**Verdict watch weekend discussion thread** 3/3-4/2012

[Lori59]

Didn't JY speak with Meredith the night before while at Cracker Barrel anyway? Even if he didn't memorize or have her number in his phone, he could have written it down so he could call her and explain his side of the remote control incident.

If he wanted her number because he planned to call her to have her find MY, I think he would have done better than writing it down on an atlas that was carelessly lying around in the car. He could have programmed the number in his phone. As his sister-in-law, it would not be suspicious that he had her number in his phone, but for whatever reason he chose to write it on the atlas instead.

Aside from all that, do we even know when MF's number was written on the atlas?

I believe HC showed the atlas in closings and pointed to MF's number written at the top.

 

[fromageball]

Maybe he wanted to create a brutal scene, one that would cast doubt on him, no way "Just being Jayson" could commit such a hideous crime, sure he was a cheater and a prankster but not capable of butchering his wife in this fashion. The size 10's fit well into this plan, there is no way there were two persons in that house, I can't see two people executing such a clean crime scene, no way, no how.

He had a plan to self contain the scene, hence the reason why there was no blood on the first floor or in his vehicle and no fiber transfer to the hotel.

If the size 10 franklins fit so well in JY's plan, why wouldn't he have worn them the entire time instead of also wearing shoes he could be traced to?

 

[Elisaa444]

Michelle is the victim. Everyone involved is here to tell their side, but not her. I personally don't feel comfortable speculating which statements MY was truthful on or not truthful on. That's how I feel personally. I'm not suggesting others shouldn't. Just wanna make that clear. In the scheme of things I don't know why her character is being questioned. She's not on trial. She was killed. Moo. Moo. Moo.

 

[fromageball]

What they did do, though, is admit the possibility was there that the shoes could have been there in his closte but just worn by someone else, just not JY.

To me, that was a ridiculous thing for the to say in closing. Why give the jurors that angle to think about, particularly since it came from the defense. It was totally going against what JY said in his taped testimony that the jury heard. I would think it would make more sense for them to bolster what JY said instead of throwing out there that perhaps JY was wrong, the shoes were still there but just that some intruder decided to pick those shoes to mess up the crime scene. That, to me, is not just a little far fetched.

IMO

I think they were anticipating/addressing what the jurors could have been thinking when they saw the testimony about the hush puppy prints.

 

[otto]

Again, it is the same explanation as before as to why you have a problem with a person being dishonest on one aspect but not questioning other statements that same person has made. A judge's instruction to the jury typically deals with this issue so I'm not too concerned from that perspective. They can either take in whole or in part what someone says if they believe part of what that person said to be untrue.

I am still wondering what specific other statements of Michelle should come into question. Rather than a global statement that all her statements should now come into question, I'm asking for specific statements. I don't recall any specific statements of Michelle that are critical pieces of evidence on this case. That is what I'm asking about since the post was made about questioning her statements.

I am well aware of the fact that you would like me to present statements attributed to Michelle and speculate on their truthfulness, but that has nothing to do with my point and I have no intention of doing this. In fact, I'm having difficulties with the suggestion that Michelle was untruthful with officials. Perhaps those that believe Michelle was untruthful with officials would like to answer your question.

 

[CSI]

MY was in the bed with warm up suit (no heat) on working on Progress Engergy notebook when she fell asleep.
JY returned home intending to strangle MY (with gloves on) but she fought back and yelled/screamed. He then punched her in the mouth and jaw which knocked her unconscious but did not kill her. He returned to the garage (MY blood smeared on door knob but no fingerprint) to get a weapon to beat her (only blood on JY at this point would be on gloved hand).
He returned to bedroom and pulled MY on to floor face down, (to avoid facing her) and beat her head with the weapon until she was dead. Closet door was closed, so he had to lift her up to open closet door to get in there to get a change of clothes and shoes, since he obviously had MY blood on him at that point. JY had been working in the yard that morning and the "Franklin" shoes were his "work in the yard" shoes or they were a pair of shoes that a friend had left at the house. Who knows if "Franklin" sz 10 does not fit Jason? After seeing his bloody footprints on the carpet and pillow, he dipped the "Franklin" shoe in MY blood and put on the pillow case/carpet to stage the scene. He got a suit bag out of his closet and put all the bloodly clothes, shoes, weapon, jewelry case drawers and other evidence in that bag and took it to the dumpster in King NC
JY is guilty.

 

[otto]

Michelle is the victim. Everyone involved is here to tell their side, but not her. I personally don't feel comfortable speculating what which statements MY was truthful on or not truthful on. That's how I feel personally. I'm not suggesting others shouldn't. Just wanna make that clear. In the scheme of things I don't know why her character is being questioned. She's not on trial. She was killed. Moo. Moo. Moo.

BBM

I do as well. I would prefer to assume that statements give by, or endorsed by, Michelle are truthful. That means that Michelle was wearing her seatbelt at the time of the murder.

 

[Just the Fax]

Didn't JY speak with Meredith the night before while at Cracker Barrel anyway? Even if he didn't memorize or have her number in his phone, he could have written it down so he could call her and explain his side of the remote control incident.

If he wanted her number because he planned to call her to have her find MY, I think he would have done better than writing it down on an atlas that was carelessly lying around in the car. He could have programmed the number in his phone. As his sister-in-law, it would not be suspicious that he had her number in his phone, but for whatever reason he chose to write it on the atlas instead.

Aside from all that, do we even know when MF's number was written on the atlas?

MF returned JLY's call at 9:01 PM.
He had left a VM @ 11:30 AM (1st time he called in very long time)

 

[hindsight2020]

If the size 10 franklins fit so well in JY's plan, why wouldn't he have worn them the entire time instead of also wearing shoes he could be traced to?

One theory could be, he changed back to his HP after he cleaned up the crime scene and accidentally left the print behind, hence the reason why he disposed of the HP.

 

[Cammy]

Didn't JY speak with Meredith the night before while at Cracker Barrel anyway? Even if he didn't memorize or have her number in his phone, he could have written it down so he could call her and explain his side of the remote control incident.

If he wanted her number because he planned to call her to have her find MY, I think he would have done better than writing it down on an atlas that was carelessly lying around in the car. He could have programmed the number in his phone. As his sister-in-law, it would not be suspicious that he had her number in his phone, but for whatever reason he chose to write it on the atlas instead.

Aside from all that, do we even know when MF's number was written on the atlas?

No, we don't know when Jason wrote down MF's number, and, you are right,
he did need to have it when he called her from CB.

In order to give it to his Mom, he still needed to copy it down...

 

[Talina]

I am well aware of the fact that you would like me to present statements attributed to Michelle and speculate on their truthfulness, but that has nothing to do with my point and I have no intention of doing this. In fact, I'm having difficulties with the suggestion that Michelle was untruthful with officials.

Yes, I am after specific statements since a post was made that her other statements should perhaps come in to question as to their truthfulness. That suggests those statements are out there and I do not recall any. That is why I am asking. No other reason.

I am not asking you or anyone to speculate on their truthfulness. Maybe I didn't make my post clear. All I am saying is I don't recall any specific statements of Michelle that are critical parts of this case. Regardless of whether they should be questioned or not. I can't think of any to begin with so I am confused why a post would be made that they should possibly be questioned as to their truthfulness.

 

[Talina]

MF returned JLY's call at 9:01 PM.
He had left a VM @ 11:30 AM (1st time he called in very long time)

I'm curious what phone he called her earlier when he left her a msg. Did he use his cell phone or a different phone.

If he used his cell phone, then her number should have still been in phone and he wouldn't have had to look it up but he would have had to look when he called initially and left her a msg.

Do we know the answer to that?

 

[Cammy]

Did the first jury come out and say what hung them up where they voted 8 to 4 to aquit? Usually in a hung jury we will see one or two holdouts but not 8 that voted NG.

Something had to be bothering them for that many to vote for NG.

So I do wonder if part of it was the shoe evidence. Now if the State from the get go had said that he acted in concert with another that would be another matter and putting in evidence of another suspect involved but that has not been the case in this trial. The State has said that JY planned, plotted and carried out this murder alone. All of the evidence entered has been about JY and no one else.

If I was a juror and the State had presented a theory that JY acted alone yet at the end they then wanted me to believe he acted in concert with someone else I would be rather confused and question the theory they presented in their CIC.

To me the State must be consistent during the entire case and they were. No where did they tell this jury that another suspect was involved. Yet now when the verdict is to be rendered they want the jury to believe something else and that he had help. Those are two counter-opposing theories, imo.

IMO

The 2 Jurors that spoke out both pretty much said the same thing.

The juror who was dismissed, because she had transportation problems, said she would have liked to have seen more physical evidence connecting him to the scene.

The foreperson said there was much room for reasonable doubt.

8 people voted NG........that tells you something.

 

[Madeleine74]

I love all the questions, "why, if JY was x, y or z, wouldn't he have done a, b or c or considered first doing d e or f... ?"

Like anyone but him knows WHY he did things in the order or manner he did them or why he did certain things but not other things. :waitasec:

The only source for those answers is JY himself and he's saying nuttin'! Thus everyone is on their own to figure out his brand of logic. :banghead:

 

[Grammy Jean]

Since I changed my mind from G to NG in the pretty early stages because some things never fit for me, and still do not, I always thought the

murder was not intended, it was either an argument or attack that got out of hand, and, Michelle was able to land a nasty blow on someone

causing them to become enraged, and/or Michelle was killed so she would not be able to identify the person or persons responsible.

And,I think someone was watching the home, and knew Jason was out of town, and waited for Shelle to leave.

I also think there were 2 people, and a really good possibility CY was taken from the home in Michelle's Lexus.

Cindy Beaver and Mrs, Hensley description of the cars and times match.

It could really be that simple,

Tragic, horrific, brutal, but, just something that went horribly wrong..

JMO

I just do not see the logic in your thinking. Are you saying you believe some random person was just watching the Young home and after Shelly left they got in and brutally beat MY to death (just because). and this random person had a random accomplice who took CY out for a ride in MY's Lexus. Then both random people left the house without a drop of blood downstairs. To me that makes no reasonable sense.

 

[Just the Fax]

Bumped from the 2-23-12 thread.
otto...anything change, or are you still set, based on this post?
Just curious...thanks!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


02-23-2012, 05:46 AM
otto
Registered User


State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-23-2012

Does anyone actually believe that Jason Young is not guilty in the murder of his pregnant wife ... anyone defending not guilty and questioning why he didn't take a plea bargain? I think the question some people have is whether there is sufficient evidence for a conviction.

I think it's going to be a home run for the prosecution.

All that reasonable doubt adds up to excuses, not explanations.

He seems hooped, just like Cooper with the cisco explanation and excuses ... Cooper and Young ... roommates for life.
============================================
State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-23-2012 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
:thumb:

 

[Cammy]

I just do not see the logic in your thinking. Are you saying you believe some random person was just watching the Young home and after Shelly left they got in and brutally beat MY to death (just because). and this random person had a random accomplice who took CY out for a ride in MY's Lexus. Then both random people left the house without a drop of blood downstairs. To me that makes no reasonable sense.

Makes perfect sense to me, and it must have at one time to the state, because they issued a search warrant for Michelle's Lexus thinking the very same thing, that CY had been taken from the home in her car........

 

[Just the Fax]

Bumped from the 2-23-12 thread.
otto...anything change, or are you still set, based on these posts?
Just curious....Thanks!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

02-23-2012, 06:01 AM
otto
Registered User

I guess Abaroa is the next house guest ... and maybe Mike Peterson can be squeezed in ... and what about that Caesar guy that fled to Mexico after murdering a pregnant co-worder on a military base in NC?

Then there's the pregnant woman that was beaten to death on her way to work around the back of her first newpaper delivery location in NC. There was no sexual assault. Is it cheaper to murder than divorce in NC?

They need a home run to clean up the state problem of many women being murdered by partners or father's of unborn children ...

===============================================
02-23-2012, 06:04 AM

otto
Registered User

If I were Jason, I would not make a run for it because I'm cocky as all get out and there is no question in my mind that I'll get off scott-free.
Jason can't be that cocky. That's foolishness that could lead to losses in gambling and life in jail. I think he will be convicted.

If he knew that, would he make a run for it ... to Argentina maybe .. and his family would sacrifice? Land bonds means ... potentially out on the street. Would Jason do that to his family knowing that the trade off was his life in jail ... if you can settle it with money, you got off easy?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-23-2012 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[pjcitizen]

MF returned JLY's call at 9:01 PM.
He had left a VM @ 11:30 AM (1st time he called in very long time)

You and your pesky fax.

 

[fran]

FWIW, once my husband was on his way home late at night from work. He had a small Nissan Sentra. At that time, he was still not wearing his seatbelt, although it had become law in California in just the last few years prior to that . He was raised with no seatbelt and didn't like it to wrinkle his shirt. :nono: As a matter of fact, he began wearing it one time when taking a traffic class so that a ticket he got wouldn't be on his record, causing his insurance rate to increase. The officer giving the class told the students that even if you didn't want to wear a seatbelt for your own safety, you should wear it to protect everyone else in the car. You see if you're hit at a high rate of speed and not seatbelted in, your body COULD slam into a passenger who was wearing a seatbelt, and kill them. Having five children, he ALWAYS wore his seatbelt after that.

But back to the subject of the seatbelt. In my husband's accident, he was at a light to turn onto a surface steet, from the off ramp of the freeway. A car came from behind at 55mph and smashed into him throwing him into the other side of the intersection. Well, as he didn't have his seatbelt on, he could have gotten a ticket for that. But he told the officer he WAS wearing one. He was just lucky he saw the truck coming in his review mirror and braced with his arms, thus bending the steering wheel. The officer was confused or amazed he didn't have bruises from the shoulder strap from the impact. His entire back-end was smashed into the back seat. (the other guy was DUI and arrested at the scene, well, after LE found him and after his escape from the back of the patrol car)

Anyway, it could be as simple as MY agreeing to say she had on her seatbelt so she wouldn't be given a citation.

Just something to think about.

JMHO
fran