State vs. Jason Lynn Young 02-29-12

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
ynotdivein

ynotdivein

Retired WS Staff
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
11,425
Reaction score
69
State vs. Jason Lynn Young

Thread for Wednesday, Feb. 29, 2012

Live links:

http://www.wral.com/news/video/10690077/#/vid10690077

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/index


breakfast1.jpg

http://www.baja4life.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/breakfast1.jpg
 
LolaBunnies said:
So he could try to say she was killed before she went to bed. That's why I think he showed his face on camera around 12am at the hotel. JMO
Click to expand...

That's an interesting perspective. Perhaps the lights were still on from Michelle's late guest (11 PM?). Shouldn't we assume that robbers, bad guys and husbands that murder wives at home would not turn on all the lights - including the porch and driveway lights? The fact that the lights were on at the end of the driveway would suggest that they were not turned off from the evening before when her friend drove home ... after sensing something creepy in the bushes.
 
gritguy said:
I didn't say her testimony, as a defense witness or on c-x, was proof of murder. Red herring.

She didn't suggest the euphemism, JY did. Red herring. JY was asking her to mislead and lie, just like he regularly did, all the time. I think she even said she didn't, though she tried to justify his euphemism.

The FIL, the BIL, the SIL to me came across as pretty straightforward. PY not so much, which is a euphemism for she told tall tales and hard to swallow stories which are euphemisms for I think she was lying, a lot.

Therefore, I think the DT was well served to get onto the eyewitness testimony, which will have a logical bearing on the verdict.

IMO. Others have the opinion, I guess, that she was strictly truthful and fully helpful to the defense, and that's another perspective on the testimony.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's a "red herring" to demonstrate for the jury that the one mother in law interfered with the other mother in law having contact with the grandchild. It seems to me to be rather irrelevant. We already know that the two women did not get along and participated in the marriage tug of war.

I haven't seen any comments suggesting that a mother's testimony at her son's murder trial will not have a slant. Of course it will have a slant. If anyone gets a pass for only seeing the best interpretation of the suspect's words, deeds and actions, it's the suspect's mom. Did she tell whoppers like Amanda Knox?

Pat Young did use a euphamism when explaining why her son could not come to the phone (he was in jail). I wouldn't exactly qualify it as lying ... what euphamism would have been okay when someone is trying to explain why someone else cannot come to the phone any day of the week? Should she have said that he is in jail and can't come to the phone ... seriously?
 
cody100 said:
She was a breath of fresh air for the courtroom. Her mind is sharp, particularly on which house and what she saw. I found it interesting that the PT even took pictures of the house, driveway, and the parked vehicle at end of driveway. The DT used those pics to verify she had the right house.
Click to expand...

"You had me come here for that?! "

She made a point.
 
Michelle Young's father told investigators his son-in-law is methodical, very smart and can change who he wants to be, according to new search warrants in the unsolved murder case of the 29-year-old pregnant mother.

"We're convinced he's a chameleon," Alan Fisher told Wake County sheriff's investigators. "He is what you want him to be, and he's got multiple personalities and he leads you to believe that that's the person he is. The minute he's out of your presence, he's a chameleon to someone else."



http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4507783/
 
What does NTO stand for? I think it is referenced for Michelle's viewing or wake and I see it discussed in relation to JY's shoes he was wearing.
 
BrownRice said:
What does NTO stand for? I think it is referenced for Michelle's viewing or wake and I see it discussed in relation to JY's shoes he was wearing.
Click to expand...

Non-Testimonial Order

A NTO was issued for JY to present himself for the collection of DNA, submit to photographs, and physical examination (for scratches, etc,). I liken it similar to a subpoena but it is for the collection of physical evidence, photos, etc and not testimony. (similar to a search warrant but it is for his person (JY in this instance) and not a location or piece of property like a house or car, etc)

IMO
 
Where's breakfast? :snooty:

G'mornin all! We're nearing the end. I hope the prosecution ties it all up nicely for me and this jury tomorrow. On Friday, Jason Lynn Young's fate will be in the hands of this jury.

Hoping for justice for Michelle :rose:
 
Good Morning, everybody. Anybody have a guess on who the remaining witnesses will be?
 
I cannot imagine any more"friends" of Jason Young will testify for the defense...each has provided damaging testimony. Dalton: never smoked, hated cigarettes. Ambrose: Young is a manipulator (I heard that and just said "daaaamn"). Barrett: Young and Cargol's "volatile" relationship (Young's history of violence toward women backed by his own friend), and intent to defraud home shield warranty. I thought Barrett made it very clear he's got nothing to do with Jason Young now...like he wasn't going to come out and say it, but that he knows Jason is a sociopathic murderer. He distanced himself from Young from the get-go.

With friends like that, Jason...
 
I keep waiting for those 12 HP to come flying in sometime. LOL Few friends want to stick around with a suspect in a homicide case.
 
Someone pointed out in yesterday's thread, but Georgia Tech did not have a football game that night. Nor did Virginia Tech.

Louisville played West Virginia. http://espn.go.com/college-football/schedule/_/year/2006/week/10

Maybe it means nothing, but that's pretty curious...Mr. Barrett struck me as doing little to benefit Jason Young's case. If nothing else, it showed Jason furthering his alibi.
 
With time, memories get foggy. If that is in error, it would not negate their talking with each other. I think it does nothing for either side if there was an error on what they said. I was much more interested in CB and the neighbor's testimony. That is relevant.
 
otto said:
I don't know if it's a "red herring" to demonstrate for the jury that the one mother in law interfered with the other mother in law having contact with the grandchild. It seems to me to be rather irrelevant. We already know that the two women did not get along and participated in the marriage tug of war.

I haven't seen any comments suggesting that a mother's testimony at her son's murder trial will not have a slant. Of course it will have a slant. If anyone gets a pass for only seeing the best interpretation of the suspect's words, deeds and actions, it's the suspect's mom. Did she tell whoppers like Amanda Knox?

Pat Young did use a euphamism when explaining why her son could not come to the phone (he was in jail). I wouldn't exactly qualify it as lying ... what euphamism would have been okay when someone is trying to explain why someone else cannot come to the phone any day of the week? Should she have said that he is in jail and can't come to the phone ... seriously?
Click to expand...

BBM IMO it wasn't so much what the euphemism was or what anyone said. The point was, JY asked PY to twist the truth and obfuscate on his behalf. She willingly complied.

And that wasn't even for anything important - the guy was what, a broker? If she'd do that for him for something so minor as saving face, imagine what could happen with the rest of his life on the line.
 
reposting message from ynotdivein, moderator:

AHEM.

Things I KNOW are true:

1. WS posters are very smart.

2. Multiple WS posters can look at the same evidence and come to very disparate conclusions about said evidence.

3. Not everyone who is following this case now, followed the first trial.

4. WS posters can and most often do post with great respect for one another and for the families of all those involved in the cases we follow here.

The above facts lead me to the conclusion that every. single. person. who chooses to post on MY's forum. has the ability to do so in a manner that is respectful of the victims' family, AND of the opinions of other posters who may or may not agree with them.

Review TOS and the Rules, and keep it civil, please.
Click to expand...
 
Bottle Cap said:
BBM IMO it wasn't so much what the euphemism was or what anyone said. The point was, JY asked PY to twist the truth and obfuscate on his behalf. She willingly complied.

And that wasn't even for anything important - the guy was what, a broker? If she'd do that for him for something so minor as saving face, imagine what could happen with the rest of his life on the line.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and perhaps not unexpected.

The red herring things were stuff I never claimed in my comments.

Anyone is free to believe PY helped the defense case; I don't.

I agree with you, she came off as willing to say what she thought she needed to say. I don't see her helping JY get away with murder, effectively help with her tedtimony that is. IMO.

So far, it's down to CB as the main counter to the state's case, if one is at present convinced.
 
Oh there's breakfast! Yay! I was going to make a strawberry pretzel salad. lol

Thanks :)
 
Quick question from yesterday's thread. I thought that the co-worker and SS both testified to the fact that MY said her seatbelt was off in the crash. Am I wrong?
 
fredwomble said:
I cannot imagine any more"friends" of Jason Young will testify for the defense...each has provided damaging testimony. Dalton: never smoked, hated cigarettes. Ambrose: Young is a manipulator (I heard that and just said "daaaamn"). Barrett: Young and Cargol's "volatile" relationship (Young's history of violence toward women backed by his own friend), and intent to defraud home shield warranty. I thought Barrett made it very clear he's got nothing to do with Jason Young now...like he wasn't going to come out and say it, but that he knows Jason is a sociopathic murderer. He distanced himself from Young from the get-go.

With friends like that, Jason...
Click to expand...

These guys testified yesterday for the defense? Wow. Not good but then again I think this jury knows what kind of person JY is. The question is do they think he's a cold blooded murderer who beat his 5 month pregnant wife to death in front of his 2 year old little girl and smart enough not to leave any trace of physical evidence behind?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 230 more.
Total: 4,005 (members: 231, guests: 3,774)

Online statistics

Members online
231
Guests online
3,774
Total visitors
4,005
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,566
Messages
17,955,146
Members
228,538
Latest member
brittinvestigates4u
Back
Top