1199 users online (211 members and 988 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 4 of 111 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 104 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 1656
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,363
    Quote Originally Posted by MyBelle View Post
    No, it doesn't. It clearly says, "was described as a possible print."

    The DNA was a match but then, he lived there so it wouldn't be surprising to find his DNA anywhere in the room.

    http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local...8133617555.pdf
    and, the expert was unable to say how long it had been there.

    Michelle definitely fought back, in fact, the search warrant issued for Jason was to see if he had any marks or scratches on him. He did not, and I seriously doubt he wore 2 different shoe sizes to commit a crime that was not supposed to entail any blood or mess.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
    @ 17:20, Spivey is questioned about his conclusion that the child was likely carried to the bathroom from the master BR due to the minimal amount of blood in the hallway. He saw it firsthand. I think we must trust it as fact that there was not a trail of bloody footprints, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it in the search warrant.

    http://www.wral.com/specialreports/m...ideo/10768400/
    My bolding. We should absolutely 110% not trust this as fact. We've seen the police come to unlikely conclusions on the basis of this type of "observation" before. I know the Cooper case better, so some examples from that one include "It smelled like Downey", "I saw some hay", "The bed didn't look slept in", etc. We should not trust "as fact" police observations. They seem to recall things that are convenient to the narrative that they are pursuing at the time.

    Again, that is the difference between testimony evidence and fact. You can use it as contributing to determining what is fact, but an officer's statement or sworn testimony is not fact. It is evidence.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    8,020

    Jason Young to get new trial #3

    The fact that there's Jason's DNA and (possible) hand print in the exact location of the void in blood spatter is another piece of circumstantial evidence. It's not proof on its own, but there's no single piece of evidence that constitutes proof. It's when you add all the pieces of circumstantial evidence together when you reach "proof" (or not, depending what the jury decides).

    It's not something to just simply be dismissed though.

    ETA: finding his DNA and print in that location is different than just finding his random DNA in some random place on the house.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
    How would finding MY's blood in JY's closet have helped them solve the case?
    In post #9 you said they found blood on a shoe originally from his closet. The blood was on the shoe not on the carpet.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    1,914
    Quote Originally Posted by oenophile View Post
    My bolding. We should absolutely 110% not trust this as fact. We've seen the police come to unlikely conclusions on the basis of this type of "observation" before. I know the Cooper case better, so some examples from that one include "It smelled like Downey", "I saw some hay", "The bed didn't look slept in", etc. We should not trust "as fact" police observations. They seem to recall things that are convenient to the narrative that they are pursuing at the time.

    Again, that is the difference between testimony evidence and fact. You can use it as contributing to determining what is fact, but an officer's statement or sworn testimony is not fact. It is evidence.
    Understood, but this wasn't helping their case because it's forcing them to come up with an explanation for how the child was found in the condition she was in.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    1,914
    Quote Originally Posted by citygirl View Post
    In post #9 you said they found blood on a shoe originally from his closet. The blood was on the shoe not on the carpet.
    Yes, I know that. I was responding to your question about why they would have been looking for JY's blood on items from the closet and home and I said that they tested blood from the carpeting to see if there was someone else's blood as well. Carpet, items from closet --- all have potential to have blood from the killer.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    1,914
    Quote Originally Posted by tarheellvr View Post
    Yes he did.......he had blisters on his feet from wearing shoes too small. If he wore long sleeves and gloves, he wouldn't have been "injured". He surprised her in bed and when strangling her didn't kill her, he beat her to death, over and over and over again!

    A Linear fracture of the base of the skull
    A Subarachnoid hemorrhage of the brain
    Too many factures of the back of her skull to count

    A pregnant 5'4 woman versus a 6ft something fit man?????
    And this woman fought hard enough to "injure" JY?? I think not......
    These types of posts are extremely inflammatory. It is all speculative. There is NO evidence to support that he wore shoes too small (They looked at all of the receipts for purchases prior to and he never bought any Franklin shoes). And why would he think to wear shoes too small? In anticipation of leaving a bloody shoe print? If he's thinking that way, then what? He puts on shoes that fit now and carelessly steps in the blood again? So now he needs a third pair of shoes. This is beyond speculative.

    Yes, we are well aware of the horrible injuries inflicted on MY and that is why we all have an interest in this case. We want to make sure the right person is held responsible for this crime and there is no confidence in this verdict. JY is again innocent until proven guilty via the courts.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    9,345
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
    Understood, but this wasn't helping their case because it's forcing them to come up with an explanation for how the child was found in the condition she was in.
    Very true. It is evidence that tremendously helps the defense.

    I doubt any member of either jury took issue with investigator Spivey's observations about lack of bloody tracks on the carpet. The man isn't blind. They had no reason not to believe him.

    JMO

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by MyBelle View Post
    Very true. It is evidence that tremendously helps the defense.

    I doubt any member of either jury took issue with investigator Spivey's observations about lack of bloody tracks on the carpet. The man isn't blind. They had no reason not to believe him.

    JMO
    Can't this all be resolved with a photograph?

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    652
    Unless it is documented somewhere, there is noway of knowing how long those Adidas shoes were in that storage unit. There is noway of knowing when and how long that blood was there. Are we now trying to say that the blood came from an unknown killer and that the police saw the blood but never tested it? Then went back years later to test it? I don't see how these shoes help/hurt the case against JY. Didn't he first live with his sister then his mom? Again there is no way of knowing how long those shoes were in that locker, if so can someone please link to when all the items were placed there. IMO, it's highly unlikely that those shoes went from birchleaf then directly to the storage unit.
    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!!!!


  11. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
    Yes, it was from Brevard because all of his belongings were transferred to a storage unit there so the shoes were in the home at the time of the murder.
    Do we know for a FACT that those shoes were in his closet at the time of the murder?
    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!!!!

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
    The killer likely sustained some injuries in the fight. I believe they checked the carpeting and blood from the crime scene to see if someone else bled at the scene.
    Ok so why did they not find the shoes then and take them as evidence?

    Isn't it more likely that they were searching the storage unit for other things and came upon those shoes?
    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!!!!

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by MyBelle View Post
    Thanks. I wonder how they missed that when they initially examined the closet and gathered evidence.
    probably because the shoes weren't there.
    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!!!!

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    1,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Landonsmom02 View Post
    Ok so why did they not find the shoes then and take them as evidence?

    Isn't it more likely that they were searching the storage unit for other things and came upon those shoes?
    I attached an affidavit yesterday. They had a list of items they were looking for to include this particular pair of shoes. Why they didn't take them into evidence in the first place while at the house --- you would have to ask them.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    9,345
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
    I attached an affidavit yesterday. They had a list of items they were looking for to include this particular pair of shoes. Why they didn't take them into evidence in the first place while at the house --- you would have to ask them.
    I hope the defense thinks to ask this important question next time around and enter the sales receipt for the shoes into evidence. I've always believed Michelle inflicted some injury on her killer and yet they ignore it because it doesn't fit with Jason did it.

    JMO

Page 4 of 111 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 104 ... LastLast


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 #2
    By fran in forum Michelle Young
    Replies: 1369
    Last Post: 06-05-2014, 11:47 AM
  3. Jason Young to get new trial
    By JusticeFever in forum Michelle Young
    Replies: 1296
    Last Post: 05-09-2014, 04:40 PM
  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