State vs Jason Lynn Young 6-22-11

[borndem]

One thing BH did was question JY about calling his mother so often. He said he didn't call her all that often, but sometimes on the road, he would call her to just catch up and chat. He really soft-pedaled that one, like he was surprised that she would even ask that. And she just let it go...

I wonder if we'll hear about that one again??

I do think she was loading her gun....

Hope so.

 

[gracielee]

Closing...both pics side by side.
The defense desperately wants you to think the chest stripe knit pullover was not missing. Take a look for yourself ladies and gentlemen. This was nothing more than another case of misrepresenting the true facts that show JLY is guilty of murder.

Man I miss Boz Z. I'm still shocked and speechless at the let down of todays cross. How many times have we EVER seen a defendant of this caliber actually testify? I wonder what CW is saying/thinking tonight?

 

[gracielee]

One thing BH did was question JY about calling his mother so often. He said he didn't call her all that often, but sometimes on the road, he would call her to just catch up and chat. He really soft-pedaled that one, like he was surprised that she would even ask that. And she just let it go...

I wonder if we'll hear about that one again??

I do think she was loading her gun....

Hope so.

She dropped the damn ball. What were they, the prosecution, thinking? Why oh why would they let him off like that when they could have slammed so many things home? :banghead:

 

[Just the Fax]

Man I miss Boz Z. I'm still shocked and speechless at the let down of todays cross. How many times have we EVER seen a defendant of this caliber actually testify? I wonder what CW is saying/thinking tonight?

I must say I have not been impressed with BH. When she was assigned the case, I was told she was one of the best...very passionate. I will reserve my final thoughts after closing arguments, but so far she gets a C+.

 

[gracielee]

I must say I have not been impressed with BH. When she was assigned the case, I was told she was one of the best...very passionate. I will reserve my final thoughts after closing arguments, but so far she gets a C+.

You're too kind, FAX. She doesn't get above a D from me. After just having watched the Cooper trial, I must say, this trial, from a prosecution standpoint, is sorely lacking. There was no passion, no conviction of feelings expressed during the trial. As we have so often pointed out, where is the passion of Freida? Anybody else old enough to remember the Jeffrey MacDonald trial, the passion shown by the prosecutor, can't recall his name?? Someone help me here, Blackburn???

 

[borndem]

I am curious about how much notice the prosecution had about Jason testifying today. Did she get surprised by this and perhaps not have time to prepare a full line of questioning?

Very good question, Boodles.

But they should have been prepared in case Santa Claus came early.

 

[borndem]

Jeff Ashton is the second chair in the Anthony trial. He is brilliant. The trial is in the defense case in chief right now and so far, almost every one of the defense witnesses have been turned into state's witnesses right before our eyes with this man's prowess. Most have been scientists with a Ph.D in some sort of forensic science. It's been amazing to watch him in action.

I watched today, too, and you're right on target. My DH came in and started watching and was very confused. I had to explain that yes, Darling Husband, that man is the ADA and he's questioning a DT witness. He was amused and a bit amazed. I'm quite impressed with JA, too. Boy, is he hurting the DT. But Baez...... I'll leave it at that

 

[fran]

I'm going to think on this a bit. I see criticism of the pros and their cross of the def/witness. I know the first time I saw a real case, just a one day testimony and the closings (missed the pros rebuttal closing). I was disappointed at the lack of drama. I guess I thought it'd be much more dramatic with exclamations and such. But, it's the content of the words that are important and sometimes what isn't said.

I'm confident this pros asked the important questions they needed his reaction to in front of this jury. They even got him to become defensive and he said, 'it's already been testified to......' a few times. He didn't mind answering his PREPARED questions by the def attorney, but REALLY DISLIKED the (unprepared) unexpected questions from the opposition.

I don't think it was necessary for the pros to get him all riled up. He seemed to loose enough of his temper, just a little, to show he's still got issues and I doubt the jury missed that. I think the pros will tie everything up tomorrow in closing. They'll outline everything to make it understandable by the jury to attempt to insure they come back with a verdict of GUILTY! and this will be for Michelle and her unborn baby.

Nobody knows what the jury will decide. During the OJ trial many thought he'd be found guilty which was why there was such shock across the country with the NG.

I honestly feel for the jurors on this case. I bet none of them will be able to sleep tonite. What a heavy burden. With a man's life on the line and they will decide! Not only that, their decision will mean either justice for the victims or a grave injustice that MAY never be righted, IF he's found innocent, yet, unknowing to them he's guilty.

What a hard place to be in. We can say we think he's guilty and it doesn't mean anything in the big scheme of things. Yet, THEIR opinions will matter for this case and will affect SCORES of people's lives.

Tomorrow should be an interesting day. Let's hope both sides do a good job and the decision is just.

JMHO
fran

PS...of course, I'm sure I don't need to add, I think he's GUILTY!?

 

[borndem]

Thanks, JTF -- I noted that testimony. Bothersome. They surely do look similar, but not the same. Color vs. color or BW vs BW would have been better... The stripe is more prominent in the BW.

Maybe he replaced it, like he did the ditched shoes...

Your impression?

 

[Just the Fax]

BD, that chest stripe style was very popular. I want to say GAP trademark for a year or 2?
I just think Ma Pat found the pic and turned it over to the lawyers. The fact they used it shows how desperate they are to deflect the damning evidence of the missing pullover. Simply no reasonable explanation other than he ditched it 11-3 along with the jeans and HP shoes.

 

[borndem]

Closing...both pics side by side.
The defense desperately wants you to think the chest stripe knit pullover was not missing. Take a look for yourself ladies and gentlemen. This was nothing more than another case of misrepresenting the true facts that show JLY is guilty of murder.

Another item for the ADAs to put in their ammo bags.... And pictures are very, very effective evidence -- more memorable. We are visual beings.

Do you know their FAX number????

Again, thanks for your amazing pics. :clap::clap:

 

[BirdHunter]

I must say I have not been impressed with BH. When she was assigned the case, I was told she was one of the best...very passionate. I will reserve my final thoughts after closing arguments, but so far she gets a C+.

You are being generous. I would say c- or D but i hope that the news paper delivery man as a rebuttial witness hits it home for the state. God be with this jury. Help them see through this freak and put him away for life!

 

[caffeinatd]

Who was this Brooke that he tried to bed in Charlotte? Has anyone heard of her before? Thanks for any info...

 

[Zamboni]

I just think Ma Pat found the pic and turned it over to the lawyers. The fact they used it shows how desperate they are to deflect the damning evidence of the missing pullover. Simply no reasonable explanation other than he ditched it 11-3 along with the jeans and HP shoes.

Thank you for the side by side, JTF. I don't think PY found the pic, I think they found the similar shirt and then staged the pic, and what better occasion for staging a pseudo-timestamped pic than a birthday party.

Look, here he is in that same shirt! And it must have been after the murder because it's at CY's 3rd B-day. artyguy2: artyguy2: artyguy2:

Poor child, even her birthday is being manipulated on behalf of her Daddy.

 

[traveler]

BD, that chest stripe style was very popular. I want to say GAP trademark for a year or 2?
I just think Ma Pat found the pic and turned it over to the lawyers. The fact they used it shows how desperate they are to deflect the damning evidence of the missing pullover. Simply no reasonable explanation other than he ditched it 11-3 along with the jeans and HP shoes.

The jeans...it really bothered me that the prosecution didn't address that. The defense brought it up again today about jeans in the car, and Jason relpied "Yes, the jeans that were found in my car"....but didn't mention they were not found in his luggage. I hope Becky points out this twisting of facts by the defense.

 

[Just the Fax]

"I've lost everything," he said. "I've lost family, friends, jobs. I've lost everything."

Hmmm. Has anyone seen Kim Young????
Perhaps she is the smart one in the clan.

 

[borndem]

You're too kind, FAX. She doesn't get above a D from me. After just having watched the Cooper trial, I must say, this trial, from a prosecution standpoint, is sorely lacking. There was no passion, no conviction of feelings expressed during the trial. As we have so often pointed out, where is the passion of Freida? Anybody else old enough to remember the Jeffrey MacDonald trial, the passion shown by the prosecutor, can't recall his name?? Someone help me here, Blackburn???

Oh yes, glee - I grew up about 35 miles from Ft. Bragg, so I know this case well. And yes, MacDonald killed his family. No doubt in my mind. Talk about a sociopath and narcissist... textbook case...

And yes, James Blackburn was the chief prosecutor. I know him -- he's still here in Raleigh. MacDonald was his first case as a federal prosecutor. Another Southern gentleman and brilliant. And another one who's easy on the eyes. Very fine individual.

Anyway, on with the show...

 

[fran]

I hope the jury caught the irony of the very last question the pros asked of JY!

In the cross, the def asked JY about the instructions about the medication found on the shelf of C. The def went over how the cautions talked about how the medication CAN cause HYPER activity, and it wouldn't be something one would give to a child to cause drowsiness. JY agreed and said that was one of their marketing points to doctors.

The pros got up and pointed to the section of the warnings that says the "the medication can cause drowsiness".....................JY said yes!

Hypocrisy! Show only 1/2 the story. I hope the jury didn't miss that point!

JMHO
fran

 

[Melanie]

I'm only on part 3 listening to this guy (sidenote - my curio cabinet is now shiny and sparking).

I just have to say, I can tell porkie pies a mile away. All he needed to do was throw in the SIM card argument (ala Casey Anthony). All those dropped calls, missed calls, getting lost, going down to get a newspaper at midnight? WOT? Didn't he just finish watching some game on the pooter, but needed a newspaper to get stats? Yah right.

Oh, and what about all the open/closed/locked doors. In-out-in-out-in-out. He was incredibly busy that night smoking, not smoking, reading a paper, not reading a paper (too windy).

On another note, he is a good inmate witness. Probably the best I've seen in a long while. The last one I recall, was the Susan Wright case, where she tried to defend stabbing her husband 193 times. That was a trainwreck.

The boys are playing the x-box now, so I can't really pay attentin until tomorrow. But I am really curious to see the outcome of this one!

Thanks everyone!

MOO

Mel

 

[fran]

I'm confused on the point the Judge was discussing at the end of the hearing today, after the jury was dismissed.

So, my understanding is that it is a Constitutional Right to not make statements to LE, Fifth Amendment thing. But there's no provision about the POI or suspect or def talking to anyone else.

I think I'm understanding that the judge usually does not have to bring this up to the jury during instructions, because the jury is USUALLY not told the def did NOT talke to LE. But, this def brought up the 'not talking to LE' during opening and the def opened the door wider during his testimony.

Now the pros wanted the judge to make a differential between talking to LE and talking to family, friends, anyone else, about the case. THAT is NOT covered under the Constitution, talking to anyone other than LE.

The judge is thinking on that over night and it will be discussed at the beginning of court tomorrow.

Does anyone else have a take on this?

The pros said something about one thing hadn't been decided by the Supreme Court, just one local decision so the judge wasn't obliged by that, necessarily.

hmmmm........
fran