State vs. Jason Lynn Young 03-01-12 (A.M. session: DT closing arguments)

Talina said:

BBM

I saw that in her blog. I must have missed that part of the testimony or evidence. I don't remember that at all.

IMO

Click to expand...

Testimony from Dahms, a convenience store clerk in the small town of King at the time of the homicide, is crucial to the prosecution's contention that Young left a Virginia hotel room in the middle of the night, drove home and then returned to the hotel before dawn. In the first trial, defense attorneys noted Dahms' history of drug abuse to weaken her credibility. After a month-long trial in which Young testified, the jury deadlocked for acquittal 8-4.

Click to expand...

cody100 said:

No she did not, and it was not her fault. She could have gained more credibility if they had found the customer(s) who allegedly witnessed this altercation over gas and if the initial LE canvas had included other pics (MOO)

Click to expand...

fromageball said:

I thought they could still convict first degree if they thought he had an accomplice?

Click to expand...

Bottle Cap said:

Re: the CB's-daughter's-blog link posted in yesterday's thread -

This is going to come out harsher than I mean it to, but what's the daughter doing all up in it? I know nasty tweets are unpleasant, but if you're not all up in it, you're not going to get any. IMO that whole deal gives a bit of credence to the supervisor's testimony yesterday, people all up in stuff they ought not be all up in.

Click to expand...

Wolfpack said:

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/02/09/1840758/witness-in-young-case-testifies.html#storylink=cpy

Click to expand...

~n/t~ said:

<modsnip>


I believe CB did see a vehicle at the end of the driveway and like her daughter said, she doesn't have a dog in this fight and she actually believed Jason was guilty so why would she lie about something like that? Nosy neighbours, busy bodies, whatever anyone wants to call them sometimes make good witnesses for or against a defendant.

She testified to what she saw and there is no reason whatsoever for her to lie under oath, imo.

Click to expand...

fifteen89 said:

No reason whatsoever except maybe to 'save face'?

Click to expand...

Bottle Cap said:

No it is not her fault, and yes it is a shame LE didn't find the time to go over the video with her. I don't have a problem with the initial canvas, as it was a fact-finding mission, not a murder-suspect identification.

Interesting that the daughter does to Gracie what she's upset about others having done to her mom. I don't recall a shred of testimony about drug abuse either.

Click to expand...

otto said:

It's a fact. The gas attendant had a history of drug abuse as well as severe memory problems resulting from a serious brain injury she experienced as a child. The gas attendant has not been personally criticized, but facts impacting her credibility as a witness have been mentioned.

Click to expand...

ynotdivein said:

Hey peeps, I'm sorry I missed this yesterday, but please remember that it's not ok to link to the blog site or any other social media here. (MSM excepted of course.) You can direct posters how to find it on their own but we can't link here, or copy and paste posts from there to here. :tyou:

Click to expand...

sureLocke said:

When weighing the two important testimonies, CB and GC, a distinct personality difference stands out, CB had a history of inserting herself into the details of other peoples lives, according to testimony, while with GC we heard none of that. I do think the jury will have problems with GC testimony, but I personally find her more credible than CB. She provided corroborating details supporting her memory, and when someone stands up to your face and berates you I find that person hard to forget.

Click to expand...

Talina said:

The more I review and watch this unfold, the more I am convinced CB just got caught up in a situation of her own making and before she knew it, she was in deeper than she ever intended to be in this situation. Nosey people (my beloved grandma would fit into this), IMO, often think they know or saw something that isn't at all what they believe it to be once all the ducks get lined up and the pieces are put in place that they were not privy to before they started broadcasting their "news".

This situation with the postal supervisor and CB could have been one of those "put up or shut up" moments. He tells her if she really did witness this and has information regarding that particular morning and address, she should call LE. She resists and based on her past history with him (refer to his testimony on the stand yesterday) he basically has the approach "if you are going to insist this is true, coming in the office and regaling it to your fellow employees around the water cooler, them all oooing and ahhing about your story, then you will also report it officially. Either that or be quiet. At that point, what is she to do? She has to report it since she is now put on the spot, so to speak, with him calling the sheriff's office.

Now, as it turns out, her info benefits the defense, not prosecution and she is now not so popular with what she saw so she wants to withdraw her report and not testify (because she says she is feeling bullied and if her story doesn't say what prosecution needs it to say, then fine - she'll go on her merry way).

Well..hold on there. If this is to be a search for the truth, it shouldn't matter if your testimony benefits the defense or the prosecution.

Honestly, I don't see how she could have seen in that car like she says, pitch dark (her words) with outside lighting on, no dome light on inside the "soccer mom" vehicle (I'm sorry but dash lights don't give that much light off otherwise it would interfere with the driver's night time vision). If anything, she'd see her own car reflection in the glass and not see inside the vehicle - at least that is my own experience with night time driving and lighting.

IMO

Click to expand...

cody100 said:

<modsnip> Her post mimicked my argument here about Mr. Arlington. It makes no sense that he would make that call to LE in order for her to tell LE what she saw. If I thought she was a fabricator, I would not have called LE for her. Maybe there is another side of his story.

Anyway, I have decided to throw out her testimony and Gracie's testimony.
But, it is the jury that needs to make their own decisions.

Click to expand...