View Full Version : Michelle Young, pregnant mom, murdered Part 18
Scout
05-04-2007, 08:23 PM
Anybody figure out yet why this "oh, by the way" revelation at this time by AL? Is it possible there is some sexual-related evidence LE wants to make public? But why? How could this help to catch the killer?
Maybe someone on good terms with AL could write her and ask.
--Jake
I think pretty much everyone believes Jason's camp is behind it in some way, Jake. And I think it's safe to say that none of us want to be played for a fool by you. Write and ask her yourself.
Sorry, Jake. I just don't believe that.
And the only reason for your disbelief is your conviction Jason is the killer. Why don't you try to broaden your horizons a little. Consider other theories.
--Jake
strach304
05-04-2007, 08:25 PM
Just trying to answer other posters, Strach. I believe it started with why I am so angry with LE.
--Jake
And it's the details of that you won't disclose. Why? It doesn't jeopardize the case in any way and who knows we just might agree with you. But no, you insist on playing trick or treat smell my feet. We cannot understand your anger with LE until you do tell us. Now might be the time to speak up since the professionals in this case aren't being favored by many right about now. You know why we're here, how about you?
Scout
05-04-2007, 08:25 PM
And the only reason for your disbelief is your conviction Jason is the killer. Why don't you try to broaden your horizons a little. Consider other theories.
--Jake
No, it isn't, Jake. You've got it backwards. The falling to his knees upon hearing the news and his refusal to speak with investigators reinforce my suspicions of him.
citygirl
05-04-2007, 08:30 PM
No cover-up, Scout. Not pleased by LE blunders, either. But the whole story hasn't come out yet. I can wait.
If I seem pleased as punch, it is at the embarrassment of LE, not at its blunders.
The Youngs are much more forgiving than I. I am still angry at the rude treatment of the Youngs by LE in Raleigh. Until the sheriff acknowledges that shabby treatment and apologizes, I don't feel very cooperative.
--Jake
How do you know the whole story has not come out yet ? You have said repeatedly that the husband doesn't talk , that he talks only to his lawyer.
So, the family has forgiven the way the police allegedly treated them, but you have not ?
You are not a family member, you did not witness the alleged mistreatment , you never met the wife , you were not at the funeral and yet, six months later you are still in an unforgiving *huff* over something you heard about second or third hand ?
What the heck are you all about ? And what is your purpose for coming on these boards. Don't tell me it is to search for answers ; you can get that straight from the horse's mouth.
What is your agenda, man ? I sense that this is nothing but a game to you , and you want your man to *win*.
strach304
05-04-2007, 08:32 PM
And the only reason for your disbelief is your conviction Jason is the killer. Why don't you try to broaden your horizons a little. Consider other theories.
--Jake
Oh please, we have come up with numerous ones and from what I've seen of Scout's posts she goes with the evidence known what little of that there is. She probably doesn't believe you for the same reasons most of us question everything you say. This is an instance where there's nothing that would interfere with the case but you still don't follow through. What are we supposed to think?
spring
05-04-2007, 08:34 PM
How do you know the whole story has not come out yet ? You have said repeatedly that the husband doesn't talk , that he talks only to his lawyer.
So, the family has forgiven the way the police allegedly treated them, but you have not ?
You are not a family member, you did not witness the alleged mistreatment , you never met the wife , you were not at the funeral and yet, six months later you are still in an unforgiving *huff* over something you heard about second or third hand ?
What the heck are you all about ? And what is your purpose for coming on these boards. Don't tell me it is to search for answers ; you can get that straight from the horse's mouth.
What is your agenda, man ? I sense that this is nothing but a game to you , and you want your man to *win*.
great post. as scout posted above, jake needs to do his own dirty work. it's not a good idea to burn bridges with the anger that is still being displayed. do you have any idea why he is not on good terms with AL?
jilly
05-04-2007, 08:39 PM
I'm not a mind reader or psychic but I can read between the lines or take a hint most of the time. My hope is that whatever this works out to be that it was done with the intention of finding the true killer and not just a way to make LE look incompetent at trial.
I think we already saw that with the tooth Strach. This family was peeved with their treatment at the outset and I think they decided at that time there was going to be payback.
I think pretty much everyone believes Jason's camp is behind it in some way, Jake. And I think it's safe to say that none of us want to be played for a fool by you. Write and ask her yourself.
Nope. Not on speaking terms with AL.
I believe LE is behind it. They probably play all of us for fools.
--Jake
Stoli
05-04-2007, 08:39 PM
great post. as scout posted above, jake needs to do his own dirty work. it's not a good idea to burn bridges with the anger that is still being displayed. do you have any idea why he is not on good terms with AL?
Is it because he made up a complete lie about her and emailed her boss and tried to get her fired? (Just a guess.)
And it's the details of that you won't disclose. Why? It doesn't jeopardize the case in any way and who knows we just might agree with you. But no, you insist on playing trick or treat smell my feet. We cannot understand your anger with LE until you do tell us. Now might be the time to speak up since the professionals in this case aren't being favored by many right about now. You know why we're here, how about you?
It's not important why I am angry with LE. But I would like to know what you think about AL's revelation.
--Jake
spring
05-04-2007, 08:42 PM
stoli, good guess ;)
No, it isn't, Jake. You've got it backwards. The falling to his knees upon hearing the news and his refusal to speak with investigators reinforce my suspicions of him.
Not "suspicions", Scout. Conviction.
--Jake
spring
05-04-2007, 08:44 PM
It's not important why I am angry with LE. But I would like to know what you think about AL's revelation.
--Jake
i'll defer to scout's post 251.
citygirl
05-04-2007, 08:45 PM
"Refused"?? Scout, I think Jason was unable to speak.
--Jake
Puhleeze ! He had no trouble speaking to his buddies and his lawyer before coming home . Suddenly the cat seizes his tongue when it's time to talk to the big boys and he's been apoplectic ever since ?
Sorry, that excuse just doesn't fly.
Then couple that with , upon arrival, scurrying into the house like a scared rabbit and hiding behind his 2 yr old while his mother and sister grapple for their luggage ?
Since you refer to yourself as *mountain people* , I'd like to know how *mountain people * would read that kind of behavior. I reckon they would think that was right odd.
Stoli
05-04-2007, 08:47 PM
It's not important why I am angry with LE. But I would like to know what you think about AL's revelation.
--Jake
Based on all of yours posts, it looks to the outside observer like you believe JY is guilty but you don't want to accept it and you are angry with LE because you know that they know he is guilty and they are going to prove it in a court of law. I would like to turn back the clock and make the murder not happen as well but that's not possible. You can't unring that bell.
I want to believe he didn't do it. Your posts and others that know him but support him speak loudly that the inside belief is that he is guilty but you really want him to get away with murder.
spring
05-04-2007, 08:48 PM
Puhleeze ! He had no trouble speaking to his buddies and his lawyer before coming home . Suddenly the cat seizes his tongue when it's time to talk to the big boys and he's been apoplectic ever since ?
Sorry, that excuse just doesn't fly.
Then couple that with , upon arrival, scurrying into the house like a scared rabbit and hiding behind his 2 yr old while his mother and sister grapple for their luggage ?
Since you refer to yourself as *mountain people* , I'd like to know how *mountain people * would read that kind of behavior. I reckon they would think that was right odd.
great post. i wonder why there is no anger at jason for putting his mother between he and law enforcement. if he had stood up like a man, his mother wouldn't have even dealt with law enforcement!
snipped+++++++++++++++
[quote=citygirl;1473392]How do you know the whole story has not come out yet ? You have said repeatedly that the husband doesn't talk , that he talks only to his lawyer.
So, the family has forgiven the way the police allegedly treated them, but you have not ?
You are not a family member, you did not witness the alleged mistreatment , you never met the wife , you were not at the funeral and yet, six months later you are still in an unforgiving *huff* over something you heard about second or third hand ?
+++++++++++++++++++
I reckon that's the way friends are. I've got your back. Insult my friend and you insult me. I don't forgive insults easily nor quickly. I have four posters on ignore because of their rude personal insults. I tend to fire back and get kicked off boards.
--Jake
Scout
05-04-2007, 08:53 PM
Nope. Not on speaking terms with AL.
I believe LE is behind it. They probably play all of us for fools.
--Jake
Well, if LE is behind the release of the latest story, why would Ms. Lamb have any insight into why it's being released now?
The fact that you say there is more to the story leads me to suspect that you and/or your cohorts are behind it, Jake.
snipped+++++++++++++
What the heck are you all about ? And what is your purpose for coming on these boards. Don't tell me it is to search for answers ; you can get that straight from the horse's mouth.
What is your agenda, man ? I sense that this is nothing but a game to you , and you want your man to *win*.
+++++++++++++++
I've answered this too many times. No agenda. No "horse's mouth". I want to know what others think. No "game". Certainly no "winner".
--Jake
raisincharlie
05-04-2007, 08:54 PM
I think we already saw that with the tooth Strach. This family was peeved with their treatment at the outset and I think they decided at that time there was going to be payback.
JTF swore to it - payback. You haven't forgot about those tirades have you ?
I think we already saw that with the tooth Strach. This family was peeved with their treatment at the outset and I think they decided at that time there was going to be payback.
This is much too serious for "payback". I'm much more peeved than the family is.
--Jake
Scout
05-04-2007, 08:57 PM
Not "suspicions", Scout. Conviction.
--Jake
Speak for yourself, Jake. I haven't convicted him in my own mind yet, but I do have strong suspicions of his culpability. BTW, I don't have the power to convict. If I did, I would wait for and weigh all of the evidence. With what's available to me now, I wouldn't convict him. My only hope right now is that LE will find enough evidence to charge and try the right person for Michelle's murder.
Puhleeze ! He had no trouble speaking to his buddies and his lawyer before coming home . Suddenly the cat seizes his tongue when it's time to talk to the big boys and he's been apoplectic ever since ?
Sorry, that excuse just doesn't fly.
Then couple that with , upon arrival, scurrying into the house like a scared rabbit and hiding behind his 2 yr old while his mother and sister grapple for their luggage ?
Since you refer to yourself as *mountain people* , I'd like to know how *mountain people * would read that kind of behavior. I reckon they would think that was right odd.
Rather odd how you twist the reaction of a devastated husband and father. It makes me wonder about your agenda.
--Jake
spring
05-04-2007, 08:59 PM
Speak for yourself, Jake. I haven't convicted him in my own mind yet, but I do have strong suspicions of his culpability. BTW, I don't have the power to convict. If I did, I would wait for and weigh all of the evidence. With what's available to me now, I wouldn't convict him. My only hope right now is that LE will find enough evidence to charge and try the right person for Michelle's murder.
you are so reasonable, scout. i agree wholeheartedly. i think if those close to him would think as reasonably, they would see that it is POSSIBLE that he could have done this. so many of us are not convinced completely, but for some reason people who taught him in high school are? interesting.
FactsareFacts
05-04-2007, 09:00 PM
I don't post much but I have to say something at this 6 month mark. If Jason Young is innocent then he should have NO reason not to go with his lawyer and talk to LE. He doesn't have to answer anything his lawyer does not want him to. It's BS to me that he is completely innocent yet he has not attended 2 memorial services for his wife nor has he tried to help in any way shape or form with the investigation. I have seen guilty people do 2 things. 1. Lawyer up and say nothing. 2. Flap their gums to LE and every reporter in sight. I have seen innocent people co operate with LE and plead with the public to help find the killer. What I have never seen is an innocent person hide away like a coward and refuse to utter a word to anyone. Sorry but "the right to remain silent" is IMO a right that is excercised by the guilty with something to hide.
jilly
05-04-2007, 09:01 PM
And the autopsy should have been performed by a qualified Medical Examiner, not an intern. This is a murder investigation. Is this the way things are usually done in NC? I guess seeing Dr. Radisch testify at the Mike Peterson trial gave me a false sense of their competency and professionalism.
I'm confused about this. I know that Hawthorne's pal addressed this and I brought it up here last nite and Sami disagrees. She says that the Pathologist Clark performed the autopsy.
I dug out the AR and on the front page it says:
Authorized by Kevine Green, M.D.
Persons present at autopsy: Mr. Kevin Gerity, Dr. Kevin Greene (no mention of the Pathologist, Thomas B. Clark)
Thomas B. Clark lll MD, Pathologist signs the Pathological Diagnoses but just above his signature it says:
"The facts stated herein are correct to the best of my knowledge and belief."
So. Are you saying that Greene performed the autopsy and Clark signed as his superior technically 'rubber stamped' it?
Scout
05-04-2007, 09:02 PM
Rather odd how you twist the reaction of a devastated husband and father. It makes me wonder about your agenda.
--Jake
I've only seen him once since Michelle's death, and that was only video-tape of him at Michelle's funeral. He didn't look like a devastated husband to me, Jake. Some of the things I've heard (sorry, can't repeat them) don't support the devastated husband facade either.
Well, if LE is behind the release of the latest story, why would Ms. Lamb have any insight into why it's being released now?
The fact that you say there is more to the story leads me to suspect that you and/or your cohorts are behind it, Jake.
Nope. Not me. Promise. But I can't speak for my "cohorts".
You should know there is more to the story also.
I suspect AL knows more because of the way she wrote her original story. She put the real lead deep in the story. Why didn't she lead with those five paragraphs?
She had to know that was a much better lead than the one she had. What was she trying to hide? Was she trying to protect an LE source?
--Jake
Scout
05-04-2007, 09:05 PM
you are so reasonable, scout. i agree wholeheartedly. i think if those close to him would think as reasonably, they would see that it is POSSIBLE that he could have done this. so many of us are not convinced completely, but for some reason people who taught him in high school are? interesting.
That's very kind of you to say, Spring. I'm sure Jake doesn't agree with you.
strach304
05-04-2007, 09:07 PM
It's not important why I am angry with LE. But I would like to know what you think about AL's revelation.
--Jake
From what I've gathered from you it is important. As for AL's revelation I have posted quite a bit with some varying ideas on it since that news broke. Guess you don't read all of my posts just like you don't answer them. I do think LE in cooperation with AL wanted the story out there. Two stories within hours showing that the oversight wasn't LE's fault and reasons made public for an exhumation or other possibilities. An offensive move on their part possibly. It was gonna come out anyway at some point.
Speak for yourself, Jake. I haven't convicted him in my own mind yet, but I do have strong suspicions of his culpability. BTW, I don't have the power to convict. If I did, I would wait for and weigh all of the evidence. With what's available to me now, I wouldn't convict him. My only hope right now is that LE will find enough evidence to charge and try the right person for Michelle's murder.
Okay, Scout. I'll join you and hope and pray that LE will solve this horrible crime.
--Jake
Scout
05-04-2007, 09:12 PM
I'm confused about this. I know that Hawthorne's pal addressed this and I brought it up here last nite and Sami disagrees. She says that the Pathologist Clark performed the autopsy.
I dug out the AR and on the front page it says:
Authorized by Kevine Green, M.D.
Persons present at autopsy: Mr. Kevin Gerity, Dr. Kevin Greene (no mention of the Pathologist, Thomas B. Clark)
Thomas B. Clark lll MD, Pathologist signs the Pathological Diagnoses but just above his signature it says:
"The facts stated herein are correct to the best of my knowledge and belief."
So. Are you saying that Greene performed the autopsy and Clark signed as his superior technically 'rubber stamped' it?
I honestly don't know, Jilly. The handwriting on the diagrams looks very similar to Dr Clark's handwriting -- signature and date. But I'm not a handwriting expert and the known sample is very limited. Sorry I can't be of more help.
Scout
05-04-2007, 09:14 PM
Nope. Not me. Promise. But I can't speak for my "cohorts".
You should know there is more to the story also.
I suspect AL knows more because of the way she wrote her original story. She put the real lead deep in the story. Why didn't she lead with those five paragraphs?
She had to know that was a much better lead than the one she had. What was she trying to hide? Was she trying to protect an LE source?
--Jake
Why should I know there is more to the story? If you've got some info, why not just share, Jake?
citygirl
05-04-2007, 09:14 PM
Rather odd how you twist the reaction of a devastated husband and father. It makes me wonder about your agenda.
--Jake
I'm not twisting the reaction of a devastated father and husband. I'm basing my assessment on what has been put forth by insiders. The husband may not be guilty but he sure does act like it , in my opinion.
Scout
05-04-2007, 09:16 PM
Okay, Scout. I'll join you and hope and pray that LE will solve this horrible crime.
--Jake
Just out of curiosity, how often do you see Jason? Have you had any direct contact with him since Michelle was murdered? What can we expect to see if and when we ever catch sight of him again?
QueenBee
05-04-2007, 09:17 PM
I don't post much but I have to say something at this 6 month mark. If Jason Young is innocent then he should have NO reason not to go with his lawyer and talk to LE. He doesn't have to answer anything his lawyer does not want him to. It's BS to me that he is completely innocent yet he has not attended 2 memorial services for his wife nor has he tried to help in any way shape or form with the investigation. I have seen guilty people do 2 things. 1. Lawyer up and say nothing. 2. Flap their gums to LE and every reporter in sight. I have seen innocent people co operate with LE and plead with the public to help find the killer. What I have never seen is an innocent person hide away like a coward and refuse to utter a word to anyone. Sorry but "the right to remain silent" is IMO a right that is excercised by the guilty with something to hide.
According to Jake, Jason has been helping LE all along by being the patsy. IMO
strach304
05-04-2007, 09:18 PM
If there is any possibility that a SA or lover played into this Jason may be of help to the investigators. He can't at this point think that he knows nothing of any use without knowing what questions LE have and what they've uncovered. How many times has something slipped our mind because it seemed so insignificant we don't even remember until it's brought up.
Scout
05-04-2007, 09:22 PM
If there is any possibility that a SA or lover played into this Jason may be of help to the investigators. He can't at this point think that he knows nothing of any use without knowing what questions LE have and what they've uncovered. How many times has something slipped our mind because it seemed so insignificant we don't even remember until it's brought up.
You're absolutely right, strach.
FactsareFacts
05-04-2007, 09:23 PM
According to Jake, Jason has been helping LE all along by being the patsy. IMO
ROFLMAO Oh OK :doh: silly me. :silenced:
strach304
05-04-2007, 09:24 PM
Jake, you might want to consider what Citygirl is pointing out. It is a valid argument and a contradiction of Jason's behavior on that crucial day. LE does take that into account so naturally us common folks will too.
I don't post much but I have to say something at this 6 month mark. If Jason Young is innocent then he should have NO reason not to go with his lawyer and talk to LE. He doesn't have to answer anything his lawyer does not want him to. It's BS to me that he is completely innocent yet he has not attended 2 memorial services for his wife nor has he tried to help in any way shape or form with the investigation. I have seen guilty people do 2 things. 1. Lawyer up and say nothing. 2. Flap their gums to LE and every reporter in sight. I have seen innocent people co operate with LE and plead with the public to help find the killer. What I have never seen is an innocent person hide away like a coward and refuse to utter a word to anyone. Sorry but "the right to remain silent" is IMO a right that is excercised by the guilty with something to hide.
But I have to believe our Founding Fathers gave us that right to protect the innocent. I can't believe they were interested in protecting the guilty. I can't believe they were interested in protecting cowards.
--Jake
citygirl
05-04-2007, 09:32 PM
Just out of curiosity, how often do you see Jason? Have you had any direct contact with him since Michelle was murdered? What can we expect to see if and when we ever catch sight of him again?
Scout,
Great questions. Unfortunately , he scurried right out of the room and doused the lights . Perhaps, he'll return later and enlighten us.
QueenBee
05-04-2007, 09:32 PM
But I have to believe our Founding Fathers gave us that right to protect the innocent. I can't believe they were interested in protecting the guilty. I can't believe they were interested in protecting cowards.
--Jake
Interesting that you chose only to respond to JY's right to remain silent. What happened to all the talk about JY helping the investigation by being the fall guy????
Why should I know there is more to the story? If you've got some info, why not just share, Jake?
I did share. I told you why you should know there is more to the story. You read the story the same as I. I just questioned why she buried her real lead so deep in the story. I figured you would also question that.
--Jake
FactsareFacts
05-04-2007, 09:37 PM
But I have to believe our Founding Fathers gave us that right to protect the innocent. I can't believe they were interested in protecting the guilty. I can't believe they were interested in protecting cowards.
--Jake
Sorry but 99% of the time those that remain silent in these situations, do so because they have something to hide. I know what our rights are and what i'm saying is they get excercised by guilty parties not innocent parties.
citygirl
05-04-2007, 09:37 PM
But I have to believe our Founding Fathers gave us that right to protect the innocent. I can't believe they were interested in protecting the guilty. I can't believe they were interested in protecting cowards.
--Jake
Absolutely correct. And your buddy has been afforded all that, don't you think ? He's innocent until proven guilty , and not only that, beyond a reasonable doubt. Seems fair to me.
spring
05-04-2007, 09:39 PM
But I have to believe our Founding Fathers gave us that right to protect the innocent. I can't believe they were interested in protecting the guilty. I can't believe they were interested in protecting cowards.
--Jake
if they weren't interested in protecting cowards, maybe jason shouldn't be hiding behind them or his mom. i thought u all were so SURE that jason didn't do this. if u are so sure, why isn't his attorney so sure?
Scout,
Great questions. Unfortunately , he scurried right out of the room and doused the lights . Perhaps, he'll return later and enlighten us.
Nope. Just answered the phone.
--Jake
citygirl
05-04-2007, 09:40 PM
I did share. I told you why you should know there is more to the story. You read the story the same as I. I just questioned why she buried her real lead so deep in the story. I figured you would also question that.
--Jake
Huh ??????????
spring
05-04-2007, 09:41 PM
that same law firm was so confident that the LAX boys were innocent. they cooperated. i guess they aren't so sure on jy.
Stoli
05-04-2007, 09:41 PM
I don't post much but I have to say something at this 6 month mark. If Jason Young is innocent then he should have NO reason not to go with his lawyer and talk to LE. He doesn't have to answer anything his lawyer does not want him to. It's BS to me that he is completely innocent yet he has not attended 2 memorial services for his wife nor has he tried to help in any way shape or form with the investigation. I have seen guilty people do 2 things. 1. Lawyer up and say nothing. 2. Flap their gums to LE and every reporter in sight. I have seen innocent people co operate with LE and plead with the public to help find the killer. What I have never seen is an innocent person hide away like a coward and refuse to utter a word to anyone. Sorry but "the right to remain silent" is IMO a right that is excercised by the guilty with something to hide.
Bravo! I agree. I understand why he might remain silent based on the lawyers advice. I just don't understand HOW he can remain silent. I love my husband and I would not be able to stay silent if there was a possibility that his killer was walking the same streets as me and other innocent people. I guess I might think differently if I was the one that caused his death.
Scout
05-04-2007, 09:43 PM
I did share. I told you why you should know there is more to the story. You read the story the same as I. I just questioned why she buried her real lead so deep in the story. I figured you would also question that.
--Jake
I must have missed it. Tell me again, please. Why should I know there is more to the story?
j2mirish
05-04-2007, 09:43 PM
No cover-up, Scout. Not pleased by LE blunders, either. But the whole story hasn't come out yet. I can wait.
If I seem pleased as punch, it is at the embarrassment of LE, not at its blunders.
The Youngs are much more forgiving than I. I am still angry at the rude treatment of the Youngs by LE in Raleigh. Until the sheriff acknowledges that shabby treatment and apologizes, I don't feel very cooperative.
--Jake
geez...where have we heard/seen that before :silenced:
FactsareFacts
05-04-2007, 09:46 PM
geez...where have we heard/seen that before :silenced:
It must be contagious. :p
Just out of curiosity, how often do you see Jason? Have you had any direct contact with him since Michelle was murdered? What can we expect to see if and when we ever catch sight of him again?
I talk with him occasionally, usually at family functions. Please understand he is still grieving. I do not bring up the murder of his wife. We generally talk about other things.
I don't know what you will see. Most people will see what they want to see.
--Jake
j2mirish
05-04-2007, 09:52 PM
snipped+++++++++++++++
[quote=citygirl;1473392]How do you know the whole story has not come out yet ? You have said repeatedly that the husband doesn't talk , that he talks only to his lawyer.
So, the family has forgiven the way the police allegedly treated them, but you have not ?
You are not a family member, you did not witness the alleged mistreatment , you never met the wife , you were not at the funeral and yet, six months later you are still in an unforgiving *huff* over something you heard about second or third hand ?
+++++++++++++++++++
I reckon that's the way friends are. I've got your back. Insult my friend and you insult me. I don't forgive insults easily nor quickly. I have four posters on ignore because of their rude personal insults. I tend to fire back and get kicked off boards.
--Jake
wonder who they are :angel:
you cant forgive insults- but sure seem to be able to dish them out against LE...and a few posters here
According to Jake, Jason has been helping LE all along by being the patsy. IMO
I certainly don't understand this.
--Jake
Interesting that you chose only to respond to JY's right to remain silent. What happened to all the talk about JY helping the investigation by being the fall guy????
I still don't understand this.
--Jake
Sorry but 99% of the time those that remain silent in these situations, do so because they have something to hide. I know what our rights are and what i'm saying is they get excercised by guilty parties not innocent parties.
The 99% is something you made up.
--Jake
Stoli
05-04-2007, 09:56 PM
I talk with him occasionally, usually at family functions. Please understand he is still grieving. I do not bring up the murder of his wife. We generally talk about other things.
I don't know what you will see. Most people will see what they want to see.
--Jake
You realize that the same could be said of you. It's possible that someone close to the possible perp could have HUGE blinders on. I'm not saying that he is guilty but it is possible that you would ignore obvious evidence if it came up and smacked you in the face.
spring
05-04-2007, 09:57 PM
I talk with him occasionally, usually at family functions. Please understand he is still grieving. I do not bring up the murder of his wife. We generally talk about other things.
I don't know what you will see. Most people will see what they want to see.
--Jake
so some families have functions like a yearly thing. safe to say you haven't seen much of him then?
QueenBee
05-04-2007, 09:57 PM
I live in Wake County (in fact about 6 to 8 miles from EO) and do not think LE has anything to be embarrassed about.
I think they are doing their job and have been extremely careful in handling this case. I have a friend who lives in EO and we have discussed this case, based on those conversations, I feel confident that LE is exploring every option to solve this case.
I also think AL does know more and maybe soon she will be able to share it with the public.
raisincharlie
05-04-2007, 09:57 PM
According to Jake, Jason has been helping LE all along by being the patsy. IMO
Thanks for that reminder, I had indeed forgotten all about that. JY was taking the heat to make the real killer relax and mess up. But as I recall it only made the real killer nervous. :p
Bravo! I agree. I understand why he might remain silent based on the lawyers advice. I just don't understand HOW he can remain silent. I love my husband and I would not be able to stay silent if there was a possibility that his killer was walking the same streets as me and other innocent people. I guess I might think differently if I was the one that caused his death.
I understand totally how you both feel about this. You might feel differently also if you were the main suspect from the beginning. Especially if you were innocent.
--Jake
FactsareFacts
05-04-2007, 10:01 PM
The 99% is something you made up.
--Jake
Perhaps I should not have given a specific percentage. The vast majority of innocent people would never run and hide from LE. They would be front and center pleading with the public for information and assisting LE anyway they could.
:rolleyes:
I must have missed it. Tell me again, please. Why should I know there is more to the story?
Scout, a reporter is trained to put his most important news in the lead, the first paragraph of his story. AL did not do this. Why not? Because she is protecting a source? Because she has even more information she is going to break later?
--Jake
You realize that the same could be said of you. It's possible that someone close to the possible perp could have HUGE blinders on. I'm not saying that he is guilty but it is possible that you would ignore obvious evidence if it came up and smacked you in the face.
I admit to that, Stoli. I can only hope I will be able to accept the truth.
--Jake
FactsareFacts
05-04-2007, 10:04 PM
I understand totally how you both feel about this. You might feel differently also if you were the main suspect from the beginning. Especially if you were innocent.
--Jake
The spouse is always the first suspect. An innocent spouse would want to co-operate with LE so they could clear him and try to find the killer. He is hindering the investigation into his wifes death by refusing to speak to LE.
spring
05-04-2007, 10:06 PM
I understand totally how you both feel about this. You might feel differently also if you were the main suspect from the beginning. Especially if you were innocent.
--Jake
i tend to get PO'ed when people accuse me of things i didn't do. i don't run and hide and cry about it. i prove them wrong!
Stoli
05-04-2007, 10:06 PM
I understand totally how you both feel about this. You might feel differently also if you were the main suspect from the beginning. Especially if you were innocent.
--Jake
Here's the problem: You might HOPE that but you, as an outsider, don't KNOW that.
I have the great misfortune to be closely connected to a family who has a son that committed a murder. The family is devastated but they have not tried to sidestep the fact that their son committed a horrible crime. He could be facing the death penalty which absolutely breaks my heart (considering that I do not believe in the death penalty).
To their credit, the family supports their son but they do not support his act. He will serve whatever penalty the court imposes, including the possibility of death.
I can relate on this level, Jake. It hurts to know that someone you know could do this. Accepting it is tough.
Perhaps I should not have given a specific percentage. The vast majority of innocent people would never run and hide from LE. They would be front and center pleading with the public for information and assisting LE anyway they could.
:rolleyes:
I understand. I don't accept your "vast majority" figure either. That may have been true once upon a time.
--Jake
Scout
05-04-2007, 10:11 PM
Scout, a reporter is trained to put his most important news in the lead, the first paragraph of his story. AL did not do this. Why not? Because she is protecting a source? Because she has even more information she is going to break later?
--Jake
Wasn't the failure to do a sexual assault exam at the top of her report -- the TV report, not the online article?
The spouse is always the first suspect. An innocent spouse would want to co-operate with LE so they could clear him and try to find the killer. He is hindering the investigation into his wifes death by refusing to speak to LE.
"Hindering"? Maybe slightly. But I don't think LE needs to clear him before investigating other possibilities. Do you?
Unfortunately, I think this has happened. I believe LE's tunnel vision has hindered their investigation. Jason is not to blame for this.
--Jake
citygirl
05-04-2007, 10:16 PM
I talk with him occasionally, usually at family functions. Please understand he is still grieving. I do not bring up the murder of his wife. We generally talk about other things.
I don't know what you will see. Most people will see what they want to see.
--Jake
See, this is why I find your comments confusing. You tend to always be shifting gears. I don't mean to be derogatory , just trying to explain my level of frustration .
Just a few weeks ago when it was reported that the husband was moving out with his daughter , you alluded to him *moving on* , leaving the readers with the impression that his grieving was over. It started a heated discussion on another board.
Now, you state that 6 months later he is still grieving. Most people would think this was rather normal . I read somewhere that it can take some people as long as 18 - 36 months to recover from losing a spouse.
You seem to contradict yourself which decreases your level of credibility.
Nothing personal intended.
Stoli
05-04-2007, 10:18 PM
I understand. I don't accept your "vast majority" figure either. That may have been true once upon a time.
--Jake
The normal reaction of an innocent, loving spouse would be to help in any way they could. Maybe I'm not normal, but if the love of my life was killed, the last thing I would be worried about is whether or not they MIGHT consider me a suspect. I wouldn't care. I would know that I wasn't a suspect and I would do whatever I could to aid in the investigation. I love my spouse. Maybe that's the difference.
Here's the problem: You might HOPE that but you, as an outsider, don't KNOW that.
I have the great misfortune to be closely connected to a family who has a son that committed a murder. The family is devastated but they have not tried to sidestep the fact that their son committed a horrible crime. He could be facing the death penalty which absolutely breaks my heart (considering that I do not believe in the death penalty).
To their credit, the family supports their son but they do not support his act. He will serve whatever penalty the court imposes, including the possibility of death.
I can relate on this level, Jake. It hurts to know that someone you know could do this. Accepting it is tough.
I can certainly sympathize with you. I am sorry you had to go through this experience. I hope I can be as accepting as you and the son's family if it comes to that.
--Jake
FactsareFacts
05-04-2007, 10:22 PM
"Hindering"? Maybe slightly. But I don't think LE needs to clear him before investigating other possibilities. Do you?
Unfortunately, I think this has happened. I believe LE's tunnel vision has hindered their investigation. Jason is not to blame for this.
--Jake
It's just common sense that they need to clear the first suspect. I don't see that LE has tunnel vision at all. Unfortunately Jasons refusal to co-operate gives LE reason to keep him at the top of the list though.
citygirl
05-04-2007, 10:24 PM
"Hindering"? Maybe slightly. But I don't think LE needs to clear him before investigating other possibilities. Do you?
Unfortunately, I think this has happened. I believe LE's tunnel vision has hindered their investigation. Jason is not to blame for this.
--Jake
So, what do you base these fears on ? There has been so little information released about this crime . Do you have some inside info that you cannot share ? If so, I understand that.
Wasn't the failure to do a sexual assault exam at the top of her report -- the TV report, not the online article?
6 Months Later, Young Murder Case Still Unsolved
http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/news/local/2006/11/18/1066008/1066008-1178237775-220x165.jpg
Posted: May. 2, 2007
Updated: May. 3, 2007
Raleigh — Michelle Young was devoted to her family and supportive of her friends and coworkers, and in the busyness of life, she would make a conscious choice to make time for those who needed her.
snipped+++++++++++++++++++
This was the lead to the story I read. Down about paragraph #18 was the information about no sex test taken.
Don't know about the video report.
--Jake
Stoli
05-04-2007, 10:26 PM
I can certainly sympathize with you. I am sorry you had to go through this experience. I hope I can be as accepting as you and the son's family if it comes to that.
--Jake
I appreciate that and I believe you are sincere. My heart has been with those close to the crime from day one. It is hell no matter what you believe or want to believe.
Scout
05-04-2007, 10:30 PM
6 Months Later, Young Murder Case Still Unsolved
http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/news/local/2006/11/18/1066008/1066008-1178237775-220x165.jpg
Posted: May. 2, 2007
Updated: May. 3, 2007
Raleigh — Michelle Young was devoted to her family and supportive of her friends and coworkers, and in the busyness of life, she would make a conscious choice to make time for those who needed her.
snipped+++++++++++++++++++
This was the lead to the story I read. Down about paragraph #18 was the information about no sex test taken.
Don't know about the video report.
--Jake
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1377240/
There's a link to the video report right under the photo you copied. Watch it and see for yourself which story leads her report.
concernedperson
05-04-2007, 10:31 PM
I appreciate that and I believe you are sincere. My heart has been with those close to the crime from day one. It is hell no matter what you believe or want to believe.
I agree but it doesn't bring justice to Michelle. She was the one murdered and for people to have blinders on for their own security in their beliefs does tremendous amounts of harm.
Lives cannot go on normally or accepting until someone is brought to justice. Michelle did not bludgeon herself to death.
Stoli
05-04-2007, 10:44 PM
I agree but it doesn't bring justice to Michelle. She was the one murdered and for people to have blinders on for their own security in their beliefs does tremendous amounts of harm.
Lives cannot go on normally or accepting until someone is brought to justice. Michelle did not bludgeon herself to death.
Good point. I don't know that there has been a whole lot of disagreement to the opinion that Jason is a prick. There is a lot of suspicion but not evidence that he is also a murderer. The rest of the story is waiting for an ending.
See, this is why I find your comments confusing. You tend to always be shifting gears. I don't mean to be derogatory , just trying to explain my level of frustration .
Just a few weeks ago when it was reported that the husband was moving out with his daughter , you alluded to him *moving on* , leaving the readers with the impression that his grieving was over. It started a heated discussion on another board.
Now, you state that 6 months later he is still grieving. Most people would think this was rather normal . I read somewhere that it can take some people as long as 18 - 36 months to recover from losing a spouse.
You seem to contradict yourself which decreases your level of credibility.
Nothing personal intended.
Thanks, Citygirl for giving me a chance to address this. I had forgotten about it since it came from ctv. Now you've got me scratching my head and thinking, "did I say that"?
I believe that was another poster who said that about "moving on". I don't remember which one but I remember reading it and the discussion. I believe I had been kicked off but could still read. I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong.
Believe me, Jason is still grieving. At times his family and I have feared for him. I believe Cassie is his anchor.
Since there are so few of us on the boards defending Jason, often we are considered as one. We are not. \
I believe "moving on" means that Jason is trying to reconstruct a life for himself and Cassie in the face of their devastating loss.
--Jake
Barney Fife
05-04-2007, 10:59 PM
I'm confused about this. I know that Hawthorne's pal addressed this and I brought it up here last nite and Sami disagrees. She says that the Pathologist Clark performed the autopsy.
I dug out the AR and on the front page it says:
Authorized by Kevine Green, M.D.
Persons present at autopsy: Mr. Kevin Gerity, Dr. Kevin Greene (no mention of the Pathologist, Thomas B. Clark)
Thomas B. Clark lll MD, Pathologist signs the Pathological Diagnoses but just above his signature it says:
"The facts stated herein are correct to the best of my knowledge and belief."
So. Are you saying that Greene performed the autopsy and Clark signed as his superior technically 'rubber stamped' it?
jilly
Dr Greene performed the autopsy on Saturday am. Dr Clark signed the final report that was written by Dr Greene.
concernedperson
05-04-2007, 11:00 PM
I just hope that trying to reconstruct yourself doesn't include denying a harm. Which is sometimes the case. Sorta like forget and move on. No moving on with an unsolved case. Not till the victim receives justice. No other matters.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1377240/
There's a link to the video report right under the photo you copied. Watch it and see for yourself which story leads her report.
Thanks, Scout, I watched it. The date on the original written story is May 2. I could see no date on the video. The written story was updated May 3. Maybe that's when the video was shot?
--Jake
So, what do you base these fears on ? There has been so little information released about this crime . Do you have some inside info that you cannot share ? If so, I understand that.
Hi, Citygirl. I don't know that I have much inside info I cannot share. Maybe a little, but nothing significant.
As some posters have been so kind to point out, I have told about everything I know. I have shared the mysterious bloody little footprints, the killer's bloody shower, the neglected bloody socks, the ignored bloody linen, the constipated dog, the forgotten tooth.
I freely admit that in most cases I merely followed up on what JTF had revealed before. I'm not trying to be the hero here.
What else is there? What would you have if JTF and I hadn't shared? And not even a thank you from most posters.
--Jake
strach304
05-04-2007, 11:42 PM
Thanks, Scout, I watched it. The date on the original written story is May 2. I could see no date on the video. The written story was updated May 3. Maybe that's when the video was shot?
--Jake
If you check the links here you'll see that every report there after did lead with that and even headlined. She may have wanted to report on as soon as she found out so that's why it wasn't the lead originally. Remember how more and more trickled out after that was published she then got statements from everyone such as LE, the DA. the ME's office etc. They could've said no comment before the first story was published and that was her way of getting more details to report. Very effective plan if that's what happened.
raisincharlie
05-05-2007, 12:02 AM
Hi, Citygirl. I don't know that I have much inside info I cannot share. Maybe a little, but nothing significant.
As some posters have been so kind to point out, I have told about everything I know. I have shared the mysterious bloody little footprints, the killer's bloody shower, the neglected bloody socks, the ignored bloody linen, the constipated dog, the forgotten tooth.
I freely admit that in most cases I merely followed up on what JTF had revealed before. I'm not trying to be the hero here.
What else is there? What would you have if JTF and I hadn't shared? And not even a thank you from most posters.
--Jake
Please explain how you feel what you claim is of any significance or how it is even helpful. Mysterious bloody little footprints which you saw and photographed - how do they compare to what LE saw upon entering that scene ? I doubt there is much comparison truthfully.
The neglected bloody socks - you don't know how they came to be bloody but yet you think they have some significance. You don't know what forensic investigative techniques were applied but yet you assumne the socks were overlooked.
The ignored bloody sheets - you never mentioned seeing a bed spread. Did you consider that the bed may still have been made when the killer entered the house ? Did you consider LE collected that bed spread and didn't need the sheets as they would reveal no trace evidence having been under the spread but they would indeed be bloody?
Did you ever consider that the tooth may well have been lodged in the drywall and vibrated out when the sheetrock above was cut out ? Have you recalled how many people posted under your nic various stories which contradict each other ? Then we have the document being a print out about a purse for Michelle for her anniversary - oops the aniversary was the month before she was murdered - must have been a Christmas present instead. Sorry the dog was constipated, hadn't heard that one but I suppose that is why he did not respond to an intruder in the house.
So what do we have after what you and JTF have voiced your observations - nothing more than what we had without your observations to be truthful. RPD has provided significantly more factual and useful information as noted in the blog.
jilly
05-05-2007, 12:54 AM
JTF swore to it - payback. You haven't forgot about those tirades have you ?
Thanks RC. :) I guess that was one part that I didn't absorb!:crazy:
jilly
05-05-2007, 01:08 AM
This is much too serious for "payback". I'm much more peeved than the family is.
--Jake
So they're still peeved - just not as much as you.
jilly
05-05-2007, 01:50 AM
jilly
Dr Greene performed the autopsy on Saturday am. Dr Clark signed the final report that was written by Dr Greene.
Thanks Barney. What do you think about this?
scandi
05-05-2007, 01:56 AM
Don't know why LE took the wall. But surely a tooth sticking in the wall would have been noticed.
--Jake
Different wall Jake than she is talking about. Where they cut the 4' x 4' section of wall out plus the small piece off to the left and down lower like you told us, that was on the outside wall that the headboard of the bed was up against.
Then there is a wall about 5 or so feet away from the bed to the left, {going towards the front of the house} and in that wall are his and her walk in closets. That is where you said the tooth landed, inbetween the carpet and the wall next to the closet.
I almost feel like I have walked into that room! LOL Scandi
jilly
05-05-2007, 02:00 AM
Please explain how you feel what you claim is of any significance or how it is even helpful. Mysterious bloody little footprints which you saw and photographed - how do they compare to what LE saw upon entering that scene ? I doubt there is much comparison truthfully.
The neglected bloody socks - you don't know how they came to be bloody but yet you think they have some significance. You don't know what forensic investigative techniques were applied but yet you assumne the socks were overlooked.
The ignored bloody sheets - you never mentioned seeing a bed spread. Did you consider that the bed may still have been made when the killer entered the house ? Did you consider LE collected that bed spread and didn't need the sheets as they would reveal no trace evidence having been under the spread but they would indeed be bloody?
Did you ever consider that the tooth may well have been lodged in the drywall and vibrated out when the sheetrock above was cut out ? Have you recalled how many people posted under your nic various stories which contradict each other ? Then we have the document being a print out about a purse for Michelle for her anniversary - oops the aniversary was the month before she was murdered - must have been a Christmas present instead. :laugh: Sorry the dog was constipated, handn't heard that one but I suppose that is why he did not respond to an intruder in the house.
So what do we have after what you and JTF have voiced your observations - nothing more than what we had without your observations to be truthful. RPD has provided significantly more factual and useful information as noted in the blog.
Good post RC!
scandi
05-05-2007, 03:09 AM
Anybody figure out yet why this "oh, by the way" revelation at this time by AL? Is it possible there is some sexual-related evidence LE wants to make public? But why? How could this help to catch the killer?
Maybe someone on good terms with AL could write her and ask.
--Jake
Hmmmm, OK, you asked for it! It is quite coincidental that twice it ends up that what you have posted on forums prompts a published article by AL. The first time you told us you were composing a letter to her boss, I beleive, which was after the autopsy photos were viewed by RPD.
I won't mention this time, as you know everything you wrote about since May 1st here, and the culminating point you wanted to make wasn't the little stuff like keeping evidence from LE or something derogatory about Jason that Meredith knows and doesn't want to give to LE. It was about the sexual exam Michelle wasn't given That's what you were leading up to.
Journalism is your forte. Using your skills as a journalism expert, is it possible your plan is to cajole the press into making LE look far less than perfect.
Now from what we have seen in the last two days, they need to change the way they do things so this will never happen again. I am thankful this has been brought out in the open now so it can be remedied. But I do think you owe us the respect of acknowledging your plan to us after you have really used us as a sounding board to set the stage.
I will agree with you that the Raleigh newspapers and media do not even come close to what Mr William Brand wrtes everyday in the Oakland
tribune. LOL Now that is the stuff that keeps the reader glued to the page. You probably should have mailed Amanda the article you thought she should write about this new development. BTW, I thought she did a great job on the previous articles about the autopsy photos and then the followup blurb about forum world!
Nothing personal Jake. Scandi
PS: Sorry for O/T - For posteritys sake, here is the article of all time IMHO by William Brand about the discovery of Laci Peterson's body weeks before she washed ashore:
http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Media/articles/secret.htm
Samiya
05-05-2007, 07:47 AM
Scout, a reporter is trained to put his most important news in the lead, the first paragraph of his story. AL did not do this. Why not? Because she is protecting a source? Because she has even more information she is going to break later?
--Jake
Amanda,
When you break more about this SNAFU ask Sam Pennica WHY a CCBI Agent who had no idea about Michelle's case was sent to be present at the autopsy. The agent wasn't even briefed in regard to what evidence was requested in that document so that he/she could make certain that the stated evidence WAS collected by Clark.
Sami
Samiya
05-05-2007, 07:56 AM
Barney......
So John Butts is lying?
Sami
raisincharlie
05-05-2007, 09:48 AM
Barney......
So John Butts is lying?
Sami
Sami,
Have you read this article ? http://www.newsobserver.com/141/story/571083.html
"But pathologist Thomas B. Clark III, who conducted the autopsy, did not perform the sexual assault test, said Dr. John D. Butts, the state's chief medical examiner.
Butts said he did not know why Clark decided not to conduct the test, but that Clark did look for bruising, tears or other signs of a rape and found no injuries. "An examination was made and no evidence of a sexual assault was found," he said.
This one indicates that Clark himself did the autopsy. I wonder if anyone in the ME's office really knows ? As to the agent sent over - he/she was probably passed out, as would I have been. What is more distrubing is the last two paragraphs - apparently Butts feels that it is the ME's job to determine what is appropriate - not LE.
jilly
Dr Greene performed the autopsy on Saturday am. Dr Clark signed the final report that was written by Dr Greene.
snipped from WRAL++++++++++++
It's unclear why the evidence was not collected and Chapel Hill's chief medical examiner, Dr. John Butts, doesn't know, because he said he has not had a chance to talk to pathologist Dr. Thomas Clark, who performed the autopsy, about that piece of evidence.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Do we believe Amanda or Barney? I reckon we'll know eventually. Not really important, I reckon.
--Jake
Scout
05-05-2007, 09:55 AM
snipped from WRAL++++++++++++
It's unclear why the evidence was not collected and Chapel Hill's chief medical examiner, Dr. John Butts, doesn't know, because he said he has not had a chance to talk to pathologist Dr. Thomas Clark, who performed the autopsy, about that piece of evidence.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Do we believe Amanda or Barney? I reckon we'll know eventually. Not really important, I reckon.
--Jake
The article was written by Sarah Ovaska, Jake.
Barney Fife
05-05-2007, 10:02 AM
snipped from WRAL++++++++++++
It's unclear why the evidence was not collected and Chapel Hill's chief medical examiner, Dr. John Butts, doesn't know, because he said he has not had a chance to talk to pathologist Dr. Thomas Clark, who performed the autopsy, about that piece of evidence.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Do we believe Amanda or Barney? I reckon we'll know eventually. Not really important, I reckon.
--Jake
Do we believe the N&O or Barney ? It is important, so why not get the facts straight ? Dr Clark was not present in the autopsy suite that Saturday. As a Senior Pathologist, he reviewed and approved Dr Greene's report. I reckon you need to send one of your poison pen campaigns to the N&O now. Maybe you can get Sarah Ovaska fired for sloppy reporting ?
The article was written by Sarah Ovaska, Jake.
snipped+++++++++++++++
It's unclear why the evidence was not collected and Chapel Hill's chief medical examiner, Dr. John Butts, doesn't know, because he said he has not had a chance to talk to pathologist Dr. Thomas Clark, who performed the autopsy, about that piece of evidence.
"I wasn't there," he said. "If a decision was made not to collect that kit, I don't know why that decision was made."
Butts did say, however, that requests on the pathology sheet often change once a body is ready for autopsy. But those requests aren't always documented on the sheet and that the sheet isn't always used during the autopsy.
"The fact that someone checked something doesn't mean that request was conveyed to us," he said.
Reporter: Amanda Lamb (http://www.wral.com/rs/bio/1014364/)
Photographer: Chad Flowers (http://www.wral.com/apps/feedback/feedback/?d_id_person=12)
Web Editor: Kelly Gardner (http://www.wral.com/apps/feedback/feedback/?d_id_person=125)Copyright 2007 by WRAL.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
+++++++++++++++++
--Jake
Do we believe the N&O or Barney ? It is important, so why not get the facts straight ? Dr Clark was not present in the autopsy suite that Saturday. As a Senior Pathologist, he reviewed and approved Dr Greene's report. I reckon you need to send one of your poison pen campaigns to the N&O now. Maybe you can get Sarah Ovaska fired for sloppy reporting ?
Who's Sarah Ovaska? Has she also betrayed a confidential source to you? If so, she should be fired. Let me find my poison pen.
--Jake
Barney Fife
05-05-2007, 10:10 AM
Sami,
Have you read this article ? http://www.newsobserver.com/141/story/571083.html
"But pathologist Thomas B. Clark III, who conducted the autopsy, did not perform the sexual assault test, said Dr. John D. Butts, the state's chief medical examiner.
Butts said he did not know why Clark decided not to conduct the test, but that Clark did look for bruising, tears or other signs of a rape and found no injuries. "An examination was made and no evidence of a sexual assault was found," he said.
This one indicates that Clark himself did the autopsy. I wonder if anyone in the ME's office really knows ? As to the agent sent over - he/she was probably passed out, as would I have been. What is more distrubing is the last two paragraphs - apparently Butts feels that it is the ME's job to determine what is appropriate - not LE.
RC
Either the N&O or Dr Butts and the whole NCME office has been smoking something. According to the official report , Dr Greene, Bill Holloman(photographer) and Kevin Gerity (facility manager) where present during the actual autopsy. I am sure Dr Clark consulted with Greene to compile the report, as he was the one who signed and released it. In fact, I met him in The NCME office and i had assumed he performed the autopsy as well.
Scout
05-05-2007, 10:15 AM
snipped+++++++++++++++
It's unclear why the evidence was not collected and Chapel Hill's chief medical examiner, Dr. John Butts, doesn't know, because he said he has not had a chance to talk to pathologist Dr. Thomas Clark, who performed the autopsy, about that piece of evidence.
"I wasn't there," he said. "If a decision was made not to collect that kit, I don't know why that decision was made."
Butts did say, however, that requests on the pathology sheet often change once a body is ready for autopsy. But those requests aren't always documented on the sheet and that the sheet isn't always used during the autopsy.
"The fact that someone checked something doesn't mean that request was conveyed to us," he said.
Reporter: Amanda Lamb (http://www.wral.com/rs/bio/1014364/)
Photographer: Chad Flowers (http://www.wral.com/apps/feedback/feedback/?d_id_person=12)
Web Editor: Kelly Gardner (http://www.wral.com/apps/feedback/feedback/?d_id_person=125)Copyright 2007 by WRAL.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
+++++++++++++++++
--Jake
Sorry, Jake. I was reading the more recent N&O article:
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/571083.html
raisincharlie
05-05-2007, 10:18 AM
RC
Either the N&O or Dr Butts and the whole NCME office has been smoking something. According to the official report , Dr Greene, Bill Holloman(photographer) and Kevin Gerity (facility manager) where present during the actual autopsy. I am sure Dr Clark consulted with Greene to compile the report, as he was the one who signed and released it. In fact, I met him in The NCME office and i had assumed he performed the autopsy as well. WRAL removed the autopsy report link from their web page ?
Thanks Barney
Seems the whole thing is a mess right now, Butts seems to be running for cover but is only making it worse by not providing consistent statements. Confusing but in the end, other than bits of egg falling from faces of the ME, the significance may not be as severe as it appears right now. I must say however I am very disturbed by his stance that the ME decides what is appropriate for testing - this sounds like a territorial issue. LE's needs should never be overlooked - especially in a murder case IMO.
snipped from N&O++++++++
Sarah Ovaska, Staff Writer
RALEIGH - A thorough examination to look for evidence of a sexual assault or encounter was not performed on Michelle Young, a November murder victim from southern Wake County whose killing has gone unsolved for six months.
Crime scene investigators with Wake's City-County Bureau of Identification requested that a pathologist use a sexual assault kit when they brought Young's body to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Chapel Hill, said CCBI's director Sam Pennica on Friday. CCBI is responsible for collecting evidence at Wake County crime scenes.
But pathologist Thomas B. Clark III, who conducted the autopsy, did not perform the sexual assault test, said Dr. John D. Butts, the state's chief medical examiner. Butts said he did not know why Clark decided not to conduct the test, but that Clark did look for bruising, tears or other signs of a rape and found no injuries.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Never mind, Barney. Now I see who Ms. ovaska is.
--Jake
raisincharlie
05-05-2007, 10:23 AM
Thanks RC. :) I guess that was one part that I didn't absorb!:crazy:
Jilly,
Sorry I can't give you a link to those posts at CTV - they have disappeared - surprise:crazy:
RC
Either the N&O or Dr Butts and the whole NCME office has been smoking something. According to the official report , Dr Greene, Bill Holloman(photographer) and Kevin Gerity (facility manager) where present during the actual autopsy. I am sure Dr Clark consulted with Greene to compile the report, as he was the one who signed and released it. In fact, I met him in The NCME office and i had assumed he performed the autopsy as well. WRAL removed the autopsy report link from their web page ?
Whoa, Barney, calm down. Accusing someone of smoking dope is pretty serious, even on a message board. I just want you to know that my poison pen is capped....just in case someone sends your post on.
Maybe you should drop this whole thing. Maybe Dr. Clark told his boss he examined the body while actually he was somewhere else. No need to get someone into trouble.
No reply is necessary, Barney. Let's drop it and move on.
--Jake
Barney Fife
05-05-2007, 10:34 AM
snipped from N&O++++++++
Sarah Ovaska, Staff Writer
RALEIGH - A thorough examination to look for evidence of a sexual assault or encounter was not performed on Michelle Young, a November murder victim from southern Wake County whose killing has gone unsolved for six months.
Crime scene investigators with Wake's City-County Bureau of Identification requested that a pathologist use a sexual assault kit when they brought Young's body to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Chapel Hill, said CCBI's director Sam Pennica on Friday. CCBI is responsible for collecting evidence at Wake County crime scenes.
But pathologist Thomas B. Clark III, who conducted the autopsy, did not perform the sexual assault test, said Dr. John D. Butts, the state's chief medical examiner. Butts said he did not know why Clark decided not to conduct the test, but that Clark did look for bruising, tears or other signs of a rape and found no injuries.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Never mind, Barney. Now I see who Ms. ovaska is.
--Jake
If Dr Clark did this examination, the autopsy report inaccurately described who was present. I will tell you the hand written notes on the diagrams were written by Dr Greene. This appears to be the same handwriting that was on the 2 page cover sheet Report of Investigation . If you order the report on line, the ME office will mail the official report and it will include this as well. Sorry, it tells you nothing other than the basic details of the death and the time and place the body was transfered to the NCME office, ect.
Dr Greene was a 3rd year Pathology resident and not on the NCME staff.
"The trainee performs approximately 250 forensic autopsies during the course of the one-year fellowship. These cases represent a wide spectrum of natural and traumatic causes of death. All autopsy examinations are performed under the supervision of the OCME staff, which consists of 4 full-time, board-certified forensic pathologists. The fellow is expected to manage his/her own cases and to seek assistance as needed."
Barney Fife
05-05-2007, 10:36 AM
If you want to see the REPORT OF INVESTIGATION in addition to the report, you can request and they will mail .
http://www.ocme.unc.edu/docrequest.shtml
scandi
05-05-2007, 10:43 AM
"Hindering"? Maybe slightly. But I don't think LE needs to clear him before investigating other possibilities. Do you?
Unfortunately, I think this has happened. I believe LE's tunnel vision has hindered their investigation. Jason is not to blame for this.
--Jake
I don't think other avenues of investigatiion would have anything to do with clearing the husband. When LE has proof that the husband had neither the motive, means nor opportunity to comit the crime he will be cleared.
What if LE has found nothing that points to someone other than the husband here? If every avenue they explore leads back to him, it could be everything is resting on Jason's shoulders. I don't think they had tunnelvision at all. You think because right off the bat they looked strongly at him that is tunnelvision. We don't know what they learned right away, but there must have been strong evidence as to which direction it looked like the hunt for the killer was going to lead.
Scout
05-05-2007, 10:47 AM
If Dr Clark did this examination, the autopsy report inaccurately described who was present. I will tell you the hand written notes on the diagrams were written by Dr Greene. This appears to be the same handwriting that was on the 2 page cover sheet Report of Investigation . If you order the report on line, the ME office will mail the official report and it will include this as well. Sorry, it tells you nothing other than the basic details of the death and the time and place the body was transfered to the NCME office, ect.
Dr Greene was a 3rd year Pathology resident and not on the NCME staff.
"The trainee performs approximately 250 forensic autopsies during the course of the one-year fellowship. These cases represent a wide spectrum of natural and traumatic causes of death. All autopsy examinations are performed under the supervision of the OCME staff, which consists of 4 full-time, board-certified forensic pathologists. The fellow is expected to manage his/her own cases and to seek assistance as needed."
I tend to believe your information, Barney. The article written by Ms. Ovaska does not quote Dr. Butts as stating that Dr. Clark personally performed or was present for the autopsy. Every statement that specifically names Dr. Clark is paraphrasing by the reporter. I'm thinking it may be an erroneous conclusion drawn by both Lamb and Ovaska based on Clark's signature on the AR.
snipped+++++++++++++++
[quote=scandi;1474067]I don't think other avenues of investigatiion would have anything to do with clearing the husband. When LE has proof that the husband had neither the motive, means nor opportunity to comit the crime he will be cleared.
What if LE has found nothing that points to someone other than the husband here? If every avenue they explore leads back to him, it could be everything is resting on Jason's shoulders. I don't think they had tunnelvision at all.
You think because right off the bat they looked strongly at him that is tunnelvision. We don't know what they learned right away, but there must have been strong evidence as to which direction it looked like the hunt for the killer was going to lead.
++++++++++++++++++++++
No, Scandi, you're wrong about what I think. In six months, I think LE has not looked closely at anyone other than Jason. I have reason to doubt LE even knows other names of people who could be involved. That is tunnel vision.
--Jake
Barney Fife
05-05-2007, 11:16 AM
snipped+++++++++++++++
[quote=scandi;1474067]I don't think other avenues of investigatiion would have anything to do with clearing the husband. When LE has proof that the husband had neither the motive, means nor opportunity to comit the crime he will be cleared.
What if LE has found nothing that points to someone other than the husband here? If every avenue they explore leads back to him, it could be everything is resting on Jason's shoulders. I don't think they had tunnelvision at all.
You think because right off the bat they looked strongly at him that is tunnelvision. We don't know what they learned right away, but there must have been strong evidence as to which direction it looked like the hunt for the killer was going to lead.
++++++++++++++++++++++
No, Scandi, you're wrong about what I think. In six months, I think LE has not looked closely at anyone other than Jason. I have reason to doubt LE even knows other names of people who could be involved. That is tunnel vision.
--Jake
LE has interviewed 100's of people for leads and they have plenty of names. They just know from the evidence they could not be involved. Why is that tunnel vision ?
raisincharlie
05-05-2007, 11:37 AM
[quote=jake;1474088]snipped+++++++++++++++
LE has interviewed 100's of people for leads and they have plenty of names. They just know from the evidence they could not be involved. Why is that tunnel vision ?
Barney,
From the video I watched, it appears DA Holt agrees with you - no tunnel vision. Jason remains on the list of potentials because of his own choices. LE has been refused the ability to talk with him, even his lawyer refuses to comment, therefore Jason has refused to assist in clearing himself from that list. As we have heard so many times - that is his right. The only tunnel vision going on in this case exists elsewhere IMO.
spring
05-05-2007, 11:37 AM
snipped+++++++++++++++
[quote=scandi;1474067]I don't think other avenues of investigatiion would have anything to do with clearing the husband. When LE has proof that the husband had neither the motive, means nor opportunity to comit the crime he will be cleared.
What if LE has found nothing that points to someone other than the husband here? If every avenue they explore leads back to him, it could be everything is resting on Jason's shoulders. I don't think they had tunnelvision at all.
You think because right off the bat they looked strongly at him that is tunnelvision. We don't know what they learned right away, but there must have been strong evidence as to which direction it looked like the hunt for the killer was going to lead.
++++++++++++++++++++++
No, Scandi, you're wrong about what I think. In six months, I think LE has not looked closely at anyone other than Jason. I have reason to doubt LE even knows other names of people who could be involved. That is tunnel vision.
--Jake
LE has been reading your junk since you first arrived, i assure you. so you do the math. how many months now have they heard about Meredith and her boyfriend? maybe if you quit posting in riddles and get to the point quicker, they could investigate all the leads you have. :doh:
[quote=jake;1474088]snipped+++++++++++++++
LE has interviewed 100's of people for leads and they have plenty of names. They just know from the evidence they could not be involved. Why is that tunnel vision ?
"Interviewed"? I'm talking about searching. I have yet to see any search warrant returned and filed for any person other than Jason and MM.
I have a list of people I would search if I were LE. Search as in search warrant for homes, computers, autos, offices, etc. I believe I could convince a judge or magistrate to issue warrants for these people. No, I will not list names.
Is it possible these people were searched without a warrant because they cooperated? Anything is possible....but I doubt it. I doubt LE even has some of these names and locations. LE is not interested since they know who killed Michelle.
--Jake
happy2bn10ec
05-05-2007, 11:59 AM
[quote=Barney Fife;1474094]
"Interviewed"? I'm talking about searching. I have yet to see any search warrant returned and filed for any person other than Jason and MM.
I have a list of people I would search if I were LE. Search as in search warrant for homes, computers, autos, offices, etc. I believe I could convince a judge or magistrate to issue warrants for these people. No, I will not list names.
Is it possible these people were searched without a warrant because they cooperated? Anything is possible....but I doubt it. I doubt LE even has some of these names and locations. LE is not interested since they know who killed Michelle.
--Jake
Finally, Jake, something I can agree on with you!
I think LE knows who killed Michelle, too. ;)
scandi
05-05-2007, 12:01 PM
[quote=Barney Fife;1474094]
Barney,
From the video I watched, it appears DA Holt agrees with you - no tunnel vision. Jason remains on the list of potentials because of his own choices. LE has been refused the ability to talk with him, even his lawyer refuses to comment, therefore Jason has refused to assist in clearing himself from that list. As we have heard so many times - that is his right. The only tunnel vision going on in this case exists elsewhere IMO.
LOL
This is exactly what I was trying to get across Charlie. You made it so simple in just a few words!
Is the morgue where Michelle was taken in Chappel Hill? I have read this Dr Groene performs 250 autopsies a year and his chosen field is ME frorensic pathology. He is a regular doctor who is just not yet board certified.
What does that really matter. I think part of being board certified would involve overseeng procedures, taking responsibility for work done, decisions made and teaching. Does any of that really play into doing a great job in performing the autopsy itself?
Scandi
PS: I have to say I have always been touched by the role of the forensic pathologist on CSI Miami, who performs the autopsies. She treats the bodies as though they are in her special care, with empathy and a bit of tenderness. It is how I would hope every doctor is who performs autopsies.
Scout
05-05-2007, 12:11 PM
"Interviewed"? I'm talking about searching. I have yet to see any search warrant returned and filed for any person other than Jason and MM.
I have a list of people I would search if I were LE. Search as in search warrant for homes, computers, autos, offices, etc. I believe I could convince a judge or magistrate to issue warrants for these people. No, I will not list names.
Is it possible these people were searched without a warrant because they cooperated? Anything is possible....but I doubt it. I doubt LE even has some of these names and locations. LE is not interested since they know who killed Michelle.
--Jake
Can you at least tell us, in a straightforward manner, what it is about these people that causes you to suspect them, Jake?
raisincharlie
05-05-2007, 12:12 PM
[quote=raisincharlie;1474102]
LOL
This is exactly what I ws trying to get across Charlie. You made it so simple in just a few words!
Is the morgue where Michelle was taken in Chappel Hill? I have read this Dr Groene performs 250 autopsies a year and his chosen field is ME frorensic pathology. He is a regular doctor who is just not yet board certified.
What does that really matter. I think part of being board certified would involve overseeng procedures, taking responsibility for work done, decisions made and teaching. Does any of that really play into doing a great job in performing the autopsy itself?
Scandi
PS: I have to say I have always been touched by the role of the forensic pathologist on CSI Miami, who performs the autopsies. She treats the bodies as though they are in her special care, with empathy and a bit of tenderness. It is how I would hope every doctor is who performs autopsies.
Scandi,
Not meaning to avoid your questions but I do believe the ME's office is indeed in Chapel Hill. As to the Doctor - I suspect Barney would have a better answer for you. I think he posted a link above about Dr. Green.
As to the search warrants - because one hasn't seen a single warrant issued to anyone other than Jy and MM - doesn't mean they don't exist despite one's protestations and all knowingness. These warrants would not have been forwarded to Jy's lawyer for perusal. The warrants may not be returned or they may be sealed. Despite Jy having a lawyer - it doesn't mean said lawyer is privy to any warrants issued to other persons.
Can you at least tell us, in a straightforward manner, what it is about these people that causes you to suspect them, Jake?
If I did that, Scout, it would be the same as naming them.
--Jake
Scout
05-05-2007, 12:20 PM
If I did that, Scout, it would be the same as naming them.
--Jake
How about a PM then? I'm genuinely interested, Jake.
Barney Fife
05-05-2007, 12:29 PM
[quote=raisincharlie;1474102]
LOL
This is exactly what I was trying to get across Charlie. You made it so simple in just a few words!
Is the morgue where Michelle was taken in Chappel Hill? I have read this Dr Groene performs 250 autopsies a year and his chosen field is ME frorensic pathology. He is a regular doctor who is just not yet board certified.
What does that really matter. I think part of being board certified would involve overseeng procedures, taking responsibility for work done, decisions made and teaching. Does any of that really play into doing a great job in performing the autopsy itself?
Scandi
PS: I have to say I have always been touched by the role of the forensic pathologist on CSI Miami, who performs the autopsies. She treats the bodies as though they are in her special care, with empathy and a bit of tenderness. It is how I would hope every doctor is who performs autopsies.
Scandi,
Since the manner of death was obvious (head trauma / no accident), the autopsy was not especially critical. Counting and documenting severe wounds could be done by a registered nurse quite well. Where Dr Greene dropped the ball was not doing the requested rape kit. However, at the end of the day, I think this will prove to be a non-issue just like the "tooth". Wake County will seat an impartial jury not divided by race and they will focus on the important evidence that the DA uses to show the killer did this beyond a reasonable doubt.
scandi
05-05-2007, 12:30 PM
I wish you would run this by Scout Jake. She is so studied on the case and pragmatic about crime. That is a person I would trust ;}
Barney Fife
05-05-2007, 12:32 PM
If I did that, Scout, it would be the same as naming them.
--Jake
Accusing an innocent person of murder on a public board would cause you trouble. I understand your reluctance Jake.
Scout
05-05-2007, 12:34 PM
I wish you would run this by Scout Jake. She is so studied on the case and pragmatic about crime. That is a person I would trust ;}
I'm surprised and flattered by your compliment, Scandi. Thank you!
scandi
05-05-2007, 12:37 PM
Thanks Barney as that makes it much more clear. I see I misspelled Dr Greene's name before. :slap:
Also, I agree about Jake not posting anything like names on a public board - thanks for pointing that out, but was hoping he could convey his thoughts to Scout by PM. Scandi
scandi
05-05-2007, 12:40 PM
You're welcome Scout. There are several posters here I would trust implicitly {sp}, and think you are a good choice!
Accusing an innocent person of murder on a public board would cause you trouble. I understand your reluctance Jake.
Thanks, Barney. You forgot to add....unless it's Jason. Yeah, innocent.
--Jake
jilly
05-05-2007, 01:26 PM
Is the morgue where Michelle was taken in Chappel Hill? I have read this Dr Groene performs 250 autopsies a year and his chosen field is ME frorensic pathology. He is a regular doctor who is just not yet board certified.
What does that really matter. I think part of being board certified would involve overseeng procedures, taking responsibility for work done, decisions made and teaching. Does any of that really play into doing a great job in performing the autopsy itself?
To the Defense attorney, it sure is imo because it's not just this particular oversight we're talking about. This autopsy, as opposed to the one done on Kathleen Peterson lacks detail. jmo
Scout
05-05-2007, 01:30 PM
More questions for you, Jake:
Was the master bedroom the only place that you observed carpet (or other permanent fixtures) removed from the house?
Regarding the bluish/greenish substance, did you see it only in spots where blood was obvious, or were there places where you noticed this substance but there were no visible bloodstains?
Did you see any disturbed areas in the house that you attributed to the killer's activities rather than to the investigative process? If so, why?
strach304
05-05-2007, 01:46 PM
To the Defense attorney, it sure is imo because it's not just this particular oversight we're talking about. This autopsy, as opposed to the one done on Kathleen Peterson lacks detail. jmo
Absolutely. I've been following Hawthorne's posts on ctv about this as she has said all along she hoped there was another. If she can get an expert friend to look it over and detail as much as she did about what was missing think about the defense's experts and what they'll do with this. Lets not think Jason for a minute and assume that someone is eventually charged. They don't need motive legally but won't the jury want some kind of evidence if this is a random person of rape or robbery for instance.
We did question this way back when Hawthorne brought it up but hoped there was something else. Same with the alcohol test being the only one listed. I know toxicology tests take much longer for the results but again we figured they'd be in a final report of some kind.
As to Jason being the one charged if so for those who followed the Laci Peterson case, remember how Geragos handled every single prosecution witness? Even the accuracy of mitochondrial dna. We're at the point in this case where everyone involved with any evidence collecting, processing, etc. is being called to the carpet in the wake of what happened with the Durham prosecutor. Obviously that matters too or everyone wouldn't keep bringing it up as a reason for proceeding so carefuly in this case.
More questions for you, Jake:
Was the master bedroom the only place that you observed carpet (or other permanent fixtures) removed from the house?
Regarding the bluish/greenish substance, did you see it only in spots where blood was obvious, or were there places where you noticed this substance but there were no visible bloodstains?
Did you see any disturbed areas in the house that you attributed to the killer's activities rather than to the investigative process? If so, why?
Yes, Scout, that was the only place.
Can't even guess. I didn't look that closely. I've heard the name of that stuff, but can't remember it. It was not luminol, for that must be seen under a special light in darkness.
No, I reckon not. LE could answer that, but I saw it only after many people had investigated the house. I can't know what the killer did and what LE did.
--Jake
scandi
05-05-2007, 01:56 PM
Excellent posts Girls, That is why I thought they would be extra carefull in processing everything to do with this case, from the crime scene all the way down to keeping it close to the vest. Everything done by the book and not rushed for time.
I have often thought there should be a new autopsy on Michelle, but then I think Barney said even a nurse could examine and detail wounds on a report, so maybe it is fine. But I would love to hear Dr Werner Spitz on the subject!
Scandi
strach304
05-05-2007, 02:24 PM
It's so disheartening after following this case from the beginning and being sure that LE would get whooever is responsible. I have seen incompetency in LE on many other cases where those crimes are not solved. I don't mean unsolved crimes mean incompetency either. There have been several that come to mind also where LE weren't up to par that the perp was caught by pure luck or however you want to put it but not to their credit.
I'm not ready to give up all hope but I certainly have valid reasons to worry. Jason is still very suspect to me until I see real evidence of someone else's involvement which I have not seen so far but that doesn't mean LE hasn't.
jilly
05-05-2007, 03:09 PM
As to Jason being the one charged if so for those who followed the Laci Peterson case, remember how Geragos handled every single prosecution witness? Even the accuracy of mitochondrial dna. We're at the point in this case where everyone involved with any evidence collecting, processing, etc. is being called to the carpet in the wake of what happened with the Durham prosecutor. Obviously that matters too or everyone wouldn't keep bringing it up as a reason for proceeding so carefuly in this case.
I totally agree with your entire post Strach. I have been very patient this past 6 mos relying on all this i dotting & t crossing but now I'm starting to wonder. So what else is going on besides:
The AR lacking detail; failure to conduct a rape kit, 3rd yr intern performing autopsy, No report from Pathologist.;
The CSIs - leaving a tooth/piece of tooth at the crime scene after 13 days of so-called "fine tooth-combing".
The defense is going to make mincemeat out of this. They're going to chip at it in cross just like any good attorney. Yes I remember Geragos dong this and I'll never forget "WELL, MR FUNG!!" under Barry Scheck.
I also have a few concerns about LE but I'm going to keep these to myself until I have more info. I think they've reached a road block. I'm also thinking jy made a deliberate attempt to commit the perfect crime by googling with a libary card, booking a hotel without surveillance, keeping his cell phone off. Then he lawyers up immediately.
I agree with Scandi about Cassidy and the 911 tape but you can bet your bottom dollar that the Defense will fight like hell to keep that out for being too prejudicial.
scandi
05-05-2007, 03:29 PM
I totally agree with your entire post Strach. I have been very patient this past 6 mos relying on all this i dotting & t crossing but now I'm starting to wonder. So what else is going on besides:
The AR lacking detail; failure to conduct a rape kit, 3rd yr intern performing autopsy, No report from Pathologist.;
The CSIs - leaving a tooth/piece of tooth at the crime scene after 13 days of so-called "fine tooth-combing".
The defense is going to make mincemeat out of this. They're going to chip at it in cross just like any good attorney. Yes I remember Geragos dong this and I'll never forget "WELL, MR FUNG!!" under Barry Scheck.
I also have a few concerns about LE but I'm going to keep these to myself until I have more info. I think they've reached a road block. I'm also thinking jy made a deliberate attempt to commit the perfect crime by googling with a libary card, booking a hotel without surveillance, keeping his cell phone off. Then he lawyers up immediately.
I agree with Scandi about Cassidy and the 911 tape but you can bet your bottom dollar that the Defense will fight like hell to keep that out for being too prejudicial.
Hey Jilly! ;} I think your reasoning on how to commit the perfect crime in this case is excellent. The no surveillance and phone off could work either way though, as it doesn't prove where he was all the time. Do you have a theory on what was done with the accoutrements to the crime, and I still wonder about where the bloody sheet and socks are now.
See ya later alligater! [color=crimson]Scandi[/olor]
spring
05-05-2007, 03:35 PM
Hey Jilly! ;} I think your reasoning on how to commit the perfect crime in this case is excellent. The no surveillance and phone off could work either way though, as it doesn't prove where he was all the time. Do you have a theory on what was done with the accoutrements to the crime, and I still wonder about where the bloody sheet and socks are now.
See ya later alligater! [color=crimson]Scandi[/olor]
that is the true needle in a haystack. there are so many lakes and bodies of water that JY is all too familiar with, but i really think that any trash bin along his however many mile route that he took back to his hotel and to his mother's would have sufficed. i don't really know how as an investigator you would begin to look for those items.
Stoli
05-05-2007, 03:41 PM
that is the true needle in a haystack. there are so many lakes and bodies of water that JY is all too familiar with, but i really think that any trash bin along his however many mile route that he took back to his hotel and to his mother's would have sufficed. i don't really know how as an investigator you would begin to look for those items.
I think the garbage dump is the place to get rid of evidence if you never want it found. If Nov 3rd was a garbage day, a bag filled with evidence could have been dumped and it will never, ever be found.
Barney Fife
05-05-2007, 03:46 PM
that is the true needle in a haystack. there are so many lakes and bodies of water that JY is all too familiar with, but i really think that any trash bin along his however many mile route that he took back to his hotel and to his mother's would have sufficed. i don't really know how as an investigator you would begin to look for those items.
Hey Spring !
I agree . The weapon, shoes and clothing were probably placed in a garbage bag from his kitchen drawer and dropped in one of the many cans or dumpsters along the 175 mile route back to Hillsville......long gone.
jilly
05-05-2007, 03:56 PM
Hey Jilly! ;} I think your reasoning on how to commit the perfect crime in this case is excellent. The no surveillance and phone off could work either way though, as it doesn't prove where he was all the time. Do you have a theory on what was done with the accoutrements to the crime, and I still wonder about where the bloody sheet and socks are now.
See ya later alligater! [color=crimson]Scandi[/olor]
Yes the phone & surveillance could work either way but this is going to be a CE case. LE needs something that the jury can get their teeth into and we haven't seen or heard anything yet. I really tried to be optimistic but now we have this other stuff coming out and I can see it's made it easier for the Defense to chip away at reasonable doubt. I really hoped (like you) that LE ".... would be extra carefull in processing everything to do with this case, from the crime scene all the way down to keeping it close to the vest."
What we've read recently doesn't add up to dotting the I's & T's does it?
I have no idea about the accroutrements. Think we might just have to wait for some hiker or fisherman to come across them one day.
raisincharlie
05-05-2007, 05:28 PM
Yes the phone & surveillance could work either way but this is going to be a CE case. LE needs something that the jury can get their teeth into and we haven't seen or heard anything yet. I really tried to be optimistic but now we have this other stuff coming out and I can see it's made it easier for the Defense to chip away at reasonable doubt. I really hoped (like you) that LE ".... would be extra carefull in processing everything to do with this case, from the crime scene all the way down to keeping it close to the vest."
What we've read recently doesn't add up to dotting the I's & T's does it?
I have no idea about the accroutrements. Think we might just have to wait for some hiker or fisherman to come across them one day.
Wow Jilly !
Do you really think the entire case hinges on what the ME did or did not do ? Do you not think that Michelle's clothes will add some independent significance to this? What if the ME had indeed done a rape kit and it was negative - does it change the truth ?
I know what you are saying but, I'm not ready to think this case has been denied because of this - it is for one thing, correctable. second - the tooth - you know as well as I do that the source of that has been identified by now. If it turns out to be Michelle's - hmmm it really isn't evidence is it ?
I'm willing to continue thinking there is more to this case than what we know. Call me an optimist but the reality is there is more evidence than we know about. How strong how weak we don't know. Yes a defense lawyer is going to try to make everything look bad - does it change the truth ? I wouldn't be surprised to see the DA call some people that aren't thinking they will be called - there is lots of explaining to do on both sides I think.
scandi
05-05-2007, 05:49 PM
That is interesting Charlie, and from what I have just read over at CTV on the Phil Spector thread, it could be our case could even get more interesting!
I only have just read the jist of this, but in Ca they have a rule of reciprocal evidence. After the forensic team and crime scene investigators take down the tape on a crime scene, the defense does have the opportunity to go through it. If they find anything they are bound to share it or notify the prosecution they have located something which might be evidenciary.
I don't know what the laws are in NC, but if what has been thrown out to us is true, and at the same time as when the tooth was found by the family {say within a couple of days or till the cleaning crew came in}, if something else was taken from the scene and withheld for months, and finally turned over to the defense attny, couldn't that also be a problem at trial?
In the Spector trial the judge spoke of 'moved evidence' which caused a mini trial within the big trial, and the judge listed many violations against the defense.
I would think a family member witholding evidence from LE for a period of time could be just as serious as the fact that LE asked for certain evidence to be collected and the ME failed to do so. Hmmmmmmmmm LOL
strach304
05-05-2007, 05:49 PM
One of the major differences in this case to compare to the Peterson conviction is Scott's big mouth and actions after the fact. I said some time ago the smartest thing Jason could do if guilty is keep his mouth shut and he has. Scott was told to do the same thing.
With stuff like this hanging out there and the possibility of more the DA would be smart not to take it to trial yet without overwhelming evidence that is sure to get a conviction. I'm counting on what they do have and not on what they don't.
raisincharlie
05-05-2007, 05:56 PM
That is interesting Charlie, and from what I have just read over at CTV on the Phil Spector thread, it could be our case could even get more interesting!
I only have just read the jist of this, but in Ca they have a rule of reciprocal evidence. After the forensic team and crime scene investigators take down the tape on a crime scene, the defense does have the opportunity to go through it. If they find anything they are bound to share it or notify the prosecution they have located something which might be evidenciary.
I don't know what the laws are in NC, but if what has been thrown out to us is true, and at the same time as when the tooth was found by the family {say within a couple of days or till the cleaning crew came in}, if something else was taken from the scene and withheld for months, and finally turned over to the defense attny, couldn't that also be a problem at trial?
In the Spector trial the judge spoke of 'moved evidence' which caused a mini trial within the big trial, and the judge listed many violations against the defense.
I would think a family member witholding evidence from LE for a period of time could be just as serious as the fact that LE asked for certain evidence to be collected and the ME failed to do so. Hmmmmmmmmm LOL
Scandi,
You have touched on one of the reasons why I believe this case is moving slowly. NC does not have the requirement for reciprical discovery except for alibi witnesses. Otherwise, the state is indeed open to being blind sided as the state must turn over eveything once a suspect is arrested.
Think about that one !
As to with holding evidence - well I suspect if that were true, someone would be screaming from the mountains by now if it were indeed exculpatory...don't you ?
strach304
05-05-2007, 06:04 PM
Scandi, I think the whole point in this particular issue where a family member may have found something as Jake said they didn't know it was important or thought it wasn't because LE did not collect it. Therefore, LE is imcompetent so what else did they miss? Strange to me how six months later they realize it is important. Can't be the package of condoms because they were listed in a warrant so we know LE took those. That ties in with no SA test done being made into a major issue, Now what if those prints are what's not id'd? Major boo boo even if it is just the store clerks.
It isn't that what was found or discovered yielded anything of evidentiary value it's that it wasn't collected in the first place by LE. They really aren't in a position to say or do anything to whoever found whatever as long as that person is saying they had no idea it was important but LE should've known, right?
scandi
05-05-2007, 06:13 PM
Amazing about NC law. it gives the defense a true advantage which seems unfair at the least.
I don't think they would share that with the public. And we don't even know if it is indeed true, or if LE knows about it yet if it is true. I'm sure they would be right on the horn to Smith, but if it is the sheets and socks that were left behind for some reason on purpose, it wouldn't matter anyway, right?
We can't believe LE didn't take those bloody articles and we have not even heard what happened to them!
raisincharlie
05-05-2007, 06:20 PM
Amazing about NC law. it gives the defense a true advantage which seems unfair at the least.
I don't think they would share that with the public. And we don't even know if it is indeed true, or if LE knows about it yet if it is true. I'm sure they would be right on the horn to Smith, but if it is the sheets and socks that were left behind for some reason on purpose, it wouldn't matter anyway, right?
We can't believe LE didn't take those bloody articles and we have not even heard what happened to them!
Scandi,
I'll pose the same question to you I have posed earlier to someone else, which of course was not answered.
What if the bed was still made up when LE entered the scene ? What if the blood leaked through the bed spread into the sheets - are the sheets important ? Why take them, wouldn't the bed spread be more important ? Have any of the supposed insiders who went in the bedroom after LE even mentioned a bed spread - NO.
You are right - we don't know if it is true or not.
scandi
05-05-2007, 06:27 PM
Scandi, I think the whole point in this particular issue where a family member may have found something as Jake said they didn't know it was important or thought it wasn't because LE did not collect it. Therefore, LE is imcompetent so what else did they miss? Strange to me how six months later they realize it is important. Can't be the package of condoms because they were listed in a warrant so we know LE took those. That ties in with no SA test done being made into a major issue, Now what if those prints are what's not id'd? Major boo boo even if it is just the store clerks.
It isn't that what was found or discovered yielded anything of evidentiary value it's that it wasn't collected in the first place by LE. They really aren't in a position to say or do anything to whoever found whatever as long as that person is saying they had no idea it was important but LE should've known, right?
I don't think that is the case in Ca. When the defense is allowed to go into a crime scene, if they find something it can not be handled or disturbed in any way and notice has to be given immediately to the DA. The law is the opposite here almost. I see your point about showing LE as negligent and they should have known. It almost makes me cringe to think of sloppy CSI workers.
For all we know JY had a nooner one day and left a condum wrapper in a wastebasket in the bathroom! :eek:
Barney Fife
05-05-2007, 06:45 PM
[quote=strach304;1474339]Scandi, I think the whole point in this particular issue where a family member may have found something as Jake said they didn't know it was important or thought it wasn't because LE did not collect it. Therefore, LE is imcompetent so what else did they miss? Strange to me how six months later they realize it is important.Can't be the package of condoms because they were listed in a warrant so we know LE took those. That ties in with no SA test done being made into a major issue, Now what if those prints are what's not id'd? Major boo boo even if it is just the store clerks.
quote]
I was out of town all last week and missed the discussion on the 'condoms'. I assume this is just another mountain tale ?
spring
05-05-2007, 07:06 PM
I was out of town all last week and missed the discussion on the 'condoms'. I assume this is just another mountain tale ?
well it was one of those that you had to finish the end of the sentences, if that tells ya what you need to know ;)
Scout
05-05-2007, 07:14 PM
Scandi, I think the whole point in this particular issue where a family member may have found something as Jake said they didn't know it was important or thought it wasn't because LE did not collect it. Therefore, LE is imcompetent so what else did they miss? Strange to me how six months later they realize it is important.Can't be the package of condoms because they were listed in a warrant so we know LE took those. That ties in with no SA test done being made into a major issue, Now what if those prints are what's not id'd? Major boo boo even if it is just the store clerks.
I was out of town all last week and missed the discussion on the 'condoms'. I assume this is just another mountain tale ?
Jake says that he knows that a box of unused condoms was taken by investigators during the search of the house. There's at least one inventory list we haven't seen regarding the search of the crime scene.
strach304
05-05-2007, 07:49 PM
I don't think that is the case in Ca. When the defense is allowed to go into a crime scene, if they find something it can not be handled or disturbed in any way and notice has to be given immediately to the DA. The law is the opposite here almost. I see your point about showing LE as negligent and they should have known. It almost makes me cringe to think of sloppy CSI workers.
For all we know JY had a nooner one day and left a condum wrapper in a wastebasket in the bathroom! :eek:
What I gathered from Jake when he started the material witness topic and a family member of Jason's finding something at the time they didn't think was important was his way of informing us as to why it wasn't turned over to LE right away but much later. I still have the same question though as to how they came to the realization that it is indeed important or for that matter did LE overlook something or maybe it isn't important afterall.
ETA: Would that law apply to a family member or just to the defense team? Be it lawyer or investigator?
What I gathered from Jake when he started the material witness topic and a family member of Jason's finding something at the time they didn't think was important was his way of informing us as to why it wasn't turned over to LE right away but much later. I still have the same question though as to how they came to the realization that it is indeed important or for that matter did LE overlook something or maybe it isn't important afterall.
ETA: Would that law apply to a family member or just to the defense team? Be it lawyer or investigator?
ctv posters told me. Really. When jtf and I talked about the discovery of the bloody socks, almost unanimously posters said they weren't important. If they were important LE would have taken them.
Wonder how that would stand up in court: "Your Honor, CTV experts told me the socks were useless as evidence. So I threw them into the trash."
--Jake
scandi
05-05-2007, 08:25 PM
Scandi,
I'll pose the same question to you I have posed earlier to someone else, which of course was not answered.
What if the bed was still made up when LE entered the scene ? What if the blood leaked through the bed spread into the sheets - are the sheets important ? Why take them, wouldn't the bed spread be more important ? Have any of the supposed insiders who went in the bedroom after LE even mentioned a bed spread - NO.
You are right - we don't know if it is true or not.
Gotta agree with you Charlie. I always thought the bloody items were more of a red herring. Now I wonder about the socks, but it could be there was very little blood on any of these things. When you think of how much blood there was everywhere, the worst crime scene in Raleigh in 20+ years, it almost boggles the mind.
scandi
05-05-2007, 08:28 PM
well it was one of those that you had to finish the end of the sentences, if that tells ya what you need to know ;)
:D :D :D
Barney Fife
05-05-2007, 08:48 PM
ctv posters told me. Really. When jtf and I talked about the discovery of the bloody socks, almost unanimously posters said they weren't important. If they were important LE would have taken them.
Wonder how that would stand up in court: "Your Honor, CTV experts told me the socks were useless as evidence. So I threw them into the trash."
--Jake
JTF stopped posting before gojo first appeared. What conversation about the socks are you talking about Jake ?
JTF did not mention bloody socks left in the bathroom.
JTF stopped posting before gojo first appeared. What conversation about the socks are you talking about Jake ?
JTF did not mention bloody socks left in the bathroom.
Yep, I picked up where jtf left off. The socks were mentioned early on.
--Jake
strach304
05-05-2007, 09:33 PM
I have to agree with Barney Jake. I followed JTF's posts and she did not bring up the socks that I ever saw, just the footprints.
Throwing them in the trash? Does that mean they are not recoverable? Are we talking about a material witness testifying that they were there but that person thought they were unimportant since LE didn't collect them? I don't see that person getting in trouble over it. I would hope not.
jilly
05-05-2007, 09:36 PM
Wow Jilly !
Do you really think the entire case hinges on what the ME did or did not do ? Do you not think that Michelle's clothes will add some independent significance to this? What if the ME had indeed done a rape kit and it was negative - does it change the truth ?
I know what you are saying but, I'm not ready to think this case has been denied because of this - it is for one thing, correctable. second - the tooth - you know as well as I do that the source of that has been identified by now. If it turns out to be Michelle's - hmmm it really isn't evidence is it ?
I'm willing to continue thinking there is more to this case than what we know. Call me an optimist but the reality is there is more evidence than we know about. How strong how weak we don't know. Yes a defense lawyer is going to try to make everything look bad - does it change the truth ? I wouldn't be surprised to see the DA call some people that aren't thinking they will be called - there is lots of explaining to do on both sides I think.
:) You know.....when I was creating my post I almost asked for you or someone else to come along and shake some optimism into me.
I just think what the ME did not do (follow instructions for the rape kit)is very significant. On the face of it, it appears to be incompetence. On top of it we have a 3rd year student performing the autopsy and a possibly an incomplete AR.
As far as the tooth goes, I really didn't consider the evidentiary value. I was simply attributing this to sloppiness on the part of the CSI team. Remember we were told that they were going over this scene with a fine tooth comb. If I was on a jury and heard that a tooth was found after the crime scene had been released I would be wondering what else they missed and I would be listening very carefully with respect to their procedure in collecting evidence. I hope this tooth thing is an isolated incident on their part because I believe the Defense will scrutinize everything they did.
I'm ticked off with these 2, silly mistakes. I think it may have unnecessarily opened a can of worms for the prosecution.
As far as the rape kit coming back negative, no it wouldn't change the truth but at least LE & the prosecution would have the bonus of knowing that it was negative. That's why they ordered it in the first place imo.
I think Michelle's clothing would have some significance but think it could be overshadowed by the omission of the Rape Kit.
I'm still concerned about this 6 month delay as well. I believe that all of their testing results must be back by now.
raisincharlie
05-05-2007, 09:48 PM
Gotta agree with you Charlie. I always thought the bloody items were more of a red herring. Now I wonder about the socks, but it could be there was very little blood on any of these things. When you think of how much blood there was everywhere, the worst crime scene in Raleigh in 20+ years, it almost boggles the mind.
Ya know Scandi - it was pretty cool that night - Michelle could have been tucked way down in those covers - but the bed spread would still be the top layer and the layer exposed to the killer. I just see all this concern about bloody sheets as a red herring as well. Another thing, there was no mention of pillows - if you recall - Meredith says in the 911 tape she touched a pillow. So you know that would have been collected as well. The socks, again I think there may be more than one explanation for why they may have been bloody and more than one reason why they were not collected, if they exist. Again as cool as it was - what if Michelle put two pairs of socks on Cassidy before bedtime - would the inner socks being bloody be worth collecting ? There could be very simple totally innocuous reasons.
raisincharlie
05-05-2007, 10:02 PM
:) You know.....when I was creating my post I almost asked for you or someone else to come along and shake some optimism into me.
I just think what the ME did not do (follow instructions for the rape kit)is very significant. On the face of it, it appears to be incompetence. On top of it we have a 3rd year student performing the autopsy and a possibly an incomplete AR.
As far as the tooth goes, I really didn't consider the evidentiary value. I was simply attributing this to sloppiness on the part of the CSI team. Remember we were told that they were going over this scene with a fine tooth comb. If I was on a jury and heard that a tooth was found after the crime scene had been released I would be wondering what else they missed and I would be listening very carefully with respect to their procedure in collecting evidence. I hope this tooth thing is an isolated incident on their part because I believe the Defense will scrutinize everything they did.
I'm ticked off with these 2, silly mistakes. I think it may have unnecessarily opened a can of worms for the prosecution.
As far as the rape kit coming back negative, no it wouldn't change the truth but at least LE & the prosecution would have the bonus of knowing that it was negative. That's why they ordered it in the first place imo.
I think Michelle's clothing would have some significance but think it could be overshadowed by the omission of the Rape Kit.
I'm still concerned about this 6 month delay as well. I believe that all of their testing results must be back by now.
I understand Jilly but lets think about it. The Me, Butts has claimed the body was examined for signs of sexual assault and none were noted. The ME however does not say what all that examination entailed - we don't know and it may be more detailed than just looking. Maybe - maybe not.
Now if samples of Michelles clothing were sent out for testing looking for very specific markers in relation to sexual assault, there are two reasons to ponder that it never occured. Add in the crime scene photos taken by LE showing the arrangement of her clothing - a third reason to ponder. Then there is always the possibility of exhumation if the DA feels it cannot be overcome.
My suspicion is that this was discussed not long ago with the DA and it is possible that more specific testing of the clothing was requested. Maybe with some luck the samples were sent to a contract lab to avoid the SBI lengthy delay...it is possible the results are back. I do think this has been part of the delay but not all of it.
I agree, it doesn't "look" real well but the look certainly does not alter the truth. Ms. Holt is very experienced, I suspect her plans will be thoroughly laid before she proceeds. In my mind it is reasonable to figure that CCBI may well have been more focused on collecting more significant items of evidence. If the tooth is Michelle's, it really isn't evidence.
I can hear it now, 19 officers in the house for 13 days they should have found the tooth. The scene logs will tell how many officers were actually there and exactly when they were there. Add in that CCBI was awaiting specialized equipment - is 13 days that much - how long was actual investigation delayed waiting for this equipment. There is much we don't know isn't there ?
Beyond Belief
05-05-2007, 10:19 PM
Talking ab t this on Fox now.
Barney Fife
05-05-2007, 10:24 PM
Marlon w/ N&O is clueless.....what a joke.
jilly
05-05-2007, 10:43 PM
I understand Jilly but lets think about it. The Me, Butts has claimed the body was examined for signs of sexual assault and none were noted. The ME however does not say what all that examination entailed - we don't know and it may be more detailed than just looking. Maybe - maybe not. Yes, I read what Butts said. So strange that there is no mention of this in AR. You'd think if they were checking for something specific, they'd mention if they found it or not.
Now if samples of Michelles clothing were sent out for testing looking for very specific markers in relation to sexual assault, there are two reasons to ponder that it never occured. Add in the crime scene photos taken by LE showing the arrangement of her clothing - a third reason to ponder. Then there is always the possibility of exhumation if the DA feels it cannot be overcome. Possibly a 4th reason - male pubic hairs on Michelle.
My suspicion is that this was discussed not long ago with the DA and it is possible that more specific testing of the clothing was requested. Maybe with some luck the samples were sent to a contract lab to avoid the SBI lengthy delay...it is possible the results are back. I do think this has been part of the delay but not all of it. Good point.
I agree, it doesn't "look" real well but the look certainly does not alter the truth. Ms. Holt is very experienced, I suspect her plans will be thoroughly laid before she proceeds. In my mind it is reasonable to figure that CCBI may well have been more focused on collecting more significant items of evidence. If the tooth is Michelle's, it really isn't evidence. I agree. The tooth has no evidentiary value. Also let me tell ya, if jy is ever charged I will be doing a little jig because I'll know Becky has her ducks in a row.
I can hear it now, 19 officers in the house for 13 days they should have found the tooth. The scene logs will tell how many officers were actually there and exactly when they were there. Add in that CCBI was awaiting specialized equipment - is 13 days that much - how long was actual investigation delayed waiting for this equipment. There is much we don't know isn't there ? Another good point about waiting for the equipment.
Yup...I agree - there is so much we don't know and because of this I will continue to give LE the benefit of my doubt even though I may periodically suffer these little bouts of frustration! Thanks for responding RC. Appreciated.:)
jilly
05-05-2007, 10:45 PM
Talking ab t this on Fox now.
Hi BB! Can you please tell us what they said?
raisincharlie
05-05-2007, 10:57 PM
Hi BB! Can you please tell us what they said?
Jilly,
I think BB is gone but there was nothing new. KG spoke with Marlon Walker of the N & O. They talked about the finding of the mallet and how it was near the end of the drive. It was turned in for testing but LE does not believe it is involved in the murder. They briefly mention the autopsy SNAFU but nothing specific. Same ole same ole except they keep repeating that JY was supposedly in Brevard at his parents when Michelle was murdered - wish they would have some desire to be accurate.
Jilly - if you have had kiddies - did you ever put little socks on their feet at night under their jammies that had little feet in them when it was cold ?
QueenBee
05-05-2007, 11:01 PM
Jilly,
I think BB is gone but there was nothing new. KG spoke with Marlon Walker of the N & O. They talked about the finding of the mallet and how it was near the end of the drive. It was turned in for testing but LE does not believe it is involved in the murder. They briefly mention the autopsy SNAFU but nothing specific. Same ole same ole except they keep repeating that JY was supposedly in Brevard at his parents when Michelle was murdered - wish they would have some desire to be accurate.
Jilly - if you have had kiddies - did you ever put little socks on their feet at night under their jammies that had little feet in them when it was cold ?
Thanks for the recap. I have small kids and I have put socks on them when using footie pjs. Both my girls have/had cold feet, plus we keep it around 65 in the house year round.
raisincharlie
05-05-2007, 11:05 PM
Thanks for the recap. I have small kids and I have put socks on them when using footie pjs. Both my girls have/had cold feet, plus we keep it around 65 in the house year round.
We did that with my boys when they were little as well - especially during the winter time. Seems to me a reasonable explaination of why LE might not have taken Cassidy's bloody socks - if she had footie pjs on I would bet those weren't left behind by LE. The socks wouldn't tell much about the scene other than that it was very bloody.
jilly
05-05-2007, 11:13 PM
Jilly,
I think BB is gone but there was nothing new. KG spoke with Marlon Walker of the N & O. They talked about the finding of the mallet and how it was near the end of the drive. It was turned in for testing but LE does not believe it is involved in the murder. They briefly mention the autopsy SNAFU but nothing specific. Same ole same ole except they keep repeating that JY was supposedly in Brevard at his parents(Pfffft) when Michelle was murdered - wish they would have some desire to be accurate. It would be nice alright!
Jilly - if you have had kiddies - did you ever put little socks on their feet at night under their jammies that had little feet in them when it was cold ?
Thanks for the recap. And no I never put them in socks with those pjs. We live in a mild climate and my dh always has the heat jacked up. Aside from those pjs being cute, I mainly had my kids wear them for my own peace of mind so they'd be ok when they kicked off the covers.
jilly
05-05-2007, 11:18 PM
We did that with my boys when they were little as well - especially during the winter time. Seems to me a reasonable explaination of why LE might not have taken Cassidy's bloody socks - if she had footie pjs on I would bet those weren't left behind by LE. The socks wouldn't tell much about the scene other than that it was very bloody.
I'll bet you're right about this.
I could easily see Michelle giving Cass socks as well as the pjs considering the fact they had no heat.
QueenBee
05-05-2007, 11:22 PM
Here is something that I have always wondered, has it been confirmed that the upstairs heat was actually not working? What if the killer turned it off in an attempt to disguse the TOD?
raisincharlie
05-05-2007, 11:33 PM
Here is something that I have always wondered, has it been confirmed that the upstairs heat was actually not working? What if the killer turned it off in an attempt to disguse the TOD?
We have been told it was not working upstairs but...
Interesting and anything is possible.
raisincharlie
05-05-2007, 11:40 PM
I'll bet you're right about this.
I could easily see Michelle giving Cass socks as well as the pjs considering the fact they had no heat.
I can imagine it - according to Weather Underground it dropped to 30 that night. Chilly for a baby in a room with no heat.
scandi
05-06-2007, 02:00 AM
What a perfect time to put a pair of socks on your little girlie under her footie pajamas, with no heat in her bedroom! By Jove Charlie, I think you've got it LOL :hand: Here's a big High-5 for you~~
It makes such perfect sense, and I bet she had a T-shirt on under those jammies too.
strach304
05-06-2007, 03:16 AM
What if they didn't test positive for blood? It was something when dried assumed to be blood? We also heard about the jelly beans and Lion King dvd, so who knows what Cassidy could've gotten into. If we're gonna be technical and say what looked like blood on Jason's SUV then for now we can give the bloody socks the same consideration. If they went in the trash guess we'll never know.
Bellgardin
05-06-2007, 09:16 AM
What if they didn't test positive for blood? It was something when dried assumed to be blood? We also heard about the jelly beans and Lion King dvd, so who knows what Cassidy could've gotten into. If we're gonna be technical and say what looked like blood on Jason's SUV then for now we can give the bloody socks the same consideration. If they went in the trash guess we'll never know.
Great point! We actually do not know exactly what was done or what wasn't done (other than what's been verified by LE & in the news). Someone who is not and has never been in LE making assumptions based on what they have seen or what they didn't see at a crime scene should be taken with a grain of salt--IMO. Especially when those people who are making the assumptions have a main objective of not wanting JY to be arrested. A lot of the details that have been on the boards have been "released" by people whose main objective is keeping JY out of jail. And I think it's great to have those things to talk about, but we have no idea if any of the stuff is true or not. Or if spin was put on some things to point suspicion away from someone (or towards someone else) who those people want desperately to have not committed the crime. I think it's probably a natural reaction though. I've never been in the position of having someone I love or even know being a POI or suspect in someone's murder. I would imagine it's very difficult and your natural reaction would be to deny that anything really points to them. Now, I have had the experience of having someone totally turn out to be nothing like what you thought they were because they lied-that's why I have an ex-husband!!!!
Even though the what-ifs are good to talk about, I want to wait for a trial to see exactly what the truth is. I'll believe it when I see it!!!! (Of course, that doesn't mean I don't have opinions!)
Barney Fife
05-06-2007, 09:23 AM
New Sunday article by Marlon Walker of the N&O
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/571385.html
Barney Fife
05-06-2007, 09:34 AM
New Sunday article by Marlon Walker of the N&O
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/571385.html
Jake's surprise is in print this am.
Retired school teacher "Spencer Smith" is a pen name for JG
You know he always loves attention and this is his dream come true to shout all over Raleigh.
raisincharlie
05-06-2007, 09:37 AM
New Sunday article by Marlon Walker of the N&O
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/571385.html
Thanks Barney, sound familiar?
from the above link:
"Although Jason Young's parents declined to talk about the crime, Smith, a retired teacher who has lived down the hill from the Young family for decades, spoke to The News & Observer with their permission.
Young loved his wife, Smith said, and was thrilled she was pregnant with their first son. "Obviously -- because he'd be in jail right now if he didn't -- Jason was able to prove where he was," Smith said. "It was physically impossible for him to have made that trip."
And then we know Jy hasn't spoken to LE but supposedly he has proven where he was ? Right -bwahahahhahahha
Bellgardin
05-06-2007, 09:44 AM
New Sunday article by Marlon Walker of the N&O
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/571385.html
Also interesting from the article - "Sheriff's officials dismiss the notion they have focused on Jason Young to the exclusion of other possible suspects. "We haven't named a suspect," Sheriff Donnie Harrison said.
Johnson added: "And we have not eliminated anybody, either."
Clearly LE has indicated they do NOT have tunnel vision, yet at the top of the article "Jason Young's family wants to know why the sheriff's office is focusing on him instead of hunting for the killer."
If he refuses to talk to police, how do they know this??? This statement that is continually said sounds more to me like they are very upset the police dared to look at him at all. It's not an insult by the police for him to be looked at-it's basic police procedure!!!
raisincharlie
05-06-2007, 09:50 AM
If we can believe Marlon:
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/571385-p2.html
Young was in New York when Powers gave birth to her daughter (July). Powers said Young stopped by the hospital, beaming with joy about the baby she was carrying. She had recently found out it was a boy, and had talked with her bosses at Progress Energy about taking a six-month leave of absence after he was born. Friends said Young planned to work fewer hours after her leave.
Pretty dramatic loss of income over 6 months. Not what we were lead to believe which was the later - reduction in hours.
Barney Fife
05-06-2007, 09:58 AM
Smith said. "I think at this point, he sincerely hopes they find out who did it."
I'm glad Jason has finally decided it's ok to find out who did this.
I guess he didn't really want to know before ? Or was that before he sincerely convinced himself he did not do it ?
Also interesting from the article - "Sheriff's officials dismiss the notion they have focused on Jason Young to the exclusion of other possible suspects. "We haven't named a suspect," Sheriff Donnie Harrison said.
Johnson added: "And we have not eliminated anybody, either."
Clearly LE has indicated they do NOT have tunnel vision, yet at the top of the article "Jason Young's family wants to know why the sheriff's office is focusing on him instead of hunting for the killer."
If he refuses to talk to police, how do they know this??? This statement that is continually said sounds more to me like they are very upset the police dared to look at him at all. It's not an insult by the police for him to be looked at-it's basic police procedure!!!
Hi, Bellgardin,
Don't you think it's about time for LE to give this case to new detectives who aren't afflicted with tunnel vision?
I can read what LE says about not being focused on one person. You read it, too, and believe it. Why?
Anybody can say anything, but that doesn't make it true. I'd like to see some evidence of that before I believe it.
By the way, tell rpd one of my favorite movies of all time is "Spencer's Mountain". In the end Spencer got the attention he craved.
--Jake
Barney Fife
05-06-2007, 10:00 AM
If we can believe Marlon:
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/571385-p2.html
Young was in New York when Powers gave birth to her daughter (July). Powers said Young stopped by the hospital, beaming with joy about the baby she was carrying. She had recently found out it was a boy, and had talked with her bosses at Progress Energy about taking a six-month leave of absence after he was born. Friends said Young planned to work fewer hours after her leave.
Pretty dramatic loss of income over 6 months. Not what we were lead to believe which was the later - reduction in hours.
That 6 month leave would cost Jason's life style around $40,000. Don't forget about the extra $400 + / mo for Day Care "if" she went back to work at all.
raisincharlie
05-06-2007, 10:01 AM
Hi, Bellgardin,
Don't you think it's about time for LE to give this case to new detectives who aren't afflicted with tunnel vision?
I can read what LE says about not being focused on one person. You read it, too, and believe it. Why?
Anybody can say anything, but that doesn't make it true. I'd like to see some evidence of that before I believe it.
By the way, tell rpd one of my favorite movies of all time is "Spencer's Mountain". In the end Spencer got the attention he craved.
--Jake
Finally, something I can agree with you on.
Barney Fife
05-06-2007, 10:07 AM
Jake,
Good thing I saved the gojo posts. Remember gojo's kind words for Marlon after he said "Blood was found in SUV" ?
I know you did not mean all those mean words Jake. That would certainally hurt your new friend's feelings.
Jake,
Good thing I saved the gojo posts. Remember gojo's kind words for Marlon after he said "Blood was found in SUV" ?
I know you did not mean all those mean words Jake. That would certainally hurt your new friend's feelings.
Marlon's a nice guy, Barney. Ease up on him.
Gotta go. Say kind things.
--Jake
Barney Fife
05-06-2007, 10:15 AM
That 6 month leave would cost Jason's life style around $40,000. Don't forget about the extra $400 + / mo for Day Care "if" she went back to work at all.
Or....a divorce would mean child support for 2 kids and minimal visitation for Cassidy. In NC, infidelity is grounds for divorce and this misconduct would be considered heavily in child custody and visitation.
I think MF-Y found out about MM and she was looking for a way out (counseling) and JY knew it. The perfect storm hit Raleigh around 2 am on 11-3-06.
raisincharlie
05-06-2007, 10:22 AM
Marlon's a nice guy, Barney. Ease up on him.
Gotta go. Say kind things.
--Jake
But neighbor Spencer Smith, 60, said his family and Young's family are aware of the television programs and the Web sites that are alive with speculation about the killing. He believes the case is entertainment fodder.
"They don't care whose grief it is, they just want to wallow in it," he said.
How's your wallowing going today ?
Justice for Michelle Young and her unborn son.
jake,
you've said you don't speak to jy about the murder so how do you know if the paper trail proves that he wasn't there?
Online forums feed fascination with Young case
http://www.newsobserver.com/167/story/571179.html
Barney Fife
05-06-2007, 10:51 AM
Online forums feed fascination with Young case
http://www.newsobserver.com/167/story/571179.html
"But neighbor Spencer Smith, 60, said his family and Young's family are aware of the television programs and the Web sites that are alive with speculation about the killing. He believes the case is entertainment fodder.
"They don't care whose grief it is, they just want to wallow in it," he said."
Like RC pointed out, this statement by "Spencer' is quite ironic.
Who wants to "wallow in it" ?
Bellgardin
05-06-2007, 10:51 AM
Hi, Bellgardin,
Don't you think it's about time for LE to give this case to new detectives who aren't afflicted with tunnel vision?
I can read what LE says about not being focused on one person. You read it, too, and believe it. Why?
Anybody can say anything, but that doesn't make it true. I'd like to see some evidence of that before I believe it.
By the way, tell rpd one of my favorite movies of all time is "Spencer's Mountain". In the end Spencer got the attention he craved.
--Jake
Nope, I don't. Why don't you believe it? I still don't believe they have tunnel vision. It's called going where the evidence leads you. You just don't like where it is currently leading!!
And I would like to see some evidence that shows JY was exactly where he said he was, but I guess we're both out of luck.
You have your opinions and I have mine. Your media interview didn't convince me of JY's non-involvement, it seemed desperate. It's just yet another thing that says to me him and his "friends" are only concerned about saving JY from going to jail---NOT about finding out who did this to MY and her baby boy. If he "sincerely hopes they find out who did it" then why doesn't he answer a few simple questions for police?
Tell rpd whatever you want yourself-I'm not your secretary.
Samiya
05-06-2007, 10:56 AM
I think the Youngs need a new 'spokesperson'.
Sami
raisincharlie
05-06-2007, 11:19 AM
Smith said. "I think at this point, he sincerely hopes they find out who did it."
I'm glad Jason has finally decided it's ok to find out who did this.
I guess he didn't really want to know before ? Or was that before he sincerely convinced himself he did not do it ?
That is such an odd statement Barney - "I think at this point..." Seems to imply Jy certainly took a while to reach a point where he finally cared. Such a contradiction, "he sincerely hopes they find who did it." - but yet Jy refuses to answer even the simple questions to help LE find out who murdered his wife. I think someone is wallowing...or is that waffeling?
Barney Fife
05-06-2007, 11:29 AM
jake (http://websleuths.com/forums/member.php?u=15044) http://websleuths.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register("postmenu_1470365", true);
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samiya http://websleuths.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1470335#post1470335)
Jake,
You said the N&O were in Brevard poking around. Any idea why?
Sami
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reporter told someone he was preparing a six-month story on the case and was trolling for comments.
--Jake
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One should be careful when trolling....you never know what you will reel in.
Barney Fife
05-06-2007, 11:54 AM
"Investigators have also said he had been involved in a romantic relationship with Michelle Money, a married Florida woman "
Ok Jake, here is your link to the "relationship" you have questioned :
Romantic Relationship is often regarded as different from mere needs driven by sexual desire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lust), or lust. Romantic Relationships generally involve a mix of emotional and sexual desire, as opposed to a Platonic Relationship
spring
05-06-2007, 12:36 PM
I think the Youngs need a new 'spokesperson'.
Sami
oh, let's not push for that. i would hate to see the result of unrequited...
strach304
05-06-2007, 12:58 PM
Thanks Barney, sound familiar?
from the above link:
"Although Jason Young's parents declined to talk about the crime, Smith, a retired teacher who has lived down the hill from the Young family for decades, spoke to The News & Observer with their permission.
Young loved his wife, Smith said, and was thrilled she was pregnant with their first son. "Obviously -- because he'd be in jail right now if he didn't -- Jason was able to prove where he was," Smith said. "It was physically impossible for him to have made that trip."
And then we know Jy hasn't spoken to LE but supposedly he has proven where he was ? Right -bwahahahhahahha
I can't put a lot of faith in the statement where he says Jason loved his wife because there are verified contradictions and if this person quoted never met Michelle he never saw first hand how they interacted. Wasn't at the wedding either so he's assuming this or going by what someone else has told him.
raisincharlie
05-06-2007, 01:02 PM
I can't put a lot of faith in the statement where he says Jason loved his wife because there are verified contradictions and if this person quoted never met Michelle he never saw first hand how they interacted. Wasn't at the wedding either so he's assuming this or going by what someone else has told him.
I don't know if S. Smith ever met Michelle or not. Don't know about Jake, but I don't get the feeling Michelle is much of a concern to Jake.
strach304
05-06-2007, 01:05 PM
If we can believe Marlon:
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/571385-p2.html
Young was in New York when Powers gave birth to her daughter (July). Powers said Young stopped by the hospital, beaming with joy about the baby she was carrying. She had recently found out it was a boy, and had talked with her bosses at Progress Energy about taking a six-month leave of absence after he was born. Friends said Young planned to work fewer hours after her leave.
Pretty dramatic loss of income over 6 months. Not what we were lead to believe which was the later - reduction in hours.
I can't help but see the parallels here and in other spousal murder cases where the victim was pregnant, status change in income, substantial life insurance, sexual discord, probably others that will come to mind later too. These are all things I was looking for early on. Oh, also age similarities.
strach304
05-06-2007, 01:18 PM
That is such an odd statement Barney - "I think at this point..." Seems to imply Jy certainly took a while to reach a point where he finally cared. Such a contradiction, "he sincerely hopes they find who did it." - but yet Jy refuses to answer even the simple questions to help LE find out who murdered his wife. I think someone is wallowing...or is that waffeling?
Sorry to keep quoting you RC, but at first I had no opinion and now I do. Jake told us he never met Michelle, had never been in their house or at the wedding. ;)
The contradiction above if you notice says, "I think". Again maybe another assumption based on what he thinks and not Jason's exact thought. Pure speculation.
jilly
05-06-2007, 01:26 PM
I can't put a lot of faith in the statement where he says Jason loved his wife because there are verified contradictions and if this person quoted never met Michelle he never saw first hand how they interacted. Wasn't at the wedding either so he's assuming this or going by what someone else has told him.
Wasn't at the funeral either. He knows nothing, imo. Just some old busy-body trying to be a hero.
Barney Fife
05-06-2007, 01:28 PM
Jake,
My apologies to Spencer Smith. Please tell him in no way did I mean any harm when I accused you of being him.
spring
05-06-2007, 01:32 PM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jake,
My apologies to Spencer Smith. Please tell him in no way did I mean any harm when I accused you of being him.
Barney Fife
05-06-2007, 01:35 PM
http://www.pegr.com/ghostwriter.html
Ghost writers can make some big bucks. Jake, are you working on your book about this case ? Using Mr. Smith to tell your story is really smart.
The 2 of you can make it big. You troll all day for information on these boards and Mr Smith spouts it back out. Be careful though. I doubt he knows how much you enjoy wallowing
scandi
05-06-2007, 03:02 PM
Good Morning,
Well, my goodness sakes alive! Looks like I hit the proverbial nail on the head with JG! I had said that I thought his way of throwing support Jason's way would be to use his journalistic knowhow and skills to cajole the press. Third time is a charm, and now that the source is revealed, I think that editors, reporters and readers will understand that his motivation is one-sided. Thus the image he creates with his thoughts and words does not complete the circle of truth in the viscious death of Michelle Young and her unborn baby boy. In that reality, it is an admitted poison pen that sits upon his desk.
I wonder why the reporter addresses JG by his pen name. Is that an accepted rule in journalism?
I have questions as to what LE knows as to throwing away possible evidence found at the closed crime scene. However, in the big picture I don't think any of this will matter in the naming, arrest and prosecution of the true killer in our case. It might even start people wondering if this was done to keep possible evidence away from the strong eyes of the law!
Nothing personal of course, just passionate about finding justice for Michelle and her baby. Scandi
FactsareFacts
05-06-2007, 03:13 PM
I thought Spencer Smith was a friend of Jasons from school? Goins is the retired school teacher. Goins also posted at CTV that Jason didn't have a solid alibi. Why the discrepancies?
scandi
05-06-2007, 03:36 PM
How true FactsareFacts, I guess it is the freedom of the press, right? I'm sure JY's friend Spencer gave permission for the ruse. The reporters had to know this man living down the hill from the Young family in Brevard was not a Mr Smith!
At least we know that any Bravardians today reading these articles will be doing this :laugh:, and take with a grain of salt anything attributed to him in the articles.
I loved Sarah's article. Too bad she didn't point out that this man down the hill also posts on these boards, as it might have shed a truer light for the public.
ETA: Even if Jason is innocent of this crime, this untruth printed today certainly isn't going to help him IMHO. It even could be karmistic that one lie could be an example of truths now hidden in the case!
Also, it is true that our poster said JY did not have an alibi, did have opportunity but no motive!
harleysnana
05-06-2007, 03:40 PM
Hi, Bellgardin,
Don't you think it's about time for LE to give this case to new detectives who aren't afflicted with tunnel vision?
I can read what LE says about not being focused on one person. You read it, too, and believe it. Why?
--Jake
I have a questions Jake.. about the article and this part of it...
"Still, investigators are frustrated with Jason Young's refusal to talk with them. Even an hour would clue in investigators to details of the family's home life that could lead to a break.
"It's those little things we just don't know," Johnson said. "I think if he talked to us, we'd get a lot of answers to things we have questions about. Was there a light always kept on? Without talking to him, we're having to go to five or six different people for one small thing. We don't know what's normal in that house. It sure would help this case."
"Has it stopped us? No. But it has slowed us down."
... keep spouting tunnel vision!!
You all are so worried about tunnel vision... why doesn't Jason...
or his attorney talk and get this VERY important information to the police??
So that it doesn't slow down their investigation???
IMO Jason not talking is the reason there MIGHT be tunnel vision!
IF he is innocent as you say (think)... tell him to talk to them so that they
can CLEAR him and focus on finding the real killer!!!
Don't you think this would lead away from the tunnel vision?
:banghead: :banghead:
jilly
05-06-2007, 03:49 PM
Been thinking about today's article. How about that Young family hey? "No comment". Not even a 'we miss Michelle'. Never seen anything like it. It appears this murder investigation is nothing more than invasion of privacy.
If this guy is ever charged...this family's gonna hit bottom.
jmo
to me it seems they've made it about jy and it isn't its about Michelle. Michelle and their baby boy are who lost their lives and cassidy her mother. i'm not saying i think jy is guilty but i am saying this isn't about HIM its about Michelle and getting the person that killed her.
FactsareFacts
05-06-2007, 04:21 PM
How true FactsareFacts, I guess it is the freedom of the press, right? I'm sure JY's friend Spencer gave permission for the ruse. The reporters had to know this man living down the hill from the Young family in Brevard was not a Mr Smith!
At least we know that any Bravardians today reading these articles will be doing this :laugh:, and take with a grain of salt anything attributed to him in the articles.
I loved Sarah's article. Too bad she didn't point out that this man down the hill also posts on these boards, as it might have shed a truer light for the public.
ETA: Even if Jason is innocent of this crime, this untruth printed today certainly isn't going to help him IMHO. It even could be karmistic that one lie could be an example of truths now hidden in the case!
Also, it is true that our poster said JY did not have an alibi, did have opportunity but no motive!
Yes I know that he posted that at CTV because I read it. Instead of "no comment" it sure would have been nice if the Young's could have mustered up a "we miss Michelle so much and want her killer caught."
DEPUTYDAWG
05-06-2007, 04:25 PM
If Spencer Smith is Mr. Goins' pen name, why? Why not use his regular name???? Can I guess????? :silenced:
:hand:
spring
05-06-2007, 04:32 PM
If Spencer Smith is Mr. Goins' pen name, why? Why not use his regular name???? Can I guess????? :silenced:
:hand:
credibility?
Barney Fife
05-06-2007, 04:32 PM
If Spencer Smith is Mr. Goins' pen name, why? Why not use his regular name???? Can I guess????? :silenced:
:hand:
Hi Deputy !
Believe it or not, there really is a Spencer Smith(age 60)that is a long time neighbor of Mrs Young on Mockingbird Lane. It seems there is a fraternity of retired teachers in Brevard, including Mr Smith, Mrs Young and Mr Goins. Is Mr Goins "speaking" in this piece also?....absolutely :eek:
DEPUTYDAWG
05-06-2007, 04:34 PM
Been thinking about today's article. How about that Young family hey? "No comment". Not even a 'we miss Michelle'. Never seen anything like it. It appears this murder investigation is nothing more than invasion of privacy.
If this guy is ever charged...this family's gonna hit bottom.
jmo
Hi Jilly:crazy:
At this point (hey, who said that? :D ) their continuing lack of empathy and real feelings toward the murder of their daughter-in-law and unborn grandson is what I expect, and I'd probably gag if I saw a quote from them stating their grief. There is no reason for them to have not given statements all this time...they could easily have given comments that were approved by the lawyers, but nooooo, guess it's not worth their time or effort???? :mad:
Guess they're still soooooo distraught from how maybe they weren't coddled the night of 11/3 or 11/4 by LE. Tough to get over, I guess. Oh puhlease. All about Jason and them.
JMHO.
DEPUTYDAWG
05-06-2007, 04:37 PM
Hi Deputy !
Believe it or not, there really is a Spencer Smith(age 60)that is a long time neighbor of Mrs Young on Mockingbird Lane. It seems there is a fraternity of retired teachers in Brevard, including Mr Smith, Mrs Young and Mr Goins. Is Mr Goins "speaking" in this piece also?....absolutely :eek:
My bad. Apologies to Mr. Smith. :)
FactsareFacts
05-06-2007, 04:43 PM
Hi Deputy !
Believe it or not, there really is a Spencer Smith(age 60)that is a long time neighbor of Mrs Young on Mockingbird Lane. It seems there is a fraternity of retired teachers in Brevard, including Mr Smith, Mrs Young and Mr Goins. Is Mr Goins "speaking" in this piece also?....absolutely :eek:
I thought there was a Spencer Smith who claimed he went to school with JY as kids?
Barney Fife
05-06-2007, 04:50 PM
I thought there was a Spencer Smith who claimed he went to school with JY as kids?
There may also be a Spencer Smith jr ?
scandi
05-06-2007, 04:54 PM
My bad too DAWGIE, but at CTV this morning I read this which is interesting:
"Originally posted by Bud Wiser
don't forget the snipped part....The 'Spencer Smith' story was recorded with "group collaboration"
DEPUTYDAWG
05-06-2007, 05:05 PM
My bad too DAWGIE, but at CTV this morning I read this which is interesting:
"Originally posted by Bud Wiser
don't forget the snipped part....The 'Spencer Smith' story was recorded with "group collaboration"
Hi ya, Scandi!
Well...if I'm going to be bad, I'd rather have good company to be bad with, LOL! It's more fun to be bad with others, hehe :woohoo:
strach304
05-06-2007, 05:07 PM
Been thinking about today's article. How about that Young family hey? "No comment". Not even a 'we miss Michelle'. Never seen anything like it. It appears this murder investigation is nothing more than invasion of privacy.
If this guy is ever charged...this family's gonna hit bottom.
jmo
Funny how none of them ever have anything to say unless they find a tooth. Can't wait to see one of them testify at trial LE left behind bloody socks but threw them away because they didn't think they were important. As if LE's other blunders will be verification of that. Could've been bar-b-que sauce :crazy:
I'm very disturbed with how this has all been turned around to be all about Jason. I don't know any of these people so just speculating in general I have seen the mind set of others where they no longer care about the dead. Their justification being they can't help them only the living and pursue that over all else.
raisincharlie
05-06-2007, 05:13 PM
My bad too DAWGIE, but at CTV this morning I read this which is interesting:
"Originally posted by Bud Wiser
don't forget the snipped part....The 'Spencer Smith' story was recorded with "group collaboration"
The only problem with the group collaboration is that S. Smith seems to think it is entertainment to visit the message boards and people just like to wallow in some one else's grief. Wonder if S. Smith knows how long Jake has been publically wallowing in someone else's grief. I wonder if he approves - I wonder if he even knows ? Somehow I suspect it would meet with approval on some very strange level.
strach304
05-06-2007, 05:14 PM
If you think about it, why didn't Amanda Lamb do this article? She did do the one on the SA kit afterall. As for SS and JG do they not sound like clones? IMO if they know nothing and Jason isn't talking how can they know he:
loved his wife?
has a paper trail alibi?
wasn't in raleigh?
wants the person responsible caught?
LE was mean to him? He only talked to them briefly on the phone. ( only Jason knows what they said)
Many more but it's all opinion and speculation. LE deals in facts.
raisincharlie
05-06-2007, 05:15 PM
In the article today in the N&O it says that MY was in New York in July and that she had just recently learned that she was carrying a boy. If she was only 4 to 5 months pregnant at the time of her death, how could she have known in July she was having a boy?
QB,
You know - you aren't suppose to notice those descrepancies - just blindly accept them...:D
strach304
05-06-2007, 05:20 PM
Actually it said two weeks before she was murdered. Like there were two recent trips to NY? Anybody remember the exact source for the info that Michelle was in NY in July? I know it was brought up after the warrant about the trip Jason took to Ca. and Michelle had no more time left.
RC, I get the feeling he was a participant at one time too. The difference with them is they haven't followed other cases nor do they think Jason is guilty. Their comments are their perspective and not necessarily the truth of the matter.
Barney Fife
05-06-2007, 05:20 PM
The only problem with the group collaboration is that S. Smith seems to think it is entertainment to visit the message boards and people just like to wallow in some one else's grief. Wonder if S. Smith knows how long Jake has been publically wallowing in someone else's grief. I wonder if he approves - I wonder if he even knows ? Somehow I suspect it would meet with approval on some very strange level.
If Mrs Young and Mr Smith only knew what their retired teacher comrade has really been up to for the past 3 months......I do have most of his posts (multiple nics) saved from 3 boards in case it ever comes up down the road.:silenced:
scandi
05-06-2007, 05:23 PM
"Can't wait to see one of them testify at trial LE left behind bloody socks but threw them away because they didn't think they were important. As if LE's other blunders will be verification of that. Could've been bar-b-que sauce" Strach
That was classic!
I suppose the Bravardians are enjoying a Sunday Brunch at Pizza Hut today to celebrate the wonderful PR they have had.
Roger Smith might not be too happy though, I mean using the media to sway the jury pool is never good. If Jason ends up in the pokey, they might wish they had eaten Eggs Benedict instead of Pizza. That way it would have been in their tummies instead of on their faces! Scandi
raisincharlie
05-06-2007, 05:24 PM
Actually it said two weeks before she was murdered. Like there were two recent trips to NY? Anybody remember the exact source for the info that Michelle was in NY in July? I know it was brought up after the warrant about the trip Jason took to Ca. and Michelle had no more time left.
RC, I get the feeling he was a participant at one time too. The difference with them is they haven't followed other cases nor do they think Jason is guilty. Their comments are their perspective and not necessarily the truth of the matter.
Jake supplied the information about Michelle being in NY in July. He indicated that this was the reason she did not go on the CA trip - she had no vacation time left. As I recall the trip was supposed to have been long planned and planned around 4 differing schedules - which obviously did not include Michelle's. I remember it well because I didn't buy that line then, nor do I buy it now.
I'll see if I can find the post and link it. This is what I recall.
Barney Fife
05-06-2007, 05:32 PM
From public records......feel free to give them a call and chat about Jake. I am sure they will want to know the real story.
Patricia W Young
Spencer Smith
Marlon A. Walker
Sarah Ovaska
Roger Smith, jr
scandi
05-06-2007, 05:35 PM
I just wanted to say what a nice testiment Sarah gave to 'our' Sami in her article. It was a great testiment to the quality of posters on these crime forums. We will happily share her with CTV! YaYa
Scandi
strach304
05-06-2007, 05:42 PM
Jake supplied the information about Michelle being in NY in July. He indicated that this was the reason she did not go on the CA trip - she had no vacation time left. As I recall the trip was supposed to have been long planned and planned around 4 differing schedules - which obviously did not include Michelle's. I remember it well because I didn't buy that line then, nor do I buy it now.
I'll see if I can find the post and link it. This is what I recall.
Thanks, that's exactly what I was getting at because I don't remember reading it in the media. Other posters on ctv (2) said that Jason's family did go but I pointed out that maybe that's what Michelle originally thought because of the expense. That's a reason why LE would want those pics. It was Jake, Gojo that later said the Ca. trip was planned in advance also. Possibly she went to NY both times or maybe it was just the two weeks before her death.
strach304
05-06-2007, 05:44 PM
:laugh: Scandi :clap:
strach304
05-06-2007, 05:50 PM
Linda Fisher comes to mind now that the trip to NY so close to Michelle's death has been brought up. Is that the reason for the contention with her. Keeping her from seeing Cassidy as a form of punishment for what she may have told LE? I know someone claims she has seen her in Brevard no less but I haven't seen proof of that either. There's also the aspect that it could've been a PR move since it was so long.
raisincharlie
05-06-2007, 06:03 PM
Thanks, that's exactly what I was getting at because I don't remember reading it in the media. Other posters on ctv (2) said that Jason's family did go but I pointed out that maybe that's what Michelle originally thought because of the expense. That's a reason why LE would want those pics. It was Jake, Gojo that later said the Ca. trip was planned in advance also. Possibly she went to NY both times or maybe it was just the two weeks before her death.
Strach,
Check Michelle Young Part 16 page 27 in particular. There is much discussion and it is clear Michelle was supposed to have gone to NY in July before th CA trip. Might want to look quick, things may start disappearing here as well.:crazy:
ETA start pg 27 go backwards
raisincharlie
05-06-2007, 06:16 PM
Linda Fisher comes to mind now that the trip to NY so close to Michelle's death has been brought up. Is that the reason for the contention with her. Keeping her from seeing Cassidy as a form of punishment for what she may have told LE? I know someone claims she has seen her in Brevard no less but I haven't seen proof of that either. There's also the aspect that it could've been a PR move since it was so long.
As I recall, Michelle started seeing the therapist shortly before her death as well. It is possible Michelle received that advice from her Mom.
Contention- I don't think there is any doubt that existed andprobably still does. JMO
Samiya
05-06-2007, 06:33 PM
. Was there a light always kept on?
IMO Jason not talking is the reason there MIGHT be tunnel vision!
IF he is innocent as you say (think)... tell him to talk to them so that they
can CLEAR him and focus on finding the real killer!!!
Don't you think this would lead away from the tunnel vision?
:banghead: :banghead:
I had to snip to get this across to Jake.
Jake,
Since you say that you speak to Jason, I would like to you copy and read this post to him, including the quoted text. It is a plea directly from me.
Jason,
See the question above about the light? You may think that question is a con to get you in for an interview, but I can tell you that it is not. Little questions that may seem suss to you are important in a case such as that of your wife.
As far as I am aware, police are still trying to match fingerprints. If a light was on, which I think that it was or the question would not remain unanswered, and fingerprints were found on the light switch that do NOT belong to your wife, then who do they belong to? If they belonged to you, then you would have been brought in for questioning.
Jason...if a light was on in that bedroom, by the normal goings on of a woman going into her bedroom to go to bed, the prints print/s on the light switch SHOULD belong to Michelle. It is the small questions like this that remain unanswered that can slow a case down. These are questions that can be safely answered by you and your lawyer can direct you in which questions to answer.
Another similar question is "Did anyone else have a key to the house". Did Michelle or yourself give a key to anyone else? Did yours or Michelle's key go missing (was Michelle's bag stolen once not long ago?) and returned by someone? That 'someone' could have had a copy made before returning the property.
You may think that is a question just to get you in but I can tell you Jason, that it would not be the first time that a copy of a key that had been missing or in a handbag that was stolen months prior has been used in a crime.
They are small questions, they may seem trivial and a ruse to get you to talk, but they are important questions as far as a murder investigation goes.
Sami
harleysnana
05-06-2007, 07:23 PM
Sami.... I do hope that Jake sends your message to Jason!
If Jason is so innocent as the family believes.. I don't see
why he wouldn't take at least an hour and answer their questions.
I personally feel that him being silent is what makes us all think he
had something to do with her murder.
If an innocent grieving husband had nothing to hide ..
he would hide nothing!
Look at Destiny Norton’s parents.. and Jessica Lunsford’s dad
and grandparents…they were grilled.. everyone thought
they had something to do with their disappearance.. and come to find out..
because they cooperated … they talked... they made pleas to the public…
both cases ended up solved.
IMO the fact that Jason is not cooperating … if this goes to trial and he is the one being accused of the crime… him not cooperating will be a huge factor in the juries decision.
Jake....
Those who have nothing to hide... hide nothing!
If you and Jason’s family believe he is innocent…
have him talk to the police and clear his name so they can focus
on finding the killer.
jilly
05-06-2007, 07:30 PM
I'm very disturbed with how this has all been turned around to be all about Jason.
Me too Strach. This coupled with the "entertainment fodder" and the "wallowing" comments has prompted me to put a particular poster on ignore.
Barney Fife
05-06-2007, 08:02 PM
"Obviously -- because he'd be in jail right now if he didn't -- Jason was able to prove where he was," Smith said. "It was physically impossible for him to have made that trip."
Obviously Mr. Smith is clueless. Able to prove to who...his Mommy and Mr Smith ? Heck, even Jake can understand that is a crock.That 'round trip' from Hillsville Va/ Raleigh took 5 hours. Allow another 1-2 hours to clean up and compose Cassidy and you have the obvious window of opportunity.
Shame on you Marlon for not offering the obvious rebuttal to that lame statement.
FactsareFacts
05-06-2007, 08:20 PM
"Obviously -- because he'd be in jail right now if he didn't -- Jason was able to prove where he was," Smith said. "It was physically impossible for him to have made that trip."
Obviously Mr. Smith is clueless. Able to prove to who...his Mommy and Mr Smith ? Heck, even Jake can understand that is a crock.That 'round trip' from Hillsville Va/ Raleigh took 5 hours. Allow another 1-2 hours to clean up and compose Cassidy and you have the obvious window of opportunity.
Shame on you Marlon for not offering the obvious rebuttal to that lame statement.
That is lame Barney. I also find it funny that a couple weeks ago we were hearing from Jake that Jason had no alibi, had opportunity but no motive. I guess that wouldn't have been a good thing to say in the public though right? :waitasec:
raisincharlie
05-06-2007, 08:22 PM
Thought I would pipe up with a couple of observations from today's articles in the N & O.
A lifetime friend of Michelle's from NY indicated that Michelle was in NY visiting less than two weeks before she was murdered. Michelle had recently found out she was to have a baby boy. This person also indicated that she and Michelle talked frequently and emailed each other frequently.
A friend of Michelle's indicated that Michelle had planned to take 6 months leave from work after the birth of her baby. Michelle had taken 3 months off after Cassidy was born. Michelle had planned to reduce her working hours "after" taking 6 months leave. We had heard that Michelle was going to reduce her hours but not about the extended leave from work.
Once again I notice in this article that it is reported that Jy has indicated that he left the house "sometime" on Nov 2 for a business meeting in VA. Why is it that no valid source can define this time? Why is it that Rhett Fussell did not define this time when interviewed? Why is it that none of the insiders from Raleigh have let this time slip in conversation?
Given the above, we do know that there was a hotel receipt for 2 November - found in Jy's SUV. We also know that there was a gas receipt for 3 November from a station in VA. This is the paper trail we know. LE of course has other items, i.e. cell phone records and other unknowns.
Those folks in Brevard would not know what those phone records indicate anymore than we do. They may be aware of things Jy has said but as Jake points out - anyone can say anything but does that make it true?
So, being long winded, the paper trail that is known is a hotel receipt and a gas receipt. How does one determine that it was physically impossible for Jy to have returned to Raleigh to murder his wife ? It is lost on me.
Stoli
05-06-2007, 08:29 PM
Thought I would pipe up with a couple of observations from today's articles in the N & O.
A lifetime friend of Michelle's from NY indicated that Michelle was in NY visiting less than two weeks before she was murdered. Michelle had recently found out she was to have a baby boy. This person also indicated that she and Michelle talked frequently and emailed each other frequently.
A friend of Michelle's indicated that Michelle had planned to take 6 months leave from work after the birth of her baby. Michelle had taken 3 months off after Cassidy was born. Michelle had planned to reduce her working hours "after" taking 6 months leave. We had heard that Michelle was going to reduce her hours but not about the extended leave from work.
Once again I notice in this article that it is reported that Jy has indicated that he left the house "sometime" on Nov 2 for a business meeting in VA. Why is it that no valid source can define this time? Why is it that Rhett Fussell did not define this time when interviewed? Why is it that none of the insiders from Raleigh have let this time slip in conversation?
Given the above, we do know that there was a hotel receipt for 2 November - found in Jy's SUV. We also know that there was a gas receipt for 3 November from a station in VA. This is the paper trail we know. LE of course has other items, i.e. cell phone records and other unknowns.
Those folks in Brevard would not know what those phone records indicate anymore than we do. They may be aware of things Jy has said but as Jake points out - anyone can say anything but does that make it true?
So, being long winded, the paper trail that is known is a hotel receipt and a gas receipt. How does one determine that it was physically impossible for Jy to have returned to Raleigh to murder his wife ? It is lost on me.
Wishful thinking? :confused:
jilly
05-06-2007, 08:30 PM
...So, being long winded, the paper trail that is known is a hotel receipt and a gas receipt. How does one determine that it was physically impossible for Jy to have returned to Raleigh to murder his wife ? It is lost on me.
Maybe jy has told them that he stayed somewhere other than Hillsville? That's the only thing I can think of.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
0