State vs Jason Lynn Young: weekend discussion 11-25 Feb 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.

fran

Former Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
32,578
Reaction score
190
Website
Visit site
Please continue discussion for the weekend here.

Next week begins the defense case!
 
Someone asked 'what door did Meredith exit the house?' Meredith exited through the front door, with CY & Mr. G.
 
This is OT:

I know a lot of you watched the Brad Cooper trial. I didn't but I am watching the 1st day of testimony now. There's a woman sitting in front of the witness (but sideways to him) that is holding a round thing over her mouth. Can anyone clue me in on what that is? TIA!
 
This is OT:

I know a lot of you watched the Brad Cooper trial. I didn't but I am watching the 1st day of testimony now. There's a woman sitting in front of the witness (but sideways to him) that is holding a round thing over her mouth. Can anyone clue me in on what that is? TIA!

I believe she's the court reporter, and uses a recording device rather than the shorthand/typing machine.
 
Someone asked 'what door did Meredith exit the house?' Meredith exited through the front door, with CY & Mr. G.

Thanks. Did investigators rule out possible transfer of MY's blood on the doorknob, by someone in the house during or after the discovery? I'm sure they probably did, but I haven't come across that info yet. Thx.
 
This is OT:

I know a lot of you watched the Brad Cooper trial. I didn't but I am watching the 1st day of testimony now. There's a woman sitting in front of the witness (but sideways to him) that is holding a round thing over her mouth. Can anyone clue me in on what that is? TIA!

I'm doing the same thing. I haven't started watching the trial yet, I'm still reading all the case info... I've heard so much about the case from everyone here that I had to go check it out! I'm hooked.
 
Thanks. Did investigators rule out possible transfer of MY's blood on the doorknob, by someone in the house during or after the discovery? I'm sure they probably did, but I haven't come across that info yet. Thx.

I believe it's been accepted that swipe of blood was left by the killer, as he exited the house through the interior garage door. The door from the mudroom to the garage. IIRC, there wasn't any sort of fingerprint, is was more a smear of Michelle's blood.
 
As an afterthought to the N.C. weather, it's usually quite mild here, but the nights can be cold. Today I walked my dogs in capri pants, a tee shirt, barefoot in my birkie's. If anything, towards the end of my walk I was a bit warm, too warm. The sun down here can be warm even if the temp. is in the sixties. But tonight we have a strong northwest wind, it's chilly. Tomorrow is predicted to be in the low to mid fifties. Today my grandsons wore their shorts and tee shirts to school. I don't know what you call them, but the long shorts, that come down to the boys knees. It's common here to wear shorts during the winter months. There are enough warm days to prohibit one 'putting ones summer clothes away for the winter.' When we first moved here from Wisconsin, it took me a season to realize one didn't change out winter & summer clothes. :) And if you recall, jason had packed all his 'short pants' for his trip. :)
 
Thanks ... I can understand now that someone might have a pair of shoes last longer than a year. Real winters are brutal on shoes and I couldn't imagine anyone really keeping a pair around for more than a year ... not even for everyday wear.

On another tangent ...
I just realized that the reason the prosecution brought up so much of the defense argument is that they wanted to place the emphasis where they wanted it ... defense would have placed emplasis somewhere else. For example, one of the witnesses testified that Jason procrastinated when he had to prepare a report for a flight four hours later and it is in the defense's interests to associate that with Jason not preparing or doing a report for his morning meeting (we know there wasn't one because he didn't use his computer). Instead, the prosecution introduced that evidence as a point towards irresponsibility, even though other parts of the same evidence benefited Jason.

Maybe the golfing buddy is a better example ... it's all in how the witness's evidence is first introduced. The prosecution puts one spin on it, defense another spin, but the first line of questioning is the most important. Maybe that's not right .. but I have wondered why the prosecution introduced some evidence that was favorable to Jason and some former defense witnesses.
 
Bringing this over from other thread 2/24, Otto you said "Not really ... Pat said that she got a pullover out of his luggage for Jason to wear because he was in shock and was cold ... but ... is that the same one that was foundin storage? Who knows."

I have listen to her testimony ... no where does PY state the above!!

Listen here around the 10:00 mark http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9754898/#/vid9754898 and listen here around the 32:20 mark where BH is questioning PY http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9758533/#/vid9758533

Then here is the link for the creme colored shirt/sweater JY had on when he checked in at the HI.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/image_gallery/9726666/ look at pictures 1 thru 20 and compare to the shirt/sweater Taft shows around the 12:00 mark http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10757980/#/vid10757980

The bottom line here is we know he had the shirt/sweater on when he arrives at MF's house but the point of the matter is PY stated nothing was took out of JY's suitcase.

Listen around the 27:00 mark about what MF describes JY hd on when he arrives at her house.
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10699052/#/vid10699052
 
I still don't understand what is funny about a defense expert collecting evidence after investigators released the scene. It's almost like the difference was:

- 75 bag of evidence (images of 75 garbage bags)
- 75 evidence bags (images of small paper bags, baggies or tubes)

75 bags of evidence deserves ridicule, but 75 evidence bags doesn't. The difference between whether "missed" means a viable collection or a "left behind" collection doesn't really matter since the victim's teeth were collected by the guy that had the extra 75 evidence bags.

I certainly never interpretted this as meaning that there were 75 new pieces of evidence. Why a lawyer would interpret it like that?
 
As an afterthought to the N.C. weather, it's usually quite mild here, but the nights can be cold. Today I walked my dogs in capri pants, a tee shirt, barefoot in my birkie's. If anything, towards the end of my walk I was a bit warm, too warm. The sun down here can be warm even if the temp. is in the sixties. But tonight we have a strong northwest wind, it's chilly. Tomorrow is predicted to be in the low to mid fifties. Today my grandsons wore their shorts and tee shirts to school. I don't know what you call them, but the long shorts, that come down to the boys knees. It's common here to wear shorts during the winter months. There are enough warm days to prohibit one 'putting ones summer clothes away for the winter.' When we first moved here from Wisconsin, it took me a season to realize one didn't change out winter & summer clothes. :) And if you recall, jason had packed all his 'short pants' for his trip. :)

Stop already! I'm getting jealous. Missing my Carolina.
 
Bringing this over from other thread 2/24, Otto you said "Not really ... Pat said that she got a pullover out of his luggage for Jason to wear because he was in shock and was cold ... but ... is that the same one that was foundin storage? Who knows."

I have listen to her testimony ... no where does PY state the above!!

Listen here around the 10:00 mark http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9754898/#/vid9754898 and listen here around the 32:20 mark where BH is questioning PY http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9758533/#/vid9758533

Then here is the link for the creme colored shirt/sweater JY had on when he checked in at the HI.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/image_gallery/9726666/ look at pictures 1 thru 20 and compare to the shirt/sweater Taft shows around the 12:00 mark http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10757980/#/vid10757980

The bottom line here is we know he had the shirt/sweater on when he arrives at MF's house but the point of the matter is PY stated nothing was took out of JY's suitcase.

Listen around the 27:00 mark about what MF describes JY hd on when he arrives at her house.
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10699052/#/vid10699052

I read here that Pat gave Jason an extra sweater to help him keep warm on the way home. Did that not happen? Meredith testified that he was wearing a casual shirt until a dress shirt. Did Meredith testify that Jason was wearing a dress shirt over another shirt? How did she identify those shirts? Was it a bit like the gas attendant identification?

Was the testimony that nothing was taken out of the luggage after they parked, before they left, or during the trip ... I don't know where the testimony came from, but I know that I read here that it happened.

Suppose Pat didn't give him an extra shirt, suppose investigators showed Meredith a picture of the wrong shirt? ... (that sounds like a title for Wallace & Grommit).
 
Odd that some of you are arguing as to why JY needed to replace shoes so quickly. This is completely dependent on individual circumstances. I have shoes that are 5 years old in my closet that look great that I wear occasionally. The shoes I wear most often are a pair of Dockers that can be worn for business or casual. They're comfortable so I wear them with jeans, with slacks, etc. After about 6 months or so of wear, I typically stop wearing for business, at that point, they start to become noticeably worn. I continue to wear with jeans/casual for a few months but look to replace soon after.
 
Odd that some of you are arguing as to why JY needed to replace shoes so quickly. This is completely dependent on individual circumstances. I have shoes that are 5 years old in my closet that look great that I wear occasionally. The shoes I wear most often are a pair of Dockers that can be worn for business or casual. They're comfortable so I wear them with jeans, with slacks, etc. After about 6 months or so of wear, I typically stop wearing for business, at that point, they start to become noticeably worn. I continue to wear with jeans/casual for a few months but look to replace soon after.

Exactly ... I don't think I would have shoes for everyday use and still be wearing them one and a half years later.
 
Exactly ... I don't think I would have shoes for everyday use and still be wearing them one and a half years later.

I think a lot of the differing opinions may come from women. I (female) have many shoes going back 5 years. I don't think I've ever "worn out" a shoe - except for running shoes; they are replaced a couple times a year. My husband however, goes through shoes like crazy - it's bizarre how he ruins them. His expensive dress shoes can go a year but that's it. All other shoes become yard-work shoes before year end.
 
Jason and Michelle Young's insurance levels raised significantly...months later, a car accident where Jason specifically did not want Cassidy in the car and Michelle is pregnant. Miscarriage. Tells her to "get over" the miscarriage (timing of d*ck tricks in relation to the above unclear). :p

Jason doubles insurance coverage, adds accidental death, raising the payout to $4 million. Michelle Young, pregnant again, brutally murdered in her home within weeks of doubled coverage. No forced entry, blood contained to bedroom and bathroom (blood transferred by 2-year-old daughter). Killer leaves bloody footprints, including one matching rare pair of shoes owned by Jason Young and worn the night before by him. Killer leaves no other footprints in the house.

Jason's alibi/testimony. Proven false: he did work on his computer in hotel. He had breakfast in the hotel the following morning.

Highly suspicious:

Claims left hotel door unlocked with possessions in room rather than simply putting room key in pocket while smoking cigar.

Smoked cigar in subfreezing weather with 30 mph wind gusts, with no winter wear. Young known to be adamantly opposed to smoking, reported previously a non-smoker in insurance application. Zero evidence to support cigar - wrapper, cutter, matches or unmistakable cigar smoke odor on clothing.

Cameras at hotel tampered with twice, at times that prove he was at the hotel. If Jason Young had returned to his room after smoking cigar in freezing, windy temperatures, a working camera would be very strong evidence supporting his alibi. Shortly after camera tampered with a second time, Young is seen at front desk of hotel.

Clothing worn in hotel...Young changed clothes shortly after arriving at hotel, seen in darker clothing less than an hour after check-in when claims he was going to smoke cigar. This is midnight, when he claims he needed to wake up at 6:15 a.m. to drive the 145 miles to his meeting in Virginia. Dark top in this video is never seen again, after testimony that no clothes were removed from luggage. (Insert birthday photo here; family now involved in deceit.) Shoes missing, which match the bloody print found at murder scene. Jason Young purchases very similar pair less than a week after murder at same store where Hush Puppies purchased (what pair do you think he intended to buy)?
 
Bringing this over from other thread 2/24, Otto you said "Not really ... Pat said that she got a pullover out of his luggage for Jason to wear because he was in shock and was cold ... but ... is that the same one that was foundin storage? Who knows."

Lucky, I think this may clear up the confusion about the creme sweater.

1- He wore it checking in the hotel
2- It was removed from luggage & put on during the trip back with mama.
3- He had it on when he arrived at MF's
3- It was later seized 2/08 by LE in Brevard (appears to be similar sweater)
4- The sweater was not worn during the murder and and is not suspicious. LE was just trying to account for all his clothes seen 11-3-06.

Part of the confusion in this case is some info comes from search warrants and some from trial testimony. It is easy to blur the 2 together, as you remember something as fact, but can't remember if it was testimony or a SW affidavit.

Capture-39.jpg


Here is the interview recap by Pat where she explained how the creme sweater got out of his luggage.
 
On more than one occasion I have griped about the prosecution. I wouldn't back down from anything I've written about Holt and Cummings' styles and lack of organization compared to the defense. That said, I believe they hoodwinked defense yesterday in a way that crashes one of Jason Young's arguments. For this, they deserve full credit.

Prosecution anticipated the "crying poor" claim regarding Young not being able to afford to fight for custody. As if it was financial only. The jury heard long accounts and arguments both ways on this issue...I myself was criticizing prosecution on this point. After yesterday I now believe the prosecution set up this whole issue. Defense made a very strong case for Young not having the means to fight for Cassidy. Collins' cross showed how expensive his services are, suggesting that it would've been a long and costly fight that Jason could claim he was unable to afford (notwithstanding that the Fisher family was incurring costs at the same time). Cold as that sounded, it's an argument a person could buy....i.e., "you can't fight City Hall." When they closed with the statement that Jason Young could have avoided a custody fight by merely signing a visitation agreement, that says it all. He fought at all costs any process that would open the door to being questioned about Michelle's murder or being analyzed by a shrink. "At all costs" includes giving up custody of daughter rather than sign a piece of paper. This is very compelling information that the defense dared not follow when Cummings got that answer. In my best Becky Holt voice, "with regard to" Jason Young being unable to financially afford a custody battle, it is game, set, match. Now the jury must ask
why he would give up his child rather than sign a visitation agreement with the Fishers.
 
I think a lot of the differing opinions may come from women. I (female) have many shoes going back 5 years. I don't think I've ever "worn out" a shoe - except for running shoes; they are replaced a couple times a year. My husband however, goes through shoes like crazy - it's bizarre how he ruins them. His expensive dress shoes can go a year but that's it. All other shoes become yard-work shoes before year end.
I still think its subjective based on a multitude of factors. I've been married to my husband over 3 years and he has bought one new pair of shoes in that time.

He has many pairs of shoes (more than me! ;)) and several of them are older than 5 years - Doc Martens, Chuck Taylors, occasional, tuxedo shoes, etc. One pair (his favorite) just keeps going to the cobblers to get resoled - they might be nearly as old as I am by now! :floorlaugh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
1,946
Total visitors
2,125

Forum statistics

Threads
589,951
Messages
17,928,083
Members
228,013
Latest member
RayaCo
Back
Top