Jason Young to get new trial #2

[MyBelle]

I think that's bizarre. If police want to continue arguing that the child was taken away from the house for any period of time, then I think they had better start looking for a suspect that fits the timeline.

I haven't heard the police making any comment at all in several years. For all I know, they've reopened the investigation.

 

[sunshine05]

Fact: There were bright red bloody footprints made by CY in the bathroom. Socks were saturated with blood.

Fact: Her pajamas appeared to be totally clean and later would be shown to have the presence of blood via chemical tests.

Fact: There is not a trail of bloody small footprints in the hall between the Master BR and the hall bathroom and that puzzled investigators.

Fact: The small smudges of blood in the hall can not be transformed into CY's footprints. They are not.

Fact: The t-shirt that CY was wearing was the only article of clothing that was negative for presence of blood. MF had it and for unknown reasons she kept it on her, removed her other clothing in Target and gave them to police. They later had to ask her about the t-shirt, knowing that SS said she was wearing one. At that point MF gave them the shirt and said she had washed it. It is impossible to know if it was in fact what she wore with the other clothing. (I find it odd that she didn't give police all of her clothing and I wish they had been there to collect it instead of trusting that they would receive it all).

The factual evidence is inconsistent with her having wandered around alone for whatever amount of time and then was found clean, not a trace of blood on her. I believe the evidence suggests that someone was caring for her and that she never was alone at all.

 

[sunshine05]

I do not think the LE continued to believe CY was taken from the house. They believed this in the early days of the investigation, but not at all by the time this case came to trial.

It really doesn't matter if she was taken from the home or was cared for in the home. The evidence is consistent with someone having cared for her, cleaned her hands and feet and washed her pajamas. Maybe she was cleaned up in the kitchen for all we know and pajamas thrown in the laundry right there but we can't ignore the obvious evidence.

 

[SStarr33]

First, I enlarged the photo, nothing else. Second, if the carpet is absorbing the blood, how is there any left to make it to the tile? I can't believe we're arguing about this. It is common sense to me. How can one walk across carpeting and still leave bright prints on tile? Every print was equally dark. Impossible.

I'm with you sunshine.:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[JusticeFever]

I do not think the LE continued to believe CY was taken from the house. They believed this in the early days of the investigation, but not at all by the time this case came to trial.

One theory held the possibility of CY being drugged, and, one theory held the possibility of her being taken from the home. I don't know if we will ever know which one is true.

 

[MyBelle]

It really doesn't matter if she was taken from the home or was cared for in the home. The evidence is consistent with someone having cared for her, cleaned her hands and feet and washed her pajamas. Maybe she was cleaned up in the kitchen for all we know and pajamas thrown in the laundry right there but we can't ignore the obvious evidence.

Right. And the evidence isn't going to disappear before the next trial....if they decide to pursue another trial. The new prosecutor might decide they may have gotten it wrong and somebody other than Jason did this horrific crime.

Let's not forget the trash bags out on the kitchen counter in the evidence photos. They don't appear to have been dusted for fingerprints and they probably should have been. Ditto Michelle's purse that is laying on its side on the kitchen floor.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

One theory held the possibility of CY being drugged, and, one theory held the possibility of her being taken from the home. I don't know if we will ever know which one is true.

Can't they both be true? iirc, one search warrant theory was that she was removed from the scene which is why she stayed so clean but I take that to mean the bedroom, not the house. I don't have the search warrant handy about the medicine dropper but didn't it say the drug may have been given to CY in the "mistaken belief" it would make her drowsy? iow, she may have been given it but it wouldn't make her sleepy. When she was found by Meredith it may have been her regular nap time.


JMO

 

[oenophile]

It is a fact that numerous small bloody footprints were found at the scene. There are photos of the footprints entered into evidence. Her clothes were entered into evidence. It is a FACT that even though blood was not visible, both the fleece top and pants tested positive for blood and DNA. The jury heard the expert testimony.

Perhaps you should review the trial testimony because your argument is totally baseless.

JMO

I did review the trial testimony. It is NOT a fact that blood was not visible on the pants. In fact, during the testimony the blood guy mentioned several "stains" which were determined to be blood.

 

[oenophile]

Fact: There were bright red bloody footprints made by CY in the bathroom.

Yes, this is established as fact.

Socks were saturated with blood.

There was blood on the socks, not sure if they were "saturated", can you provide link?

Fact: Her pajamas appeared to be totally clean and later would be shown to have the presence of blood via chemical tests.

NOT a fact. As noted upthread, the blood testimony described "stains" on the pajama bottoms. In addition, the only basis for the pajamas "appearing" clean was based on recollection and casual observation, not based on a close examination of the PJ's at the time.

Fact: There is not a trail of bloody small footprints in the hall between the Master BR and the hall bathroom and that puzzled investigators.

This has NOT been established. Description in a search warrant does not establish it as fact. Again, this can be easily answered with the photograph of the carpet in the hall leading up to the bathroom.

Fact: The small smudges of blood in the hall can not be transformed into CY's footprints. They are not.

See previous comment.

Fact: The t-shirt that CY was wearing was the only article of clothing that was negative for presence of blood.

Yes, this is also established as fact.

MF had it and for unknown reasons she kept it on her, removed her other clothing in Target and gave them to police. They later had to ask her about the t-shirt, knowing that SS said she was wearing one. At that point MF gave them the shirt and said she had washed it. It is impossible to know if it was in fact what she wore with the other clothing. (I find it odd that she didn't give police all of her clothing and I wish they had been there to collect it instead of trusting that they would receive it all).

Definitely chain of custody issues raised here, and this is a mixture of fact and opinion (e.g. for unknown reasons).

The factual evidence is inconsistent with her having wandered around alone for whatever amount of time and then was found clean, not a trace of blood on her. I believe the evidence suggests that someone was caring for her and that she never was alone at all.

"not a trace of blood on her" is not a fact. 911 calls capture some of what CY was saying, which is consistent with her being there alone. The factual evidence can lead to several conclusions, but first it is important to establish what is fact and what is not. The above is mostly not established fact, and some of it is refuted by the evidence.

 

[oenophile]

It really doesn't matter if she was taken from the home or was cared for in the home. The evidence is consistent with someone having cared for her, cleaned her hands and feet and washed her pajamas. Maybe she was cleaned up in the kitchen for all we know and pajamas thrown in the laundry right there but we can't ignore the obvious evidence.

Again, the evidence is not consistent with her being cared for. The 911 call captures her describing the situation to MF. MF describes bloody footprints all over the house. CY devoured the granola bar when she was given it. I agree we cannot ignore obvious evidence, but that includes evidence that is inconsistent with our theories.

 

[MyBelle]

I did review the trial testimony. It is NOT a fact that blood was not visible on the pants. In fact, during the testimony the blood guy mentioned several "stains" which were determined to be blood.

It would be great if you would provide links to support your claims. It was testimony that the blood was not visible on CY's shirt, you know, the garment that would be closest to the child's face in proximity to her mother? Thanks.

 

[MyBelle]

Yes, this is established as fact.



There was blood on the socks, not sure if they were "saturated", can you provide link?




NOT a fact. As noted upthread, the blood testimony described "stains" on the pajama bottoms. In addition, the only basis for the pajamas "appearing" clean was based on recollection and casual observation, not based on a close examination of the PJ's at the time.




This has NOT been established. Description in a search warrant does not establish it as fact. Again, this can be easily answered with the photograph of the carpet in the hall leading up to the bathroom.



See previous comment.



Yes, this is also established as fact.



Definitely chain of custody issues raised here, and this is a mixture of fact and opinion (e.g. for unknown reasons).





"not a trace of blood on her" is not a fact. 911 calls capture some of what CY was saying, which is consistent with her being there alone. The factual evidence can lead to several conclusions, but first it is important to establish what is fact and what is not. The above is mostly not established fact, and some of it is refuted by the evidence.

Not a trace of blood on her is a fact. Nothing CY says on the 911 call is consistent with her being alone. You may not agree with it but it doesn't change it as a fact. Nobody raised the chain of custody issue. Perhaps because it doesn't exist? Just a thought.

 

[MyBelle]

Yes, this is established as fact.



There was blood on the socks, not sure if they were "saturated", can you provide link?




NOT a fact. As noted upthread, the blood testimony described "stains" on the pajama bottoms. In addition, the only basis for the pajamas "appearing" clean was based on recollection and casual observation, not based on a close examination of the PJ's at the time.




This has NOT been established. Description in a search warrant does not establish it as fact. Again, this can be easily answered with the photograph of the carpet in the hall leading up to the bathroom.



See previous comment.



Yes, this is also established as fact.



Definitely chain of custody issues raised here, and this is a mixture of fact and opinion (e.g. for unknown reasons).





"not a trace of blood on her" is not a fact. 911 calls capture some of what CY was saying, which is consistent with her being there alone. The factual evidence can lead to several conclusions, but first it is important to establish what is fact and what is not. The above is mostly not established fact, and some of it is refuted by the evidence.

Why the need to rewrite officer Scott Earp's testimony? It's all a matter of public record now. His testimony was factual evidence [modsnip]

 

[MyBelle]

Again, the evidence is not consistent with her being cared for. The 911 call captures her describing the situation to MF. MF describes bloody footprints all over the house. CY devoured the granola bar when she was given it. I agree we cannot ignore obvious evidence, but that includes evidence that is inconsistent with our theories.

[modsnip]. The 911 call was made BY Meredith Fisher, not to her. I also agree that we cannot ignore obvious evidence but the 911 call IS evidence that has been entered as evidence. Nowhere on the call does it mention a granola bar.

JMO

 

[oenophile]

It would be great if you would provide links to support your claims. It was testimony that the blood was not visible on CY's shirt, you know, the garment that would be closest to the child's face in proximity to her mother? Thanks.

The stains were described on the pants. I don't recall any stains being described on the top.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10735811/

Between minutes 46 and 48 there is discussion of the "stains" that penetrated through the pants.

 

[oenophile]

[modsnip]. The 911 call was made BY Meredith Fisher, not to her. I also agree that we cannot ignore obvious evidence but the 911 call IS evidence that has been entered as evidence. Nowhere on the call does it mention a granola bar.

JMO

Correct, sorry, the granola bar was not part of the 911 call, it was part of MF's testimony. My wording should have separated out the two. When I said that the call captures "her describing the situation" I meant it captures CY describing the situation to MF (in the background). I should have been more clear.

 

[oenophile]

Why the need to rewrite officer Scott Earp's testimony? It's all a matter of public record now. His testimony was factual evidence [modsnip].

No, an officer's testimony is not "factual", it is evidence in the form of testimony. It doesn't matter whether I or you or anyone accepts it, it is not factual in its own right. Of course, an officer's observations can be established to be factual, with the officer's testimony part of the evidence of the fact. But it is not automatically factual just because an officer says so or observes something.

I've provided plenty of links to refute some of the claims made. If you have a specific claim that you believe is supported by an officer's testimony, feel free to provide the link to the specific testimony.

 

[oenophile]

It would be great if you would provide links to support your claims. It was testimony that the blood was not visible on CY's shirt, you know, the garment that would be closest to the child's face in proximity to her mother? Thanks.

One other thing, it is important to distinguish between the tshirt and the fleece top. There was no blood detected on the tshirt, but their was blood detected on the fleece top. MF testified that she did not know that CY had a tshirt on under the fleece top at the time she found her, she only discovered it later. This would explain why the fleece top had blood but the tshirt didn't.

I didn't hear any evidence that blood was clearly visible on the fleece top.

 

[oenophile]

Not a trace of blood on her is a fact. Nothing CY says on the 911 call is consistent with her being alone. You may not agree with it but it doesn't change it as a fact. Nobody raised the chain of custody issue. Perhaps because it doesn't exist? Just a thought.

Not a trace of blood on her is NOT a fact. Repeating it over and over again doesn't change that. MF describes dried blood on CY's toenails in her testimony.

"Nothing CY says on the 911 call is consistent with her being alone" Really? She talks about wanting a washcloth, and mommy has boo boo's. How is this not consistent with her being alone?

 

[sunshine05]

The stains were described on the pants. I don't recall any stains being described on the top.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10735811/

Between minutes 46 and 48 there is discussion of the "stains" that penetrated through the pants.

If they hadn't been washed, the stains should have been bright red and very noticeable. It seems they were very faint indicating that the pants were likely washed.