Jason Young to get new trial #2

[sunshine05]

My bolding. Cite?

Listen to the Defense closing beginning @ 11:25
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10800240/

 

[sunshine05]

The photo on the prints has been enhanced using photoshop. This is evidence when the photo is opened and the levels are checked. A print on a tile floor is different from a print on a carpet. The carpet absorbs the blood, the tile floor is porous, but for the most part, the print will sit on top of the tile.

The steps suggest that a child was moving around in the bathroom ... perhaps getting the bench and moving it to the spot where it is found in front of the sink. That would account for the overlapping prints near the bench - which also has bloody prints.

First, I enlarged the photo, nothing else. Second, if the carpet is absorbing the blood, how is there any left to make it to the tile? I can't believe we're arguing about this. It is common sense to me. How can one walk across carpeting and still leave bright prints on tile? Every print was equally dark. Impossible.

 

[SteelerGirl43]

According to another warrant, police think Cassidy Young may have been carried from one room to another. The warrant description claims Cassidy Young was found under the sheets of Michelle's bed. Cassidy was clean and her feet showed little to no signs of having walked through the blood that had pooled around her mother. That description is in contrast to the small-bloodied footprints that were found on the floor of the child's bathroom. There was a small visible trace of what appears to be blood on the hallway carpet between the child's bathroom and Michelle's bedroom.

 

[citygirl]

Besides IT MAKES NO LOGICAL SENSE WHY ANYONE WOULD CARRY CY FROM THE BEDROOM TO THE BATHROOM JUST TO MAKE FOOTPRINTS IN THE BATHROOM. It serves no purpose whatsoever. Please someone explain a rational reason why someone, anyone would do this? I cannot fathom it.

Nor can I. Absolutely silly IMO.

 

[sunshine05]

Besides IT MAKES NO LOGICAL SENSE WHY ANYONE WOULD CARRY CY FROM THE BEDROOM TO THE BATHROOM JUST TO MAKE FOOTPRINTS IN THE BATHROOM. It serves no purpose whatsoever. Please someone explain a rational reason why someone, anyone would do this? I cannot fathom it.

I have explained it many, many times. What if CY really wasn't alone all night/morning and someone needed to make it appear as if she was? That is an explanation for why one may be motivated to stage the scene. If there is not one sign that she was alone with the body --- think about the implications of that. Who would look suspicious?

The person who did this failed though because there is no explanation for how she stayed dry all that time, no diaper found on the floor, no trail of footprints to the tile, no blood on pajamas. These are mistakes and they are obvious.

 

[Grammy Jean]

I have explained it many, many times. What if CY really wasn't alone all night/morning and someone needed to make it appear as if she was? That is an explanation for why one may be motivated to stage the scene. If there is not one sign that she was alone with the body --- think about the implications of that. Who would look suspicious?

The person who did this failed though because there is no explanation for how she stayed dry all that time, no diaper found on the floor, no trail of footprints to the tile, no blood on pajamas. These are mistakes and they are obvious.

Here I go talking about my grammy kids again. But all of them when they were CY's age would get up in the morning and take their pull up (night diaper) and throw it away.

 

[SteelerGirl43]

Here I go talking about my grammy kids again. But all of them when they were CY's age would get up in the morning and take their pull up (night diaper) and throw it away.

Wasnt it said NO diaper was found??

 

[sunshine05]

Here I go talking about my grammy kids again. But all of them when they were CY's age would get up in the morning and take their pull up (night diaper) and throw it away.

That wasn't typical for CY. She would wake up, remove it and throw it on the floor so unless she all of a sudden changed her normal habit, a used diaper should have been on the floor and there wasn't one.

 

[citygirl]

That wasn't typical for CY. She would wake up, remove it and throw it on the floor so unless she all of a sudden changed her normal habit, a used diaper should have been on the floor and there wasn't one.

And you know this how?

 

[oenophile]

I have explained it many, many times. What if CY really wasn't alone all night/morning and someone needed to make it appear as if she was? That is an explanation for why one may be motivated to stage the scene. If there is not one sign that she was alone with the body --- think about the implications of that. Who would look suspicious?

We know for a fact that CY wasn't alone, because someone killed her. What benefit would be to stage a scene?

In addition, we know she was alone with the body, because whoever left her left her alone with the body. So even if she had been cleaned (which again I say never happened) she could clearly have repeated the same thing over again by stepping in the blood after the murderer left.

 

[MyBelle]

That wasn't typical for CY. She would wake up, remove it and throw it on the floor so unless she all of a sudden changed her normal habit, a used diaper should have been on the floor and there wasn't one.

I think that's typical of most toddlers that age. Just toss it aside and run around nekked. At least that's what my grandson does. He sure doesn't put back on his pajama pants. It's kinda a moot point in this case because there is evidence she didn't clean herself up.

JMO

 

[otto]

First, I enlarged the photo, nothing else. Second, if the carpet is absorbing the blood, how is there any left to make it to the tile? I can't believe we're arguing about this. It is common sense to me. How can one walk across carpeting and still leave bright prints on tile? Every print was equally dark. Impossible.

I'm not suggesting that you altered the photo. I copied the photo from the internet a couple of days ago and can see, using photoshop, that it is altered. That tells me that we cannot draw any conclusions about the original photo. If you have photoshop, open it up and then check the "levels" adjustment. You'll notice that there are a series of lines (like a graph) rather than a curve. That means it's not an original photo.

 

[otto]

That wasn't typical for CY. She would wake up, remove it and throw it on the floor so unless she all of a sudden changed her normal habit, a used diaper should have been on the floor and there wasn't one.

I wonder what she would do with the diaper if she couldn't get a response from her mom ... I wonder if anyone checked for a diaper where mom normally put the diapers.

 

[MyBelle]

In an affidavit for a second warrant released Friday, investigators said they found a small trace of what appeared to be blood on the hallway carpet between Michelle Young's bedroom and the bathroom.

"This would lead to a logical conclusion that the child had been carried from one room to the other in lieu of the amount of blood left on the bathroom floor," the affidavit states. "In order to maintain the clean condition that the child was discovered, removal from the scene would have been the simplest action."
Read more at http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4090060/#QEdWuVsSJJBs6u5M.99

BBM. Can't be over emphasized. Thanks for providing the link.

 

[MyBelle]

I wonder what she would do with the diaper if she couldn't get a response from her mom ... I wonder if anyone checked for a diaper where mom normally put the diapers.

Aren't you making a big assumption they didn't look? LE noted Meredith found her without a diaper or panties but wearing the pajamas Shelly said she was put to bed in.

LE told a Judge they made a logical conclusion she was removed from the bloody scene and that is why she remained so clean.


http://www.wral.com/news/local/story...VsSJJBs6u5M.99

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Gosh, I wonder if that verdict was overturned?

This should give the defense something to attack more aggressively in the next trial.

I will repeat again, just so that it is completely clear.

IT IS NOT A FACT THAT CY WAS CLEANED PRIOR TO BEING FOUND BY MF, IT IS AN OPINION.

If you can substantiate that opinion as fact, go for it.

That the prosecution was able to convince the jury to adopt that opinion is to their credit, with a little help from the judge through reversible error, but it doesn't change the facts.

It is the conclusion of the Jury, based on evidence. Evidence = FACTS. Nobody is requiring you to believe the evidence but it is still evidence nonetheless. For the second time:

The report stated jury forewoman Tracey Raksnis said there were two main pieces of evidence that helped them reach a guilty verdict.

Those key points of evidence were, she said.......Cassidy Young's feet and pajamas had been cleaned after she left bloody footprints around the house.

"She was cleaned up. I don't see anybody else [but Jason Young] doing that. If this was just a robbery, I don't think you pay that kind of attention," Raksnis said in the WRAL report.
http://www.lsureveille.com/article_8....html?mode=jqm
Edit/Delete Message

 

[oenophile]

It is the conclusion of the Jury, based on evidence. Evidence = FACTS. Nobody is requiring you to believe the evidence but it is still evidence nonetheless. For the second time:



The report stated jury forewoman Tracey Raksnis said there were two main pieces of evidence that helped them reach a guilty verdict.



Those key points of evidence were, she said.......Cassidy Young's feet and pajamas had been cleaned after she left bloody footprints around the house.



"She was cleaned up. I don't see anybody else [but Jason Young] doing that. If this was just a robbery, I don't think you pay that kind of attention," Raksnis said in the WRAL report.

http://www.lsureveille.com/article_8....html?mode=jqm

Edit/Delete Message

NO, I don't think you understand the difference between, fact, evidence and conclusions. There may have been evidence that leads to the conclusion that CY was cleaned, but it is NOT a fact. And it doesn't matter what the jury member said, a conclusion is not evidence. An example of evidence is the obsevation of someone that CY's feet were clean. However, that is not fact, and can be contradicted by other evidence. The jury member was wrong to state as fact or evidence that CY's feet and PJ's had been clean. That is a conclusion.

Fact can be derived from evidence, but evidence in itself is NOT fact.

 

[otto]

Aren't you making a big assumption they didn't look? LE noted Meredith found her without a diaper or panties but wearing the pajamas Shelly said she was put to bed in.

LE told a Judge they made a logical conclusion she was removed from the bloody scene and that is why she remained so clean.


http://www.wral.com/news/local/story...VsSJJBs6u5M.99

JMO

I think that's bizarre. If police want to continue arguing that the child was taken away from the house for any period of time, then I think they had better start looking for a suspect that fits the timeline.

 

[Grammy Jean]

I think that's bizarre. If police want to continue arguing that the child was taken away from the house for any period of time, then I think they had better start looking for a suspect that fits the timeline.

I do not think the LE continued to believe CY was taken from the house. They believed this in the early days of the investigation, but not at all by the time this case came to trial.

 

[MyBelle]

NO, I don't think you understand the difference between, fact, evidence and conclusions. There may have been evidence that leads to the conclusion that CY was cleaned, but it is NOT a fact. And it doesn't matter what the jury member said, a conclusion is not evidence. An example of evidence is the obsevation of someone that CY's feet were clean. However, that is not fact, and can be contradicted by other evidence. The jury member was wrong to state as fact or evidence that CY's feet and PJ's had been clean. That is a conclusion.

Fact can be derived from evidence, but evidence in itself is NOT fact.

It is a fact that numerous small bloody footprints were found at the scene. There are photos of the footprints entered into evidence. Her clothes were entered into evidence. It is a FACT that even though blood was not visible, both the fleece top and pants tested positive for blood and DNA. The jury heard the expert testimony.

Perhaps you should review the trial testimony because your argument is totally baseless.

JMO