State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-14-12

[Cammy]

My impression was that the prosecution proved that Jason billed his company for the trip to Brevard by claiming that he had a meeting at the hospital, but the officer testifying said that he spoke to the woman Jason claimed he met with and she didn't meet with him. Someone else met with him instead. The defense objected that it was hearsay and the line of questiong stopped.

This was his second meeting, closer to his home in Brevard.

 

[MyBelle]

To recap, JY's alibi is that he was at the Hampton Inn all night, leaving it only for a short while to smoke outside before returning to his room. He then traveled further West in the morning to a business meeting. Therefore, according to his alibi, he couldn't have committed the murder. This is his sworn to, testified to, alibi.

Jason Young never offered an alibi to law enforcement. "Alibi" is a legal term for what a suspect tells LE, not what he says to a jury. Eight jurors found Jason's testimony to be credible.

If the prosecution wants a conviction, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jason Young had opportunity to commit the crime. So far, all they have provided is a <mod snip> witness who admits to memory problems and a random rock.

JMO

 

[Cammy]

I thought he testified that he exited the hotel three times....once for a smoke, and twice to retrieve items from his car (parked near the exit).hoh:

btw, I'm still ROFL over your silent but deadly comment pages ago...

Jason said he left the hotel twice, and he never parked near the exit.

He parked on the side of the bldg.

Some thought this was suspicious, however with 49 rooms filled, it is not that suspicious at all.


JMO

 

[gngr~snap]

I think your last sentence is correct.
Kenneth Coles found in front.

These are the shoes found in the rear (low cut boot type)

I think it's odd that so much was made of the condoms in Jason's luggage ... we already know that he was having an affair. I also completely agree with n/t on this one ... conferences are usually a free for all and what happens at the conference stays at the conference.

Hard to explain or defend his actions of cheating on Michelle, that's for sure.

I just hope she never knew...

NICE! the car seat is in the back of the SUV. He was still on the prowl for girlfriends!
My kids are grown. I recently read that men with small children that cheat
often remove the child's car seat from their vehicle in order to hide the child and his marital status from the lover. It probably is no big deal but I don't like the way that car seat is "tossed" in the back of his SUV.
Maybe he had to drive business associates around. I guess I'm just picky
but once a child's car seat is safely secured in a vehicle why toss it back and forth? It rubs me the wrong way when a man does that. Maybe that was the first time but I have had friends whose hubby's cheated and they made it a point to only have the seat in the car if the child was... they had something to hide.~IMO that's a red flag that he was a cheater.
I wonder if he was meticulous about cleaning his car and keeping CY's toys
etc OUT of his "ride".:waitasec:
A faithful loving husband that acts like an adult probably has no issues riding around with a car seat in full view...

moo

 

[MyBelle]

That's true, but since he was seen wearing it at the Hampton Inn that evening on video, it stands to reason he brought it with him when he made the trip. The question is what happened to it after that night.

It was seized and returned to him if it had no evidentiary value just as the vehicle itself was returned to him.

JMO

 

[Cammy]

The main issue with the prosecution's case is that the killer did not leave ample clear evidence of identity at the scene of the crime. If he gets off, this has to be why.

Nevertheless the case against him is not weak. After all, the jury last time was not for acquittal. It split between those voting for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and those who either had doubt or believed him innocent.

Some simple facts are these:

- On the night of the murder he is seen leaving the hotel building in a dark outfit. This outfit is not present in his truck the next day.
- There are four mechanisms in place that could have identified JY's return to his room and/or his presence during the hotel during the night. All four were intentionally defeated. These include:
- his room key never showing reentry
- the emergency door being propped open to avoid a keyed reentry
- the stairway camera being unplugged that night
- his cell phone being turned off.
Four systems all deactivated or defeated all on the same night.
- A description of a vehicle at his home similar color to his in the early morning is made.
- No forced entry.
- No substantial burglary or crime other than murder.
- A fairly sterile crime scene outside the victim herself.
- searches on JY's computer regarding head trauma, anatomy of a knockout, and related as well as querying the current value of his home.
- Purposeful entry into JY's closet after the victim is killed.
- witness identifies JY at her gas station on route and time consistent with his return to Hillsville.
- JY makes several attempts to reach MF to have her enter the home the morning following the murder.
- JY does not return urgent call from LF.
- Footprints at scene match shoe types previously owned by JY.
- JY allows civil default and loss of custody and loss of insurance rather than defend his actions.

Other facts include JY's demonstrated hostility to his wife and to his marriage. He will, likely, also be shown to have engaged in prior violent acts against women (this was shown in the first trial).

This is how it sits now, I think, and that ought to cause anyone's eyebrows to go up, even if they don't think it's a proven case. Some or all of those could individually be explained away, but they don't look good laid out end on end.

Yet, the last Jury had a problem with the foreperson saying much room for reasonable doubt.

Here are 4 more key things that come into play though!!

Jason filling out with gas in Raleigh before he left= VIDEO
Jason stopping at Cracker Barrel= VIDEO
Jason at the hotel= VIDEO
Jason getting gas in King, NC= oops, NO VIDEO

 

[Just the Fax]

No wonder ChartOne fired him a month later....................


Dinner at CB - $13
hotel - $71.28
mileage (including 'side trip to bevard') $158 + $94 = $252

So he spent $336.28 and an entire day for one 30 minute sales call

 

[PoppyMcTwist]

Jason said he left the hotel twice, and he never parked near the exit.

He parked on the side of the bldg.

Some thought this was suspicious, however with 49 rooms filled, it is not that suspicious at all.


JMO

I see. Thanks for clearing that up. I don't think his parking spot is suspicious either.

 

[gritguy]

Yet, the last Jury had a problem with the foreperson saying much room for reasonable doubt.

Here are 4 more key things that come into play though!!

Jason filling out with gas in Raleigh before he left= VIDEO
Jason stopping at Cracker Barrel= VIDEO
Jason at the hotel= VIDEO
Jason getting gas in King, NC= oops, NO VIDEO

I understand. I'm just saying there's a case there. Clearly it was not persuasive enough at the last case for conviction, but not so baseless as to result in an acquittal.

 

[Grammy Jean]

It was seized and returned to him if it had no evidentiary value just as the vehicle itself was returned to him.

JMO

That shirt was not seized and returned! It was never found.

 

[Just the Fax]

Jason said he left the hotel twice, and he never parked near the exit.

He parked on the side of the bldg.

Some thought this was suspicious, however with 49 rooms filled, it is not that suspicious at all.


JMO

Yes it is. There were 40 empty rooms.
There was more than enough parking around the front for that number...fact.

Who drives around to the far side and totes their luggage around to the front before checking in?
Right, nobody,,,unless you wanted to case that side of the building out first.

 

[Just the Fax]

It was seized and returned to him if it had no evidentiary value just as the vehicle itself was returned to him.

JMO

:laughcry::laughcry::laughcry:

 

[gritguy]

Jason Young never offered an alibi to law enforcement. "Alibi" is a legal term for what a suspect tells LE, not what he says to a jury. Eight jurors found Jason's testimony to be credible.

If the prosecution wants a conviction, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jason Young had opportunity to commit the crime. So far, all they have provided is a brain-damaged witness who admits to memory problems and a random rock.

JMO

I understand the confusion now; you were thinking alibi does not mean when a defendant offers evidence through himself or someone else that it was not possible for him to commit the crime because he was somewhere else. Alibi is a legal term for a defense offered in court to a criminal charge. The defendant does not have to testify to his alibi, but JY did. It is also a story you can tell the police as you indicate, but that is not the crux of it.

"An alibi defense can be presented if the 'defendant was not present at the time when, or at the place where, the defendant is alleged to have committed the offense charged in the indictment.'1"

http://txw.fd.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=dl3fls_DHKw=&tabid=58

See also as an example:

"Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
RULE 12.1 NOTICE OF AN ALIBI DEFENSE
(a) Government's Request for Notice and Defendant's Response.
(1) Government's Request. An attorney for the government may request in writing that the defendant notify an attorney for the government of any intended alibi defense. The request must state the time, date, and place of the alleged offense.
(2) Defendant's Response. Within 14 days after the request, or at some other time the court sets, the defendant must serve written notice on an attorney for the government of any intended alibi defense. The defendant's notice must state:
(A) each specific place where the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense; and
(B) the name, address, and telephone number of each alibi witness on whom the defendant intends to rely."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_12-1

Of course, the lack of an alibi or even the presentation of an alibi that is not believable is not proof of guilt. I agree it is to the prosecution to meet that burden. Nevertheless, JY testified to his alibi of having been in VA during the time of the crime in court during the last trial and I would think he is sticking with it.

 

[Madeleine74]

Not only that but he parks on the opposite side from his room. Most people try to park to make things more convenient for themselves. Go in, get room assignment, then park car either near elevator or at exit closest to hotel room, if possible. JY parked on the opposite side of where his room was, not near an elevator or near the staircase closest to his room. Plenty of parking was available with a hotel at half capacity.

 

[Lori59]

Not only that but he parks on the opposite side from his room. Most people try to park to make things more convenient for themselves. Go in, get room assignment, then park car either near elevator or at exit closest to hotel room, if possible. JY parked on the opposite side of where his room was, not near an elevator or near the staircase closest to his room. Plenty of parking was available.

Yep. Only time I have parked around back or in a space other than closest to my room is when I was hiding something....in my case, trying to smuggle my puppy in the hotel. :blushing:

 

[Albert]

I don't find that unusual at all! I would bet many married men (and yes even those with children or pregnant wives) carry condoms on business trips or other.
You would be shocked by what I've witnessed.

Yes it was a business trip but the luggage may not be for business trips only. I admit that I probably have a few stored in my luggage and I have never cheated on my wife. My same luggage that I take on business trips is also the same luggage that I take on family vacations.

 

[Just the Fax]

There you have it....Lori just demonstrated criminal behavior was likely behind such a move

 

[gritguy]

Yes it was a business trip but the luggage may not be for business trips only. I admit that I probably have a few stored in my luggage and I have never cheated on my wife. My same luggage that I take on business trips is also the same luggage that I take on family vacations.

That's a good point; it could have been in there from long ago.

I do agree with some others posting that it doesn't matter much. The general behavior on that topic is shown clearly elsewhere and conceded by the defense.

However, he was probably wishing today that he hadn't packed that way.

 

[Just the Fax]

Yes it was a business trip but the luggage may not be for business trips only. I admit that I probably have a few stored in my luggage and I have never cheated on my wife. My same luggage that I take on business trips is also the same luggage that I take on family vacations.

Fair, but it was stated MY was on the pill (after marriage) and went off when she wanted to get pregnant. (she being the operative word)

 

[otto]

Is there anything about Jason's character, words and actions that do not indicate he's a murderer? Everything from when he reads the paper to what he says on the phone, where he parks his car, what he has in his suitcase, what he uses to prop a door, Elmer's prints are on a pipe, a rock on the sidewalk ... all spells murder?