The jury will be given instruction on the law at 0930.
If a verdict is not reached by the evening deliberations will continue on Monday.
wral twitter (to check for updates during deliberations http://twitter.com/#!/WRAL
Last edited by nursebeeme; 03-02-2012 at 11:30 AM.
This bee my opinion
Rule Reminder as we head to Verdict
Good morning everybody! I'm sure everyone is eagerly waiting for the defense to rest today and the jury to be sent out.
I want to remind everyone of a few basic rules:
First - a difference of opinion is NOT a TOS violation. Cheerleading for EITHER side is not a TOS violation, BUT being snarky and disrespectful about that opinion IS.
Second - if a post offends you, ALERT it. Remember, if you respond, it is on you and you may find yourself suffering the consequences for it.
Third - we are moving toward a zero tolerance policy. That means if you are snarky and rude, you may find yourself on TO.
Fourth - the mods will NOT be taking the time to send you pm's and hash it out. You will just see that you can no longer post.
Snarkyness will include avatars and siggy lines that are being used to convey messages you know you can't outright post.
Please keep in mind that ONE side, and only ONE side is going to win here, unless we end up in another stalemate. Whatever the outcome, we will have to deal with it, whether we think it is good or bad. So please keep in mind, that means one side is going to lose. Be a good sport. Don't gloat if you are on the winning side and don't pout and be mean if you are on the losing side. Brace yourselves now in case things don't go the way you want them to.
If you have questions or concerns, PM a mod - DO NOT post them in the thread. Remember all the TOS and rules, please.
This bee my opinion
Live Feed: http://www.wral.com/news/video/10690077/
Judge's Instructions to the Jury
Bringing over some late night comments:
Seriously ... the absence of evidence, meaning there is no evidence that someone was in a particular room, does not mean that someone was absent from the room. That a is true. The fact that you can't prove I was in the room doesn't mean I wasn't there. However, if there's nothing to connect that person to the room at the critical time, then it should not be assumed or concluded that the person was there and responsible for something that happened in the room. It's not a statement that should be taken to heart when it comes to determining guilt, in my opinion.
As for who else it could be? One of the first places police looked was at the trailer park on the other side of the trees behind the Young's house. That coincided with the testimony from the friend that was visiting Michelle the night she was murdered ... that she was spooked by something possibly in the back yard. No suspect was identified and the focus returned to the husband.
Put on the coffee ... I'm looking forward to hearing law for 2nd degree murder. I find that a bit absurd. Are we to believe that Jason drove 170 miles home, for no reason, got there, accidentally murdered his wife, drove back to the hotel and then covered up the crime?
Will there be an instruction that Jason had the right to remain silent during an investigation into his wife's murder when he is the only suspect?
The daycare testimony is interesting because if the child spontaneously identified the mother figure, and the eldely mother figure represented the father figure, why didn't she also name him? She was close to her father, there's no doubt about it. Why did she only identify the mother?
What resonates from the defence is: let's suppose that Jason didn't give the Hush Puppies away, that they werei in his closet ... I hope we can assume he wasn't wearing 1.5 year old shoes to the sales meeting. So, he's not wearing the old Hush Puppies for the meeting but they might have been at his house ... and what ... he murdered his wife wearing size 10 shoes that he pulled out of his back pocket, then pulled the old Hush Puppies out of the closet to make more prints and then he put on different shoes to return to the hotel and had yet another pair of shoes in the back of the vehicle?
Last edited by otto; 03-02-2012 at 05:07 AM.
Cammy, I think I figured out the shoe problem. The assumption has been that Jason still owned the size 12 Hush Puppies and that he wore them on the night of the murder. We have to assume that the murderer was wearing these shoes when he entered the home. That would mean that Jason brought the shoes with him when he went to the Hotel, put them on and wore them during the initial attack.
As it turns out, he didn't put the Hush Puppies on, he had to have put on a pair of size 10 Franklins if those are the dominant prints - and they are. So, this guy that can't plan anything has suddenly planned wearing size 10 Franklins to the murder, after the murder he puts on an old pair of shoes that may be in the closet so he can make additional prints. He is wearing shoes, has an extra pair in his vehicle and has to buy better shoes for the funeral.
I thought it was weird that the prosecutor mocked Jason for putting his and Michelle's poem in the casket.
lol! Come on..."Fixation" with wedding rings! :-) ...during the State Closings.
That sounded hilarious!
Who CARES if he had condoms in his friggin luggage!?!?!?!
(2nd part of State Closings).
No kidding, MoonFlwr.
But he's not the guy who can't plan anything. He juggled his women on the side quite easily. He was in Florida to indulge himself with that strange woman, and managed the forethought to purchase an anniversary card and mail it. He's certainly capable of thinking ahead to cover up his actions.
ETA: His ex-friends said JY never planned. That's not the same thing as being incapable of planning. He managed a university degree, that speaks to some sort of ability to stay on task and think ahead.
1. He had them tucked in an inside pocket for all of his trips and it was not placed in there Thursday when he was packing. (doesn't show G or NG)
2. He packed it specifically for some wishful nighttime activity on his trip. (points more toward NG)
3. He placed them there on purpose to show point #2 above (G)
For him to put something in there that was from her to him, is very odd. To me, that would be something he'd want to keep for himself for sentimental reasons and later to share with Cassidy.
Why would he want to bury a gift she gave him instead of one he gave to her so that it stayed with her for eternity?
Seems a bit opposite of the norm to me.
Unless I've provided a link, everything I say is IMO
Prosecution: He had no love for Michelle and was only interested in other women. Michelle being pregnant and perhaps a divorce in the near future and having to support her and 2 children goes towards motive. In addition, there was the insurance. 2 million, I believe.
Defense: Proves JY planned on having sex with other women on the road like he's done many times before. He had no plans on murdering his wife. You can say he's a jerk, cheater, but not a murderer.
Justice for Holly Bobo🎀
For me the condoms are, well....just there. Just further evidence of his character and lack of morals, etc. I suspect he always made sure he had condoms on him for whatever situation might present itself.
They initially raise an eyebrow, then just a head shake. Neither pro or con for either JY or the prosecution.
Unless I've provided a link, everything I say is IMO
People put different things into the casket. Perhaps this was the only thing he could put his hands on since he couldn't get into the house, and well, there was no jewelry either since it was taken during the murder. If he did not kill MY, he did not have jewelry to put into casket. If he did kill MY, he definitely would not want to suddenly produce it.
Condoms seem irrelevant to me.
Yes, I must agree I do not see the reasoning by the state to infer anything concerning the condoms or the casket deposit. We all knew from prior testimony he was unfaithful, but we did not know he practiced safe sex, so that was a real eye opener. But maybe he had them along to practice his d!ck tricks and did not want to make a mess in case he got himself a little too involved?
The other possibility is Michelle put the condoms in his luggage....and perhaps a note with it. I know probably far fetched but what if?
I think that would perhaps go towards 2nd degree (??) He hadn't planned on murder but when he went to open up his luggage, he sees the condoms with a possible note saying she knew about his affairs and was pursuing getting a divorce (possible theory only...there has been no evidence to suggest there was a note or that Michelle was the one who put the condoms there)
Justice for Holly Bobo🎀
Sometimes murderers do get off, so there's no reason for JY to give up hope yet. It is possible he covered his tracks just enough...
Still, though he can have some hope, he's got to be worried the jury will see through all the lies and, if they aren't the kind to think every prosecution is a crusade against an innocent man, then he may not get away with it after all.
I can't see any scenario that is 2nd degree. I agree with the defense it is 1st degree or nothing. Also, the PT pitched that as well, since they again focused on the planning.
If JY came back to argue, there wouldn't have been the door propping etc. Guilty doesn't make sense unless it is 1st degree, to me.
The more Collins played that VM to the home on 11-3, the more the jury was able to hear it was an obvious alibi cover. "Hey, this is Jay"...rattled off several details he wanted the cops to hear. It was really creepy to hear, knowing he just slaughtered his wife hours earlier.
Interesting ideas, JF and n/t. I find the only reason for second degree being offered is to compromise the NG and the G of First Degree. I will be interested to hear JS' explanation today.
Of any scenario of JY committing the murder or not committing it, I am thankful that not even JY's defense team suggested a scenario, without any evidence, that Michelle goaded him into the anger that led to the crime.
Reading it above and finding how distasteful such a suggestion is, I think that was certainly wise on their part. This woman was brutally murdered; why imagine that she pulled a stunt that brought on the attack?