State vs Jason Lynn Young: weekend discussion 11-18 Feb 2012

[dmaxphil]

3. There is a mssing shirt supposedly but when I look at the video from the hotel I see 2 very different shirts being worn.

I've been wondering this as well. Why does no one mention this? According to the time stamps, these images were taken very close together, < 1 min. They have to be the same shirt, but they look completely different. Playing with both images I am unable to manipulate exposure or brightness settings to provide similar contrast as shown in hallway black shirt. Under no scenario, with any photo anywhere, am I able to manipulate a black shirt to appear lighter than a brown haired subject, as seen in the photo below.

All images contain data that indicate they have been extensively processed with some type of image-editing software.


Searching Compression Signatures: (3327 built-in, 0 user(*) )

EXIF.Make / Software EXIF.Model Quality Subsamp Match?
------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------- --------------
CAM:[SONY ] [CYBERSHOT U ] [ ] Yes
SW :[Adobe Photoshop 7.0 ] [Save As 07 ]
SW :[Apple Quicktime ] [0466-0467 ]
SW :[Digital Photo Professiona] [05 ]
SW :[IJG Library ] [075 ]
SW :[MS Paint ] [ ]
SW :[MS Visio ] [ ]
SW :[ZoomBrowser EX ] [low ]

The following IJG-based editors also match this signature:
SW :[GIMP ] [075 ]
SW :[IrfanView ] [075 ]
SW :[idImager ] [075 ]
SW :[FastStone Image Viewer ] [075 ]
SW :[NeatImage ] [075 ]
SW :[Paint.NET ] [075 ]
SW :[Photomatix ] [075 ]
SW :[XnView ] [075 ]

NOTE: JFIF COMMENT field is known software
Based on the analysis of compression characteristics and EXIF metadata:

ASSESSMENT: Class 1 - Image is processed/edited

 

[Just the Fax]

I've been wondering this as well. Why does no one mention this? According to the time stamps, these images were taken very close together, < 1 min. They have to be the same shirt, but they look completely different. Playing with both images I am unable to manipulate exposure or brightness settings to provide similar contrast as shown in hallway black shirt. Under no scenario, with any photo anywhere, am I able to manipulate a black shirt to appear lighter than a brown haired subject, as seen in the photo below.

The chest stripe is consistent in both shots
The desk shot must be closer to accurate - not dark black (see true black for that lamp base)

No big deal though.
Red, Black, green or blue, the garment was not in his luggage or car.
No explanation. I'm confident it will be a major piece of evidence the jury will use to vote guilty.

 

[LyndyLoo]

The chest stripe is consistent in both shots
The desk shot must be closer to accurate - not dark black (see true black for that lamp base)

No big deal though.
Red, Black, green or blue, the garment was not in his luggage or car.
No explanation. I'm confident it will be a major piece of evidence the jury will use to vote guilty.

Its quite apparant the only difference is..He was wearing a jacket/blazer over his sweater and shirt....He may have had the jacket and paper at the side out of camera view..also you can see he was wearing those Hushpuppies...!!!

 

[johnfear]

I think the shirt is very important.

I also think its a mistake if the prosecution tries to use the teachers testimony as is. (They lopped off the end of it.)

Here's why: the jury can't be expected to split hairs over the brutality of the murder versus caring for the child. We can do that here. There is too much evidence that the guy basically used MY as a babysitter and too much evidence that he had little interest in being a dad or a husband or any other type of useful human.

They need to think simpler. They need to think of using the lack of evidence against the idea of it being anyone but daddy dumbest and move on. The kid being traumatized is bringing the wrong type of emotion in at the wrong time. It also confuses what the pros is saying about JY.

If she had said: this is the mommy doll, this is the daddy doll, he's spanking mommy. I'd be all over it. It's too much and runs the risk of isolating one juror. And all the D needs is one.

 

[Just the Fax]

Its quite apparant the only difference is..He was wearing a jacket/blazer over his sweater and shirt....He may have had the jacket and paper at the side out of camera view..also you can see he was wearing those Hushpuppies...!!!

LyndyLoo, Spivey pointed out the chest stripe in that hall shot - consistent with the chest stripe garment seen at the front desk.
I think the hall camera and lighting was just inferior.

 

[thumbtack]

You can't look at CY's behavior as an adult who has lived in the world and experienced how ever many years of things you might have experienced and then judge based on your adult perception of the world.

CY was 2yrs and 7 months old when she witnessed this attack. What do you think she had been exposed to prior? Certainly not death. She had no concept that her mommy was dead.

She described the only things she understood from her frame of reference: "mommy has boo-boos all over. mommy was spanked. red stuff all over mommy. mommy was on the bed then on floor. mommy needs washcloth and bandaids"

She was told what happened to mommy by the person who had just done it. That's what was put in her mind. "Spanking" is a concept she understood at that point.

She told us exactly who was there that night. She said it twice on the 911 call. "Daddy did it."

I wish this post could be used in the closing arguments.
The last line, especially, says it all.

 

[dmaxphil]

The chest stripe is consistent in both shots
The desk shot must be closer to accurate - not dark black (see true black for that lamp base)

No big deal though.
Red, Black, green or blue, the garment was not in his luggage or car.
No explanation. I'm confident it will be a major piece of evidence the jury will use to vote guilty.

You don't find it curious that these images have been manipulated?

 

[MoonFlwr]

Thanks for the links. I don't think the features of the grandmother doll look anything like JY, except for the fact it's a human doll. I think if the Prosecution suggests the doll is "masculine" and "tall" and "blond" in an attempt to tie the doll to JY's features, the jury is going to treat that with a bit of disdain. It's a stretch, and I don't think it's necessary to draw the connection that the role play here represents.

Then again, someone on here several days ago was adamant JY wore scrubs during the commission of the murderer, so maybe the doctor doll was a better choice? :doh:

Great post!

 

[MoonFlwr]

Just listened to the 911 call again and CY definitely says "Daddy did..." imo

Nov. 3, 2006 Birchleaf Drive 911 Recording
http://www.wral.com/news/local/audio/1119462/

01:57 - MF: "Do you know what happened to Mommy, Did she fall?"

02:00 - CY: ""Daddy did....."

02:02 - 02:03 - CY: "Did that .. he did"

I've tried so hard to hear those words...I have listened to the 911 call so many times.

All I hear is ''dadadidi....'...'gobbledy-gook.

I don't know if the jury will be so convinced that CY said: "Daddy did it".
I have been over exposed to the call and my brutally honest opinion is that I cannot conclude that that is what CY said.

 

[Just the Fax]

You don't find it curious that these images have been manipulated?

Not at all.
They should have enhanced it more so the glove pops out like this.....

 

[LyndyLoo]

I think the shirt is very important.

I also think its a mistake if the prosecution tries to use the teachers testimony as is. (They lopped off the end of it.)

Here's why: the jury can't be expected to split hairs over the brutality of the murder versus caring for the child. We can do that here. There is too much evidence that the guy basically used MY as a babysitter and too much evidence that he had little interest in being a dad or a husband or any other type of useful human.

They need to think simpler. They need to think of using the lack of evidence against the idea of it being anyone but daddy dumbest and move on. The kid being traumatized is bringing the wrong type of emotion in at the wrong time. It also confuses what the pros is saying about JY.

If she had said: this is the mommy doll, this is the daddy doll, he's spanking mommy. I'd be all over it. It's too much and runs the risk of isolating one juror. And all the D needs is one.

As per Cummings ..He wants this in to show 2 things..1) that Cassey witnessed beating..and 2) Was left alive and even comforted, cleaned up, medicated ( likely) and settled to sleep. BIG point is..NO stranger would have left an eyewitness alive..that only one who knows Cassey ..Which means..daddy. ALL other familiar persons to Cassey have been cleared.

She was 2 years old..she re-enacted what she saw..figures dont need to resemble anyone, nor does she have to be specific..Its enough she points to the mommy doll being beaten by another..Toddlers brains dont think things thru..that ability comes much later in development.

 

[Just the Fax]

The 911 played in court cut out the obvious "daddy did it"

Listen, 3/4 to the end (5:01)when the phone is being transferred to the sheriff office....listen for the telephone rings...."Daddy did it"...."ok"
MF acknowledged, but she was in shock and it did not register...too bad.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/audio/1119462/

Bumped for MoonFlwr

Listen at 5:01 and tell us what you hear.
Thanks.

 

[MoonFlwr]

Bumped for MoonFlwr

Listen at 5:01 and tell us what you hear.
Thanks.

I have done this many times...but, for the sake of truth! I will do it once more

 

[dmaxphil]

Not at all.
They should have enhanced it more so the glove pops out like this.....

My point is simply that once you start editing image data, the sky is the limit.

 

[Just the Fax]

My point is simply that once you start editing image data, the sky is the limit.

Enhancing is not the same as editing or manipulating an image.

 

[MoonFlwr]

Bumped for MoonFlwr

Listen at 5:01 and tell us what you hear.
Thanks.

I can hear what COULD be 'Daddy did it'....if I'd been coached to hear it and I really wanted to hear that.

It's unclear and it creates doubt for me.
If CY had been older and had less toddler ramblings in her vocab, it would probably have lessened the uncertainty for me.

 

[Just the Fax]

Well MoonFlwr, looks like you didn't want to hear it....not surprised.

BRW, I immediately heard it back in 12/2006 and I was never coached.

 

[MoonFlwr]

Well MoonFlwr, looks like you didn't want to hear it....not surprised.

BRW, I immediately heard it back in 12/2006 and I was never coached.

bbm
That's a strange comment - quite personal, too - saying you're not surrpised I didn't want to hear it.

I don't think I even know you or have shared many of my thoughts about the case with you.

I listened to the call back in 2006 too - not that that makes any difference...and I couldn't hear any distinct meaning then, either.
I am just pretending I am on the jury and responding as I would respond to that evidence.
Not trying to prove anything, so perhaps you should lay off the personal comments.

 

[LyndyLoo]

I can hear what COULD be 'Daddy did it'....if I'd been coached to hear it and I really wanted to hear that.

It's unclear and it creates doubt for me.
If CY had been older and had less toddler ramblings in her vocab, it would probably have lessened the uncertainty for me.

I think the point really is..she used the word when asked..Who was here..or something to that effect..She did not say Monster Man or Bad Man or scarey man....at 2 years of age she answered the best way she could..Daddy..

 

[enzeder]

I've tried so hard to hear those words...I have listened to the 911 call so many times.

All I hear is ''dadadidi....'...'gobbledy-gook.

I don't know if the jury will be so convinced that CY said: "Daddy did it".
I have been over exposed to the call and my brutally honest opinion is that I cannot conclude that that is what CY said.

This is the first time I have followed this case and have only listened to the 911 call about 3 times now. I wasn't really even listening out for what CY said but there was no mistaking what she said when I first heard it. I have just listened through it again and added a little to my original post regarding what I heard CY saying further along in the call. See my quoted post below.

Just listened to the 911 call again and CY definitely says "Daddy did..." imo

Nov. 3, 2006 Birchleaf Drive 911 Recording
http://www.wral.com/news/local/audio/1119462/

01:57 - MF: "Do you know what happened to Mommy, Did she fall?"

02:00 - CY: ""Daddy did....."

02:02 - 02:03 - CY: "Did that .. he did"

02:06 - CY: "everywhere, and, and did that.

05:02 - CY: "Daddy did it......."