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

Just the Fax said:

Personally, I don't think she made it up totally out of thin air....I just think she saw a car on another day, likely in another drive.

IMO, CB is a gossip and craves attention. After seeing the news and realizing this national story unfolded in her neighborhood, she embellished a remembrance she may have seen the week before.
I think the PT did a good job exposing her.

Click to expand...

Well the blog and twitter wars by the daughter show at least she wants to be in it. If I didn't want to be involved in heated discussions of the case, I wouldn't log on to twitter, here or anywhere else. I'd just keep to myself! Her choice of course.

gritguy said:

The 2nd degree charge isn't directly tied to the accomplice. It has to do with possible lack of forethought and planning (which to me is odd in this case). The accomplice, if believed to be there, still would support the 1st degree charge if the murder were the result of premeditation.

Click to expand...

OK....JTF posted this ...bbm

"He also said the jury will be told they can infer the defendant acted in concert with other(s), as long as they believe he was also there at the time of the murder"


I thought it had to do with the second degree charge but now I understand it's not. Thanks.

So 2nd degree would infer that this was not premeditated. Any arguments for 2nd degree? Anybody? I can't think of any.

I believe if he's guilty, this was cold blooded premeditated (with an accomplice or more).

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...

Precisely the direction of my thoughts when I read that link to the daughter's blog on yesterday's thread. Also, her taking up for her mom is no surprise to me. I'd be surprised if she didn't. However, that doesn't make her mother any more credible to me just because her daughter believes her to be and can attest to her memory.

I had serious misgivings about the credibility of her eyewitness testimony when I heard her on the stand and after her boss testified yesterday, the way he described her personality to be just confirmed the opinion of her that I had formed the day before.

IMO

~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...

Agreed, no reason at all and I never presumed that she did. It was an observation on my part though, considering the blog post.

In my mind its attention seeking behavior, and goes to bolster CB's supervisor's testimony. Granted, its the daughter posting and not CB, but I'm not sure any other witnesses families are publicly and vocally posting on behalf of their relatives. Hard to believe that a daughter would post such an impassioned and detailed defense of her mom without approval.

ETA... since CB is about all the defense has, her supervisor's testimony is hugely relevant.

~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...

<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.

nursebeeme said:

wasn't the cigar also purchased around the time (or same year range anyhoo) as CY being born?

Click to expand...

From what I gathered, the purchase was in Feb and CY was born in March. (both of 2004)

Brad Cooper also planned his wife's murder, as shown by the Google map search the day before. The judge in that case also made 2nd degree murder an option for the jury. Like that verdict, I have no doubt they will agree on 1st degree here. Some may consider the evidence shows acting in concert - the evidence the defense presented certainly suggests that.

cody100 said:

Thanks for the link. 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...

Mr. Arrington is a former law enforcement officer. He heard talk of Cindy Beaver's tales and spoke with her privately about what she'd been telling people. As a good citizen, and having that background, he pushed Mrs. Beaver to contact Wake Co. Sheriff's Dept. She resisted. He made the call. You have to believe he would never imagine someone would invent a reason to insert themselves in a murder case after all. Regardless of their office reputation, that would likely be many times greater than her previous exaggerations.

Having now been forced into the case by her own imagination and desire for attention at work, she could not let go. Like Pat Young, you might say, she invented very clear details of what she witnessed. She apparently wanted to assist in the state's side of the case initially (perhaps not imagining her neighbor was the guility party). Long story short, she got too deep and pride (and fear?) would not allow her to say perhaps she invented aspects of what she witnessed. Regarding what she witnessed, I'd even strongly suggest that rather than "what" she witnessed, it's more likely she witnessed nothing that day at all. And now her thirst for attention...being the office celebrity, if you will...threatens justice for sociopath Jason Young's brutality.

I am not bothered by the daughter defending her mother. That is what it is. Something that did bother me was a tweet by the daughter prior to her mother testifying about there being reasonable doubt in the case (that part did not bother me) and if you thought there was reasonable doubt just wait until "my mom" testifies! To me that spoke of attention seeking and star making behavior, inserting their family member as being a case defining moment even before she testified.

cody100 said:

Thanks for the link. 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...

I've thrown them out too. I do believe Gracie, but its understandable that many many people would have problems with her credibility.

Regarding the supervisor prompting her to call knowing she embellishes and gets involved - it's one of those err on the side of caution deals. Its not HIS place to determine whether she saw something relevant, but LE's, so let them sort it out. In my job, things get reported all the time - for example, to Social Services - but it's not because I believe or disbelieve what I hear. Its just simply not up to me to make that determination.

ITA, bottlecap. If I heard someone talking about witnessing something regarding a murder, I, too, would encourage them to talk to LE and let them sort it out. Maybe that was the only way he could get it out of the workplace and get things back to normal.
jmo

Regarding reactions to CB's testimony, it seems like a classic shoot the messenger response.

fredwomble said:

Mr. Arrington is a former law enforcement officer. He heard talk of Cindy Beaver's tales and spoke with her privately about what she'd been telling people. As a good citizen, and having that background, he pushed Mrs. Beaver to contact Wake Co. Sheriff's Dept. She resisted. He made the call. You have to believe he would never imagine someone would invent a reason to insert themselves in a murder case after all. Regardless of their office reputation, that would likely be many times greater than her previous exaggerations.

Having now been forced into the case by her own imagination and desire for attention at work, she could not let go. Like Pat Young, you might say, she invented very clear details of what she witnessed. She apparently wanted to assist in the state's side of the case initially (perhaps not imagining her neighbor was the guility party). Long story short, she got too deep and pride (and fear?) would not allow her to say perhaps she invented aspects of what she witnessed. Regarding what she witnessed, I'd even strongly suggest that rather than "what" she witnessed, it's more likely she witnessed nothing that day at all. And now her thirst for attention...being the office celebrity, if you will...threatens justice for sociopath Jason Young's brutality.

Click to expand...

I heard the testimony too, and I found it very odd that he felt that way about her and still suggested and/or called LE for her since he was former LE. I never heard him say that he thought this story was fabricated or imagined in order to insert herself into the case. That is the conclusion that some folks have made.

I have no idea what she saw or did not. Therefore, I am throwing her testimony and Gracie's testimony out the window and going with the remaining evidence. Others may do as they wish. Thanks for your opinions and beliefs. It is what makes this a very good website.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10798022/

something to read while waiting for the closing arguments

otto said:

Regarding reactions to CB's testimony, it seems like a classic shoot the messenger response.

Click to expand...

Gracie didn't get off easy either.

~n/t~ said:

Just so I understand, the Judge will instruct the jurors that they can convict him of second degree if they believe he had an accomplice? Holy smokes! :what:

I always felt he did or he hired someone.....this will be very interesting!

Click to expand...

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

fromageball said:

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

Click to expand...

Yes they can. Read GG's reply to my post.

ohiogirl said:

ITA, bottlecap. If I heard someone talking about witnessing something regarding a murder, I, too, would encourage them to talk to LE and let them sort it out. Maybe that was the only way he could get it out of the workplace and get things back to normal.
jmo

Click to expand...

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

Bottle Cap said:

Gracie didn't get off easy either.

Click to expand...

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)

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...

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.