State vs Jason Lynn Young: weekend discussion 11-25 Feb 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm doing the same thing. I haven't started watching the trial yet, I'm still reading all the case info... I've heard so much about the case from everyone here that I had to go check it out! I'm hooked.

It is definitely a hooking story!!

I watched it unfold from the morning Nancy Cooper 'went for her jog and went missing'.

It was another story of a family that 'seemed' to have so much going for them....with a beautiful house, beautiful little girls..:waitasec:

I hope you 'enjoy' the trial.
 
Just goes to show, the PT sure better remind the jury it is ok if they want to believe others were there with JLY (during or after).
Make it clear that in no way makes JLY any less guilty of 1st degree murder.

I think that it would confuse the jury.
It would be low hanging fruit for the defense to create reasonable doubt with statements like:

  • The State can’t even tell you if he acted alone or had help, Which is it?
  • How did is coordinate with this mysterious accomplice? We have documented all of his communications before & after the hideous crime and there is no link to anyone else…
  • Did the mystery person enter the house and watch TV downstairs waiting for JY to return from the hotel that was hours away? It just doesn’t make sense…
 
I think you guys are spot on. They've absolutely gotta find some way to make CB's testimony more credible. As it stands right now, I think she's being genuine, but I cannot necessarily place stock in what she's saying. That's why eye witness testimony is so difficult. Who do you believe?
 
A great example of what I've been referring to here as 'mis-statement of the facts, evidence, testimony given at trial, etc. Done over and over on these boards during this case. And when someone points it out to the poster, the fact is simply ignored by said poster/s, and often times later repeated again as the same misstatement of the facts. :maddening:

And Gracie Calhoun is pointed at as the brain damaged one in this case? I find that more than a little ironic. :waitasec: Gracie gets the basic facts of that morning in 2006 correct, 5 yrs later, having been hit by a truck when she was 6 yrs old. Now what's the excuse from facts just heard in court and misrepresented in writing a mere couple hours later?
 
I think that it would confuse the jury.
It would be low hanging fruit for the defense to create reasonable doubt with statements like:

  • The State can’t even tell you if he acted alone or had help, Which is it?
  • How did is coordinate with this mysterious accomplice? We have documented all of his communications before & after the hideous crime and there is no link to anyone else…
  • Did the mystery person enter the house and watch TV downstairs waiting for JY to return from the hotel that was hours away? It just doesn’t make sense…


Well, Saacks said it last trial (guess it did not help)
The state gets the last word, so the defense can't advance those questions. Remember, the PT has not hinted that- even in their opening.
 
I read a few pages back where someone disputed the HP testimony because the guy from HP said it wasn't a "match." That scares the heck out of me. Because that person obviously did not listen to the testimony, they are hanging a conclusion on a buzz word.

For clarity, the witness said it was not possible to *match* because by definition, you would need the original shoe to *match* it to the prototype. Since the shoe is *missing* it cannot be compared to the prototype, so the best they can say, using their standards, is that it is "consistent with."

Goodness, if someone can't *get* that, what else might they not *get*? I hope the jury is better able to assimilate information.

I think jury selection standards need to be revised, and I am serious. Instead of asking whether one has heard of a case (if one hadn't heard of this case, one would be very uninformed, that is, oblivious to their community), they ought to test for aptitude and ability to *reason, that is, make reasonable conclusions*. And they should have to pass a test for "it's boring but the juror can stay awake." Because that juror(s?) who are nodding off needs to be gone.

smh

I agree, I think potential jurors should be required to attend a class and learn about circumstantial evidence, making inferences, reasonable doubt, etc and how to apply them to a case. Basically, a crash course in jury instructions... and then they should be required to take a test involving actual cases, that have a known, factual outcome, and see how they apply the law. I would place a bet that if any of the P12 had been tested on their interpretation of the jury instructions they were given, we might have seen a different outcome....
JMO
 
If the jury cannot understand that it doesn't matter who else they think might have been there in addition to JY, JY is still guilty of 1st degree murder if they determine he was there at all that night, then they're either not paying any attention to what they are being told in the courtroom, or they are drooling imbeciles.

JY is not exonerated if someone else was also there to leave the size 10 footprints in blood.
 
Well, Saacks said it last trial (guess it did not help)
The state gets the last word, so the defense can't advance those questions. Remember, the PT has not hinted that- even in their opening.

I don't think that they will. Remember the old rule, "Don't introduce a question that you do not already know the answer to."

Have you had a chance to go to the court room lately?
 
I agree, I think potential jurors should be required to attend a class and learn about circumstantial evidence, making inferences, reasonable doubt, etc and how to apply them to a case. Basically, a crash course in jury instructions... and then they should be required to take a test involving actual cases, that have a known, factual outcome, and see how they apply the law. I would place a bet that if any of the P12 had been tested on their interpretation of the jury instructions they were given, we might have seen a different outcome....
JMO

The attorneys should include these instructions in their closing argument. That's the crash course before the jury instructions are actually read out loud by the judge.

If you place more restrictions on the system, and require intelligence, and ability to pass a test, it's not sustainable. We already have a hard enough time finding capable jurors to serve anyways.

I agree with you, in theory, that people should be more aware of what the standard of proof is. In some cases, I think the outcome would be different, but I am not sure the outcome would be different in the first trial of this case, and I would catch a lot of fire on this site, if I listed the cases I thought were legally decided correctly, that many of you disagree with.
 
I don't think that they will. Remember the old rule, "Don't introduce a question that you do not already know the answer to."

Have you had a chance to go to the court room lately?

I have been once... definitively not going for the defense case.
I disagree. In closing there will be no defense cross or rebuttal.
If they don't remind the jury, they may forget the law, like the daughter that tweeted.
 
The attorneys should include these instructions in their closing argument. That's the crash course before the jury instructions are actually read out loud by the judge.

If you place more restrictions on the system, and require intelligence, and ability to pass a test, it's not sustainable. We already have a hard enough time finding capable jurors to serve anyways.

I agree with you, in theory, that people should be more aware of what the standard of proof is. In some cases, I think the outcome would be different, but I am not sure the outcome would be different in the first trial of this case, and I would catch a lot of fire on this site, if I listed the cases I thought were legally decided correctly, that many of you disagree with.

This REALLY bothers me: The 911 call has Cassidy saying "daddy....." multiple times in response to Meredith's question(s). Yet, this is not being discussed as important by the prosecution. The jury will be left to make their own deduction about the importance of this, if they even caught it. To me, that's a glaring omission and/or hole. Because it might well leave a juror saying, "well I thought I heard her say daddy did it, but since the prosecution never brought it up, maybe not..." or later (after deliberation) a juror might re-listen and say "whoa, I never caught that!"

Apparently, there is some legal reason that this cannot be brought up by the prosecution to highlight it. The jury should be able to know about this reason and how it applies to the 911 recording.
 
It was a long time ago so I'm not sure of my facts. But I do recall when that one witness was talking about a car being in the driveway of the victim's home, IF it was possibly the week prior she witnessed that, 'wouldn't that have been the weekend of the wedding?' 'Could that incident have actually happened the prior week and it was Jason and Michelle leaving for the wedding?'

I don't know if they've ever established what time JY and MY left the home that weekend and what time JY met up with his buddies at the gas station. But the discussion about the girls going later was because the guy's tee time was much earlier than was necessary for everyone to arrive at the hotel. So it was just arranged for the girls to go later and be there in time for the guys to be finished with their golf game.

We do know the JY and MY left together, so MY would have arrived at the hotel earlier than the other wives/gf's. The question is, "What time did they leave and was it this incident that the witness perhaps remembered?"

Just a thought.

JMHO
fran
 
If the jury cannot understand that it doesn't matter who else they think might have been there in addition to JY, JY is still guilty of 1st degree murder if they determine he was there at all that night, then they're either not paying any attention to what they are being told in the courtroom, or they are drooling imbeciles.

JY is not exonerated if someone else was also there to leave the size 10 footprints in blood.

I would disagree with this assertion. The PT job is to paint a picture for the jury and fill in any blanks in the mosaic of "the theory of the crime". Leave a piece out, like NOT throughly providing a quality narrative on how the size 10 prints got at the crime scene will leave the jury in a quandary.

If the jury believes that maybe there was a second perp present not mentioned by the PT, they might begin to wonder maybe what else the PT got wrong.

That could lead to a another hung jury or outright acquittal for JY. And that would be a travesty of justice. The PT must remove any doubt the JY and only JY was present for his wife's brutal murder.

That said, has the PT fully explained the presence of the size 10's??? If not that's a hole in the case, that the defense will exploit.
 
I have been once... definitively not going for the defense case.
I disagree. In closing there will be no defense cross or rebuttal.
If they don't remind the jury, they may forget the law, like the daughter that tweeted.

You have invested a lot of time and energy into justice for MY and the family. Do you think that you will go for verdict?
 
I read a few pages back where someone disputed the HP testimony because the guy from HP said it wasn't a "match." That scares the heck out of me. Because that person obviously did not listen to the testimony, they are hanging a conclusion on a buzz word.

For clarity, the witness said it was not possible to *match* because by definition, you would need the original shoe to *match* it to the prototype. Since the shoe is *missing* it cannot be compared to the prototype, so the best they can say, using their standards, is that it is "consistent with."

Goodness, if someone can't *get* that, what else might they not *get*? I hope the jury is better able to assimilate information.

I think jury selection standards need to be revised, and I am serious. Instead of asking whether one has heard of a case (if one hadn't heard of this case, one would be very uninformed, that is, oblivious to their community), they ought to test for aptitude and ability to *reason, that is, make reasonable conclusions*. And they should have to pass a test for "it's boring but the juror can stay awake." Because that juror(s?) who are nodding off needs to be gone.

smh

Yes,in forensic terminology, consistent does not at all mean it is a match for the shoes but rather could be the shoes or some other shoe showing similar class characteristics. The jury is left to determine its significance. I can't understand why that would discredit the expert's testimony though?
 
If the jury cannot understand that it doesn't matter who else they think might have been there in addition to JY, JY is still guilty of 1st degree murder if they determine he was there at all that night, then they're either not paying any attention to what they are being told in the courtroom, or they are drooling imbeciles.

JY is not exonerated if someone else was also there to leave the size 10 footprints in blood.

I don’t see it as exoneration, just an issue that introduces potential doubt to the jurors.

I have to opportunity to read lots of jury research. One of the reoccurring themes from jurors who deliberated in cases that hung or were NG is “If the State doesn’t know how the crime was committed, how could we?”
 
Just goes to show, the PT sure better remind the jury it is ok if they want to believe others were there with JLY (during or after).
Make it clear that in no way makes JLY any less guilty of 1st degree murder.

JTF I think I always agree with all your posts and look forward to your valuable info. you share. On this matter, however, I disagree. I do not think it would help the PT team to suggest there may have been someone else there. When they did that last time I remember thinking that would not help them. I think it would make a lot more sense to argue that a reasonable person could assume one murderer wearing two different pair of shoes. Of course that is my theory.
 
Sounds like these people are relishing their fifteen minutes of fame. So unlike Gracie, who two days after the event, through no action on her part, became embroiled in a murder case. That night when she was questioned about her gas sales a couple nights prior, she didn't know anything about the case. Her friend had mentioned something about a 'murder in Raleigh', a hundred miles away, which she 'let go in one ear and out the other.' When those investigators came into her store that night, she had no idea what they were looking for. Could have been somebody 'on the run', a bank robber perhaps, anybody. But she remembered the guy who angrily came into her store, cussed at her, and threw money at her. Look at JLY's photo. Would any of us 'forget' his face? It certainly isn't 'common'. His boney structure face, and we can imagine how it looks *angry* from his fiance's testimony as to how JLY *looks* when he's MAD. I certainly wouldn't forget that face if in the very early morning hours, when I was working a night-shift, it came at me out of the dark and began swearing at me. I'd have been extremely frightened by him. And I'd remember his face a couple days later.

Now her memory may be vague on a few other things, but certainly *less vague* than some following this crime on these boards day & night, not remembering people and evidence testified to and entered into this case. I've seen so many completely wrong and misleading statements made here by people who are intensely following this case. Compared to these, Gracie is top notch on *her* memory. She strongly pointed out JLY now in both trials. She had no hesitation as to who she saw that night. And magically, when she went back over the records, that customer was at the exact spot he would be/should be, in the timeline of events that night. JLY would have been hitting her store at just that time, on his trip back from Raleigh.


Does anyone have a link to Gracie's testimony? I missed it. Thanks in advance.
 
You have invested a lot of time and energy into justice for MY and the family. Do you think that you will go for verdict?

I doubt I can time it, unless it is pure luck.
I know I won't be hanging around the courtroom for days.
Then again, that may be a good time to casually introduce myself to Jay.
I understand he knows exactly who I am.:D
 
JTF I think I always agree with all your posts and look forward to your valuable info. you share. On this matter, however, I disagree. I do not think it would help the PT team to suggest there may have been someone else there. When they did that last time I remember thinking that would not help them. I think it would make a lot more sense to argue that a reasonable person could assume one murderer wearing two different pair of shoes. Of course that is my theory.

GJ, I don't think they will suggest there may have been someone else there.
I think they will remind them "it is ok if you think someones was there". That is what Saacks said last trial. I agree, leaving a big unknown about their theory will only confuse them. Make it clear you think he acted alone, but don't allow a doubt (raised by DT) to allow a NG verdict.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
207
Guests online
2,552
Total visitors
2,759

Forum statistics

Threads
592,143
Messages
17,964,079
Members
228,700
Latest member
amberdw2021
Back
Top