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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lucky89 said:
I am like SS how can one man be as unlucky as JY!!!
Your wife is murdered with your daughter at home with her and just so happen the door and cameras are messed with in the hotel you are staying in but you admit in court that you went out that door and put a twig in it to smoke a cigar and just so happen a size 12 HP leaves prints at your home and you admit to owning a pair but they were donated to Goodwill. But then the same JY who was able to spend a weekend with MM in Orlando has all the luck in the world to the point his wife (MF) does not even have a clue he is there visting MM but instead thinks he is on business!! I would have to say damn Karma is a witch!!!!
Click to expand...

No one I can think of !!! The poor guy. Almost makes you want to
feel sorry for him :what: lol
 
Bottle Cap said:
Its a courtesy thing, IMO. If you've gone back to see the post and can reference the number, it takes about 5 seconds to save everyone else the time.
Click to expand...

Well...for my own curiosity I did go back and read the post referenced that started this back and forth and I can't see how it related (the post the person was directed to go back and look at #579 - It didn't make sense to me as far as having a thing to do with the question the poster asked to begin with.

:floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

Now, if some posts have been deleted by mods (and from some of the snarkiness throughout the day I would not be surprised) that is going to mess up the post numbers. THAT is why it is good to quote the post and not just point a person back to a specific post number. IMO
:seeya:
 
Lucky89 said:
"you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"
Click to expand...

:woohoo:

You said it Lucky89!! After doing all of the reading on this thread today ( whew!) this says it all. So true. So true. Well, IMO only, but of course.


Jmo, in my opinion only, no link ~ only what I think & all of that Jazz.
 
fromageball said:
I was wondering this as well. Did they ask Meredith where she found the dog when she got to the house? All I remember is that she said Mr. G was "going crazy" when she got there. Then that she took him outside with her and CY.
Click to expand...

The Mr. G thing is weird. I have a black lab that if she had the run of the house would absolutely be with my daughter if no one else was in the house (i.e. after a murder happened). I also believe had I been Michelle my dog would have definitely come over, sniffed me, licked blood (sorry, bad to think about I know) and in turn would have tracked blood at least in the carpet around my body. Strange. Can't figure it out.
 
Bottle Cap said:
Hey guys, something's been bugging me.

In the video of JY in the Cracker Barrel, he had a black knitted beanie on his head. In the still of him leaving the HI, he had a ball cap on, but was carrying the beanie. I can't figure out what's up w/ the two hats, but the black one isn't on his head - it's resting atop the newspaper. The ball cap obscures his face nicely, but it was cold and there was a gale, so the beanie would have been the one to wear to keep warm. Instead, he carries it.

I know there were no prints on the camera, and the lack of gloves has been an issue to some people. Why couldn't he have stuck his hand in the beanie to mess with the camera? Its not like unplugging it or shifting it up is a delicate operation, you could totally slip your hand in and do what you needed, and leave no prints.
Click to expand...


Good post. I too thought the same regarding the beanie on his hand instead of gloves. I don't think he liked the idea of putting gloves on, do what he needed to do w the camera and immediately walk outside to his car. The beanie is something he can put on at the last moment , does the job, and beanie gets thrown back on top of newspaper (like nothing ever happened) goes to car. He did not want to be seen walking down that hotel hallway on camera with gloves on obvs and he very well couldn't stop right at the camera, take time to put them on and then do it for fear of someone coming...he wanted to do it fast...he knew he had to be quick. IMO and moo.
 
gritguy said:
I can assure you thought whether you stand on a G or NG, you will at times feel irritated, insulted or whatever by things people say. Unless it's a personal attack, that's just going to happen with things like this.

I've seen some comments directed toward people on the G side that for the life of me defy any sense at all other than to misdirect, mislead, irritate or whatever. IMO. So, I'm sure it's been that way for people who are NG as well. That, however, has nothing to do with people or comments questioning the state's case, evidence, theory or whatever - many of which are clearly insightful and thoughtful IMO even if I disagree.

It pays to have some thick skin on both sides, when posting about a current trial of a murder case. I think in just about every case, no one means to insult anyone else even if they could be charged with First Degree Posting While Irritated - they only want justice for the victims and a just trial for the defendant (at least, so I'd sincerely hope).
Click to expand...

Yes, GG, I have seen a lot of the Posting while irritated. But it is the misrepresentation of facts (I have seen that on both sides) that puzzles me. It is almost like this is a competition where twisting facts are acceptable. I always appreciate your insightful responses. the IGNORE button is our best friend, isn't it?
 
Cammy said:
Yes, it does........which is exactly what 8 of the last jurors must have had problems with.

The other prints need to be dealt with, even if it means the Pros asks
Jason to try the size 10 Franklins on.....or, :drum roll: maybe that is what the defense has in mind.
:wink:
Click to expand...

Yikes, visions of OJ and the gloves.
 
Elisaa444 said:
Good post. I too thought the same regarding the beanie on his hand instead of gloves. I don't think he liked the idea of putting gloves on, do what he needed to do w the camera and immediately walk outside to his car. The beanie is something he can put on at the last moment , does the job, and beanie gets thrown back on top of newspaper (like nothing ever happened) goes to car. He did not want to be seen walking down that hotel hallway on camera with gloves on obvs and he very well couldn't stop right at the camera, take time to put them on and then do it for fear of someone coming...he wanted to do it fast...he knew he had to be quick. IMO and moo.
Click to expand...

Do you think he had gloves on when he murdered Michelle?
 
LOMom said:
JY owned a size 12 pair of HP Orbitals (verified by receipt). A bloody shoe print of size 12 pair of orbitals was found at the crime scene. There were only 195 size 12 orbitals sold worldwide. 1+1=2......
Click to expand...

Actually, the shoe prints could be from several other lines of HP. It might not even be a size 12 but perhaps a different size. The number of 195 only applies to size 12 Orbitals. Finally, without the shoe, there is no way to say this shoe print is from JY's shoes to the exclusion of all other shoes produced with similar soles. The shoe print exhibited class characteristics with HP shoes similar to the ones bought by JY. It is great evidence, just not the easy mathematical equation for everyone that it is for some.
 
cody100 said:
Actually, the shoe prints could be from several other lines of HP. It might not even be a size 12 but perhaps a different size. The number of 195 only applies to size 12 Orbitals. Finally, without the shoe, there is no way to say this shoe print is from JY's shoes to the exclusion of all other shoes produced with similar soles. The shoe print exhibited class characteristics with HP shoes similar to the ones bought by JY. It is great evidence, just not the easy mathematical equation for everyone that it is for some.
Click to expand...


IIRC the HP rep testimony, he said that this particular sole was only used on 3 shoes. The first two (one slip on and one lace up) were the same line and were not distributed to DSW. DSW asked them to make one similar to this slip on shoe for their store but a lower price point than what it currently sold for. They removed the gel in the heel and ball of the sole and then produced the Orbital. It was a lower price point and at that time they also discontinued the other two original shoes that used this sole design and print.

From his testimony, I gathered that this sole was not widely used on a variety of shoes in their shoe line.

I'm also not sure why you would say that the size might not even be a size 12. It did not sound to me from the testimony of expert witness testifying about the sole prints that there was any question that one of the prints was a size 12. I don't recall there being any ambiguous words in their testimony about the size of the prints they discovered in the investigation. Out of curiosity, what makes you think it is possibly a different size?
 
Here is my remembrance on this issue: It was on cross examination of either SBI agent or the guy from HP (I think). I do not have that link right this moment, but I can try to get it. It was said that it could be a 11 or 10 1/2 when questioned by defense. I gathered the uppers deternine the size of shoe.

You are right that this sole is not used widely. I am relistening to various testimonies and will get that for you on the size.
 
cody100 said:
Here is my remembrance on this issue: It was on cross examination of either SBI agent or the guy from HP (I think). I do not have that link right this moment, but I can try to get it. It was said that it could be a 11 or 10 1/2 when questioned by defense. I gathered the uppers deternine the size of shoe.

You are right that this sole is not used widely. I am relistening to various testimonies and will get that for you on the size.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do recall him saying that sometimes one size sole will be used for different size upper portion of the shoe.

Honestly, while I can believe that does happen some, I can't imagine it happens with all styles and that wide spread. I've since looked at my shoes and for many, many of them, they'd look very strange to have a larger size sole on a smaller size upper portion of the shoe. It would look like I was walking around on very odd looking shoes, IMO.

If you look at the style of that particular shoe, IMO, it would look very odd to have a larger sole than the upper shoe design.

While it is possible, I believe it to be very unlikely that anything other than the correct sole size was used on shoes that style.

I can see it being done on some styles of lace up shoes or sneakers but not that type of slip on shoe.

That's just my take on it.

IMO
 
Talina said:
Yes, I do recall him saying that sometimes one size sole will be used for different size upper portion of the shoe.

Honestly, while I can believe that does happen some, I can't imagine it happens with all styles and that wide spread. I've since looked at my shoes and for many, many of them, they'd look very strange to have a larger size sole on a smaller size upper portion of the shoe. It would look like I was walking around on very odd looking shoes, IMO.

If you look at the style of that particular shoe, IMO, it would look very odd to have a larger sole than the upper shoe design.

While it is possible, I believe it to be very unlikely that anything other than the correct sole size was used on shoes that style.

I can see it being done on some styles of lace up shoes or sneakers but not that type of slip on shoe.

That's just my take on it.

IMO
Click to expand...

I wouldn't think it would vary much or any, but apparently it is a possibility. Thanks for your input and the very courteous manner in which you questioned my comments.
 
Talina said:
Yes, I do recall him saying that sometimes one size sole will be used for different size upper portion of the shoe.

Honestly, while I can believe that does happen some, I can't imagine it happens with all styles and that wide spread. I've since looked at my shoes and for many, many of them, they'd look very strange to have a larger size sole on a smaller size upper portion of the shoe. It would look like I was walking around on very odd looking shoes, IMO.

If you look at the style of that particular shoe, IMO, it would look very odd to have a larger sole than the upper shoe design.

While it is possible, I believe it to be very unlikely that anything other than the correct sole size was used on shoes that style.

I can see it being done on some styles of lace up shoes or sneakers but not that type of slip on shoe.

That's just my take on it.

IMO
Click to expand...

Actually this was Special Agent Morrow's cross: Day 10, pt. 4, around 28:00. Her testimony discusses the shoe testimony. She indicates the outsole is what she sizes, not the upper sole. Just wanted to clarify that.
 
cody100 said:
I wouldn't think it would vary much or any, but apparently it is a possibility. Thanks for your input and the very courteous manner in which you questioned my comments.
Click to expand...

You know, sometimes I find myself when listening to testimony going off in a variety of directions after either side does a cross examination of a witness. They often throw out so many things in their questioning that it seems like my head is spinning with all the different possibilities from what they just got the witness to say in their cross examination.

Then I have to check myself back to reality. It is an attorney's job to poke holes in the direct testimony to any extent they can do so (and that goes for both sides - DT and PT).

I have to remind myself that just because something is possible, it's not always probable. If I have to stretch the boundaries and contort my thoughts so that they could compete with the cirque du soleil of mental thought processes, then it is not very likely that the possibility happened.

Honestly, that is what I have found myself doing trying to explain away all of the circumstances that point me towards thinking JY is guilty. To me, when so much explaining is necessary to explain away so many circumstances that point suspicions towards him, then the most likely explanation is that those suspicions are well founded and true.

I know we still have the defense case to listen to and perhaps my mind will change somewhat upon hearing their witnesses on the stand.

IMO

ETA: I wanted to also thank you for the courteous discourse this morning. I wish we'd see more of this in this thread. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 188 more.
Total: 1,282 (members: 189, guests: 1,093)

Online statistics

Members online
189
Guests online
1,093
Total visitors
1,282
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,802
Messages
17,959,154
Members
228,608
Latest member
Postalgirl74
Back
Top