The items in the unit were from the Birchleaf house and that is the only reason police would have tested the items. :seeya:
Interesting to note. Mrs Young reported certain items missing. How would she know that if JY never spoke?
The items in the unit were from the Birchleaf house and that is the only reason police would have tested the items. :seeya:
This affidavit describes the rental of the storage unit for items from Birchleaf and also describes specifically what they were looking for. Adidas shoes purchased in '05 were on the list. The Adidas had the unidentified blood on them. Clearly they were at Birchleaf at the time of the murder and this is why the blood could be important.
http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/12/3365337/1219081417-20080818133617555.pdf
Thanks. Does anybody have a clue as to how long it takes the Supreme Court to hear the prosecutor's appeal of the retrial decision? The decision from the Appellate Court was handed down the first of April.
The killer likely sustained some injuries in the fight. I believe they checked the carpeting and blood from the crime scene to see if someone else bled at the scene.
It has been awhile since I've looked @ anything concerning this case. This affidavit underlines his DNA on the wall. His print surrounded by blood spatter. Wow.
No, it doesn't. It clearly says, "was described as a possible print."
The DNA was a match but then, he lived there so it wouldn't be surprising to find his DNA anywhere in the room.
http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/12/3365337/1219081417-20080818133617555.pdf
@ 17:20, Spivey is questioned about his conclusion that the child was likely carried to the bathroom from the master BR due to the minimal amount of blood in the hallway. He saw it firsthand. I think we must trust it as fact that there was not a trail of bloody footprints, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it in the search warrant.
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10768400/
How would finding MY's blood in JY's closet have helped them solve the case?
My bolding. We should absolutely 110% not trust this as fact. We've seen the police come to unlikely conclusions on the basis of this type of "observation" before. I know the Cooper case better, so some examples from that one include "It smelled like Downey", "I saw some hay", "The bed didn't look slept in", etc. We should not trust "as fact" police observations. They seem to recall things that are convenient to the narrative that they are pursuing at the time.
Again, that is the difference between testimony evidence and fact. You can use it as contributing to determining what is fact, but an officer's statement or sworn testimony is not fact. It is evidence.
In post #9 you said they found blood on a shoe originally from his closet. The blood was on the shoe not on the carpet.
Yes he did.......he had blisters on his feet from wearing shoes too small. If he wore long sleeves and gloves, he wouldn't have been "injured". He surprised her in bed and when strangling her didn't kill her, he beat her to death, over and over and over again!
A Linear fracture of the base of the skull
A Subarachnoid hemorrhage of the brain
Too many factures of the back of her skull to count
A pregnant 5'4 woman versus a 6ft something fit man?????
And this woman fought hard enough to "injure" JY?? I think not......
Understood, but this wasn't helping their case because it's forcing them to come up with an explanation for how the child was found in the condition she was in.
Very true. It is evidence that tremendously helps the defense.
I doubt any member of either jury took issue with investigator Spivey's observations about lack of bloody tracks on the carpet. The man isn't blind. They had no reason not to believe him.
JMO
Yes, it was from Brevard because all of his belongings were transferred to a storage unit there so the shoes were in the home at the time of the murder.
The killer likely sustained some injuries in the fight. I believe they checked the carpeting and blood from the crime scene to see if someone else bled at the scene.
Thanks. I wonder how they missed that when they initially examined the closet and gathered evidence.
Ok so why did they not find the shoes then and take them as evidence?
Isn't it more likely that they were searching the storage unit for other things and came upon those shoes?
I attached an affidavit yesterday. They had a list of items they were looking for to include this particular pair of shoes. Why they didn't take them into evidence in the first place while at the house --- you would have to ask them.