1087 users online (208 members and 879 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 65
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    17

    Mommy is getting a spanking for biting.

    Hey everyone,

    First off, I'm not trying to get into a big argument about whether or not Jason Young killed his wife, that's been done over and over. I've been pondering this doll evidence and it really makes me wonder. Please feel free to reply and give your interpretations, and also add any points or testimony that I missed!

    During the trial, I saw the daycare worker with the dolls... but I must have missed the part about mommy "getting a spanking for biting," cause people keep saying it and I don't remember hearing it.

    Anyway, here's what I'm wondering:

    People are calling this evidence that Jason Young killed his wife. From what I can tell, Cassidy supposedly chose the doll most resembling her dad to be the aggressor in the fight. It's definitely an interesting theory, but something BIG doesn't add up for me.

    Based on her statement about mommy being punished, It sounds to me that if she did witness something, she witnessed her mother being attacked. It also sounds like she bit her attacker to get that person off of her. I'm no cop, and I don't investigate assaults all the time -- but it sure sounds to me like someone was trying to possibly rape Michelle, and she bit them. At that point, the assailant gets really mad and then beats the crap out of Michelle.

    I think that if someone were trying to harm Michelle Young, ESPECIALLY if they were trying to force her to have sex, then she would llikely have clawed and bitten as much as she could. Either way, I'd imagine that someone trying to attack her like that would totally flip out if she bit them. That kind of rage could easily account for the "overkill" that people keep attributing to what they call a "personal attack" by a close friend or lover.

    Also, if we are to believe that Cassidy was reenacting something that she witnessed, and we use this as evidence to suggest that the aggressor doll represented Jason Young... then where are the bite marks? I just don't get it... does anyone else have a different interpretation? This one particluar piece of evidence has been bugging me, and I don't see how it didn't bug other people.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wake County, NC
    Posts
    393
    Very though-provoking post, Jackleg!

    We heard testimony that her clothing was intact and LE did not feel there was evidence of an attempted rape. I've never thought rape was the assailant's purpose here. I believe CY associated spanking with biting because either that's how she was punished for biting other children, or perhaps some of her friends were punished that way for biting her. At the time of the murder she would have been at the prime age to be biting other children (or being bitten) and being disciplined for it in some way. She may have seen the beating and without being able to understand the reasons for it, saw it as her mommy being spanked. And in her 2-year-old mind, the only reason people get spanked is when they bite.

    My alternate theory is that while JY was dealing with CY to get her back to bed, she asked him why he spanked mommy and JY said "because she was biting," because that's what she would have understood.... it's not dissimilar from CY interpreting MY's horrific beating as her simply having "boo-boos." Fortunately she had never seen one adult beat another before (IMO) and as such didn't have a frame of reference for the reason other than being punished for biting.

    One thing I'd love to know is whether an autopsy would show that a victim had bitten her assailant. Perhaps not in this case because MY was no doubt bleeding from her mouth which would conceal any evidence. But I wonder if it's even possible to identify something like that. Any ideas on that?

    All this is JMHO, of course.
    "You came here for THAT?" - Jason Young, 2009
    Yes, Jason, we came here for THAT! -- Guilty, Murder One, LWOP 3/5/2012
    Justice at last for Michelle Fisher Young

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    43
    I would think they could get DNA and they have done it on dogs.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    533
    They did that in an episode of Bones once. (Yes, I know, not at all accurate). But the victim had bitten the attacker, and was then buried for 23 years. There was a tiny bit of flesh left in between the teeth, and they were able to extract DNA from that.

    BUT, I don't know that they would have been able to distinguish the blood in MY's mouth from her own (which there was a lot) or from her attacker's if she did bite anyone.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,117
    I know I've seen where bite marks are matched to a person's dental records.

    Obviously JY didn't have any marks like that on him or they would have been discovered during the NTO.

    I honestly do not think MY was actually biting anyone. I think that is the explanation given to CY by JY simply because it is something she would understand given her age. That is prime age for biting and getting disciplined for it. It is something she likely would relate to and understand. (now that's not to say seeing mommy spanked because of biting is something she'd understand. I mean that biting is not acceptable and will result in discipline if done is something she would understand and relate to at that age)

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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    In my treehouse, empty nesting.
    Posts
    12,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Talina View Post
    I know I've seen where bite marks are matched to a person's dental records.

    Obviously JY didn't have any marks like that on him or they would have been discovered during the NTO.

    I honestly do not think MY was actually biting anyone
    . I think that is the explanation given to CY by JY simply because it is something she would understand given her age. That is prime age for biting and getting disciplined for it. It is something she likely would relate to and understand. (now that's not to say seeing mommy spanked because of biting is something she'd understand. I mean that biting is not acceptable and will result in discipline if done is something she would understand and relate to at that age)

    IMO
    You know, now the condoms ARE coming into play! I wonder if he planned on raping her (with a condom) to make it look like SOODI? MAYBE she did bite him RIGHT WHERE IT HURTS! ~ but not hard enough to leave a bruise.
    I could see where it would have escalated from strangling to battering at that point. It also would explain why her teeth were knocked out and she wasn't "just" hit on the head.

    * no rape kit was done? and I'm sure her throat was not swabbed either.
    (both should have been done)
    Last edited by gngr~snap; 03-09-2012 at 01:24 PM. Reason: *eta
    ~ my opinion only

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    27,178
    Quote Originally Posted by jackleg View Post
    Hey everyone,

    First off, I'm not trying to get into a big argument about whether or not Jason Young killed his wife, that's been done over and over. I've been pondering this doll evidence and it really makes me wonder. Please feel free to reply and give your interpretations, and also add any points or testimony that I missed!

    During the trial, I saw the daycare worker with the dolls... but I must have missed the part about mommy "getting a spanking for biting," cause people keep saying it and I don't remember hearing it.

    Anyway, here's what I'm wondering:

    People are calling this evidence that Jason Young killed his wife. From what I can tell, Cassidy supposedly chose the doll most resembling her dad to be the aggressor in the fight. It's definitely an interesting theory, but something BIG doesn't add up for me.

    Based on her statement about mommy being punished, It sounds to me that if she did witness something, she witnessed her mother being attacked. It also sounds like she bit her attacker to get that person off of her. I'm no cop, and I don't investigate assaults all the time -- but it sure sounds to me like someone was trying to possibly rape Michelle, and she bit them. At that point, the assailant gets really mad and then beats the crap out of Michelle.

    I think that if someone were trying to harm Michelle Young, ESPECIALLY if they were trying to force her to have sex, then she would llikely have clawed and bitten as much as she could. Either way, I'd imagine that someone trying to attack her like that would totally flip out if she bit them. That kind of rage could easily account for the "overkill" that people keep attributing to what they call a "personal attack" by a close friend or lover.

    Also, if we are to believe that Cassidy was reenacting something that she witnessed, and we use this as evidence to suggest that the aggressor doll represented Jason Young... then where are the bite marks? I just don't get it... does anyone else have a different interpretation? This one particluar piece of evidence has been bugging me, and I don't see how it didn't bug other people.
    I have been wondering the same thing. If we look at the scratch marks that Michelle made on her own neck, and listen to the medical examiners testimony about hand strangulation, we know that the murderer's hands were near Michelle's face. A bite is quite possible ... and we also have teeth knocked out. An intruder that was bitten would very likely respond with rage ... that same rage that has now been described as only possible coming from intimate partners (which is untrue).

    Additionally, the child was closest to her mom and her dad (parents are the center of a 2 year old's world), yet when she re-enacted what she remembered using doll figures, she only identified the mother figure. I always found it very unusual that she only identified one of her two parents. If both parents were present at the time of the murder, why did she only identify one of them?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    32,579
    MY's teeth were knocked out. So there MAY NOT have been any way to obtain dna from her teeth from an assailant, because the teeth weren't discovered on the floor for several days or weeks after the murder. Any dna evidence would have been destroyed. It's also been thought that JY MAY have worn gloves. He also had on long sleeve clothing, which was why there were no scratches and such.

    At the end of the day, it appears the child's statment and reinactment didn't play a part in the guilty verdict anyway, so I doubt that anything will be made of it in future appeals.

    It appears it was the most unlikely point of evidence that told the juror's the assailant was the defendant. No matter what anyone says, JY NEVER provided the shoes and clothes (including shirt and pants) that he was seen in the videos the night of the murder. IF he had them, he would have provided them as they would without a doubt, proven he was innocent.

    No clothes, he was guilty, per the jury. They added in the timeline which gave the defendant ample time to commit the crime and return to the hotel and then call his mom and g/f. No electronic footprint for the duration of the timeline to return to the home, commit the murder, and return for the rest of the staging of the alibi.

    JMHO
    fran

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    777
    It's also possible that she didn't actually bite, but threatened to or made biting motions. If he was trying to force her to have oral sex, that would no doubt piss him off. The child may have heard him say something like, "So you think you can bite me and get away with it?" or something along those lines as he was beating her. The kid would then think mommy had been bad for biting and was being spanked.

    It's also possible she scraped him with her teeth, and whatever marks were there are long gone, and obviously not in a place that's easily seen by the casual observer.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,353
    Personally, having watched my grandchildren "play pretend", I am not all that convinced that this 'doll play' was anything other than that.

    If CY had ever been chastised herself for biting, seen any other child chastised, or even heard it DISCUSSED, she could simply have been reenacting that. That the doll was "mom" and the spanker was dad could be explained by dad having spanked her before, or threatened to, and the doll being mom simply kept it from having to be her own self.

    Having said that, I can easily see Jason telling CS that he spanked mommy, either after the fact or during it.


  11. #11
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,272
    I'm not sure how a 2.5 yr old would be able to accurately recreate what is a specific sequence of events that happened to her mommy if she hadn't seen at least some of it.

    She said "mommy has boo boos all over" "red stuff is all over" (i.e. blood). She placed the mommy doll face down, which is exactly how MY was found. She showed this attack with mommy in bed with "boo boos all over."

    I don't think that's the type of play a child who hasn't witnessed something comes up with all on their own.

    I wish the day care worker had asked one question of CY: "who's this?" (while pointing to the doll that was hitting the mommy doll).

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    I'm not sure how a 2.5 yr old would be able to accurately recreate what is a specific sequence of events that happened to her mommy if she hadn't seen at least some of it.

    She said "mommy has boo boos all over" "red stuff is all over" (i.e. blood). She placed the mommy doll face down, which is exactly how MY was found. She showed this attack with mommy in bed with "boo boos all over."

    I don't think that's the type of play a child who hasn't witnessed something comes up with all on their own.

    I wish the day care worker had asked one question of CY: "who's this?" (while pointing to the doll that was hitting the mommy doll).
    Thanks. I DO tend to believe she saw part of it. I also think JY didn't expect that to happen. She may have pushed the door open and quietly stood there until he noticed her.

    I just have to consider the POSSIBILITY that the doll play is a 2&1/2 year old's way to work out things that were troubling her, much the way we deal with in our dreams at night that which we can't resolve in wakefullness (sometimes).

    One thing I do know for SURE is that the memories of whatever she DID see can be recovered if she ever decided to later in life. It is amazing the memories hypnosis can retrieve. I've seen it solve lawsuits and have even seen people remember what was said in their presence when they were sound asleep. Everything is still buried in the subconcious!

    Some children even remember SOME things consciously at this age quite well. I remember the detail of the butterfly mobile that hung over my babybed, the neighbors playhouse from the house we moved out of when I was 2, and what my older brother and I got for Christmas the year I was 2 & 1/2, along with many more memories.

    If CY does remember this event, she may simply grow developmentally until she can articulate it better.

  13. #13
    terminatrixator's Avatar
    terminatrixator is offline All Posts JMO - May Godspeed Justice for Janet and her unborn child!
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,511
    Quote Originally Posted by OneLove View Post
    Everything is still buried in the subconcious!

    Some children even remember SOME things consciously at this age quite well. I remember the detail of the butterfly mobile that hung over my babybed, the neighbors playhouse from the house we moved out of when I was 2, and what my older brother and I got for Christmas the year I was 2 & 1/2, along with many more memories.

    If CY does remember this event, she may simply grow developmentally until she can articulate it better.
    I remember the sounds and smells the feel of the house and climbing up on a counter to grab some vicks formula d and drinking it while my parents were sleeping at the age of three. I remember getting sick and my parents taking me to the hospital and I remember vividly the tubes being put down my nose to pump my stomach. At 4 I remember seeing a woman come out of her house after she was shot in the head and the man came out and shot and killed himself. I have vivid memories of when my brother was born and I was only 2. I can't recall anything I ate for dinner last week at all, or my 5th grade teachers name, I do recall I disliked her immensely.

    Memories are weird, I pray Cassidy doesn't remember.
    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke

    "Safety never takes a holiday" ~Britney Romito

    "It's easier to KEEP Raven happy, than it is to MAKE Raven happy." ~Janet Christiansen (Abaroa)

    "Right now you have the capabilities of being a God" ~Karen Abaroa Bolton

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    27,178
    Quote Originally Posted by fran View Post
    MY's teeth were knocked out. So there MAY NOT have been any way to obtain dna from her teeth from an assailant, because the teeth weren't discovered on the floor for several days or weeks after the murder. Any dna evidence would have been destroyed. It's also been thought that JY MAY have worn gloves. He also had on long sleeve clothing, which was why there were no scratches and such.

    At the end of the day, it appears the child's statment and reinactment didn't play a part in the guilty verdict anyway, so I doubt that anything will be made of it in future appeals.

    It appears it was the most unlikely point of evidence that told the juror's the assailant was the defendant. No matter what anyone says, JY NEVER provided the shoes and clothes (including shirt and pants) that he was seen in the videos the night of the murder. IF he had them, he would have provided them as they would without a doubt, proven he was innocent.

    No clothes, he was guilty, per the jury. They added in the timeline which gave the defendant ample time to commit the crime and return to the hotel and then call his mom and g/f. No electronic footprint for the duration of the timeline to return to the home, commit the murder, and return for the rest of the staging of the alibi.

    JMHO
    fran
    i think that one tooth was found after the house was no longer a crime scene, but the rest of the teeth were either still attached or collected.

    I'm not convinced that we can conclude that the daycare employee's testimony made no difference. We haven't heard that. Not all jury members have spoken publicly about how they reached a decision.

    If Jason was wearing the size 10 shoes during the murder and he already had the size 12 shoes, why did he need to go into the closet? If he needed to go into the closet to get other shoes, what risk was there in handing them to investigators ... I can't see any reason for him not to hand them over other than the fact that investigators did not request them.

    It's not possible to see what type of jeans were worn from the grainy, blurry camera stills.

    You suggest that Jason would have proven that he was innocent. The problem with that is that Jason had no obligation to prove himself innocent. In fact, he was supposed to be presumed innocent regardless of whether he thought it might be a good idea to present investigators with clothing that they did not request.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,353
    Quote Originally Posted by terminatrixator View Post
    I remember the sounds and smells the feel of the house and climbing up on a counter to grab some vicks formula d and drinking it while my parents were sleeping at the age of three. I remember getting sick and my parents taking me to the hospital and I remember vividly the tubes being put down my nose to pump my stomach. At 4 I remember seeing a woman come out of her house after she was shot in the head and the man came out and shot and killed himself. I have vivid memories of when my brother was born and I was only 2. I can't recall anything I ate for dinner last week at all, or my 5th grade teachers name, I do recall I disliked her immensely.

    Memories are weird, I pray Cassidy doesn't remember.
    I can't even begin to fathom the trauma of a stomach pumping or witnessing those shootings at such a young, open, impressionable age.

    Eastern medical thought tells us that traumas at an early age can throw the flow of the energetic meridians off and begin a cascade of effects that can be both physical and emotional. I have found this to be true in my own experience. Five Element Acupuncture has the ability to restore a person to their original authentic self. It can be miraculously healing. It saved my life when nothing else could.

    In any event, I want to comfort the 3 and 4 year old child still within you and CONGRATULATE the adult within you for being so strong.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Quebec,Store clerk foils robbery with bear spray and spanking!
    By dotr in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-09-2015, 11:52 AM
  2. Spanking illegal?
    By californiacarrie in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 01-25-2007, 09:11 AM

Tags for this Thread