My first thought in reading the documents:
http://www.ncappellatecourts.org/show-file.php?document_id=164659 is that I now know that the appellate court procedure in the US is very similar to that of Italy, where the Amanda Knox case wove its way through courts with appeals from both defense and prosecution. That's what we see here too.
I like this statement, given that there has been so much debate about whether there was blood on the landing between the bathroom and the master bedroom: "As Fisher walked upstairs to the home office, she saw what looked like
red hair dye in the bathroom used by 2½-year-old [the child],
on the upstairs landing, and in the master bedroom." (pg 13:
http://www.ncappellatecourts.org/show-file.php?document_id=164659).
This almost places the time of death prior to the normal time that she went to bed (too early for Jason to make the round trip): "Ms. Young was wearing a zip-up sweatshirt and sweatpants, which was not her typical sleeping attire. She was still wearing those clothes on 3 November. A treadmill in an upstairs room was on when police arrived."pg 17:
http://www.ncappellatecourts.org/show-file.php?document_id=164659)
How can someone like this be a reliable witness: "She testified that she was hit by a truck when she was six, her brain fell onto the street, and doctors had to reinsert her brain." (pg 20, linked above).
This is funny: "The State
argued that Mr. Young, a traveling salesman,
knew how to drive his car on "fumes." (pg 21). Cars don't actually run on fumes, so it's a bit ludicrous to argue that Mr Young knew how to do this.
Finally we learn what the therapist said: "The couple e-mailed each other on 24 October 2006 about seeing a counselor. Mr. Young wrote about his willingness to attend counseling and reminded his wife of their agreement that she first seek individual counseling. Ms. Young saw a therapist on 27 October. She told the therapist that she was upset that Mr. Young waited until the end of the weekend to do his household chores, that their childless friends had more money than they had, that Mr. Young wanted their relationship to be more sexual, and that Mr. Young drank at tailgate parties. Ms. Young told the therapist that her current pregnancy was planned. She did not report any physical abuse and none of her family or friends ever witnessed any." (p 25,
http://www.ncappellatecourts.org/show-file.php?document_id=164659)
This completely blows the statement that Jason never spoke with investigators: "The defense investigator, Steve Hale, testified that he talked with Mr. Young shortly after his 14 December 2009 arrest." (pg 30, same link as above). At the time of the interview, no discovery had been provided. Mr. Young told him about closing his hotel room door without locking it. When Mr. Hale examined the hotel room door, he found that the door would close without being locked. Mr. Hale had no problem reaching a stick from the hotel exit door and propping the door open."
Is this true: "The prosecutor argued in closing that evidence about the cold medications established that Mr. Young was the killer because only he would have taken the time to drug his daughter." ... This sentence certainly gives context to the "daddy did it" claim. Trial information has to be in context, which in this case means that the child's testimony is not exactly incriminating: "The trial court excluded Cassidy's additional statement that "Mommy fell on the floor. Now she's on the bed with animals. The animals are asleep. There was a cow. Daddy bought me new fruit snacks."(pg 31).
Stevens seems to have screwed up repeatedly with his rulings.
What do we have so far ... trial ... 8-4 not guilty declared a mistrial ... bail release ... trial ... inadmissible evidence entered ... defense appeal ... prosecution counter appeal ... what next? Another Stevens show, or a new Judge that has no vested interest in the outcome?
