State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-24-2012

[citygirl]

I generally agree, but as another poster pointed out, circumstances. Maybe a marathon runner. Maybe the shoes become destroyed or ruined by something. Maybe they fit wrong. Maybe they are a link to a murder scene. Those are reasons I could think of. :waitasec:

He didn't run marathons in slip on HPs.
They could have been destroyed or ruined by blood stains.
He tried the shoes and bought them a year earlier so the poor fit is out.
He testified that they were really comfortable.
Most probable that they disappeared because they were a link to a murder scene.
He bought a pair of Adidas at the same time.
Those shoes were still with him 3 years later when a SW was executed for his mother's house in Brevard. Those and a pair of Reeboks.

 

[JSR]

I think Casey Anthony killed her daughter, and I think her behavior was completely bizarre, but the trial wasn't about what I or anyone else including the jury thinks happened to little Caylee.

The jury looked at the evidence in its totality and didn't see proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that means the justice system did work in this case because they were able to look past their emotions and make a decision based on the evidence.

I have similar feelings about this case except that I don't have a solid opinion as to whether or not I think JY actually committed the crime.

I totally respect your opinion.


But for me it wasn't Casey's behavior that led me to think she murdered her daughter, it was the evidence the state provided. And had I been on that jury I guarantee I would have been able to convince the rest of the jury that the evidence proved she did. Well maybe I wouldn't have been able to convince the foreman and Jennifer Ford but the rest I could have. Sadly many cases rest on who is the foreperson.

 

[Lucky89]

Yes, that is what he put on around 7AM Friday for his meeting and still had on at 9:30PM that same day. The only change was mama made him put on that creme sweater so he would not go into shock. :floorlaugh:

The same creme sweater/shirt that JY had on checking into the HI. So, how did it get out of SUV? Mama Pat or someone had to get it out therefore someone lied about not taking any clothes out of the SUV or suitcase. Then Taft finds the creme sweater/shirt in a storage unit when LE and SBI does the search warrant. Say what you want ... believe what you want but bottom line someone straight out lied on the stand!! IMO

 

[otto]

The same creme sweater/shirt that JY had on checking into the HI. So, how did it get out of SUV? Mama Pat or someone had to get it out therefore someone lied about not taking any clothes out of the SUV or suitcase. Then Taft finds the creme sweater/shirt in a storage unit when LE and SBI does the search warrant. Say what you want ... believe what you want but bottom line someone straight out lied on the stand!! IMO

Not really ... Pat said that she got a pullover out of his luggage for Jason to wear because he was in shock and was cold ... but ... is that the same one that was foundin storage? Who knows.

 

[gracielee]

I would definitely have second thoughts about talking at that point, but only if my wife had not just been murdered and my kid the only witness. His actions would make more sense if: 1) He had not taken his time and tried to consult with an attorney PRIOR to the scene you described above or 2) A few days after such a scene, when the shock has subsided a bit, and he could have a bit of clarity about what had transpired and how the police had acted, he had then consulted with counsel and refused to talk further, instead of hiding in his room and refusing to say one word to LE or ANYONE about what happened, on the very day he hears of the murder.




.

I think perhaps the cops were a bit perturbed *because* they hadn't been able to reach him all day. For hours & hours. After all, he is the father & husband. The 'next of kin' they need to talk to in the event of a death. In this case two deaths, his wife and unborn son. And he wouldn't answer his phone, nor speak to them. That in and of itself is really odd. When someone is discovered dead, it's the next of kin that is notified. JLY set off bells & whistles *because* he wouldn't even answer his damn phone and talk to them IMO.

 

[Just the Fax]

The same creme sweater/shirt that JY had on checking into the HI. So, how did it get out of SUV? Mama Pat or someone had to get it out therefore someone lied about not taking any clothes out of the SUV or suitcase. Then Taft finds the creme sweater/shirt in a storage unit when LE and SBI does the search warrant. Say what you want ... believe what you want but bottom line someone straight out lied on the stand!! IMO

Mama dressed him in the car at some point along the highway.
I assume she had him reach back to his suitcase and remove it.

 

[Madeleine74]

Sadly, there is no reasoning with a juror who lacks common sense. They can't string together anything or connect any dots. They are the type who thinks the tree falling in the proverbial forest without a witness, really does not make a sound. And since they would have to be that witness to believe it, hearing about it from someone else wouldn't count because that wouldn't be proof to them. They are either unwilling or unable to view circumstantial evidence in totality.

They need photos and/or video of the perp committing the crime and a strong DNA blood link between the perp, the victim and murder scene to be able to convict. Inference is lost on them. Coincidences are just that, no matter how many pile up. There could be a hundred coincidences and nothing would convince them. I suspect these are the same people who believe that a crime scene must contain the elements they see on CSI type shows. There must be DNA, there must be fingerprints in the victim's blood, there must be a solid physical trail. They don't understand how a murder can occur and these items not found.

 

[gracielee]

i do get rid of shoes before the end of the year ... those every day shoes just don't look professional anymore. I'm not talking about cheap shoes either ... well made, leather shoes ... they just wear out. Maybe it has something to do with the weather. Maybe it's beautiful, warm, dry weather in NC all year round. Is it ... or ... does everyone wear runners when they're not working?

Yup, just like our cars don't get rusty down here because we don't have all that snow & salt to deal with in the winters. Most days when I walk my dogs, I'm wearing a pair of my birkies. I can't recall the last pair of shoes I 'wore out'. But I have lots of different pairs of birkies. And JLY had lots of different pairs of shoes, especially for a man. Probably my husband is unusual, he doesn't like to shop, and he doesn't like to buy shoes. He has a couple pairs of athletic shoes, a pair of casual shoes, and now that he's retired, just one pair of dress shoes. He's got a couple pair of work boots, one waterproof, one not, but he's had those for years and years. The only ones he 'wears out' are his athletic shoes, cause those are the ones he wears daily, working out in his garden, doing yard work, working in his workshop out back, etc.

 

[Just the Fax]

sunshine05....come on in and join us.

 

[pjcitizen]

Wow....I feel really, poor, or something. I haven't bought a new pair in over 2 years. My shoes look and last just fine. My work shoes and my tennies. So I don't quite agree with that one. Is that what he said??

I think what he said was "Shoes need to be replaced after 1 year... *whispers* and 1 murder." After all, the red, ratty, sole-flapping Reeboks were good to keep.

Oh, and I guess this is hard to figure out sometimes so... J/K about the quote. Any snark, implied or inferred, is directed towards JLY alone.

 

[Madeleine74]

If "shoes need to be replaced after 2 years," why did he still have the other shoes he purchased the same day at DSW...years later? I guess only the ones that could implicate him in a murder need to be replaced. And those Kenneth Cole shoes? Those ratty things are at least 4 to 5 yrs old I bet.

 

[otto]

Yup, just like our cars don't get rusty down here because we don't have all that snow & salt to deal with in the winters. Most days when I walk my dogs, I'm wearing a pair of my birkies. I can't recall the last pair of shoes I 'wore out'. But I have lots of different pairs of birkies. And JLY had lots of different pairs of shoes, especially for a man. Probably my husband is unusual, he doesn't like to shop, and he doesn't like to buy shoes. He has a couple pairs of athletic shoes, a pair of casual shoes, and now that he's retired, just one pair of dress shoes. He's got a couple pair of work boots, one waterproof, one not, but he's had those for years and years. The only ones he 'wears out' are his athletic shoes, cause those are the ones he wears daily, working out in his garden, doing yard work, working in his workshop out back, etc.

That might be the reason for the difference. In places where there are four full seasons with temperatures that range from 90F to -35F, a good pair of shoes lasts a year and then it's time for a new pair. In places where it's 77F in November, maybe shoes are worn half the year and they don't take on the weather beaten look for several years.

 

[pjcitizen]

If "shoes need to be replaced after 2 years," why did he still have the other shoes he purchased the same day at DSW...years later? I guess only the ones that could implicate him in a murder need to be replaced. And those Kenneth Cole shoes? Those ratty things are at least 4 to 5 yrs old I bet.

I agree, but I meant 1 year... OOPS Darn that glass of wine. (The Red Ratty Sole-Flapping Reeboks were purchased the same day at DSW.)

 

[fran]

Just an FYI.

I'm going to be closing this thread in a few minutes, after I've opened a thread for discussion for the weekend.

Can't wait to see what the defense has to show us when they begin presenting their case on Monday.

Have a good night and weekend all!

fran

 

[heidisams]

Something I haven't found an answer to, and hoping someone can help... What door did MF go out when she went outside to wait for paramedics/le? And were there any prints found on the doorknob that had MY's blood on it??? TIA

 

[JSR]

Sadly, there is no reasoning with a juror who lacks common sense. They can't string together anything or connect any dots. They are the type who thinks the tree falling in the proverbial forest without a witness, really does not make a sound. And since they would have to be that witness to believe it, hearing about it from someone else wouldn't count because that wouldn't be proof to them. They are either unwilling or unable to view circumstantial evidence in totality.

They need photos and/or video of the perp committing the crime and a strong DNA blood link between the perp, the victim and murder scene to be able to convict. Inference is lost on them. Coincidences are just that, no matter how many pile up. There could be a hundred coincidences and nothing would convince them. I suspect these are the same people who believe that a crime scene must contain the elements they see on CSI type shows. There must be DNA, there must be fingerprints in the victim's blood, there must be a solid physical trail. They don't understand how a murder can occur and these items not found.

Well said. And if you get 12 of those types of people sitting on a jury that's how murderers walk. It scares me that there are so many out there that can't connect dots. It's mind boggling.