**Verdict watch weekend discussion thread** 3/3-4/2012

[Just the Fax]

If he didn't intend for the scene to be messy, why would he have size 10 shoes with him, why would he be wearing them?

He may not have brought a weapon with him, he may have had nothing but a flashlight with him ... a flashlight would match the injuries.

I guess you missed the rest of the post ...plan B?

A flashlight is not "heavy", per ME.
Her skull was fractured twice.

 

[otto]

Yes.

I'm wondering what statements Otto is saying should come in to question now if we are to believe that she did not dispute the statement given to the trooper. IIRC the trooper said he interviewed JY and did not speak to MY separately but that she was there and did not dispute. Well, that comes as no surprise to me that she did not dispute what he said. JY had plenty of time to let MY know she was to let him handle the accident report. If anyone thinks that she is going to go against what he said at that time, in the emotional state she was likely in, is just not being very realistic, IMO.

So, I am wondering what statements that he feels Michelle made that should now come into question. Personally, for me that is a far stretch to make that connection as far as any statements that are testimony that were made by Michelle. I really don't recall many at all to be honest.

IMO

Where I have a problem is with suggestions that Michelle was not truthful with the officer that wrote up the accident report. Rather than accept that Michelle was truthful with the officer (and I see no point in splitting hairs regarding whether she spoke to the officer or stood next to Jason and agreed with what he said), people would rather believe that she was untruthful because that is the only way to run with the idea that the accident was an attempted murder.

That is, for the accident to even begin to be interpretted as attempted murder, we have to have Michelle falsifying a report to an accident investigator. I find that unusual ... that this is the preferred spin. I would have thought that the preferred interpretation would be that Michelle was honest in her dealings with officials.

 

[Talina]

Where I have a problem is with suggestions that Michelle was not truthful with the officer that wrote up the accident report. Rather than accept that Michelle was truthful with the officer (and I see no point in splitting hairs regarding whether she spoke to the officer or stood next to Jason and agreed with what he said), people would rather believe that she was untruthful because that is the only way to run with the idea that the accident was an attempted murder.

That is, for the accident to even begin to be interpretted as attempted murder, we have to have Michelle falsifying a report to an accident investigator. I find that unusual ... that this is the preferred spin. I would have thought that the preferred interpretation would be that Michelle was honest in her dealings with officials.

Okay, I get that.

I still don't see what statements you refer to of Michelles that should now be in question.

 

[Cammy]

If he didn't intend for the scene to be messy, why would he have size 10 shoes with him, why would he be wearing them?

He may not have brought a weapon with him, he may have had nothing but a flashlight with him ... a flashlight would match the injuries.

I have thought there may have been a possibilty that Michelle kept something by the bed to use if needed.

Remember Jason said she had called him when he was on a trip about hearing noises.

If Michelle was asleep, as it has been suggested, it is hard to believe somone could not overpower her or merely place a pillow over her to render her unconscious........

The attacker(s) clearly held the upper hand, the element of surprise and her being alseep.

SO, maybe she was not asleep, maybe it was closer to midnite or closer to 6am, the state can not prove what time she died.

 

[otto]

I guess you missed the rest of the post ...plan B?

A flashlight is not "heavy", per ME.
Her skull was fractured twice.

Doesn't it also depend on the strength of the person weilding the object?

The amount of energy delivered to the target by the hammer-blow is equivalent to one half the mass of the head times the square of the head's speed at the time of impact E=mv*v/2

 

[CGW]

Good question, especially in a retrial.

I guess it's not only more expensive to sequester,(hotel, meals, etc)

but it is more difficult to find people on a jury who agree to be sequestered.

I find it hard to believe we made it all the way through trial without using an alternate, as 3 jurors were dismissed before the trial got underway.

I was hoping they would at least sequester during deliberations. Hopefully they are not being tainted this weekend :what:

 

[otto]

Okay, I get that.

I still don't see what statements you refer to of Michelles that should now be in question.

It seems to me that once it is assumed that someone is dishonest with officials, it's not much of a stretch before the truthfulness of other statements is placed in question. I'm surprised that it is being argued that Michelle was untruthful with officials in order to argue that a traffic accident might have been intentional. The downside of telling the truth is a $25 ticket ... and for this, Michelle's truthfulness with officials is placed in question? It seems like the price (truthfulness) far exceeds the benefit ($25 ticket).

For example, we know Jason lied about adultery with his wife (doesn't everyone that commits adultery do that at some point?). That is enough to place everything he said in question ... that is, he no longer gets the benefit of the doubt regarding statements he made.

 

[gitana1]

If he had made a claim on the insurance, then it would be motive. He didn't make a claim ... just like the case in Alabama that was recently dismissed. The motive there was insurance money, but the policy didn't name the husband as beneficiary of the claim. If the money is there an no one makes a claim, how is it motive?

Taking out large insurance policies has been a common motive for murder. It is reasonable to assume that one would become a suspect after a death if such a policy had been taken out and/or upped. Even if they are not the direct beneficiary. But murderers are not reasonable.

And the fact that a murderer, after the killing, fails to attempt to collect, does not erase motive. Many murderers, after the act itself, realize it may not have gone the way they had hoped and that the focus is too intensely on them. So, they likely change their planned course of conduct.

Did casey anthony, scott peterson, the coward who killed susan powell, etc., believe the heat would be so high? Inexplicably, even when smart enough to hide tons of evidence, murderers are often dumb enough not to anticipate the reaction the murder will cause. Somehow, they imagine themselves happily living out their lives after an initial, quick investigation and a sad, unsolved case involving a loved one.

BTW, I read the first post on this thread of yours in which you state that there isn't absolute proof that Jason Young did this. Absolute proof is not necessary for a conviction. And it is this belief that has contorted the meaning of reasonable doubt.

I don't know if there is reasonable doubt in this case, having not watched either trial, but there certainly seems to be proof. And in most cases that go to trial, the proof is not close to absolute.

 

[gracielee]

I guess you missed the rest of the post ...plan B?

A flashlight is not "heavy", per ME.
Her skull was fractured twice.

My vote for weapon has always been some sort of hammer. JMO I'd say he had those Franklin's for footprints, whether they be footprints left outside the house, or inside the house. I think he looked up those computer searches for 'knock-out blow' and the others because he intended to hit her over the head while she was asleep. He *thought* that blow would knock her unconscious, and then he'd strangle her without a struggle. But he would have no way of knowing if that knock-out blow would cause bleeding for sure. So he wore the throw-away shoes just in case. Where the plan went wrong was if that blow did knock her out, or simply stunned her, she came to and attempted to get air by clawing at her throat. Trying to free herself to breathe. That really pissed jason off, hence the extreme over-kill. In reading the complete autopsy report, the horrible blows she suffered both to her head & face, and the amount of blood reported by the first responder on the scene. It was a bloodbath in there. From what I've heard, LE on the scene that day, word of mouth, they had never seen such a beating in all their years on the force. Poor Michelle, beaten literally to a pulp, just tears at my heart. She didn't deserve to die such a horrible death. And poor Meredith, having to find her beloved sister in such a state. And then to have innuendoes thrown towards Meredith. Who basically gave up her own life for a couple years to care for her niece, so CY wouldn't have to go to daycare and be looked after by strangers. MY, MF, & LF were extremely close as a family. What horrible things they have had to endure. Just heartbreaking IMO

 

[otto]

I have thought there may have been a possibilty that Michelle kept something by the bed to use if needed.

Remember Jason said she had called him when he was on a trip about hearing noises.

If Michelle was asleep, as it has been suggested, it is hard to believe somone could not overpower her or merely place a pillow over her to render her unconscious........

The attacker(s) clearly held the upper hand, the element of surprise and her being alseep.

SO, maybe she was not asleep, maybe it was closer to midnite or closer to 6am, the state can not prove what time she died.

Good point. Some people sleep with something under or near the bed that can be used as a weapon. Maybe that's where a weapon came from.

 

[Cammy]

Ugh. You know, I think that Jason Young should have consulted with you first. He wasn't perfect in the execution of his plan and obviously, your logic was better than his.

Really?

I would think someone that was planning a murder, would cover the basics.

Like where his trip was ........Jason did not even print directions to his meeting until moments before he left.

He did not think to fill up a gas can, he did not think it may be a good idea to cool things with MM, and he did not even know MF's phone number, wow.

That is either really being very sloppy or maybe not being involved at all.

Hmmm.

 

[fromageball]

The DT did not "admit" that the shoes at the crime scene were JY's hush puppy shoes or that Jy was wearing them. They gave alternatives, since the prosecution was never able to prove conclusively that the hush puppy prints came from JY's shoes or from his feet in the shoes, the DT is giving the jury reasons to doubt that JY made the prints at the crime scene.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Just because they are attorneys in this case does not mean they know all the facts. If JY is guilty of this crime, he probably did not confess to his attorneys.

 

[hindsight2020]

If he didn't intend for the scene to be messy, why would he have size 10 shoes with him, why would he be wearing them?

He may not have brought a weapon with him, he may have had nothing but a flashlight with him ... a flashlight would match the injuries.

Maybe he wanted to create a brutal scene, one that would cast doubt on him, no way "Just being Jayson" could commit such a hideous crime, sure he was a cheater and a prankster but not capable of butchering his wife in this fashion. The size 10's fit well into this plan, there is no way there were two persons in that house, I can't see two people executing such a clean crime scene, no way, no how.

He had a plan to self contain the scene, hence the reason why there was no blood on the first floor or in his vehicle and no fiber transfer to the hotel.

 

[otto]

Taking out large insurance policies has been a common motive for murder. It is reasonable to assume that one would become a suspect after a death if such a policy had been taken out and/or upped. Even if they are not the direct beneficiary. But murderers are not reasonable.

And the fact that a murderer, after the killing, fails to attempt to collect, does not erase motive. Many murderers, after the act itself, realize it may not have gone the way they had hoped and that the focus is too intensely on them. So, they likely change their planned course of conduct.

Did casey anthony, scott peterson, the coward who killed susan powell, etc., believe the heat would be so high? Inexplicably, even when smart enough to hide tons of evidence, murderers are often dumb enough not to anticipate the reaction the murder will cause. Somehow, they imagine themselves happily living out their lives after an initial, quick investigation and a sad, unsolved case involving a loved one.

BTW, I read the first post on this thread of yours in which you state that there isn't absolute proof that Jason Young did this. Absolute proof is not necessary for a conviction. And it is this belief that has contorted the meaning of reasonable doubt.

I don't know if there is reasonable doubt in this case, having not watched either trial, but there certainly seems to be proof. And in most cases that go to trial, the proof is not close to absolute.

In the scuba diving murder, the motive was alleged to be insurance because the wife had insurance and the husband had supposedly asked her to name him the beneficiary. She had not done that. The case was dismissed because he had no access to the insurance - regardless of whether he believed he did at the time of the murder.

It seems to me that Jason had no access to the insurance after the murder because of his status as a suspect ... and the husband is always a suspect ... so for me, that kind of extinguishes insurance money as a motive.

 

[Talina]

It seems to me that once it is assumed that someone is dishonest with officials, it's not much of a stretch before the truthfulness of other statements is placed in question. I'm surprised that it is being argued that Michelle was untruthful with officials in order to argue that a traffic accident might have been intentional. The downside of telling the truth is a $25 ticket ... and for this, Michelle's truthfulness with officials is placed in question? It seems like the price (truthfulness) far exceeds the benefit ($25 ticket).

For example, we know Jason lied about adultery with his wife (doesn't everyone that commits adultery do that at some point?). That is enough to place everything he said in question ... that is, he no longer gets the benefit of the doubt regarding statements he made.

Again, it is the same explanation as before as to why you have a problem with a person being dishonest on one aspect but not questioning other statements that same person has made. A judge's instruction to the jury typically deals with this issue so I'm not too concerned from that perspective. They can either take in whole or in part what someone says if they believe part of what that person said to be untrue.

I am still wondering what specific other statements of Michelle should come into question. Rather than a global statement that all her statements should now come into question, I'm asking for specific statements. I don't recall any specific statements of Michelle that are critical pieces of evidence on this case. That is what I'm asking about since the post was made about questioning her statements.

 

[fromageball]

Really?

I would think someone that was planning a murder, would cover the basics.

Like where his trip was ........Jason did not even print directions to his meeting until moments before he left.

He did not think to fill up a gas can, he did not think it may be a good idea to cool things with MM, and he did not even know MF's phone number, wow.

That is either really being very sloppy or maybe not being involved at all.

Hmmm.

Didn't JY speak with Meredith the night before while at Cracker Barrel anyway? Even if he didn't memorize or have her number in his phone, he could have written it down so he could call her and explain his side of the remote control incident.

If he wanted her number because he planned to call her to have her find MY, I think he would have done better than writing it down on an atlas that was carelessly lying around in the car. He could have programmed the number in his phone. As his sister-in-law, it would not be suspicious that he had her number in his phone, but for whatever reason he chose to write it on the atlas instead.

Aside from all that, do we even know when MF's number was written on the atlas?

 

[Madeleine74]

I was hoping they would at least sequester during deliberations. Hopefully they are not being tainted this weekend :what:

Sequestration is expensive. You've already got a state and county that have gone through budget cuts.

 

[BritsKate]

It seems to me that once it is assumed that someone is dishonest with officials, it's not much of a stretch before the truthfulness of other statements is placed in question. I'm surprised that it is being argued that Michelle was untruthful with officials in order to argue that a traffic accident might have been intentional. The downside of telling the truth is a $25 ticket ... and for this, Michelle's truthfulness with officials is placed in question? It seems like the price (truthfulness) far exceeds the benefit ($25 ticket).

For example, we know Jason lied about adultery with his wife (doesn't everyone that commits adultery do that at some point?). That is enough to place everything he said in question ... that is, he no longer gets the benefit of the doubt regarding statements he made.

What statements made by Michelle specifically now come into question?

Michelle was in an abusive marriage. Trust me when I say the price for not lying could have been much, much higher than what can even be considered in monetary terms.

I lied to my parents, family, friends, law enforcement and counselor for my ex. I'm not very proud of it but it was part of the abuse itself. You justify, excuse, and protect your abuser. You minimize the abuse to even yourself. The only way I can make anyone understand is that you don't view what they do as abuse - yet. You believe everything that's wrong is your fault. It's part of the psychological background of abuse itself.

 

[Cammy]

Good point. Some people sleep with something under or near the bed that can be used as a weapon. Maybe that's where a weapon came from.

Since I changed my mind from G to NG in the pretty early stages because some things never fit for me, and still do not, I always thought the

murder was not intended, it was either an argument or attack that got out of hand, and, Michelle was able to land a nasty blow on someone

causing them to become enraged, and/or Michelle was killed so she would not be able to identify the person or persons responsible.

And,I think someone was watching the home, and knew Jason was out of town, and waited for Shelle to leave.

I also think there were 2 people, and a really good possibility CY was taken from the home in Michelle's Lexus.

Cindy Beaver and Mrs, Hensley description of the cars and times match.

It could really be that simple,

Tragic, horrific, brutal, but, just something that went horribly wrong..

JMO

 

[Talina]

The DT did not "admit" that the shoes at the crime scene were JY's hush puppy shoes or that Jy was wearing them. They gave alternatives, since the prosecution was never able to prove conclusively that the hush puppy prints came from JY's shoes or from his feet in the shoes, the DT is giving the jury reasons to doubt that JY made the prints at the crime scene.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Just because they are attorneys in this case does not mean they know all the facts. If JY is guilty of this crime, he probably did not confess to his attorneys.

What they did do, though, is admit the possibility was there that the shoes could have been there in his closet but just worn by someone else, just not JY.

To me, that was a ridiculous thing for the DT to say in closing. Why give the jurors that angle to think about, particularly since it came from the defense. It was totally going against what JY said in his taped testimony that the jury heard. I would think it would make more sense for them to bolster what JY said instead of throwing out there that perhaps JY was wrong, the shoes were still there but just that some intruder decided to pick those shoes to mess up the crime scene. That, to me, is not just a little far fetched.

IMO