State vs Jason Lynn Young: weekend discussion 11-18 Feb 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
But see, posters are saying they should interpret the chair as being a weapon that was used like a baseball bat. (No weapon was retrieved) Now if one assumes CY was hitting the mommy doll with a chair because the murderer had a weapon, why would they not ask well, she also said mommy had boo boos because she was punished for biting. So where are the bite marks? Also, as a juror if the assumption is the "grandma" doll is JY, I would want to see what the other doll looked like. If the other doll was shorter, dark hair and looked nothing like daddy, then it may score points. But if the defense keeps hammering in that it was a "woman" doll, it may not go over so well with some jurors. Someone like me who thinks JY may have had an accomplice or hired someone to commit this crime may question why out of 3 dolls she picked the mommy doll and another woman doll and not the male doll?

That's why I think this testimony could go either way for now. We'll have to wait and see what happens on Monday.


Actually, I didn't take the chair comment literally either... I just said I thought the chair represented a weapon, not a specific weapon... Same as the bite remark, I thought it probably represented a physical act of some sort that caused mommy's condition, nothing specific. I think the overall meaning is cy witnessed mommy's murder by another person, and that person used a weapon to do so. I hope this doesn't get over analyzed Monday... Afterall, she was playing, and not asked to pick out characters and recreate what she saw.
 
The fact that JLY and MamaPat never got this poor little girl any sort of therapy or counseling shows they only care about covering their arses. I keep thinking about MamaPat saying "And that's all you need to know"
 
No case against JY? Let’s see:

MOTIVE:

-JY basically hated MY or at least saw her as a real "ball and chain" who might end in an expensive divorce or continued frustration of his desired lifestyle.
-JY stood to profit from the death of MY: more than a million dollars.
-No one else known had anything to gain from her murder.
-Stated to other woman his regret, and how much it weighed on him, that he was now with MY instead of her.

OPPORTUNITY:

-JY had access to the home, and knew its layout and MY's schedule.
-From the time he exited the hotel at night to his next confirmed location, he had time to travel to Raleigh and back.
-JY seen exiting hotel. He had propped open his room door. He propped open emergency exit door at stairwell. Camera on same door he used is unplugged that evening. Camera is pointed up the following early morning (on his return).
-JY was identified on travel South of the hotel by a gas station attendant during the timeframe the state alleges he’d be returning. Perhaps not a smoking gun, but at least the whiff of gun powder in the air.

EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE:

-Footprints matching JY's relatively rare shoes, and his size.
-CY mentions only her Daddy and Mommy, and no one else, while talking during the 911 call. When asked if she knew what had happened to Mommy, the first word she says is “Daddy.”
-No forced entry.
-CY spared despite witnessing the crime, and in addition apparently cared for shortly after the murder. Dog was sequestered during crime.
-Witness ID's similar vehicle to his at home during the timeframe of murder (other witness may have ID'd a different car as well).
-Murderer apparently cleans self up at the scene (no material evidence downstairs; water hose used) implying being comfortable in the home and willing to spend the time to clean up there rather than where he intended to retreat. Random killer could have cleaned up back at his unknown location, but instead does it hanging out with a child who is a witness?? JY had to return to a hotel that needed to remain sterile – clean up at home.
-Only a few items taken; purse undisturbed, downstairs undisturbed.

ICING ON THE CAKE OF GUILT:

-Outfit JY had on leaving the hotel - the pullover is not in his truck the next day, despite JY's mother saying nothing had been removed at her house besides JY and his blazer.
-The shoes he owned that matched the sole and size of the pattern left at the crime scene are also missing, alleged by JY given away by MY to charity. So a random killer had the same size shoe and same sole pattern? Another unlikely thing you need to believe to let him off.
-Insane call activity the day of the murder.
-Doesn’t contest custody for his daughter, which avoids having to answer for his actions.
-Doesn’t contest wrongful death suit.
-Doesn’t, ever, demonstrate interest in the investigation.
-Quickly starts trying to nail other women.
-No interest in seeing wife decently treated in burial.
-Sequesters CY from F family.
-e-mail to wife includes among the insults the statement “I could kill you.”
-recent web searches dealt with knocking someone out and the value of his home.
-while brutally murdered wife is headed to the grave he tells her mother of how he will have to take a hit on the home.
-prior violence against woman he “loved.”

ARE YOU SERIOUS??

-JY says he propped his room door open at the hotel; and then went back downstairs and outside to smoke. He’s going to leave his luggage in his hotel room with the door unlocked when he could simply take the keycard? That’s crazy. He did it so he could reenter without using the card.
-JY says he needed MF to go by the house to get the print out off the printer before MY saw it. That’s crazy. He had zero regard for his wife and no demonstrated interest in surprising her. His previous night’s phone calls, on top of a couple to MY, apparently involved speaking with his bizarre mistress and telling MF that MY had lied about the fight they had had, and it really wasn’t so bad – he didn’t throw things at her.
-Nasty craigslist activity, using daughter as prop (I don’t have any pictures of just me).

WEAKNESS:

Franklin shoe prints (*cough* blisters on JY’s feet *cough*)
No adult witness to murder

-

this just off the top of my head, i'm sure there's more!


:goodpost:

Amazing post, GG!! I think you should make the closing argument for the PT!!
 
CY knows what a white coat Dr with an assumed stethoscope looks like.
This character would more resemble her father.


11M9uIEm156.jpg

Cue Austin Powers, "That's a man, baby!"
 
Actually, I didn't take the chair comment literally either... I just said I thought the chair represented a weapon, not a specific weapon... Same as the bite remark, I thought it probably represented a physical act of some sort that caused mommy's condition, nothing specific. I think the overall meaning is cy witnessed mommy's murder by another person, and that person used a weapon to do so. I hope this doesn't get over analyzed Monday... Afterall, she was playing, and not asked to pick out characters and recreate what she saw.

I think that is what the judge said too. The evidence will be allowed for the purpose of showing she witnessed the assault, but not for purposes of identification, and that's likely why the oral statements will probably not be let in. Can't remember how much of it he's already ruled on.

Anyway, Monday will see what both sides will do with this doll issue. It's a Grandma doll alright, but it could be Grandma Elton John. :innocent:
 
The grandmother is from the Marvel toy set

http://www.shopping.com/Marvel-Pretend-Play-Family-Caucasian/info

The figure in the red shirt and blue pants appears to be from the Marvel Hispanic set.

Amazon.com: Pretend & Play Family - Hispanic: Toys & Games

Marvel Pretend Professionals

http://www.marveltoys.biz/Product_Images/MTC-138.jpg

Thanks for the links. I don't think the features of the grandmother doll look anything like JY, except for the fact it's a human doll. I think if the Prosecution suggests the doll is "masculine" and "tall" and "blond" in an attempt to tie the doll to JY's features, the jury is going to treat that with a bit of disdain. It's a stretch, and I don't think it's necessary to draw the connection that the role play here represents.

Then again, someone on here several days ago was adamant JY wore scrubs during the commission of the murderer, so maybe the doctor doll was a better choice? :doh:
 
Nice find otto!!!
Now it is obvious why she did not choose this to represent her father.

Capture-31.jpg
 
If the doctor is from the same set, then it's understandable that the grandmother figure was selected to represent another person.

marvelpretendandplayfigures.jpg


http://www.marveltoys.biz/MTCTestReports.htm

Great find Otto, thanks for doing the sleuthing. If that's the doctor she definitely would NOT have picked it!!

ETA: Looks like Granny the Tranny dwarfs the hispanic sister that is "mommy"
 
Just listened to the 911 call again and CY definitely says "Daddy did..." imo

Nov. 3, 2006 Birchleaf Drive 911 Recording
http://www.wral.com/news/local/audio/1119462/

01:57 - MF: "Do you know what happened to Mommy, Did she fall?"

02:00 - CY: ""Daddy did....."

02:02 - 02:03 - CY: "Did that .. he did"

02:06 - CY: "everywhere, and, and did that.

05:02 - CY: "Daddy did it......."
 
Thanks for the links. I don't think the features of the grandmother doll look anything like JY, except for the fact it's a human doll. I think if the Prosecution suggests the doll is "masculine" and "tall" and "blond" in an attempt to tie the doll to JY's features, the jury is going to treat that with a bit of disdain. It's a stretch, and I don't think it's necessary to draw the connection that the role play here represents.

Then again, someone on here several days ago was adamant JY wore scrubs during the commission of the murderer, so maybe the doctor doll was a better choice? :doh:

The hair on the female figure in purple appears to be white. It seems to me that unless the jury is told that children aged 2 have difficulty with gender recognition in human representations and dolls, they can't assume that ... it's an interesting question though ... whether the jury can make an assumption that the 2 year old intended to use the female figure as a male. Taken literally, they are presented with a female attacking Michelle and given the connection - without any scientific stats to back it up - that only a father would leave a child alive after the mother was murdered. It's a bit of a leap, but so are a number of points made by the prosecution. I think that anyone familiar with the Christa Worthington case is going to roll their eyes.

"According to Tim, the little girl told him that her "Mommy fell down," Thomas Fields-Meyer and Jennifer Longley reported in People. Even though Ava was in shock and covered in her mother's blood, she was physically unhurt. But her mother was dead."

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/classics/christa_worthington/index.html
 
Slightly off topic, but relevant for those watching the trial who are not local. There is a *small* chance that Wake County could see some snow/ice tomorrow night. Wake County courts very rarely cancel or postpone court due to winter weather, but it is potentially something that could impact testimony on Monday morning.
 
The hair on the female figure in purple appears to be white. It seems to me that unless the jury is told that children aged 2 have difficulty with gender recognition in human representations and dolls, they can't assume that ... it's an interesting question though ... whether the jury can make an assumption that the 2 year old intended to use the female figure as a male. Taken literally, they are presented with a female attacking Michelle and given the connection - without any scientific stats to back it up - that only a father would leave a child alive after the mother was murdered. It's a bit of a leap, but so are a number of points made by the prosecution. I think that anyone familiar with the Christa Worthington case is going to roll their eyes.

"According to Tim, the little girl told him that her "Mommy fell down," Thomas Fields-Meyer and Jennifer Longley reported in People. Even though Ava was in shock and covered in her mother's blood, she was physically unhurt. But her mother was dead."

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/classics/christa_worthington/index.html

It's not just that CY was left alive. Someone cleaned her feet and changed her diaper. Also I don't think CY was afraid of whoever did it because she went back in MY's bedroom. If CY had seen a "bad man" do it, wouldn't she be afraid he would come back?
 
Great find Otto! It was making me crazy. I'll have to listen to the daycare teacher hearing again but IIRC she said white scrubs.
 
I am amazed what a lucky SOB Jay is.

CY obviously told MF "daddy did it"....if only MF realized that, it could be brought in!!!!

How many CStores have you seen w/o video?
That would have been enough to arrest him almost immediately and would make this truly a slam dunk case.
 
Shouldn't be a problem Wp, temp is not forecast <40 .

Boy, did our Pack stink it up today on the Bball court.

Here you go JTF: http://www.wral.com/weather/page/9748768/

But, the chances of that actually happening are slim. But boy would I like a day off. And yes, today's game was disappointing. Although I can't believe Karl Hess kicked Gulgiotta and Corchiani out of the RBC Center.
 
Karl Hess is a little man with some very serious emotional issues.
 
I don't think that the jury will focus in on why CY picked the "grandma" doll over the "doctor" doll as the attacker. The choice of the "mommy" doll is obvious as it does favor MY the most of the 3 available to CY. Between the two dolls left, neither one favors JY. I believe that CY just chose one of the two human-like dolls to represent the attacker.

I do believe the jury will focus in on the undeniable fact that CY witnessed part of her mother's murder. It seems implausible to me that anyone can assume that a 2 1/2 year old was able to witness part of the murder undetected by the assailant.

This, imo, will lead to the jury asking themselves the following questions and I am including the answers I think are most reasonable to those questions:

-Would an assailant leave a child alive that he/she knew witnessed the attack?
Maybe. Maybe not.

-Would an assailant who decided to leave the child alive also take the time to clean her up and put her to bed?
Not likely unless there is some reason why the assailant felt the need to do this.

-What type of assailant would leave a child witness alive and take the time to clean her up and put her to bed?
Someone who knew the child and had feelings for the child.

-Who knew the child and had feelings for the child that had the opportunity, means, and motive to murder MY?
The child's father.

Judge Stephens made a good call on this one because what CY showed when she was playing with the dolls is that she did witness part of the murder and a decision was made by the attacker to leave her alive and cared for. This is strong evidence as to who really did commit this murder, imo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
177
Guests online
4,374
Total visitors
4,551

Forum statistics

Threads
592,424
Messages
17,968,619
Members
228,765
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top