State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-20-2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
You hear is he's a lousy, immature husband, the most important part of this is his wife was murdered, he had the means, the motive and the opportunity. Nobody else in this entire world would have gained from Michelle's murder. The shoes, the blisters, the life insurance policy, everything, every single circumstantial evidence points to Jason. If it was anyone, a , a thief, a neighbor, a psycho, there WOULD be evidence pointing away from Jason. There's NOTHING that points away from Jason. Jason is the only logical, possible murderer of Michelle. That's evidence enough in a court of law.
So far, I've not seen any actual evidence that points to him. Aside from the fact he's was a terrible - husband, I've not learned one piece of evidence that puts him in that house beating his wife to death.

Sure, he's the logical killer, but that doesn't mean he did it. There was a case where the most logical possible murderer was the husband, but it wasn't him; it was a neighbour. So for me, I need more than my assumptions based on the only "logical" conclusion, and feelings.

Again, I believe he did it, but that's not good enough for me.
 
could be. or, that dad had a weapon & that was the only prop available for CY to use

Exactly, nothing more and nothing less. Just as no one believes an old woman in a track suit was giving the "spanking". What's important is that for some reason, Cassidy's impression of what happened was her mommy was spanked, for biting. How could she have come up with that in any other way than having been told it, that is very specific. That she used a chair in the acting out says to me that something was used aside from a "hand" spanking. And that is another awful thing to contemplate, made worse by her witnessing something like this.
 
I have seen a lot of scattered dots.
It is up to the PT to connect these dots during closing arguments.
They did a poor job last time...hope they are prepared this time.
Same here. I hope the jury sees it the prosecutions way.
 
Good luck with that. I see nothing attractive about him or his facial features at all. Still surprising to me that he was able to have such beautiful women in his life.

He has a serious case of weasely rat face. I, personally, can't stand when they zoom on him. He always looks like he's ready to pounce on his next victim.
 
Forgive me for jumping in late here, but is he out on bond and has he been the entire time? Who has the kids now? Thanks.
 
MF already testified there was something large, I believe, that was missing from one of the tables. But she couldn't recall what it was.

Does anyone else remember this?
fran

I do! I do! :seeya:
 
Excellent observation. It would seem very reasonable that CY would be with family and no where near any public place.

So far, I've not seen any actual evidence that points to him. Aside from the fact he's was a terrible - husband, I've not learned one piece of evidence that puts him in that house beating his wife to death.

Sure, he's the logical killer, but that doesn't mean he did it. There was a case where the most logical possible murderer was the husband, but it wasn't him; it was a neighbour. So for me, I need more than my assumptions based on the only "logical" conclusion, and feelings.

Again, I believe he did it, but that's not good enough for me.

Yes, It only takes on juror. I bet if hes allowed to walk we will see him in the news again. moo
 
Sorry the beginning of the sentence doesn't make much sense lol.

I get a bit frustrated, and it shows, with what the general public expects, as far as evidence in cases of homicides where the significant other is the suspect.

There has been a lot of murders and public trials over the last twenty years. There's a ton of murder mystery shows, forensic shows, Trut, ID, all of these shows have demonstrated what gets looked at after a murder occurs. It makes planning and premeditating a lot easier. When the murderer lives in the same home, it's a lot harder to prove because what DNA would you be expecting. Their DNA is everywhere, the ability to plan and premeditate, is a lot different than in other cases.

Jason Young was aware of the case against Michael Peterson, he was aware of the murder of Janet Abaroa, two murders that occurred before Michelle Young. Learn, adapt, change things up. He's also a sociopath, not just a cad, a bad husband, a jerk. Sociopaths have the ability to premeditate, everything was on his side.

Everyone needs to look at the entirety of the case. Common sense and the ability to connect the dots seems to have become lost in the world with so many 60 minute CSI shows.
 
FWIW, remember, it's not 'one' piece of evidence that convicts a person, especially in a circumstantial case. It's the totality of the evidence.

I believe that once the jurors begin deliberations, when they begin to make their guilty or innocent columns, they'll be overwhelmed by the 'guilty' coincidences.

It's like a BIG puzzle, one piece fitting into the other.

JMHO
of course,
fran
 
Exactly, nothing more and nothing less. Just as no one believes an old woman in a track suit was giving the "spanking". What's important is that for some reason, Cassidy's impression of what happened was her mommy was spanked, for biting. How could she have come up with that in any other way than having been told it, that is very specific. That she used a chair in the acting out says to me that something was used aside from a "hand" spanking. And that is another awful thing to contemplate, made worse by her witnessing something like this.
She could have come to that conclusion from her own experiences. My son does it all the time.

A lady in a store got upset at the register (huffing, yelled) because the cashier was too slow. Later in the car, my son told me the lady was mad because she couldn't have any candy.

Children come up with all kinds of things filtered through their own experiences.

IMO
 
No matter what impact this has on the jury, it's almost criminal that it wasn't brought out in the first trial.

I suppose the prosecution felt confident about their case, but also did not want to expose a conviction to appeal based on 6th/14th amendments. The defense team is probably already preparing drafts just in case JY is convicted.

Remember, the judge did not readily admit this testimony. He had to think about it. He could have ruled otherwise. This isn't black and white IMO, although I am not a lawyer!
 
Oh wow. Other day care workers to testify as well. Judge believes it is relevant and will allow the testimony.

I'm very curious.

I believe the judge has already been told what this testimony will be (in broad scope) in order for him to say he believes it is relevant.

IMO

Yes, Talina - IMO, JS had laid out the areas that they can ask & answer for this testimony -- with both the principals and, I think, the witnesses, too.
 
FWIW, remember, it's not 'one' piece of evidence that convicts a person, especially in a circumstantial case. It's the totality of the evidence.

I believe that once the jurors begin deliberations, when they begin to make their guilty or innocent columns, they'll be overwhelmed by the 'guilty' coincidences.

It's like a BIG puzzle, one piece fitting into the other.

JMHO
of course,
fran

Do you think anything has been added to the guilty column (so far) that wasn't there before in the first trial? (I didn't see the first trial).
 
So far, I've not seen any actual evidence that points to him. Aside from the fact he's was a terrible - husband, I've not learned one piece of evidence that puts him in that house beating his wife to death.

Sure, he's the logical killer, but that doesn't mean he did it. There was a case where the most logical possible murderer was the husband, but it wasn't him; it was a neighbour. So for me, I need more than my assumptions based on the only "logical" conclusion, and feelings.

Again, I believe he did it, but that's not good enough for me.

Turnadot, what is actual evidence. If all the articles (clothing, weapon) involved in the crime were disposed of, does that mean it did not happen? What actual evidence would convince you that JY is guilty?
 
Yes, It only takes on juror. I bet if hes allowed to walk we will see him in the news again. moo
Let's pray that this time around, there's no juror with any doubt whatsoever that JY did this.

I can't imagine he'll walk, but then again, I could not imagine Casey Anthony walking, either, so I don't want to get my hopes up. That's of the reasons I'm being a mock juror in this trial is to put myself in their place just a little, filter the information as a juror might and see where it takes me.
 
I'm trying to figure out where this last witness fits into the PT trial strategy. Other than bringing out in testimony that the dog barked when strangers were at the door (so he should have barked the night in question if a stranger had come in and we really don't know that he did or didn't), I am at a loss as to what this last witness offered in the way of relevant testimony to the trial.
 
Forgive me for jumping in late here, but is he out on bond and has he been the entire time? Who has the kids now? Thanks.

He's been out on bail since last summer. Meredith has custody of the child, but I believe he gets to see her every other weekend (or something like that) based on the custody agreement.
 
I have seen a lot of scattered dots.
It is up to the PT to connect these dots during closing arguments.
They did a poor job last time...hope they are prepared this time.

Yes, it is up to the PT JTF and as we've discussed, sooooo many pieces of this circle. The jury needs to be "helped"/"led"/"shown" how all these pieces fit together to make a whole circle.

Agreed about last trial......like you, hoping this time they do it.

Precious little Cassidy has gone through what most of us never experience in a lifetime. I'll never get over the way Slayer took her to Brevard and kept her from Meredith and Linda. In her mind, she lost Mommy AND her grammy and aunt. This is beyond cruel and heartless...there just aren't any words. This needs to be hammered to the jury.
 
FWIW, remember, it's not 'one' piece of evidence that convicts a person, especially in a circumstantial case. It's the totality of the evidence.

I believe that once the jurors begin deliberations, when they begin to make their guilty or innocent columns, they'll be overwhelmed by the 'guilty' coincidences.

It's like a BIG puzzle, one piece fitting into the other.

JMHO
of course,
fran

If I were on the jury, it would be the hotel that would sink him!
 
FWIW, remember, it's not 'one' piece of evidence that convicts a person, especially in a circumstantial case. It's the totality of the evidence.

I believe that once the jurors begin deliberations, when they begin to make their guilty or innocent columns, they'll be overwhelmed by the 'guilty' coincidences.

It's like a BIG puzzle, one piece fitting into the other.

JMHO
of course,
fran

I was shocked when the last jury did not request a white board / chart.:waitasec:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
166
Guests online
1,783
Total visitors
1,949

Forum statistics

Threads
590,079
Messages
17,929,845
Members
228,059
Latest member
Alissa000ag
Back
Top