Mommy is getting a spanking for biting.

The point of the daycare teachers' testimony in my mind was to establish the fact that CY witnessed at least some part of the murder of her mother and she was acting it out with the dolls, unprompted by anyone, completely on her own, less than a week after the murder.

The takeaway is that CY was a witness to a murder and was not only not harmed by the attacker, but was taken care of/cleaned up. That is circumstantial evidence.

The jury logically inferred that whoever murdered Michelle had a bond or loved CY. That points to one person who had a lot of other circumstantial evidence pointing towards him as well.

otto said:

From the link: "This study investigated 16 children between the ages of 5 and 10 who had witnessed a parental murder"

Thanks for the links, but there isn't any data in the linked article stating that children aged 2 (or any age) usually don't identify the person committing violence.

Click to expand...

Understood, I found those articles in about 5 minutes. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to research this at the moment, but it's something I would be interested in and I'm sure there is more research on the very subject and every day more children that have witnessed heinous murders of a loved one.

otto said:

Do you have some sort of link to support the statement that 2 year olds usually don't identify a person committing violence?

Click to expand...

Do you have evidence and that link you can quote that 2yr olds DO usually identify those that commit violence in a family home?

Madeleine74 said:

The point of the daycare teachers' testimony in my mind was to establish the fact that CY witnessed at least some part of the murder of her mother and she was acting it out with the dolls, unprompted by anyone, completely on her own, less than a week after the murder.

The takeaway is that CY was a witness to a murder and was not only not harmed by the attacker, but was taken care of/cleaned up. That is circumstantial evidence.

The jury logically inferred that whoever murdered Michelle had a bond or loved CY. That points to one person who had a lot of other circumstantial evidence pointing towards him as well.

Click to expand...

This is so clear. CY's actions were only brought in to show that she witnessed the attack and was allowed to survive. That's it. She was not asked who the attacker was while at daycare. When she was asked what happened to her Mommy - on the morning of the murder - her first word was "Daddy."

If her words have something to do with guilt of JY, then the fact that she didn't say who was doing the spanking while playing with the dolls says nothing (or than a spanking is usually done by a parent) but the fact that she said "Daddy" when actually asked what happened says a lot.

In the end, the murderer's hopes of getting away didn't rest on what this innocent girl did or didn't say or imply. His hopes were dashed by the evidence he left behind. He almost got away with it, but not quite.

gritguy said:

This is so clear. CY's actions were only brought in to show that she witnessed the attack and was allowed to survive. That's it. She was not asked who the attacker was while at daycare. When she was asked what happened to her Mommy - on the morning of the murder - her first word was "Daddy."

If her words have something to do with guilt of JY, then the fact that she didn't say who was doing the spanking while playing with the dolls says nothing (or than a spanking is usually done by a parent) but the fact that she said "Daddy" when actually asked what happened says a lot.

In the end, the murderer's hopes of getting away didn't rest on what this innocent girl did or didn't say or imply. His hopes were dashed by the evidence he left behind. He almost got away with it, but not quite.

Click to expand...

(BBM) Agree, and I think the fact CY did not specifically identify the spanker is a simple matter of her language aptitude at the time.

POssibly 1 or 2 issues at work: expressing what is sufficient to get the point across, and actions which in the mind of CY carried implied persons or things which perform that action.

Maybe to CY, spankings were something either given by Mommy or Daddy - so there is no need to identify the person doing it. In this example, if Mommy was getting a spanking, then of course it was Daddy giving it because Mommy would not be spanking herself. Or, that you get a spanking from someone in a position of authority. Either way, the actual person giving the spanking is blended into the action itself.

"Mommy got a spanking for biting". I also think that is the extent of detail CY or most 2 yr olds would give. "Mommy got a spanking" is embellished with "for biting" and that's it. Going beyond that IMO seems excessive for a 2 yr old, especially if the person performing the action (in her mind) is implied.

CY might have not even known the word "spanked" which would have made expressing it: "Daddy spanked Mommy". With children if a spanking is threatened its usually "do you want a spanking?" not "do you want to be spanked".

Think about it another way, if CY were to recall to the daycare worker that SHE received a spanking for biting would she say:

"I got a spanking for biting"
or
"Daddy/Mommy gave me a spanking for biting" - "Daddy/Mommy spanked me for biting"


If Mr. G got into the trash and Mommy put him outside for a while, someone came over and asked CY where is Mr G, would CY explain:

"Mr G is outside he was bad"
or
"Mommy put Mr G outside for being bad"


IMO, That CY did not identify the spanker does not suggest it wasn't JY. In fact, that CY did not specify that it was NOT JY is only slightly less imcriminating IMO than if she had.

otto said:

Regardless of the scope of the study of psychology, I do not believe that there is any documentation supporting the claim that 2 year olds do not identify the perpetrator of violence if they have a familial connection to that person.

In fact, I would propose that there is no logical reason for a 2 year old to identify only one party in an altercation if the child had a familial connection to both the victim and the perpertrator of violence. I find it very unusual that only the mother figure was identified when, if the father was present, the father figure should also have been identified. I would go so far as to propose that the perpetrator of violence was not identified by the 2 year old because that person was unknown to the child.

Click to expand...

Other cases do support your conclusion. Blake Davis identified his father as his mother's attacker. Eric Morton told his grandmother that a "monster" attacked his mother and LE simply "lost" his comments. His father was incarcerated for 27 years for a crime someone else committed. Many similarities to the Young case.

JMO

MyBelle said:

Other cases do support your conclusion. Blake Davis identified his father as his mother's attacker. Eric Morton told his grandmother that a "monster" attacked his mother and LE simply "lost" his comments. His father was incarcerated for 27 years for a crime someone else committed. Many similarities to the Young case.

JMO

Click to expand...

4 year old and 3-1/2 year old, so these cases cannot support the conclusion.

None of the words of other children in other cases will be used in JY's case, nor is any of that relevant.

CY was spared and taken care of. She was likely drugged that night as well. A reasonable group of 12 people looked at that circumstance and determined it was someone who knew and cared for CY.

Since that is but one link in a long chain of other evidence, that alone doesn't provide an identification, but it did give a clue. Someone murdered Michelle, someone hated Michelle, someone loved and cared for CY. I believe it was the same person. The jury came to the same conclusion.

terminatrixator said:

4 year old and 3-1/2 year old, so these cases cannot support the conclusion.

Click to expand...

Eric Morton was 3 years. Blake Davis was 2 1/2 years as was Ava Worthington and their comments were used at trial. So, yes there are plenty of cases that support the conclusion if one uses real facts rather than inventing them.


JMO

Berry said:

Do you have evidence and that link you can quote that 2yr olds DO usually identify those that commit violence in a family home?

Click to expand...

Not sure if I'm understanding correctly, I need to review the discussion.

It was stated about the 2 year old that "She witnessed an extremely violent event. Usually they don't identify the person who committed the violence *if* that person is someone close to them."

I requested a link to support that statement.

No link has been provided. Now there is a request for me to provide a link that the opposite of the above posted statement is true?

Is this the type of reasoning that is used to justify that Jason was guilty?

gritguy said:

This is so clear. CY's actions were only brought in to show that she witnessed the attack and was allowed to survive. That's it. She was not asked who the attacker was while at daycare. When she was asked what happened to her Mommy - on the morning of the murder - her first word was "Daddy."

If her words have something to do with guilt of JY, then the fact that she didn't say who was doing the spanking while playing with the dolls says nothing (or than a spanking is usually done by a parent) but the fact that she said "Daddy" when actually asked what happened says a lot.

In the end, the murderer's hopes of getting away didn't rest on what this innocent girl did or didn't say or imply. His hopes were dashed by the evidence he left behind. He almost got away with it, but not quite.

Click to expand...

Quite true. The testimony of a 2 year old was introduced during trial and there was no opportunity to cross examine the witness regarding the meaning of what was acted out. How do lawyers feel about testimony of that nature? How often is the testimony of a 2 year old accepted by the courts to testify for the defense?

terminatrixator said:

4 year old and 3-1/2 year old, so these cases cannot support the conclusion.

Click to expand...

Exactly. There's nothing to support the statement that: 2 year olds do not identify the person that committed violence if that person is someone close to them.

otto said:

The actual characteristics of the doll figures don't make much difference to me. Where I have some doubt it in the identification of the figures. One was distinctly identified as the mother figure, yet the other figure is unidentified. The two most prominent figures in a 2 year old's life are the mother and father. Why was the child only able to identify the mother?

Click to expand...

But there's nothing to support this (the BBM part) either. Not identifying the figure is entirely different than not being ABLE to.

IMO you're trying to impose adult logic (one was named, so name the other) on a 2 year old who was not asked to provide an identification.

2 year olds do posess logic, but it's their own brand of it. Although much of what they do might not seem to make sense, parents are probably the best at interpreting it, and they generally do make sense in their own little fashion.

So I think that yes, you should provide some support for the fact that CY wasn't ABLE to identify. How do you know she just didn't neglect to name him for her own little 2 year old reasons?

And if we're going to follow a sort of pedantic and very literal adult logic - i.e. one parent as been named so the other must be named, there should be some assertion that the real killer must have been a gray headed woman in a track suit. But we know better, right?

MyBelle said:

Other cases do support your conclusion. Blake Davis identified his father as his mother's attacker. Eric Morton told his grandmother that a "monster" attacked his mother and LE simply "lost" his comments. His father was incarcerated for 27 years for a crime someone else committed. Many similarities to the Young case.

JMO

Click to expand...

Yep!! Totally random killing. Bludgeoned to death in her bed sometime after her husband left for work..
I have worked with children for yrs & trust me 2 1/2 yr olds will talk. I've had them tell me my mommy calls my daddy an a hole, my daddy wears my mommys clothes, my mommy & daddy fight & my daddy slapped my mommy.. Cassidy was very smart also so Im pretty sure if she saw the brutal killing she would know who did it.
Maybe in the yrs to come she'll remember & tell.

No one asked little CY who the other doll was. She volunteered that the 'mommy doll' was getting a spanking. Neither of the 2 daycare workers who witnessed this play asked her anything or said anything else to her beyond a generic, "whatcha doing?"

Had they asked the identity of the other doll there likely would have been an outcry at that, since the 2 workers were not qualified psychological professional experts who work with traumatized children. But then had they been, they would have been criticized for "planting" disturbing images in CY's mind, because that's how this game works -- nothing can be the right thing to have done, so no matter what was done, it was wrong.

I think that's called a lose/lose situation.

Clearly there's only one (right) way for a 2.5 yr old child to act, talk, play, etc. and since CY didn't do whatever that one right way was, nothing else she did or said was of any value. Other children are apparently able to get this correct, but poor CY did not.

So in summary, daycare workers didn't do the right thing and CY didn't communicate the right way.

gracielee said:

Not to be difficult, but I'd prefer my remark to be kept in context. I did not say 'children that age usually don't identify the person committing the violence'.

My statement was:

Originally Posted by gracielee
She witnessed an extremely violent event. Usually they don't identify the person who committed the violence *if* that person is someone close to them. The entire event is too traumatizing to them. Their little minds can't accept that someone they loved and trusted did a bad thing. So their minds shut down. Immediately after the event, CY told Meredith about her daddy. Days later....the person spanking mommy became no one. Not bad man, not monster, no one.

*******

"if that person is someone close to them"

The younger a child is when experiencing trauma, the easier it becomes to dissociate. My own diagnosis, after extensive testing & therapy, is PTSD/DID. Dissociative Identity Disorder.

Click to expand...

Bless your little heart, glee -- I've said this before to you -- for dealing with all the horror and becoming the strong, self-confidant and whole person that we see here.

How much difference do you think it would have made without the years of therapy? (I know this is a question that you probably won't be able to answer easily, or you may prefer not to answer it at all -- if so, please forgive if I have put you on the spot, but it might shed some light on CY's situation -- since we know she has had therapy and may still be receiving it...)

I certainly would think in a case like hers and yours -- the sooner the better w/regard to such therapy. And obviously, the therapist(s) with whom you worked must have been very fine.

Madeleine74 said:

No one asked little CY who the other doll was. She volunteered that the 'mommy doll' was getting a spanking. Neither of the 2 daycare workers who witnessed this play asked her anything or said anything else to her beyond a generic, "whatcha doing?"

Had they asked the identity of the other doll there likely would have been an outcry at that, since the 2 workers were not qualified psychological professional experts who work with traumatized children. But then had they been, they would have been criticized for "planting" disturbing images in CY's mind, because that's how this game works -- nothing can be the right thing to have done, so no matter what was done, it was wrong.

I think that's called a lose/lose situation.

Clearly there's only one (right) way for a 2.5 yr old child to act, talk, play, etc. and since CY didn't do whatever that one right way was, nothing else she did or said was of any value. Other children are apparently able to get this correct, but poor CY did not.

So in summary, daycare workers didn't do the right thing and CY didn't communicate the right way.

Click to expand...

I never asked the children in my classes questions either. They would just tell us... Once they did we went to our boss & was like so and so said this. Then the director would call the parent/parents in for a long talk.
Once all that happened usually the child would stop telling us everything, but a couple did not.

otto said:

Quite true. The testimony of a 2 year old was introduced during trial and there was no opportunity to cross examine the witness regarding the meaning of what was acted out. How do lawyers feel about testimony of that nature? How often is the testimony of a 2 year old accepted by the courts to testify for the defense?

Click to expand...

BBM. I think we'll find out in trial #3.

JMO

borndem said:

Bless your little heart, glee -- I've said this before to you -- for dealing with all the horror and becoming the strong, self-confidant and whole person that we see here.

How much difference do you think it would have made without the years of therapy? (I know this is a question that you probably won't be able to answer easily, or you may prefer not to answer it at all -- if so, please forgive if I have put you on the spot, but it might shed some light on CY's situation -- since we know she has had therapy and may still be receiving it...)

I certainly would think in a case like hers and yours -- the sooner the better w/regard to such therapy. And obviously, the therapist(s) with whom you worked must have been very fine.

Click to expand...

I don't think I'd be here now without the years of therapy. In fact I know I wouldn't. By the time I found the *right* therapist I was extremely suicidal. Not the type of *attention* suicide attempts, but the well thought out plan-type. I didn't receive any type of therapy until my early 30's, when I went to my GP and told him "something is wrong with me, I can't eat, I can't sleep, I cry all the time, and I have horrible, blood-curdling screaming, nightmares.

Yes, the sooner a child has help, the better.

The first therapist I saw was *okay* in that he broke through the wall I'd erected around my *feelings*. Many of my memories were at the surface, so when 'first guy' attempted to get a history on me, they came out. Although I was not receptive to therapy, would cancel appointments for any reason I could find, would give basically yes/no answers to attempts to draw me out, etc. I went because I wanted the anti-depressants my doc put me on because I agreed to therapy. After about six months or more of this, first guy finally said to me one day "gracielee, you sit there and relate horrible things, terrible memories from your childhood, yet you relate them in a monotone, much as though we were discussing the weather..." After that session, I went home, poured myself a drink in the biggest glass I could find, it was morning, kids were all in school, I took my drink, went outside and sat on the patio, and drank. As I drank, I began to cry, to *feel*, first guy had broken through the walls I'd constructed to protect myself from *feeling*. 'First guy' broke through the wall, but there came a point in time where *I* felt 'first guy' was not good for me. Suffice to say, something inappropriate was happening in therapy, and although I was in the midst of major depression, a part of *me* knew the dynamics of this particular therapist/therapy had become extremely counter-productive to me. After that it took me a few years, and numerous psychiatrist's and psychologist's before I found the 'right guy' for me. Psychiatrist's, 'in my experience' only want to drug. I was on major drugs, anti depressants, anti psychotics, tranquilizers, sleeping pills, etc. I recall finally being able to reason out my thoughts, and saying to the *last* psychiatrist I saw, "aren't we ever going to *talk* about my problems?" to which he replied, "If we find the right combo of drugs for you, you won't *have to* talk." And so I figured out, all the shrinks wanted to do was drug me up zombie like, so I could move through life like a robot. After that I searched only for a psychologist, someone who could help me get past it, not just be drugged up so 'nothing would bother me anymore'. Yes, I didn't cry all the time, but on the drugs I also lost my sense of humor, my ability to read books, I remember telling 'final good-guy psychologist' "of all the things I lost while drugged up, I missed my sense of humor the most."

I knew the moment I went in for my first session with 'last guy/good guy' therapist, that I could work with him. We were close in age, our live experiences meshed. When I related to a song, or a point in time in my life, he could relate without my having to go through a huge explanation, much like our Simon & Garfunkle 'relates' here. He wasn't that long out of school himself, and once he tested me, MMPI and others, he did lots of workshops and research on PTSD. He really wanted to help me. We slowly peeled back the layers of memories to get to the bottom of it all. I had lots of doubts, guilts, thoughts of 'this can't be true'. My sister and I hadn't been close once we were teens, we went our separate ways to survive in what ever way we could. I found dh and got married, sis found drugs. Anyway, I was sought out when she had a nervous breakdown and no one could figure out what was wrong with her. They told me nightmares she was having, things she was saying, and they exactly mirrored my own that had come out a couple years before. It was then that I finally BELIEVED in myself, felt validated. My therapist always believed me, it was me who needed validation.

Sorry this is so long, and if it's wrong, the moderator can delete it. I just think it's important to understand what children remember, and what it can do to them if they don't get help, and get the right help. I have always remembered my mother tried to drown me in the bathtub when I was about CY's age, but to this day, I still don't *see* who it is drowning me. I knew it was her because I'd heard my aunts talking, "she tried to drown 'the kid' in the bathtub", but I still don't *see* mother in my mind. It's an unknown entity I *see*. Hope this helps.

SteelerGirl43 said:

Yep!! Totally random killing. Bludgeoned to death in her bed sometime after her husband left for work..
I have worked with children for yrs & trust me 2 1/2 yr olds will talk. I've had them tell me my mommy calls my daddy an a hole, my daddy wears my mommys clothes, my mommy & daddy fight & my daddy slapped my mommy.. Cassidy was very smart also so Im pretty sure if she saw the brutal killing she would know who did it.
Maybe in the yrs to come she'll remember & tell.

Click to expand...

I think she's already remembered...and also "told." She most certainly would remember who washed her pjs and put them back on her.

JMO