Page 3 of 46 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 1135

Thread: **Verdict watch weekend discussion thread** 3/3-4/2012

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    22,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Talina View Post
    Did she testify to that? I thought we only know from the emails that were in one of the search warrants. Did that also come out in trial testimony? I missed some testimony here and there so I might have missed that.
    She didn't testify to anything about the accident. You're correct in that we have confirmation that the accident occurred because of Michelle's emails. The prosecution had to have known this, yet they attempted to present the computer searches as proof that Jason was planning a murder.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  3. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by fifteen89 View Post
    And I'm still stuck on the cameras being messed with. When they were messed with before wasn't the testimony that it was when kids were trying to sneak into the hotel? How many of the other guests at the HI that particular night were 'kids' trying to sneak in?
    Yea I understand... I'm still stuck on the size 10 shoes.. The ones the PT couldn't explain...

  4. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,246
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    What the defense said was "suppose Michelle didn't give the shoes away, then ... presumably he had them with him during his business trip or they were in his closet"
    Indeed, he did. It was a brilliant alternative theory for those jurors who had already decided that those shoes were exact match to the faint, incomplete foot prints assigned to a HP 12. I would hire him, but hope I never need him.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cody100 For This Useful Post:


  6. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.C.
    Posts
    4,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Talina View Post
    Did she testify to that? I thought we only know from the emails that were in one of the search warrants. Did that also come out in trial testimony? I missed some testimony here and there so I might have missed that.
    I recall testimony as to three cases having been brought in that day. Of those, the testimony being the only one needing trauma care was a black man with a leg injury. Those are my recollections as to this trial.

  7. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to gracielee For This Useful Post:


  8. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,858
    Quote Originally Posted by BrownRice View Post
    JTF:

    On the previous (now closed) thread you said the jury foreman originally voted guilty. Is that from the previous trial I assume? Did he end up changing his vote or was he one of the G holdouts?
    Yes, previous trial.
    It was an early vote during deliberations, from what I was told.
    Don't think he was one that changed to guilty after lunch.

  9. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Just the Fax For This Useful Post:


  10. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,858
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    She didn't testify to anything about the accident. You're correct in that we have confirmation that the accident occurred because of Michelle's emails. The prosecution had to have known this, yet they attempted to present the computer searches as proof that Jason was planning a murder.
    Well, is there proof he used the searches after the wreck to "see if there was anything else he could have done"?

  11. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Just the Fax For This Useful Post:


  12. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    22,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Elisaa444 View Post
    I have a question for those that think Jy is innocent. What do you think about him not showing any interest in knowing who brutally murdered his wife while his child was nearby? To my knowledge not showing any interest in solving her murder and fighting for justice?

    I'm okay with the fact that he got an attorney. With his attorney always present he could have stayed in touch with LE and made sure they were actively looking for her killer. Even though it is clear he didn't love MY or want to be married if he did not kill his wife I would think he would still want her murder solved. I would think he would be *angry* at who did this to her and especially putting his child possibly in harms way.

    There are many cases I know of where the husband or parent was the POI/suspect, yet they worked with LE through their attorneys to clear themselves so police could carry on the investigation to find the real killers.

    I'm just curious as to how this is justified?

    moo.moo.moo.

    If there is no link it is just what I think.
    I don't think we can assume that Jason was not interested in the investigation. We know that progress on the investigation was regularly posted online because we all knew how it was going. Jason could have followed the case just like we did.

    Everything about Jason was interpretted through the "guilt" filter. Regardless of what he said, it was interpretted that way. For example, he searched head trauma after witnessing an accident and, even though police had confirmation that the accident occurred, they interpretted searches related to the accident as implying guilt. In fact, they omitted presenting relevant information to the jury to twist the fact.

    Another example of this relates to the traffic accident. Rather than put the investigating officer on the stand, the prosecution presented rumor through friends to imply that Michelle was not wearing a seatbelt. Yet, facts of the case at the time of the accident are that she was wearing a seatbelt. Why did the prosecution omit relevant facts in their case?

  13. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  14. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    22,768
    Quote Originally Posted by gracielee View Post
    I recall testimony as to three cases having been brought in that day. Of those, the testimony being the only one needing trauma care was a black man with a leg injury. Those are my recollections as to this trial.
    Medical personnel would have had to testify as to the type of patients at the hospital, and we didn't hear any testimony from hospital employees.

    Here's a crazy coincidence ... my daughter was on her way over here but I just learned that she witnessed a hit and run so she's delayed. If she searches the injuries on the net and then her husband turns up dead, I hope that doesn't make her look guilty.

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  16. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,858
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    I don't think we can assume that Jason was not interested in the investigation. We know that progress on the investigation was regularly posted online because we all knew how it was going. Jason could have followed the case just like we did.
    Oh, we was very interested in the investigation ----very interested in staying quiet so hopefully he would not be arrested. I thought it was funny he told Kim the investigation may last 2 years and he would be home free. Turns out it was 3 and he is about to go down.




  17. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Just the Fax For This Useful Post:


  18. #60
    Elisaa444's Avatar
    Elisaa444 is online now "The truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it."
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    147
    I saw that someone had been kind to post the jury instructions that were read to this jury by Judge Stephens. I cannot find that now. I thought it was in yesterday's thread early on. I also can't find it in the legal thread. I could be missing it for sure.

    I wanted to go back and re-read a part of it. I thought I read something to the effect of: "JY not speaking to LE before, during or after the investigation cannot be held against him. Though this does not include talking to family/friends about the investigation before, during or after the investigation.."

    **Now, let be clear that quote above is NOT in the jury instructions. It is my attempt to try to remember what this particular part said and describe it to you, so if anyone knows the part I talking about or if you have seen where the jury instructions are posted would you be kind enough to point me in the right direction? I'm talking about the specific jury instructions this jury received and not just the general outline. thank you to anyone that knows.

    moo. moo. moo.
    "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."



  19. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    22,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Elisaa444 View Post
    I saw that someone had been kind to post the jury instructions that were read to this jury by Judge Stephens. I cannot find that now. I thought it was in yesterday's thread early on. I also can't find it in the legal thread. I could be missing it for sure.

    I wanted to go back and re-read a part of it. I thought I read something to the effect of: "JY not speaking to LE before, during or after the investigation cannot be held against him. Though this does not include talking to family/friends about the investigation before, during or after the investigation.."

    **Now, let be clear that quote above is NOT in the jury instructions. It is my attempt to try to remember what this particular part said and describe it to you, so if anyone knows the part I talking about or if you have seen where the jury instructions are posted would you be kind enough to point me in the right direction? I'm talking about the specific jury instructions this jury received and not just the general outline. thank you to anyone that knows.

    moo. moo. moo.
    http://www.wral.com/asset/specialrep...structions.pdf

    http://www.wral.com/specialreports/m.../#/vid10805888

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  21. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    22,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Fax View Post
    Oh, we was very interested in the investigation ----very interested in staying quiet so hopefully he would not be arrested. I thought it was funny he told Kim the investigation may last 2 years and he would be home free. Turns out it was 3 and he is about to go down.



    Exactly ... we all know that if he was interested in the investigation, he did not need to talk with police to get updates.

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  23. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,858
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Exactly ... we all know that if he was interested in the investigation, he did not need to talk with police to get updates.
    Well otto, I would not feel the same as you and Jason.
    I would be like Meredith and Linda (had the same news reports) and call on a regular basis because I cared.

  24. The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to Just the Fax For This Useful Post:


  25. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    22,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Fax View Post
    Well otto, I would not feel the same as you and Jason.
    I would be like Meredith and Linda (had the same news reports) and call on a regular basis because I cared.
    We've seen in a number of other investigations that police do not release privileged information to the family in order to protect the integrity of the investigation. Contacting police is useful in terms of keeping police actively involved with the case, but not for getting "privileged" information.

    Jason didn't need to contact police to keep them on the case, he knew that they were on the case and we all know that Sheriff Donnie Harrison had a picture of Michelle on his desk at work; that he was not going to stop investigating until he had his man.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  27. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nestled Deep in Southern Hospitality
    Posts
    17,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Talina View Post
    From what I remember of that testimony, they couldn't tell the dates since the search history had been deleted. They found the searches in the deleted files.

    (that confused me since in the Orlando trial, they had dates on the search history of even the deleted files)
    That confuses me too, Talina. Like you said it was in the Anthony trial but I have also seen other trials where the computer forensic expert could find the date of the searches even when it had been deleted.

    So when did Michelle mention the accident in her email?

    IMO
    "Pardon Our Noise, It's the Sound of Freedom" USMC New River Air Station, Jacksonville, North Carolina

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to oceanblueeyes For This Useful Post:


  29. #66
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    In the sweet Carolina pines
    Posts
    3,895
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Medical personnel would have had to testify as to the type of patients at the hospital, and we didn't hear any testimony from hospital employees.

    Here's a crazy coincidence ... my daughter was on her way over here but I just learned that she witnessed a hit and run so she's delayed. If she searches the injuries on the net and then her husband turns up dead, I hope that doesn't make her look guilty.
    Did she take out 4 mil life insurance? Does she have affairs and lie? Does she have a volatile relationship with him. Does she plan on tracking blood in her shoes with a distinct sole pattern? Does she plan on staying in a hotel that just happen to have the cameras disabled? Does she plan on propping 2 doors open so there wont be a record of her keycard? Does have not one single friend willing to testify that they believe her innocent?


    A proud decedent of The Declaration of Independence signer.

  30. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to 3doglady For This Useful Post:


  31. #67
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    7,104
    Quote Originally Posted by gracielee View Post
    The defense team contradicted their own witness testimony, jason young at the first trial, that michelle young didn't, after all, give the hush puppy shoes to goodwill and they were in the closet. The real killer decided to wear them after the murder.
    Yeppers, glee - The Real Killer did wear those shoes, didn't he??


    All posts, unless attributed, are "just my humble opinion," and they are to remain here in Websleuths and are not to be used elsewhere. Thank you.
    _________________


    This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
    William Shakespeare, King Richard II



    The Angel of the Waters, Bethesda Terrace, Central Park, New York City

  32. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to borndem For This Useful Post:


  33. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nestled Deep in Southern Hospitality
    Posts
    17,489
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    She didn't testify to anything about the accident. You're correct in that we have confirmation that the accident occurred because of Michelle's emails. The prosecution had to have known this, yet they attempted to present the computer searches as proof that Jason was planning a murder.
    I am getting confused. So does the State think he meant to come there and strangle Michelle and something went wrong or he planned all along to beat her with a blunt object in her head?

    IMO
    "Pardon Our Noise, It's the Sound of Freedom" USMC New River Air Station, Jacksonville, North Carolina

  34. The Following User Says Thank You to oceanblueeyes For This Useful Post:


  35. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    We've seen in a number of other investigations that police do not release privileged information to the family in order to protect the integrity of the investigation. Contacting police is useful in terms of keeping police actively involved with the case, but not for getting "privileged" information.

    Jason didn't need to contact police to keep them on the case, he knew that they were on the case and we all know that Sheriff Donnie Harrison had a picture of Michelle on his desk at work; that he was not going to stop investigating until he had his man.
    So true.... My BF's nephew is missing in TX and has been for a month.... 2 wks ago they found his clothing, shoes & wallet on the river bank.... When his mother calls for information they give her very little info if anything... A few days ago she called & she was told they had leads... She asked if they could tell her what.. He said he couldnt tell her anything.. So she asked well will you call me & let me know whats going on.. He said no NOT unless her son was found...
    Come to find out they lied to her saying they had searched the by plane... She meets with Texas EquuSearch & Tim Miller Tuesday....

  36. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nestled Deep in Southern Hospitality
    Posts
    17,489
    Quote Originally Posted by SteelerGirl43 View Post
    So true.... My BF's nephew is missing in TX and has been for a month.... 2 wks ago they found his clothing, shoes & wallet on the river bank.... When his mother calls for information they give her very little info if anything... A few days ago she called & she was told they had leads... She asked if they could tell her what.. He said he couldnt tell her anything.. So she asked well will you call me & let me know whats going on.. He said no NOT unless her son was found...
    Come to find out they lied to her saying they had searched the by plane... She meets with Texas EquuSearch & Tim Miller Tuesday....
    Oh my goodness. I hope they find him soon.

    How sad.
    "Pardon Our Noise, It's the Sound of Freedom" USMC New River Air Station, Jacksonville, North Carolina

  37. The Following User Says Thank You to oceanblueeyes For This Useful Post:


  38. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by oceanblueeyes View Post
    Oh my goodness. I hope they find him soon.

    How sad.
    Thanks Ocean... Its heartbreaking...... Not sure if this link will post or stay, but heres what they have at ES..

    http://texasequusearch.org/2012/03/m...dor-tx-020212/

  39. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SteelerGirl43 For This Useful Post:


  40. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lafayette, LA
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by Elisaa444 View Post
    I saw that someone had been kind to post the jury instructions that were read to this jury by Judge Stephens. I cannot find that now. I thought it was in yesterday's thread early on. I also can't find it in the legal thread. I could be missing it for sure.

    I wanted to go back and re-read a part of it. I thought I read something to the effect of: "JY not speaking to LE before, during or after the investigation cannot be held against him. Though this does not include talking to family/friends about the investigation before, during or after the investigation.."

    **Now, let be clear that quote above is NOT in the jury instructions. It is my attempt to try to remember what this particular part said and describe it to you, so if anyone knows the part I talking about or if you have seen where the jury instructions are posted would you be kind enough to point me in the right direction? I'm talking about the specific jury instructions this jury received and not just the general outline. thank you to anyone that knows.

    moo. moo. moo.
    This is what I found on the matter.

    ETA: Here is the post from TexasCharm yesterday (sorry lost the formatting, see link below for highlighting of the pertinent info):

    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7655665&postcount=379"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - **Verdict Watch** 3-2-2012; deliberations started at 1016am[/ame]

    "Ladies and Gentlemen, the fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a citizen's right to refuse to answer questions of the police during a criminal investigation. The exercise of that constitutional right may not be used as eVidence against that citizen later at trial to create an inference of guilt. Therefore, the defendant's decision not to answer questions by law enforcement officers during the criminal investigation may not be considered against him as evidence of guilt to the
    pending charge.

    However, that same fifth Amendment does permit the jury to consider the defendant's refusal to answer police questions to the extent that the evidence surrounding that refusal bears upon the defendant's truthfulness if the defendant elects to testify or make a statement at a later time. The evidence presented in this case tends to show that the defendant elected to testify at a prior trial.

    Therefore, I instruct you that you may consider evidence of the defendant's refusal to answer police questions during this investigation for one purpose only. If, considering the nature of that evidence, you believe that such evidence bears upon the defendant's truthfulness as a witness at his prior trial, then you may consider it for that purpose only. Except as it relates to the defendant's truthfulness, you may not consider the defendant's refusal to answer police questions as evidence of guilt in this case.

    I also instruct you that this fifth Amendment protection applies only to police questioning.

    __________________________________

    He has a right not to answer questions. So they can't hold it against him that he didn't answer questions of the police.

    There is no instruction on the fact that he made absolutely ZERO inquiries about the case. He could have ... SHOULD HAVE ... called LE every freakin' day to see if they were any closer to finding his wife's killer .... imo

    Just sayin'
    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7655665&postcount=379"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - **Verdict Watch** 3-2-2012; deliberations started at 1016am[/ame]
    Last edited by pjcitizen; 03-03-2012 at 02:48 PM.

  41. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to pjcitizen For This Useful Post:


  42. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    22,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Fax View Post
    To do so would mean filing a police report and giving a recorded statement to the adjuster. The fact he did not is just another example of having something to hide.
    I'm wondering why the fact that he did not pursue monetary gain after the murder is interpretted as meaning that he is guilty.

  43. #74
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    7,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Fax View Post
    Nobody said he made the accident up out of thin air.
    That e-mail did not detail a 'head injury" this man had.
    The searches for these terms and not news of the actual accident, point more to something sinister. Who would search the term "knockout" after a car wreck?

    Head blow knockout
    Anatomy of a knockout
    Head trauma blackout
    "right posterior parietal occipital region" (back of the head)
    Why not enter terms such as, "accident Highway 14 Oct 14" (highway and dates are mine only); just used for example purposes... Wouldn't that make more sense? That's what I would do.... Just sayin'..... Then when you find out more, go out and look for more specific injuries on this person. And no 911 call from him? I hope if I ever need a first responder that that person will call 911 and hold my hand. But that's just me...????
    Last edited by borndem; 03-03-2012 at 02:43 PM. Reason: typos, clarity


    All posts, unless attributed, are "just my humble opinion," and they are to remain here in Websleuths and are not to be used elsewhere. Thank you.
    _________________


    This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
    William Shakespeare, King Richard II



    The Angel of the Waters, Bethesda Terrace, Central Park, New York City

  44. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to borndem For This Useful Post:


  45. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    947
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    We've seen in a number of other investigations that police do not release privileged information to the family in order to protect the integrity of the investigation. Contacting police is useful in terms of keeping police actively involved with the case, but not for getting "privileged" information.

    Jason didn't need to contact police to keep them on the case, he knew that they were on the case and we all know that Sheriff Donnie Harrison had a picture of Michelle on his desk at work; that he was not going to stop investigating until he had his man.
    I totally disagree. His behavior towards LE went further than following his attorneys advice. It shows guilt to me. How could he resist not talking to the people that were looking for the killer? His self protection was more important than helping in ANY way with the investigation??? Don't buy it! Why not just go in and say give me a lie detector test so you can check me off the list and find who murdered my wife and son???? How could he not have ONE question for LE???

  46. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Lori59 For This Useful Post:


Page 3 of 46 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. **Verdict Watch** 3-2-2012; deliberations started at 1016am
    By nursebeeme in forum Michelle Young
    Replies: 734
    Last Post: 03-03-2012, 12:30 PM
  2. Replies: 773
    Last Post: 02-20-2012, 10:49 AM
  3. State vs Jason Lynn Young: weekend discussion 11-12 Feb 2012
    By nursebeeme in forum Michelle Young
    Replies: 227
    Last Post: 02-13-2012, 07:12 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •