Discussion in 'Michelle Young' started by otto, Feb 18, 2012.
I didn't follow the first trial at all. I remember when the story first broke, but I didn't follow it closely until this trial. I have to say, when I first started reviewing the case and looked at the evidence regarding the 2 pair of shoes (one of which was smaller than jy's) I wasn't sure. When I saw the blisters on his foot along with the hp evidence, that doubt was removed. To me, the blisters told the other half of the story. I was comfortable then to say both footprints came from jy. Especially because I think there's evidence he changed his clothes, shoes, etc... I think it should come in. For me, it was pretty important. I really wish they would've gone there!!! Durn.
Damn, the nefarious third doll!
What IS manipulated is the chart/arrows pointing out what someone else "thinks" about that foot.
We are arguing about dolls? Really?
I totally agree with you. The PT comes across badly.
What is up with them? Do they not want to try this case? This is the 2nd go round. They need to amp it up if they are convinced of guilt jmo:seeya:
I just got home from Les Mis, I've seen it six times in my life and this one did not disappoint. I have been reading through all the posts. Anyway while getting gas today I started thinking about JY getting gas (which I believe he did) at Gracie's station. Since he did not expect the pumps to be locked I guess I am certain he planned to pump and then drive off without paying. Is this the thinking most of you have on the topic? I mean what is a little act of theft after you've just committed murder.
Forensic experts always seem to have differing opinions anymore. That is why most of us get so frustrated. The science should be the deciding factor. When there is "science for hire" we don't know what to think. I guess is depends on what the definition of is "is". lol
We can try to analyze it until the cows come home. It is what it is.
Thanks JTF....I am trying to keep up daily, but with a 2 yr old it's impossible.
I know I am missing alot . I want to watch the trial and my kid wants to watch Spongebob.....and on MY tv, not his....so I just give up and let him do it. If I went and turned the trial on in his room and tried to watch it in there it would be the same thing.....so I watch what I can, when I can....
Went back and read a couple of your posts (not many cause am tired and ready to sack out) but anyway it seems you are VERY knowlegable about the case.....I am sure you know way more than I.
So anyway, am just trying not to ruffle feathers here!
If, if, if, Take it at face value.
Search all you want to, pictures of dolls, etc. She was acting out a scenario, it doesn't matter what examples of dolls anyone comes up with.
No one gave her options. jmo
Thanks ... it's a poor quality image - difficult to get more information out of it, but I'll give it another shot tomorrow. None of the standard tools seem to add definition to what he is carrying or the shoes.
I heard, "Daddy" but not did it. how could a 2 year old know that they wanted a "did it".
I heard Daddy twice, not did it. imo.
The question was what the doctor figure may have looked like. If the doctor figure was from the Marvel set, then we now know what that figure looked like.
And this figures in how?
This is too much, imo.
I just finished watching Jason's testimony at his first trial. He's a slick one, isn't he? I noticed that he uses the "overly wide eyes, with raised eyebrows" facial expression a whole lot at the beginning of his testimony. Very similar to Casey Anthony's wide eyed, raised eyebrow facial gestures.
His lawyer is slick also. Introduced the photo of Jason taken at the child's third birthday party which was after the murder. Asked Jason to describe the shirt he is wearing in the photo. Jason describes it as dark with a racing stripe across the front. Of course, the defense attorney never asks if it is the same one seen in the hotel video surveillance photo from the night of the murder. Prosecutor never even asks about this, which she should have.
Another rather important item the prosecutor missed: Defense lawyer has Jason read from the package insert for the cough medicine. It lists "paradoxical hyperactivity" as a possible side effect. Lawyer uses this phrase to say this would not be something to use for making a child drowsy then would it?
Prosecutor came back with other warnings within the insert that state to take care with machinery, could cause drowsiness.
Prosecutor needs to read about medical definition of "paradoxical" reactions to medications. Should go into a PDR to see how often this reaction was actually found during clinical trials.
I thought the cross examination was quite lackluster and that it focused too much on what a bad boy Jason was with the ladies and not enough on questionable activities such as him admitting to propping open the side doors at the hotel two differnt times. Why not hammer on him about leaving his hotel room door unlocked with his computer in the room? About him claiming the second time he went down and propped the door it was because he had not brought his key card with him? Really? A guy who travels often? And why not use the designated smoking area outisde the hotel?
I just would have liked to have seen questions more relevant to the events of that night rather than hearing about one more woman.