**Verdict Watch** 3-2-2012; deliberations started at 1016am

[packerdog]

Just curious what everyone thinks JY did with the ring? I don't think he would have thrown it away. He got that b/c he knew how much $ it was worth. I have a feeling he may have pawned it somewhere (maybe out of state). Boy wouldn't that have been a great witness....pawn store owner id's JY and has store video of him pawning that 2/3 carrot diamond ring!

I think his mom had the diamonds put in another setting.

 

[jerseygirl48]

With all due respect to those of you who are certain beyond all reasonable doubt, I'm insulted by the implications that those of us who aren't certain must be stupid ... or we don't understand the intricacies of circumstantial evidence, etc. Some (many/most/all?) of us are actually quite intelligent in our real lives and we do understand the process ... but we still have doubts. We respect your right to be certain .... and ask that you respect our right to have doubts.

All this negativity toward those with doubts is starting to make me feel sorry for the CA jury .......... nah, just kidding ... they were stupid!

 

[Berry]

One of the ways LE investigates a crime when they have stolen property. LE goes to pawn shops, known people who fence stolen goods and people who buy stolen goods.

For the Young family NOT to cooperate and provide a detailed list of property stolen is a HUGE RED flag.

For Mrs. Y to say she was angry at LE .....her daughter-in-law and grandson were murdered and she put her Anger above all tells me who she she knows who the killer is.

oh yessie indeed ...this is a very telling action of hers, and the apple fell close too...>>>>> Young JLY

 

[Just the Fax]

Interesting tidbit I heard in 3-B yesterday.
The foreman was originally guilty in a early vote.
Tells me he did not have as much influence as I originally thought.

 

[CGW]

I see alot of referrences to the Casey Anthony case on these threads now that we are anticipating the jury's verdict in the JY case. I feel/felt both are guilty, but I feel like there is WAYYYY more incriminating evidence in the JY case. I always felt CA was responsible for her daughter's death. I could just never figure out if it was accidental or intentional (either way she was guilty of something). I was back and forth on that one. The JY case is so clear to me. Anyone else feel the same/different?

 

[SteelerGirl43]

With all due respect to those of you who are certain beyond all reasonable doubt, I'm insulted by the implications that those of us who aren't certain must be stupid ... or we don't understand the intricacies of circumstantial evidence, etc. Some (many/most/all?) of us are actually quite intelligent in our real lives and we do understand the process ... but we still have doubts. We respect your right to be certain .... and ask that you respect our right to have doubts.

All this negativity toward those with doubts is starting to make me feel sorry for the CA jury .......... nah, just kidding ... they were stupid!

Thanks for pointing this out Jersey girl.... I've noticed that also... Im sorry, but Im not stupid & I understand CE.... I was on a jury once.... I just feel hes not guilty .. Thats my right to think that....Too many questions.. Too many doubts.... Heres to hoping hes found NOT GUILTY!

 

[knicksgal1]

With all due respect to those of you who are certain beyond all reasonable doubt, I'm insulted by the implications that those of us who aren't certain must be stupid ... or we don't understand the intricacies of circumstantial evidence, etc. Some (many/most/all?) of us are actually quite intelligent in our real lives and we do understand the process ... but we still have doubts. We respect your right to be certain .... and ask that you respect our right to have doubts.

All this negativity toward those with doubts is starting to make me feel sorry for the CA jury .......... nah, just kidding ... they were stupid!

I hear what you are saying, my fellow jersey girl and I am sorry if I made anyone feel like I think they are stupid. I don't. I think I got so involved and have such strong feelings about the case that I just can't see it from the other perspective. I will try harder. I am just so scared that he is going to walk when I think he is GUILTY. Plus I am still so sad/shocked about what happened in the Powell case that it is making my emotions that much stronger. Like I said, I will try harder and thank you for the gentle reminder.

 

[BritsKate]

I see alot of referrences to the Casey Anthony case on these threads now that we are anticipating the jury's verdict in the JY case. I feel/felt both are guilty, but I feel like there is WAYYYY more incriminating evidence in the JY case. I always felt CA was responsible for her daughter's death. I could just never figure out if it was accidental or intentional (either way she was guilty of something). I was back and forth on that one. The JY case is so clear to me. Anyone else feel the same/different?

I don't think CA should be compared to JY as they're night and day crimes. I'd be willing to bet more mothers who murder their children are acquitted (or if convicted receive reduced sentences, lesser degrees, etc.) than men who murder their wives.

Historically and currently women are often not held to the same legal/social accountability in even like for like crimes.

This case, for me anyway, is crystal clear. There is much more CE available in this case than other similar murders. Had JY reacted differently after Michelle's murder I may feel differently but for me, knowing what I do about the evolution of abuse, it is not a huge stretch to move from treating her so callously and cruelly to killing her.

 

[otto]

I don't think there is absolute proof that Jason was or was not involved. What I see is a prosecution theory where all sorts of circumstantial points have been strung together to reinforce the theory that Jason is guilty.

What has the proseuction presented:

- an unplugged camera that cannot be connected to Jason
- a questionable gas attendant witness that added new information to her testimony after she admittedly didn't remember anything about the customer in her store
- prints in places that should match Jason, but don't
- a theory about medicine with nothing to connect the medicine to Jason or the child (no evidence she was drugged)
- two pair of shoes but no explanation why Jason would wear size 10 shoes to commit a strangulation murder
- a motive of millions of dollars but at the same time Jason knew that as a suspect he could not claim the millions
- allegations of a prior murder attempt and an accident investigator that attended the scene stating that everyone was wearing a seatbelt, that it was an accident in a place where accidents had happened before
- adultery
- dishonesty about the adultery
- sexual dysfunction in the marriage
- two people that participate in loud verbal disagreements in public
- an unhappy marriage
- a missing shirt, missing worn out hush puppy shoes, missing size 10 shoes
- a husband that was advised not to speak to police because he was immediately considered a suspect
- some investigation into possible suspects at a nearby trailer park that did not produce any leads
- vehicles seen at the property from 3:30 or 4 AM until about 6 AM.
- porch and driveway lights on (could have been left on the from the night before)
- missing items but no insurance claim for those missing items
- a poor planner that fails to calculate the amount of gas required to make the 510 mile trip but plans other details such as two pair of shoes for a strangulation murder
- an unfaithful husband that was in contact with his mistress before and after the murder, making no attempt to hide his frequent contact with his mistress
- no video surveillance on the 10 cameras at the hotel showing all of Jason's movements (morning activity)
- an unplugged camera
- no murder weapon
- a child that acts out the murder with play figures and identifies the mother figure, but not the figure that is "spanking" the mother figure for "biting" (she was familiar enough with both parents to identify both of them if the father was involved)

Did I miss anything? I don't see the above as proof of murder. It appears to be the case that investigators assumed that Jason was guilty and that they looked for circumstances that would support their theory.

 

[otto]

Wait, Fred you're saying a brutal killer who is there to rob and knows just where to find a wallet without leaving blood evidence of looking for it and who prefers some jewelry to others but yet who DOES NOT tamper with or take MY's purse is an unlikely scenario?

You're saying that waiting until 6 months after the murder to say, "But wait it was burglary there were some things missing" could merely be an attempt to protect the hiding son?

If you're saying that, if that's what you're saying - I AGREE!

Investigators knew right away that the rings were missing ... they had the body and Meredith was communicating with them. They also knew about the missing tooth container through Meredith. There was no 6 month delay before investigators knew that items were missing from the master bedroom.

 

[cody100]

Thanks for pointing this out Jersey girl.... I've noticed that also... Im sorry, but Im not stupid & I understand CE.... I was on a jury once.... I just feel hes not guilty .. Thats my right to think that....Too many questions.. Too many doubts.... Heres to hoping hes found NOT GUILTY!

<modsnip>. Each is entitled to his or her opinions, just do it with respect,<modsnip>.

 

[ynotdivein]

***yawwwnnn scritchscritchscritch***

:coffeews:

Mornin' peeps.

OMG! The weekend thread! :doh:

:escape:

 

[ynotdivein]

Here's a link to the weekend thread:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164669


Gather up your coffees and put those bunny slippers back on, and let's move over there. Closing this one up in 3... 2...

 

[otto]

<modsnip>. lease:<modsnip>feels that way. I would suggest ignoring those posts that paint you as stupid and without common sense. Each is entitled to his or her opinions, just do it with respect, <modsnip>.

I think it's understandable that people would go with their gut feeling about the murder by thinking that the marriage was a disaster, so the husband must be guilty of murder. That is, investigators failed to identify any other suspects, therefore the default suspect that is always suspected must be guilty.

If we stop trying to solve the murder after failing to identify other suspects, run with the default suspect, then go about gathering information that could suggest the husband was responsible, we have exactly the type of evidence that was presented during trial. It's not evidence that tells a story, it's disjointed information that, when strung together, demonstrates that he could have committed the murder ... but it also demonstrates that others could have committed the murder.

 

[ynotdivein]

Bumping and locking up...

Here's a link to the weekend thread:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164669


Gather up your coffees and put those bunny slippers back on, and let's move over there. Closing this one up in 3... 2...