discuss the case thru the weekend here.
This bee my opinion
note from the moderator Fran:
Could I please ask you all a favor?
This is a very emotional case, I get that. Many of us saw the first trial and have our opinions already in place. Other's, didn't watch the first trial, may not have followed the case, and, or think he's innocent, they don't know yet? Take pieces of evidence differently than others.
Let's discuss the issues, the testimony. You can give your opinion, but PLEASE, respect the opposing opinions and posters. You're not going to change their mind by being snarky or angry....................you can agree to disagree and move on. If you have to, go to another forum or case until Monday when court is back in session.
I'd also like to remind you all it is against our TOS to call anyone names, demean either the victim's or accused's family. You can be angry at them, you can criticize them to an extent, but please show them some respect. AFter all, there's only one person on trial for this murder. As of now he's alleged to have murdered Michelle. We have allowed the word 'slayer' when referring to the accused, only because it was in previous legal documents on a civil matter. This is now criminal court and he's being tried. Until IF and when he's convicted, he is the defendant, or alleged killer or murderer.
The entire Young family didn't ask or plan to be put into this mess. They are just like the Fisher family, they are victims. They may show faith in their son, brother, but that is the way families often are, they can't believe their loved one would commit such a horrible crime. It's not their fault.
I'd especially like to ask all of you to please be good this weekend. This is going to probably prove to be the most difficult time in recent memory for many Websleuthers with regard to a case followed and sleuthed here. This weekend they're going to have a number of specials on the Powell family and the two children of missing Susan Powell are to be laid to rest in a televised event. We are going to have our hands full, not to mention our emotions raw. Rather than getting angry about this case, please go a light a candle for missing Susan and her two murdered little children, Brandon and Charlie. Say a special prayer now that the boys have gone to be with their mom.
Thank you for listening. Have a good weekend and we'll be back bright and early Monday. Let there be justice for Michelle.
This bee my opinion
if a mod does not open this in the am please alert on it so we can open it for discussion!
This bee my opinion
"Why allow for an ounce of sympathy for him then?"
The only thing going for this testimony is there are 8 women on the jury. Of the 4 men (1 white, 3 black), perhaps they would share the same 'real life' feeling most guys would think about their MIL. Most love 'em, but certainly would not want them living in their home for an extended period. This testimony will be quickly forgotten when the evidence turns to the multiple affairs shortly before her demise....actual motive for murder.
Not trusting my memory, I did a little googling, but I agree they can. Will they and should they? Depends on the factors you cite, I agree, as well as I think the public has a lower tolerance for putting someone on trial over and over in a high profile case. Here's some authority on the subject:
"As a general rule, the prosecutor is entitled to one, and only one, opportunity to require an accused to stand trial. See Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978). This principle notwithstanding, there is no specific state or federal constitutional limit on how many times a defendant can be retried after a mistrial is granted. Instead, each double jeopardy claim must be examined individually and considered in light of the particular facts of the case. See State v. Simpson, 303 N.C. 439 (1981) (no double jeopardy violation found in defendant’s third trial for the same charges since there was no indication of harassment by the State or bad faith conduct by the trial judges in the prior trials, and it appeared that the previous juries were genuinely deadlocked and given every reasonable opportunity to reach a verdict); State v. Williams, 51 N.C. App. 613, 619 (1981) (finding that double jeopardy did not preclude a fourth retrial where the previous mistrials were properly ordered based on juror misconduct and juror deadlock with no objection by defendant, the State acted “expeditiously and fairly to achieve a final resolution, and all four trials took place in less than a year”)."
Regarding the accident, a co-worker testiied that Michelle wanted her skin lotion, removed her seatbelt and was reaching back to get lotion. I don't recall any testimony where it was said that Jason asked Michelle to take off her seatbelt and do something in the back of the vehicle.
Ms Bolick said Jason ran off the road because he thought the interior light was on (assume he told MY he was distracted).
Body lotion? No otto, the testimony MY unbuckled (simultaneous to his 'distraction') to reach for her makeup bag....imo, apparently tipped or open - perhaps making noise....
So, on a 25 MPH curve he just happened to think his interior light was on and at the same time, MY just happened to unbuckle. At the same moment of these 2 events, the vehicle crosses all the way over the center line, across the other lane, down a steep embankment straight into the river. Hmmm, what a coincidence.
I thought it was interesting JLY's reaction to Rylan was "not as expected".
EDIT....I see MF said lotion was in the bag, so I stand corrected on that part.
Last edited by Just the Fax; 02-11-2012 at 02:17 PM. Reason: added MF testimony
Boodles....JTF, I want to read the wreck report, but can't read the doc you posted. Do you have a link to where I might find it online? Thanks!! And I don't understand the video. Is that the stretch of road in question and you duplicated the speed?
The doc I posted was a scanned image...no link, sorry.
The video I posted from the other thread is the actual curve on Barclay where he ran across an entire lane and into the river. That curve is 25MPH and I just accelerated to 45 to show how ridiculous it is to believe he could have lost control. If he was distracted and looking for an interior light, he certainly was not speeding through the curve like i did. I could see his wheel dropping off the shoulder, but to turn left and drift all the way across another lane without an attempt to correct is preposterous for a very experienced driver....IMO.
I have a question, not savvy about legalites in the slightest. It still bothers me that JY refused to go though the house with LE. He's the only person who could thoroughly and effectively point out to LE anything missing, amiss, moved, placed differently...doors usually locked, doors usually unlocked, some slight detail that someone who didn't live there wouldn't pick up. Things that, if he's innocent (cough) might point to the real murderer. I understand that he refused lest he incriminate his own sorry self, but is there not any point at which a person's non-participation in a murder investigation, when they're charged with absolutely nothing, becomes obstruction of justice in the legal sense and not just in a moral one?
Just throwing this out for conversation, as I just now saw this live blog. I'd not noticed it before.
They say there is no coincidence when it comes to murder. Having said that, what are the odds the below would have just happened to happen on the very night JY stayed at this hotel? The very night MY was brutally murdered? The very night, where just a short time later, JY is going to be id'd by a witness many want to discredit because she had a brain injury from being hit by a drunk driver? The id was of JY getting gas, early in the morning that Michelle was murdered and 45 minutes from the Young home, on the road to the hotel?
What are the odds? FOUR things happen to point towards JY stealthly driving home and being the murderer. How unlucky can one guy be?
1. Exit door to hotel propped open with rock. It had an auto lock when closed.
2. The security cameras in the hallway of the hotel were disabled.
3. Once the disabled cameras were discovered and corrected, these same cameras were again tampered with, turned away as to not allow to properly surveil the hallway.
4. A gas station/mini store clerk id's the accused as the person who got angry at her because he had to pay before she'd turn on the gas pump. It was a safety precaution the station implemented during the late evening and early morning hours to prevent individuals from driving away without paying for their purchase. The clerk was responsible if someone did this........note, after angrily throwing a $20 bill at the clerk, the individual proceeded to only use $15 of his purchase and drove off, towards the back part of McDonald's where there was a trash bin, before then coming out and driving towards the highway.
Are you all making your evidence lists towards guilty or innocent. LOL, I've got a list, but my list is 'Why I think Jason Young killed his wife.' I just realize I forgot this information. I did have 20 reasons why I think Jason killed Michelle. Now I have more! At the end of the trial, I may condense it a bit. But this is proving to be quite the list!
Wonder how long the lead detective's list is, for this investigation? Sure would be interesting if he read his list to the jury. Just like they read the list on why they kept searching in the Bay for missing Laci, in the Scott Peterson trial. Believe me, it left many people stunned. SPEECHLESS!
Jason Young live blog: Night clerk remembers unusual events at Hampton Inn
February 7, 2012
3:43 p.m.: Night clerk Keith Hicks from the Hampton Inn in Hillsville, Va., is on the stand. Hicks came to work around 11 p.m. that night and worked the overnight shift.
He testified that he saw a door on the west side propped open by a rock and kicked the rock out. He also said he noticed that the surveillance camera that watched that exit had been disconnected.
Within half an hour of it being re-connected, the camera had been pushed to where it was facing the ceiling tiles.
"It was very unusual," he told prosecutor Howard Cummings.
Later, when concluding his testimony, he said, when he saw the camera unplugged, "It gave me an uneasy feeling."
Under cross examination from defense attorney Bryan Collins, Hicks said there were 86 guest rooms in the inn that day, and that Jason Young didn't stand out to him.
"He didn't stand out from the other hundreds of guests that come through," he said.
I'd give my eye teeth for a receipt or some sort of evidence revealing that Jason purchased or otherwise obtained of a pair of size 10 Franklins. I personally don't need that evidence, but I think many need extra assistance in connecting so many dots. I can hear it now "but there was another shoe print at the scene!"
Of all the things you can say about Jason, unfortunately, the one thing you can't say is that he's stupid. This crime contains the nth degree of premeditation, IMO (which makes it so especially horrendous). Someone who is planning a murder can and would use a decoy tactic.
It scares me that some won't be able to understand how another set of show prints could be found, and why there is not more evidence "putting him at the scene." But, duh, he planned this, and had plenty of time to figure out how to prevent leaving evidence (or leave planted evidence pointing to a difference perp, a random guy who wears size 10).
I hope Becky can tie all these circumstances together with a nice bow on top for these jurors. She's a smart woman, but her style is boring. With this prosecution team, there is no drama, no gut punches. You need a nudge and a shot of espresso to snap to and get the significance of the points being made. This is a wet noodle prosecution, and I hope the gazillion circumstances can speak for themselves, since the prosecution style is so weak.
I have question; during the first trial, which I followed closely, I was surprised at how unprepared the prosecution team was for JY testimony. If it was unexpected for the prosecution, at that moment, could they not petition the court for a recess in order to have time to collect their thoughts? I know the judge wanted to keep the session rolling but I would have thought that the prosecution would have done something to prepare for this possible circumstance.
Personally, the biggest issue I have is with the size 10 Franklin shoes.
The bloody mess on the floor was obviously not planned. With that, he did not plan to bring in smaller shoes. If so, why also leave your size 12 HP's?
Makes zero sense to me. He made no effort to obscure his HP prints, so why add another partial print from a cheap dime store shoe? Why was such a pair in his home? Saying he put them on and got a blister does not do it for me.
I hate to admit, but if i were a juror I would expect the PT to admit there is a distinct possibility there was another person at the crime scene that night....with or just after JLY. Of course, that makes him no less guilty of 1st degree murder.
I'm still reading posts from yesterday and couldn't post so I had to jump into today's forum for this little bit of minutia. On CSI New York last night (probably some of you caught this too) S.Ward said 'there are no coincidences in murder'. I immediately thought of this case and all of the coincidences (or non-coincidences) that really make up the foundation of this case. A lot of the circumstantial evidence are coincidences, some of the things that can and cannot be explained are coincidences, the basic reason JY was ever arrested was based on a chain of coincidences--whether intended or not. I agree, there are no coincidences in murder, and not in this case either. He is guilty.
Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird.
All she needed was "Mr. Young, what happened to this dark pullover you were seen wearing at midnight in this video"
Nothing he could have said would get him out of that corner.....guilty as charged.
Does anyone here have any thougts concerning Mr.G, the dog, who was most likely asleep in the master bedroom at the time of the assault. As a dog lover and owner myself, the fact that there are no dog footprints in blood is extremely interesting to me. As an observor of dogs behavior over nearly half a century, Mr. G's behavior says a lot IMO.
The dog was probably "freaking out" because it was not let out Friday am and it was 1:30PM.
JMO, but I think Mr. G. was whimpering and frightened because he knew the person who came into the house that night. That's why he didn't go back upstairs to his bed. He was confused, frightened. Only his 'pack members' were in the house that night, no strangers.
My dogs too, would have heard someone coming in. Had it been a stranger, my dogs would have become extremely loud, vocal, barking and growling, etc. And I have no doubt in my mind, my extremely sweet, big dogs, would have bitten a stranger. My dogs who have grown up around children, and have never bitten anyone, have snapped at a couple strange men over the years, who they thought seemed dangerous for what ever reason. They've put themselves between me and a stranger, and if that stranger moved towards me, they have snapped. If that stranger attempted to come into our house uninvited, or made some sort of move that appeared to them as 'not right', they've reacted. When I am out walking them, and someone comes forward to pet them, they are extremely sweet dogs, accepting of pets from strangers as long as I speak and make sounds that are observed by them to be *friendly* gestures. But I have no doubt, were someone to approach me in a way that elicited fear or anger or something from me, my dogs would react in kind.