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

[gracielee]

illowfight2:

fftobed:

:countsheep:

:cloud9:

:cowcouch:

 

[otto]

Personally, I totally see why the judge ruled against the post nap conversation. It seemed disjointed to me and could or could not have had anything to do with the outside doll play acting. We do not know how much time had lapsed between the two and to suggest that the two are somehow connected is a far stretch IMO without more to go on than what we know right now. Even if we knew more or had witnessed it ourselves, I don't think we could be 100% sure what CY was talking about. Heck she could have just been rambling about several things on her mind after waking from a dream. Who knows.


IMO

It was the daycare employee that connected the pre and post nap remarks ... and she said that she did not prompt the child. By excluding the post nap remarks, the testimony is clean and effective.

The daycare employee testified that the child had not heard any details about the murder at daycare, but she was one employee with 22+ students and cannot know what the child heard between the murder and the last day she attended class. She may have heard details and enacted what she had heard ... or she was a witness to the murder and the only reason she is alive is because her father murdered her mother.

 

[heidisams]

The daycare employee has no idea what the child heard. It's not just that day ... it's the days between the murder and the last day that the child attended daycare. Personally, I'm a little shocked that the child was sent to daycare under the circumstances ... murder in the family.

The objection was something with the constitution ... #6 and #14 ... but it's a fair ruling. I think the defense made the wrong argument ... they should have argued that the statement should only be entered in its entirety as they could then demonstrate that the child was rambling. By excluding the post-nap testimony, the jury has a focused description from the daycare worker ... who may only have documented certain statements and actions ... no cows, barn and fruit rollups in the pre-nap testimony.

I was shocked too that they took her to daycare! If my spouse had just been brutally murdered I'd be holding on to my babies so tight, especially if one of them was in the house and a possible eyewitness! No way, no matter what the circumstances were.
That is, if the "real killer" hadn't been caught yet, and was still on the streets....

 

[Talina]

Agreed .. she was told that the prognosis was that she would have some functioning at the level of a 2 year old. She identified that disability as memory related. She's not like a 2 year old that tumbles down the stairs and pushes boundaries (terrible twos), she's like a two year old in memory functioning, but otherwise holds a menial job and presents professionally in court.

Again, I don't agree with your recollection or interpretation of her testimony.

Clearly we heard the same testimony and do not agree on what we heard and/or how we are interpreting what we heard. If jurors have this sort of disagreement on what a witness testimony is, I surely hope they ask for a read back or transcript so that they can have a productive debate about it instead of going in circles.

Right now, you and I are totally disagreeing but it seems to me our disagreement is two fold. One being what was actually said and two, what the interpretation is of what it was that was actually said.

I don't see how to reconcile the two so probably just best to move on.

 

[otto]

I heard that testimony and have relistened to it since that day. I just did not hear the same thing you did. She didn't say she believed that about her brain she said she was told that. I suppose one could surmise she believed it but I really think we should stick to what she said. I think there is a lot of interpretation and not so accurate restatements of actual testimony where this particular witness is concerned.

IMO

Yes, she testified that the prognosis was that she would have limited functioning ... but it's obvious that she doesn't believe it. She seemed to believe that she is fully functional .. and we all agree that she appeared professional, was well dressed, presented well, holds down jobs, but contradicted her sworn testimony.

 

[otto]

I was shocked too that they took her to daycare! If my spouse had just been brutally murdered I'd be holding on to my babies so tight, especially if one of them was in the house and a possible eyewitness! No way, no matter what the circumstances were.

I can understand that one adult or another was so overwhelmed with grief that he was unable to address his daughter's needs, but there were several other adults that could look after the child ... I think of daycare as a bit like parking a child and after a woman has been murdered under those circumstances, I don't think her daughter should be "parked". Of everyone there, the child was experiencing deeper grief - although she didn't understand it.

 

[MoonFlwr]

Personally, I totally see why the judge ruled against the post nap conversation. It seemed disjointed to me and could or could not have had anything to do with the outside doll play acting. We do not know how much time had lapsed between the two and to suggest that the two are somehow connected is a far stretch IMO without more to go on than what we know right now. Even if we knew more or had witnessed it ourselves, I don't think we could be 100% sure what CY was talking about. Heck she could have just been rambling about several things on her mind after waking from a dream. Who knows.


IMO

I agree, Talina

Well-stated.

 

[heidisams]

Personally, I totally see why the judge ruled against the post nap conversation. It seemed disjointed to me and could or could not have had anything to do with the outside doll play acting. We do not know how much time had lapsed between the two and to suggest that the two are somehow connected is a far stretch IMO without more to go on than what we know right now. Even if we knew more or had witnessed it ourselves, I don't think we could be 100% sure what CY was talking about. Heck she could have just been rambling about several things on her mind after waking from a dream. Who knows.


IMO

ITA. I consider these 2 separate events....

 

[janesdean]

Have you followed the testimony from the daycare employee?

Otto, just curious, who do you think committed this murder ? TIA

 

[otto]

We've only been presented with one suspect.

 

[otto]

Is the prosecution suggesting that if the child had slept through the attempted strangulation and brutal, mortal beating of her mother, she too would have been murdered - more "soft kill" (like strangulation or suffocation), but because she woke up and witnessed the murder, the murderer could no longer murder her ... because he was her father? That is one thing I wondered about after the prelim hearing.

 

[janesdean]

We've only been presented with one suspect.

Well, I'm pretty sure you don't think JY did it, you must have some opinion as to what happened to Michelle.

 

[otto]

I think you are mistaken.

I think that the child's testimony is highly damaging to the defense argument . I hope the jury does not mention it as a deciding factor.

 

[enzeder]

Jason Young live blog: Defense presses key witness, and investigator details findings

Excerpt: “Me and a couple of my friends was out playing ball,” she said. “The ball went across the street. One of my friends pushed me to go get it.”

She saw the truck coming and was hit.

“I don’t know exactly. I was told by my parents that when I got hit my brain was laying out on the street,” she said.

The doctors, she said, “told my mama I’d be like 2 years old when I was 20 years old.”

She said, with a touch of pride in her voice, that that had not turned out to be true. But she did say she was a “slow learner” and told Klinkosum she has received disability through Social Security since she was a child.

“I’ve had memory problems since ’86,” said Calhoun, who is 35. “I’ve been through a lot with myself, my kids and my ex-husband.”

But she insisted her memory was not faulty when it came to the night of Nov. 3, 2006. She identified Young to investigators only a few days later."

http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2012/feb...oung-trial-resumes-clerk-back-sta-ar-1910969/

 

[otto]

Jason Young live blog: Defense presses key witness, and investigator details findings

Excerpt: “Me and a couple of my friends was out playing ball,” she said. “The ball went across the street. One of my friends pushed me to go get it.”

She saw the truck coming and was hit.

“I don’t know exactly. I was told by my parents that when I got hit my brain was laying out on the street,” she said.

The doctors, she said, “told my mama I’d be like 2 years old when I was 20 years old.”

She said, with a touch of pride in her voice, that that had not turned out to be true. But she did say she was a “slow learner” and told Klinkosum she has received disability through Social Security since she was a child.

“I’ve had memory problems since ’86,” said Calhoun, who is 35. “I’ve been through a lot with myself, my kids and my ex-husband.”

But she insisted her memory was not faulty when it came to the night of Nov. 3, 2006. She identified Young to investigators only a few days later."

http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2012/feb...oung-trial-resumes-clerk-back-sta-ar-1910969/

Thank you ... so even though she has a memory disability, that may be like a 2 year old, she insists (with pride) that this is not true. Yet, throughout the testimony, she remembered new information. I think we can assume it's not because she actually remembered better information, but that she was rehabilitated ... until cross examination. The gas attendant gave contradictory testimony with new information being added not only with each interview, but also with each trial.

 

[cody100]

She said she saw the interior lights on and the exact description of the van.
I am suggesting she may have seen a vehicle at the next house, closer to Blue Sage....if she saw one at all.

I believe she saw a vehicle on Blue Sage. I don't think she saw the full detail until she came closer to the vehicle. It would have all happened very closely together. I relistened to her testimony and have some questions about her degree of detail. However, this lady has always seemed genuine each time she helped me at the Post Office. I don't believe she is a fraud as has been suggested. It will be interesting to see her testimony this time.

 

[cody100]

Thank you ... so even though she has a memory disability, that may be like a 2 year old, she insists (with pride) that this is not true. Yet, throughout the testimony, she remembered new information. I think we can assume it's not because she actually remembered better information, but that she was rehabilitated ... until cross examination. The gas attendant gave contradictory testimony with new information being added not only with each interview, but also with each trial.

I think she believes she saw JY that night, and she might have. However, with memory issues, her testimony has to be questioned in my opinion. This is a sad fact because her testimony is very important in this trial. This post in no way diminishes GL's amazing progress since being hit nor does it demean her character. She is refreshingly honest about her condition.

 

[~n/t~]

Regarding CY, I'm having a hard time with what she may have seen. I don't doubt she perhaps witnessed her mom being brutally murdered but I do have a hard time believing that if the killer is JY, he would leave her there to watch the whole thing. I can't wrap my head around that.

Does the killer stop, gives the child tylenol, puts her to bed and then goes back to what he was doing? Or is he/she in such a adrenaline rush that he/she doesn't notice the child there?

If the killer is JY would he risk taking CY to daycare knowing she witnessed the whole thing? Did JY know that CY was able to speak in full sentences "Daddy did it"?

IDK

 

[BritsKate]

Regarding CY, I'm having a hard time with what she may have seen. I don't doubt she perhaps witnessed her mom being brutally murdered but I do have a hard time believing that if the killer is JY, he would leave her there to watch the whole thing. I can't wrap my head around that.

Does the killer stop, gives the child tylenol, puts her to bed and then goes back to what he was doing? Or is he/she in such a adrenaline rush that he/she doesn't notice the child there?

If the killer is JY would he risk taking CY to daycare knowing she witnessed the whole thing? Did JY know that CY was able to speak in full sentences "Daddy did it"?

IDK

I think it's probably the latter. When my ex would fly into a rage and start breaking furniture it didn't matter the kids were in the room. He could only consider their presence once his anger was expended. Even if he 'saw' them he didn't care they were there. FWIW

Perhaps JY minimized the crime to CY. Maybe he doubted she would remember as much as she did. Or, as we're even seeing here, have the mentality of 'who would believe a two year old'? Again just my experiences to offer but even had my children told anyone of daddy being mad, breaking stuff or screaming no one would have believed them since he appeared the consummate charmer.

My ex would have sought to diminish parental responsibility as quickly as possible. If family or friends were unavailable I am certain he would opt for daycare or even an acquaintance. He loved the appearance of our children in how they made him look (great dad, fun, loving, gentle) but absolutely deplored any physical care-taking or responsibility of/for them.

 

[cody100]

Regarding CY, I'm having a hard time with what she may have seen. I don't doubt she perhaps witnessed her mom being brutally murdered but I do have a hard time believing that if the killer is JY, he would leave her there to watch the whole thing. I can't wrap my head around that.

Does the killer stop, gives the child tylenol, puts her to bed and then goes back to what he was doing? Or is he/she in such a adrenaline rush that he/she doesn't notice the child there?

If the killer is JY would he risk taking CY to daycare knowing she witnessed the whole thing? Did JY know that CY was able to speak in full sentences "Daddy did it"?

IDK

As horrific as it is, I think we now have evidence that she saw all or some portion of the murder. I could see the killer not realizing she was there or CY being too afraid to let the killer know she was there.

I struggle with how she afterward would not be afraid of her daddy if she knew he were the killer. I am sure there are a lot of opinions on that point.