**Verdict watch weekend discussion thread** 3/3-4/2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have always heard that circumstantial evidence is as good as its weakest link.

If there are any weak links in this case I think it is the unknown size 10 shoes seen in blood at the crime scene and the State did not explain them away and the unknown palm prints/fingerprints found in the bedroom. And also the mpg that JY would have had to have gotten to carryout the murder.

The jury is not to speculate that he got gas somewhere else. They must decide this case based on the evidence entered only.

I hope the jury can work around these glaring inconsistencies and come to a just verdict.

IMO
 
Sorry otto, you have no idea how often JLY wore those shoes.
The only time I saw them on his feet was at the cracker barrel and leaving the hotel on 11-3-06. Do you have other sightings?

Increasing insurance to $4,000,000 2 months before his wife is murdered shows clear motive. He was clever enough to increase his limits at the same time....

We don't know how often Jason wore the shoes, but we do know that prosecutors knew perfectly well that Jason witnessed an accident involving head trauma, yet they attempted to give the jury the impression that his "head trauma" searches proved he planned to murder his wife.

Is he clever enough to plan two pair of shoes but too stupid to calculate the gas he would need and too stupid to realize that his mistresses and the insurance plan would look like motive?
 
His "you came here for THAT?" comment suggests to me that he thought he had done such a good job covering his tracks that eventually it would all just go away......

"You came here for that" could be nothing more than being shocked that a camera crew would interrupt a casual basketball game to confront him about his wife's murder several years earlier.
 
Yes it does matter.
There was not going to be anything paid unless the insured (JlY) filed a police report and gave a statement to the insurance carrier.

I'm guilty of not filing insurance claims when things have gone missing from my home. My son's bike was stolen and I simply let it go. That happens. Another of his bikes was driven over by a friend's father. I let that go too. After his wife was murdered, I'm sure Jason had more important things on his mind than collecting money for missing items. In fact, it looks like he couldn't even deal with the house insurance claim, so his sister had to look after it.

Nothing Jason has done supports the argument that he wanted money as a result of his wife's murder.
 
From the other thread ...



Investigators knew right away that the rings were missing because they had the body and Meredith was communicating with them. They also knew about the missing tooth container through Meredith (this was a family heirloom)..

Nope....Pat Young testifed she bought the tooth box for CY and the braclet for MY's birthday that she put on the missing report. The men's platinum band was one of 2 JY had - a nice one & work one.
 
We don't know how often Jason wore the shoes, but we do know that prosecutors knew perfectly well that Jason witnessed an accident involving head trauma, yet they attempted to give the jury the impression that his "head trauma" searches proved he planned to murder his wife.

Is he clever enough to plan two pair of shoes but too stupid to calculate the gas he would need and too stupid to realize that his mistresses and the insurance plan would look like motive?

BBM

How do we know this to be fact? Isn't all we really know is that he claimed to have witnessed this accident?

It would seem to me that it is perfectly understandable that the prosecutor would question the truthfulness of that. It would also seem to me to be perfectly understandable (and expected to me) that DT would bring some sort of evidence that this accident did occur and JY was there on the scene. That would have totally removed any suggestion or suspicion about what those internet searches were about. Or at the very least insert some reasonable doubt and given his explanation of them some strong basis in truth.

IMO
 
Nope....Pat Young testifed she bought the tooth box for CY and the braclet for MY's birthday that she put on the missing report. The men's platinum band was one of 2 JY had - a nice one & work one.

If Jason had attempted to collect insurance for the missing items, it would support the prosecution's argument that his motive was money. It's rather evidence that Jason wasn't going to do anything to assist the police with prosecuting him for the murder.

He didn't file a claim for the missing items and still it's argued that this means he's guilty.
 
Per the prosecution theory, two pair of shoes are missing: a size 10 pair and a size 12 pair. The size 12 pair were associated with a receipt for the purchase of a pair of similar size 12 shoes from 1.5 years earlier. The size 10 shoes are not connected with Jason. Since the size 12 shoes were everyday shoes, I'm assuming that they were worn out after 1.5 years.

How could he possibly believe that he would not be a suspect after increasing the insurance a couple of months after it was purchased; a couple of months before the murder. It has "motive" written all over it, as does the frequent, regular contact he had with his mistress and his adultery in the month prior to the murder.

The defense team contradicted their own witness testimony, jason young at the first trial, that michelle young didn't, after all, give the hush puppy shoes to goodwill and they were in the closet. The real killer decided to wear them after the murder.
 
BBM

How do we know this to be fact? Isn't all we really know is that he claimed to have witnessed this accident?

It would seem to me that it is perfectly understandable that the prosecutor would question the truthfulness of that. It would also seem to me to be perfectly understandable (and expected to me) that DT would bring some sort of evidence that this accident did occur and JY was there on the scene. That would have totally removed any suggestion or suspicion about what those internet searches were about. Or at the very least insert some reasonable doubt and given his explanation of them some strong basis in truth.

IMO

Michelle sent an email to a friend about the accident that Jason witnessed. Prosecutors had that information, but the defense had to point it out to the jury to counteract the prosecution's implication that the "head trauma" searches were related to the murder.
 
BBM

How do we know this to be fact? Isn't all we really know is that he claimed to have witnessed this accident?

It would seem to me that it is perfectly understandable that the prosecutor would question the truthfulness of that. It would also seem to me to be perfectly understandable (and expected to me) that DT would bring some sort of evidence that this accident did occur and JY was there on the scene. That would have totally removed any suggestion or suspicion about what those internet searches were about. Or at the very least insert some reasonable doubt and given his explanation of them some strong basis in truth.

IMO

What were the dates of his internet searches?

TIA
 
If Jason had attempted to collect insurance for the missing items, it would support the prosecution's argument that his motive was money. .

Slaughter your wife so you can claim insurance on a $14,000 ring :waitasec:
Is that the point of this post?
 
The defense team contradicted their own witness testimony, jason young at the first trial, that michelle young didn't, after all, give the hush puppy shoes to goodwill and they were in the closet. The real killer decided to wear them after the murder.

That was classic.
I thought Klink was a top defense attorney until I heard his closing.
 
I'm guilty of not filing insurance claims when things have gone missing from my home. My son's bike was stolen and I simply let it go. That happens. Another of his bikes was driven over by a friend's father. I let that go too. After his wife was murdered, I'm sure Jason had more important things on his mind than collecting money for missing items. In fact, it looks like he couldn't even deal with the house insurance claim, so his sister had to look after it.

Nothing Jason has done supports the argument that he wanted money as a result of his wife's murder.

JY couldn't deal directly with the insurance claim rep. He was avoiding speaking directly with anyone that could or would pass on anything he said to LE.

As far as people having items missing that are not claimed on homeowners policy. That happens all the time, IMO mainly due to the fact that the value of the item missing is below the deductible.

This was one incident and there was already damages being claimed that far exceeded the deductible. A claim for missing or stolen items generally has to be accompanied by a police report. A police report has to be filed by the person claiming ownership of the missing items. JY had to be the one to file the police report and we all know why he did not do so. Without that, he COULD NOT claim it on the insurance.

This, of course, is assuming there really were missing or stolen items. I'm of the mind that there wasn't but that is my personal opinion on that matter.

IMO
 
Nope....Pat Young testifed she bought the tooth box for CY and the braclet for MY's birthday that she put on the missing report. The men's platinum band was one of 2 JY had - a nice one & work one.

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*. :floorlaugh:
 
I'm guilty of not filing insurance claims when things have gone missing from my home. My son's bike was stolen and I simply let it go. That happens. Another of his bikes was driven over by a friend's father. I let that go too. After his wife was murdered, I'm sure Jason had more important things on his mind than collecting money for missing items. In fact, it looks like he couldn't even deal with the house insurance claim, so his sister had to look after it.

Nothing Jason has done supports the argument that he wanted money as a result of his wife's murder.

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.
 
What were the dates of his internet searches?

TIA

From what I remember of that testimony, they couldn't tell the dates since the search history had been deleted. They found the searches in the deleted files.

(that confused me since in the Orlando trial, they had dates on the search history of even the deleted files)
 
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?
 
BBM

How do we know this to be fact? Isn't all we really know is that he claimed to have witnessed this accident?

It would seem to me that it is perfectly understandable that the prosecutor would question the truthfulness of that. It would also seem to me to be perfectly understandable (and expected to me) that DT would bring some sort of evidence that this accident did occur and JY was there on the scene. That would have totally removed any suggestion or suspicion about what those internet searches were about. Or at the very least insert some reasonable doubt and given his explanation of them some strong basis in truth.

IMO

Shelly Schaad testified that the only trauma case that came in that day was a black man with leg trauma.

That's the thing about these *facts* that are being posted. They aren't 'facts' at all. Merely red herrings to distract from the evidence that was presented at this trial.
 
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*. :floorlaugh:

A lot of people do... I believe someone from this VERY forum said they had several rings... My very own FIL had 2.... A guy my hubby works with has 2... LOL!!! It happens....
 
The defense team contradicted their own witness testimony, jason young at the first trial, that michelle young didn't, after all, give the hush puppy shoes to goodwill and they were in the closet. The real killer decided to wear them after the murder.

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"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
91
Guests online
832
Total visitors
923

Forum statistics

Threads
589,927
Messages
17,927,750
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top