Page 4 of 76 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 1135
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    24,092
    Quote Originally Posted by fifteen89 View Post
    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.
    If he had made a claim on the insurance, then it would be motive. He didn't make a claim ... just like the case in Alabama that was recently dismissed. The motive there was insurance money, but the policy didn't name the husband as beneficiary of the claim. If the money is there an no one makes a claim, how is it motive?


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


  3. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.C.
    Posts
    4,062
    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?
    I guess one might wear their 'work' wedding ring for just such an event.


  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to gracielee For This Useful Post:


  5. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,882
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View 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?
    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.


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


  7. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,813
    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*.
    I posted that earlier this week and apparently it's very common in NC for young professionals to have 2 wedding bands (even if they're not in a profession where they'd be using their hands roughly). I was surprised how many posters chimed in and said their husbands had 2. Learn something new everyday!


  8. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,813
    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?


  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BrownRice For This Useful Post:


  10. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    24,092
    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.


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


  12. #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...


  13. #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.


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


  15. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.C.
    Posts
    4,062
    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.


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


  17. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,882
    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.


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


  19. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,882
    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"?


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


  21. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    24,092
    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?


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


  23. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    24,092
    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.


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


  25. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,882
    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.





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


  27. #60
    Elisaa444's Avatar
    Elisaa444 is offline "Respect is for those who deserve it, not for those that demand it."
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    226
    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."




Page 4 of 76 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 ... 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
  •