CATCH THE LATEST WEBSLEUTHS RADIO AS WE LOOK INTO THE TERRIFYING WORLD OF MEDICAL SERIAL KILLERS
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

Evidence: CY's pink pajamas

Discussion in 'Michelle Young' started by sunshine05, Jun 2, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sunshine05

    sunshine05 New Member

    Messages:
    1,914
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    *I'm cross posting this from the main thread so that people can readily find this and hopefully add to it when discussing this evidence in particular. If it's a problem, I understand if you need to delete it.*


    I had a chance to review some of the testimony regarding the pajamas CY was found in.

    Day 6, part 7: http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10725048/
    beginning @ 9:00, the evidence is discussed - CY's t-shirt, pants and fleece shirt -- all clothing she was wearing that day.

    1) The t-shirt had NO visible blood whatsoever. Agent Holley tested it for chemical presence of blood and it was negative.

    2) The fleece shirt - no visible blood --- Agent Holley tested it for chemical presence of blood and it was positive.

    3) The pajama pants - It is interesting to me that the blood was found on the bottom of the left and right pant legs and on the seat of the pants. To me, this indicates that she was wearing these when she was standing next to the body and certainly when the prints were made in the bathroom. It sounds like the blood was visible but very light --- this indicates that they were possibly washed. I can't imagine how she was able to avoid getting even a trace of blood on her shirt as it was all over her hands. Maybe the shirt was washed too and no stains remained.

    4) Two socks were found. One was bloody; one was not.

    Agent Holley @ 41:00
    http://www.wral.com/specialreports/m...ideo/10735811/

    Images of pajamas

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    ________________________________________________________

    Regarding prints in the hallway --- Day 6, part 1 --- @ 39:00, there is discussion of some small prints on the carpeting leading into the bathroom. There is no discussion or video footage of a trail of prints from the body to that area right outside the bathroom. It is very difficult to see these due to the lighting.http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10723727/

    I heard several times at trial that there is NO trail of CY's footprints and that is what is puzzling when considering the child wandering around alone.

    As well, there is absolutely no blood in her bedroom. They used a crime scene imager to identify blood in the room. None. If she's running around loose for 10 hours, she wouldn't have gone into her room at all?
     
  2. JusticeFever

    JusticeFever Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,366
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Thank you for this.
     
  3. MyBelle

    MyBelle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,989
    Likes Received:
    6,023
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wouldn't she have had to go to her room to get that black shoe that agent Holley said also tested positive for blood?
     
  4. oenophile

    oenophile New Member

    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for the post and the thread. However, I think it would be more useful to separate out the substantiated evidence (i.e. the testimony about the blood on the PJ's) from the opinions (reason why the blood is found on certain spots of the PJ's) and the unsubstantiated claims (no blood in her bedroom, can you provide a link for this like you did with the PJ's?).

    Thanks.
     
  5. MyBelle

    MyBelle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,989
    Likes Received:
    6,023
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Color me baffled. Isn't witness testimony about the blood on the PJs (witness opinion) the same thing as unsubstantiated claims (witness opinion)?

    JMO
     
  6. oenophile

    oenophile New Member

    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0

    No. There are differences in witness testimony. A witness can say that they performed tests and determined that there is blood on an object. Unless under cross examination the defense challenges the test or the process or whatever, you can consider that there was indeed blood on the object.

    Another witness can state that they did not see blood on the object. This is their observation, but it does not substantiate whether or not there was blood on the object, it only shows what the observer saw.

    In addition, there is a difference between witness observation and witness opinion. In the second case, the witness provided an observation that they did not see blood on the object. If you ask the witness why they didn't observe blood on the object, and the witness says that they believe it is because the object didn't touch blood, that is an opinion. At that point, the witness is drawing a conclusion based on their knowledge of the facts.

    In the above:
    1. It is a fact that the test detected blood on the object.
    2. It is a fact that the second witness did not see blood on the object.
    3. It is an opinion of the second witness that the reason no blood was observed was because the object didn't come in contact with blood.

    If a test detects blood, then there is an overwhelming probability that there was blood. However, if someone does not observe blood, that doesn't mean that there was no blood. It could mean that the conditions were not right to see blood, that the blood was not visible, that the observer misremembered, or finally it could mean that there was indeed no blood (but this is not the necessary conclusion). Taking both pieces of testimony together, you must conclude that there was blood on the object.
     
  7. sunshine05

    sunshine05 New Member

    Messages:
    1,914
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Respectfully, I'm confused about the point you are trying to make. I'm just not following.
     
  8. MyBelle

    MyBelle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,989
    Likes Received:
    6,023
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not either because I thought a jury decided the credibility of a witness.
     
  9. MyBelle

    MyBelle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,989
    Likes Received:
    6,023
    Trophy Points:
    113
    With all due respect if an expert witness does a scientific test on a piece of evidence then the opinion they offer is an expert opinion substantiated with the test. They do not offer an unsubstantiated opinion. If a professional law enforcement officer says he didn't observe blood, his observation is substantiated with professional training, education and experience. These are expert opinions that are substantiated.

    An eyewitness offers their observations and opinions about what they saw and the jury decides what is credible and what is not. Gracie did both when she observed a man come into her store. Her opinion was that he was about her height.

    JMO
     
  10. JusticeFever

    JusticeFever Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,366
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This is a puzzle to me, the shoes in the bed and only one of them testing positive for blood.
     
  11. MyBelle

    MyBelle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,989
    Likes Received:
    6,023
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What puzzles me is what is supposed to be the significance of the shoes at all whether they were on the bed or in her room? Neither the prosecution or defense really made a point other than only one of them had blood.
     
  12. SStarr33

    SStarr33 Inactive

    Messages:
    7,881
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If there was no visible blood, the pj's would have had to been washed.
     
  13. oenophile

    oenophile New Member

    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0

    With all due respect, a LE officers observations are not on the same level as an expert witness doing a scientific test. A LE officers observation is NOT a substantiated fact simply because it is a LE officer that makes the observation. And it is not considered an "expert opinion".

    I agree that a jury decides what is credible and what is not. And I agree that a police officer's observations should, in general, be considered more credible than another eyewitnesses. BUT, LE officers seem to "magically" remember things that are convenient to their narrative. These observations gain credibility if they are included in the officer's original notes written at the time of the observation. But they are by no means established fact.
     
  14. otto

    otto Verified Expert

    Messages:
    28,972
    Likes Received:
    9,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's what makes the most sense to me as well. The child had blood on her pajamas (was not cleaned) and the officer, for whatever reason, missed it. Scientific tests trump observations. Meredith washed the pajamas before submitting them for tests, so other observations would have been consistent with the original observation ... with the problem being that the condition of the pajamas had changed between the observations.
     
  15. SStarr33

    SStarr33 Inactive

    Messages:
    7,881
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When do you think Meredith washed them?
     
  16. sunshine05

    sunshine05 New Member

    Messages:
    1,914
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But it wasn't only the officers, Meredith and first responders who missed it. It was also the CCBI investigator who visibly looked carefully for it (after that day) and on the fleece shirt, there was none visible by eye. Special Agent Holly did however find evidence of blood. I can't think of any possible explanation other than them having been washed.

    (There were small areas visible on the pants and he swabbed those and they were positive for blood. It sounds like they were faded (washed?))
     
  17. sunshine05

    sunshine05 New Member

    Messages:
    1,914
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If Meredith washed all of the pajamas, there's a problem. She was taken to Target that afternoon by LE. There she changed C.'s clothing and she gave the pajamas to the officer. Later, after getting the description of her clothing from Shelly, police asked MF, what happened to the t-shirt? It is missing. She then handed that to them, said it "somehow became separated" when she changed her so she didn't give it to police that day, she washed it and then gave it to them ---allegedly. Of course there is no way of knowing if it's the same t-shirt C was wearing that day.

    ETA: Just to be clear, the fleece shirt and the pajama pants were + for presence of blood (No visible blood evidence on fleece shirt, even after careful inspection)
    The t-shirt that MF gave LE two weeks later --- negative for presence of blood

    Note: If clothing has blood on it and it is washed, visibly it may look totally clean but phenolphthalein can still detect it's presence.
     
  18. MyBelle

    MyBelle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,989
    Likes Received:
    6,023
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do believe LE do describe their level of education and training in law enforcement and the jury does view them as experts in law enforcement. As with all witness testimony, the jury decides who is credible and who is not.

    JMO
     
  19. oenophile

    oenophile New Member

    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I think we are close to agreement but not quite there.

    An "expert" in law enforcement can describe how law enforcement works and is more knowledgeable about how law enforcement works than a jury is. But that does not mean that either their observations or conclusions about an investigation qualify as expert testimony.
     
  20. MyBelle

    MyBelle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,989
    Likes Received:
    6,023
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Special Agent Holley is trained in law enforcement AND in the chemical testing used to detect blood.

    I have no idea why you are trying to debate it. If you don't want to believe his testimony that blood was not visible, okay but I believe him.

    JMO
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice