Jason will be re-tried October 10

MyBelle said:

I agree with you about the jury-bashing on this case. It was a very weak case to begin with and the jury could not ignore those mileage calculations no matter how big a jerk he was to his wife. I think it would have been easy to convict him if he didn't have the out-of-town alibi.

Click to expand...

IMO, the case was very strong....problem is the state presented a very weak case. Hopefully, they learned from their many mistakes, received some good tips from other lawyers and will slam dunk trial 2.

BTW, those mileage calculations could be easily explained.
The state just dropped the ball.

otto said:

The more I look through the thread, the more I see that the jury is being attacked for their verdict. In the Brad Cooper case, the jury was Spot On and in this case, the jury pool was the same. How is it possible that the peer group could be Spot On one day, and be completely whacked the next? I don't believe it. The Cooper case was strong, this case was weak. It has nothing to do with the jury, and the case has nothing in common with the Anthony case - simply because the lawyers in NC observed the rules of law. It's hard to accept that the case was weak, but it was. There were holes all over the place and when the defense lawyers closed with the mileage calculations, they were right.

Click to expand...

Are you the same otto from the Cooper case :waitasec:

LOL JTF.

The case is and can be a strong one, IMHO. But in the hands of stuttering, bumbling "ummm...umm...um" ADA, and her reticence for righteous confrontation, the <modsnip> gets the upper hand.

And don't even get me started on them leaving out so many items of evidence during their direct. There's more there than they presented!


(note to mods: 'slayer' is the legal term given to Jason Young after he lost the wrongful death suit in 2009)

MyBelle said:

I have family (sis+) in Brevard and they don't agree with you that Jason is guilty. Jason is there according to them and has been seen all around town and many folks like him and his family. Plus, the testimony was that the hotel camera was plugged back in and there are no missing clothes and that fits with the majority of not guilty verdict.

Please don't trash the jury and call them idiots just because they don't see it the same way you do. These trials are complicated. All the jury bashing is getting carried away imo.

Click to expand...

How does the testimony that the hotel camera was plugged back in fit with a not guilty verdict? I think it implies guilt because it was unplugged in the first place. The unplugging of a hotel security camera doesn't happen to be a common occurrence according to the hotel staff. Also, after it was plugged back in, it was then tilted up by someone who REALLY must not have wanted to be seen on a camera. Wonder who was staying at the HI that night who didn't want to be seen?? Did another guest's spouse get murdered that night??

As far as the clothes are concerned, the shirt he was seen wearing in the hotel video surveillance around midnight was NOT in his luggage or his vehicle when he returned to Raleigh. Where did it go??

Maybe I shouldn't have called the 8 jurors idiots. It wasn't nice, and the prosecution certainly did not put on a stellar performance during the trial. Sorry if I offended anyone.

I do believe that JY is guilty, and I haven't talked with anyone here who feels differently. If he's been seen all around town, he's done a really good job of keeping it quiet. But then again, he's really good at keeping quiet...........

Madeleine74 said:

LOL JTF.

The case is and can be a strong one, IMHO. But in the hands of stuttering, bumbling "ummm...umm...um" ADA, and her reticence for righteous confrontation, the <modsnip> gets the upper hand.

And don't even get me started on them leaving out so many items of evidence during their direct. There's more there than they presented!


(note to mods: 'slayer' is the legal term given to Jason Young after he lost the wrongful death suit in 2009)

Click to expand...

Yessirino, Mad74! Where were the "What about ....." 's in the Young :chicken:x-exam? The missing clothes/shoes he wore, his bruised and blistered feet, her purse left on the floor in the kitchen, the dog vs. the two "robbers," his not returning the calls from MIL the day after with a precious child & a pregnant wife & her not answering his calls that am, no forced entry w/Michelle there by herself with a child at night not locking everything down, taking the time to overkill her but only taking a few items, and so on.......:waitasec:.......:anguish:... ...:banghead:

Talk about ahh-er-umming... I'll wager that JLY :loser:would've outdone even BH in his er-umms. Could he be that glib-ad-lib? .:liar:.......(Talk about he!! freezing over, but possible nevertheless, IMO).

:jester:rincess:...Fairyland scenario: Boz on the firing line with Mr. Young. :tears:

tarheel8600 said:

How does the testimony that the hotel camera was plugged back in fit with a not guilty verdict? I think it implies guilt because it was unplugged in the first place. The unplugging of a hotel security camera doesn't happen to be a common occurrence according to the hotel staff. Also, after it was plugged back in, it was then tilted up by someone who REALLY must not have wanted to be seen on a camera. Wonder who was staying at the HI that night who didn't want to be seen?? Did another guest's spouse get murdered that night??

As far as the clothes are concerned, the shirt he was seen wearing in the hotel video surveillance around midnight was NOT in his luggage or his vehicle when he returned to Raleigh. Where did it go??

Maybe I shouldn't have called the 8 jurors idiots. It wasn't nice, and the prosecution certainly did not put on a stellar performance during the trial. Sorry if I offended anyone.

I do believe that JY is guilty, and I haven't talked with anyone here who feels differently. If he's been seen all around town, he's done a really good job of keeping it quiet. But then again, he's really good at keeping quiet...........

Click to expand...

an unplugged camera in a hotel hours away isn't proof of murder. It was plugged back in before Young could have returned from Raleigh. Could have been unplugged for any number of reasons such as staff wanting a smoke break or somebody sneaking in unregistered guests. The manager testified it happened before.

The prosecution can't prove Young returned to Raleigh. The shirt he wore isn't important if they can't prove he returned and they didn't.

Just the Fax said:

Well then, how will jury hear about going out to 'smoke a cigar' and read the USA Today?
The explanation about the HP shoes going to goodwill?
The reason he parked on the side of the building, instead of in front?
Why the net searches for "head trauma knockout"?

Just like round 1, he has to testify, imo.

Click to expand...

His lawyer is too smart to let him testify again. The burden is still on the state to prove he returned to Raleigh. They didn't accomplish that the first time around and I think they'll fail in round two.

The camera wasn't just unplugged and then plugged back in again. BTW, testimony was that the camera had not been tampered with in many years, so the fact that it happened on this very night, the night of MY's murder, has got to make you scratch your head. By itself it isn't proof of a murder....it's a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. You have to wonder who, exactly, for the first time in many years would want/need to not be seen leaving thru that very door around midnight? And then who, exactly, would not want to be seen again coming thru that door somewhere around 6:30am?

Also, about 20 to 30 min after the camera had been plugged in and reset by maintenance, *someone* then pushed the camera up towards the ceiling. It wasn't the maint. guy. The camera was reset around 5:50am and by 6:30am that camera was again moved so whoever was coming in would not be seen.

Coincidence or something else altogether?

Madeleine74 said:

The camera wasn't just unplugged and then plugged back in again. BTW, testimony was that the camera had not been tampered with in many years, so the fact that it happened on this very night, the night of MY's murder, has got to make you scratch your head. By itself it isn't proof of a murder....it's a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. You have to wonder who, exactly, for the first time in many years would want/need to not be seen leaving thru that very door around midnight? And then who, exactly, would not want to be seen again coming thru that door somewhere around 6:30am?

Also, about 20 to 30 min after the camera had been plugged in and reset by maintenance, *someone* then pushed the camera up towards the ceiling. It wasn't the maint. guy. The camera was reset around 5:50am and by 6:30am that camera was again moved so whoever was coming in would not be seen.

Coincidence or something else altogether?

Click to expand...

Dear Wake County:

I understand that the ADAs are still trying to try the Young case and are having a hard time understanding why they failed the first time around. It seems to me that the prosecutors need a first-class first-chair.

I know of a cracker-jack individual who has been involved in many Wake County first-degree murder trials for the last several years. In fact, she was quite astute in the recent Cooper conviction. She had followed the case from the start and showed amazing instinct and legal and technical expertise. I sincerely and desperately recommend this feisty feline-like formidable female fire-brand to lead the prosecution's case. Again, this is a case she has followed from its first day.

Most importantly, her speech is flawless -- she doesn't know the cloying, disturbing, lost-sounding, molto lento, wandering and drive-a-jury-crazy syllables, "umm," "er," or "ahh" which put the first Young trial in the shi-, um, er, ahh, (now isn't that absolutely irritating?) trash-can.

Her name is Madeline74 and she may agree to do it pro bono if the wine glass on the ADA table is always full of her favorite flavor. A real deal, this one.

Please respond to her at Websleths. You know how to find us.

Sincerely,
borndem

Madeleine74 said:

... Also, about 20 to 30 min after the camera had been plugged in and reset by maintenance, *someone* then pushed the camera up towards the ceiling. It wasn't the maint. guy. The camera was reset around 5:50am and by 6:30am that camera was again moved so whoever was coming in would not be seen.

Coincidence or something else altogether?

Click to expand...

Hi, I'm a relative newbie to this case (followed it, but not as closely as I would have liked). I'm really confused about the camera/exit door part of things. I remember watching the testimony of the night manager when he said he pulled the rock out of the door. Wasn't that when he first discovered that the camera had been unplugged? What am I missing in the sequence of events:

#1) Can completely believe that JY unplugged the camera upon exit and put the rock in the door.
#2) Night manager notices the camera is not working.
#3) Night manager investigates .... finds rock in door ... removes rock.
#4) Night manager goes with maintenance man to plug the camera back in.
#5) JY returns and turns the camera away so he can get back upstairs without being seen ??

I must have something wrong in the sequence -- otherwise, how did JY get back in (once the rock was removed) and turn the camera without being seen on camera. Wouldn't the door have been locked? Even if unlocked, didn't the camera face the door and therefore would have caught him coming back in once it was plugged back in?

Thanks in advance if someone can straighten me out on this!

SPEWWWW @ Borndem.

AS IF!

Besides, JTF is the resident expert on the Young case, so he should have a seat at the DA's table.

jerseygirl,

Apparently that backdoor was either unlocked by the time he came back or the key card mechanism didn't work...the perp got lucky, as he did in so many aspects of this case, and he was able to open the door and walk in. By walking in from outside, he was in back of the camera and he jumped up and moved the camera so it then pointed up to the ceiling. That allowed him to enter the stairwell without being detected and walk up to his room on the 4th floor.

Madeleine74 said:

jerseygirl,

Apparently that backdoor was either unlocked by the time he came back or the key card mechanism didn't work...the perp got lucky, as he did in so many aspects of this case, and he was able to open the door and walk in. By walking in from outside, he was in back of the camera and he jumped up and moved the camera so it then pointed up to the ceiling. That allowed him to enter the stairwell without being detected and walk up to his room on the 4th floor.

Click to expand...

Thanks Madeleine. I'm still confused. I thought that particular door didn't have a key card opening and remained locked (from the outside) at all times. Thought I heard that there were two doors right next to each other -- one, the stairs/fire exit (with no keycard) and one that required a keycard after hours and put one squarely in the eye of a camera (same camera where he's seen leaving to go to the car).

I also thought the camera in the stairs faced the door -- are you saying it faced upward (toward the stairs)? Was he seen coming down those stairs at any point? I'm trying to understand when/how he had the opportunity to unplug it. In my mind, I thought he went down the stairs -- the camera pointed toward the door --- and he unplugged the camera to ensure he wasn't seen exiting the building.

Believe me -- I don't believe all the "coincidences" that happened that night. I just need to fully understand the door/camera side of things to remove all of my reasonable doubt!!

There was another door, a glass door next to the steel door. That door is the one that was either unlocked or the key card reader didn't work (I forget which). So he apparently came in through that regular glass door, which by 6:30am was unlocked. The camera is at that door (not the steel door), and normally pointed down the hall. Coming in, he would have been behind the camera.

Madeleine74 said:

SPEWWWW @ Borndem.

AS IF!

Besides, JTF is the resident expert on the Young case, so he should have a seat at the DA's table.

Click to expand...

:floorlaugh:

Dayam -- I can never git it ri-i-i-ight the first time...

Yes, you're the one who's correct -- I know the Young case is his passion as Cooper was yours, as mine is Taft (when it happens...or not...).

Again, I defer to your wisdom on this one as well. But you WOULD be GOOD, my WS friend.

Oohh, couldn't you just imagine JTF sitting at that table, looking into JLY's :loser:little beady eyes and firing a few at him? Oh, better than chocolate!!

Madeleine74 said:

The camera wasn't just unplugged and then plugged back in again. BTW, testimony was that the camera had not been tampered with in many years, so the fact that it happened on this very night, the night of MY's murder, has got to make you scratch your head. By itself it isn't proof of a murder....it's a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. You have to wonder who, exactly, for the first time in many years would want/need to not be seen leaving thru that very door around midnight? And then who, exactly, would not want to be seen again coming thru that door somewhere around 6:30am?

Also, about 20 to 30 min after the camera had been plugged in and reset by maintenance, *someone* then pushed the camera up towards the ceiling. It wasn't the maint. guy. The camera was reset around 5:50am and by 6:30am that camera was again moved so whoever was coming in would not be seen.

Coincidence or something else altogether?

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter because the prints lifted from the camera did not belong to Jason Young. The camera really became unimportant the moment the night clerk testified he removed the rock from the door at a time that was before Young could have returned from Raleigh.

Opportunity wasn't proved. His return would have required him to enter through a regular exit door and all were covered by working security cameras. The only way Young could have killed his wife is if he had someone else do it while he was at the hotel.

How do you know the perp wasn't wearing gloves when the camera was unplugged or moved?

His prints not being on the camera does not prove he didn't move the camera, one can only say that there was no physical evidence found that proved he touched that camera. But there is some DNA linking him to the rock that was in the door. Not a definitive match, no, but 3 of his DNA markers were found on that rock.

It comes down to how much coincidence can there be before one begins to think "hey, that's a lot of coincidences in one night/morning, the very night that guy's pregnant wife is brutally murdered."

MyBelle said:

Doesn't matter because the prints lifted from the camera did not belong to Jason Young. The camera really became unimportant the moment the night clerk testified he removed the rock from the door at a time that was before Young could have returned from Raleigh.

Opportunity wasn't proved. His return would have required him to enter through a regular exit door and all were covered by working security cameras. The only way Young could have killed his wife is if he had someone else do it while he was at the hotel.

Click to expand...

Ohhh, ok, MyBelle. Now that you've said that I think its true. Not. The door he used was unlocked, when he came back in, and tilted the camera up in that stairwell. Youre absolutely right that the prints lifted were not conclusive, but I am afraid you are sadly mistaken when you are evaluating each piece of evidence individually. If anything else he said (or was presented) actually suggested he was in the hotel all night, there might be some substance in your argument. Unfortunately, he was recognized by a clerk between home and the hotel in the middle of the night. Also, there is absolutely no video footage of him leaving the hotel in the morning after the event. He said he ate breakfast there.... I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where he actually was ANYWHERE he said he was. Forgive me for looking at the night as a whole, I'd hate to offend anyone for doing exactly what the judge said should be done when analyzing the evidence.

jerseygirl48 said:

Thanks Madeleine. I'm still confused. I thought that particular door didn't have a key card opening and remained locked (from the outside) at all times. Thought I heard that there were two doors right next to each other -- one, the stairs/fire exit (with no keycard) and one that required a keycard after hours and put one squarely in the eye of a camera (same camera where he's seen leaving to go to the car).

I also thought the camera in the stairs faced the door -- are you saying it faced upward (toward the stairs)? Was he seen coming down those stairs at any point? I'm trying to understand when/how he had the opportunity to unplug it. In my mind, I thought he went down the stairs -- the camera pointed toward the door --- and he unplugged the camera to ensure he wasn't seen exiting the building.

Believe me -- I don't believe all the "coincidences" that happened that night. I just need to fully understand the door/camera side of things to remove all of my reasonable doubt!!

Click to expand...

JLY had 2 doors at the end of the stairwell. Door 1 was a glass, often used, regular entrance hotel door. It would have needed a keycard, but maintenance, the hotel sign, and office staff testified that this door automatically unlocked at 6am, and thus would not have required a keycard to enter. The 2nd door was the all steel door to the right of the glass door. This entered directly into the stairwell. My understanding is that the camera was ABOVE the glass door, facing the hallway. I mistook the angle when I first heard the evidence, that the camera was pointed AT the door. This is not the case, from what I have deduced.

The reason why he was even on the camera having to explain his trip to the desk was a LAST MINUTE ERROR on his part. He got turned around and exited from the wrong stairwell (there were 2, one on each side of the hotel), making it absolutely necessary to come up with an alibi and ask for the newspaper. This is because the unplugged camera was on the opposite side so he had now been filmed in a place he thought he already took care of. Had he come down the correct stairwell he would have exited through the steel door and gotten into his car, no hiccups.

When he came down the wrong stairwell, he was forced to make contact with the front desk, and proceed on to the correct stairwell. When he got into the correctly formatted stairwell, he put the rock in the door and moved on with his night. When he got back from the trip home he noticed the camera had gotten plugged back on (Maintenance man) and he tilted it up. Presumably so he would not be on film coming back in, and also he could tell that someone noticed he had unplugged the camera... so he didnt want to unplug it again and create a ruckus.

I hope this helps. Also, here is the original thread in which we all discussed the camera/view/leaving hotel incident in great detail.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139531&highlight=plugged+unplugged+camera&page=12

Thanks no coincidences. Much clearer in my head now. I was missing the fact that there would have been a way into the staircase from the first floor, i.e., he entered through the side glass doors (likely unlocked at that time) and then slipped into the staircase (missing the first floor hallway camera), pushed the camera up, etc.

Were there cameras in the fourth floor hallways that should have showed him coming or going?

I wonder if any of the jurors grappled with the same questions. Perhaps the Prosecution needs to outline how he could have missed the cameras, along with mileage/gas explanation, in their closing arguments in October.