

Why would they have been screwed? JY testified to try and explain all of the stuff brought up by the prosecution. Without that testimony, there isn't much to refute it.