Guilty of first degree murder/verdict watch #2

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Talina said:
No idea what you mean by that. The judge is who told them they could consider the acting in concert part. I also don't think anything like this is part of what is being investigated.
Click to expand...

I'd say the judge, Judge Stephens, pretty much made his feelings known in his remarks to JLY when denying his motion to set aside the verdict. Yup, Judge Stephens couldn't have made his feelings on this case and this defendant any clearer IMO. Most trials I've followed, the judge simply states 'motion denied'. But Judge Stephens took great effort to have his remarks written into the record. He had no qualms about his view on the jury's guilty of first degree murder verdict. IMO
 
Mama-cita said:
I wonder how long it'll be before someone wipes that smile off his face?!?! Definitely not the face of an innocent man being wrongly convicted.
Click to expand...

Maybe that is why he is smiling. He is among other sadist, and sexual perverts. He probably has a lot in common with them. jmo
 
Lori59 said:
Yeah, noticed he is in regular population...they don't like wife/baby killers. I don't think he will do well.
Click to expand...

People always say that, but I don't think fellow killers care. It was predicted Scott Peterson would be attacked as soon as he got to San Quentin. Turns out, not so much. Unborn babies are not recognized by killers as "another person," and killing a wife does not cause the outrage we imagine it must. It outrages *us,* but to a fellow murderer? Eh. Just another killing. This moral code that is imagined in prisons is, I think, less about morals and more about how power is achieved (gangs, affiliations, fame, infamy).
 
MyBelle said:
ETA: WRAL interview with Jury Foreperson said the fact Jason didn't talk or even say he was not guilty was a factor in the jury's decision.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/10822938/#/vid10822938
Click to expand...


I remember that part, but I could not specifically remember what she said about not talking.

So, I went back & played & re-played what the forewoman said about that, and here is what she said in that one instance, verbatim:

"The lack of the shirt, the lack of the shoes, the fact that he didn't talk and even - this is a man who is on trial for his life - and didn't even say, 'I am not guilty.' "

And she's right -- he never said that to anyone according to the evidence from his friends, his family, and yes, the LEO's, but the forewoman didn't mention the LEO's in connection with any of it.

Like everything else, context is everything -- we take from it what we will.
 
Talina said:
No idea what you mean by that. The judge is who told them they could consider the acting in concert part. I also don't think anything like this is part of what is being investigated.
Click to expand...

He also said the other parties had to be present at the crime. The juror said they concluded somebody else took care of Cassidy afterwards. That conclusion does not follow the instruction set by the Judge.

JMO
 
MyBelle said:
He also said the other parties had to be present at the crime. The juror said they concluded somebody else took care of Cassidy afterwards. That conclusion does not follow the instruction set by the Judge.

JMO
Click to expand...

Can you post links for these statements? I thought we were reading the same article:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8571108

There isn't anything in what I'm reading that says specifically who took care of CY, whether it was an accomplice or JY himself.

As to reopening the case, what it says is this, which is not "may open" anything. It says they will listen to information.

"As for a possible accomplice, prosecutors said while the case is no longer active, they are willing to listen to any information that would warrant reopening it."
 
:jail:
Wolfpack said:
Surprisingly, that's not the worst picture he's taken. He looks oddly happier than the others I've seen of him.
Click to expand...
this is a weird man, as we knew, a smug smiley moron pic like that.....it is a repugnant face that defies all justice, as he did when he avoided police enquiries forr those 1693 days!!!!
 
Berry, I'll drink to that! :toastred:

Sooooooooo glad the Fishers finally got some justice and very relieved there won't be any more victims of this cold blooded murderer. He has no rights to his child anymore, btw. You know the saying, "dead to me?" Well in the eyes of the law in terms of any custody or parental rights, Jason Young is as good as 'dead.'

MF has full legal custody and all rights. She can legally adopt CY if she wants.
 
MyBelle said:
I think there are several factors in play--including the jurors own statements to the media about using his silence against him--which will result in a mistrial.

JMO
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. It sounds like those on the jury made assumptions even though there was no evidence to support the assumptions. One person remarked that two people were probably involved, but there was no evidence of a second person in connection with Jason.

"Young, investigators said, planned an alibi: a business trip to Virginia with a stay in a hotel three hours away. But, how could he have made that drive, beat his wife to death, cleaned the blood off himself and his toddler daughter, and made it back to Virginia by 6 a.m. without leaving a trace of evidence?

"He would have had to have, and probably had, help," said Baldwin. "Probably did have help. That's what we had surmised. We were leaning strongly to that possibility."

He probably would have had help? Probably? Is that good enough? Shouldn't there be evidence that he had help ... a phone call, email, payment, something?

"Not so much that I didn't necessarily believe he had committed the murder, but I just didn't know if the evidence was heavy enough to make that conviction beyond a reasonable doubt."

Didn't know if the evidence was heavy enough to make a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt? Didn't know? How did she arrive at a guilty verdict if she didn't know if the evidence supported a guilty verdict?

"A pivotal point of discussion was evidence that little Cassidy Young had tracked her mother's blood around the house, but had no blood on her when her aunt found her at the murder scene."

What trial was she following? Where was it said that the child had no blood on her when found? That was said all over the internet before the trial, but during the trial we learned that she had blood on her feet and on her pyjamas. Why did she believe a rumor from prior to the trial rather than the evidence presented at trial?

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8571108
 
Lori59 said:
Yeah, noticed he is in regular population...they don't like wife/baby killers. I don't think he will do well.
Click to expand...

Why would men that murder their wives be less popular in a prison?
 
borndem said:
I remember that part, but I could not specifically remember what she said about not talking.

So, I went back & played & re-played what the forewoman said about that, and here is what she said in that one instance, verbatim:

"The lack of the shirt, the lack of the shoes, the fact that he didn't talk and even - this is a man who is on trial for his life - and didn't even say, 'I am not guilty.' "

And she's right -- he never said that to anyone according to the evidence from his friends, his family, and yes, the LEO's, but the forewoman didn't mention the LEO's in connection with any of it.

Like everything else, context is everything -- we take from it what we will.
Click to expand...

When he testified during the first trial, he clearly stated that he did not kill his wife ... so he did say that he was not guilty.
 
The trial is over. From what I've heard, the jury followed the instructions they were given and *they* found in their own minds there was NO reasonable doubt. Period, end of story.
 
otto said:
Why would men that murder their wives be less popular in a prison?
Click to expand...

Jason Young murdered his *pregnant* wife. In effect he also killed his unborn son. I don't know whether or not prisoners who murder their children are more or less *popular* in prison. In my own personal views, someone who murders 'in the heat of passion' possibly, but someone who plans out a murder, against someone who is the most vulnerable, sound asleep in their bed, and is also carrying a life inside them, is at the bottom of the totem pole, so to speak. MOO
 
gracielee said:
The trial is over. From what I've heard, the jury followed the instructions they were given and *they* found in their own minds there was NO reasonable doubt. Period, end of story.
Click to expand...

It is the end of the story ... except for the active investigations into jury misconduct regarding the actions of two jurors.
 
otto said:
Why would men that murder their wives be less popular in a prison?
Click to expand...

IMO and what I have heard about prison it would be more the fact he killed a baby (unborn or not she was still carrying a child). A lot of prison cliques don't like that and they are close to the bottom of the food chain. Child molesters are lower but killing a baby isn't something you would tell others about.
 
Nixie said:
IMO and what I have heard about prison it would be more the fact he killed a baby (unborn or not she was still carrying a child). A lot of prison cliques don't like that and they are close to the bottom of the food chain. Child molesters are lower but killing a baby isn't something you would tell others about.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced that criminals view the termination of a fetus as the death of a child, but that's just my opinion. I don't know anything about criminals other than what I read in the paper, but I'm of the opinion that they really don't much care about other people's rights and probably don't really hold it against each other if they decide to murder a wife.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 116 more.
Total: 3,558 (members: 117, guests: 3,441)

Online statistics

Members online
117
Guests online
3,441
Total visitors
3,558
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,108
Messages
17,963,326
Members
228,686
Latest member
Pabo1998
Back
Top