1245 users online (224 members and 1021 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 87 of 87 FirstFirst ... 37 77 85 86 87
Results 1,291 to 1,297 of 1297
  1. #1291
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    If we take ten people and have them observe a wallet theft, chances are there will be ten variations of the facts. One daycare worker observing a series of events carried out by one of several children in her care is probably not worth anything.
    So you're saying direct evidence, which is what an eye witness is, is not reliable? Even when the witness is actually sitting or standing right by the person she is observing and watching and listening to her and can convey, in detail, what the person she saw did and said, verbatim? That's about as good as eyewitness testimony can get. It's a chunk of time in the person's presence, not a quick flyby. So, how about 2 witnesses who were there and both saw and heard the same thing and both were able to describe it in much the same terms, with little variation in the details? Were you aware there were 2 daycare workers who testified in this case?

    It's normal and acceptable for a suspect to remain silent, but apparently it is not accepted as normal in this case.
    It's normal for a spouse, upon learning his/her pregnant spouse is dead, to not be the least bit curious about what happened to his/her spouse and ask the person who is telling him/her this news "what happened?" That's a first for me. I mean, I suppose it makes perfect sense if the surviving spouse already knows exactly how his/her spouse died. Then there's no need to ask, as that would be redundant. And while the Dept of Redundancy Dept would approve, it just wastes energy and time.

    The second trial is essentially annulled due to errors made by the Judge. I don't think that Jason can plead to second degree murder unless he wants to tell us that he suddenly remembered that he had to pick something up from the house in the middle of the night and while he was there he suddenly decided to murder his wife.
    IF the state offers him a plea bargain, which would be done through his attorneys, (and yes the state can do this), and he wants to accept the lesser charge in order to get a reduced sentence (upwards of 10 or more years, depending), he could do just that. He is not required to tell the details of what he did, but by accepting a deal, if such a deal were offered, he would be admitting guilt to the charge(s) he is accepting. ETA: In fact, Ann Miller Contz, killer of husband Eric Miller via arsenic poisoning, did accept a 2nd degree murder plea and was given a 25 yr sentence. She absolutely intended to kill Eric Miller (spiking his food and beverages with arsenic poison over some period of weeks), but she got a 2nd degree murder charge / plea.
    Last edited by Madeleine74; 05-09-2014 at 04:23 PM.

  2. #1292
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    What does "Michelle would be with their dad in heaven" have to do with JY saying, "you will make a good mother to CY?" The two are unrelated. Heather was named as a god parent but god parents come into play in terms of raising a child when both parents are deceased. And, if JY had remarried, wouldn't his new wife be the (step)parent of little CY and become her "mother?"
    Heather was asked about this comment at trial and said it was taken out of context.
    And, she also said exactly what I previously posted as to what they were referring to.
    Her testimony is at WRAL if you need to look it up.
    Maybe Jason meant Heather could fill in that role for the time being, but also that no one could ever take Michelle's place.

  3. #1293
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by JusticeFever View Post
    Heather was asked about this comment at trial and said it was taken out of context.
    And, she also said exactly what I previously posted as to what they were referring to.
    Her testimony is at WRAL if you need to look it up.
    Maybe Jason meant Heather could fill in that role for the time being, but also that no one could ever take Michelle's place.
    So Heather put his comment in context and I'm still not understanding how Heather would, in any way, be the mother to CY as long as CY's father was still alive and still able to have custody of her and raise her. It would make sense if he had said, "You're going to be a great mother some day." It's the inclusion and specifically "to CY" that puzzles me. I bet I'm not the only one puzzled by his comment. Was he planning to hand custody of CY over to his sister? (rhetorical question, I'm not suggesting any one here could possibly know the answer to this).

  4. #1294
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,959
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    So you're saying direct evidence, which is what an eye witness is, is not reliable? Even when the witness is actually sitting or standing right by the person she is observing and watching and listening to her and can convey, in detail, what the person she saw did and said, verbatim? That's about as good as eyewitness testimony can get. It's a chunk of time in the person's presence, not a quick flyby. So, how about 2 witnesses who were there and both saw and heard the same thing and both were able to describe it in much the same terms, with little variation in the details? Were you aware there were 2 daycare workers who testified in this case?

    It's normal for a spouse, upon learning his/her pregnant spouse is dead, to not be the least bit curious about what happened to his/her spouse and ask the person who is telling him/her this news "what happened?" That's a first for me. I mean, I suppose it makes perfect sense if the surviving spouse already knows exactly how his/her spouse died. Then there's no need to ask, as that would be redundant. And while the Dept of Redundancy Dept would approve, it just wastes energy and time.

    IF the state offers him a plea bargain, which would be done through his attorneys, (and yes the state can do this), and he wants to accept the lesser charge in order to get a reduced sentence (upwards of 10 or more years, depending), he could do just that. He is not required to tell the details of what he did, but by accepting a deal, if such a deal were offered, he would be admitting guilt to the charge(s) he is accepting.
    Sorry ... didn't mean to be confusing. Psychologists complete years of training in order to be able to observe child's play, describe what they see, and interpret what it means. Daycare employees should not be qualified as witnesses to describe what it happening when a child picks up a couple of toys and moves them. The daycare worker knew that the child's mother had been murdered and it is impossible for her to be objective in interpreting anything related to that child. She simply is not qualified. However, I understand that things are different in NC, and that a daycare employee that is looking after several children at the same time is capable of observing a child with toys and knowing exactly what the child is doing with them. One daycare worker discussed her impressions with another daycare worker and voila, they all saw the same thing. I don't believe that makes the observation more credible.

    Jason had the right to remain silent, just like the victim's family had the right to have him held responsible for her murder in civil court. If Jason's right to exercise that right is grounds for criticism, then it should be open season on anyone that exercises their rights ... or, more reasonably, perhaps we should respect those rights and realize that exercising those rights should have no bearing on guilt.

    I don't think that Jason will be offered a plea deal. Isn't it much more fun for prosecutors to convict the innocent? (see problems with NC forensics lab)

  5. #1295
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    32,579
    We're going to be closing this thread in a few minutes. Please continue the discussion here:

    Jason Young to get new trial #2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community




    fran

  6. #1296
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,363
    I am sure some of the things people say when someone dies doesn't make any sense. maybe this is
    one of them, I only know it was probably brought into trial to make people think he was already moving on. I am not going to hold a comment which Heather said was taken out of context since she was in on the conversation.

    Oops, sorry, I will move this over, thank you.

  7. #1297
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    32,579
    Quote Originally Posted by fran View Post
    We're going to be closing this thread in a few minutes. Please continue the discussion here:

    Jason Young to get new trial #2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community




    fran

    This thread is now closed. Please go to the above link.

    tia
    fran

Page 87 of 87 FirstFirst ... 37 77 85 86 87


Similar Threads

  1. Jason Young to get new trial #4
    By fran in forum Michelle Young
    Replies: 1206
    Last Post: 07-23-2014, 08:34 AM
  2. Jason Young to get new trial #3
    By fran in forum Michelle Young
    Replies: 1655
    Last Post: 06-19-2014, 06:58 PM
  3. Jason Young to get new trial #2
    By fran in forum Michelle Young
    Replies: 1369
    Last Post: 06-05-2014, 11:47 AM
  4. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-03-2013, 05:53 PM
  5. POLL: Verdict Watch in Jason Young Trial #2
    By ynotdivein in forum Michelle Young
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 03-04-2012, 01:18 PM

Tags for this Thread