For those who refute the prosecution's theory, what are your alternate theories?

[Madeleine74]

iirc, Meredith's testimony was that the pj's were shockingly clean. I think those were her words. Why would she lie about something that the cops could see for themselves?

That's not what MF said. She said CY was shockingly clean. CY had her mothers blood embedded around her toenails but the 2 yr old was not otherwise covered in her dead mama's blood. Clearly whoever killed Michelle, took care of CY.

 

[MyBelle]

That's not what MF said. She said CY was shockingly clean. CY had her mothers blood embedded around her toenails but the 2 yr old was not otherwise covered in her dead mama's blood. Clearly whoever killed Michelle, took care of CY.

ITA whomever killed Michelle took care of CY. That's a huge problem in this case because JY was in another state for hours AFTER the murder. When MF found her, CY was wearing the same pajamas that another witness said she was wearing when they put her to bed and Meredith noticed she was clean.

If CY had her mother's blood "embedded around her toenails" the blood should have also been ON her toenails and all over her pj's. Somebody kept her clean in the many hours after the murder but there is exculpatory evidence Jason Young wasn't there.

JMO

 

[jova33]

So no testimony being pointed to that confirms these PJs were washed and this is your opinion because they appeared "visually clean." Thanks for confirming there is no actual evidence and this is an assumption.

This whole case is assumption.

Back to the pajamas, how did the blood become not visible if they weren't washed? The lab guy never said he saw blood on the areas tested, but they showed blood was there after chemical testing. I think this should be brought up at trial because it doesn't make sense to me.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

 

[MyBelle]

This whole case is assumption.

Back to the pajamas, how did the blood become not visible if they weren't washed? The lab guy never said he saw blood on the areas tested, but they showed blood was there after chemical testing. I think this should be brought up at trial because it doesn't make sense to me.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

The condition of the child and the dog never made sense to me. Both should have had blood on them and tracked it all over the house. Yet the blood almost all stayed on the top floor.

 

[jova33]

MF stated that the dog was inside the house.... but no bloody paw prints?

Sent from your mom's smartphone

 

[MyBelle]

MF stated that the dog was inside the house.... but no bloody paw prints?

Sent from your mom's smartphone

That's baffling and so much is still unexplained. Wasn't the dog's bed right in the bedroom/crime scene?

If shoes were leaving bloody prints, the dog should have, too. The baby should have been bloody. The whole house should have had their tracks or at least more rooms upstairs. I can't recall if their stairs had an infant gate.

 

[Madeleine74]

JLY was within striking distance that night when he chose to stop at the Hampton Inn, which was still a few hours away from his work appointment the next morning, which allegedly was the entire reason he left to go on this trip. He picked a location to spend the night where he could still make it back to Raleigh in time to do the deed and get back to the hotel and continue on his merry way.

You have to wonder why he didn't, instead, drive close(r) to his appointment. That's the logical thing to do. It doesn't make sense to go on the road and then only go half the distance for your sales call when the sales call is the entire reason you are going on the road. (Talk about things that don't make sense).

It took 2.5 hrs or even slightly less to drive from the Hampton Inn to the Young residence. That time has been demonstrated multiple times by people who did the drive.

- Leave at midnight (seen on video walking to exit door)
- Get to Raleigh no later than 2:40am
- Commit the murder, jump into new clothes, get CY into bed, drug CY, use hose outside.
- Leave Raleigh no later than 4am
Stop in Hillsville to get gas around 5:30am
Back to Hampton Inn by 6:30am

Tight, but definitely doable. That means he had opportunity.

Those rough times also coincide with the hinky camera happenings at that Hampton Inn. Camera unplugged, then later moved to not show the door JY used.

He was back at the hotel a bit later than he planned to be. And, he was late to his sales call...the whole reason he left to go on this trip in the first place.

 

[jova33]

But, explain washing his daughter and doing laundry.

And why not just pick a hotel that didn't have cameras or a hotel that had doors open into the parking lot?

I'm writing off the camera stuff at the hotel. Not his fingerprints and not his DNA were found on the camera. I prop my door open at hotels all the time. I'll even put a rock on the door hinge to take a smoke.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[MyBelle]

JLY was within striking distance that night when he chose to stop at the Hampton Inn, which was still a few hours away from his work appointment the next morning, which allegedly was the entire reason he left to go on this trip. He picked a location to spend the night where he could still make it back to Raleigh in time to do the deed and get back to the hotel and continue on his merry way.

You have to wonder why he didn't, instead, drive close(r) to his appointment. That's the logical thing to do. It doesn't make sense to go on the road and then only go half the distance for your sales call when the sales call is the entire reason you are going on the road. (Talk about things that don't make sense).

It took 2.5 hrs or even slightly less to drive from the Hampton Inn to the Young residence. That time has been demonstrated multiple times by people who did the drive.

- Leave at midnight (seen on video walking to exit door)
- Get to Raleigh no later than 2:40am
- Commit the murder, jump into new clothes, get CY into bed, drug CY, use hose outside.
- Leave Raleigh no later than 4am
Stop in Hillsville to get gas around 5:30am
Back to Hampton Inn by 6:30am

Tight, but definitely doable. That means he had opportunity.

Those rough times also coincide with the hinky camera happenings at that Hampton Inn. Camera unplugged, then later moved to not show the door JY used.

He was back at the hotel a bit later than he planned to be. And, he was late to his sales call...the whole reason he left to go on this trip in the first place.

Might seem hinky only if his guilt has been prejudged. No evidence tied him to the cameras. To believe he stopped for gas, one also has to believe the brain-damaged witness who testified her brain was removed from a sidewalk and re-implanted in her skull by doctors after a car accident. Sorry, that's a fantasy that is beyond belief.

I do not agree he had opportunity. There was evidence his daughter was cleaned up and that would have required additional time. Plus, it would have left her alone for hours to get blood on her feet and pj's.

 

[jova33]

Yeah, like 5 jurors were already convinced of his guilt at the beginning of his trial.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[MyBelle]

Yeah, like 5 jurors were already convinced of his guilt at the beginning of his trial.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

I think the Judge was as well but I think even he was surprised anyone believed the brain-damaged convenience store clerk who claimed he was near her height.

 

[Madeleine74]

Yeah, like 5 jurors were already convinced of his guilt at the beginning of his trial.

Please prove this assertion. Or is this just your opinion?

 

[jova33]

Please prove this assertion. Or is this just your opinion?

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/03/09/1917135/jury-head-discusses-young-verdict.html

I stand corrected. Four, not five. And I guess I might be wrong. Maybe "from the start" might be from the start of deliberations.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

 

[Madeleine74]

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/03/09/1917135/jury-head-discusses-young-verdict.html

I stand corrected. Four, not five. And I guess I might be wrong. Maybe "from the start" might be from the start of deliberations.

Nothing wrong with jurors deciding what they believed or didn't believe at the end of all the testimony. That's exactly when they are free to make their determination, that's in the instructions they are given. "Ladies and Gentleman, you have heard all the testimony in this case....you are now free to talk to your fellow jurors and deliberate together..." etc, etc.

 

[jova33]

Nothing wrong with jurors deciding what they believed or didn't believe at the end of all the testimony. That's exactly when they are free to make their determination, that's in the instructions they are given.

And that's why I said I might be wrong



Sent from your mom's smartphone

 

[MyBelle]

And that's why I said I might be wrong



Sent from your mom's smartphone

I think the bigger issue is that there was an investigation into juror misconduct. While the Judge decided it didn't rise to the level of mistrial, it might be addressed at retrial with severe consequences doled out for those caught violating the Judge's instructions. The taxpayers are the ones picking up the tabs for a Judge's error.

 

[ncsu95]

I've had you on my mind very strongly for the past few days. Maybe it's time for your birthday? Anyhow, glad to see you here and hope you are well!

Thanks. I won't be turning 43 until this summer :tantrum:

But I did just spend another weekend at Camp Seagull volunteering with my 11 year old daughter with the Y-Guides program. Maybe you were thinking about me because of how freaking cold it was Sunday morning. :seeya:

Looks like we get to do this all over again with both big trials.

 

[Madeleine74]

I think the bigger issue is that there was an investigation into juror misconduct. While the Judge decided it didn't rise to the level of mistrial, it might be addressed at retrial with severe consequences doled out for those caught violating the Judge's instructions. The taxpayers are the ones picking up the tabs for a Judge's error.

The investigation into the possible juror misconduct came after an idiot in the Highpoint area made a fake Facebook account and posted on WRAL's timeline that one of the jurors had been sending information during deliberations.

SBI investigated and found no evidence of this. And, they uncovered the person who set up this fake Facebook account and outed them (I believe it was a male). That person admitted they made the story up because they thought JY was being railroaded. They could have been charged but the judge determined the Highpoint area idiot's postings did not rise to the level of a crime.

No one on the jury violated the judge's instructions and none of that investigation will be mentioned to any future jury.

 

[Landonsmom02]

It's sad that they might be another trial. I'm positive he will be found guilty again. You can only point to where the evidence leads.

 

[MyBelle]

The investigation into the possible juror misconduct came after an idiot in the Highpoint area made a fake Facebook account and posted on WRAL's timeline that one of the jurors had been sending information during deliberations.

SBI investigated and found no evidence of this. And, they uncovered the person who set up this fake Facebook account and outed them (I believe it was a male). That person admitted they made the story up because they thought JY was being railroaded. They could have been charged but the judge determined the Highpoint area idiot's postings did not rise to the level of a crime.

No one on the jury violated the judge's instructions and none of that investigation will be mentioned to any future jury.

I'm not understanding your point. JY is getting a new trial because of the Judge's decisions. If he had decided the poster's comments did impede the trial, he would have called a mistrial and we'd be right back to square one.

The next trial, the court will address all communication with the jurors. I think they will be monitored very closely.