Trial Delayed until at least January

[MyBelle]

Gag orders would affect the principals in the case but would not stop the general discussion and gossip. Our first amendment makes it improbable that a blackout of info would or could ever occur. Frankly, if a juror is so boneheaded and discusses a case when the judge specifically ordered him/them not to, a gag order isn't going to mean anything. The only thing that gets through to someone who refuses to follow the law or the judge's orders, is their loss of freedom for some period of time.

No juror is ever allowed to discuss the case with anyone--including other jurors--until deliberations begin. If they can't control themselves, there will be consequences. These trials aren't cheap and it is shocking how widespread the disrespect for the system seems to extend in N.C. It stinks.

The defendant's right to a fair trial trumps any right of the public to leer into the courtroom. I'm betting the Judge has a deputy taking names or in some way identifying who gets in....and who does not.

JMO

 

[Allusonz]

That's exactly what I thought ... after following all the discussions about alleles with the case in Italy, I couldn't believe that anyone would insult the intelligence of jurors by actually suggesting that 3 alleles meant something. It seems that the prosecutors in NC think they can pull the wool over jurors eyes with their claims that a rock, identical to all the others, can be matched to their suspect based on 3 alleles. I have to wonder ... if the prosecution is misleading the jury with the alleles, what else are they doing to mislead the jury.

What's funny is that if the 3 allele-match argument was used in the case in Italy, probably everyone posting on this thread would roll their eyes and claim it was absurd.

What do you make of this case?

Otto you know me to well. As this case was happening at the same time as the Amanda Knox case, I was trying to keep up-to-date on both.

As well you know that I had expressed grave concerns with respect to the DNA in the Amanda Knox case very early on. I as well express concerns with the DNA testing in this one as well.

The rock sample was LCN DNA which as you know is a very minute amount and which controversy still surrounds the testing validity. There are only a few laboratories worldwide that are certified to perform this testing.

LCN DNA must be done in a very controlled environment There are special entry procedures, cleaning procedures, air ventilation requirements. The list once again is long and varied as you have probably seen in the Conti/Vecchiotti report.

The prosecution ordered additional testing of these rocks in early 2011. There was no mention of any of the above being observed. As well testimony was not given with respect to how low these samples were. Were they 40 rfu's, 60, 70 etc. These samples must be amplified. Thus not only is the DNA amplified but so would any contamination.

The raw data was not introduced. It was also testified that out of the 3 alleles one was considered to be stutter or "noise" yet probabilities where still based on 3 alleles not 2.

This was not a blind test. In other words they were tasked with specifically looking only for JY and MY's DNA. How many other profiles were found on the rock?

Chain of custody documents were not introduced. How were these samples taken? What precautions taken? When were they taken? Where have they been? Who had access to these samples?

I could continue with respect to this but I think by now you know how long that would take. I am surprised that it was actually allowed into evidence and if found guilty can guarantee it will be grounds for retrial.

The eyewitness testimony is very weak. As per the Innocence Project:

"Despite solid proof of the inaccuracy of traditional methods – and the availability of simple measures to reform them – eyewitness IDs remain among the most common and compelling evidence brought against criminal defendants"

http://www.innocenceproject.org/fix/Eyewitness-Identification.php

 

[otto]

Are we sure that this man drove 320 miles in the middle of the night to murder his wife?

Other than suggestive statements (like "white" colored vehicle) and a nervous jury, what exactly makes him guilty again?

Hopefully it's not the lava hotel rocks that had a 3 allele match.

 

[otto]

Otto you know me to well. As this case was happening at the same time as the Amanda Knox case, I was trying to keep up-to-date on both.

As well you know that I had expressed grave concerns with respect to the DNA in the Amanda Knox case very early on. I as well express concerns with the DNA testing in this one as well.

The rock sample was LCN DNA which as you know is a very minute amount and which controversy still surrounds the testing validity. There are only a few laboratories worldwide that are certified to perform this testing.

LCN DNA must be done in a very controlled environment There are special entry procedures, cleaning procedures, air ventilation requirements. The list once again is long and varied as you have probably seen in the Conti/Vecchiotti report.

The prosecution ordered additional testing of these rocks in early 2011. There was no mention of any of the above being observed. As well testimony was not given with respect to how low these samples were. Were they 40 rfu's, 60, 70 etc. These samples must be amplified. Thus not only is the DNA amplified but so would any contamination.

The raw data was not introduced. It was also testified that out of the 3 alleles one was considered to be stutter or "noise" yet probabilities where still based on 3 alleles not 2.

This was not a blind test. In other words they were tasked with specifically looking only for JY and MY's DNA. How many other profiles were found on the rock?

Chain of custody documents were not introduced. How were these samples taken? What precautions taken? When were they taken? Where have they been? Who had access to these samples?

I could continue with respect to this but I think by now you know how long that would take. I am surprised that it was actually allowed into evidence and if found guilty can guarantee it will be grounds for retrial.

The eyewitness testimony is very weak. As per the Innocence Project:

"Despite solid proof of the inaccuracy of traditional methods – and the availability of simple measures to reform them – eyewitness IDs remain among the most common and compelling evidence brought against criminal defendants"

http://www.innocenceproject.org/fix/Eyewitness-Identification.php

Halfway through your post I'm wondering .. are you going to suggest that the DNA tests on the 3 allele rock are good but in the rest of the world, 13 markers are needed and 16 are a match?

What ... sometimes the 3 allele match is valid ... except in science? No ... it doesn't work. It's not valid ... eh.

Pick up any rock outside a travelling salesman hotel ... it will match someone, maybe 1/42 ... maybe even a judge?

Something is wrong with the prosecution argument if they are having hotel night audit clerks from Virginia cut open evidence envelopes to verify that the rock randomly collected outside Jason Young's hotel was indeed manufactured red lava decorative rock that doesn't match anyone.

 

[otto]

The eyewitness testimony is very weak. As per the Innocence Project:

"Despite solid proof of the inaccuracy of traditional methods – and the availability of simple measures to reform them – eyewitness IDs remain among the most common and compelling evidence brought against criminal defendants"

http://www.innocenceproject.org/fix/Eyewitness-Identification.php

I know of your interest in the innocence project, but it's important to pick your battles. This seems to be a fairly straight forward case of a man murdering his pregnant wife because he wanted to continue acting as a teenager ... the peter pan syndrome.

There is very liitle chance that this man can be convicted on the evidence, but he most likely is guilty of violently, brutally murdering his wife such that she avulsed her teeth ... meaning she asperated them ... that her teeth were propelled out of her mouth by the force of the assault and found by her sister in law.

Imagine the shock in her sister in law to learn that her brother was a suspect, even though he was out of town ... yet he supposedly beat his wife to death with 30 blows that may have lasted 10+ minutes.

This doesn't strike me as a candidate for the innocence project, even though the prosecutiors office has misrepresented their evidence ... with their 3 allele garbage.

The new trial will hopefully separate the "what if, lets pretend" with the facts. No one wants to read that light colored vehicles have to be modified to "white" in order to obtain a conviction. If modified evidence is required for a conviction, he's not guilty.

 

[otto]

I think that the prosecution should go for the throat ... they have enough evidence.
They should leave their "what ifs" for some other time and focus on what they know to be true ... like the footprints and Michelle's shoe purchases. That's where Jason couldn't answer questions and the prosecution tripped over their chin.

 

[otto]

So apparently the story is that after Jason Young murdered his wife, he doubled back to his hotel in Virginia and then attended a meeting the following morning, November 2, 2006 - where he "failed". During his stay at the hotel, there is one keycard trace, even though he was seen at the front desk after he'd used the keycard once to enter his room. How did he get back into his room to pick up the bill? There is no explanation for how Jason re-entered his room to pick up his bill - the one that was slipped under the door between 3:30 and 4 AM

I think that he is guilty, but I see gaping holes in the argument.

 

[Allusonz]

I know of your interest in the innocence project, but it's important to pick your battles. This seems to be a fairly straight forward case of a man murdering his pregnant wife because he wanted to continue acting as a teenager ... the peter pan syndrome.

There is very liitle chance that this man can be convicted on the evidence, but he most likely is guilty of violently, brutally murdering his wife such that she avulsed her teeth ... meaning she asperated them ... that her teeth were propelled out of her mouth by the force of the assault and found by her sister in law.

Imagine the shock in her sister in law to learn that her brother was a suspect, even though he was out of town ... yet he supposedly beat his wife to death with 30 blows that may have lasted 10+ minutes.

This doesn't strike me as a candidate for the innocence project, even though the prosecutiors office has misrepresented their evidence ... with their 3 allele garbage.

The new trial will hopefully separate the "what if, lets pretend" with the facts. No one wants to read that light colored vehicles have to be modified to "white" in order to obtain a conviction. If modified evidence is required for a conviction, he's not guilty.

Thanks for your concern with respect to what battles I choose. I believe I am capable of picking the battles I do choose.

This battle was picked specifically for 2 reasons:

1. She describes an individual with very little hair, slightly taller than her 5 foot frame, and indicated that she was no more than 12 inches from her even though she was behind a counter. Most counters are approximately 24 inches in width

2. My second reason is that LE put a video at the BP gas station for 60 days to try and locate the "regular" that was in the store as per her testimony.

What has me totally perplexed here is they went to all this trouble to try and identify him but never had her review the 60 days of video they collected

 

[MyBelle]

I know of your interest in the innocence project, but it's important to pick your battles. This seems to be a fairly straight forward case of a man murdering his pregnant wife because he wanted to continue acting as a teenager ... the peter pan syndrome.

There is very liitle chance that this man can be convicted on the evidence, but he most likely is guilty of violently, brutally murdering his wife such that she avulsed her teeth ... meaning she asperated them ... that her teeth were propelled out of her mouth by the force of the assault and found by her sister in law.

Imagine the shock in her sister in law to learn that her brother was a suspect, even though he was out of town ... yet he supposedly beat his wife to death with 30 blows that may have lasted 10+ minutes.

This doesn't strike me as a candidate for the innocence project, even though the prosecutiors office has misrepresented their evidence ... with their 3 allele garbage.

The new trial will hopefully separate the "what if, lets pretend" with the facts. No one wants to read that light colored vehicles have to be modified to "white" in order to obtain a conviction. If modified evidence is required for a conviction, he's not guilty.

BBM. I know of no murder where this was the motive. This violent murder was at the hand of someone who had no regard for human life. A real sicko. No evidence was presented that Young has a history to support he is capable of this kind of violence. Instead, his friends described him as friendly, the life of the party. He may have been unfaithful but that's a choice many spouses make and still want to be married and live as a family.

I've seen no evidence to support Young wanted his wife and son dead. I think the guy will be found not guilty because he's innocent. All this so-called evidence of random rocks and a witness who couldn't describe him is the type of evidence I would expect if the defendant is an innocent man. It's all they've got.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Thanks for your concern with respect to what battles I choose. I believe I am capable of picking the battles I do choose.

This battle was picked specifically for 2 reasons:

1. She describes an individual with very little hair, slightly taller than her 5 foot frame, and indicated that she was no more than 12 inches from her even though she was behind a counter. Most counters are approximately 24 inches in width

2. My second reason is that LE put a video at the BP gas station for 60 days to try and locate the "regular" that was in the store as per her testimony.

What has me totally perplexed here is they went to all this trouble to try and identify him but never had her review the 60 days of video they collected

What captured my interest is the fact that the prosecution tried to circumvent his right to silence by participating in the wrongful death lawsuit. The detective testified Young was guilty and yet it was another year before he was arrested. It's just one more aspect of this case that stinks.

JMO

 

[Just the Fax]

What captured my interest is the fact that the prosecution tried to circumvent his right to silence by participating in the wrongful death lawsuit. The detective testified Young was guilty and yet it was another year before he was arrested. It's just one more aspect of this case that stinks.

JMO

Circumvent?
JLY chose not to respond and face the penalty.
He certainly had his chance to face his accusers in court.

In this case it was being declared the SLAYER, removed from collecting $1,000,000 life insurance and ordered to pay $15,500,000 to the Fishers.

 

[MyBelle]

Circumvent?
JLY chose not to respond and face the penalty.
He certainly had his chance to face his accusers in court.

In this case it was being declared the SLAYER, removed from collecting $1,000,000 life insurance and ordered to pay $15,500,000 to the Fishers.

My perspective is a legal one. The lawsuit was filed for no other reason than to force him to speak. There can never be a penalty for anyone exercising their constitutional right to silence. It was an abuse of process.

JMO

 

[gracielee]

I see no sense in rehashing bits of the evidence, when the evidence must be taken as a whole. IMO, that's what the CA jury did, if they did anything at all, considering they apparently didn't bother to deliberate which is the key item a jury is supposed to do. A judge gives his instructions to the jury to deliberate all the evidence and come to a conclusion based on those deliberations. That's the way the jury system is structured in our country. As an example, in the scott peterson trial, there were things the jury couldn't know, such as cause of death. That didn't stop them from deliberating all the evidence and coming to a decision based on the sum of the total. IMO, as long as juries find one or two things they question, and determine that to be *reasonable doubt*, we will continue to get verdicts or mistrials not based on the sum of the total. It has been proven to my expertise that JLY 'could have' made the trip to Raleigh & killed his wife & back to Virginia. Take that with the other evidence, too numerous to list here, and I personally don't find 'reasonable doubt'. Judges instruct juries on the meaning of *reasonable* doubt.

 

[MyBelle]

I see no sense in rehashing bits of the evidence, when the evidence must be taken as a whole. IMO, that's what the CA jury did, if they did anything at all, considering they apparently didn't bother to deliberate which is the key item a jury is supposed to do. A judge gives his instructions to the jury to deliberate all the evidence and come to a conclusion based on those deliberations. That's the way the jury system is structured in our country. As an example, in the scott peterson trial, there were things the jury couldn't know, such as cause of death. That didn't stop them from deliberating all the evidence and coming to a decision based on the sum of the total. IMO, as long as juries find one or two things they question, and determine that to be *reasonable doubt*, we will continue to get verdicts or mistrials not based on the sum of the total. It has been proven to my expertise that JLY 'could have' made the trip to Raleigh & killed his wife & back to Virginia. Take that with the other evidence, too numerous to list here, and I personally don't find 'reasonable doubt'. Judges instruct juries on the meaning of *reasonable* doubt.

iirc, the foreman of the Young jury told the media that he found reasonable doubt. He was instructed by the Judge and did his duty.

I share his opinion about reasonable doubt in this case.

Just because you don't share the opinion of a jury does not mean the jury got it wrong.



JMO

 

[Just the Fax]

My perspective is a legal one. The lawsuit was filed for no other reason than to force him to speak. There can never be a penalty for anyone exercising their constitutional right to silence. It was an abuse of process.

JMO

Sorry, your perspective is not a legal one.

The suit was filed because the Fisher's wanted him to be held liable for MY's murder.
As expected, it was legally settled in their favor.

 

[Madeleine74]

No evidence was presented that Young has a history to support he is capable of this kind of violence.

1. His attack on his fiance (GC) in the hotel room they shared, certainly gives the impression this is a volatile and potentially violent guy. Hair trigger temper, quick escalation, actions exceed a simple argument. I don't care how drunk he was. Same person, appears emotionally immature and unstable.

2. There's an email that wasn't placed into evidence (don't know why) in which JY wrote to his wife, "I could kill u for..." when little CY had peed on the floor and he couldn't finish his chore.

 

[MyBelle]

Sorry, your perspective is not a legal one.

The suit was filed because the Fisher's wanted him to be held liable for MY's murder.
As expected, it was legally settled in their favor.

Yes, my perspective is a legal one. You certainly can disagree but my opinion does have a legal basis nonetheless. The law isn't about what people "want."

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

1. His attack on his fiance (GC) in the hotel room they shared, certainly gives the impression this is a volatile and potentially violent guy. Hair trigger temper, quick escalation, actions exceed a simple argument. I don't care how drunk he was. Same person, appears emotionally immature and unstable.

2. There's an email that wasn't placed into evidence (don't know why) in which JY wrote to his wife, "I could kill u for..." when little CY had peed on the floor and he couldn't finish his chore.

1. Sounded like a spat long in the past. No sign of injuries and resumption of the relationship sounds like both parties were immature.

2. Emails not placed into evidence must not have been evidence to begin with.

What the jurors did hear was descriptions of him as a good, caring father. No evidence he inflicted child abuse or that he wanted his child dead.

JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

As for motive, it's not legally required to obtain a conviction, but yes, most juries want to get an understanding of why.

1. JY told at least one person he was through with his marriage.
2. JY also admitted to being in love with someone else.
3. JY contacted his former fiance to declare his everlasting love (these are my words, paraphrasing the tone of his email).
4. JY said divorce would be harder than... (his other options, including just staying married), because he believed MY would move back to NY and he wouldn't be able to see his daughter. We know he didn't take the option of divorce.
5. MY was trying to get her mother to come live with her to help take care of baby #2. JY despised his mother in law.
6. MY was looking to cut back at work, which would affect the income flow. We know the Youngs had some financial stresses.


Murder is complicated. It doesn't always come down to just one reason. My personal opinion is that JY hated his wife, despised his mother in law, was unhappy in this relationship, was ill-matched, and things were only getting more stressful and curtailing his lifestyle. I believe he took the path that too many other men take and "get a divorce by murder." IMHO.

 

[Kimster]

This thread is closed while I review why there are alerts here.