**Verdict Watch** 3-2-2012; deliberations started at 1016am

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another huge coincidence... so this random killer just so happened to pick the one house in the neighborhood that night where the husband was out of town and the garage door just happened to be broken, so low & behold he didn't have to break a window or a door to get into a house to not steal anything other than Michelle's ring and $500 hidden in Jasons closet in a wallet - he just had to lift the broken door that led to the kitchen/garage door that was routinely kept unlocked. Such a lucky random killer!

Yep... still not buying it.
 
LOMom said:
I agree. I really think all jurors should have to sit in less in "understanding reasonable doubt" and also in "physical vs. circumstantial evidence" and what that means. Too many jurors demand physical evidence and acquit without it, even when there was plenty of circumstantial evidence to convict.
Click to expand...

Agree. I think circumstantial evidence can be stronger. JMO Especially up against an eye witness. If it hadn't happened to me, I always thought eye witness testimony was strong. I was leaving a store with 2 other friends when a car came speeding into the parking lot, stopped, and a guy went running up the hill. Two police cars came in right after that car and asked us if we saw which way he ran. One officer ran after the guy, the other asked us what he looked like. We all had different descriptions...can't remember details but like color of shirt etc. I thought I was a crime sleuth yet my one friend was right and me and the other person were wrong. They caught the guy and brought him to the car...I was amazed what I hadn't noticed and what I thought I had noticed. Humble pie.
 
To be so innocent (that is JY) why would you not want to atleast talk to MF. Apparently he likes her enough to sit for a 4 hour counseling session. I mean it is his wife that is dead and her sister is the one who has found her and not only found your wife but your 2 year old daughter and u don't have any questions or say hey I talk to her last nite and she was fine. Who in their right mind would not want to know what happen! If he is not the one who murdered her, I would be hell bent on finding out who kill my wife and left my daughter to see the most brutal thing in the world that not only an adult does not want to see but let alone a 2 year old child!!! IMO
 
Just an FYI

It's Direct Evidence vs Circumstantial Evidence

Physical evidence (including forensic evidence like fingerprints, blood, hair, etc) is considered circumstantial evidence.
 
Lucky89 said:
To be so innocent (that is JY) why would you not want to atleast talk to MF. Apparently he likes her enough to sit for a 4 hour counseling session. I mean it is his wife that is dead and her sister is the one who has found her and not only found your wife but your 2 year old daughter and u don't have any questions or say hey I talk to her last nite and she was fine. Who in their right mind would not want to know what happen! If he is not the one who murdered her, I would be hell bent on finding out who kill my wife and left my daughter to see the most brutal thing in the world that not only an adult does not want to see but let alone a 2 year old child!!! IMO
Click to expand...

When people don't ask questions..they already have the answers. :twocents:
 
Stella 5 said "I agree! I just don't get it! Everything points at him, every single little thing and I just don't understand the innocent proclamations. I'm not bashing any of my fellow WSers with that statement because everyone is very entitled to their opinions, but I just can't wrap my head around it and I've tried. Now I can understand people being unsure if he did it or not, because with the CSI Effect people expect the perfect case all neatly wrapped up in a bow so there is nothing to question, but most crimes are not like that. The circumstantial evidence in this case is overwhelming. At some point you have to question how on this one night the entire universe was working against JY to set him up for the murder of his wife. Quite simply it wasn't. JY set up all these little coinky-dinks, and I just pray this jury is able to put all the puzzle pieces together and deliver justice to Michelle & Rylan; as well as Linda, Meredith & Cassidy."

This soooooooo right on, well said!!!! Not biased, but just right on THAT NIGHT!!!!!

No One Else wanted Michelle dead <modsnip>
 
All I can say is...I have followed this case from Day 1, I know in my gut without any doubts that he is guilty, but my gut fears he will walk a free man. I have zero faith in our justice system. It is as random as predicting rain or sun in Seattle. True justice in America is non-existent anymore.
And there's my downer news report for the day.
:(
 
I agree Pip, no one else would have a motive to do this, and it was not an accident, or a stranger, so eliminating the obvious, it is JLY the sly sneaky liar who did it, benefited from it and planned it just for his little selfish self!!!

Makes me fume to see his blinking lizard eyes and stupid laughing during his testimony:furious:
 
pip said:
All I can say is...I have followed this case from Day 1, I know in my gut without any doubts that he is guilty, but my gut fears he will walk a free man. I have zero faith in our justice system. It is as random as predicting rain or sun in Seattle. True justice in America is non-existent anymore.
And there's my downer news report for the day.
:(
Click to expand...

I agree on the randomness of the justice system!

Mary Winkler - voluntary manslaughter only, for shooting her sleeping husband in the back with a shotgun. Less than 2 years in jail IIRC...and then she was free.

CA - free ...
 
Talina said:
For me the condoms are, well....just there. Just further evidence of his character and lack of morals, etc. I suspect he always made sure he had condoms on him for whatever situation might present itself.

They initially raise an eyebrow, then just a head shake. Neither pro or con for either JY or the prosecution.

IMO
Click to expand...

Looks like he didn't unpack his suitcase from Orlando trip. Just added a few things to it.
 
Stella5 said:
Another huge coincidence... so this random killer just so happened to pick the one house in the neighborhood that night where the husband was out of town and the garage door just happened to be broken, so low & behold he didn't have to break a window or a door to get into a house to not steal anything other than Michelle's ring and $500 hidden in Jasons closet in a wallet - he just had to lift the broken door that led to the kitchen/garage door that was routinely kept unlocked. Such a lucky random killer!

Yep... still not buying it.
Click to expand...

A logical and obvious observation. But as for the $500, that's Young's own words. Meaning, a lie. Given he did not even file a claim for all the "stolen" items (nor report them for 6 months!!!), it's pretty clear. The only thing missing from that house was Michelle Young's rings -- Jason and rings again. If the Youngs, especially Jason, wanted the "real murderer" caught, they would have reported any theft asap. Mrs. Young's own testimony is that she waited 6 months because, in her words, she was "angry" at investigators! You think having this information, if true, would have helped in the investigation? The information is helpful, because we know it is a lie. Now ask yourself, why would the Young family lie so often about so much in this case?

Truly hoping that the jury bases its discussions around logic and the impossibility of Jason Young's story. His character is not on trial, but it clearly provides the foundation for his acts -- before, during and after he brutally beat Michelle and Rylan to death. Prayers for this jury to say the truth.
 
Wait, Fred you're saying a brutal killer who is there to rob and knows just where to find a wallet without leaving blood evidence of looking for it and who prefers some jewelry to others but yet who DOES NOT tamper with or take MY's purse is an unlikely scenario?

You're saying that waiting until 6 months after the murder to say, "But wait it was burglary there were some things missing" could merely be an attempt to protect the hiding son?

If you're saying that, if that's what you're saying - I AGREE!
 
fredwomble said:
A logical and obvious observation. But as for the $500, that's Young's own words. Meaning, a lie. Given he did not even file a claim for all the "stolen" items (nor report them for 6 months!!!), it's pretty clear. The only thing missing from that house was Michelle Young's rings -- Jason and rings again. If the Youngs, especially Jason, wanted the "real murderer" caught, they would have reported any theft asap. Mrs. Young's own testimony is that she waited 6 months because, in her words, she was "angry" at investigators! You think having this information, if true, would have helped in the investigation? The information is helpful, because we know it is a lie. Now ask yourself, why would the Young family lie so often about so much in this case?

Truly hoping that the jury bases its discussions around logic and the impossibility of Jason Young's story. His character is not on trial, but it clearly provides the foundation for his acts -- before, during and after he brutally beat Michelle and Rylan to death. Prayers for this jury to say the truth.
Click to expand...

Just curious what everyone thinks JY did with the ring? I don't think he would have thrown it away. He got that b/c he knew how much $ it was worth. I have a feeling he may have pawned it somewhere (maybe out of state). Boy wouldn't that have been a great witness....pawn store owner id's JY and has store video of him pawning that 2/3 carrot diamond ring!
 
CGW said:
Just curious what everyone thinks JY did with the ring? I don't think he would have thrown it away. He got that b/c he knew how much $ it was worth. I have a feeling he may have pawned it somewhere (maybe out of state). Boy wouldn't that have been a great witness....pawn store owner id's JY and has store video of him pawning that 2/3 carrot diamond ring!
Click to expand...

My guess is that he pawned them while in Puerto Rico or he still has them somewhere. I think he took them because maybe, just as with Genevieve Cargol, if MY wasn't going to with him, he was taking his ring back.
 
fredwomble said:
A logical and obvious observation. But as for the $500, that's Young's own words. Meaning, a lie. Given he did not even file a claim for all the "stolen" items (nor report them for 6 months!!!), it's pretty clear. The only thing missing from that house was Michelle Young's rings -- Jason and rings again. If the Youngs, especially Jason, wanted the "real murderer" caught, they would have reported any theft asap. Mrs. Young's own testimony is that she waited 6 months because, in her words, she was "angry" at investigators! You think having this information, if true, would have helped in the investigation? The information is helpful, because we know it is a lie. Now ask yourself, why would the Young family lie so often about so much in this case?

Truly hoping that the jury bases its discussions around logic and the impossibility of Jason Young's story. His character is not on trial, but it clearly provides the foundation for his acts -- before, during and after he brutally beat Michelle and Rylan to death. Prayers for this jury to say the truth.
Click to expand...
Fredwomble I agree whole heartedly, <modsnip>
 
gritguy said:
Wait, Fred you're saying a brutal killer who is there to rob and knows just where to find a wallet without leaving blood evidence of looking for it and who prefers some jewelry to others but yet who DOES NOT tamper with or take MY's purse is an unlikely scenario?

You're saying that waiting until 6 months after the murder to say, "But wait it was burglary there were some things missing" could merely be an attempt to protect the hiding son?

If you're saying that, if that's what you're saying - I AGREE!
Click to expand...

Amen...this case feels more personal to me than any other of the "sensationsal" crime stories in my lifetime. I live in Raleigh, went to school in the Triangle, overlapping the characters from this trial, and I have roots in western NC. I also have a pre-K daughter, and a wife with roots in Long Island. Finally, a very good friend was a couple years behind Young at NC State and young was his RA. Said from day 1 that he figured Young was involved, and that was just as the story was being reported. Anyone who had very tangential connections to this seems to have that kind of story - heck, his best friend suspected him! We all know the evidence points to one killer, and we know his actions since murdering Michelle scream his guilt, as do the actions of his family. Now you get some people with zero connection to this thing who cling to a fingerprint on a piece of paper, the transparent lies of a man described as a manipulator and a jerk (whose own attorneys tell a jury "you can hate him...), and his planted size 10 shoes to proclaim over and over there is reasonable doubt. You could say it makes me incredibly frustrated at the ignorance and willful denial of the obvious.

You could rationalize any single aspect of this case to argue this guy isn't a sociopathic murderer...but try holding up the dozens of facts and you cannot honestly suggest Jason Young is wrongfully accused. What I woud ask any defender of this guy - you believe he is somehow not the guilty party, would you let your daughter be with him (let alone yourself, for female supporters)?

Guilty as charged, and life in prison is too good for Jason Young.
 
Cammy said:
Maybe if :

The hair in MY's hand was Jason's (it wasn't a stranger's hair, it was her own)Jason had scratches (gloves and long sleeves)There was blood in the SUV (no blood downstairs (minus one speck on doorknob that led to running hose outside...why would there be any in the car)That the same camera, the same stairwell had not been messed with before (no cameras had been tampered with in YEARS!)
That the clerk at the Hampton noticed Jason's door
ajar or unlocked the 2 times he went there, not once, but twice (doing a mundane task would he have been really tuned into a seemingly small detail?)If Jason had come back to Raleigh in a different vehicle, leaving
his SUV in Brevard for clean up (it didn't need to be cleaned...from the murder anyway ;o)) If CY had acted frightened when she saw him (even abused children seek love from their parents. Plus, he cleaned her up and calmed her down IMO)If the twig hadn't held the door (dna on the rock)If the bush was not in reach (really?)If the trooper did not take the stand to explain his investigaton (I think the accident is irrelevant and not necessary to consider...I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one!)If the email to SS from MY asking to find out about the auto accident Jason stopped at (not logical his searches didn't mention accident, I-40, wreck, etc....his searches don't make sense)If Gen was so afraid of Jason she would stayed away, instead of going back and begging for her ring (it's common knowledge abused women stay in abusive relationships way too often!)If Gracie's customer was found, because the news carrier was and he said he never saw any incident she described (I'm willing to even throw out this testimony if it's too questionable for some....there's enough other CE to support JY's guilt)Reasonable doubt
etc, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

Thanks for listing this. It helps me try to understand where the NG people are coming from. I respectfully disagree though and I think that those things are not "reasonable" doubt. My "reasonable" is obviously different than your "reasonable". (My comments are in red) It's going to come down to how the 12 on that jury deem "reasonable". Gotta say I'm a big fan of "professional juries" in the future. Too much legal stuff for the average layperson to understand. The law is complicated and while a "jury of your peers" was well intended, it's now become problematic (IMO) with how the justice system, the laws, and technology have changed over time. Hopping off my soap box now :blushing:
 
CGW said:
Thanks for listing this. It helps me try to understand where the NG people are coming from. I respectfully disagree though and I think that those things are not "reasonable" doubt. My "reasonable" is obviously different than your "reasonable". (My comments are in red) It's going to come down to how the 12 on that jury deem "reasonable". Gotta say I'm a big fan of "professional juries" in the future. Too much legal stuff for the average layperson to understand. The law is complicated and while a "jury of your peers" was well intended, it's now become problematic (IMO) with how the justice system, the laws, and technology have changed over time. Hopping off my soap box now :blushing:
Click to expand...
Fred, the average citizen nowadays is so selfish or dumbed down by media reports and TV programs and common sense seems to now be a hard to grasp factor too. What with the crime rate and no conscience existing either. I too wish a course for or professional jury
 
One of the ways LE investigates a crime when they have stolen property. LE goes to pawn shops, known people who fence stolen goods and people who buy stolen goods.

For the Young family NOT to cooperate and provide a detailed list of property stolen is a HUGE RED flag.

For Mrs. Y to say she was angry at LE .....her daughter-in-law and grandson were murdered and she put her Anger above all tells me who she she knows who the killer is.
 
What I think is pretty humorous is to hear some people say "all they have is circumstantial evidence, yada yada. I wish they'd have had more forensics evidence, dna or fingerprints - something". That type of evidence is circumstantial evidence as well so what they are asking for is more of what they are complaining about to being with.

Not only do I think there is a huge misunderstanding of what reasonable doubt is when deciding the fate of a defendant (it seems that it has evolved into NO doubt at all, not just no reasonable doubt), it also appears to me that there is a lot of the population that have a very wrong (or at least incomplete) understanding of exactly what is circumstantial/indirect evidence and what is direct or physical evidence.

At the very least I think jury instructions should not only instruct on the law and what can and can not be considered, they should also include definitions of some of the terms used and not just assume that people on the jury know.

ETA: I'm not just referring to this trial with this post nor am I speaking to any particular posters on this forum. I'm speaking in general and for certain including most (with very few exceptions) of the "experts" on the talk shows these days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 62 more.
Total: 1,350 (members: 63, guests: 1,287)

Online statistics

Members online
63
Guests online
1,287
Total visitors
1,350
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,787
Messages
17,958,879
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top