gritguy
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,068
- Reaction score
- 82
Thanks for correcting me on that. It was a class thing to them to do for sure.
State vs. Jason Lynn Young 03-01-12 (P.M. session: PT closing arguments)
- Thread starter ynotdivein
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for correcting me on that. It was a class thing to them to do for sure.
Oh my goodness. A Wolfpack and a Tarheel agreeing on something!!! Maybe there is a chance for world peace.
Wait, I thought you both already agreed that Duke sucks!!!
3doglady
Certified Coffeeaholic
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,724
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm gonna say this one more time. The wifi here sucks. I cant reply to anyone. To answer Wolfpack, the judge lives in Sparta,which should tell her who it was. He said he had followed this case but didn't give me an opinion. He discussed the last DP case he presided over and how difficult it was.
Me too...and it's one of the few TV Shows my hubby loves to watch with me! That's a bonus!
It is not the wifi as myself and others are having quite an issue with replying.
KathrynL
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,475
- Reaction score
- 3,032
I just finished watching pt 2 of the PT closing (that I missed because I had to go to work).
Very well done, compelling-and a good job at the end illustrating what points to JY. I'll still be a wreck awaiting the verdict, but both prosecutors closed very well.
Very well done, compelling-and a good job at the end illustrating what points to JY. I'll still be a wreck awaiting the verdict, but both prosecutors closed very well.
Is it Howard? Anyway if I recall, he said he didn't even want to
go there or something to that affect.
Probably wanted to make it less important because the DT spent
some time on the gas testimony.
"The absence of leaving evidence is not evidence of absence," Cummings said.
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/03/01/1896657/closing-arguments-begin-in-jason.html#storylink=cpy
Great words from HC especially since there are missing shoes, shirt, and jeans. JMO
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/03/01/1896657/closing-arguments-begin-in-jason.html#storylink=cpy
Great words from HC especially since there are missing shoes, shirt, and jeans. JMO
Fromageball, you basically summed up my stance on the case in your last paragraph! If I was a member of that jury I would probably not be able to vote GUILTY.
I am puzzled by who else would've done it, though!
Why didn't he want to go there? That was a hanging pont from the last trial. I thought for sure it would be properly addressed this time.
I heard that ... it struck me as a cliche from a CSI program.
Seriously ... the absence of evidence, meaning there is no evidence that someone was in a particular room, does not mean that someone was abset. That a is true. The fact that you can't prove I was in the room doesn't mean I wasn't there. However, if there's nothing to connect that person to the room at the critical time, then it should not be assumed or concluded that the person was there and responsible for something that happened in the room. It's not a statement that should be taken to heart when it comes to determining guilt, in my opinion.
I listened to the early part of the afternoon closing arguments, but there were a lot of interruptions after that so maybe I got the wrong impression. I thought the prosecution did an excellent job of painting a picture of what could have happened if you look at the evidence as a series of coincidences that all facilitated Jason committing murder.
As for who else it could be? One of the first places police looked was at the trailer park on the other side of the trees behind the Young's house. That coincided with the testimony from the friend that was visiting Michelle the night she was murdered ... that she was spooked by something possibly in the back yard.
I must say, her friend testifying to that, made me stop to think!
She was completely spooked and Michelle walked her out to her car. The trailer park was looked at, as was a neighbour - the Dysleski connection of teenage boy gone mad. Neither panned out so the focus returned to the husband. That is, no suspects were identified.
The daycare testimony is interesting because if the child was able to identify the mother figure, and the eldely mother figure represented the father figure, then why didn't she also name him. She was close to her father, there's no doubt about it. Why did she only identify the mother?
Yep, that was my reaction to that scenario, too.
I read explanations on forums as to why CY may not have called it the daddy doll, but, it doesn't add up that she would so readily call the brown pony-tailed doll, the mommy doll and yet not refer to the other (female) doll as daddy - if she saw him doing it.
The ME testified that a blunt object was used and possibly the busted lip with either a object or fist!!
IDK. From what I saw, and others may have saw it differently,
he just didn't want to go there.
The DT spent enough time on gas, calculations, mileage etc
I didn't see the first trial so I have nothing to compare it to.
- Status