**Verdict watch weekend discussion thread** 3/3-4/2012

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
oceanblueeyes said:
I have been very surprised by Mike Brooks' opinions about this case. He is usually pro-prosecution and LE no matter what the case happens to be.

While I dont particularly care for MB sometimes he does have an extensive record in law enforcement.

He also said he had been to many crimes scenes where the victim or victims were overkilled and the perp turned out to be a stranger.

IMO
Click to expand...
Retrospective analysis flies in the face of that statement as over 60% of wife-murders researched exhibit overkill or extreme violence.

However, in my opinion it should never be considered alone as proof of relationship between a perpetrator and their victim or lack thereof.
 
Lucky89 said:
I pray that these 12 people on the jury find him guilty but I will not be shocked if he is not found guilty. You know sometimes people like JY have all the luck in the world but one day that luck will come to an end. I guess all we can do is sit back and watch. Sometimes that is hard when you think about who he might hurt next. IMO
Click to expand...
Luck is not a gift in a court I believe, as circumstantial evidence features importantly, because absence of proof is NOT proof of absence
 
CGW said:
I gladly welcome you back to the other side of the fence if you find any of my points compelling.

I (of course) have a differing opinion on those points above (mine are in red). Maybe I can convince you to change your mind, maybe not....but I can try :rocker: I imagine this is pretty much what the jurors did on Friday and will be doing on Monday. I'm a licensed private investigator so I do try to stay objective. It's an occupational hazard if I don't. I enjoy my work and like to think I have a good vision for piecing things together, which is why once I've seen all the pieces and feel I have the answers it's hard to change my mind. I've said it before on these boards that the worse thing in the world would be to send an innocent man to jail. That's why I don't take it lightly when I say with certainty beyond a reasonable doubt that Jason Lynn Young killed his wife!
Click to expand...

Then who did?
 
fredwomble said:
Someone using Michelle Young's credit card made a purchase from a cigar store in Tampa, during a family trip to visit - ironically - Michelle and Mr. Money. This was in 2004, within a month of Cassidy Young's birth. Strictly going by the evidence, Michelle Young made some purchase at the time of their daughter's birth, and no other records exist that show Jason Young purchased any tobacco products. Michelle, in fact, was a light social smoker at some point. No one has testified to ever seeing Jason Young smoke. Testimony has been provided by one of his closest friends that Jason never smoked and was adamantly opposed to the habit (***we may have found a single redeeming quality in Jason Young, someone alert the press!).

<modsnip>
Click to expand...

Yes, the purchase of a cigar is a moot point. My husband's purchases would show he likes red wine, yet has never had an alcoholic drink in his life (he stops at the market for me sometimes). I have been known to sneak a cigarette sometimes and my DH has no idea (I hide it because he hates it). However, a couple of my closest girlfriends know and would be able to testify to that but it's not public knowledge. The fact JY cannot provide ONE person to EVER say they saw him smoke raises my eyebrows.
 
Lori59 said:
OT Watching 48 hours..couple beat to death, no forced entry, no money stolen even though it was sticking out of victims pant pocket, clear bloody shoe prints on floor...cops believe prints were staged, and victims hit so many times...20X's and right away cops feel the victims knew the person. Can't eliminate son. Sounds familiar.
Click to expand...

And how clever he did the shoe trick - made foot prints with a 12 when he wore a 10!
 
BrownRice said:
And how clever he did the shoe trick - made foot prints with a 12 when he wore a 10!
Click to expand...

Yes and even some foreign DNA was present. However, it was the murder weapon linking back to him (He even purchased the bat that day) that tipped the scale. MOO JY would have probably been convicted the first time had there been a weapon found. MOO But this case shows that people can stage the murder scene----that is no big surprise to me. However, finding such evidence does not conclusively prove that someone staged it.
 
BrownRice said:
And how clever he did the shoe trick - made foot prints with a 12 when he wore a 10!
Click to expand...

I didn't watch the 48 hours episode. Can you post how he did it? Also, I noticed (from the posts here) that the killer in the 48 hours episode was a size 10 and the prints he made were with a size 12? Is that correct?

I think it would be easy for someone to go from a smaller size to a bigger one but to go from a size 12 to a 10? How would the shoes fit?
 
~n/t~ said:
I didn't watch the 48 hours episode. Can you post how he did it? Also, I noticed (from the posts here) that the killer in the 48 hours episode was a size 10 and the prints he made were with a size 12? Is that correct?

I think it would be easy for someone to go from a smaller size to a bigger one but to go from a size 12 to a 10? How would the shoes fit?
Click to expand...

He bludgeoned his parents with a Nike bat he purchased the day of the murder (he also purchased the size 12 shoes that left the footprint) and a pair of gloves. There was a blood trail of footprints that led to the linen closet where a sword was found to be missing (apparently the father had 2 of them and only 1 was there), so he could have used that as well.

I don't think 2 sizes of shoes are that big of a difference (in either case, but I did get a chuckle out of both guys doing it with the same sizes) especially since different manufacturers vary in sizes. For example, I usually wear a women's 7.5, but have some shoes that are a 9 - it just depends. If I wore a 5.5 for a couple of hours, it would probably be uncomfortable, but I can't imagine it would be undoable.
 
Berry said:
Luck is not a gift in a court I believe, as circumstantial evidence features importantly, because absence of proof is NOT proof of absence
Click to expand...

So true... and the dt stressed to the jury, over and over, the lack of anything linking jy forensically to the scene. My concern is the the pt didn't stress to the jury, over and over, that we don't always leave dna... An expert could've counteracted the dt's insinuations that his dna had to be there if he did it. It seems like a simple enough concept, that we don't always leave dna behind, but sometimes we assume that what is obvious to us, is obvious to everyone! What the jurors heard, repeatedly, is how do explain the lack of dna? And I'm a little worried it wasn't explained to them in the most logical way... that we just don't always leave our dna behind!!! I'm hoping the jury doesn't get hung up on this!
JMO
 
~n/t~ said:
I didn't watch the 48 hours episode. Can you post how he did it? Also, I noticed (from the posts here) that the killer in the 48 hours episode was a size 10 and the prints he made were with a size 12? Is that correct?

I think it would be easy for someone to go from a smaller size to a bigger one but to go from a size 12 to a 10? How would the shoes fit?
Click to expand...

You would definitely get a lot of blisters!!! :)

JMO

My theory on why jy chose a 2 size difference is because one size off could still point to jy, since some shoes can run bigger or smaller... but, 2 sizes off would point to someone else.
 
BrownRice said:
He bludgeoned his parents with a Nike bat he purchased the day of the murder (he also purchased the size 12 shoes that left the footprint) and a pair of gloves. There was a blood trail of footprints that led to the linen closet where a sword was found to be missing (apparently the father had 2 of them and only 1 was there), so he could have used that as well.

I don't think 2 sizes of shoes are that big of a difference (in either case, but I did get a chuckle out of both guys doing it with the same sizes) especially since different manufacturers vary in sizes. For example, I usually wear a women's 7.5, but have some shoes that are a 9 - it just depends. If I wore a 5.5 for a couple of hours, it would probably be uncomfortable, but I can't imagine it would be undoable.
Click to expand...

I understand someone wearing a size 12 if they were a size 10 but not a size 10 if they were a size 12. No way. Have you tried getting into shoes 2 sizes smaller than your normal size?

That is one piece of evidence in this case that leads me to believe there were 2 people.
 
~n/t~ said:
I didn't watch the 48 hours episode. Can you post how he did it? Also, I noticed (from the posts here) that the killer in the 48 hours episode was a size 10 and the prints he made were with a size 12? Is that correct?

I think it would be easy for someone to go from a smaller size to a bigger one but to go from a size 12 to a 10? How would the shoes fit?
Click to expand...

Now I wish I had watched this show.

But that is strange isnt it because that is exactly what Kling said may have happened in this case. That the perp actually wore a 10 size shoe but changed into a 12 size shoe possibly found at the scene in the closet.

Odd...
 
heidisams said:
So true... and the dt stressed to the jury, over and over, the lack of anything linking jy forensically to the scene. My concern is the the pt didn't stress to the jury, over and over, that we don't always leave dna... An expert could've counteracted the dt's insinuations that his dna had to be there if he did it. It seems like a simple enough concept, that we don't always leave dna behind, but sometimes we assume that what is obvious to us, is obvious to everyone! What the jurors heard, repeatedly, is how do explain the lack of dna? And I'm a little worried it wasn't explained to them in the most logical way... that we just don't always leave our dna behind!!! I'm hoping the jury doesn't get hung up on this!
JMO
Click to expand...

I definitely could not get into a shoe 2 sizes smaller. No way. If it was open heel, maybe. I am an 11 but can't get into a 9. Now I could get into a 13. LOL So, that was one of the differences that I see. I do think that two people can see the same evidence and interpret it differently, neither being more right or more wrong than the other. It is the job of the PT and DT to argue their points effectively, and think both sides did that in JY second trial. While I thought the PT might have been more eloquent, the DT was equally effective but with a different method of delivery.
 
oceanblueeyes said:
Now I wish I had watched this show.

But that is strange isnt it because that is exactly what Kling said may have happened in this case. That the perp actually wore a 10 size shoe but changed into a 12 size shoe possibly found at the scene in the closet.

Odd...
Click to expand...

Yah me too. Wonder if it's online. I'll have to check it later. I don't even know what case it is.

If that's the case then it's not JY, imo If there was only one perp and the perp wore a size 10, we have a problem.
 
oceanblueeyes said:
Now I wish I had watched this show.

But that is strange isnt it because that is exactly what Kling said may have happened in this case. That the perp actually wore a 10 size shoe but changed into a 12 size shoe possibly found at the scene in the closet.

Odd...
Click to expand...

Yes, you could sell this scenario better to me than a person with 12 changed into 10's to do the murder of someone.
 
cody100 said:
I definitely could not get into a shoe 2 sizes smaller. No way. If it was open heel, maybe. I am an 11 but can't get into a 9. Now I could get into a 13. LOL So, that was one of the differences that I see. I do think that two people can see the same evidence and interpret it differently, neither being more right or more wrong than the other. It is the job of the PT and DT to argue their points effectively, and think both sides did that in JY second trial. While I thought the PT might have been more eloquent, the DT was equally effective but with a different method of delivery.
Click to expand...

But if they are athletic shoes that are very flexible and can stretch, I bet you could. If they were dress shoes or a harder type of leather, maybe it would be more difficult. Why don't you go to the shoe store today and do an analysis for us and report back your findings? :)
 
oceanblueeyes said:
Now I wish I had watched this show.

But that is strange isnt it because that is exactly what Kling said may have happened in this case. That the perp actually wore a 10 size shoe but changed into a 12 size shoe possibly found at the scene in the closet.

Odd...
Click to expand...

The reason that the perpetrator in that 48 hours episode wore a size other than his own was to throw off the police, obviously. Being a family member of the victims, he knew that he would be looked at closely. He had to use a size different from his own if he hoped to be eliminated as a suspect. This was also JY's reasoning - he's the victim's husband and knew he would be looked at. He's thinking he shuld wear a size 10 when his size is 12 and hope that nobody believes you left the print. The leaving of the size 12 HP print was not planned, obviously.

Keep in mind that a random stranger killer would NOT bother to try to throw off police with a wrong size shoe and then, why would a stranger random killer bother to change out of his bloody shoes before leaving a crime scene??? Nobody would know who he was!! The only people that would try to throw off police by wearing the wrong size shoe is somebody that the police would look at from the get go - somebody that knew the victim. This is common sense.
 
Stella5 said:
They should have to impeach her testimony, but IMO on cross she was impeaching herself a lot anyway. She's a mother trying to save her son, I believe the jury will see it that way and not take her testimony as the entire truth.
Click to expand...

I think you are right. It has been my experience as a juror that family witness testimony is not what makes the case for either side. Jurors are aware of biases from both sides of the families involved. One side is wanting the perp put in prison and the other side is trying to hard to dismiss anything that seems suspicious. Jurors understand that.

Imo, the testimony that will carry the most weight are those that testified to the actual evidence entered into the trial such as eye witnesses from either side, forensic experts, ME, etc....

imo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 239 more.
Total: 3,566 (members: 240, guests: 3,326)

Online statistics

Members online
240
Guests online
3,326
Total visitors
3,566
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,253
Messages
17,966,128
Members
228,733
Latest member
jbks
Back
Top