State vs Jason Lynn Young: weekend discussion 11-25 Feb 2012

[~n/t~]

On more than one occasion I have griped about the prosecution. I wouldn't back down from anything I've written about Holt and Cummings' styles and lack of organization compared to the defense. That said, I believe they hoodwinked defense yesterday in a way that crashes one of Jason Young's arguments. For this, they deserve full credit.

Prosecution anticipated the "crying poor" claim regarding Young not being able to afford to fight for custody. As if it was financial only. The jury heard long accounts and arguments both ways on this issue...I myself was criticizing prosecution on this point. After yesterday I now believe the prosecution set up this whole issue. Defense made a very strong case for Young not having the means to fight for Cassidy. Collins' cross showed how expensive his services are, suggesting that it would've been a long and costly fight that Jason could claim he was unable to afford (notwithstanding that the Fisher family was incurring costs at the same time). Cold as that sounded, it's an argument a person could buy....i.e., "you can't fight City Hall." When they closed with the statement that Jason Young could have avoided a custody fight by merely signing a visitation agreement, that says it all. He fought at all costs any process that would open the door to being questioned about Michelle's murder or being analyzed by a shrink. "At all costs" includes giving up custody of daughter rather than sign a piece of paper. This is very compelling information that the defense dared not follow when Cummings got that answer. In my best Becky Holt voice, "with regard to" Jason Young being unable to financially afford a custody battle, it is game, set, match. Now the jury must act why he would give up his child rather than sign a visitation agreement with the Fishers.

If he had signed the visitation agreement, would he then have to undergo questioning? If not and it was not a costly process as the prosecution stated then what other reason would there be? I think it will come out in the defense case that it wasn't as easy as this attorney made it out to be and that's why the defense didn't go further with it. My opinion.

I didn't watch the first trial so have no clue who they will call as witnesses. Did they call Jason's family law attorney to the stand?

 

[borndem]

Originally Posted by pjcitizen
This is OT:

I know a lot of you watched the Brad Cooper trial. I didn't but I am watching the 1st day of testimony now. There's a woman sitting in front of the witness (but sideways to him) that is holding a round thing over her mouth. Can anyone clue me in on what that is? TIA!

I believe she's the court reporter, and uses a recording device rather than the shorthand/typing machine.

Just to add a bit of personal knowledge (I know so little, I have to speak up when I know an answer!!) to gracielee's response:

My next door neighbor is a Paralegal, and she has also done court reporting. She used the microphone (for lack of the proper word) device as well. The reporter speaks into the mike using a type of "shorthand - words" and transcribes it later. It's just the reporter's option as to what he/she prefers to use. Good question, pjcitizen -- lotsa folks think it looks weird (which it does, IMO!) and sometimes are too timid to ask.

 

[Just the Fax]

If he had signed the visitation agreement, would he then have to undergo questioning? If not and it was not a costly process as the prosecution stated then what other reason would there be? I think it will come out in the defense case that it wasn't as easy as this attorney made it out to be and that's why the defense didn't go further with it. My opinion.

I didn't watch the first trial so have no clue who they will call as witnesses. Did they call Jason's family law attorney to the stand?

Defense witnesses 1st trial..

1- Pat Young (mama)
2- Gerald McIntyre (step father)
3- Heather McCraken (sister)
4- Joe McCracken (BIL)
5- Brian Ambrose (friend that was coming from Charlotte)
6- Josh Dalton (friend - state witness this time)
7- Terry Tiller( NY times delivery - state witness this time)
8- Demetrius Barrett- friend discussed home warranty
9- Cindy Beaver- neighbor that claims she saw a vehicle at the Youngs at 5:30AM

 

[Wolfpack]

I still think its subjective based on a multitude of factors. I've been married to my husband over 3 years and he has bought one new pair of shoes in that time.

He has many pairs of shoes (more than me! ) and several of them are older than 5 years - Doc Martens, Chuck Taylors, occasional, tuxedo shoes, etc. One pair (his favorite) just keeps going to the cobblers to get resoled - they might be nearly as old as I am by now! :floorlaugh:

Husbands can be funny creatures! Mine wears the SAME style of shoe, and has for 15 years. He will go out and by four or five when they are running a sale, and put them in the closet to store them. Then, when the current pair wears out, he's already got the replacement. Occasionally, they'll change the color of that tennis shoe, and it throws him off! But he's been wearing the same model of shoe as long as I've known him.

 

[borndem]

I'm doing the same thing. I haven't started watching the trial yet, I'm still reading all the case info... I've heard so much about the case from everyone here that I had to go check it out! I'm hooked.

Hi, heidisams and pjcitizen - I watched every minute of it -- I live in this area and knew many of the places mentioned, so it was even more compelling to me for that reason.

Well, get comfortable and settle in -- it's fairly lengthy, but it's a good one! Lots of "Personalities" (yes, with a capital "P"!) in the BC trial. Check in with us from time to time on your opinions about it -- we'd love to hear what you think!

 

[Wolfpack]

So, sitting here at the end of the state's case, I believe JY is most likely guilty. I think that if I had to make a decision today (I am still holding out for the DT's case), I would be just over the fence on the side of guilty. I don't place as much stock in a lot of the evidence that others here do, and I see a lot of holes in the prosecution case that I needed filled to make a slam dunk. But, nonetheless, the hushpuppy testimony may be what did me in. Without that, I'm not sure I could say JY entered that home, that night. But with it, I find everything else irrelevant if it's not proved.

Now, if the DT discredits the HP testimony, I may be back analyzing the top of the fence (conviction wise) by the end of this case. This is why I think the DT has to present a strong side. I will readily admit that I am skeptical of a lot of evidence, and I would probably be the last juror to vote guilty in any case. If you can convince me, then you've done a pretty good job. Now, defense has to overcome that for me.

 

[Just the Fax]

What we do with shoes is not important.
What we have to go on is Jay bought 3 pair of shoes 7/05. He claimed he gave away one pair (prior to 11/06) because they no longer "looked professional". The other 2 pair he still owed as of 2/08. One of those was well worn, with holes in the sole. The only other pair seen was a pair of Kenneth Cole slip-ons that appeared to be several years old and in 'fair condition'.

He said he disposed of the very rare HP Orbitals soon before the same HP sole was found in blood at his wife's murder.
On 11-3-06 Video captured him wearing shoes that were very consistent with those HP shoes. Shoes consistent with those seen on video were never seen again.

 

[Just the Fax]

Wolkpack....you see the short list of witnesses from round one.
Besides the family, who would you call this time to bolster their case?

 

[borndem]

Stop already! I'm getting jealous. Missing my Carolina.

:snowflake: Well, bless your still-Southern heart, B'Rice! We'll gladly take you back!! So, is your also-Southern blood still thin? By that I mean, so thin that you get chilled up there in Indiana :coldout:when the natives are wearing just pants & a shirt, and you are all wrapped up in pants, a shirt, and a winter coat?? Brrrrr.:coldcase:

 

[Wolfpack]

Wolkpack....you see the short list of witnesses from round one.
Besides the family, who would you call this time to bolster their case?

I honestly don't know. Without seeing their discovery and knowing who they have available, I think they would need some sort of expert to counter the hushpuppy testimony, if that's possible. I can see calling someone close to the financial issues to discuss that from the defense POV, definitely not Alice Stubbs. I would put more character witnesses on the stand, if he can find them. If necessary or possible, I would put every gas station attendant on the stand who was interviewed by LEO after this, and have them testify they didn't see JY. Someone to strengthen the credibility of Cindy Beaver's testimony would be great.

But, I think if they had these things, they would have presented them in the first trial.

And I think they'll actually put JY up again. I honestly don't think he has anything to lose at this point. But that alone could last two days this time around.

 

[sureLocke]

I believe JY testifying will be a 'in the moment' decision. I believe they are having him prepare as if he is, but if the DT feels that a NG verdict is in the cards, or feel confident in their case, then I don't think they take the chance. But if they feel it may be his last resort then I expect to hear him testify again. He has the personality to pull it off, I think he likes the attention.

 

[BrownRice]

:snowflake: Well, bless your still-Southern heart, B'Rice! We'll gladly take you back!! So, is your also-Southern blood still thin? By that I mean, so thin that you get chilled up there in Indiana :coldout:when the natives are wearing just pants & a shirt, and you are all wrapped up in pants, a shirt, and a winter coat?? Brrrrr.:coldcase:

I'm originally from San Diego, but we lived in NC before moving up here (for husband's job). This is my 2nd "winter" and I hate it!!! Still keep in contact with all my Carolina friends and they are loving your winter right now. Me, not so much. :-(

 

[Just the Fax]

I don't know...very risky. He does need to rehabilitate that 2 dimensional video with his charm . He can regurgitate, word for word his flowery tale with Collins. He is a sociopath and he truly thinks he is smarter than the PT (may be true )

However, the cross may hang him. He will say he bought the higher insurance because of the new baby and AD&D rider was not expensive. I'm sure he already prepared an answer for the missing shirt. Guess he will say it was in his bag and has no idea what happened to it...follow Collins and insinuate the SBI framed him by removing (there is no good answer)

I would question him on the shoes...when were they given away? What shoes was he wearing at the Cracker Barrel? Why did he still have the worn Kenneth Coles? What shoes was he wearing on his business trip and back to MF's? What shoes did he wear to the funeral?

Ask him about the cigar smoking. Remind him his best friend Josh never saw him smoke a cigar. He said he started at B&D 6 years earlier, but why hasn't his best friend seen him smoke? What brand was the cigar? When and where did he buy it? Did he own a cigar cutter, humidor or a lighter?

Ask about reading the day old USA Today for sports scores.
Ask why he was on the internet checking sports news on Scout.com minutes before he said he wanted to read an old paper outside.
Ask why he said he wanted to brush up on work and look at demo software, because the computer usage did not reflect that.
Ask why he said he ate breakfast, yet he was not seen coming down the west hall leaving afterwards (can't avoid 14 second delay).
Ask what he was carrying out at midnight, in addition to his water and newspaper (the brown item appears to be a glove).
Ask why he reached way over for a twig (twice) when there was a whole bed of rocks at his feet.

Holt already went down the road of infidelity, so that will be no 'gotcha'.
I would question details about that wreck he claimed he looked up knockout / head blow terms. Ask why he used those specific terms and not injury specific to car crashes? Why didn't he search for the wreck news and the man's name if he was so concerned?

This is just a few of the laundry list I would hit him with , rapid fire.
Make him sweat...make him angry.

 

[pjcitizen]

Husbands can be funny creatures! Mine wears the SAME style of shoe, and has for 15 years. He will go out and by four or five when they are running a sale, and put them in the closet to store them. Then, when the current pair wears out, he's already got the replacement. Occasionally, they'll change the color of that tennis shoe, and it throws him off! But he's been wearing the same model of shoe as long as I've known him.

Can I just say (no offense intended, I do love hearing how fast everyone's DHs wear out their shoes LOL :innocent , but all of that is just us getting sidetracked from this FACT. The shoes seen in the video at CB that night are now missing. The missing shoes look suspiciously like the HPs JLY claim MY donated to Goodwill and like shoes that left a print in blood at the crime scene IMO.

 

[Pocono Sleuther]

In watching Fiona's testimony again this morning, I'm starting to wonder if Michelle didn't have some sort of fear that JY was indeed capable of murdering her for financial gain. The, what seems to me excessive, life insurance on her at his insistence seemed to have made Michelle, maybe not scared, but definitely curious as to why he thought he needed that much money paid out to him upon her death. Does anyone else get this feeling?

 

[Madeleine74]

On a cross of JY I would hold up that CB pic showing his shoes and ask him where those shoes went?

I would hold up that pic of JY heading towards the exit and ask him where that dark pullover went?

I would hold up the pic of JY at the elevator showing the back of those pants and ask him where those pants went?

None of those items were in his suitcase upon returning to Raleigh.

I would grill him on his wedding ring fixation. First with ripping the engagement ring off of GC's hand, then swallowing CAS's wedding ring, and finally culminating with ripping the wedding rings off his dead wife's hands. That's 3 times he's done something with rings!

I would grill him on each and every inconsistency. I would point out his fake crying from the video and his instant recovery. I would impeach every single thing I could. I would keep him on that stand for days if need be. What I wouldn't do is run scared and only question him for an hour.

And God help us if it's BH who questions him again. That would be a huge error (not to mention causing numerous stroke victims on WS alone. Get the paddles and an O2 mask ready for JTF if that happens...just sayin')

 

[Madeleine74]

I would also grill him on waiting until 7:30pm to leave for a biz trip and stopping a mere 2.5 hrs away when this was the first big meeting he had as a new employee.

I would point out his being 35 min late to that meeting.

I would show pics of the breakfast area at HI and ask why he lied about going down for breakfast.

I would bring in the other 2 pairs of shoes he bought at DSW the same day he bought those HP ones and inquire about only discarding the HP ones...the very ones that would implicate him in a murder and which he had on his feet the night before.

I would point out the coincidence of the camera being tampered with twice in the stairway HE used that night, the rock in the door in which his DNA cannot be excluded, no twig found, twig not able to hold open the door based on where he said he propped it.

Basically let him hang himself again and again and again with more lies and more outrageous stories.

 

[Grammy Jean]

In regards to Postal worker, CB, I will be interested to see how this is handled this time. I recall last time her testimony was damaging to PT. Up to the point that when she was pressed to answer could she be confused and what she saw could have possibly happened the prior Friday.She admitted that she did not think so but it was a possibility. She then stated more than once that the only way she could be certain about the particular Friday was if it was a different News and Observer delivery person because the Friday morning she is relating her recollections about there was a different News and Observer delivery man. During PT rebuttal they called Travis Branch. He's delivered News and Observer for 15 years. After checking his work records he WAS working Friday Nov. 3rd.

 

[Just the Fax]

In regards to Postal worker, CB, I will be interested to see how this is handled this time. I recall last time her testimony was damaging to PT. Up to the point that when she was pressed to answer could she be confused and what she saw could have possibly happened the prior Friday.She admitted that she did not think so but it was a possibility. She then stated more than once that the only way she could be certain about the particular Friday was if it was a different News and Observer delivery person because the Friday morning she is relating her recollections about there was a different News and Observer delivery man. During PT rebuttal they called Travis Branch. He's delivered News and Observer for 15 years. After checking his work records he WAS working Friday Nov. 3rd.

There were soooo many issues with that woman's testimony...don't get me started.
The detail she recalled a full week later is extremely suspicious. I am not saying the woman flat out lied, I think she has false memory. She thought that evening someone had "passed away" because of all the cars. Then she started hearing about the murder and watched the news. Her memory of that morning, days earlier, suddenly appeared in her brain. She recalled the 2 people, going so far as remembering a ring the driver wore.
Way too much detail on a simple, uneventful drive to work.

After convincing herself she could solve this mystery...who murdered MY... she mentioned it to her boss the next week and got the ball rolling....she inserted herself into a high profile murder case. She clearly enjoyed her time on the stand, imo.

I would love to know if she thought Brad Cooper was guilty?
I'm wondering if she wanted to be another one of those eyewitnesses that could make or break a case?

To me , Gracie was far more credible. She did not seek LE and insert herself in the case. Though she was not as educated, she was far more likable, and imo, believable.

 

[knicksgal1]

In watching Fiona's testimony again this morning, I'm starting to wonder if Michelle didn't have some sort of fear that JY was indeed capable of murdering her for financial gain. The, what seems to me excessive, life insurance on her at his insistence seemed to have made Michelle, maybe not scared, but definitely curious as to why he thought he needed that much money paid out to him upon her death. Does anyone else get this feeling?

I think she may have had a fear that she didn't even allow herself to really think about or talked herself out of. I think deep down she knew what kind of person she was married to. I watch that video of MY and CY and it makes me cry for both of them. I hope this jury really looks at the big picture and all the "coincidences". In my mind, it can only add up to one person taking MY out of this world and away from all those who truly loved her.