We've got the prosecution introducing the traffic accident as attempted murder and deliberately omitting testimony from the attending officer, introducing the gas attendant and omitting information about her brain injury, putting her on the stand after she had obviously been "rehabilitated", introducing testimony about "head trauma" being suspcious and omitting emails where Michelle confirmed the accident ... there's more ... and all of it gives the impression that the prosecutors have lost their ability to be objective. It gives me the impression that they want to WIN at all costs ... having lost sight of presenting the whole truth. Sadly, after hearing about the problems at the forensic lab, this doesn't surprise me.
**Verdict watch weekend discussion thread** 3/3-4/2012
- Thread starter nursebeeme
- Start date
- Status
We've got the prosecution introducing the traffic accident as attempted murder and deliberately omitting testimony from the attending officer, introducing the gas attendant and omitting information about her brain injury, putting her on the stand after she had obviously been "rehabilitated", introducing testimony about "head trauma" being suspcious and omitting emails where Michelle confirmed the accident ... there's more ... and all of it gives the impression that the prosecutors have lost their ability to be objective. It gives me the impression that they want to WIN at all costs ... having lost sight of presenting the whole truth. Sadly, after hearing about the problems at the forensic lab, this doesn't surprise me.
LOL, I think the point in question relates to wearing seatbelts. Would Michelle have any reason to lie to the officer about whether she was wearing her seatbelt? She was there when the report was given and had a responsibility to correct Jason if he lied ... she didn't correct him, so it's fair to assume that it is true that she was wearing her seatbelt.
mck16
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 7,472
- Reaction score
- 8
I think he is guilty because of the evidense against him and that there are too many coincidenses. I also don't know why a perfect stranger would do this as there is no motive. JY has motive. I don't want to believe he did it just like I didn't believe Scott Peterson killed his wife. The fact that the DT admitted he was a jerk and a philanderer but said that did not make him a murderer, well I disagree. The jerky things he did and the things he said to his lovers, etc. in my opinion make him a person that could and would do anything to serve his instant gratification. It seems to me he lived two lives and one was totally apart from MY and CY.
I really can't see JY just going in to MY's bedroom and start beating her, I think that something started it and caused him to fly into a rage. I just don't know what and I don't guess any of us do. I bet if they went back over his SUV they would find something. jmo
Really? Would you call the police that responded to the river car wreck in Brevard bumblers? They didn't seem to take that seriously did they? Everything cuts both ways.
I think he said that he tried a couple of matches but it didn't work so he lit up the entire match package.
Just the Fax
Justice For The Fisher's
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,924
- Reaction score
- 105
Considering there is a $25 fine for not wearing a SB, i'm sure JLY lied.
He was the one interviewed, not MY
justbetweenus
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,555
- Reaction score
- 2
Otto did you see a c/p on this thread or maybe the last one, of posts KY made somewhere on the net, where she states that Michelle was not wearing her seatbelt? Not saying this is true, but It certainly means it wasn't just rumor from Michelle's friend that she wasn't.
mck16
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 7,472
- Reaction score
- 8
In Texas not wearing a seat belt is a very serious offense especially if you have an accident. And I know people that would and have lied about it. It effects insurance too.
If something was started at the moment he was in the bedroom that caused him to fly into a rage, that same thing could have caused anyone to fly into a rage.
SteelerGirl43
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 510
- Reaction score
- 0
No proof of that... ....
Honestly, I'd not be surprised at all if people in an accident did not tell the investigator that they were not wearing their seat belt. If an anonymous poll were taken about whether or not you'd be honest about that fact if asked by LE after a traffic stop or after an accident, I would bet we'd see that the majority of the people would say they'd say they were wearing their seat belt. Two reasons: (1) avoid the citation for failure to wear seat belt and (2) avoid any possibility insurance may fine a clause to deny medical claims due to no seat belt.
In this instance, we know from the highway patrol testimony that he took the report from JY not MY. We know from his testimony that he did not separately question MY. Granted he said (IIRC) that she was nearby and could have disputed anything he said. Seriously, though, does anyone really believe she is going to dispute JY to the highway patrol right there in front of JY? Given they have just had an accident, she is pregnant and probably (naturally so) worried about the baby I'd expect her to just be ready for it to all be over with so she could calm down.
We also know from his testimony that he was not the first on the scene of the accident and that when he arrived both MY and JY had been taken to the hospital. There was already first responders that had been there for some time whom I suspect and IMO had taken their own perusal of the incident, formed opinions and IMO passed this on to the highway patrol when he arrived. We do know from testimony one of those already on the scene was the brother of a life long friend of JY. In a small rural community, this does go a long way in taking someone's word for an event or incident.
I truly believe the highway patrol report to be one of a formality rather than a full blown accident investigation. Since there didn't appear to be anything untoward on the surface, what was there to investigate. All accident reports are not a full investigation, IMO.
I'm not saying either the sheriff's deputy (brother of the JY's friend) or the highway patrol fabricated anything. I'm just saying I don't find it unlikely that they'd take JY's word for whatever he said happened and be done with it.
IMO
In this instance, we know from the highway patrol testimony that he took the report from JY not MY. We know from his testimony that he did not separately question MY. Granted he said (IIRC) that she was nearby and could have disputed anything he said. Seriously, though, does anyone really believe she is going to dispute JY to the highway patrol right there in front of JY? Given they have just had an accident, she is pregnant and probably (naturally so) worried about the baby I'd expect her to just be ready for it to all be over with so she could calm down.
We also know from his testimony that he was not the first on the scene of the accident and that when he arrived both MY and JY had been taken to the hospital. There was already first responders that had been there for some time whom I suspect and IMO had taken their own perusal of the incident, formed opinions and IMO passed this on to the highway patrol when he arrived. We do know from testimony one of those already on the scene was the brother of a life long friend of JY. In a small rural community, this does go a long way in taking someone's word for an event or incident.
I truly believe the highway patrol report to be one of a formality rather than a full blown accident investigation. Since there didn't appear to be anything untoward on the surface, what was there to investigate. All accident reports are not a full investigation, IMO.
I'm not saying either the sheriff's deputy (brother of the JY's friend) or the highway patrol fabricated anything. I'm just saying I don't find it unlikely that they'd take JY's word for whatever he said happened and be done with it.
IMO
Bumbling or otherwise, at least he made note of whether they wore seatbelts. Perhaps the guy drove off with Jason's license, perhaps not ... but that didn't interfere with him doing his job.
Lol, Jason did not say he had 2 matches,
He said it was windy and he ended up lighting the matchbook to light his cigar.
Man, and how about the cigar purchase from Antonio's in Tampa?
Looks like Jase did smoke a cigar a few times !!
:wink:
Are you suggesting that Michelle went along with the lie to save $25?
fromageball
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 273
- Reaction score
- 0
In order to find JY guilty in this case, the jury has to make a lot of assumptions. If there was actual proof of tampering with the camera, stopping for gas, etc, this case would be a slam dunk imo. But it's not so the state has to reach and omit information to make their case look the way they want it to.
I think a big part of the verdict will hinge on whether or not the jurors think that the hush puppy prints are JY's. I don't think they will be willing to assume all of the other things, but if they believe the prints are his they might convict.
JMO
I think a big part of the verdict will hinge on whether or not the jurors think that the hush puppy prints are JY's. I don't think they will be willing to assume all of the other things, but if they believe the prints are his they might convict.
JMO
Just the Fax
Justice For The Fisher's
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,924
- Reaction score
- 105
I am suggesting MY was not interviewed about the accident details.
You may want to go back and watch the testimony.
The same state trooper was asked again years later if he thought there was anything suspicious, after MY's death.
He still replied NO.
Why would he lie?
She was present when Jason gave information to the officer. She was a bright, well-educated young woman. She would know that she had a responsibility in ensuring that the information they, as a couple, reported was accurate.
- Status