I'd have to go looking through blogs I haven't read in over a year, but if my memory serves me right, the juror made a comment about only JY would have cared enough to clean off the daughter.
Sent from your mom's smartphone
Jason Young to get new trial
- Thread starter JusticeFever
- Start date
New Posts
-
OH OH - Toledo, WhtFem 16-21, 335UFOH, burned, 5 pearl studs per ear, Jun'87- Latest: HmmMysterious
- Status
I'd have to go looking through blogs I haven't read in over a year, but if my memory serves me right, the juror made a comment about only JY would have cared enough to clean off the daughter.
Sent from your mom's smartphone
Innocent or guilty, one way to ensure that it all comes to an end is to take the Alford Plea. I think that if I were in that situation, that would be my choice, especially since the possibility of life in prison is very real. I don't think it will change anyone's opinion. Those that believe he is guilty will still believe that even if he is found not guilty.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,080
Everyone's got an opinion but there was no jury malfeasance that was proved and this after the SBI independently investigated the jury after the trial.
I go purely by evidence and I know that circumstantial evidence is oftentimes stronger than direct evidence and each piece by itself won't show the whole picture, but it has to be looked at in totality with all the other evidence.
Here we have direct evidence (eyewitness who had a direct run in with JY at the gas station at 5:30am) and yet she is not believed. Yet people who say they could not convict on circumstantial evidence want direct evidence. They get it, but then they don't believe it. You really can't use logic when dealing with noncritical thinkers. (talk about emotion).
I go purely by evidence and I know that circumstantial evidence is oftentimes stronger than direct evidence and each piece by itself won't show the whole picture, but it has to be looked at in totality with all the other evidence.
Here we have direct evidence (eyewitness who had a direct run in with JY at the gas station at 5:30am) and yet she is not believed. Yet people who say they could not convict on circumstantial evidence want direct evidence. They get it, but then they don't believe it. You really can't use logic when dealing with noncritical thinkers. (talk about emotion).
But then he'd never have a chance of seeing his daughter again.
Sent from your mom's smartphone
There were some serious issues with the identification of Young at the gas station. The witness described a short man, and she was shown only one photo for identification.
borndem
Anglophile & registered demwit
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,998
- Reaction score
- 49,695
Yes, but it was the only "human" doll (there were also play animals, etc., in the bucket) that had short hair.
The gas station attendant had her brains on the pavement and suffered from memory loss. She was only shown JY's photo. They didn't show her a photo array, they didn't put JY in a lineup. They showed her one photo of Jason Young, and asked if this was the guy.
Sent from your mom's smartphone
What would prevent him from spending time with his daughter? She must be around 10 years old now. In 8 years, as an adult, she will make her own choice. I would hope that she is having regular contact with her father's family, and that she has not been poisoned against him. The Alford Plea is not an admission of guilt, so I'm unclear how that would interfere with a relationship with his daughter.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,080
CY is a smart girl. At 2 she was already showing her intelligence. She didn't have dolls that exactly replicated what she saw so she used what she had available to her. She selected the doll that most was like her mommy. She selected another doll that had short light hair and was (IMO) the closest match to who committed the murder. Her only other choice was a male doll with dark hair, wearing a surgical outfit. Other than that the other toys in the bucket were animals, weebles and nothing else that looked as human as those 3 dolls she selected did. And no one was prompting her to play; she did this all on her own. She was reenacting what she witnessed in the way that she could at that age and with what she had available.
CY would not understand a beating, she would not understand someone being bludgeoned to death. A 'spanking' was what she knew. The killer probably told her why he was "spanking" mommy. A 2 yr old might bite or may have friends who bite and be taught "no biting!". So that's something a 2 yr old would be corrected for doing and something they could and would understand.
CY would not understand a beating, she would not understand someone being bludgeoned to death. A 'spanking' was what she knew. The killer probably told her why he was "spanking" mommy. A 2 yr old might bite or may have friends who bite and be taught "no biting!". So that's something a 2 yr old would be corrected for doing and something they could and would understand.
I'm skeptical of the daycare employee's interpretation of child play. As far as I understand, she had no formal training in early childhood behavior. Trained professionals rely on knowledge, experience, training, hours of observation, and a couple of university degrees to develop insight into what a child is thinking during play, yet we are asked to accept the interpretation of a young, untrained daycare employee that the child's play was related to a murder.
Well it'd probably prevent him from getting visitation or custody. The Alford plea counts as a guilty plea.
Sent from your mom's smartphone
I doubt that it would be in the child's best interest to be subjected to a custody dispute at this time. In many places, a child's voice/preference is respected by the courts when the child is 14 years of age. At that time, the child might want a relationship with her father. I suppose that denying visitation could be a consequence of the Alford Plea, but, in my opinion, it's never benefits a child to interfere with a relationship with either parent.
Either way, if the choice is life in prison, or release in a couple of years; possibly with disrupted relationships with friends and family, I think the Alford Plea is still the best option.
That doesn't even make sense. The want to believe the guy slaughtered his wife, then "cared" to clean off his daughter but then left her alone with the corpse for hours and hours? How could he predict she would remain clean? Is that even logical for a plot in a bad movie?
From my own experience, females are more likely to care about cleanliness than males. I would think that would hold true with male killers. Young certainly had no shortage of women who wanted him as their own. Michelle was a beauty who would draw envy and jealousy. Beautiful home, successful career, great social life. It doesn't seem like cops every really looked anywhere but Jason.
I think because he filed an immediate appeal, his parental rights are still intact and the court would award him visitation if he's out on bail. I don't know what kind of visitation he has now or what his parents may have. They may be bringing her to visit him in prison. He's the only parent she has and she has rights, too.
Tulessa
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2009
- Messages
- 23,016
- Reaction score
- 3,487
Resulted in murder....
I would hope that child/parent visitation arrangements can be made without the interference/assistance from the courts.
I was just reading the documents: http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2014/04/01/13529333/April_1_2014_Appeals_Court_Opinion.pdf
On page 9, Ms Shaad describes her belief that she and Michelle were being watched on the night of the murder. What strikes me as odd is that she claims she was so afraid that she asked Michelle to walk her to her car. What about Michelle? Didn't she think that someone should walk Michelle back to her house? It seems like an odd situation where Ms Shaad wants Michelle to look out for her while she leaves the scary situation, but doesn't have any concern about leaving Michelle alone in the scary situation.
Was Ms Shaad looked at as a suspect? She was the last person to admit being with Michelle.
At some point, isn't common sense supposed to kick in? Circumstantial and direct evidence carry the same weight. The eyewitness admitted she had a brain injury and also testified that a doctor removed her brain from a sidewalk and replanted in her skull after she was injured in a car wreck. 75% of all wrongful convictions are due to faulty eyewitness recollection. Is it really logical to believe the woman's brain was replanted? What gives her memory any credibility? Her recollection was that the motorist was about her height. Jason Young was over a foot taller.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php
30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound.
borndem
Anglophile & registered demwit
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,998
- Reaction score
- 49,695
bbm
I heard it right after Kim asked her questions, during the 911 call, about what happened. Kim said, "Did she fall?" After that, CY said, "Daddy did it." I heard her say it again and again on the full call. The 911 call was edited for, IIRC, in part, to do away with raspiness that is always on taped calls. But it was there on the original version. Others heard it as well. Some folks couldn't hear it, so there it all is. IMO.
Kim could not say what she heard CY say, that day or afterwards -- hearsay, of course.
ETA: Anyway, that statement of CY's was never in evidence, as I stated above, so it prolly shouldn't be on the list I made.
Do you mean Meredith instead of Kim?
I don't know about the custody situation other than it is one reason given for the retrial. She may be seeing her dad and talking on the phone right now and it is a non-issue.
I've wondered about not just MS but also the woman, MM who Jason was talking on the phone with constantly. She knew he was out of town. The other thing that nagged at me is whether Michelle's murder was tied to the murder of the pregnant newspaper carrier. For that to have happened, I think she had to have been watched for her routine. I think it is still unsolved. So many directions to consider yet it seems the focus was totally on Jason from the start.
- Status