Hey everyone,
First off, I'm not trying to get into a big argument about whether or not Jason Young killed his wife, that's been done over and over. I've been pondering this doll evidence and it really makes me wonder. Please feel free to reply and give your interpretations, and also add any points or testimony that I missed!
During the trial, I saw the daycare worker with the dolls... but I must have missed the part about mommy "getting a spanking for biting," cause people keep saying it and I don't remember hearing it.
Anyway, here's what I'm wondering:
People are calling this evidence that Jason Young killed his wife. From what I can tell, Cassidy supposedly chose the doll most resembling her dad to be the aggressor in the fight. It's definitely an interesting theory, but something BIG doesn't add up for me.
Based on her statement about mommy being punished, It sounds to me that if she did witness something, she witnessed her mother being attacked. It also sounds like she bit her attacker to get that person off of her. I'm no cop, and I don't investigate assaults all the time -- but it sure sounds to me like someone was trying to possibly rape Michelle, and she bit them. At that point, the assailant gets really mad and then beats the crap out of Michelle.
I think that if someone were trying to harm Michelle Young, ESPECIALLY if they were trying to force her to have sex, then she would llikely have clawed and bitten as much as she could. Either way, I'd imagine that someone trying to attack her like that would totally flip out if she bit them. That kind of rage could easily account for the "overkill" that people keep attributing to what they call a "personal attack" by a close friend or lover.
Also, if we are to believe that Cassidy was reenacting something that she witnessed, and we use this as evidence to suggest that the aggressor doll represented Jason Young... then where are the bite marks? I just don't get it... does anyone else have a different interpretation? This one particluar piece of evidence has been bugging me, and I don't see how it didn't bug other people.
First off, I'm not trying to get into a big argument about whether or not Jason Young killed his wife, that's been done over and over. I've been pondering this doll evidence and it really makes me wonder. Please feel free to reply and give your interpretations, and also add any points or testimony that I missed!
During the trial, I saw the daycare worker with the dolls... but I must have missed the part about mommy "getting a spanking for biting," cause people keep saying it and I don't remember hearing it.
Anyway, here's what I'm wondering:
People are calling this evidence that Jason Young killed his wife. From what I can tell, Cassidy supposedly chose the doll most resembling her dad to be the aggressor in the fight. It's definitely an interesting theory, but something BIG doesn't add up for me.
Based on her statement about mommy being punished, It sounds to me that if she did witness something, she witnessed her mother being attacked. It also sounds like she bit her attacker to get that person off of her. I'm no cop, and I don't investigate assaults all the time -- but it sure sounds to me like someone was trying to possibly rape Michelle, and she bit them. At that point, the assailant gets really mad and then beats the crap out of Michelle.
I think that if someone were trying to harm Michelle Young, ESPECIALLY if they were trying to force her to have sex, then she would llikely have clawed and bitten as much as she could. Either way, I'd imagine that someone trying to attack her like that would totally flip out if she bit them. That kind of rage could easily account for the "overkill" that people keep attributing to what they call a "personal attack" by a close friend or lover.
Also, if we are to believe that Cassidy was reenacting something that she witnessed, and we use this as evidence to suggest that the aggressor doll represented Jason Young... then where are the bite marks? I just don't get it... does anyone else have a different interpretation? This one particluar piece of evidence has been bugging me, and I don't see how it didn't bug other people.