Guilty of first degree murder/verdict watch #2

SteelerGirl43 said:

Again they asked for one and they said there was not one... Now whether they had one & just didnt have it there that day I don't know.. But there should have been one.. FACT! LOL!

Click to expand...

Who asked for one? The jury? If the list wasn't entered into evidence during the trial, then the jury can't see it. The suitcase itself was, though. I'm positive that if something was missing, Jason would have told his defense.

Amster said:

Who asked for one? The jury? If the list wasn't entered into evidence during the trial, then the jury can't see it. The suitcase itself was, though. I'm positive that if something was missing, Jason would have told his defense.

Click to expand...

Yep! The jury asked for an inventory list & they did not have one. I'm not saying a shirt or anything was removed, but it could have been.

Actually I was just responding to someone who said people were saying it was the SUV when actually people were talking about the suitcase inventory list. Im sure if something was missing JY would have told his lawyers.

SteelerGirl43 said:

Just because it was at the trial doesn't mean everything was in the suitcase.... There was NO inventory list..... One should have been made.... Please don't get snarky with me...

Click to expand...

Inventory is recorded on written search warrants for seized items. Not everything seized in a case is entered as evidence during the trial. A summary list of items seized is not presented during trial because, again, not all items seized are introduced at trial to a jury, and a list of items made by LE is not considered "evidence."

No one can say that LE didn't create a list for themselves as a working document, but that is NOT evidence. A list wasn't presented to the jury during the trial, nor could it be since it's not evidence. It's up to the jury to make notes in their notebooks.

The jury got to see each item in JY's suitcase themselves, in person, close up. Each item in the suitcase as well as the suitcase itself, is evidence.

Madeleine74 said:

Inventory is recorded on written search warrants for seized items. A separate list isn't made, nor is it necessary to be made. Not everything seized in a case is entered as evidence during the trial. A summary list of items seized is not presented during trial because, again, not all items seized are introduced at trial to a jury, and a list of items made by LE is not considered "evidence."

The jury got to see each item in JY's suitcase themselves, in person, close up. Each item in the suitcase as well as the suitcase itself, is evidence.

Click to expand...

Could you please provide the link of where his suitcase was inventoried?


(1) Inventory. An officer present during the execution of the warrant must prepare and verify an inventory of any property seized. The officer must do so in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken. If either one is not present, the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in the presence of at least one other credible person. In a case involving the seizure of electronic storage media or the seizure or copying of electronically stored information, the inventory may be limited to describing the physical storage media that were seized or copied. The officer may retain a copy of the electronically stored information that was seized or copied.

(2) Receipt. The officer taking property under the warrant must:

(A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken; or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the property.

(3) Return. The officer executing the warrant must promptly return it--together with a copy of the inventory--to the magistrate designated on the warrant. The magistrate on request must give a copy of the inventory to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken and to the applicant for the warrant.

SteelerGirl43 said:

Could you please provide the link of where his suitcase was inventoried?

Click to expand...

Nope. Because I'm not a LE officer. I'm not an officer/detective who worked on the case. I only have access to the same things that everyone else does, as made available during the trial. There was no "inventory" list presented during the trial.

You could try contacting WCSO and ask them.

Amster said:

Who asked for one? The jury? If the list wasn't entered into evidence during the trial, then the jury can't see it. The suitcase itself was, though. I'm positive that if something was missing, Jason would have told his defense.

Click to expand...

The jury asked for a list. No list was entered into evidence during the trial and one could not be given to the jury if it wasn't a piece of evidence and entered into evidence (and given a Bates Stamp). So instead, the state made available the luggage itself and inside were all the items that were found in that luggage.

Now, had JY himself made a list of the items in his suitcase and put that list somewhere where it would have been seized, that list that JY created could have been an item of "evidence" submitted.

SteelerGirl43 said:

Just because it was at the trial doesn't mean everything was in the suitcase.... There was NO inventory list..... One should have been made.... Please don't get snarky with me...

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. We have NO way of knowing what should have been in that suitcase. Even if LE had taken inventory. We would have to take his mother's testimony and family's testimony as TRUTH. THEY SAID HE NEVER TOUCHED HIS SUITCASE. Never removed it from the car.
He fell plumb to his knees.
So where is the shirt and where are the shoes?

If only every landfill between Raleigh and Brevard could be easily searched and items found. I'm sure all the missing evidence is buried somewhere under tons of garbage.

SteelerGirl43 said:

Why are the clean pajamas and absence of a diaper important? First, it appears with certainty that someone laundered the pajamas because the blood that was present on the seat of the pajama pants was not visible to the naked eye but the crime lab later detected blood through chemical testing.

Click to expand...

I disagree. They are important because they are missing.

Boodles said:

I think her heart hurts when she thinks about her poor baby boy Jason, the victim of such unfairness.

There's no doubt in my mind that while the judge was reading the verdict, sentencing and responding to the motion by the defense, both JY and PY were sitting there blaming Michelle in their minds.

Click to expand...

I have to agree w

Boodles said:

I think her heart hurts when she thinks about her poor baby boy Jason, the victim of such unfairness.

There's no doubt in my mind that while the judge was reading the verdict, sentencing and responding to the motion by the defense, both JY and PY were sitting there blaming Michelle in their minds.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you. This is the only way, IMO, that Mrs. Young could rationalize her thoughts. I would surmise that she never connected with her DIL. The DIL that trapped her boy. The girl from New York. The one with the dramatic mother and sister.

CBI agents routinely spray a chemical that detects the presence of blood. They do this even when there are large red stains visible because they don't assume red stains automatically = blood. This chemical is used on all kinds of surfaces, including clothing.

Once it's determined human blood is present, then they swab the item or at the lab take cuttings from the items to have them DNA tested.

The spraying of a chemical doesn't mean that all stains are microscopic and thus cannot be seen by the human eye, though there could be some that are too small for easy visual detection.

I think because the use of a chemical was used to show all the places where blood on CY's pj's existed, an assumption is being made that no blood stains could be detected visually and thus that must mean someone washed the pj's before the CSI/SBI got them.

If there is evidence or testimony that shows CY's pj's were washed, I'd like to see it. I have seen nothing.

SteelerGirl43 said:

So you are saying the person who wrote that on his or her blog is lying? Someone who watched the trial everyday. How are they missing when the jury asked to look at the pj's.

Click to expand...

A person writing on blog?
You have lost me.
I am to believe an anonymous person posting on a blog?
Is that what you are asking of me?

We're going in circles here. Let's just get this settled. IF someone has an opposing view then please submit a link, that is not some blog on the internet. That would mean msm, or part of the video testimony.

From my recollection of fact the jury asked for the inventory of the suitcase. There was no inventory list submitted into 'evidence,' therefore the jury could not see it. They had to see the actual evidence instead, that would be the contents of the suitcase.

IF the inventory list itself needed to be entered into evidence, the pros would have submitted it, or the defense would have asked for it. Neither happened. Therefore, the next best thing for the court was to submit the actual contents, which they did. Neither side, def or pros objected and the jury used what they had.

There was nothing missing from the suitcase. The def saw what was in it and JY could have told them something was missing during the months and months this was in trial, both times. JY didn't, therefore what JY claims he brought home in his suitcase, was all that was in it when the jury saw it.

The clothing JY was seen in at the hotel video, was not in his suitcase. The pants, shirt he wore and shoes as well, were not in there. That is the crux and that is the main thing the jury zeroed in on. It was their HOOK.

Jason is guilty as charged. He now has all the laws of our land at his disposal. He can appeal his conviction and I'm sure he will. Until then, he's a convicted murderer, and all the tweets and twitters and anonymous blogs aren't going to get him free.

Please, lets all just get along and stop the back and forth. It's not going to change anything and may earn some posters a short vacation.

JMHO
fran

citygirl said:

A person writing on blog?
You have lost me.
I am to believe an anonymous person posting on a blog?
Is that what you are asking of me?

Click to expand...

You said you disagreed.. The info came from a person who blogged about the case.. She watched it just like members here did....

You said the pj's were missing...

A blog based on someone's opinion and conspiracy theories is not evidence. I would question the accuracy of info provided outside of actual testimony, court documents, and exhibits.

Madeleine74 said:

Thanks Citygirl! I knew about the undershirt/tshirt and that it was determined to be fine and thus CY kept it on. But I'm reading in various places that people are claiming the PJ's themselves were washed right after the murder and then put on CY again. And it's being put out there as if it's a fact. I don't have any basis for believing that myself, but if it did happen, then CY's bloody pj's went into the garbage bags along with the weapon, shoes, JY's clothes, diaper, etc, and newer pj's were put on her. The washing machine was not going, and CY was not removed from the home and brought back later.

Those PJs weren't washed, they were collected and bagged and tested by the SBI and had blood on them in several places.

And we know CY's diaper was removed from her and discarded along with everything else. What a nice goth killer. Not only cleans up a toddler but also takes out all the garbage from the house and the liner inside the garbage in the garage too. So thoughtful!

It's not good when facts have to be made up or twisted in order to present a better argument for the defendant. And yet, there appear to be some head-scratching whoppers out there.

Click to expand...

I read that ridiculousness too. And their reasoning also seems to be that Jy wouldnt have had time to wash the PJ;s so it must have been someone else! Perhaps a neat-freak burglar? A psychotic Martha Stewart wannabe? Please, give me a break.

As far as why they think the PJ's were washed, I think I saw one comment that said they must have been since blood wasnt on them. I dont know the details, but just because she walked in blood doesnt mean she laid down and rolled around in it, to the point of getting blood all over. It's hard to really get answers from some of those folks, since the website I've seen most of the posts at is moderated heavily, and if you respond to a previous comment by the time the moderator posts it the person you were responding to doesnt see it or has moved on to talk about something else. Also, I tried to post some questions there and was given a message that since it's the weekend, there would be no moderator and therefore no posting....

Just the Fax said:

Are you suggesting LE intentionally removed items, personally committing a felony:waitasec:

Click to expand...

Yes, she is. I have seen that claim on news sites. Their explanation is that "police have made mistakes or lied before, so we should assume they did so here". I guess we should just release every single convict in every single prison, who's to know if the police didnt lie about something there too? But for some reason they only advocate for JY....

Solange82200 said:

A psychotic Martha Stewart wannabe? Please, give me a break.

Click to expand...

:floorlaugh: Floating Goth killers who do your laundry!

Solange82200 said:

As far as why they think the PJ's were washed, I think I saw one comment that said they must have been since blood wasnt on them.

Click to expand...

Except of course blood was on them and that is in testimony. Blood on both legs, and on the butt area.

SteelerGirl43 said:

Could you please provide the link of where his suitcase was inventoried?


(1) Inventory. An officer present during the execution of the warrant must prepare and verify an inventory of any property seized. The officer must do so in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken. If either one is not present, the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in the presence of at least one other credible person. In a case involving the seizure of electronic storage media or the seizure or copying of electronically stored information, the inventory may be limited to describing the physical storage media that were seized or copied. The officer may retain a copy of the electronically stored information that was seized or copied.

(2) Receipt. The officer taking property under the warrant must:

(A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken; or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the property.

(3) Return. The officer executing the warrant must promptly return it--together with a copy of the inventory--to the magistrate designated on the warrant. The magistrate on request must give a copy of the inventory to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken and to the applicant for the warrant.

Click to expand...

You admitted that nothing is missing from the suitcase, since JY would have said so. Yet you continually point out the missing inventory list. How is this in any way relevant to JY being guilty or innocent? Since common sense tells all of us (you admitted this) that nothing is missing?