Page 3 of 76 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 1135
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,885
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    If Jason had attempted to collect insurance for the missing items, it would support the prosecution's argument that his motive was money. .
    Slaughter your wife so you can claim insurance on a $14,000 ring
    Is that the point of this post?


  2. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Just the Fax For This Useful Post:


  3. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,885
    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.
    That was classic.
    I thought Klink was a top defense attorney until I heard his closing.


  4. The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to Just the Fax For This Useful Post:


  5. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,117
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    I'm guilty of not filing insurance claims when things have gone missing from my home. My son's bike was stolen and I simply let it go. That happens. Another of his bikes was driven over by a friend's father. I let that go too. After his wife was murdered, I'm sure Jason had more important things on his mind than collecting money for missing items. In fact, it looks like he couldn't even deal with the house insurance claim, so his sister had to look after it.

    Nothing Jason has done supports the argument that he wanted money as a result of his wife's murder.
    JY couldn't deal directly with the insurance claim rep. He was avoiding speaking directly with anyone that could or would pass on anything he said to LE.

    As far as people having items missing that are not claimed on homeowners policy. That happens all the time, IMO mainly due to the fact that the value of the item missing is below the deductible.

    This was one incident and there was already damages being claimed that far exceeded the deductible. A claim for missing or stolen items generally has to be accompanied by a police report. A police report has to be filed by the person claiming ownership of the missing items. JY had to be the one to file the police report and we all know why he did not do so. Without that, he COULD NOT claim it on the insurance.

    This, of course, is assuming there really were missing or stolen items. I'm of the mind that there wasn't but that is my personal opinion on that matter.

    IMO
    Unless I've provided a link, everything I say is IMO


  6. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Talina For This Useful Post:


  7. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.C.
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Fax View Post
    Nope....Pat Young testifed she bought the tooth box for CY and the braclet for MY's birthday that she put on the missing report. The men's platinum band was one of 2 JY had - a nice one & work one.
    Who has a 'work' wedding band? It's not like he *worked* in the coal mines or 'worked' in a slaughterhouse. He wore dress clothes to *work*.


  8. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to gracielee For This Useful Post:


  9. #35
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,539
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    I'm guilty of not filing insurance claims when things have gone missing from my home. My son's bike was stolen and I simply let it go. That happens. Another of his bikes was driven over by a friend's father. I let that go too. After his wife was murdered, I'm sure Jason had more important things on his mind than collecting money for missing items. In fact, it looks like he couldn't even deal with the house insurance claim, so his sister had to look after it.

    Nothing Jason has done supports the argument that he wanted money as a result of his wife's murder.
    Were the bike's worth $14,000+?

    "Nothing Jason has done supports the argument that he wanted money as a result of his wife's murder." ??? You mean, other than upping the insurance to $4 million? Wow.


  10. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to fifteen89 For This Useful Post:


  11. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,117
    Quote Originally Posted by oceanblueeyes View Post
    What were the dates of his internet searches?

    TIA
    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)
    Unless I've provided a link, everything I say is IMO


  12. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Talina For This Useful Post:


  13. #37
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,539
    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?


  14. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to fifteen89 For This Useful Post:


  15. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.C.
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Talina View Post
    BBM

    How do we know this to be fact? Isn't all we really know is that he claimed to have witnessed this accident?

    It would seem to me that it is perfectly understandable that the prosecutor would question the truthfulness of that. It would also seem to me to be perfectly understandable (and expected to me) that DT would bring some sort of evidence that this accident did occur and JY was there on the scene. That would have totally removed any suggestion or suspicion about what those internet searches were about. Or at the very least insert some reasonable doubt and given his explanation of them some strong basis in truth.

    IMO
    Shelly Schaad testified that the only trauma case that came in that day was a black man with leg trauma.

    That's the thing about these *facts* that are being posted. They aren't 'facts' at all. Merely red herrings to distract from the evidence that was presented at this trial.


  16. The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to gracielee For This Useful Post:


  17. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by gracielee View Post
    Who has a 'work' wedding band? It's not like he *worked* in the coal mines or 'worked' in a slaughterhouse. He wore dress clothes to *work*.
    A lot of people do... I believe someone from this VERY forum said they had several rings... My very own FIL had 2.... A guy my hubby works with has 2... LOL!!! It happens....


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


  19. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    24,092
    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.
    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"


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


  21. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,885
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Michelle sent an email to a friend about the accident that Jason witnessed. Prosecutors had that information, but the defense had to point it out to the jury to counteract the prosecution's implication that the "head trauma" searches were related to the murder.
    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)


  22. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Just the Fax For This Useful Post:


  23. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    510
    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"
    He sure did.....


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


  25. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,117
    Quote Originally Posted by gracielee View Post
    Shelly Schaad testified that the only trauma case that came in that day was a black man with leg trauma.

    That's the thing about these *facts* that are being posted. They aren't 'facts' at all. Merely red herrings to distract from the evidence that was presented at this trial.
    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.
    Unless I've provided a link, everything I say is IMO


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


  27. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    24,092
    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Fax View Post
    Slaughter your wife so you can claim insurance on a $14,000 ring
    Is that the point of this post?
    The better question is: what is the point of stating that Jason did not attempt to collect insurance on anything but the house after the murder?


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


  29. #45
    Elisaa444's Avatar
    Elisaa444 is online now "Respect is for those who deserve it, not for those that demand it."
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    238
    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.
    "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."




  30. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Elisaa444 For This Useful Post:


Page 3 of 76 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 ... 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
  •