1606 users online (275 members and 1331 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 50
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Fax View Post
    They were finished with the Young hearing. The recess was called before the next appeal was to be called
    RPD so what is the next step? Months from now we will get an answer??
    JUSTICE FOR MICHELLE AND RYLAN


    All posts, unless sourced, are my opinion only and they are to remain here in Websleuths and are not to be used elsewhere. Thank you!!!!

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Landonsmom02 View Post
    RPD so what is the next step? Months from now we will get an answer??
    Yes, it will be 3-5 months before the Judges make their ruling on the appeal.
    I like Howard's take...

    Cummings said he's optimistic about the appellate ruling.

    "I believe that the case against Jason Young was tried free from error, and our office and the Attorney General's office is confident that the Court of Appeals will affirm his conviction," he said.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    10,384
    Maybe I had rose-colored glasses over my ears (yes, ears!), but it seemed to me that the judges were not all that impressed with the points that Young's appeal attorney made. The appeal atty. for Young (cannot recall her name) was an effective speaker, IMO, it's just that her argument, IMO, was weak, and the appeal points that were chosen for the appeal were even weaker.

    And I think the State's attys. (in spite of the man's hesitation and "um's") were argued better, and the female who defended Judge Stephens' inclusion of Cassidy's play at the center was, IMO, a slam dunk.

    Further, Judge Stephens, from what little I can find, does not have many of his decisions overturned. I'm hoping that this continues through this appeal...

    I don't know that Brad Cooper, for an example, would kill another person, but it is my opinion, and I feel it strongly, that Jason Young would indeed kill someone else. (That is not an appeal point; it's only my point.)


    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

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,954

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    258
    hopefully this wrongful conviction gets overturned.

    This case was entirely circumstantial, the timeline didn't add up, and the jury's reason for a guilty verdict was ridiculous.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,934
    Quote Originally Posted by jova33 View Post
    hopefully this wrongful conviction gets overturned.

    This case was entirely circumstantial, the timeline didn't add up, and the jury's reason for a guilty verdict was ridiculous.
    Yes, it was circumstantial. What's the problem with that? The timeline added up perfectly.

    Mostly I wonder, and maybe you have insight, why did he never, ever speak to police? Not even to hear the news. Not to ask a single question. He didn't even ask how his own wife was killed. Why would that be? Oh, that's right...Ryan Schaad advised him to get a lawyer (he was willing to speak with Ryan!!). And then the attorney told him not to talk, not even with the attorney present. Why oh why could that be?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    258
    Quote Originally Posted by Boodles View Post
    Yes, it was circumstantial. What's the problem with that? The timeline added up perfectly.

    Mostly I wonder, and maybe you have insight, why did he never, ever speak to police? Not even to hear the news. Not to ask a single question. He didn't even ask how his own wife was killed. Why would that be? Oh, that's right...Ryan Schaad advised him to get a lawyer (he was willing to speak with Ryan!!). And then the attorney told him not to talk, not even with the attorney present. Why oh why could that be?
    A lawyer once told me to never talk to police, even if you didn't do anything wrong because you could've done something illegal that you didn't even know was illegal and you would've just confessed to a completely unrelated crime.
    You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say CAN and WILL be used AGAINST you.
    There's people who are falsely accused and falsely convicted just by their own statements and no other evidence.
    Knowing all of this, and knowing the police are building a case against YOU, would you have anything to say to the police?

    edit: he heard the news from his friends there. They told him that the cops were asking alot of questions about him, and to get an attorney.

  8. #38
    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
    10,232
    I don't see a problem with getting a lawyer; I would probably do the same. However I wouldn't necessarily expect people to think I had no involvement as a result of my lawyering-up. And with that said, I wouldn't fail to find out what happened to my loved one and seek as much info as possible. If I did speak with police I would have my lawyer with me.

    Now if I committed a heinous crime like a murder and l was trying to keep myself out of jail, I'd do what JY did. And people would understandably see me as involved in that crime.

    And then if I finally got on the witness stand years later and lied my butt off and the jury concluded I was not credible, I'd be convicted because I was guilty. As much as I'd hate that outcome it would be the right verdict.

    This was the right verdict for a guy who beat his wife to death and planned it.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    258
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    I don't see a problem with getting a lawyer; I would probably do the same. However I wouldn't necessarily expect people to think I had no involvement as a result of my lawyering-up. And with that said, I wouldn't fail to find out what happened to my loved one and seek as much info as possible. If I did speak with police I would have my lawyer with me.

    Now if I committed a heinous crime like a murder and l was trying to keep myself out of jail, I'd do what JY did. And people would understandably see me as involved in that crime.

    And then if I finally got on the witness stand years later and lied my butt off and the jury concluded I was not credible, I'd be convicted because I was guilty. As much as I'd hate that outcome it would be the right verdict.

    This was the right verdict for a guy who beat his wife to death and planned it.
    what did he lie about on the stand? the first jury was hung 8-4 for acquittal
    Last edited by jova33; 12-20-2013 at 04:30 PM. Reason: second sentance

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,911
    Quote Originally Posted by jova33 View Post
    what did he lie about on the stand? the first jury was hung 8-4 for acquittal
    Well, in round 2 (the one that counted), it was 12-0 for conviction and that jury saw his entire testimony on video. The difference the second time was the state was able to prove his affable tale was full of lies and inconsistencies.


  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    258
    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Fax View Post
    Well, in round 2 (the one that counted), it was 12-0 for conviction and that jury saw his entire testimony on video. The difference the second time was the state was able to prove his affable tale was full of lies and inconsistencies.
    They nit picked his testimony. He said he was doing work on his computer in the hotel room, but he was actually messing with fantasy football or something not work related.

  12. #42
    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
    10,232
    That's called impeaching the testimony and nailing down the inconsistencies. It's the meat n potatoes of trials. It's the way witness cross examination goes. In jy's case there weren't just a few inconsistencies and the 2nd jury saw his 1st trial testimony and also got to see & hear evidence that conflicted with his version.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    258
    Such as?

    Edit: I'd like to know. I've only seen the story on ID, and a few snippets on YouTube.
    I'm not saying you're wrong.

    Sent from your mom's smartphone

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by jova33 View Post
    Such as?

    Edit: I'd like to know. I've only seen the story on ID, and a few snippets on YouTube.
    I'm not saying you're wrong.

    Sent from your mom's smartphone
    You obvisously need to go back to the beginning and read everything and research this case. Whether it be on here or someone else. It's hard to form a conclusion from ID and just snippets on youtube.
    JUSTICE FOR MICHELLE AND RYLAN


    All posts, unless sourced, are my opinion only and they are to remain here in Websleuths and are not to be used elsewhere. Thank you!!!!

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by jova33 View Post
    Such as?

    Edit: I'd like to know. I've only seen the story on ID, and a few snippets on YouTube.
    I'm not saying you're wrong.

    Sent from your mom's smartphone
    1. He said he smoked and propped the door open for that. It was proven with testimony from friends and family that he detested smoking of any kind and was never seen smoking by anyone.

    2. The shirt he was seen wearing on video at the HI at check in has never been found. His family tried to pass off a pic of him wearing a different but similar shirt a year or so later. The differnce here is the one at HI had a stripe but it was a pullover with a zipper at the neck. The one presented to police was a sweater with a stripe but it had a v-neck style.

    3.You have already posted about them validating his lie about working on the computer. He states when he was seen leaving the HI he was going to his car to get a charger for his computer but all activity on his laptop ceased after him leaving HI.

    4. Here is the biggest one for me. He waited almost 5 years after the murder to tell his side of the story. If all this is true and why did he wait?? If he could so easily get on the stand and tell this, why couldn't he with his lawyer by his side, tell this to police? Oh, because he waited until he heard the states case then tweeked his alibi.
    JUSTICE FOR MICHELLE AND RYLAN


    All posts, unless sourced, are my opinion only and they are to remain here in Websleuths and are not to be used elsewhere. Thank you!!!!

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. C-Murder's attorneys argue his appeal for a new murder trial
    By UdbCrzy2 in forum Past Trial Discussion Threads
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-06-2011, 01:50 AM
  2. State High Court Denies Appeal Of Knoller Dog-Mauling Murder Conviction
    By LinasK in forum Past Trial Discussion Threads
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-02-2010, 01:11 AM
  3. UK - Sean Hodgson has murder conviction overturned
    By shadowraiths in forum Past Trial Discussion Threads
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-19-2009, 08:16 PM
  4. PA - Drew Whitley freed by DNA after conviction for '88 murder
    By Wudge in forum Past Trial Discussion Threads
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-02-2006, 09:01 PM

Tags for this Thread